STATE ACTIVITIES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Reports to the Federal-State Solid Waste Management
Conference, October 9-11, 1973, Kansas City, Missouri
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1974
-------
LIBRARY
The Federal-State Solid Waste Management Conference was held in
October 1973 to review the status of solid waste management activities
at the State and Federal levels. The Conference was called by the
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 1n cooperation with the State solid waste management
agencies. The EPA Regional Solid Waste Management Representatives,
particularly the staff of EPA Region VII, carried special responsibility
for the Conference.
The reports to the Conference frcn the States and other juris-
dictions on their solid waste management activities are reproduced here
as received. In addition, position statements on solid waste
management received by the Conference from various national groups
are included as appendices.
-------
CONTENTS
Keynote Address by Massachusetts Attorney General Robert H. Quinn 1
State Solid Waste Management Agencies 15
State Solid Waste Management Program Status Reports
Alabama 21
Alaska 26
Arizona 33
Arkansas 37
California 40
Colorado 48
Connecticut 53
Delaware 58
District of Columbia ,; 67
Florida 69
Georgia 74
•V
Territory of Guam 81
Hawaii 84
Idaho 87
Illinois „< . . 92
Indiana 97
Iowa 103
Kansas 106
Kentucky Ill
Louisiana 118
Maine 120
Maryland 122
-------
Massachusetts 124
Michigan 126
Minnesota 149
Mississippi 160
Missouri 165
Montana 172
Nebraska 174
Nevada 176
New Hampshire 180
New Jersey 181
New Mexico 183
New York 185
North Carolina 191
North Dakota 198
Ohio 202
Oklahoma 205
Oregon 211
Pennsylvania . . . 215
Puerto Rico 220
Rhode Island 225
South Carolina 229
South Dakota 233
Tennessee 235
Texas 240
Utah 246
-------
REMARKS OF MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GEiiERAL ROBERT H, QUIM
U.S. EPA/STATE SOLID WASTE CONFERENCE
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
OCTOBER 10, 1973
-------
I TRUST THAT ALL OF YOU NOW HAVE, OR WILL SOON RECEIVE, A COPY
OF THE REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS ENTITLED
"THE STATES' ROLES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT,"
AS YOU KAY KNOW, I WAS THE ONLY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SERVE ON
THAT TASK FORCE, AND WHILE I CLAIM 110 PRIDE OF AUTHORSHIP, I DO FEEL THAT
IT HAS MERIT,
PLEASE READ IT, A GREAT DEAL OF TIME, MONEY AND EFFORT HAS GONE
INTO ITS PREPARATION, AND IT WOULD BE TRAGICALLY IRONIC IF THE REPORT IS
IGNORED AND BECOMES IN ITS OWN RIGHT, MORE SOLID WASTE.
GARBAGE DISPOSAL HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST NEGLECTED PROBLEMS IN
MODERN UNITED STATES HISTORY, ONLY IN RECENT YEARS HAVE THE TRASH PILES
GROWN UP SO HIGH, THE DUMPS SO NOXIOUS AND THF LITTER SO UBIGUITOUS. THAT
AMERICANS HAVE BEGUN TO TRY TO TURN UP ANSWERS INSTEAD OF SIMPLY TURNING
UP THEIR NOSES.
-------
YET EVEN TODAY THERE IS NOT A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATIVE LITERATURE
AVAILABLE .ON THE SUBJECT, I WAS VERY INTERESTED THEN. TO COME ACROSS SOME
STATISTICS SUPPLIED BY AUTHOR KATIE KELLY IN HER NEW BOOK, UNEQUIVOCABLY
ENTITLED "GARBAGE; THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF GARBAGE IN AMERICA."
MISS KELLY WRITES, AND I QUOTE: "EVERY AMERICAN, BY HIMSELF,
PRODUCES ROUGHLY 10 POUNDS OF GARBAGE A DAY, THIS IS ENOUGH TO FILL 5
MILLION HUGE TRAILER TRUCKS, WHICH, IF PLACED END TO END, WOULD STRETCH
AROUND THE WORLD TWICE, INDEED THIS COUNTRY IS THE GARBAGE CENTER OF THE
WORLD, EACH YEAR WE DISCARD 7 MILLION CARS, 7,6 MILLION TELEVISION SETS,
62 BILLION CANS, & BILLION GLASS CONTAINERS,- $500 MILLION WORTH OF PLASTIC
AND CARDBOARD PACKAGING MATERIALS, AND 65 BILLION METAL AND PLASTIC
CONTAINER TOPS, TO GET RID OF IT ALL--360 MILLION TONS-TAXPAYERS-ARE
PRESENTLY PAYING $3,7 BILLION A YEAR,
3
-------
(TO PUT THIS FIGURE IN PERSPECTIVE, IT IS. WORTH NOTING THAT WE SPEND O'lLY
$1 BILLION A YFAR ON URBAN RENEWAL AND $1,5 BILLION ON MEDICAL RESEARCH.)
AND THIS IS.ONLY TODAY'S GARBAGE, BY 1980 WE WILL BE PRODUCING MO MILLION
TONS
ANNUALLY, AT Ail EVEN GREATER DISPOSAL COST-END QUOTE,
THE FIGURES SUPPLIED BY KISS KFLLY. THE MILLIONS OF THIS AND
THE BILLIONS OF THAT, ARE SO ASTRONOMICAL THAT THEY OVERWHELM US, WE FIND
IT DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO VISUALIZE THE ENORMITY OF THE PROBLEM,
TENTATIVE STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED BY VARIOUS AUTHORITIES IN THE
FIELD STRIKE US AS SO INFINITESIMAL AND INADEQUATE THAT THEY ARE LUDICROUS,
BUT GARBAGE DISPOSAL IS NO LAUGHING MATTER, IT IS A NAGGING,
NOXIOUS PROBLEM THAT NOT ONLY WILL NOT GO. AWAY-BIT LIKE SOME HORRIBLE
CREATURE OF SCIENCE FICTION HAS EMERGED FROM THE DUMP FIRES AND BEGUN AN
INEXHORABLE ENCROACHMENT ON CIVILIZATION,
-------
Vermont 250
Virginia 251
U.S. Virgin Islands 254
Washington 256
West Virginia 265
"Wisconsin 269
Wyoming 287
Appendices 292
Council of State Governments 292
National Governors' Conference 295
National Legislative Conference 297
National Association of Attorneys General . . 299
National Association of Counties 301
National League of Cities 303
Conference of State Sanitary Engineers 307
American Public Works Association 308
-------
WHAT MAGNIFIES AiiB COKPOUiiDS THE PKOBLEfl IS THAT ALL OF US ARE
UNDERSTANDABLY FEARFUL O SELF-PROTECTIVE, iiO.'iE OF US WANTS THE MONSTER
•IN OUR BACKYARD, EACH LITTLE JURISDICTION OR COMMUNITY ACROSS THE NATION
IS COURAGEOUSLY CALLING FOR SACRIFICE-BY THE NE_XI LITTLE JURISDICTION
OR COMMUNITY,
EXAMPLES OF THIS PAROCHIAL SELF-INTEREST ABOUND, BUT ARE NOWHERE
MORE VIVIDLY DEMONSTRATED THAN IN MY OWN STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS,
FOR'YEARS NOW, THE OVER-TAXED DUMP OF THE CITY OF LAWRENCE HAS
BEEN A-MAJOR HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD IN ITS AREA, ITS ANTIQUATED
INCINERATOR IS WOEFULLY INADEQUATE WHEN IT COMES TO BURNING THE CITY'S
TRASH, SPARKS AMD EMBERS EMITTED BY THE INCINERATOR REGULARLY TOUCH OFF
i
FIRES IN THE PILES OF OPEN REFUSE, FIRES THAT SOMETIMES GAIN SUCH MOMENTUM
THAT THE NATIONAL GUARD HAS TO 3E CALLED OUT TO ASSIST THE FIREFIGHTERS,
-------
EVEN IN ITS LESS PYROTECHNIC MOME1TS, THE DUMP SEND CLOUDS OF BILLOWING
BLACK SMOKE OUT OVER ADJACENT INTERSTATE ROUTE 495, CAUSING SUCH TRAFFIC
HAZARDS THAT STATE POLICE MUST TURN OUT TO DIRECT VEHICLES THROUGH THE
DANGER ZONE,
LAWRENCE CITY OFFICIALS ARE WELL AWARE OF THE DANGERS POSED BY
THEIR DUMP, THEY WOULD LIKE NOTHING MORE THAN TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM, BUT
THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE IS NO AVAILABLE LAND LEFT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS
ON WHICH TO CREATE A NEW EFFICIENT DUMP-
STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY LAWRENCE HAVE RECOMMENDED THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A REGIONAL FACILITY IN ONE OF THE NEARBY'TOWNS, BUT THE TOWN SO
NOMINATED CHOKES AT THE IDEA AND BACKS AWAY,
RECENTLY--AND RELUCTANTLY-1 TOOK THE FIRST LEGAL STEP TO FORCE
THE CITY OF LAWRENCE TO CLOSE ITS DUMP FOR GOOD.
-------
BUT MOWING THERE ARE MO LIKELY ALTERNATIVES, I Ml LOATHE TO PRESS Oil WITH
THE CASE, .INSTEAD I AM MEETING WITH MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS III HOPES THAT,
'SOMEHOW OR OTHER, WE CAN RESOLVE THE PROBLEM WITHOUT FURTHER COMPOUNDING
AN ALREADY INTOLERABLE SITUATION,
IN ANOTHER MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITY, SAUGUS, IS A DUMP WHICH ALSO
SERVICES SIXTEEN SURROUNDING CITIES AND TOWNS, THIS HAS BEEN HARMFUL IN
MORE WAYS THAN ONE, SINCE UP TO THIS POINT THOSE CITIES AND TOWNS HAVE NOT
FELT THAT THEY HAD TO GET INVOLVED IN ANY COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING OF THEIR
THE DUMP IN SAUGUS HAS BEEN A Iffi-HEADED MONSTER. IT HAS BEEN A
HEALTH HAZARD OPEN, AND IT WOULD CREATE A HEALTH HAZARD IF CLOSED, SIMPLY
BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN NO OTHER FACILITY TO TAKE OVER ITS FUNCTION,
-------
THE DUMP OPERATOR HAS JUST WON STATE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A MASSIVE NEW
INCINERATOR WHICH SHOULD GO FAR TOWARD ALLEVIATING THE PRESENT POLLUTION
PROBLEM, AND IN A WAY, THE 16 CITIES AND TOWNS HE OBLIGES WILL HOW BE
GIVING HIM MONEY TO BURN,
THIS IS BECAUSE HIS NEW INCINERATOR WILL HAVE THE BENEFICIAL
SIDE EFFECT OF GENERATING STEAM WHICH WILL BE SOLD TO A NEARBY ELECTRONICS
PLANT,
THUS, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MASSACHUSETTS, WASTE WILL NOT BE
"WASTED/' BUT PUT TO
I CONSIDER THIS TO BE A GOOD AND NECESSARY STEP, AND ONE WHICH
COULD BE THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM FOR MANY OTHER AREAS.
BUT STILL, THE RELUCTANCE ON THE PART OF THE CITIES AND TOWNS IN
MASSACHUSETTS TO GET TOGETHER AND SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS REMAINS A MAJOR
ROADBLOCK;
8
-------
THE SAUGUS-DUMP HAS CREATED AN.EiiORTiOUS PROBLEM FOR ALL PUBLIC
OFFICIALS INVOLVED, AT THE STATE LEVEL AS WELL AS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
AT OWE POINT, A FEW YEARS BACK, THE SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN, ACTING
IN WHAT THEY FELT WAS THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR CITIZENS, ORDERED THE
DUMP CLOSED,
THE GOVERNOR AT THE TIME, OER PRESSURE FROM THE 16 OTHER CITIES
AND TOWNS, THEREUPON DECLARED A PUBLIC EMERGENCY AND ORDERED THE DUMP KEPT
OPEN SO THAT THOSE COMMUNITIES COULD CONTINUE TO DISPOSE OF THEIR TRASH,
IN FACT, HE EVEN WEifT SO FAR AS TO REQUEST THE MAN WHO PRECEDED
ME AS MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL, ELIOT RICHARDSON, TO SUE THE SAUGUS
SELECTMEN TO MAKE SURE THE DUMP WAS KEPT OPEN,
IN THIS ONE CASE, AT LEAST, IT NOW APPEARS THERE MAY BE A HAPPY
ENDING,
-------
FOUR YEARS AGO, WHEN I WAS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, A BILL WAS
PASSED URGING ALL 351 CITIES AND TOWNS IN THE COMMONWEALTH TO VOLUNTARILY
JOIN IN THE FORMATION OF AM FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF, REGIONAL FACILITIES,
SINCE THAT TIME, EXACTLY THREE CITIES AND TOWISHAVE OPTED TO TAKE PART IN
SUCH A PLAN, AND THOSE HAVE ONLY DOilE SO WITHIN THE LAST FEW MONTHS.
SOLUTIONS ARE ;iOT GOING TO BE FOUND, OBVIOUSLY, ON A VOLUNTARY
BASIS.
NEITHER ARE THEY GOING TO BE FOUND Oil A NATIONAL BASIS, THE
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THOUGH ITS INTENTIONS MAY BE GOOD.
MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO IMPOSE UNIFORM STANDARDS ON EVERY COMMUNITY IN THE
NATION,
10
-------
SUCH A SOLUTION WOULD FAIL TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE NEEDS
AND RESOURCES OF THE VARIOUS COrHJhlTIES AND WOULD ALSO CONSTITUTE AN
UNWARRANTED INTRUSION INTO THE ROLE OF THE STATES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THEIR
OV!N AFFAIRS,
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL ENDORSED THAT
VIEWPOINT LAST WINTER WHEN IT OVERWHELMINGLY APPROVED A RESOLUTION WHICH I
INTRODUCED Id MY CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE ASSOCIATION.
THAT RESOLUTION PUT THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ON RECORD AS BFING--
QUOTE-"IN FAVOR OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ESTABLISHING MINIMUM FEDERAL SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, THE ENFORCEMENT -OF WHICH SHALL REMAIN PRIMARILY
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATES , , ," -UNQUOTE,
THE TASK FORCE REPORT I ALLUDED TO EARLIER IS ALSO CONSISTENT
WITH THIS VIEW OF THE STATES' ROLE IN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, AND CALLS UPON
STATE GOVERNMENTS TO ASSUME A MAJOR ROLE IN ASSISTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
SOLVE THEIR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS. n
-------
IF I MAY QUOTE BRIEFLY FROM THE REPORT, THIS APPROACH WILL
REQUIRE HEW ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS DIRECTED TOWARD:
"1. ESTABLISHING A STATE COMMITMENT WITH A STRONG STATE POLICY
TO DEVELOP THE MEANS TO PROVIDE SOLID WASTE SERVICES III AN ENVIRONMENTALLY
SAFE MANNER;
"2, BROADER FORMS OF ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ORIENTED
TOWARD IMPROVEMENTS IN ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY!
"3, STREHGHEfO, BUT REGIONALLY FLEXIBLE REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
TO REFLECT DIFFERING PROBLEMS AND NEEDS IN LOCAL AREAS;
"4, MORE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN THE LOCATION OF FACILITIES AND
SITES ESSENTIAL FOR THE PROVISION OF THIS NECESSARY SERVICE; AND
"5. CONSIDERATION OF DIRECT STATE ACTIONS TO PROVIDE FOR
NECESSARY SERVICES IN AREAS WHERE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CANNOT BE MODERNIZED."
12
-------
I URGE YOU TO TAKE THIS REPORT BACK TO YOUR GOVERNORS AND YOUR
LEGISLATURES AND TO PRESS UPO;i TKEh THE NEED FOR FAST AND FIRM ACTION BY
INDIVIDUAL STATES,
ANY ATTEMPTS TO FURTHER DEFER ACTION ON THE WHOLE QUESTION OF
EFFICIEi-IT SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, OR ANY HALF-HEARTED STEPS IN COMING TO GRIPS
WITH IT, CAN ONLY RESULT IN MAT WE ALL WOULD DEPLORE: A FURTHER ESCALATIOii
OF THE PROBLEM, AND THE INEVITABLE INTERVENTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
WE'£M COPE WITH THE PROBLEMS OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ON THE
STATE LEVEL, WE CM AVOID THE CALAMITY THAT THREATENS US, BUT WE CAN OiiLY
DO SO IF WE ACT NOW, PROMPTLY AND ENERGETICALLY,
-------
IF WE BEGIN TODAY TO EFFECTIVELY LOBBY FOR FEDERAL FUNDS AND
THE;; PUT THAT MOMEY WHERE OUR PROBLEMS ARE--BOWH i.< THE DU.TS-WE IJEFD
NOT CONTINUE TO BE PSYCHOLOGICALLY "DOWN IN THE DUMPS" OURSELVES; AND WE
VIILL REALIZE, FOR OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN, THAT ELUSIVE SWEET SMELL
OF SUCCESS,
14
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D. C; 20460
State Solid Waste Management Agencies
December 1973
Alabama
Alfred S. Chipley, Director
I'ivision of Solid Waste
and Vector Control
State Department of Public Health
State Office Building
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
FTS-(205) 263-7521
269-7697
Alaska
Mr. Keith Kelton
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
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
Sidney S. Fitzgerald, 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
Richard F. Peters
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 Momt. Board
Room 1335, Resources Building
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
FTS-(916) 449-2000
322-3330
Colorado
Orvllle F. Stoddard
State Dept. of Health
4210 East Eleventh Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
FTS-(303) 837-0111
388-6111 Ext. 323
-------
Connecticut
Robert Schultz, 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)
Delaware
N. C. Vasuki, Director
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources
& Environmental Control
Edward Tatnall Building
Dover, Delaware 19901
(302) 678-4764
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. 0. V. Natarajan, Administrator
Guam, EPA
P.O. Box 2999
Agana, Guam 96910
Overseas Operator (Commercial call)
749-2486
Hawaii
Shinji Soneda
State Department
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii
Calif. FTS-(415)
(808)
of Health
96801
556-0220
548-2811 Ext.
521
Idaho
FTTH" 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) 791-2011
488-7622
Georgia
Moses N. McCall 111, Director
Solid Waste Management Service
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
535 Mi lam Avenue S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30315
(404) 656-2833 (Direct Dial)
Illinois
Mr. Doublas Andrews, Director
Division of Land Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Drive
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 549-6760 (Direct Dial)
Indiana
Mr. Roland Dove
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)
16
-------
Iowa
Larry E. Crane
Acting Director
Division of Solid Waste
Department of Environmental Quality
3920 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 3326
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
FTS-(515) 284-4000
265-8134
Kansas
Howard Duncan
Chief, General Engineering and
Sanitation Section
535 Kansas Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66603
(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)
Louisiana
John E. trygg
Assistant State Health Officer for Env,
Division of Health Maintenance and
Ambulatory Patient Services
LHSRSA
P.O. Box 60630
New Orleans, Louisiana 70160
FTS-(505) 527-2611
527-5111
Maine
Ronald Dearborn, Chief
Division of Solid Waste Management
Dept. of Environmental Protection
State House
Augusta, Maine 04330
FTS-(207) 622-6171
289-2963
17
Maryland
Charles M. Kenealy, Chief
Division of Solid Waste
Maryland State Dept. of Health
and Mental Hygiene
610 North Howard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(301) 383-2772
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
Larry Kramer
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Division of Solid Waste
1935 West County Road, B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
FTS-(612) 296-5564
636-5740
Mississippi
Jack McMillan
Solid Waste Planning Program
Division of Sanitary Engineering
Mississippi State Board of Health
P.O. Box 1700
Jackson, Mississippi 39201
RS-(601) 948-7821
354-6616
-------
Missouri
Robert M. Robinson, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Division of Health of Missouri
2511 Industrial Drive
P.O. Box 570
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
FTS-(816) 374 7000
(314) 751-2815
New Jersey
BernhardtV. Lind, Acting Chief
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Division of Environmental Quality
Department of Environmental Protection
P. 0. Box 1390
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-7645 (Direct Dial)
Montana
Terrence D. Carmody
Environmental Sciences Division
Montana State Dept. of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Helena, Montana 59601
(4U6) 449-2408 (Direct Dial)
New Mexico
Bryan E. Miller, Chief
General Sanitation Section
Environmental Improvement Agency
P.O. Box 2348, P.E.R.A. Building
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
(505) 827-2693 (Direct Dial)
Nebraska
Gary Frecks, Chief
Division of Solid Waste
Department of Environmental Control
State House Station, Box 94653
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
FTS-(402) 475-2611
471-2186
New York
William G. Bentley, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
New York State Dept. of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12201
(518) 457-6603 (Direct Dial)
Nevada
Ernest Gregory
State Department of Health & Welfare
201 South Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
FTS-(702) 385-6011
882-7870
New
Hamps
las Sw
shire
Thomas Sweeney
Solid Waste Disposal
Food & Chemistry Services Div. of
Public Health Services
Department of Health & Welfare
Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
FTS-(603) 669-7011
271-2747
North Carolina
Sidney H. Usry, Branch Head
Solid Waste and Vector Control Branch
Department of Human Resources
Division of Health Services
P. 0. Box 2091
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
FTS-(919) 755-4020
829-3589
North Dakota
Raymond Rolshoven
Project Director
Solid Waste Planning Grant
State Department of Health
Bismark, North Dakota 58501
FTS-(701) 225-4011
224-2386
18
-------
Ohio
Donald E. Day, Assistant Chief
Division of Waste Management
& Engineering
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43216
(614) 369-8934 (Direct Dial)
Oklahoma
Calvin I. 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) 9-7-1221
(809 725-5140 Ext. 226
Rhode 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
William Stiltwell, 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
Ronald Disrud
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
Solid Waste Management Section
Division of Environmental Sanitation
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)
19
-------
Trust Territories
Dr. William Peck, Director
Department of Health Services
Office of High Commission
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
Saipan, Marianas 96950
Overseas Operator (Commercial Call)
Washington
Ir
Avery N. Wells
Section Head
Solid Waste Management
Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington 98505
(206) 753-6883 (Direct Dial)
Utah
Mervin Reed, 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 Wastes Program
Agency of Environmental Conservation
P.O. Box 489
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
(802) 828-3395 (Direct Dial)
West Virginia
Dale Parsons, Acting Director
Solid Waste Disposal Planning
State Department of Health
1800 Washington Street, E.
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
(304) 345-2987
Wisconsin
John J. Reinhardt, Chief
Solid Waste Disposal Section
Division of Environmental Protection
Department of Natural Resources
Box 450
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
(608) 266-0158 (Direct Dial)
Virgin Islands
rgln
ITsT
Louis olive
Division of Utilities and Sanitation
Department of Public Works
Government of the Virgin Islands
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
(809) 774-7970
Wyoming
Frank Harman, Sanitary Engineer
Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality
State Office Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
(307) 777-7391 (Direct Dial)
Virginia
/irgl
rrr
R. E. borer, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste & Vector Control
Virginia State Department of Health
Room 205, 401-A Col ley Avenue
Norfolk, Virginia 23507
FTS-(804) 441-6000
627-4511
20
-------
ALABAMA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS
SEPTEMBER 30, 1973
1. State Strategy
During 1968, personnel of the Alabama State Department of Public Health
conducted a state-wide survey of solid waste disposal management in municipalities
of 1000 population and larger. Standard forms, supplied by the federal Bureau
of Solid Waste Management, were utilized for this survey, and the data were
collected by personal visit; no mail-out forms were used.
