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 ------- |