STATE AND INTERSTATE SOLID WASTE PLANNING
A CASE STUDY OF FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP
H. L. Hickman, Jr.
For submission to the Economic Commission for Europe
1971 Prague Environmental Conference
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waste Management Office
1971
-------
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Action at the State Level 5
Current Status of Solid Waste Management 10
Management of the Planning Program 12
Results of Program ]k
Conclusions 19
References ' . 20
Appendix. Typical 3~Year Planning Program Work Schedule .... 21
Figure and Tables
Figure 1. Map of United States 2
Table 1. Initial State Solid Waste Planning Grants
(May 1966) 6
Table 2. Funding of Solid Waste Planning Grants
(1966-1970) 9
Table 3- Awarding of State Solid Waste Planning Grants
(1966-1970) 15
Table **. Current Achievement by Agency (January 1, 1970- . 16
-------
STATE AND INTERSTATE SOLID WASTE PLANNING
A CASE STUDY OF FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP
H. Lanier Hickman, Jr.*
The United States of America is a federated republic composed of
individual States and territories. Each level of government has certain
responsibilities and authorities to provide services to the people with-
in its territorial jurisdiction (Figure 1).
Based upon the Constitution and the traditions and history of the
United States of America, the States determine the direction and char-
acter of activities within their geographical boundaries. This role
permits the States to decide which of those State-created activities
and services will be carried out by levels of government below that
of the State. In most instances, local governments derive their own
authority from permissive legislation enacted by the State legislative
body, and they provide such services as primary and secondary education,
health services and health care, police and fire protection, and waste
management.
Where activities extend beyond local jurisdictions, the State
government must provide means and institutions for transacting State
"Director, Division of Technical Operations, Solid Waste Manage-
ment Office, Environmental Protection Agency, Rockville, Maryland 20852,
U.S.A.
-------
Figure 1. Map of United States.
-------
business. Examples of State responsibility would be developing State
highway systems, providing for flood control, and establishing standards
of design and operation for environmental protection facilities.
Primarily, the Federal government's responsibilities relate to broad
national functions such as the traditional roles of defense and foreign
policy and, more specifically, to interstate functions of State and
local governments that transcend single State boundaries. Some examples
of these activities are the interstate highway system of the United
States, interstate and transcontinental air transport, and pollution
problems with interstate significance.
These same divisions of responsibility are applicable to solid waste
management in the United States of America. Unlike their concern with
some other governmental functions, however, the various levels of gov-
ernment in the United States have not responded to their responsibilities
for solid waste management. Only recently has solid waste management
been recognized as a national problem in our Country. In the past,
local (municipal and county) government has been mainly responsible
for solid waste management. Frequently, State governments have exercised
some responsibility, but this has been primarily related to the nuisance
and health aspects that result from poor solid waste management practices.
However, because the population in the United States is larger, more
urban, and increasingly prosperous and affluent, and because both industry
and the consumer use more convenience packaging and disposable items,
severe stresses have been placed on the already overloaded local and
private solid waste management systems within the Nation.1'2 The reason
-------
that these existing and frequently unsatisfactory systems are failing
to meet these increasing stresses can be attributed to many factors,
all of which interact upon each other. Across the Nation, the public
and government are apathetic about solid waste management; social and
political self-interest at each level of government has led to inaction
at all levels. As a result of this apathy, sufficient funds are not
provided to allow existing systems to function satisfactorily. Who
wants to spend money on something that must be thrown away? The extent
to which poor solid waste management practices degrade the environment
is unappreciated. Additionally, the technology that is available and
acceptable to do many jobs of solid waste management is not understood
nor applied by those who plan, conduct, and operate solid waste management
systems. All of these reasons are merely symptomatic of the primary
reason for the deficiency of solid waste management in the United States:
at every level of government, problems are not assessed and purposeful
planning is not provided.