These data indicated that the overwhelming majority of municipal disposal
sites were open, burning dumps, with only about 6 to 10 percent possibly meeting
minimum standards for sanitary landfill„ One city (Birmingham) was utilizing an
old incinerator for a small portion of its generated wastes, one city (Athens)
utilized a teepee burner for municipal waste incinerators, and one city (Mobile)
had an operating compost plant for most of its household wastes. These three
systems have since been discontinued, and all municipal wastes are now disposed
of on land disposal sites.
By the time of this survey, three counties had become involved in systems
of county-wide solid waste collection and disposal. Approximately 100 cities
had engaged in block-by-block sanitation surveys followed by in-depth cleanup
programs, and such efforts had extended to a few counties. Civic organizations,
specifically including the Alabama Farm Bureau Federation Women's Committees,
became committed to this project.
It became clearly evident that lasting results of cleanup programs can
only result when collection systems are available to all people, and accept-
able disposal facilities are provided. In keeping with this, the Alabama State
Legislature unanimously passed the Alabama Solid Waste Disposal Act, enacted in
September, 1969. Basically, the Act enabled all governing bodies to implement
collection and approved disposal facilities either separately or severally, and
through either direct implementation, or by contract or franchise. A two-year
grace period was permitted for implementation, with time extensions allowable
for reasons acceptable to the state and local departments of health. Following
this, all governments, other entities, or persons either generating solid wastes
or assuming responsibility for its management, were required to dispose of such
collected wastes by sanitary landfill or other health approved means.
The Act did not provide for any funds for this purpose. By previous law,
incorporated municipalities were enabled to tax or otherwise fund solid waste
management. Counties, on the other hand, may not levy special taxes without
local legislation and voter approval, and lacking this must fund solid waste
management through a user charge, or from uncommitted general funds.
Nearly all incorporated municipalities in Alabama have traditionally offered
systems for the collection of solid wastes, while such systems were rare for
unincorporated populations. Collection presents the most costly element of solid
21
-------
-2-
waste management. While reduction of the volume of collected solid wastes are
possible through incineration, composting, shredding, recycling, or other means,
disposal by sanitary landfill is still required for residues, and was forseen to
be the most economically feasible and acceptable means for disposal of all solid
wastes in the vast majority of cases. Even so, such disposal calls for certain
minimum requirements for equipment, personnel, land, and operational procedures,
and is much more costly than open dumps. Since some 537-. of Alabama's incorporated
municipalities have populations of less than 1000, and unincorporated areas are
even less densely populated, economic feasibility therefore dictated inter-local
cooperation, particularly for disposal and in some cases for the collection of
solid wastes.
2, Specific Projects
At the present time, of Alabama's 67 counties, 56 have both collection
services and landfill disposal facilities available county-wide. The landfills
on three of these systems were judged to be sub-standard sanitary landfills at
the last evaluation. Evaluation ratings are made by State personnel on an
average of about once every three or four months.
Of the collection services offered by these 56 counties, 19 systems employ
the use of bulk refuse containers almost exclusively for unincorporated and
small town populations. Two of these are by contract to private collectors, and
17 are county operated. One county offers both house-to-house service by a
franchised collector, and the use of bulk containers contracted to another
private collector. The 35 other full-service counties offer house-to-house (or
"mailbox") collection, either county operated (11) or some form of franchise or
contract (24). Some half-dozen of these latter systems are considered at this
time to be weak, and in need of expansion, changing, or upgrading. All of these
programs have room for improvement, and some are presently implementing or con-
sidering changes to make them more effective and self-supporting. One has already
changed from a. container system to a mandatory house-to-house system.
Of the 11 counties not yet having full-service systems, 5 have operational
cooperative sanitary landfills, and one in which the implemented disposal site
must be considered sub-standard. Three counties are presently implementing
sanitary landfills, and two have approved disposal sites and adequate equipment,
but have not implemented either collection or disposal programs.
Several counties, because of their population, geographical make-up, or
for political reasons have multiple landfill disposal sites. Of 130 land disposal
sites presently under surveillance as landfill operations, 99 were rated as
sanitary landfills meeting minimum state standards at the last evaluation. Four
of 31 sub-standard sites serve counties as indicated above, and the remainder
generally serve small cities or towns either attempting independent disposal
facilities in otherwise full-service counties or located in counties with full
programs not yet implemented.
The attached table and charts indicate the overall solid waste management
status as of September 30, 1973 and the program progress since 1968.
22
-------
-3-
3. Special Problem Areas and Federal Role
A. No in-depth surveys have been made of either industrial or agricultural
solid xvastc generation. Certain industrial wastes require special handling
due to their toxic or hazardous nature, and these especialy include semi-solid
and liquid wastes resulting from air and water pollution treatment residues having
only land remaining as a disposal repository. We have need of both manpower and
expertise to better determine the extent and proper management of such wastes.
While we have interim rules and regulations adopted jointly with the Alabama
Department of Agriculture and Industries (responsible for pesticide usage),
purporting to control the disposal of waste pesticides, pesticide containers and
certain other hazardous materials, we do not have any centralized sites speci-
fically designed for such disposal. We have a very few privately operated
hazardous waste disposal facilities, and some of our county sanitary landfills
are approved for disposal of limited quantities of such wastes.
We have no clear laws or responsibility parameters for the management of
animal wastes.
B. In order to obtain more uniform solid waste management nationally, we feel
that minimum criteria for storage, collection, processing and final disposal
should be established at tha federal level. These criteria could be made more
specific and constrained as local needs and economy will permit. Federal enforce-
ment, if applied, should be limited to the minimum criteria, or as applied locally,
and should be applied only at local request, or in cases of state failure to act.
There is need for a central pool for information and advice concerning
management of hazardous and toxic wastes„
We feel that because problems in general solid waste management are universal,
with waste generation almost a straight line function of population density and
purchasing power, that federal funding of solid waste management programs should
be extremely limited.
Respectfully submitt
Alfre/ S. Chipley, Director
Divi/ion of Solid Waste & Vector Control
Environmental Health Administration
Alabama Department of Public Health
ASCrdgs
23
-------
ALABAMA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STATUS AS OF: 9-30-73
Counties: 67 State Pop.: 3.373.000 Incorporated Pop.: 2.078.000 Unincorporated Pop.: ;,295,QQO
Ar- f { vl t1 "I P
-------
ALABAMA AREAS AND POPULATIONS SERVED BY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
% OF TOTAL STATE POPULATION
% OF COUNTIES WITH TOTAL PROGRAMS
WJL
% INCORPORATED POPULATION
% UN INCORPORATED POPULATION
.ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT
Of PUBLIC HEALTH
t ENVIRON MENTAL HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION or SOLID WASTE •
VECTOR COKTROL
r, ALABAMA
-------
STATE OF ALASKA
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS
General Information
When created on July 1, 1971, the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation was given the responsibility to control, prevent and
abate pollution of the air, water, land or subsurface land by using
in part, regulations providing for the collection and disposal of
garbage, refuse and other discarded solid materials from industrial,
commercial, agricultural and community activities or operations.
Many of the newly created Department's powers and responsibilities
were transferred from the Department of Health and Welfare. However,
there had never been a program developed in the State dealing with
solid waste management. Therefore, it was necessary to develop
and implement a whole new program using two full-time professionals
and seven regional staff members working part-time on solid waste
management.
It has been the Department's position that poor solid waste manage-
ment constitutes the single greatest environmental problem present
in the State of Alaska today. In an attempt to confront this problem
in the most expedient manner, using the limited manpower available,
efforts were devoted to both short term and long range approaches.
The short term approach consisted of developing and implementing
Solid Waste Management Regulations. These regulations became effec-
tive on July 19, 1973 and require that all solid waste disposal fa-
cilities obtain a permit to continue or initiate operation. In order
to obtain a permit it is necessary for the disposal facility to sub-
mit detailed plans and specifications along with an operating pro-
cedural report describing the proposed method of operation. This
permit application is then evaluatated on the basis of the operating
conditions outlined in State regulations and if it is deemed to be
in compliance with these regulations a permit is then issued by the
Department.
Existing disposal sites were given 90 days from the effective date
of the regulations to upgrade their disposal site and apply for a
permit to operate. Those disposal sites which do not comply and
obtain an operating permit by the deadline, will be placed on a
priority basis for enforcement proceedings. Those disposal sites
which are unable to comply by the deadline but do initiate contact
with the Department will be put on a compliance schedule whereby
steady improvement will be required until satisfactory results are
26
-------
achieved. Mule the implementation of these regulations has just
begun, and compliance has not been as rapid as expected, the Depart-
ment is currently evaluating approximately 25 permit applications
and is proceeding with legal actions, vhich have resulted in several
prosecutions.
The award of a planning grant by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency to the State initiated the Department's long term approach
toward improving Alaskan solid waste numagement practices and pro-
grams. The planning grant was awarded on November 1, 1971 and calls
for completion of the State plan by July 1, 1974, The State plan
is well under way and it appears that the completion date should be
met on schedule.
In the development of the plan, the Department is taking into fact
the consideration that water, air and land pollution are closely
interconnected making it difficult to solve one pollution aspect with-
out adversely affecting another area of concern. Therefore, it is
proposed to use a system of trade-offs of accomplish the desired
environmental goals. These trade-offs may result in the implementation
of solid waste management practices that may be somewhat less than
ideal but which will still provide satisfactory results within the
confines of the operational difficulties experienced within the
State.
Effects of Alaskan Environment on Solid Waste Management
Proper solid waste management in Alaska is complicated by a great
variation in climatic, geologic, social and economic conditions.
To effectively develop a solid waste management plan in Alaska it is
necessary to consider a variety of regional recommendations rather
than one comprehensive recommendation applicable to the entire State.
Alaska's climatic conditions vary from a typical rain forest environ-
ment influenced by the Japanese currents as found in Southeastern
Alaska to subarctic conditions in the Anchorage area, to the western
coastal zone region influenced by the Arctic Ocean, to arctic con-
ditions found in interior Alaska and the northern coastline border-
ing on the Arctic Ocean. Precipitation extremes range from over
200" per year in Southeastern Alaska to semi-arid conditions of
less than 10" per year found in Arctic areas. Temperatures range
from conditions not too disimilar to those found in Seattle to severe
arctic conditions, where temperatures may fall as low -75°F. In these
areas of extreme cold, corresponding snow and ice cover exist for
as much as nine months out of the year, indeed at Barrow it may
snow on any day of the year. Also associated v/ith the winter condi-
tions, is the lack of daylight which hampers many outdoor activities,
such as solid waste management. North of the arctic circle the sun
does not appear above the horizon for as much as six weeks at a
time in some areas.
27
-------
Approximately 80 percent of Alaska's 586,000 square miles (17* of
the total U. S. land area) is affected by a condition known as perma-
frost. Permafrost by definition includes any soil composition,
regardless of moisture content, that has been frozen permanently for
a period of greater than two years. In portions of the State perma-
nently frozen ground exists to depths greater than 2,100 feet. Solid
waste disposed of in permafrost remains in an unchanged state inde-
finitely and associated disease organisms retain their viability
and are capable of causing illness and infection should the waste
be exhumed and returned to an unfrozen state. Excavation in perma-
frost requires earth moving equipment with rippers to break loose
the concrete-like frozen soil.
At temperatures of -50°F, which may exist for extended periods of
time, the ability of equipment and men to function normally is reduced
if not completely eliminated. In addition, the extreme cold makes
it almost impossible to extinguish fires that may develop in a land-
fill, since water freezes almost instantaneously. Therefore, during
temperatures of these extremes, proper management of waste material
does not and cannot exist. Refuse is merely deposited in a frozen
state until such time as equipment can again be operated.
The State of Alaska is in most part a relatively new geological
formation with very little cover material existing in large parts
of the State, particularly in Southeastern Alaska. Indeed, in some
Southeastern communities the only materials available for landfill
cover are muskeg and shot rock. The combination of steep terrain,
limited cover material amd heavy rainfall produces leachate condi-
tions in Southeastern Alaska that are nearly impossible to control.
The leachate problem is also compounded by high ground water tables,
which exist in large portions of the State where water may lie less
than two feet below the ground surface.
The Southcentral portion of the State is the only area which combines
adequate soil cover with infrequent permafrost and lower rainfall,
thereby promoting the possibility that sanitary landfills may be
developed. However, even in this area temperatures may range as
low as -50°F and soil temperatures during the short summer months
are not warm enough to promote significant degradation of the waste.
A unique situation exists in many of Alaska's communities where air-
craft provide the only mode of transportation into the community.
In many of these communities, the only existing stretch of road lies
between the town and the airport. Therefore, since it is logical
to dispose of one's wastes as far away as possible, an open burning
dump often evolves at the end of the runway. Local residents find
it quite handy to haul the refuse to the airport for disposal, as
they pick up supplies brought in by the incoming flight. However,
this practice tends to create an air traffic safety hazard, since
a considerable number of birds are attracted to the dump area seek-
ing food and warmth, particularly in winter.
28
-------
The majority of the State does not lend itself to regional or inter-
city cooperative programs due to insufficient population densities
and lack of surface transportation facilities. Alaska's population
of approximately 300,000 exists primarily as widely scattered self-
sufficient urbanized centers. With only approximately 5,000 miles
of road in the State, these population centers are largely isolated
due to lack of connecting surface transportation. However, there is
existing railroad transportation between the Cities of Fairbanks,
Palmer, Seward and Anchorage. In Southeastern Alaska, transportation
between cities is dependent entirely upon air or water services.
Many small bush communities exist within the State that are comprised
of less than 200 individuals. The average income for many of these
communities is less than $3000 per family per year. Although it is
a pressing problem, with such a limited income, the necessity for
satisfactory solid waste disposal becomes a relatively low priority
item. The present methods of disposal in the small communities in-
clude the tides system, placing the solid waste upon the ice in.the
winter depending upon spring break-up to wash away the accumulated
winter's waste or the deposition of wastes in many areas scattered"
throughout the village. Indeed, in many communities, the formation
of an open burning dump with collection of all waste materials to a
central point would be a tremendous improvement in present practices
and probably compatible with long term environmental management ob-
jectives. Even though financial means may not exist within a village
to develop an ideal solid waste disposal system, it is possible through
educational programs to impress the necessity of improved solid waste
management from the aspect of health hazards. However, it is evident
that in order to succeed solid waste disposal systems in the bush
communities need to be efficient, simple and low cost.
The fact that Alaska lies "at the end of the road" provides additional
problems in that a "terminus dumping point" is created. It is generally
cheaper for people moving from Alaska to sell their automobiles
and household possessions rather than to transport them back south
when they leave the State. This practice helps to contribute to
increased solid waste generation rates. Another factor adding to
the quantity of waste generated within the State is attributable
to the extraordinary distances which goods and quantities must be
shipped. The great shipping distances involved necessitate addi-
tional packaging which creates a very real and noticeable impact
upon solid waste generation. Solid waste generation studies conducted
in the State, as research for the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan, revealed that a total of 6.2 pounds per capita per day of solid
waste is delivered to landfills within the State. However, this
figure does not include such items as junked vehicles, which consti-
tute Alaska's greatest solid waste problem, or wastes generated
from mining, logging and agriculture which are not normally delivered
to landfills for disposal.
29
-------
At the present time, industry does not generate nearly as much solid
waste as do residential and commercial sources. Therefore, the ma-
jority of the Department's efforts are devoted to municipal program
improvement. However, industrial campsites maintained for the support
of oil drilling and production crews and logging crews are strictly
regulated. The waste production from most industrial operations
such as fish canneries, mining and clear cutting has not resulted
in a significant problem, and with careful implementation of the
State program it should remain that way.
In summary, it can be stated that within Alaska very few areas exist
where sanitary landfilling is practical and where the population
density is sufficient to promote sophisticated refuse collection
and disposal systems. There are many areas where social, economic
and physical limitations prohibit development of proper solid waste
programs. It is felt that the principle of sanitary landfilling
is practical only in Southcentral Alaska, which includes the Greater
Anchorage Area Borough, the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Matan-
uska - Susitna Borough. However, even in these areas, sanitary land-
filling may not be the most practical or economic solution to the
problem.
It is felt that the principle of sanitary landfilling is not appli-
cable in the Northern permafrost regions and the Southeastern rain
forest. Permanently frozen soil in the Arctic and the high leachate
conditions in the Southeast render the satisfactory disposal of
solid waste by sanitary landfill highly impractical if not impossible.
It is not questioned that the principal of sanitary landfilling can-
not be applied in these areas provided enough money is spent to
accomplish the purpose. It is argued, however, that conditions within
the State as previously outlined prevent sanitary landfilling from
being the most economic or efficient method for good environnental
management practices. Therefore, alternate methods of solid waste
disposal need to be pursued and implemented.
Present Program Activities, Recommendations and Projected Goals
To meet the challenge of the environmental limitations affecting
solid waste management, the Department has established a policy
directed toward recommending incineration in all of Southeastern
Alaska and the small northern communities and industrial camps and
facilities with the possibility that refuse milling may be practi-
cal in the larger northern cities. The Department considers the
sanitary landfill to be a viable alternative only in the Southcentral
portion of the State.
To achieve Implementation of the above mentioned recommendations, the
Department is relying primarily upon technical assistance and edu-
cational efforts to persuade the citizenry that past practices have
not been satisfactory and that new practices need to be developed.
A considerable portion of the staff's time is devoted to personally
30
-------
visiting individual communities, surveying present practices and
problems, making recommendations and working with the communities
on improving their programs. Educational efforts involve the pre-
sentation of training courses, the maintenance of a film lending
library and the use of a slide show developed for presentation at
various civic group meetings.
When it is completed, the State Plan will contain specific recommen-
dations for various regions and some recommendations that will apply
to problems that are prevalent all over the State, such as the dis-
posal of the junked vehicle. In addition to recommending the princi-
ple of incineration, the Department is promoting the development of
the drop-box concept of refuse collection in several rural boroughs
where sufficient highway networks are available. The use of the
drop-box system in these areas with refuse being hauled to several
central disposal sites appears to have great applicability.
Revenue sharing legislation has been prepared and introduced where
municipalities operating an approved solid waste disposal facility
would be eligible to receive $10 per capita per year to assist in
municipal expenditures. The revenue sharing program currently pro-
vides funds for numerous other community services and since there
are no strings on the expenditure of the funds, many communities
are already devoting the money to improving their solid waste pro-
grams.
Several attempts are being made within the State to aid in solving
the junked vehicle disposal problem. It is estimated that 12 to
15 thousand vehicles per year are junked within the State, many
of which are improperly disposed. At the present, one automobile
recycling program is in operation which last year crushed and shipped
approximately 15,000 automobiles to Seattle. This program contracted
by the Greater Anchorage Area Borough provides a $28 subsidy per
vehicle to a private contractor for the collection, crushing and
shipment of junked vehicles. While this program may solve the major-
ity of the junked vehicle problem in the Anchorage area, a solution
needs to be resolved for the remainder of the State.