In 1965 the Congress of the United States passed and the President
signed the Solid Waste Disposal Act (PL 89-272).3 For the first time,
the role of the Federal government in solid waste management was estab-
lished and defined. It directed the Federal government to develop new
and improved methods for solid waste disposal that State and local agencies
could use. It also established the role of the Federal government to
assist and guide local and State governments in planning, developing, and
conducting solid waste management systems. The Act did not, however,
usurp the basic rights and responsibilities of State and local government
-------
in solid waste management. The Solid Waste Disposal Act recognized
that although the collection and disposal of solid waste was primarily
the function of State, regional, and local government, solid waste
management prob.lems were of such national scope and concern that certain
Federal action was necessary. The Solid Waste Management Office is the
principal organization that provides this Federal action. Principally,
the law directs the Solid Waste Management Office to provide the assist-
ance, both financial and technical, and the leadership needed to develop,
demonstrate, and apply new methods and processes for reducing the amount
of waste and unsalvageable materials and for sound solid waste management
practices.
A special significance of the Act is that State and interstate agen-
cies can be given assistance to help them and local governments solve
their present waste problems and attack new ones. Through the planning
grant program of the Solid Waste Management Office, the costs of de-
veloping comprehensive State solid waste management plans are shared with
the States. This program, therefore, is truly a Federal-State partnership.
ACTION AT THE STATE LEVEL
The Governor of each State was requested to designate the agency in
his State that would be responsible for the development of comprehensive
solid waste management plans. (I might mention that for the rest of my
discussion the term "State" will also apply to "interstate" planning
activities. Where interstate plans are being developed, a planning agency,
mutually agreed upon by the cooperating States, shares responsibilities
-------
for that interstate region with the appropriate State planning agencies.)
In most instances, the State health department or the public health
department was the agency the Governors designated responsible for
solid waste planning.
The State planning assistance program was initiated in May 1966
with the awarding of 14 grants (Table l). At this time, the $500,000
the Federal government provided for planning was matched by an equal
or greater share from the recipient States. This new program required
a great deal of discussion to decide: what was planning? what was it
to achieve? The first programs were necessarily naive because both the
Federal and State governments lacked understanding and experience.
However, the basic genesis of these programs did, indeed, fit the accepted
concept of planning and have withstood the ravages of time and criticism.
TABLE 1
INITIAL STATE SOLID WASTE PLANNING GRANTS (MAY 1966)
State
Cal i fornia
Connecticut
Colorado
Hawa i i
Idaho
Kentucky
Maine
New Jersey
New York
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carol ina
West Virginia
State funds
$67,800
25,400
21,300
22,700
2*4,000
15,000
14,000
61,600
99,000
29,500
71,000
12,000
35,000
15,000
Federal funds
$50,000
25,400
21,300
20,000
22,000
15,000
14,000
50,000
50,000
29,500
40,000
12,000
35,000
15,000
Total $513,300 $399,200
-------
The fundamental principles of planning include the following
steps1*:
1. establishing broad basic goals,
2. collecting sufficient and adequate data to describe the
current practices and problems,
3. analyzing and interpreting the collected data,
k. establishing objectives that, when accomplished, will
change or correct the problems defined,
5. determining the methods, timing, and priorities to
achieve the objectives,
6. implementing these methods, evaluating the success or
failure to achieve the objectives during the course of the
work, and modifying the plan to meet changing conditions.
The first few planning grants were based on these fundamental
principles of planning.
When the States collected sufficient data to describe current
practices and problems, there was, for the first time in the history
of the Nation, data related to solid waste management practices that
could be nationally compared. In cooperation with the States, the
Solid Waste Management Office developed data collection forms and in-
structions for collecting and analyzing the data to be used by all
planning grantees.5*6 The States recorded information on three basic
data gathering forms: Community Description Form of Solid Waste Man-
agement Practices, Land Disposal Form, and Facility Form.7 All land
disposal and all solid waste facilities, such as incinerators, transfer
-------
stations, hog-feeding operations, were surveyed in every State that re-
ceived grant support. All communities with more than 5,000 people were
surveyed, and the data were entered on the Community Description Form.