Draft legislation aimed at improving the junked vehicle problem in
rural portions of the State has been prepared. This legislation
calls for payment of a $30 disposal fee upon the initial registra-
tion of a vehicle within the State. In addition, the proposed legis-
lation would require that all vehicles still retaining their title
but not currently registered pay an "Environmental Responsibility
Tax" of $30 per year until the vehicles have been adequately disposed
of and their titles surrendered.. The money derived from these two
taxes would then be used to finance a subsidy program providing the
economic incentive for private industry to remove the vehicles from
the State. It is the Department's opinion that whenever possible,
private industry will solve the problem given the economic incentive
31
-------
to do so and it is our intention to limit participation by the State
to the extent necessary to achieve interest by the private sector.
Areas Where Assistance is Required
Federal assistance would be of the greatest benefit in the develop-
ment of a low cost incineration technique, perhaps an adaptation
of the air curtain incinerator principle which could be used for the
combustion of municipal refuse in smaller comnunities. The Depart-
ment would also appreciate learning from other states of an effective
approach in dealing with unincorporated areas where the state goven-
ment is the lowest form of jurisdiction available. The Department
would also like to learn of the approaches used and the resulting
success of legal actions taken against incorporated municipalities
refusing or unable to comply with solid waste management laws and
regulations.
32
-------
STATUS REPORT FOR ARIZONA
The State of Arizona first became actively involved in solid
waste management with the passage of Arizona Revised Statute 36-132.01.
The law, which went into effect August, 1971, required the Department
of Health to prepare a statewide comprehensive solid waste manage-
ment plan* During the initial planning phase, the Department made
a survey of existing solid waste management practices* At that time
it was determined that there were only 30 sanitary landfills serving
approximately 6$% of the State's total population. Some progress
has been made in this area as there are now 48 sanitary landfills
serving approximately l&fo of the State's population.
One problem of providing approved solid waste disposal to all
the residents is a result of the large physical size of the State.,
(Arizona is the 6th largest state, area-wise„) The remaining 22$
of the population is located in small isolated communities, often
separated by long distances. The distance betv/een tho towns makes
it difficult to develop a regional type of solid waste collection
and disposal systenu These communities have a small tax base and
corresponding small revenue, therefore, the budget cannot support
the additional strain of providing approved solid waste operations.
Consequently, they use come 150+ dumps, often burning. How can
these small communities be- helped?
-------
A second problem for governmental entities is the lack of
legislation. The only lav; that requires a city or county govern-
ment to provide solid waste service is A,JUS, 9-441* This law
was passed in 1939t and it requires a dump ground to be provided
by the city or county government. The Department of Health has
drafted proposed legislation to submit to the State legislature
this coming session. The proposed bill would require the cities
and counties to provide for some type of collection service,
replace the open dump with sanitary landfills, and authorize
them to accept service fees and grants. The bill would also
give the State statutory authority to regulate all phases of
solid waste activities.
The Department of Health programs as related to the Solid
Waste Section consist of s
1) Solid Waste Planning - The Department has completed
its studies in municipal solid waste management, from
which the first volume of a statewide comprehensive
solid waste management plan has been developed* The
Department has plans and is in the process of s'iudjdng
specialized solid waste problems, such ass hazardous
wastes, agricultirral wastes, industrial wastes, recre-
ational wastes and abandoned automobiles; and will
prepare management plans for each of these areas c, As
the plans are developed and implemented, the Depart-
34
-------
ment will monitor solid wasto management practices
and continue to update and revise these plans to
meet future needs.
Die Department is also working with local
governmental units in developing local solid waste
management practices. At this time, 67$ of the
cities and towns, and 50$ of the counties have
prepared some type of solid waste management plan*
2) Subdivision Plan Review - No new subdivisions are
allowed to develop until the Department approves
plans for ..-aste collection and disposal,
3) Technical Assistance Program - The Department cf
Health renders assistance in the area of planning
and system development to the losal governments'.,
4) Public Information Program - Hie Department of
Health has published some technical as well as
general information-type manuals,
Tha Department of Health is in the process of developing
a Training - Safety Program for personnel employed in the solid
waste field-- Such a program will be of benefit as -bhis occupa-
tion haa one of the highest injury and turn over rates o.f any
cv-hor ,'job.. Through this prograr^ bhe operational phase of soli
waste management would iT.prove8 it woiild be f. safer oncuppMon,
and present an. oppe:>rtiL.iit2.r for advancement c
35
-------
Federal assistance could best be utilized in our State for
development of rural solid waste collection and disposal systems,
end for training of personnel^
BAtpJs
10/4/73
36
-------
ARKANSAS SOL ID WAfTE P&OGRAM STATUS
The Solid Waste Program in Arkansas ba^an in 1968 when
the- State was awarded a Federal Planning Grant to formulate
a State plan for solid waste management.
The staff of the Solid Waste Division at that time was
one (1) engineer, one (1) technician and one (1) secretary.
In 1970 the State program became entirely State funded
with a staff of one (1) engineer and one (1) part-time secre-
tary. The primary function of the Division of Solid Wastes
from 1970 until the present time has been to answer complaints
and a limited program of technical assistance has been offered
to cities and counties.
Some progress has been made even with a very limited
staff. Approximately thirty (30) landfills and four (4)
incinerators are now being operated in the State and fifty (50)
open dumps have been closed. However, progress has slowed
somewhat because we have not expanded the program to meet the
needs of city and county governments.
In July of 1973 we initiated a program of inspection and
enforcement made possible with a $70,000 Demonstration Grant
from the Environmental Protection Agency, 'fith this program
plans call for:
(1) Legal support to provide an active enforcement
campaign and provide for prosecution of violators.
(2) Monthly inspections of evory permitted disposal
site in the State.
37
-------
-2-
(3) Capability to answer complaints of all alleged
vi olations.
With these, the Division wi11 also initiate a technical
assistance program geared to meet the additional demand
resulting from our enforcement and inspection activities.
A staff of four (4) inspectors, one (1) engineer, and one
(1) pollution control program supervisor is anticipated to
handle this program. At the present time the Division has a
staff of one (1) engineer, one (1) program supervisor, and two
(2) inspectors.
An area of special interest has developed in recent
months which may offer some relief to the present conditions
of solid waste disposal and the energy crisis with which we
are now confronted. This process utilizes the incineration
of solid wastes to generate steam or ths heat itself is used
directly for drying or heating. One installation of this
type is in use in a hospital in the State and has supplied
steam sufficient to meet the requirements of the hospital in
the summer months. Engineering data indicate that the unit
will supply heat requirements for alnnst y~"r-round use.
Another installation of this type will be constructed in
conjunction with a carpet mill in the southern part of Arkansas
Estimates indicate that the nil! will utilize heat and stean
produced from incineration of wastes from the city of 10,000
plus surrounding smaller towns and rural areas. A large savings
will be realized in the natural gas used in the manufacturing
process. This process will enable some cities an^ counties
38
-------
-3-
to realise a method of solid waste dispose! <-'hile at the same
time practicing resource recovery to sono extent.
The Department also has a project started to develop
a State plan for disposal and/or reuse of industrial solid
wastes. The Department plans a survey of industries and
agricultural producers in the State to clcternine the quantities
and types of wastes which result from their operations, to
determine present means of disposal, to determine both the
economic and social costs of present means cf disposal and to
determine alternate methods of disposal or reuse of these mater-
ials.
However there are still many problems in solid waste
collection and disposal in small towns and rural areas of the
State. It is felt that this area is whore the critical need
for some type of funding lies, either State or Fc-d^ral . Many
rural and small town residents ar: willing to pay their share
of solid waste management, but cv;n with this cooperation,
additional funding is badly needed.
39
-------
STATE Of CALIFORNIA --THE RESOURCES AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor
STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
ROOM 1335. RESOURCES BUILDING
1416 NINTH STREET • SACRAMENTO 99814
California State Solid Waste Management Board
PROGRAM STATUS AND OUTLOOK
October 1973
Albert A. Marino
Executive Officer
40
••CYCIBD FAPC*
-------
California State Solid Waste Management Board
STATUS REPORT AND OUTLOOK
October
I. LEGISLATIVE ACTION
The 1973 California Legislature with the passage of Senate Bill 5 (Chapter
created the State Solid Waste Management Board within the Resources Agency.
The Board is comprised of 7 regular members (5 of whom are appointed by the
Governor and 2 are appointed by the Legislature). There are also 3 ex-officio
Board members. The Board has been charged to adopt by January 1975:
0 The State Policy for Solid Waste Management.
0 A Resources Recovery Program Policy.
0 A Litter Control Policy.
Strategy f or^ Solid Waste Management
The State Legislature in passing SB 5 has provided the basis for development of
n strategy for solid waste management in California. The new State "Board" is
to develop "A State Policy for Solid Waste Management" which will include hut
not be Limited to the following.
0 Development of minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal for
t.he protection of air, water, and land resources.
Q Standards for location, design, operation, maintenance, processing, or
dlopos.il facilities, or reuse facilities.
0 Review <-ind conoiderntion of the State Air Resources Board and the State
Water Resources Control Board recommendations regarding air and water
pollution prevent at ive measures for inclusion in the policy.
0 Recognition that some aspects of solid waste management are of purely local
concern and will not be considered in the development of statewide policy.
Such determinations to be made by the "Board".
0 The Board will consult with appropriate state, local, and 1'cderni agencies.
before adopting policy. Policy may be reviewed arm updated when appropriate.
SH 'j also created a 2^-fnan Stato Solid Waste Management, and Resource Recovery
Advisory Council, which functions until July \')'i^>. The ,?',>-mernber "Council"
41
-------
-2-
appointed by the Governor, and confirmed by the Senate, represents both the
public and private sectors in solid waste handling and disposal. Also
Included are: representatives of solid waste producing industries, agriculture
;ind timber industries, citizen action groups, the public at large, and ex-
officio state agency members. The bill retains the responsibility of the State
Department of Health function in toxic and hazardous wastes and provides for
Deportment standards to also be implemented in the policy.
The "Council's" first tasks arc to:
0 Develop guidelines for recommendation to the Board for local solid waste
management plans.
{ Develop minimum statewide standards for recommendation to the Board.
0 Prepare and recommend the initial state solid waste resource recovery
program.
jj Provide advice and assistance to the "Board" in the development of state
solid waste management policy.
Legislative Intent
In establish-in/', the new Board, the Legislature declared its basic intent that:
"...the primary responsibility for adequate solid wrolicy for solid waste management and for a resource
recovery program.
County Plans Required
In keeping with this philosophy, the State Legislature now requires each
county to prepare a solJd waste management plan subject to concurrence by ?i
majority of cllie:; wi.tht.n t,he county nontninin;', a majority of" population
wilhin the incorporated area of the county. This document is to be n
42
-------
-3-
compreherisive and coordinated plan for all solid waste collodion and disposal
within the county, and for all waste originating in the county which is to be
disposed of outside the county.
County plans must be submitted to the State by January 1, 1976 for approval.
The basic responsibility for plan preparation rests with the count.ics but this
responsibility may be transferred by the county, with specified approval of
the cities, to a regional planning agency recognized by the State Council on
Intergovernmental Affairs. In any case, each plan shall be submitted for review
and comments to the specified regional planning agency. Local solid waste
management, and implementation must subsequently conform to the finally approved
plan.
State offices, departments, and boards in carrying out activities involving
solid waste disposal shall comply with "Board" approved solid waste management
plans unless otherwise authorized by statute, in which case they shall notify
the "Board" of their authority for noncompliance.
To the extent of Its authority, the Board shall not approve requests for state
or federal financial assistance for any solid waste management project not in
conformance with the approved plan.
Tho Hoard shall also prepare guidelines for solid waste management plans and
shall provide technical assistance in preparing, revising, and in the imple-
mentation of solid waste management plans.
State Solid Waste Resource Recovery Program
The "Board" is also required to develop a solid waste resource recovery program
by July 1, 197^. The program is to includet
43
-------
-4-
} Alternative suggestions for a state directed research and development
program, jointly with public and private entities find individuals to
develop reasonable^ systems forjthe collection, reduction, separation,
recovery, conversion, and recycling of all solid wastes and the
environmentally safe disposal of nonusable residues.
0 Special studies on energy and resource recovery of solid wastes including:
* Development of resource recovery methodology, market identification
and the impact of distribution of such resources on markets.
* Alternative waste reduction methods.
* Use of state procurement policies to develop market demand.
} Recommend incentives including state grants, loans, and other incentives to
public and private agencies, individuals, etc. to accelerate resource
recovery.
0 Determine the effects of public policies including incentives and disincen-
tives, percentage depletion allowances, capital gains treatment, etc. and
the likely effects of the modification or elimination of such incentives or
disincentives upon the reuse, recycling and consumption of such resources.
5 Advantages and disadvantages of disposal taxes on packaging, containers,
and other manufactured goods.
State Litter Program
0 Review current program problems and opportunities to improve public
education programs.
5 Report to Governor and Legislature with a program proposal not later than
January 1, 1975.
II. CURRENT STATUS OF PROGRAM
The Board held its first meeting in May 1973. Committees of the Advisory
Council have been created and staffed by Board staff. Five major "areas of
concern" have been Identified where the Board intends to concentrate Its
.initial efforts:
0 Resource recovery systems, programs, and policies.
0 Solid waste policies and guidelines for local [dans.
0 Minimum standards for disposal activities.
44
-------
0 Litter reduction and control.
5 Specific industry problems.
Since Kay, the "Board" has been meeting at least twice a month. Examples of
recent Board actions include:
Policy alternatives for Advisory Council deliberation. Recommendations will
be forwarded to the Board for review and action as completed for each of the
five major areas outlined above.
Field trips and informational sessions undertaken by the Board to review, in
situ, the solid waste recovery systems now underway or in pilot project stages.
Guidelines for the development of county plans already drafted by the staff
and the Advisory Council and sent to the "Board" for review.
Resource recovery policy development underway by the "Council". Interest in
this area is intense in California. An EPA staffed seminar in Sacramento on
September 20 provided the Council with new insights into the resource recovery
field.
A financial study has already been approved by the Board to determine appro-
priate methods of providing state financial assistance to local agencies.
Requests for proposal by consulting firms have gone out and shortly a contract
with a leading consulting firm in this field will be negotiated.
Technical assistance provided by the Board staff to the private sector and to
cities, counties, regional and state agencies throughout California on a
.IJmited basis.
0 Personnel - The "Board" appointed Mr. Albert A. Marino, former county
environmental chief and solid waste administrator, as Executive Officer in
early June 1973. Additional staff appointments have brought the total to
10 as of October 1, 1973i including 1 federal employee on detail to the
Board for 2 years. Plans call for a total interdisciplinary staff of 18
with other services to be contracted from state agencies. Total man-years
of effort will reach 22 by the end of 1974.
III. PROGRAM OUTLOOK
0 Increased emphasis on resource recovery policy development - Completed
policy and program proposal due to the Legislature and Governor by
July 1, 1974.
0 Consideration of sludge disposal problems, in coastal communities including
public hearings will take on increased importance because ocean dumping is
now banned.
0 Technical assistance to local communities will be strengthened to facilitate
local decision-making.
45
-------
-6-
5 Upcoming exploratory meetings with State Air Resources and Water Resources
Control Boards to determine areas of mutual concern and mutual opportunities
which will prompt concerted action to solve problems.
Problems already encountered, for example, indicate that standards and
decisions and orders of the State Water Resources Control Board and the
Air Resources Board, as well as those of EPA, while speaking to improve
a specific environmental issue, have created hardships and stumbling
blocks in the area of solid waste disposal and resource recovery, i.e.
L. The inability or difficulty for counties to establish required new
landfill sites due to stringent water quality standards.
2. The prohibition of disposal of sludge to the ocean has created a
whole new problem of enormous quantity to be disposed of as solid
waste.
3. Stringent air quality standards, applicable even to rural and remote
areas, effectively prevent the economic utilization of even the latest
means of incineration for disposal and/or energy production.
0 Commence in-house staff training to respond more adequately to local agency
and individual needs.
0 Step up public information activities to acquaint decision-makers with
alternatives.
} Local planning effort with citizen participation should identify major
problem areas and opportunities for creative solutions.
IV. NEEDS
} Technical assistance in the development of a statewide resource recovery
policy, including energy production.
5 Assistance in demonstrating unique solid waste disposal methods which are
currently beyond the State's ability to finance.
0 Assistance in developing and funding state feasibility studies and programs
particularly in agricultural waste management.
0 Seminars in advanced solid waste technology to provide an opportunity for
technology transfer.
In summary, the Board has concluded the need for legislative authority to
establish rules and regulations and enforcement capability. In order to
protect and enhance both local government and industry efforts, the Board has
agreed to seek a licensing authority to license both collectors of waste and
46
-------
-7-
disposal site operators. A permit system for new disposal site or other
disposal methods is also being considered by the Board through introduction
of applicable legislation.
State legislation established the Board as a permanent department in the State
to oversee adequate and safe solid waste management activities of local
government and private industry. Developing policies for resource recovery
and a state solid waste management plan is the initial thrust, with assistance
to local and private entities toward accomplishment of environmentally sound
and economically feasible and safe and sanitary solid waste management
activities. As state policy and local plans are developed, additional legis-
.lation will be sought to enable the State Board to implement policies and to
assure to the people of California the adequate implementation of the local
plans that have been approved and to also encourage the utilization, where
technologically and economically feasible, of resource recovery systems. The
Board also must assure the utilization of the highest and best methods for
landfill operations, where they are necessary, to protect the air, water,
and land resources and the public health. Authority for the establishment of
an enforcement activity is the necessary followup to the critical thrust
created by the Legislature in order to bring the solid waste management plans
and policies to fruition and to a logical and beneficial conclusion to all
concerned.
47
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS - COLORADO
OCTOBER 1, 1973
I. State strategy for solution of State/local problems.
A. Technical Advice and Service
In 196? a state law was enacted providing for regulatory control of dis-
posal sites and facilities. It was amended in 1971. The Act is codified in the
statutes with other responsibilities of the commissioners. They are required to
issue and authorized to withdraw certificates of designation for disposal sites
and facilities within their jurisdiction.
The legislation is couched in language that places the Department in the
role of providing technical advice and service to the commissioners and site op-
erators in obtaining and maintaining compliance with minimum State Standards
which apply to all disposal sites and facilities. Routine site evaluations by
our district engineers provide information on deficiencies and recommendations
for corrective action. These reports also provide the basis for survey data.
The department is required to promulgate rules and regulations for the engi-
neering design and operation of sites and facilities which may include engineer-
ing design criteria applicable but not limited to - - -. These were adopted by
the State Board of Health in April 1972. The criteria set forth in the regula-
tions are objectively oriented placing the burden on the applicant to design and
operate the site without creating air, water, or nuisance problems.
The Act requires the submittal of an engineering report and operation
plan on all new sites which must have recommended approval of the department
prior to designation by the county commissioners. Once the plan is approved,
this becomes the basis for the evaluation of that site. Any deviation requires
a revised report and plan be submitted for approval. It is difficult to get com-
plete reports and plans from smaller communities. However large communities are
beginning to see their value in converting existing sub standard sites as well
as new ones.
48
-------
When the cooperative efforts of the Department fail to achieve compli-
ance, enforcement action may be initiated. Cease and desist orders have been
issued for violations with respect to open burning, or water pollution or failure
to comply with the minimum. State standards for site operation. For sites to be
in compliance all of the following criteria must be met:
a) A certificate of designation must be issued by the county commissioners.
b) The site must be free of obmoxious odors, rats and insects.
c) Adequately covered at the end of each operating day.
d) Have sufficient area for machinery to spread and compact refuse.
e) Fenced to retain wind blown debris at the site without accumulations
along the fence line.
f) No open burning.
g) No water pollution.
h) Toxic material disposed of properly when received.
No sites are exempt from compliance. In Colorado 57 sites serve munici-
palities and contiguous unincorporated areas of more than 5,000 persons and are
referred to as class A sites. The remaining 201 sites serve less than 5,000 per-
sons and are referred to as class B sites. This classification enables evalua-
tions based on population concentrations and magnitude of potential pollution
problems.
During the past 12 months 20 of the 5^ class A sites were surveyed rep-
resenting Ul$ of the population served by these sites. Similarly 69 of the 201
smaller sites were surveyed representing U3$ of the population served by class B
sites. 93$ of the class A and fh% of the class B sites surveyed were found in
compliance with respect to open burning. 96$ of all sites surveyed were found to
be in compliance with water pollution control requirements. 75$ of the larger
and U6$ of the smaller sites surveyed were found in compliance with respect to
adequate cover. The initial survey in 1967 indicated less than 10$ of all the
sites surveyed were in compliance with the aforementioned criteria.
B. Training; A continuing education, training and public information
49
-------
program is called for in the "Courses of Action" section of the State Solid Waste
Management Plan.
In addition to providing consultative services to county commissioners
and site operators, the department conducted regional training programs through-
out the State in solid waste management. Training sessions were coordinated with
planning and management regions as designated by the Governor's executive order.
The training sessions were "kicked off" by the first annual state wide solid
waste management workshop held in Colorado Springs. Representatives of govern-
ment, private industry, consulting engineering firms, educational institutions,
and interested citizen'groups were present.