After the State governments and the regional offices of the program re-
viewed the data, the forms were returned to the program for data analysis
and handling. Magnetic tapes plus computer print-outs of these data
were returned to each participating State government for use in their
own planning activities. To determine the practices and problems on
a national scale and to plan long-term programs for solid waste manage-
ment on a national basis, the Solid Waste Management Office also analyzed
the data. An interim report of this analysis was released in October
1968,8 and a final report will be released sometime during 1971- In
addition, the Bureau is using these data as a baseline for a national
solid waste data network, which is now in the pilot testing stage in
our Country.
In the first k years of the program, which began in 1966, 50
State and interstate agencies received planning-grant aid from the
Federal government: Federal funds totaled a modest $6,200,000, and
State funds, $7,600,000 (Table 2). Many of the States that first
received planning grants have developed their basic plans and are now
in a Phase II planning effort to develop plans for the management of
industrial, agricultural, auto hulks, pesticides, and other special
solid waste problems.
-------
TABLE 2
FUNDING OF SOLID WASTE PLANNING GRANTS (1966-1970)
Fiscal year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Total
Federal funds
$AOO,000
996,000
1,1*52,000
1,858,000
1,1»90,000
$6,196,000
State funds
$51^,000
1,386,000
1,733,000
2,080,000
1 ,900,000
$7,613,000
To provide a certain degree of guidance to the State and interstate
agencies and to provide for compatible plans between the States, the
Solid Waste Management Office provided guidelines for developing State
solid waste management plans.4 These jointly developed guidelines de-
scribe the planning process and its application to national, State, and
local problems. The guidelines include the outline of a suggested plan
report, which establishes the natural planning sequence. How to prepare
the plan report, how to analyze and interpret data, how to evaluate these
data to establish priorities, how to establish the planning organization,
how to use input from interested citizens and special interest groups:
all these are discussed in the guidelines. Implementing the plan report
completes the planning steps; the guidelines describe the elements needed
in an operating agency for implementation. The critical activities of
an operating agency would include such areas as State legislation;
-------
technical assistance; a public information program to describe the
State's problems, sell the plan, and generate needed public support;
training activities to develop operating and management personnel; co-
ordinated action with agencies that have overlapping interests; personnel
selection and use. Remember, continuous planning is needed to reflect
changing trends and conditions within the State.
CURRENT STATUS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
The interim report on the data collected by the States in their
planning, mentioned earlier, indicated that the average amount of solid
waste actually collected in the United States was 5-3 pounds per person
per day. The survey results also indicated tKat individuals collected
and transported 10 to 15 percent of residential and commercial solid
waste to the disposal site; that industry collected and transported 30
to kO percent of industrial solid waste; that local regulations or the
lack of them permitted over 50 percent of the population to burn some
types of solid wastes in their backyards; and further that A5 percent
of commercial and other industrial establishments also practice open
burning of some type. From these data, we were able to estimate that
7 pounds per person per day of solid wastes are being generated from
residential, commercial, and municipal sources. We have estimated that
an additional 3 pounds per person per day of industrial solid waste are
being generated. Thus, estimates of the 1967 survey data indicate that
a total of over 10 pounds of residential, commercial, and industrial
waste are being generated daily for each person in the United States--
10
-------
360 million tons per year. These figures, of course, do not reflect
those solid wastes resulting from agricultural and mining operations--
another 3.1 billions tons per year. From the survey data, we, there-
fore, estimate that the United States generates at least 3-5 billion
tons of solid waste per year or approximately 100 pounds per person per
day.
From the survey data, we also estimated the cost for solid waste
management in our Country. Approximately $1.7 billion per year is being
spent by municipal governments on solid waste management. An additional
$1.8 billion is being spent by the private solid waste management industry
to provide collection and disposal services to municipalities and industry,
and another $1.1 billion is being spent by industry and individuals.
We estimate that the United States spends over $4.5 billion per year
for solid waste management. Even though this is an impressive total
expenditure, these monies do not provide for adequate solid waste man-
agement in the United States. The survey indicated that Sk percent of
existing land disposal operations and 75 percent of incinerator facilities
were inadequate; they did not provide for the effective disposal of solid
waste and at the same time protect the environment. It further indicated
that approximately 12 percent of the residential population in the country
received no formalized collection service and an additional 11 percent
received only partial services. These facts are provided only to support
my original statements that the various levels of government have failed
to provide proper solid waste management at a reasonable cost and, at
the same time, protect the environment.