Subsequently, six regional training programs were conducted by staff mem-
bers at various locations throughout the State over a 10-month period. The State
Management Plan long range goal is to establish a certification program for site
operators, supervisors and managers. It was found that courses directed to man-
agers and operators in not more than 2 planning regions and limiting the training
period to one day resulted in good attendance and class participation.
C. Public Information
The department collects technical reports in research and development
projects, demonstration projects, planning reports and guidelines transmitted by
the Solid Waste Management office of the Environmental Protection Agency. This
material is used to encourage innovative solid waste management systems and to
review engineering reports and operation plans of sites and facilities. Methods
of disseminating information include participation in public meetings, response
to inquiries, news releases, and information pamphlets and documents.
D. Planning:
There are 12 planning and management regions in Colorado. All are active-
ly encouraged by this Department to develop local and regional management plans
to develop optimal systems keeping health factors and economics in mind.
The Denver Regional Council of Governments developed project R. E. U. S. E.
50
-------
(Reclaiming the Environment through Urban Systems Engineering). One of the recom-
mendations was to form a regional service authority for solid waste disposal in
the Denver Region. Its creation was proposed in the belief that some governmental
service problems are larger in scope than an individual city of county. Its pas-
sage was dependent upon a simple majority vote to form a Regional Service Author-
ity but a majority of voters in each county was necessary to authorize perform-
ance of the specific function of solid waste disposal. The formation of the ser-
vice authority was defeated by a narrow margin in a special election September 27» 1973-
In some other parts of the State, county and regional plans are being
developed. There was considerable loss of interest in this approach when E.P.A.
funding of local and regional planning was terminated.
II. Special Projects:
A. The State legislature appropriated funds to the State Health Department
to conduct an investigative project in cooperation with a county or municipality
in the Denver Metropolitan Region. It is to evaluate effectiveness of designed
or natural barriers in preventing surface and ground water pollution, topography,
moisture control and compaction in controlling wind blown debris.
B. There is a growing need for special waste disposal sites for hazardous
and toxic materials. The present Act and Department Regulations enable the County
Commissioners to designate sites to process or dispose of specific types of waste,
including hazardous or toxic materials, provided the engineering report and opera-
tion plan- have recommended approval of the Department of Health.
C. The U. S. G. S. and Colorado Geological Society have proposed an investi-
gation of an existing landfill operation by the City and County of Denver. Speci-
fied areas of this site receive industrial sludges, sludge from the Metropolitan
Denver sewage treatment plant, and collected refuse.
D. A private auto salvage firm (Bob and Joe's) contracts with counties, muni-
cipalities and private entities to strip, compact and transport auto hulks to Colo-
rado Fuel and Iron Co. in Pueblo. This operation is feasible where accumulations
51
-------
are 60 cr more. Reportedly C. F. and I can process all of this type of scrap
Colorado can produce.
E.. There are three counties implementing county wide "green box" transfer •
and disposal systems.
F. Alamosa, Colorado (population 7>500) operates a refuse milling plant.
Chaffee County is constructing a refuse milling plant to serve the County (popu-
lation 11,700).
G. Coors Company has contracted and is operating a "pilot recycling and
pyrolysis" plant. They plan to use the heat generated in the manufacturing process.
H. A county wide clean up project, funded in part by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, is being coordinated with the implementation of a county wide
solid waste management plan.
III. Critical Areas for Federal Assistance:
A. Technical assistance in hazardous and toxic waste disposal.
B. Support for State programs which included survey planning, public infor-
mation training, enforcement activities.
C. Provide incentives through State for county and regional governments for
development and implementation of improved solid waste management systems.
D. Provide incentives in cooperation with State agencies to large municipali-
ties for developing and operating resource survey systems.
Orville F. Stoddard, P.E.
Solid Waste Management Projects
Colorado Department of Health
1*210 E. llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
52
-------
BASIC PROGRAM STATEMENT
W'SOURCES RECOVERY
CONNECTICUT PROGRAM EXPERIENCE
BY
ROBERT L. SCHULZ
DIRECTOR, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Interest in Connecticut's solid v.'aste management program experience is, at the
present time, both general and intense. The following is a summary of the key
points I have made in discussing this program experience, privately and publicly,
in Boston (on October 4) and Kansas City (on October 11).
1. Status of Connecticut Program
• A statewide plan emphasizing resources recovery based on a regional
approach has been completed at a cost of over $1.1 million and has
been widely distributed.
•
• The Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority has been established by
the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. Its purpose is
to design, construct and operate the statewide plan. It is authorized
to issue up to §250 million in bonds.
• Connecticut is developing a program of regulation, enforcement, technical
assistance and financial assistance under a $600,000 State and Federally-
sponsored program in support of long-range planning.
•
• Connecticut has established adequate legislation for full-fledged en-
forcement and implementation programs.
2. Interest in Connecticut Program
• Strong endorsement and support exists at the Federal level.
• Numerous states have sent representatives to Connecticut to review and
evaluate its program. There appears to be a growing interest in seme
states to develop their own statewide resources recovery plan and to
establish a Resources Recovery Authority.
3. Key Features of the Connecticut Program
• Connecticut took an interdisciplinary, problem-oriented rather than a
technology-initiated approach to studying and solving the problem.
• There was a resolve to implement with maximum participation of the
private sector. .
* Connecticut coordinated the use of governmental powers, i.e., it suc-
cessfully fitted together the various levels of government.
53
-------
BASIC PROGRAM STATEMENT Page 2
RESOURCES RECOVERY
COt^'KCTICUT PROGRAM EXPERIENCE
• There was a dedication to comprehensive program development, and this
resulted in the development of the alternative to noncor.pl iance.
• The Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority is a self-financing fiscal
and administrative agency with no impact on the State budgetary process
or debt structure. It follows a "user pays" principle, and user costs
are eroded by revenues from the sale of recovered materials.
4. Connecticut Had to Bocpnv; Converted in at Least Six Areas in Working Out Its
State Plan
• Conversion £1; We had to recocnize the fact that there was no techno-
logical "black box" solution tc onr solid waste problems even though
satisfactory technology existed and could be applied to a field almost
totally void of such technology. We had to consider the whole State as
a total system "black box" giving due attention to the economic, social
and political factors as well as the technological and environmental
factors that affect decision-making. Technology is not the major bar-
rier to resources recovery. The major barriers are socio-political,
behavioral, fiscal and administrative. - :
« Conversion #2; We had to change our minds about solid waste and begin
to think of it as "urban ore" rather than garbage, refuse and junk.
Mostly, when people think of solid waste, they think of it in a negative
fashion. It is something useless. It smells bad. It's disgusting.
"Get rid of it," we say. 'This get rid of it philosophy has governed
most of our thinking about solid wastes until very recently. This
philosophy is responsible for our current standard practices of burying
and burning solid wastes. Out of sight, out of mind has been our basic
attitude. "Do as clean a job as you can, but get-rid of it."
The new positive approach of resources recovery cells our solid wastes
"undermanaged resources." These are resources out of favor, out of
place and out of sequence. They are out of favor because people are
generally disgusted with them. They are out of place because they are
not in a condition or location where they can be productively employed.
They are out of sequence because they are falling cut at the end of the
production-consunption cycle , rather than coming in at the beginning of
that cycle. The positive approach towards solid wastes says "let's use
it. It was good once. It was good enough to buy and to use. Some of
its utility may have been extracted but there must be some left. Why
waste waste? Let's use it." If we do not utilize the resource values
of solid wastes, we are missing an economic opportunity as well as
failing in our environmental stewardship.
Considering solid wastes as undermnagcd resources gives them a different
aspect. We can apply management. We can apply technology. These are
54
-------
BASIC PROGRAM STATEMENT Page 3
RESOURCES RECOVERY
CONNECTICUT PROGRAM EXPERIENCE
things v.'e know how to do. The result then is resources recovery. This
is the positive approach to solid waste control.
* Conversion ff3; We had to break orgy from polid uaste disposal as a goal
of tic total _ fly s ten, rec.o
-------
BASIC PROGRAM STATEMENT Page 4
RESOURCES RECOVERY
CONNECTICUT PROGRAM EXPERIENCE
expenditures over more users of services and 3) providing better overall
planning and managing for both short and long-term results. Regionalism,
and its resultant economy of scale, is a main factor in the resources re-
covery solution.
Conversion #6: Finally, there was the question of how to organize and
administer reoior.rJ or statewide reclamation. A new institutional frame-
work v;us required to operate and administer the statewide network of
waste reprocessing facilities. After a very thorough analysis of the
alternatives, tha roost forthright approach turned out to be a quasi-public
waste utility — known as the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority.
— Only a statewide waste utility or Authority would act to reduce the
price differential between virgin and higher-priced recycled materials
by providing a sufficient population base for the use of advanced re-
processing technology and by underv/riting the costs of this advanced
reprocessing technology through the collection of disposal fees and
the sale of recovered energy and materials.
— Only an Authority would be in a position to insure supply to the buyer
of the recovered energy and materials.
— Only an Authority would offer relief from some of the local adminis-
trative problems related to waste management.
— Only an Authority would open the way for rapid innovation and the
influx of private capital into the field further driving the costs
down. ' • . .
— An Authority would be motivated to expand its recovery activities to.
iroprove its productivity and therefore its profitability.
— An Authority could provide sufficient fiscal and administrative
mechanisms needed to take advantage of the recent technological
developments: i.e., mechanized materials separation, energy recovery,
materials beneficiation and conversion into finished products, com-
puter aided transportation systems and so on.
— Only an Authority, established and governed by law, would be subject
to the governmental and social constraints that would assure the best
service, at least cost, to the user.
In short, we recognized that, via an Authority, waste management had to
join the ranks of other services that have crossed civic boundaries, such *
as telephone service, electric power and gas. This approach provides the
best method of turning current solid waste related liabilities into assets.
56
-------
PROGRAM STATEMENT Page 5
RESOURCES RECOVERY
CONNECTICUT PROGRAM EXPERIENCE
5. Translation nnd Transfer of Connecticut Experience
• Given the resolve to implement and to do a better job of solid waste
management, the Connecticut experience is transferable to other states.
The principal, questions (V/hat technology? What markets? How to finance?
Who owns?) have been addressed and satisfactorily resolved. In effect,
Connecticut represents a new point of departure for other states.
* If the Connecticut experience proves anything, it is that resources re-
covery is the pcsitive "do-able" approach to solid v.-aste irar.aqen-.ent,
particularly for states with highly-populated industrialized regions,
and that states can do this now and on their own. If this experience is
valid in Connecticut, it is certainly valid in other states on the basis
of any criteria — technological logistics, economic, social, political,
legal and financial.
• However, one of the things we learned in Connecticut is that the barriers
and stumbling blocks to successful program accomplishments are not techno-
logical, legal and financial so much as they are institutional. The in-
stitutional barriers are the most difficult to deal with. The mix of
these and their force and effect varies frcn state to state, region to
region, locality to locality. -For this reason, the Connecticut experience
requires much tailoring if it is to be effectively translated and transi-
tioned to other areas.
jctobcr, 1973'
57
-------
State of Delaware
Solid Waste Management
AGENCY
The State of Delaware utilizes a cabinet form of government comprised of
different departments. These departments are shown in Figure I. The sole
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 Environ-
mental Control are several divisions each of which has its unique responsibilities.
These divisions are shown in Figure II. 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. Currently, this office is staffed by one senior level engineer and
one secretary with a vacancy for a junior level engineer.
AUTHORITY
Title 7, Delaware Code, Chapter 60, provides the Secretary of the Department of
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
58
-------
—£.—
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.
REGULATIONS
Currently, there are state regulations governing only the disposal of solid
wastes. They are:
(1) State Sanitary Code, Part 38, and
(2) Regulation XIV of the State of Delaware Water and Air Resources
Commission, "Regulations Governing The Control Of Air Pollution."
These regulations were in effect prior to the enactment of Title 7,
Delaware Code, Chapter 60 and continue in effect.
A new and more stringent solid waste disposal regulation (including processing)
is being developed and will supercede Part 38. Major changes from the existing
regulation include:
(1) A leachate collection and treatment system,
(2) The incorporation of synthetic 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 proposed federal guidelines promulgated in
the Federal Register, Friday, April 27, 1973, Volume 38, Number 81, Part II. The
new regulation is expected to become effective by the end of the year. Initial
state regulations governing the storage, collection and transportation of solid
wastes are expected to be developed early next year.
59
-------
-3-
fcNFORCEMhNT
Witnin 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 pollution of the air and water 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 a premises for purposes of conducting an investigation to determine whether
the provisions of any air, water or solid wastes regulations are being compromised.
Also, he assists the solid waste engineer and legal counsel in the preparation of
court cases which may result froc field investigations and the violation detected.
STATE-WIDE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control is in the final
stages of developing a state-wide solid waste management plan. This plan is being
generated under contract with a consultant and will represent about a ten (10)
month effort. The plan will provide alternate systems of state-wide solid waste
management and will focus principally on alternate methods of disposal. The economic!
and environmental quality considerations for each alternative will be presented.
The three (3) counties in Delaware are New Castle County, Kent County and
Sussex County. The existing solid waste management systems for each of the Counties
will be characterized. The best future solid waste management alternative for each
County within the framework of the state-wide plan also will be presented. It is
expected that Implementation of the plan would occur at the County level and
coordinated by the state.
60
-------
-4-
PRESENT METHODS OF DISPOSAL
The primary method of solid waste disposal utilized in the State is the
landfill. The majority of the landfills can be upgraded to the status of
sanitary landfills. However, without the proper leachate collection and treat-
ment controls a landfill can cause severe long-term pollution problems. For
example, in New Castle County, the leachate from a terminated landfill (3 yrs.)j
Llangollen Landfill, has contaminated a major groundwater supply (aquifer).
This landfill was operated by New Castle County which projects expenditures in
excess of $2 million in an attempt to rectify the aquifer. Also, landfills
generate decomposition gases, such as methane, which are explosive and should
be monitored to eliminate underground fires in the landfills. 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.
Regulation VII of the State of Delaware "Water and Air Resources Commission
Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution" allows incinerators to be
constructed and operated only for the disposal of pathological or contaminated
wastes. This regulation currently is being reviewed and the use of incinerators
for the disposal of industrial wastes is being considered.
FUTURE METHODS OF DISPOSAL
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 of last year, 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.
Delaware applied for this grant and it was the largest of a total of four which
61
-------
- 5 -
were awarded on the basis of extremely keen national competition. Currently
the EPA OSWMP has indicated that it no longer is interested in supporting this
project but prefers that Delaware demonstrate solid waste disposal using shredded,
air classified garbage as supplemental fuel for oil fired boilers.
The objective of the Delaware Demonstration 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
of reclaimed products will be generated which will allow a true assessment of the
markets for these materials. Table 1 lists the different products which the
plant will generate and Figure III shows the process flow.
The initial plant capacity will be 500 tons/day of unsegregated mixed refuse
and also 230 tons/day of 8% solids sewage sludge. The long range design capacity
of the plant is a nominal 1000 tons/day of mixed refuse and up to 460 tons/day of
sewage sludge. This is a unique feature of the Delaware Reclamation system. It
has the process capability to simultaneously dispose and reclaim as marketable
products refuse and sewage sludge. In October of last year'," the President signed
into law the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act which will place
restrictions on the dumping of solid wastes into the ocean. The impact of the
Delaware Reclamation System as offering a viable, land based sewage sludge disposal
system is, therefore, immeasurable. Hopefully, the DRP will be the first of other
innovative systems for recycling our growing wastes.
62
-------
TABLE 1
DELAWARE RECLAMATION PLANT PRODUCTS
YIELD = 309.5 = 76% Dry Basis
406
Product
Humus
Ferrous Metals
Non-Ferrous Metals
Carbon
Paper
Glass Gullet
Fuel Gas
Total
Tons/Day Produced
156
34
4.5
20
5
36
54
309.5
Tons/Year Produced
40,560
8,840
1,170
5,200
1,300
9,360
14.040
80,470
63
-------
OF ToZ SjATc 07 CE
SHERMAN W. TS IBB ITT, GOVLRI.OR
EUGENE 0. BOOKHAfiMER, LT. GOVERNOR (678-1.151)
Legislative Hall, Dover, Delaware 19901
tXECUTIVE STA-F(Wilm. Office 655-'<606-353)
Shornian Webb - Exec. Asst. 678-1.101
Irene £. Shadoan - Press Secretary
Wayne Ellingsworth - Admin. Asst.
Robert G. Carey - Legal Counsel (t.106)
OffICE OF THE PUICET
Don Orydcn, Act.Oir.
Thoiiwi Col I ins Bldg.
Dover 676-1.20$
Office or pERSC«iSF.t_
I. HoTinoriti Cubbagc, Director
North Street, Dover 67&-1.I9S
.CA3IK2T DEPARTMENTS-
STA'.E HAN'. INC CFriC-
Oavin H. Kci'cr, Lt^tc P.
Tno .as Col I ins Bio.;. w3-..
Supt. of Planner s->->c^ Fi
Econcy.c Oau $ectrbr_,cc n,.^
OIV. 0?
DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH Alii SOCIAL SERVICES
JACK 0. WHITE, SECRETARY
3000 Newport Co? Pike, Wilm. 993-01.53 (1.31)
James E. Carson, M.D., Director
Del. State Hospital, Farnhurst
6JI.-5!?! (29D
OIV. OF M'l:TA'. RETARDATION
Warren J. Gchrt, Director
Hosp. for the Mentally Retarded
Stocklcy 93"«-S231 U71 )
DIV. OF AOULT CORRECTIONS
Di rector
R.D. 1, Box 21.6A, Smyrna 19977
653-751.5 or 67G-1.381
ow. of
ArjsE CONTROL
V*n. B. Hcrriil, Acting Director
3000 Newport Gap Pike 993-0527 (V.5)
STATE HJOIC4'. EXAMINER
AH I. Hcrncli, H.D. 652-3030 (275)
200 S. Adams St., Wilm. 19301
OIV. OF PUCLIC HEALTH
ttiward GUwa, M.D., Act. Dir.
Jesse Cooper Bldg., Dover
67B-1.70)
OIV. OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Miklos Lazar, Acting Director
P.O. Box 309, Wilmington I9&9J
7&W908 (21.J)
DIV. OF JUVENILE CORRECT IOKS
Director
P.O. Box 2679, Union St.Stat.
922 New Rd., Elsmtrc 1980S
998-1196 ( 201,)
DIV. OF STATE SERVICE CENTERS
DEPARTMENT OF CO.",-U.'NITY AFFAI3S f.3 CCO'.OMIC DEvUOj-
JCHN 0. DANIELLC, SECRETARY
State House Annex, Oovc- 678-1.1.56
OIV. OF ECOMMiC
OIV. OF
Richard Murchison, Director
1.5 The Green, Dover 678-1.2S1*-
OIV. OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Frances West, Director
701< Del. Avc., Wilm. 19801
658-9251 (V.3)
Dover 678-WOO, Gcorgc&n 856-J57I
OFFICE OF HUHA1 RELATIONS
S. Lowan Pitts, Director
2W Lancaster Avc. 653-925' (359)
State House Annex, Dower 673-1.J67
Robert S- ftoycr, Oirecior
Supreme Ct. Blag., Dover 6/t,
DIV. OF LIBRARIES
Jack H. Tyler, Director
Loockcrman St., Dover 6/3-1.).
OFFirt cr ECO'.OHIC QP?C'-^,;r_
Howard drown. Director
506 w. I Oth St., Wild,. 055-;;
0?f. ghiV.HiTY PyiESS ttffEV-e
Thomas -ce
Chorlcs H. Dcbnam, Act .Director!
656-9251 (216) j
DIV. OF BUSINESS ADM INISTRATI Ct'
AID GENERAL SERVICES
OIV. OF PLANNING, RESEARCH 5
EVALUATION - William J. Putnen, M.O., Director
John 1. Sullivan, Dir. 1.21-66)$
678-'.777
DEPftRTHENT OF PU31IC SAFETY
LEKOEL HICKftAN, SECRcTA.'tY
Highway Administration Building, Dover
678-1.321
0|V. OF STATE POLICE
It. Col. Jimcs L. Ford, Jr.
State Police Hdqtri. , Dover
Dir.
DIV. OP MOTOR VEHICLES
Robert J. Voshell, Director
highway Admin. Bldg. 67B-Mi2l
DIV. OF E^.ERGEIICY PLANNING 6 OPERTNS. DIV. OF BOILER SAFETY
It. Col. Jak - info. G Ed. 670-''
Robert H. Tarr- Ad.-iin.67d-i.283, Rudolph I. J«ss-Plan.6 Const>-
DIV. OF ENVIRON.-.ENTA'- CONTROL
N.C. Vasuki, Director
Tatnall Bldg., Dover 678-1.761
OIV. Of SOIL 6 WATER COSSEWgld
William Ratleage, Director
Tatnall Bldg., Dover 678-M.II
DEPABTHENT OF AO.'UHI STRATIVE SfRVICES
JOHN E. 6A3IAR2, SECR£TMY
State House Annex, Dover 678-1.706
DIV. OF BUSINESS !, OCCUPATIONAL
RECULATinX - Robert I. Marshall
State House Annex, Dover 678-1.525
31V. OF GRAPHICS 6 PRINTING
James K. Hazel, Director
Townsend Bldg., Dover 67&-1.596
OIV. fr PURCHASING
Edwin A. Kwutkowski, Director
.-.0. Sox 299. Del. City 19706
M •
•«
TOIV. OF STAKDAROS & INSPE
>Jgh.-» ti C-«Kr;h, Director
DEMRTHEI.T OF AQRICULTfRE
MART III ISAACS, SECRETARY
Building, Rt. 13, Dover
INSPECTION^ OIV. OF PRODUCT I ON (, PPO-»?T!^
L«roy E. Wneatley, Director
Agriculture Bldg^Dover 678-^21. Agriculture Bldg., Dover
OIV. OF CEMTTiAL DATA PROCESSING
Jay 0. Ncwlon, Jr., Director
Hwy, Admin. Bldg., Dover 6*3-1.189
OIV. OF FACILITIES HAKACEMEKT
Jack Mitchell, State Architect
State House Annex, Dover 673-5261
P1V. OF MAINTEXANCE t CO:'.V.UNIC.
Thcx.-us W. Murray, Jr., Oir.
• State House Annex, Dover
678-1*11
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
W. LAIRD S1ABLES, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL
9th Floor, Fanners Bank Building, Wilmington 19801 65&-9251 (U65)
Kirk Building, The Green, Dover 678-1.211
DEPARTMENT OF PUUIC INSTRUCTION
KENNETH C. KAD3EH, SUPERINTEKOENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
Townsend Building, Dover 678-1*60}
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Housa o' Representatives - Chief" Clark, Nancy Olten 670-1£70
Senate - Secretary, Stanley Habiger 678-1.129
Legislative Council - Oir. of Research ''.corge u. Frick 678-1.Ill*
Controller General - Ouane 0. Olsen 678-1.131
DEPARTMENT CF LABOR
J. THOMAS SCMRANCPl, SECRETARY
801 West St., Wilmington 19801 65&-1.33I (229)
OIV. OF I'-.S-n
IMS'.. •>
DIV. OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
Arthur S. Benson, Director Franx P. Vavala, Director
205 W. Ifcth $t,Wilm. 658-1.331(225) 801 West St. 658-1.331 (22>-X
DIV. OF VOCATIONAL RErtAaiLtTftTlO'* OIV. OF Isn'.STRl'.i. AFFAIRS
Don Hoppcs, Acting Director Harold V. boc^man, Director
IJOO Shall cross Ave., PO Box 1190 618 N. Union St., W: Im. 1930S
Wilmington 19899 656-1.1.31. (200) 653-9251 (276) (Industrial Acer
d*nl B°lrl( l ^fta^' «
Figure I
DIV. CF PLANNING. RESEARCH t.
EVALUATION - Dave Coiand, Oir. 653-1.331 (225 or 250) 205 w. lltth Sli
OTHER KISCELLANEOUS STATE AGENCIES
PUBLIC DEFEKDER - Lawrence Sullivan 658-71 31, Oovar 670-W.76
ADM I II I STRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS - John S. Fisher 656-925' W-
STATE AUDITOR - Earl McGinncs, Townjend 6105. , Dovcr 6/3-1.21.1
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER - Robert A. Short 673-1.251
PUBLIC SERVICE COKMISSlON - Lafayette Tirror.s 678-1.21.7
COM.llSSlO::tR OF ELECTIONS - Burton D. Willis 67&-«?77
DELAWARE AGENCY TO REDUCE CRIME - Norma B. hjndloff 658-925' (2*
MHt MARSHALL - William R. Favinger 67d-'<393
NATIOKAL CU.V»0 -A.Cr Maj.Gcn. Clarence Atkinson 322-2261 (1.1 1 )
DELAWARE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY - Mgr., E.M. Davis 368-87)1 (2C5)
BOARD OF PAROLE - Henry w. Wurtale, Ex. Sic. 656-9251 (267)
64
-------
GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL OK
en
ENViRcrxaJTAL CONTROL 1
ir. Wllll*B
t - 'Ic Daniel - Ch*ira«n
1 lion. Sherman U.
Trlkbltt
\n
STT^
(SECRETARY ' 1
NATURAL RESOURCES AND- 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; |
10FF2CK OF f 1
" "" '" '1
K .
1 DIVI.1
1 FISH A.TJ
FISHERIES ^
S£CT10:i
'. , :.••,',' r
TECHNICAL
i .'i r r
_ 1 .
101! OF I I
WILDLIFE 1 1
h. !.
-------
DELAWARE RECLAMATION PLANT PROCESS FLOW
*
'nous
IIU
TRIAL
r«IT
1
! f
! -1
1
H MROIVSIS
I
(^\ ^^
(^y \j^_J
Mil I HIT
Domestic waste will be weighed and dumped into a receiving hopper at
POINT (l) where most ferrous metals will be removed magnetically and the re-
maining domestic waste will be shredded, milled, and then pulped with sewage sludge, result-
ing in a composite material of approximately 50% moisture content.
The composite mixture will be conveyed to
POINT (2) where aerobic bacteria, working under a controlled atmosphere, will
digest the material and convert it into a pathogen-free, humuslike mixture. By-products of
the digestion process are carbon dioxide and water.
AT POINT (s) the mixture will be separated into three fractions: (1) humus
product; (2) nondigestible organic materials (wood, plastic, rubber, etc.); and (3) inorganics.
The separation-removal process is based upon an approach developed by the U.S. Bureau of
Mines, and further developed by Hercules.
AT POINT @ the humus is upgraded into a marketable product. It will be sized
and made available in either bulk or bags. A pelletized humus product will also be furnished
in bulk or bags.
The nondigestible organics are conveyed to Point (D where destructive-distillation
techniques will be used to produce carbon, oils, and hydrocarbon gases. The hydrocarbon
gases will be scrubbed to remove pollutants, then recycled to supplement the fuel used for
plant operations. Inorganic material is separated into glass, sand and grit, and nonferrous
metals. The glass and nonferrous metals will be marketed for recycling, while the sand and
grit will be used as inert landfill material.
Full truck loads of selected industrial waste, including clean paper, tires, and scrap
or plastics, will be weighed and accepted at Point (§) . The paper will be baled and sold. As
an alternative, the paper can be fed into the humus-treatment process or into the destructive-
distillation system, along with plastics, rags, wood, and tires.
FIGURE III
66
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Program
The District of Columbia has no Solid Waste Management Law
establishing a solid waste management program. Authority exists
within individual laws. The Office of Solid Waste Management
Administration is the agency in charge of solid waste management;
this Office reports to the Director of the Department of Environ-
mental Services, who reports directly to the Mayor.
The District of Columbia's Solid Waste Management Plan was
completed in 1970 but is not yet implemented.
The City Council, which meets daily and is the District's
quasi-legislative body, recommends legislation to the Mayor, who
makes recommendations to the U.S. Congress. No new legislation
is being considered at this time.
Authority and Activities
Because the District is highly urbanized and only limited land
is available for disposal sites, permits are not issued. During
1971, the District adopted new rules and regulations for controlling
the collection, transportation and disposal of solid waste. There
is statutory authority for intergovernmental cooperation; the District
can enter into an agreement with a State to accept the District's
solid waste for disposal.
The most severe problems encountered by the Office of Solid
Waste Management Administration are the lack of available funds to
carry out the program effectively and the lack of public cooperation.
Enforcement
The Office of Solid Waste Management Administration has no
assigned attorneys responsible for enforcement activities. The
Office currently uses corporate counsel, attorneys retained by the
District for legal actions. Appeals are handled in the courts.
Again, insufficient funds preclude an effective enforcement program.
67
-------
Financing Local Systems
The U.S. Congress appropriates funds for the District of
Columbia for solid waste activities. Funds are also received from
private contractors who are charged $5.00 per ton to use the Dis-
trict's processing and disposal facilities. Additional funds are
provided by the District through property and sales taxes. No in-
formation was available on effective debt ceilings for taxes.
68
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS
1. State Strategy for Solution of State/Local Problems
It is our intention to be assured that all solid waste dis-
posal facilities are in compliance with State regulations
as expeditiously as possible. To that end we endeavored to
have a new solid waste act passed by the 1973 Legislature
which would specifically include solid waste in the Depart-
ment's statutory authority. The need for the act was dic-
tated by the fact that all solid waste activities were
transferred from the Division of Health to the Department
of Pollution Control. The proposed act included both
planning and operational funding for local communities as
well as a mandatory planning provision. Unfortunately the
act did not receive favorable consideration and our efforts
will continue with the 1974 Legislature.
We are presently developing new solid waste regulations
and, after a November public hearing, we expect to have
them in effect by the end of the year. In addition to the
usual provisions, these regulations will require a soils
survey, a hydrological study and monitoring wells as pre-
requisites to disposal site permitting. These provisions
are deemed essential in Florida because of our preponder-
antly high water table.
69
-------
In each of our six regions, one man is assigned exclu-
sively to solid waste. These men are presently updating
the inventory of all disposal sites in the State. The
basic philosophy is for them to render technical assis-
tance to local communities to enable them to bring all
solid waste facilities into compliance with State regula-
tions. In the event of procrastination, informal hearings
are conducted and time schedules established. Further de-
lays in the implementation of corrective measures would
result in formal enforcement action. It is through this
procedure that we expect to accomplish our goal. It is
quite evident that sound judgement must be exercised in
establishing a compliance schedule tailored for each local
situation.
2. Specific Projects of Interest
(a) As a direct result of our encouragement of regionaliza-
tion plus the impetus gained from the Mission 5,000
Program we have had, since the 1969 survey, a decrease
in total sites of 10% and an increase of 1300% in
sanitary landfills. This was accomplished by two basic
methods.
1. Larger centrally located sites plus transfer
stations.
2. Elimination of convenience dumps by substituting
ramp loaded 40 cu. yd. roll on - roll off containers
(b) One county has embraced the Chilton County program
utilizing 114-4 cu. yd. containers and a central site.
70
-------
Several other counties have visited this project and
plan to adopt it.
(c) One city has under construction in a centrally located
area a battery of 8-12% tons per day package type in-
cinerators with gas-fired afterburners. They contem-
plate additional units in fringe areas should the
original installation prove satisfactory.
(d) One county, after three years of litigation, has a
county wide system underway including a mandatory collec-
tion ordinance and is utilizing a single central above
ground landfill of milled refuse and transfer stations.
(e) One private operator is using milled refuse in a
landfill without daily cover that is meeting expectations
(f) The University of Florida School of Forestry has a pro-
ject utilizing compost to accelerate the growth of
pine seedlings. After 20 months the trees are 6 ft. to
8 ft. high compared to 18 inches to 24 inches in the
control areas. Several paper companies are interested
for their own forests but using covered milled refuse
and allowing it to compost for six months prior to
planting pine seedlings.
(g) USGS is working with two counties to determine the opti-
mum practical criteria for landfill locations through
a study of leachate movement using monitoring wells in
areas having different soil and hydrological conditions.
(h) One county, contrary to accepted practices has over a
two year period eliminated 166 promiscuous dumps by
71
-------
establishing Q_ convenience sites and by writing over
2600 letters to the previous litterers whose names were
obtained from letters in the litter. They are reminded
of Florida's litter law that can be enforced by any
city, county or state agency law enforcement official.
The sites receive daily cover via a roving bulldozer.
3. Critical problem areas for Federal Assistance.
(a) The determination of the proper disposal and/or treat-
ment method for a wide variety of hazardous wastes is
a most critical national problem.We are grateful for
the SWIRS capability on a wide variety of solid waste
information. Why not a HWDMS or HWIRS - hazardous waste
disposal method service? The development of such infor-
mation on specific hazardous wastes, assuming a budget
increase for OSWMP, would be an extremely valuable
research project. It could be computerized, as is SWIRS,
or published in looseleaf form as an aid to landfill
supervisors.
(b) Planning assistance grants for local communities are
becoming a pressing need as more States begin enforcing
more stringent regulations.
(c) Re-establishment of grants to Universities at the
baccalaureate level to fill the growing need for
trained professionals in the Solid Waste Field.
(d) Consideration should be given to the establishment of
a grant program on solid waste facilities similar to
72
-------
the PL 92-500 program on sewage treatment facilities.
(e) State solid waste management program grants should be
instituted to replace planning grants so as to permit
a greater degree of flexibility in program planning.
We concur with APWA's statement on "The Federal Role in
Solid Waste Management" wherein they deplore the budget
cut back as well as recommending program grants. NSWMA
has also editorialized in similar fashion.
Prepared for presentation at the OSWMP / EPA
State Solid Waste Conference, Kansas City, Mo. October
9-10, 1973 by J. Benton Druse - Solid Waste Supervisor
Florida Department of Pollution Control, Tallahassee
Florida.
73
-------
STATE OF GEORGIA
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS
Background
In April, 1972, Reorganization of State Government created the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Within this Department
was created an autonomous Environmental Protection Division. The
Division is based in Atlanta with field offices in Macon, Brunswick,
and Albany. The Environmental Protection Division is comprised of
five major sections (organizational chart attached): Air Quality
Control, Water Quality Control, Solid Waste Management, Water Supply,
and Land Reclamation (surface mining). Concurrent with reorganization
was the passage of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Act, enabling
legislation to allow the establishment of solid waste districts, and
the promulgation of solid waste rules and regulations.
The Solid Waste Management Section is divided into two services,
the Solid Waste Control Service and the Planning and Technical
Assistance Service. Present staffing includes 30 professional positions
(Environmental Engineers and Pollution Control Specialists) and 5 clerical
positions. The budget for FY'74 is $2,460,000, including a $2,000,000
State grant-in-aid program; whereas the FY'1971 budget provided only
$141,000 and a staff of 9 professional and 2 clerical employees.
State Strategy for Problem Solving
The activities of the Solid Waste Management Section are divided into
two broad categories which dictate the organizational structure and
modus operandi of the Section. The Solid Waste Control Service has
responsibility for supervision of all operational solid waste collection,
transportation, processing, or disposal facilities in the State,
including day-to-day inspection and enforcement activities. Inspection
and enforcement emphasis is being placed on closing existing open dumps
or upgrading them to sanitary landfills. Interwoven with this activity
is a continuing effort to encourage regional solid waste management
systems. Georgia has 159 counties and more than 600 disposal sites.
The State is geographically split, with enforcement personnel being
assigned a group of counties. Efforts at dump closure or upgrading
are undertaken at the county level, with all disposal sites in the
county being put on the same implementation schedule for compliance.
Cases are based on carefully documented inspection reports, photographs,
conferences, and letters requesting compliance. When volunatry
compliance cannot be obtained, the cases are referred to the Natural
Resources Division of the Attorney General's Office for appropriate
legal action. Legal action may be in the form of: (1) legal "cease
and desist" orders, (2) injunctions, (3) civil penalties consisting
74
-------
of a fine of $1,000.00 for the first day of violation and $500.00
every day thereafter, or (4) criminal penalties (misdemeanor
charges). The cease and desist order is the most commonly used
enforcement tool; however, one injunction was initiated, won,
appealed, and upheld by the State Supreme Court. Also, one landfill
operator was fined $1,500 for open burning violations. Prior to the
cutback of OSWMP staff in Region IV, Georgia also solicited the aid
of OSWMP personnel in joint cases involving violations of State Law
ana the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
In addition, the Solid Waste Control Service is also responsible for
the review of new systems when they become operational. In this
regard, a new system is inspected for compliance with State law and
rules and regulations and for conformance to operationl plans which
have been submitted, prior to the issuance of an operational permit.
The other service within the Section is the Planning and Technical
Assistance Service. The major function of this Service is to handle
all preoperational or support-type solid waste management activities
of the Solid Waste Management Section. In accomplishing this, the
Service is divided into three Units, the Planning and Grant Review
Unit, Training Unit, and Technical Assistance Unit.
The Planning and Grant Review Unit conducts surveys and special studies
necessary for periodic updating of the State Solid Waste Management
Plan/ administers the State grant-in-aid program, reviews local solid
waste management plans required by State law, reviews all preoperational
plans and specifications for solid waste management systems, and reviews
Environmental Impact Statements.
The Training Unit is responsible for all training and public
information programs, including an in-service training program for
personnel of the Section. Currently this unit is also conducting
Operation Responsible and Sanitary Landfill Operator training courses
utilizing materials purchased through EPA. The Training Unit also
maintains the Resource Data File for the Section and is developing a
newsletter to be distributed throughout the State.
The Technical Assistance Unit is responsible for industrial and
hazardous waste management, resource recovery and recycling, vector
control, and serves as technical advisor to the Environmental
Protection Division concerning the interrelationship and effect of
pesticides on the environment. Primary interest is being placed
on the development of hazardous waste disposal sites and curtailing
disposal of hazardous and difficult-to-handle industrial wastes at
land disposal sites.
75
-------
Specific Projects of Interest
1. State grant-in-aid program—The 1972 Georgia General Assembly
appropriated two million dollars for State Solid Waste Grant-In-Aid
during FY'1974. This money will be awarded by the Solid Waste
Management Section to local political jurisdictions for the purpose
of funding capital expenditures related to solid waste management.
A maximum of $50,000 on a fifty-fifty matching basis may be awarded
to each grantee. To be eligible for consideration the grantee must
submit an application which is consistent with long range plans required
by the Georgia Solid Waste Management Act, and must discontinue all
open burning at solid waste disposal sites within their jurisdiction.
2. Atlanta Rail Haul Project—The City of Atlanta has entered into a
contract with the Southern Railway Company to rail haul a portion (400
tons per day) of Atlanta's waste to Twiggs County, located in central
Georgia, for disposal in, and reclamation of, an abandoned kaolin mine.
Atlanta has signed a Consent Order to close its remaining incinerator
and will convert this facility into a shredding and baling station for
processing of refuse prior to rail haul.
3. Milled Refuse—DeKalb County, Georgia, is the first political
jurisdiction within Georgia to process its solid waste by shredding.
The County presently has in operation two shredding plants. One
consists of two 45 ton/hour Heil machines, and the other utilizes
three 15 ton/hour Eidal machines. These plants handle all of the
municipal refuse generated within DeKalb County (population 416,387).
The waste is currently disposed of in two disposal areas and has been
given a variance for daily cover by the Solid Waste Management Section.
Close monitoring of these sites is being carried out by the Section.
4. Bale Fill—Cobb County, Georgia, is currently designing a baling
facility and a bale fill disposal area for the processing and disposal
of all waste generated within Cobb County (population 196,793). This
disposal method will be similar to the Minneapolis bale fill.
5. Recycling—Currently the Cities of Atlanta and Athens are operating
voluntary newspaper recycling centers, utilizing bulk containers located
in shopping centers. Both cities report excellent response to the
programs. The Solid Waste Management Section has conducted an in-house
program to determine the feasibility of recycling office waste paper.
Current studies show that some 67.5% of office waste is recyclable.
A proposal is being developed which would initiate the recycling of
waste paper in the State Capitol complex.
Critical Problem Areas for Federal Assistance
Much of the success with the Georgia Solid Waste Management Program
can unquestionably be attributed to the financial assistance which
has been receiv^a from the Federal Government in the form of training/
planning and demonstration grants. Without these grants it would not
have been possible for Georgia to attain the high degree of state
76
-------
funding which this section has received. Although the section will
continue to receive substantial financial assistance from the State
Legislature, it will undoubtedly require continued support from the
Federal level. We strongly recommended that the Federal Government
incorporate in the Hazardous Waste Management Act a program of federal
program grants in the area of Solid Waste Management similar to those
programs that are now available in the areas of Water Quality and Air
Quality. Such money should be allocated for use in all areas of State
soxid waste program implementation.
Additionally, technical assistance from the Federal level should be
continued to provide leadership and expertise and the areas of industrial
and hazardous waste management. Many of the waste problems that we
are now encountering in Georgia are directly related to specific types
of waste produced by specific industries. While we are attempting to
handle these wastes and legislate their handling on a state-wide basis,
it is often hard to obtain adequate disposal when the industry is
located in adjacent states. In these situations it is necessary for
standards to be established on a national basis to ensure equitable
enforcement of adequate industrial waste criteria.
We encourage the Environmental Protection Agency to continue its
investigations on a national level of the specific waste produced by
various industries and to formulate disposal criteria for distribution
to state agencies. For this type activity to continue it is necessary
that a strong federal research program continue in the area of solid
waste management. It is virtually impossible for each state to enter
into research on a state-by-state basis, as this would only impead
research and lead to a vast duplication of efforts by many states.
EPA's attitude towards OSWMP training programs needs reevaluating to
ensure that Universities continue to provide curricula that prepare
students for employment in solid waste activities. Further, the in-house
capability to provide short courses in solid waste management should
be reevaluated and reactivated.
A more aggressive role should be taken by EPA in assessing the economic
disincentives which presently exist towards recycling.
Serious consideration should be given to the establishment of a low
interest loan program to assist solid waste management systems in
providing capital outlay. We do not recommend a Federal grant-in-aid
program.