11
-------
MANAGEMENT OF THE PLANNING PROGRAM
To provide the Solid Waste Management Office with optimum manage-
ment of the planning grant program, a project control procedure was
established: (l) to help the States understand important aspects of
the planning process so they could judge their own progress and (2) to
help the Federal program quantitatively judge the various programs in
action. Six key events that could be used to measure the achievement
of a satisfactory solid waste plan were established: staffing the
agency, instituting public relations and information efforts, surveying
the State, developing a written plan, establishing and implementing
legislation, and upgrading and improving the stature of the solid waste
agency in the State governmental structure.9
Any organization, to do its job, must be properly staffed. The
Solid Waste Management Office contends that the basic staffing of the
State agency must include at least a full-time project director and the
necessary support personnel. Further, these personnel should receive
the available training courses that provide them with updated solid
waste management technology. A measurement of the program's success
is in its retention of the qualified personnel.
Any new agency that is to have a dominant role in future governmental
actions must prepare itself for public acceptance through a proper public
relations and information program. Such a program begins with newsletters
and other written material to describe its job. The communications media
must receive appropriate material for public assimilation. Speakers
12
-------
must be made available to describe the problems of solid waste and the
role of the new agency.
Gathering data and preparing reports that describe the analysis
of that data are essential. This need was discussed earlier.
Writing a State plan, from its beginning to its completion, pulls
together all those things learned by the planning agency. We have es-
tablished six sub events to achieve a written State plan: a topical
outline, analysis of background data on the physical and social char-
acteristics of the State, analysis of statistical data to define prob-
lems, development of the draft of the plan, preliminary formulation of
the plan, and then the final plan, which is ready to be published and
released to concerned parties.9
The preparing of legislation is not a responsibility of a State
solid waste planning agency. However, if the planning agency has accom-
plished its mission through staffing, public relations, data analysis
to describe the problems, and preparation of a satisfactory written plan
that includes a description of the needed legislation, then a responsible
and concerned State legislative body should develop adequate legislation
designed to properly manage solid waste within the State.
When our program began and the States began planning, the staff
and funds of many State solid waste planning agencies were limited and
unidentifiable. We believe that establishing these State solid waste
agencies at higher levels in the State's governmental structure is a
measure of achievement. The increasing awareness of solid waste man-
agement problems in the United States should be reflected at the State
-------
level, and elevating and improving the status of these State solid
waste agencies will gauge the agency's success in planning and selling
its plan. We contend that within the State government and within the
framework of its environmental and health programs, there must be a
State solid waste agency identifiably responsible for solid waste man-
agement in that State.
Finally, each grant program provides a schedule of key events
and sub events that can be used to measure the progress throughout
the life of the planning grant program. These PERT network charts
or Gantt planning charts are used by the program to measure and report
progress of each planning grant. A typical work schedule for a 3~
year planning program initiates an activity and develops and enlarges
it during the period (Appendix).
RESULTS OF PROGRAM
From 1966 through 1968, 43 planning grants were awarded; from 1969
to 1970, seven were awarded (Table 3)- Because of the number of State
and interstate agencies available, there can only be so many State and
interstate planning grants. By the end of 1970, 10 of these plans had
been completed. An additional 18 are now in the final review process
waiting approval by the State and Federal agencies before acceptance
and implementation. By the end of 1972, we estimate that 80 percent
of the population in the United States will live in areas with accept-
able comprehensive State and interstate solid waste management plans
(Table k).
-------
TABLE 3
AWARDING OF STATE SOLID WASTE PLANNING GRANTS (1966-1970)
FY*
1966
Cal ifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawai i
Idaho
Kentucky
Mai ne
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carol ina
West Virginia
FY
1967
Delaware
Flor i da
Georgia
Kansas
Loui s iana
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
North Carol ina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Tennessee
Texas
Vi rg inia
Wash ington
FY FY FY
1968 1969 1970
Arkansas Guam Indiana
District of Columbia Maryland-District of New Hampshire
., ... .+ Columbia-Virginia7
Kansas-Missouri7 3
... . . ... Mississippi
Mississippi-Arkansas- rr
Tennessee''" OKI^t
Nebraska- Iowa''' Vermont
New Mexico
Puerto Rico
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
^Fiscal year.