Last, and most important, OSWMP headquarters needs to be more
communicative with and more responsive to states in the establishment
of Federal policies and guidelines. We at the State level do not
object to Federal regulation, but we feel we should have input into
such regulation, and if we are to be expected to abide by and carry out
(enforce) Federal guidelines, we should be supported both morally and
nonetarialy.
77
-------
00
I. TOTAL STATE POPULATION
Population served by: A. Approved disposal facility
B. Adequate collection
II. TOTAL POPULATION, INCORPORATED CITIES AND TOWNS
Population served by: A. Approved disposal facility
B. Adequate collection
III. TOTAL POPULATION, UNINCORPORATED AREAS
Population served by: A. Approved disposal facility
B. Adequate collection
IV. NUMBER OF COUNTIES IN STATE
Number of County or Regional Systems
County-Regional Systems Serving:
A. Unincorporated areas only
B. Combined Incorporated/Unincorporated Areas
Start of
1968 Survey
NO DATA
Status As
of June 30, 1973
4,589,575
3,223,261
3,329,962
2,768,074
2,026,212
2,623,410
1,821,501
1,038,532
235,461
159
20
15
15
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SECTION
. -j^
Moses N. McCall, III, Section Chief, EPD
800-0001
Effective September 15, 1973
Bill Graff, PCS III
800-0003
Becky Kelley, Typist III
800-0002
Planning & Technical Assistance Service
John D. Taylor, Program Manager, Dlr., EHS
830-0001
Vacant, Typist II
830-0010
Planning 6 Grant
Review Unit
Clyde J. Roberta,
Unit Coordinator, EE IV
830-0011
Solid Waste Control Service
I
James W. Dunbar, Program Manager, Dlr., EHS
810-0001
_Betty J. Palmer, Typist II
830-0004
Kerry Wanek, Typist II
810-0011
Training Unit
T
Technical Assistance Inspection & Compliance Unit
Fred E. Johnston, Clyde F. Fehn,
Unit Coordinator, EE IV Unit Coordinator, EE III
830-0013
830-0014
Randolph D. Williams,
Unit Coordinator, EE II
810-0005
Jerry Brittlngham, PCS IV Ceo. Whitmer, PCS III
830-0012 830-0005
J«es Wll»on, PCS II Vikki Williams, PCS I
830-0009 • 830-0006
Harold Gillepsle, EE II
830-0015
Rovard Barefoot, PCS IV
830-0002
Ceo. Elder, PCS IV
830-0008
Vacant, EE II*
830-0003
Vacant, ET II
830-0007
* Not Established
Roy Baggett, PCS II
810-0002
Harold J. Turner, EE II
810-0012 T
Bill Fleming, EE I
810-0006
Donald Stuber, EE II
810-0004
John Evans, PCS III
810-0015
Collins Nix, EE I
810-0007
Vacant. EE II
810-0014
Vacant, EB II
810-0016 *
vickl Morton, Steno II
810-0003
Permit Review Unit
Morgan V. Cantrell.ET III
Unit Coordinator
810-0013
Vacant, EE II
810-0017*
Field Forces
Ed Jarrete, PCS II
810-0009
John Tlllman, PCS 1
810-0010
Don I.ucas, PCS I
810-0008
-------
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
Water
Quality
Control
Section
J. L. Lcdbcttcr
Acting Chief
Atlanta
Headquarters
R. S. Howard, Jr.
[^Director |
J. Leonard Ledbctter
[Deputy Director"]
Water
Supply
Section
R. H. Byers
Chief
Air
.Quality
Control
Section
R. Collom
Chief
Solid
Waste
Management
Section
M. McCall
Chief
Laboratory
Field Officea
Regional
Office
Albany
Regional
Office
Brunswick
Regional
Office
Mac on
Land
Reclamation
Headquarters
Land .
Reclamation
Section
S. Darby
Chief
-------
Territory of Guam
Solid Waste Status Report
PROBLEMS
1. Clarification of responsibilities between GEPA, DPH&SS, DPW for
solid waste management.
2, Rising population and per capita waste generation.
3. Diminishing area for landfilling and high cost of land.
4. Lack of manpower for enforcement and comprehensive environmental
planning.
5. Inadequate financial base (general fund) for SWM operations.
6. Operation of unauthorized private dump sites.
7. Promiscuous dumping on public right-of-way.
8. Roadside and residential litter.
9. Abandoned autos.
10. Irregular collection.
11. Improper operation of territorial landfill at Ordot.
12. Lack of training for collection and disposal crews.
SOLUTIONS
Dept. of Public Works in cooperation with Public Health and Social
Services submitted a proposal for new legislation - a comprehensive solid
waste act - in 1972. While the bill was in the Governor's Office, EPA was
created and several solid waste regulatory functions transferred to 1t.
The proposed act needs revision to clarify responsibilities between the
three agencies and to expand the powers of EPA and DPW. A solid waste
advisory committee should be formed from at least the three concerned
agencies to revise the current legislation.
The population of Guam 1s expected to nearly double over the next
ten years. This coupled with rising income and expectations will have
a serious impact on the island's disposal capability. The traditional
sanitary landfill may not provide the answer. The only authorized landfill
on the Island (Ordot) has a life of eight years (based on today's waste
load). Solutions consist of limiting waste generation and salvaging
useable products within the waste stream. A combination of legislation,
prlmarv and secondary school education, and public relations are planned
to help restrict the use of disposable containers and excess packaglngs.
A current contract between DPW and ROC International will remove collected
auto hulks and some bulky metallic wastes. A greater degree of salvage/
recovery must be planned for the future; the system must have reliability
and low capital costs and energy requirements.
81
-------
Our 74 budget calls for three additional positions for solid waste
activities. Jurisdictional dispute between the Executive and Legislative
branches of the Government has prevented its ratification; as a result,
the new positions will not produce as much manpower as expected. The
enforcement of existing authority, initially the monitoring and closure
of all privately operated dumps, will be a priority. Posting and
monitoring will be used to close dumps on public land. We hope to use
DPW resources to grade and cover existing wastes. DPW's involvement will
depend on the availability of manpower and equipment and EPA's ability
to ensure that the sites are not reopened.
A more pressing need, in its total impact, is the need to establish
a comprehensive environmental planning staff. The island lacks a good
master plan, one which is technically strong enough to prevail against
the enormous development pressures now facing the island.
Solid Waste Management operations (collection and disposal) are
currently budgeted out of the island's general fund. There is no
identified income or reserve fund which DPW can tap for everyday operations
or special uses, such as studies, clean ups, the purchase of new types
of equipment, etc. The proposed solid waste act, still in the Governor's
Office, calls for the assessment of residential service changes, and for
all incoming revenue (commercial disposal, salvage of bulky wastes, etc.)
to be set aside in a special fund for solid waste operations. Unfortunately,
it appears that these provisions have held the bill up; user charges and
independent funding is too new a concept at this time. EPA and DPW will
continue to push for these measures. Plan updates to be done this
year will stress the need for a larger, independent source of funds for
solid waste management operations.
As stated earlier, the lack of manpower for enforcement inhibits
action against illegal dumpers. Only concerted, continuous surveillance
can keep the problem in hand. Needed also are funds to close existing
dumps, as well as establishing a green box or other such system to
handle wastes which normal collection misses. The passage of our new
budget will help, DPW has already agreed to supply the equipment and
manpower to begin clean up operations again if we can ensure that
closure of old dumps can be maintained. It may be necessary to prepare
a supplemental request to the legislature to purchase large bulk
containers to place at the entrances of all dumps.
Roadside litter is a problem that won't go away through normal
enforcement channels. It is difficult to spot and apprehend the litterer,
and even more difficult to get meaningful convictions in Island Court.
Nearly 80% of our litter consists of beverage containers. Only legislation
inhibiting their use can come to grips with this problem. Returnable
bottles are used on the island to some degree, but there are too many
restrictions on them, hampering their purchase and return. New legislation
must have adequate supporting technical arguments as well as enlarging
82
-------
public education efforts to curb litter ind support the use of
returnable bottles. Efforts such as these will be undertaken during the
1974 calendar year.
The abandoned auto problem will be abated to some degree through
a contract DPW is completing with ROC International. DPW will collect
and transport hulks to designated storage areas and ROC will process them
for shipment to Taiwan for reuse. This does not solve the problem of
removing abandoned autos from private land. A legislative review
must be undertaken to determine what changes to existing laws and
agency responsibilities must be initiated to resolve the problem.
This will be undertaken, depending upon the amount of new manpower
available, this budget period.
Irregular collection and improper operation of the Ordot landfill
could be partially solved through better training and supervision.
Our coordination with DPW will be strengthened and a training program
hopefully worked out, perhaps in cooperation with the Navy landfill.
However, even good training cannot accomplish miracles when equipment
is inadequate, as is now the case. Again, establishing a sound
economic base for operations is essential.
AREAS OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
1. Review of Guam's situation in order to establish conceptual design
of alternative recovery systems which are both economical and reliable,
2. Review of the status of comprehensive planning on the island and the
establishment of greater in-house (EPA) expertise and manpower to
establish overall development guidelines.
3. Technical assistance to review the funding alternatives and establish
specific proposals to be submitted to the executive and legislature
to put solid waste management operations on a pay-as-you-go basis.
83
-------
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM FOR STATE OF HAWAII
Solid waste problems in Hawaii are similar to those on the mainland,
particularly in rural areas, and include open dumping, burning dumps, litter,
abandoned vehicles, inadequate facilities for hazardous material disposal,
and inability to recycle materials on an adequate scale. Responsibility
for waste collection and disposal has been traditionally left to the counties,
with least expensive methods utilized.
The counties have become increasingly aware of these problems over the
last few years and are taking positive steps to improve their solid waste
management systems. The City and County of Honolulu has developed a solid
waste management plan with the aid of a consultant. Both Maui and Hawaii are
developing plans "invhouse." Kauai has received a planning grant from EPA
and is proceeding with its solid waste planning utilizing consultant services.
All the counties have increased their funding commitments for solid waste
management including capital expenditures for equipment and site improvements.
Although problems are similar to those on the mainland, there exist in
Hawaii some additional constraints that make proper solid waste management
difficult. Except for the City and County of Honolulu, the population on the
islands tends to be fairly well distributed, with numerous small communities
insufficient in size to support efficient collection systems, and separated
by such distance and poor loads that a single, large centralized sanitary
landfill is not feasible. In addition, suitable sites are difficult to find
because of high ground water tables, lack of available cover material, and
competing land use demands. The Neighbor Islands are moving towards the use
of large rural collection boxes that serve as transfer stations, so that
small rural dumps can be replaced by a fewer number of sanitary landfills.
A second problem area is that of the sheer quantity of solid wastes,
particularly on Oahu. It is essential that waste generation be reduced and
recycling and/or resource recovery increased in scale. Since the great bulk
of all goods is imported to the islands, including all fuel and almost all
construction materials, the economics of resource recovery are different than
on the mainland. However, the problem is both of too much solid wastes and
too little—too much to be disposed of, but not enough of certain homogeneous
items to justify a recycling facility, e.g., for aluminum cans.
Hazardous chemical disposal is also becoming a major problem. An
unknown quantity of these materials is presently being stored in various areas,
pending the development of suitable facilities. The University of Hawaii
alone has considerable quantities of these wastes. There is a need for a
high temperature incinerator and a chemical neutralizing facility accessible
to both the public and private sector, for treatment and disposal of materials
that cannot be accepted at a sanitary landfill in their present state. A
statewide Advisory Committee on Hazardous Chemical Disposal has been formed.
It is conducting a survey to determine types, quantities and locations of
these materials, and investigating ways to encourage the establishment of
proper disposal facilities.
84
-------
The problems of abandoned vehicles and of litter are basically those of
the allocation of sufficient funds and manpower, and of public education.
Abandoned vehicles have been collected and deposited in coastal waters to
build artificial reefs. A study is presently underway to ascertain the effects
on the aquatic life in this area. It is anticipated that this method of
disposal will be used more extensively in the future.
Program Objectives—Long Range
The State solid waste strategy has a number of components. The major
objectives can be summed up as follows:
1. To facilitate recycling efforts.
2. To improve solid waste management planning at both the State and
county levels of government.
3. To establish rules and regulations for solid waste systems, with a
permit system and schedules for compliance in order to close all
dumps.
4. To provide control of and facilities for the disposal of hazardous
wastes.
5. To provide a limited program of technical assistance and training.
6. To expand the public information and education program.
Program Objectives—FY 1974
1. Planning
Education in the amounts of solid wastes requiring land disposal is
of critical importance to Hawaii due to lack of suitable sites and
cover material plus the intense competition for use of a small and
fixed area of land. To date, planning for recycling has been
accomplished as an independent State-funded effort by the Office of
Environmental Quality Control which has recently published the Hawaii
State Plan for Solid Waste Recycling. Efforts are underway to
encourage private recycling activities at a central location.
2, There will be a reassessment of th6 State1s role in solid waste
management to determine appropriate .long-range objectives and
strategies to take place at the beginning of the program year. A
meeting will be held with county officials to:
a. Establish lines of communication;
b. Involve the counties in statewide planning, and clarify their
roles;
c. Jointly plan and schedule technical assistance and training
programs; and
d. Ensure integration of State and county planning for solid waste
management.
-------
3. The major program goal is the establishment of rules and regulations
for solid waste disposal facilities, with a permit system and
schedules for compliance in order to close all open dumps.
The proposed rules and regulations will have a definite impact on
solid waste management practices presently utilized for solid waste
disposal. All solid waste disposal facilities to include landfills,
transfer stations, reclamation facilities, and incinerations will be
required to apply for permit and comply with standards. Open dumps
will be required to become sanitary landfills and open burning will
be prohibited. In order to comply with the regulations there will
be pressure on the county councils to make appropriations for
necessary equipment and site improvements of existing facilities.
The proposed regulations should be through the hearing process by the
end of this year and it is hoped that permits will be issued for all
disposal sites by June 1974.
4. Technical Assistance
The counties have requested assistance from the State in upgrading
their operations. A series of programs will be developed and made
available to the counties. One short course is planned for FY 1974.
This course will be made available to personnel from other government
agencies and private operators as appropriate. The content of the
course will be developed in conjunction with the counties to ensure
that their needs are met, and with the Regional Office of EPA.
Instruction will be provided by State staff, EPA representatives
from the Regional Office, and other outside experts as required.
Technical assistance will be provided to the counties, particularly
the Neighbor Islands, to enable them to complete solid waste plans
for each county, and to provide other information and advice as
requested.
5. Public Information and Education
There is a need for a public information and education program on
all aspects of solid waste management to enlist public support. This
will be accomplished as part of an expanded environmental health
education program in the Environmental Health Division.
10/3/73
86
-------
Idaho
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Idaho's increasing population, in conjunction with an exponential in-
crease in the per-capita generation rate, demand that improvements be
made in solid waste management practices. Substandard solid waste dis-
posal systems can result in air and water pollution, a threat to public
health as well as the aesthetic deterioration of land.
The State Solid Waste Management program has been divided into two cate-
gories. Phase I involves short-range plans which are directed towards
acceptable disposal of the solid waste now generated. Phase II is direct-
ed towards preventing the problem by utilizing long-range plans emphasizing
a reduction of the volume of solid waste generated via comprehensive reuse
and recycling plans. Activities during the past year have been primarily
directed towards fulfilling the goals of Phase I. Specifically, these
goals are to replace antiquated solid waste disposal practices with ac-
ceptable solid waste management systems.
Solid Waste Environmental Quality Specialists have recently been employed
in the CDA and Pocatello Environmental Services Regional offices and n
solid waste engineer will be employed in the Boise region. The primary
functions of the regioual £.nd central office staff are to enforce the
Idaho Solid Waste Management Regulations and Standards and to provide
technical assistance to site owners in order to correct the pollution
problems resulting from substandard solid waste management practices.
Emphasis is placed on developing alternate acceptable solid waste manage-
ment practices at the local level. Developing domestic solid waste
management systems i» a delegated responsibility of the county commis-
sioners. Therefore, developing acceptable systems usually involves the
Board of County Commissioners, local planning agencies, representatives
of the District Health departments, and Environmental Services personnel.
At the present time a county-owned, centrally located sanitary landfill
appeavs to be the most feasible method of solid waste disposal. The
central sanitary landfill is usually operated in conjunction with some
type of county-wide collection system. House-to-house collection ser-
vice is the most common in the populous areas of the county, and bulk
containers are utilized in the rural areas.
The sanitary landfill operator training program has been well accepted
•nd very influential in insuring a well operated sanitary landfill. The
Solid Waste Equipment Specialist has worked individually with approxi-
mately 40 operators covering the fundamentals of sanitary landfill
operation and the specific problems of individual sites.
As with most solid waste management activities, the most common problems
are a lack of public awareness and a shortage of funds. Alternate
methods available to the counties for financing the operations are as
follows: a users charge, a two mil property assessment, a special charge
on the property served, or customer billing.
87
-------
Idaho
Solid Waste Management
Page 2
Phase II activities are directed more towards prevention of solid wastes
and reuse and recycling programs whereby some utility is realized from the
material. In oeder to be truly environmentally effective, a comprehen-
sive reuse and recycling program must minimize air, water, and land pollu-
tion, conserve natural resources, and conserve energy.
Many of these goals can be realized primarily through changes in legis-
lation. Some changes can be made at the state level and others must
occur at the national level. Environmental evaluation of such legis-
lation is the responsibility of this department as well as the develop-
ment ef model environmental legislation promoting comprehensive reuse
and recycling.
Achievements.
The period from July 1, 1972, to June 20, 1973, has resulted in the cor-
rection of numerous solid waste management problems and with the comple-
tion of a number of continuing projects. These achievements cannot be
attributed to only the work of this department. Many other agencies and
individuals have been instrumental in these improvements. These include,
but are not limited to, District Health Departments, the various Boards
of County Commissioners, municipal representatives, and various planning
and zoning agencies as well as many other individuals.
Seven fully approved and well operated sanitary landfills have been added
to the list of sites which exist as well operated sanitary landfills.
What is especially rewarding is that most of these operations are in
relatively sparsely populated counties.
1. Jefferson County is operating a new sanitary landfill at
Rigby and has closed two of the three dumps in the county
which were directly contributing to water pollution and
were under order by this department to close.
2. Franklin County has constructed a new sanitary landfill
at Preston, has closed and covered two old dumps which
were contributing to water pollution. They have closed
another such site and are currently studying methods for
covering it. The site is located over a cliff and will
be very difficult to cover.
3. The Bear Lake County Commissioners have developed a sani-
tary landfill at Montpelier at a deserted surface mining
site. This sanitary landfill has resulted in the closure
of two water pollution dump sites in Bear Lake County.
88
-------
Idaho
Solid Waste Management
Page 3
4. Madison County Commissioners have closed the old water
pollution dump at Rexburg and have opened a new sanitary
landfill west of Rexburg.
5. The Gem County Commissioners have closed and covered
two old dump sites and are operating a new sanitary land-
fill southwest of Emtnett.
6. The Bannock County Commissioners have supplemented the
existing sanitary landfill at McCammon (south of Pocatello)
with a new sanitary landfill at Chubbuck (north of Poca-
tello) .
7. Latah County is operating a new sanitary landfill between
Moscow and Joel. The wet weather characteristics of north-
ern Idaho, in conjunction with the clay-type soil at the
site, does make the wet weather operation very difficult.
The addition of the above listed seven sanitary landfills raises the total
in the state to sixtaen. The nine that were existing prior to July 1,
1972, are as follows:
Sanitary Landfills
County Location
Kootenai Coeur d'Alene
Nez Perce Lewiston
Ada Boise (Hidden Hollow)
Elmore Mountain Home
Twin Falls Twin Falls East
Twin Falls Twin Falls West
Bannock McCammon
Bonneville Idaho Falls
Custer Stanley (sanitary landfill in
summer, partially closed in
winter due to small year round
population and deep snow)
The following are either new attempts at sanitary landfills with a few
temporary minor problems or well operated modified fills which are in
the process of being upgraded.
County Location
Kootenai and Bonner , Athol
(Joint venture)
Bonner Colburn
Benewah St. Maries
89
-------
Idaho
Solid Waste Management
Page 4
County cont. Location cont.
Shoshone Polaris
Clearwater Weippe-Pierce
Clearwater Orofino
Idaho Kamiah
Idaho Grangeville
Washington Weiser
Canyon Nampa (Central Cove)
Cassia Burley
Special Projects
1. The new Idaho Solid Waste Management Regulations and Standards
have been adopted and are currently being circulated. The
new regulations emphasize the use of sanitary landfills for
disposal operations. Other disposal methods are covered
under the provisions of Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The
CUP Application and Approval Forms, as well as a new Site
Inspection Form, have also been developed to be compatible
with the new regulations and standards.
2. The Idaho Industrial Solid Waste Survey Report has been
printed and will be distributed in the near future. The appen-
dices contain much information which might prove helpful to
other industries and recycling operations.
3. The owner of an abandoned Titon missile site in Bruneau has
developed an environmentally acceptable disposal iite for
pesticides, pesticide containers, and other hazardous wastes.
The central office solid waste staff and the Boise Regional
Environmental Services office have reviewed the plans, speci-
fication and operational procedure report, and have Issued
a conditional use permit for the operation of the site. How-
ever, the site is not operating at this time.
The major drawback to date has been the lack of cooperation
with pesticide manufacturers and distributers to insure the
deposition of the containers and surplus materials at the
site. The argument is that the responsibility for the con-
tainers is sold when the original material is sold. Regard-
less of who is responsible, it is unfortunate that the ex-
tremely hazardous containers and surplus materials cannot
be deposited at such a site where environmental and health
hazards are minimal or absent. The containers and materials
are currently disposed of in dumps or landfills or are
promiscously dumped.
90
-------
Idaho
Solid Waste Management
Page 5
4. The Boy Scout Jamboree at Farragut State Park resulted in a
tremendous solid waste management operation. This problem
was amplified by one-way styrofoam trays and related items.
The Solid Waste Management program was well planned and oper-
ated well. Tha U. S. Army operated the sanitary landfill
and a private contractor provided the bulk bin collection
service.
Areas for Federal Assistance
Federal assistance could be utilized in the closure and coverage of old
dumps. When new solid waste management systems are developed, the final
activity is covering the old abandoned dumps. Many of these are located
over difficult inaccessible cliffs and are therefore extremely difficult
to cover. Federal economic assistance could be well utilized for their
activities.
91
-------
OVERVIEW OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REGULATION OF SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency was
created by the General Assembly of Illinois in 1970. The
enabling legislation, known as the Environmental Protection
Act [111. Rev. Stat., 1969, Ch. Ill 1/2, §§1001-1051
(Supp. 1970)], established three bodies to deal with
pollution problems and issues. These are the Pollution
Control Board, the Illinois Institute of Environmental
Quality, ana the Illinois Environments. Protection Agency,
itself.
A. Pollution Control Board
The Pollution Control Board consists of 5 technically
qualified members who are given wide-ranging responsibilitiel
under the Act. It is the function of the Board to determine
and define environmental control standards and to adopt
rules anci regulations for the implementation of such
standards. Further, the Board conducts hearings with
respect to (1) complaints charging violations of the
Act and regulations, (2) petitions for variances, and
(3) review of the Agency's denial of permit applications.
B. Illinois Institute of Environmental Quality
The Illinois Institute of Environmental Quality
has been designed to deal with practical problems of
the technology and the administration of environmental
protection. The Institute's functions are to implement
studies and programs on these practical problems, to
obtain and process relevant information, and to act
as an advisor in recommending legislative, administrative,
and technological changes. In addition, the Institute
promotes developments with respect to environmental
quality, re-cycling and conservation of natural resources.
C. Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency functions as
the surveillance and enforcement arm with respect to
the Act. The duties of the Agency include: the
collection and dissemination of technical data on
the quantity and characteristics of discharges from
92
-------
— 2—
pollution sources, the operation of monitoring stations,
the conducting of surveillance and inspection programs,
the investigation of violations of the act and present-
ment of enforcement cases to the Pollution Control Board,
the granting or denying of permit applications authorized
by the statute, the making of recommendations to the
Board on variance petitions, and the recommendation of
adoption of new regulations by the Board.
Within the Agency itself responsibility is broken
down into several control divisions. There are pollution
control divisions for air, water, public water supply,
noise, and land. The creation of the divisions has not,
however, compartmentalized the app oach to enforcing
the law.
II. LAND POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISIONS
The Land Pollution Control Division has overall respon-
sibilities for the regulation of solid waste management
practices. The Division is broken down into seven sections
whose responsibilities and functions are discussed below.
A. Permit Section
The primary function of the Permit Section is to
evaluate permit applications and issue permits for the
construction and operation of solid waste management
facilities. In this regard the Environmental Protection
Act requires that the Agency must issue permits if the
applicant provides proof that the proposed facility will
not cause a violation of the Act or regulations. At
present the section has granted a total of 235 permits
for refuse disposal sites.
One interesting aspect of the recently adopted solid
waste regulations is that this section may issue experimental
permits for processes or techniques that do not satisfy
all the standards for issuance of conventional development
permits if the applicant can show that the process or
technique has a reasonable chance for success and that
environmental hazards are minimal.
In evaluating applications the Section cooperates
closely with the field inspectors in investigating proposed
sites prior to granting permits and reviews and evaluates
geological, engineering and operational data submitted
with the permit application and then makes recommendations
to the section manager on whether or not to grant the permit.
93
-------
-3-
The section also performs a systems evaluation
function. The section investigates proposed solid
waste management systems, excluding land disposal
sites; reviews data submitted by the permit applicant;
and makes recommendations based upon its evaluation.
The section also acts as a source of information
for the public on waste disposal sites.
B. Standards Section
The purpose of the Standards Section is to propose,
advise on, or respond to formal inquiries for standards
to reduce land pollution. The section has assisted in
the promulgation of standards for refuse disposal and is
developing standards for refuse collection. The section
is also presently devising guidelines for the handling,
transportation and deposition of hazardous waste materials.
In the future guidelines will be developed for the trans-
portation and deposition of industrial waste materials
within the State.
C. Surveillance Section
The Surveillance Section operates through 5 regional
offices located throughout the State. Their function is
to conduct inspections adequate to detect violations of
the law, regulations, or standards, and to gather evidence
adequate for successful prosecution of violators.
Their activities include: the routine inspection of
disposal sites (approximately monthly); notification to
operators of violations on the site; handling routine
questions by operators on means of attaining compliance;
conducting area surveillance to locate illegal sites;
and collecting samples from pollution sources, monitoring
wells, and streams or lakes as is necessary. Section
members at the Springfield Headquarters may also conduct
specialized investigations when the need arises.
As of the 17th of August of this year, there were
1004 operating refuse disposal sites in the State, includin!
both regularly operating landfills and random dumping sites.
Furthermore, since October 1, 1970, a total of 804 open
dumps had been closed by the Division of Land Pollution
Control.
94
-------
-4-
D. Variance Section
The Variance Section handles all petitions for
variances. The section researches and prepares a
recommendation specifying what action is to be taken
on variance requests. That recommendation often requires
a detailed evaluation of allegations in the variance
petition that compliance with certain regulations imposes
an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship on the petitioner.
The section also monitors compliance schedules in those
cases where variances have been granted.
E. Operator Certification Section
The Operator Certification Section conducts seminars
to train operators of solid waste disposal facilities and
is in the process of developing a certification system for
operators. The seminars are held throughout the State to
familiarize operators with the rules and regulations
concerning disposal sites; inform them as to proper
practices; warn them of potential hazards; and provide
information on how to go about operating a solid waste
disposal facility.
The section has held five training sessions, so far,
covering about one-third of the counties. Approximately
200 operators have attended these sessions.
F. Grant and Tax Certification Section
The function of the Grant and Tax Certification
Section is to certify equipment and supplies as adequate
to meet standards for tax adjustment purposes and for
state and federal grants. The section is also involved
in developing a program for the allocation [at the local
level] of state grant monies.
G. Enforcement Services Section
The Enforcement Services Section provides legal
counsel on all matters affecting the operations of the
Division. This section drafts formal recommendations
based upon the Variance Section's evaluation of variance
petitions, which recommendations are then forwarded to
the Pollution Control Board. Also, the section prepares
all adjudicative proceedings before the Pollution Control
Board to which the Agency is a party and the Division is
95
-------
-5-
a participant and drafts proposed regulations for
review and adoption by the Pollution Control Board.
From July of 1970 through mid-August of 1973
the Pollution Control Board had decided approximately
93 land pollution cases.
96
-------
STATE-
INDIANAPOLIS
AND
i. HlfTORY
Prior lo ']^>:; fol.j d V'^rtc" ?!a:i~ 70^.';; ' •ii'l.ivit inf v.'Te conducted by
Livirion of C'.-jni l.nry Engineer v:p ••• !'•''» rv»rror.r'-'i r. :•• ^°" of their rrgny
uuticr. 1'n l0^ three "i;l 1-t) ::•/.! foll^ vrnst:- ]'r-".fr':r-rril p:>ri t.ionr wore
e rt.ihliched within the Oonor-'-i] ?snitf:1ion faction. Not until 1971 w^rc
all three position? f 13 loci anci rcaint.qlnocl becnurr of the Plate'? economy
program.
Chapter 355, Arts of 19or), thr? ori.^in-il Refuse T:ispo?al Act, had a
population restriction which rrade ti-" Inw app3irr.Mn only to the City of
Evansville. In 1969 the Act was an,ended to remove the rertriction and it
became applicable to all person F, towns, citi^F, nn>3 count ier in Tnrtinna.
The Act requires that sll proposed roftire dit;po.cf?1. faf-niticF receive
approval prior to conetructior. of facilities. The Act ctates "oprn d'.inp? ar(>
hereby declared initvlca] to human health, on'Ji a.-: ruch are not ruitable
means of refuro dispoco.3". It also provi<.\ : f'cr crtrioliL-h.ment of roapon^ible
regulation?. The Act was again amended in 1()';?, to five enforcement authority
to the local health department:- .
The Environmental Management Act, 1C 1971 > 13-7, as amended by Public
Law l?6t Act? of 1973) established the P-irearc Pollution Control Bonrd as
the designated colitf -..-aste agency for puipocer of the: Federal ?olic' Wacte
Disposal Act. A resolution by the Environmental Management Board in June,
1973, gave all Solid V.'arte Management authority to the Ptroam Pollution Control
Board. The Act prohibits open dumping and open burninp, and provides that
regulations may be adopted to support the provicinns of the Act, The
Act specifies procedure:.- for surveiL'Icmre and ^nfo.'-cf: c-nt , including civil
and criminal penalties. Permits for construction of 'arilitier and for
oper.'ition JT.-iy be required by rer-vilation.
97
-------
} !. PPESEKT STATUS OF TNDIANA SOLID WASTE MAI-.Au^MEI.T ACTIVITIES
In July, 1//H, the number of Solid Waste Management personnel was
increased to eleven. Trie Solid Waste Management Section was crtablirhnd
in Aupm-t, 1973. Nine of the eleven positions are filled. Thete
positions and employees are:
Sanitary Engineer TIT (Acting Section Chief)
Sanitary Engineer Til
Rrian W. Opel (P.E.I)
Bart Dalton (P.H.T.)
Sanitary Engineer II(Acting Solid Waste Management
Planner)*
David D. Lamm (P.H.S.IT)
Vacant
Vacant
Dan Magoun (P.H.S. I)
Marvin Doyle (P.H.S. I)
Mike Finton (P.H.S. II)
George Dnyhuff (P.H.T.)
Claude Goodley (P.H.S.I)
Mary Canary
Engineering Geologist III *
Solid Waste Management Planner II*
Sanitarian III
Sanitarian III
Sanitarian II (Acting Engineering Geologist)
Sanitarian II
Sanitarian I
Clerk-Stenographer II
*job specification not approved to date
A Federal grant, administered through the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, provides $U5,000 for fiscal 1973-7^. Salaries and
expenses of the Environmental Planner, one Sanitarian TIT and the Sanitarian T
are funded by the grant.
The State has been divided into five areas for purposes of the solid
vinste management program. The number of counties per area varies from 1^ to ??.
Within each z-'rea the employee is responsible for monitoring of operational
quality at all disposal rites. He arsiftr local goverrw.entr in developing
frhort-ranpe r^Jid wa^ti m^rin^ement plon.'- and provide:- technical %f:ri rtan.?e
in vqrioui; a::pectr of rcfufc collection and dirrv.ir-al .
98
-------
A tet.-..1 of ]6t> ;:itc:' for r/jni t-i:\v landiV.ll oper-iU;>n hnve hren approver;
!";f Uie;11?, Jlf.1 ire in 000r.111 on: hov^vrr, lerr th:m r; dozen arc operated
1'i:].]y in ccmpl j anc-o with existing "'.••v.!«ri:i-irdj;". All but sixteen counties
hPVf* one or more, cites npprovod for snnitary landfill operation.
Of about 35'' open dumps in operation in 1970, approximately I'lO are
Ftil'.! in ox:., tence. A n^Hjority of the?e are operated by pov^rn.Tientfil units.
A minority of the total are operating under written extensions of time ar
provided by th.- Refurr> Pirposal Ac*. One of the p-oals rprcified in the
application for the Federal prant is that no cprn dunpr be operated after
July 1, 19?l*.
Op^n burning «t refuse disposal sites bar besr. virtually eliminated.
Eixt^en counties aro now cponsoring county-wide collection rystetr.p.
Fifteen of these are utilizinp the "green box" approach. Container? rfinping
from three to FIX cubic yards each are placed in £trtt«?p.ic lucationc around
the county and are emptied frequently by either a contractor or by county
eraployeer. Ripley County hoc awarded a contract for vrecKly houre-to-houpe
collection for every dwelling in the rural portions of thr county, and
each town also contracts for weekly service.
III. SHORT-RANGE GOALS
Closing ill re-r,ainin£ open dumps is a major priority for the
immediate future. An equally hiph priority is upgrading the quality of
sanitary landfill operation?. Toward thir end the Section will coon pet
up a continuous series of sanitary landfill operator training courier.
99
-------
Another immediate poal. ir the development of piiioeliner for land
disposal of certain hazardous wastes and requirements for other mcnns of
disposal for unacceptable wastes.
Development of long-range planr for solid waste management also will
be given prompt attention. This planning will include investigation of whether
additional legislation is needed to provide for regional solid waste
management; establishment of a state-wide resource recovery eyrtem;
and consideration of a possible solid waste management system whereby
the State would assume direct responsibility for all disposal and recovery
operations.
As provided by the Refuse Disposal Act, a regulation has been prepared.
It is entitled the Solid Warte Management Permit Regulation and is designated
as Regulation SPC 18. A construction plan permit will be required for all
sanitary landfill sites and refuse processing facilities. Information which
must be submitted to receive this permit is listed. An operating permit
will also be required for all processing arid disposal facilities. The
regulation will contain standards for operational quality and provisions
for permit revocation. The promulgation procedure is anticipated to be
completed in the summer of 197** •
Encouragement of regionalization for solid waste management will
continue. Additional county-wide collection systems should be implemented.
Multi-county collection and disposal systems will be encouraged. Greater
planning and co-operation by local governments must take place.
Increased materials and energy recovery will be protected. Well-
controlled salvaging operations, within cities and at sanitary landfills,
and recycling projects can serve as steps toward the desired level of
resource recovery.
100
-------
Vr" ol' .• •.•;••••..!•;•.',.-'. o --! V'nlioi: ry :• Lrw w i 1 ) ;••• ; 11.':: i "ii. i-'.-vfP.-'i r, I it'-.liy
IIT;;" .i tre! :' lo :;-•"."! r--! ;.•• i > 1] !-rl ion .-r/! ••'.•; u.~c . Ol.h?v )•• 7,,,•;...,•!.- ,r-,'v- -; j ;-s, pr r/r
f<.-iri ';•:].? ir- .-•(•;•,',• rrjto evil •• C-T. i o:; rcV'-Trr.::. Vj^h of tV-if r.?cyc] jr.f in th<" p-ifl
})•:;: V°'-n iic,:,o by £-••:! v ".;%•• (ie»i]frf. fu recent, ymrr \.---rrw\r r.nd cirr~tn ? 'it.-; cv.r
: :il;-: r-orL'.'c'; in co:i5'orv:l io:> rituJ improve:-^!!! of tht- f:iivironir.viit have oontfi.it:trd
j-f-ryrj inr pJ%or.7Tin;r in i.,T:'iy itreHL- of th« t'totc.
Ruj'vei.! .Ifxnce (>'-,' .loliv? rofcire oii-:rc>ra] riLor wi.ll be continued. A rury-y
o!' r'.-fvuc h-iulf-rp in th'^ rtt?.!>!» will, be vxrrforn.cd to rifU-rffinr- ihe ru-.-Jble
rircrJ tor l.i cen:-in;/, of hnu]ri-f. Dal-a col .Icctic..^ will c./Mtinue relativr Lc.
cc.uir^cnL and ni^npcy/rcr ncca:: Cor coj.lection, truru'f'er, and di t-Tio.v.'t] in
order to .provide technical ar.sist.ance to loca.1 coirniuriitief.
Through assistance from tha ?jnviror.n;o.ntal l«'
-------
11. ir >i:it iclp'tt.od th-it by 1980 the :-o) id VM;'.<; mirj.v'r.?nt. piv>;T;ir. will
r;-n:iro ";0 i.o J.O pTror.nr .1 ; this: number is b'l;---'} upon rct-'.-rr.•••ndatiorir i.-v)-
in Use Nat.innaJ f-r-ionce "-oimdation report, of -vViunry, 197.''., r.nc! the fVllowinp
ne'.'df.
1. T'crislt program '..'hich is prcront.ly beinp, crtablirhed will require:
incrcnf-ec surveillance activity.
t
?. Ertablishment or' operator trairanp. courrer v;ould Vic cnhr-nred by «
"Training Section" within the Folid V-,'."rto Manap.i-nont Section f>r
the assifrnrnent of traininp, duties to eovr-ral sanitnrian:: who
preferably have as a background EOTHO teaching experience
(note: this could posribly be set up utilir.inp; our cwn healtV:
educator perronnel - or hiring a health educator)
3. To encourage state-wide resource recovery and refponnliznllon will
require a data base which at present .stuff levels is- itripot.£ ib]<;
to gather in a reasonable length of time. It is
foreseen that several additional full time- employcer would to
assigned to various data feathering taskr only.
U. Additional perronnel would be needed for implementation, coordination
and transfer of data bate information into active program?.
ct. Personnel will be needed to follow up initial contacts of liauid
and hazardous wastes going to landfill siter and other dirporal
projects. Again a possible "sub section" could bo established
to develop guidelines, provided information to industry and plan
and implement rules and regulations for liquid and hazardous
wastes as they are dicposed of on land.
IV LONG-RANdK COALS
Kfl'ortr towirij solid wasto iri«im»"?mrut in 1 ri'•'• \f\:\ »rt' ''• >T, :'!»'.' <\ nno
irj.rslrrvii'.'.'d. I'-ir^^'-ry ! -it.'H'J 11 :• v;i 1 1 no )on."'-r h>* u; i-.-(< <-yr^t-.t for
r^.U; r,-r»:-« :.,.•-.> ror rr-r i;|.,-: frc.^ r^-/;>-,:o r--- .• --
-------
IOWA SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
I. INTRODUCTION
The Solid Waste Management Division Is located in the Department of
Environmental Quality which was created on January 1, 1973. The new
Department is a pulling together of all the environmental programs under
one agency. A Solid Waste Disposal Commission was established to provide
policy for the Department and Division. Considerable effort has been
expanded in the reorganization, relocation and staffing of the Department.
Efforts in solid waste management for the balance of the fiscal year,
ending June 30, 1974, will be in areas of program direction and planning,
revision of rules, legislative initiative, review and approval of local
solid waste management plans, issuance of sanitary disposal project
permits, and training for solid waste operators.
II. PROGRAM DIRECTION AND PLANNING
The State solid waste management plan is nearing completion. The
final draft has been submitted to EPA for approval and is being revised
by the Department and the Commission. The State plan is designed to be
a flexible document which allows for updating and re-evaluation. Included
In the plan is a pvogram planning section which sets forth the history
and future needs in program areas, level of funding and manpower resource*.
Hazardous and toxic materials planning is underway In two areas.
First in the development of a "Spill Contingency Plan" which will set
forth who to contact and procedures to follow in the event of the spill
of hazardous materials. An integral part of this will be a State emergency
response team which will respond when serious spills occur. Second Is
a plan to outline state-wide needs and propose facilities to dispose of
hazardous wastes. The disposal site or series of disposal sites will,
at a minimum, be State controlled and possibly State operated. Both efforts
in this area will require some inventory efforts to determine what materials
must be handled.
III. REVISION OP RULES
The original rules governing solid waste management In Iowa ware
effective October 11, 1971. The intervening two years has provided
Insight Into necessary modifications and additions. The original rules
were developed under the State Health Department and revision* are now
being made to change the authority name to the Department of Environments1
Quality. After these changes are secured, technical changes will be
proposed which include: (1) modifications to Improve existing sections
such as sanitary landfills, recycling, and storage and collection;
(2) addition of specific rules on demolition and construction waste disposal
sites which provide adequate environmental protection but which are less
stringent than the existing sanitary landfill regulations; and (3) addition
of provisions for all land disposal sites to register operation data with
the County Recorder on the property deed and records.
103
-------
- 2 -
Additional areas of rule changes and modifications will be considered
in the future. Solid waste management is an ever changing field which
requires that rules governing the activities not be considered as fixed
but Instead provide areas for improvement.
IV. LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
The Department and the Commission will be suggesting areas of
legislative needs to further manage solid waste in Iowa. Initiatives
to be included are controls over on-site industrial waste disposal,
hazardous and toxic waste disposal, private collection and disposal
operations to insure adequate service, and enabling legislation to
improve operating and financing authority for local governmental agencies.
V. LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS
The Iowa Law requires all agencies, public and private, operating
or planning to operate solid waste facilities to prepare a management plan
for the handling of the waste. Guidelines for meeting the requirements
were prepared and distributed in advance of the January 1, 1973, deadline
for submittal of plans. Considerable effort was made in organizing area-
wide agencies for the planning and conduct of solid waste operations.
The bulk of the agencies created are county-wide which seems to be a
legitimate basis.