'''Interstate grant.
-Kentucky-Indi ana.
-------
TABLE
CURRENT ACHIEVEMENT BY AGENCY (January 1, 1971)
Grantee
Plan
completed
(*)
Grantee
Plan
completed
(*)
Arkansas 90
California 100
Colorado 100
Connecticut 90
Delaware 85
District of Columbia 100
Florida 90
Georgia 80
Guam 95
Hawaii 90
Idaho 100
Indiana 5
Kansas 60
Kansas-Missouri" 95
Kentucky 100
Louisiana 80
Maine 90
Maryland 80
Maryland-District of
Columbia-Virginia- 0
Massachusetts 0
Michigan . 25
Minnesota 95
Mississippi 0
Mississippi-Arkansas-
Tennessee* 95
Missouri 20
Montana
Nebraska-Iowa*
New Hampshi re1"
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
OKI**
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Tennessee-Georgia*
Texas
Utah
Vermont1"
Vi rginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
100
100
0
100
80
100
85
75
60
95
90
100
95
70
90
30
5
95
95
90
5
25
85
90
95
0
*lnterstate grant.
'''New program.
fOh i o-Kentucky-Ind i ana.
16
-------
Perhaps an even more important measure of the success of this plan-
ning grant program is reflected in the increases in staff, budget, pro-
gramming, upgrading, legislative results, and efforts to develop plans
and new programs at local and regional levels.
Before the Solid Waste Management Office awarded the first State
and interstate planning grants, between 10 and 15 people in the entire
United States were involved in the process of planning for solid waste
management at the State level. We estimate that in 1970 over 200 people,
professional and support staff, were involved in planning at the State
and interstate level.
Many States are now establishing local and regional planning needs.
Apparently, the trend is towards regional systems that will transcend
the small, local parochial views of small communities. Through such
regional approaches, economies of scale can be realized to help support
the more complex solid waste management systems that will be necessary.
Thus, the maximum amount of environmental protection will be achieved
at the least cost to the public. Some States now provide grant support
for comprehensive solid waste management planning at local and regional
levels. The plans being developed are in accord with the State plans
to achieve acceptable solid waste management practices on a statewide
bas is .
State planning budgets for 1966, the first year of Federal support,
approximated $500,000. In fiscal year 1970, budgets for solid waste
planning at the State and interstate level exceeded $2 million. In addi-
tion, we estimate that in fiscal year 1970 program activities other than
17
-------
planning functions exceeded $3 million. These budget increases, which
are always reflective of governmental growth and awareness, indicate
that at the State and interstate level of governmental services solid
waste management is assuming a more and more important role.
Since the beginning of the planning grant program in 1966, signifi-
cant solid waste legislation has been passed in 20 States. At least 10
new laws use the term "solid waste" in their title. Many States have
also developed and prepared standards for acceptable design and operation
of solid waste management systems at the local and regional levels,
thereby ensuring uniformity on a statewide basis.
We are also extremely gratified by the recognition of solid waste
management programs within the State governmental structure. Before
1965, I believe there were only two State solid waste programs identifi-
able by the terms, "solid waste" or "refuse" at the State level. At
the present time, we know of at least 10 that are now identified by the
term "solid waste" and that are line agencies within the State governmental
organization. In some States, the legislature has created new cabinet-
level environmental departments concerned with the major problems of
the environment, i.e., air pollution, water pollution, and solid waste.
In many instances where such new departments have been established, the
solid waste program shares equal status with air and water pollution.
To us, this clearly indicates the growing recognition that the problems
of solid waste management are as important as the other, more traditional,
areas of environmental protection.
-------
CONCLUSION
We believe the achievements resulting from this cooperative State
and Federal program are accomplishing the purposes of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Recovery Act. We also believe
there is a need for planning for solid waste management at all levels
to assess the problem, to determine goals, to set objectives to achieve
these goals, and to implement a plan by which these goals and objectives
can be met. Through the present program, a rational, logical sequence
of events is being prepared by which the Nation can move ahead toward
providing the kind of solid waste management systems that will (1) pro-
tect the environment from dangers inherent in pollution and annoyance,
(2) provide for efficient and more economic management of solid waste,
(3) build into a flexible system to allow for future growth and develop-
ment, and (A) provide a guarantee of total service from storage to
ultimate disposal for all peoples within the areas of concern.10 A
successful planning process followed by an action program that ensures
implementing the necessary parts of the plan are needed to reach the
goal of adequate solid waste management. The efforts of the States in
our Country and of the overall Federal program are providing the sort
of mechanism that will achieve those things necessary to bring our Country
into the 21st Century of solid waste management.
19
-------
REFERENCES
1. Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. The role of packaging in solid
waste management, 1966 to 1976. Public Health Service Publica-
tion No. 1855. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1969. 205 p.
2. Hickman, H. L., Jr. Disposables. [Cincinnati], U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, [1969]. 6 p. [Restricted
distribution.]
3. The Solid Waste Disposal Act; Title II of Public Law 89-272, 89th
Cong. S.306, October 20, 1965. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1966. 5 p.
4. Toftner, R. 0. Developing a state solid waste management plan.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2031. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1970. 50 p.
5. Manual of instructions and sample problem for use in conducting the
national survey of community solid waste practices. [Cincinnati],
Solid Waste[s] Program, July 1967. 65 p.
6. Coding manual; the national survey of community solid waste practices.
[Cincinnati], Solid Wastefs] Program, Sept. 1967. 63 p.
7. Muhich, A. J., A. J. Klee, and P. W. Britton. Preliminary data
analysis; 1968 national survey of community solid waste practices.
Public Health Service Publication No. 1867- Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1968. p. xiii-xxii.
8. Black, R. J., A. J. Muhich, A. J. Klee, H. L. Hickman, Jr., and
R. D. Vaughan. The national solid wastes survey; an interim
report. [Cincinnati], U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, [1968] . 53 p.
9. Administrative memorandum. Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Planning
Section, July 16, 1970.
10. Hickman, H. L., Jr. Planning comprehensive solid wastes management
systems. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proc. ASCE,
9MSA6) : 1 H»7-1152, Dec. 1968.
20
-------
APPENDIX. TYPICAL 3'YEAR PLANNING PROGRAM WORK SCHEDULE
First-Year
1. In addition to the project director, one or two professional
staff members and one stenographer are hired. Usually, 100 percent
of the project director's time is devoted to the project; about
50 percent of the staff member's time is assigned to the project.
2. One of the first public relation activities is to publicize
the upcoming statewide survey.
3. The statewide survey is undertaken. Conducting or supervising
the survey demands most of the staff's time.
Second-Year
1. The statewide survey is continued. Many States finish the
survey during the second year and begin analyzing the collected
data.
2. Public relations activities become more sophisticated: news
releases are issued, newsletters are published, staff members
make speeches, and brochures are distributed.
3. A first attempt is made to draft solid waste legislation
and have it introduced in the legislature.
A. The States begin considering elements of their statewide
solid waste plans. About one-half of the States draft plan
outli nes.
Third-Year
1. Survey data are further analyzed to identify the solid waste
problems. Pertinent data are arrayed to be included in the
State plan appendix or in a separate plan volume for data
presentation.
2. Public relations activities continue; some States develop
slide shows, newspaper publicity is more frequent and favorable,
many project directors and staff appear on radio, television,
and statewide panels.
3. Legislative activities become more active. States that
have succeeded in passing enabling legislation begin writing
rules and regulations.
21
-------
k. Development of the State plan now begins in earnest. Most
States, however, only succeed in completing 25 to 50 percent
of their plans during the third year. Plan completion usually
occurs during a 3~ to 6-month extension of the third year.
22
------- |