Same agencies did not meet the deadline and were reluctant to respond.
These agencies were referred to the Attorney General and to-date it
appears few will require full court suits to get compliance. The Division
is reviewing and approving the plans as rapidly as possible with limited
manpower. By January 1974 it is hoped to have the entire process completed.
VI. SANITARY DISPOSAL PROJECT PERMITS
The State Law also requires that any disposal operation initiated
after October 11, 1971, be issued permits by the Department and that all
operations that exist on July 1, 1975, be of approved quality and be under
permit. Sanitary landfills will be the primary means of disposal in Iowa,
with approximately 120 such sites anticipated. Since October 1971, the
Department has issued 21 permits. As the 1975 deadline approaches greater
emphasis on obtaining permits will occur. Without additional manpower it
is doubtful if the Department can adequately handle the remaining permits
within the 20 months that remain. Each operation under permit must be
inspected at least once per year.
104
-------
- 3 -
Vtl. OPERATOR TRAINING
The Department is finalizing a contract with EPA to utilize the
Department of Labor funds for training solid waste operators. The
Department will add one additional professional staff to conduct on-
the-Job training which is a fora of technical assistance. A community
college will develop and present the classroom portion of the training
effort under contract to the Department.
The training effort will consist of three sessions for ten weeks
each at different locations within the State. One day each week will
be classroom work with the remainder devoted to on-the-job training.
Twelve trainees per session for a total of 36 trainees are anticipated.
The program will allow the Department to begin the framework for
an operator certification program in the State. Future plans for the
effort at this time would be for one or more community colleges to
provide the operator training with the Department consisting in on-the-
job training and hand1lug of operator testing and certification.
VIII. DIVISION STATUS
The Solid Waste Management Division currently has eight full-time
staff members on board and four vacancies for a total staffing of
twelve members with nine professionals and three clerical positions.
Additional input is provided from other Department units such as planning
assistance. The budget for this fiscal year, ending June 30, 1974.
total $200,904.00 with a total $93,319.00 of Federal funds.
Future program stability and especially growth demands Federal
funding at adequate levels.
105
-------
STATE OF KANSAS
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
STATE SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
The Kansas Solid Waste Management Act was signed into law on March 16,
1970. It provided for a partnership between state and local government in
the planning, development and implementation of solid waste storage collec-
tion, transportation processing and disposal systems. The declared purpose
of the legislation is to protect and enhance the quality of the environment of
the State of Kansas and to protect the citizens of the state from the hazards
caused by the improper handling of solid wastes.
The solid waste management act mandates the following schedule for the
various cities and counties in the state.
January 1, 1971: Each county shall form a solid waste management
committee on or before this date.
June 1, 1972:
July 31, 1972:
Each city which elects to exempt itself from the county
solid waste management plant and prepare its own
plan shall notify the Board of County Commissioners
of its intention by formal resolution. (As this date
approached, staff became aware the many cities did
not know of this impending date. As this decision
seemed to be too important to be taken hastily,
cities were allowed to request a variance under the
regulations for more time to consider a course of
action. Some 40 cities took advantage of the oppor-
tunity. )
The Board of County Commissioners shall prepare and
submit the first annual report of the solid waste
management committee's activities to the Department
of Health.
November 1, 1972: Any city which requested additional time and received
a variance and then elects to exclude itself from the
county solid waste management plan and submit its
own plan shall file notice in writing with the Board of
County Commissioners and the department not later
than this date.
106
-------
June 30, 1974:
January 1, 1975:
June 30, 1976:
Owners or operators of all solid waste disposal sites
or facilities operating in the state on this date as a
part of a solid waste management system shall
register their sites or facilities with the Department
of Health prior to January 1, 1975.
Disposal sites placed in operation after June 30, 1974,
must apply for a permit for their site or facility with
the Department of Health at least ninety (90) days
prior to starting their operation.
All solid waste management plans shall be submitted
to the Department of Health on or before this date.
After this date owners or operators of disposal sites
or facilities must obtain approval for the closure of
any site or facility and notify the Department of Health
at least sixty (60) days prior to closure.
Owners or operators of solid waste processing facilities
operating in the state after June 30, 1976, will have to
obtain a valid permit. The annual permit fee is $50
per site or facility. Public agencies are exempt from
the fee.
Counties and cities must provide for a solid waste management system which
will:
(1) Provide for the removal of solid waste from the on-premise storage
facilities as provided by these regulations and the locally adopted
solid waste management plan.
(2) Provide an approved solid waste site or facility which will be open
to receive solid waste at least one day per week.
(3) Provide for the orderly and systematic elimination of nuisances
and pollution sources associated with improper storage, collec-
tion, transportation, processing, and disposal of solid wastes.
The plan shall include such text, maps, and analysis as are
required to adequately describe the following:
(1) The comprehensive solid waste plan for storage, collection,
transportation, processing, and disposal of solid wastes for
the study area for a ten (10) year period. The plan shall identify
all sources of solid wastes and other considerations that have
a bearing on the most feasible and economical collection,
transportation, processing, storage, and disposal techniques
and locations of present and future collection, transportation,
processing, and disposal sites. Maximum use shall be made
107
-------
of available information from federal, state, and local
sources concerning present and projected population and
densities; present and future industries; utilities; solid
waste collection, transportation, processing, and dis-
posal facilities; present and anticipated land, air, and
water usages; present and future highway transportation
and circulation patterns; present and projected sources of
solid wastes; property assessments and road records,
soil studies; geology; hydrology; comprehensive air pol-
lution, sewerage, water resources, public water supply
and other related comprehensive studies; and local and
regional land-use and development plans.
(2) Local provisions for regulation of storage, collection,
transportation, disposal, and other solid waste manage-
ment activities.
(3) Deficiencies and community problems associated with
the existing solid waste storage, collection, transporta-
tion, processing, and disposal program.
(4) Recommended procedures for the immediate and long-
term management of the following special wastes; brush,
trees, demolition wastes, bulky wastes, industrial wastes,
agricultural wastes, junked automobiles, and other wastes
which may require special handling, transportation, pro-
cessing, or disposal.
(5) Considerations affecting the feasibility of recycling of solid
wastes in the selection of each alternative solid waste man-
agement system.
(6) The plan selected from the various alternative proposals for
development and implementation. Justification for the
selected plan shall be included in the text.
(7) A timetable for the completion of all necessary steps required
for the implementation of the recommended plan.
(8) An outline of the action required by each individual unit of
government involved.
(9) A sound method for financing each element of the proposed
plan, based on cost estimates. Revenue financing, general
obligation financing and other reasonable methods may be
analyzed individually and in combination. The methods used
for apportioning the annual charges or estimated tax rates
shall be described. The financial analysis shall be developed
in sufficient detail to provide the counties with an adequate
basis for financing the program within the study area.
108
-------
(10) Procedures for periodic updating of the plan to take advantage
of any new techniques in solid waste management practices.
The attached map shows the status of local solid waste management programs
in Kansas.
109
-------
KANSAS STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
STATUS OF SOLID WASTE PLANNING - July 1973
RAWL1NS -il DECATUR
SHERMAN THOMAS
C9unt.y so1 id waste plan approved by the
Division of Environmental Health
A draft copy of plan received for review
by the Division of Environmental Health
Planning work under contract with
consulting engineer
|1 Counties doing plan with own forces or
committee - report substantial progress
-------
KENTUCKY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS
Kentucky's Solid Waste Management Program was moved January 1, 1973,
from the Kentucky Department of Health to the new Kentucky Department for
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection where it was given division
status and grouped with the divisions of air and vater under a deputy com-
missioner for environmental quality.
The Division's current budget for the fiscal year July 1, 1973 thru
June 30, 1974, is $265,000 which allows the employment of a stpff of eighteen
(18) full time people plus a federal solid waste employee under the Inter-
Governmental Personnel Act. The professional staff is composed of one En-
vironmental Engineer Director, one Principal Sanitary Engineer, two Sanitary
Engineers, one Associate Sanitary Engineer, one Public Health Representative
IV, one Public Health Representative III, one Public Health Representative II,
three Public Health Representative I, one Environmental Control Specialist,
and one Environmental Administrator II. The federal assignee acts as assis-
tant division director and handles special projects. The secretarial staff
consists of an administrative secretary and three program secretaries.
These professional and secretarial positions are. organized into three
programs and an administrative staff as shown in the attached table of or-
ganization.
The Planning and Technical Assistance Program and the Training and
Hazardous Waste Program are housed in rented space in Frankfort where they
are available on short notice to participate in conferences with the Adminis-
trative section and headquarters of the Field Enforcement Program both of
which are housed in the department's main headquarters in the Capital Plaza
Tower office building.
Field inspection forces consisting of the Public Health Representative
I and II and the Environmental Control Inspector are housed in regional
offices where they are generally sharing space with Division of Water personnel.
Kentucky has 120 counties and the average county load per field inspector is
approximately 20 counties. The inspection load is heavy enough that for all
intents and purposes these people can be used only very stringently in making
other surveys such as industrial waste studies or collection studies.
The Planning and Technical Assistance Program develops and conducts
the special surveys such as industrial waste studies, institutional wastr
surveys, collector surveys and studies, financial feasibility studies and
reports and any other studies that regional planning bodies or counties might
need in the field of solid waste. This program also assists the Training
and Hazardous Waste Program in the production of training documents whenever
these are needed.
The Training and Hazardous Waste Program prepares the curriculum for and
conducts the training of operator personnel, and solid waste supervisory per-
sonnel as well as providing the division its expertize in the field of hazar-
dous wastes. This program is headed by a Principal Sanitary Engineer who
111
-------
Page 2
Kentucky Solid Waste Management Program Status
possesses a wide background in chemical and industrial engineering. This
training program is also charged with the responsibility of developing and
producing displays for public education which are used in a variety of ways.
Personnel from the Division of Solid Waste have for the past several
years been encouraging county wide collection and disposal districts and been
successful in obtaining the formation of a number of these systems most of
vhich have been organized as special garbage and refuse disposal districts.
Several of these districts are multicounty operations in which two or more
counties are involved.
The division has also completed a statewide industrial survey using a
sampling technique and two indepth industrial solid waste studies have been
completed for two of its fifteen (15) area development districts.
Past accomplishments of the division include the development and publish-
ing of the state plan and the preparation of a series of technical documents
for use in public education and training. This series of documents consist
of the following:
"Kentucky Keys to the Solid Waste Problem"
"Wanted Community Support for Solid Waste Programs"
"Sanitary Landfill Location and Design"
"Solid Waste Collection System Requirements"
"Transfer Stations"
"Solid Waste Service System Administration"
"General Planning for Solid Waste Services"
"Locating Sanitary Landfill Sites"
"Sanitary Landfill Operations"
"Industrial Solid Waste Management Program for Kentucky"
"Rural Collection System Requirements"
"Developing Local Solid Waste Service Systems"
"Recycling"
All of the above documents were developed while the division was a part
of the Kentucky Department of Health, therefore, require some revision so as
to reflect the division's location now with the Department for Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection. This is one of the current projects of our
Planning Program to make the necessary changes brought about by reorganization,
statute changes and regulation changes in order tha t these documents reflect
the latest requirements and conditions.
This year's Field Enforcement Program emphasis is on closing those re-
maining open dumps that still exist. This is being accomplished by case build-
ing inspections that include sufficient investigation to determine ownership of
the property where the illegal dump is located and a determination if possible
of what individuals or communities are utilizing this illegal site.
Once ownership is established and an address or telephone number is ob-
tained at which these people can be contacted, the first step is to attempt to
obtain a closure by voluntary means. If the Division is unable to obtain the
112
-------
Page 2
Kentuckv Solid Waste Management Program Status
closure in this manner then the case evidence is turned over to the Departmental
Legal staff to set up either a hearing if this is considered appropriate or
to forward the evidence to the State Attorney Generals office for prosecution
in the appropriate local court.
The Field Enforcement Program is further charged with the routine inspection
of all permitted disposal sites including inspection prior to annual reper-
mitting. The field inspectors also spend considerable time working with the
area development districts, county fiscal courts, and city officials in trying
to establish permitted disposal sites in areas where none exist. They also
act as liaison between these people and our other programs. The disposal site
plans are also reviewed in the Field Enforcement Program and considerable time
is spent in working with consulting engineering firms in obtaining usable plans.
Utilizing a number of 16 mm movie projectors and slide projectors all
members of the Division participate in public education programs and the Divi-
sion presents programs to service organizations such as Lions Club, Rotarian
and Kiwanis Clubs, League of Women Voters, Sierra Clubs, Audubon Clubs and
Womens Clubs. Similarly, programs are conducted for the various elementary
and high schools throughout the state.
The Division also cocnerates in furnishing guest lectures to the various
state universities offering environmental courses and has standing arrangements
to conduct the lectures each semester at four of the state universities.
The displays on sanitary landfills which were developed by the Training
Program have been used in many areas of the state at county fairs, shopping
centers, public meetings in generating community support for improved disposal
practices and sites.
The division attempts by encouraging attendance by its professional staff
at seminars, short courses and regular university courses to keep its staff
as well trained and knowledgable as possible within the limits of its budget
requirements.
The Division routinely reviews and advises the Legislative Research
Commission on all legislation involving solid waste and routinely helps
prepare suggested legislation for consideration by this commission.
While Kentucky's Division of Solid Waote has enjoyed considerable past
financial help from the Office of Solid Waste Management in the form of plan-
ning and training grants, it is this Division's feeling that there is a great
need for straight program grants.
These grants should be by a specific formula that would allcw a state
to know in advance exactly how much federal support the state could expect
for at least a two year period in order that those states that hold legislative
sessions every two years could have some means of telling the legislature what
can be expected in federal support in order that realistic and practical bud-
gets can be drawn. The states should have considerable latitude in the use
of these funds either for planning, training,tspecial studies, enforcement
or consulting contracts in order that the immediate needs of any particular
state might be met.
113
-------
Page 4
Kentucky Solid Waste Management Program Status
The National Sanitation Foundation prepared a "Staffing and Budgetary
Guidelines for State Solid Waste Control Agencies" published February 1973
from which we have extracted the attached "Table 3 Recommended Total Budget
For All States." This when the recommendations for all states is totaled comes
to $24,669,786. If Guam and the other territories were added, the figure would
probably be $25,000,000. If federal support to the states for these programs
were taken as 10, 15, 20, 25, and 307, of this $25,000,000, the total cost to
the federal government would be as follows:
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$2,500,000
$3,750,000
$5,000,000
$6,250,000
$7,500,000
The cost of monitoring and supervising these program grants would pro-
bably not add more thati 25% to the money needed for these program grants; and
if say the 25% figure were chosen as the base, the states would receive grants
each year as follows:
Alabama $
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorada
Connecticut
Deleware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
77,100
68,997
63,642
71,726
325,395
96,323
118,881
51,824
61,662
152,727
111,865
66,862
51,840
266,063
142,196
107,137
126,097
99,040
82,139
71,885
97,578
173,351
240,176
139,420
68,287
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
$
145,171
58,764
116,649
71,119
60,006
210,047
55,326
448,968
127,222
74,725
239,947
86,142
80,570
283,228
52,973
73,955
76,936
95,045
244,868
58,949
55,436
125,127
103,058
75,117
165,913
50,980
114
-------
Page 5
Kentucky Sclid Waste Management Program Status
The distribution of these funds on the suggested level should be
contingent on at least a 2 to 1 match of state funds with'the federal
funds being reduced if the states do not tnatqh on the suggested basis.
This would encourage those states whose legislatures are failing to suppost
their programs into coming up with the necessary state funds. It is well
to point out that these program support funds for solid waste management
would be far below the program support the states are enjoying in both the
field of water pollution control and air pollution control. Also could
be pointed out the ever increasing burden o2 dealing with solid waste pro-
blems created by the enforcement in both the fields of air and water.
115
-------
TABLE 3. RECOMMENDED TOTAL BUDGET FOR ALL STATES
State
Alabama
Aljska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connsc;icut
Delaware
D. C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indhm
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
M'chigan
Mjm-esota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
NVw Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Ulah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Ho pu'
.Ution
(1000)
3,444
300
1.770
1.923
19,953
2,207
3.031
54«
756
6.789
4.589
768
712
11.113
5.193
2,824
2,246
3.216
3,641
992
3.922
5,6<>9
8.875
3.S04
2,216
4.676
694
1,483
488
737
7.168
1.016
13,23.6
5,082
617
10,652
2.559
2,091
11.793
946
2.590
665
3.923
ll,f>6
1.059
4*4
4.648
3.409
1.744
4.417
332
Personal
lnc.-I97l
Per-cap.
(S)
3.050
4.749
3.S71
3.036
4.677
J.057
5,032
4.570
6.000
3.S43
3,547
4,797
3.402
4,772
3,973
3.876
4.090
3.2SIS
3.248
3.419
4.514
4.5S6
4,317
3.974
2,766
3.877
3.479
3,998
4.895
3.708
4,832
3,394
5,021
3.387
3.383
4,154
3,506
3,920
4.127
4.077
3.162
3,446
3,325
3.6S2
3.395
3,blO
3,866
4.135
3.228
3.880
3.753
Adjusted
Personal
Income
10.675
16.621
13,548
10.626
16,369
14.199
17.612
15,995
2 1 .000
13.468
12.414
16.7S9
1 1 ,907
16.702
13.905
13.566
14.315
11,508
11.368
11.9S6
15,799
16.051
15.109
13,909
9.681
13,569
12,176
13,993
17,132
12.978
16.912
1U79
17,573
11,854
11.840
14.539
12,271
13.720
14,444
14.269
11,067
12.061
11.637
12.887
11.882
12.63>
13.531
14.472
11.298
13.58(1
13,135
Salaries
(S)
228.445
204,438
185.607
•M2.520
964,134
285,400
352.240
153 SS1
182,700
452,524
331.453
198,110
153,600
788,334
421.321
317.444
373.621
293.454
243.375
212.994
289.121
513.632
711.633
413.097
202,333
430.137
174,116
345,627
210,723
177,798
622,361
163.930
1,330,276
376,957
221.408
710,957
255.236
238.728
839,196
156.959
219.126
227.952
281.615
725.538
174.665
164.255
370.749
305.359
222.570
491.596
151.052
BUDGLT
Travel i
Overhead
(S)
79.954
71,550
64.960
74.382
337,446
99.390
123.234
53,742
63,945
15S-.3S;
116.007
69.338
53.760
275.915
147,462
111,105
130.767
102.707
85.179
74.546
101.192
179.770
249,070
144.584
70,815
150,545
60.940
120.969
73.752
62.226
217,826
57.375
465.596
131.932
77,490
248,832
89.332
83,552
293.716
54.932
76.692
79.782
98.565
253.935
61.132
57.4S9
129.759
106.872
77.R99
172.056
52.S68
Totals
(S>
308.400
275.9S8
250.567
286.902
1.301,580
385,290
475,524
207 294
246.645
610,907
447,460
267.448
207,360
1.064.249
563.783
428.549
504,383
396,161
32S.554
237.540
390.313
693,402
960,703
557,631
273.148
580,682
235.056
46«,596
2S4.475
240,024
840.187
221.305
1,795.872
508.389
293,398
959,739
344.568
322.280
1.132,912
211.891
295.818
307.734
3*0.180
979.473
235.797
221,744
500.508
412.231
300.469
(.63,652
.?03.9:o
14
116
-------
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE
DEPARTMENT FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SECTION
Deputy Commissioner
Herman Regan
EDERAL ASSIGNEE
William Hoilam
-[Executive Secretary
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE
Director
Samuel N. Johnson. Jr.
J_
PLANNING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Director
Caroline P. Wade
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
I
Rufus Miller, Knv. Sup. II
Mary Jo Barker, Adm. Sec.
DIVISION OF WATER,1
Director |
Harold Snodgrass |
DIVISION OF All
Director
John Smither
PRAINING & HAZARDOUS WASTE
Director
Karl W. Patterson
FIELD ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Director
Jerry L. Hurst
Anna Martin, Health Planner I
Mary Jo Furnish, Prin. Stenographer
John O'Leary Kaight.Sanitary
Engineer Associate
Linda Walnscott, Prin. Steno.
Win. R. Singleton, PHR IV
E. Andrew Korris, PHR II
Judith Stlebel, PHR I
(Earlington Office)
Kenneth Hahn, PHR I
(Covington Office)
Jimraie Hankins, PUR I
(Columbia Office)
Mary M. Miner PHK I
(Hazard Office)
Steven W. Wells, Environmental
Inspector l,(Morehead Office)
Marlyn Godby, Prin. Stenographer
-------
S1ATUS OF THH LOUISIANA SOLID WASTF MAUAW^NT PROGKAM
INTRODUCTION
Most of Louisiana's solid waste manaqement problems are typical of those found
throuqnout thr- nation; however, a number arc unique. Typical was the qross mis-
manaoement recorded durinn the Statewide solid waste survey durinq th<> late I'ViO's
wherein over 9(. percent of the land disposal sites were open -lumps, most with open
bjrninq. fyniral V/.TS the apathy toward this problem. Perhans the apathy resulted
in major p.^rt from an atypical collection system servinn a larqe senment of the
urbanised population. Hecause T.outh Louisiana, where a majority of the State's
pr.nulation resides, is nenerously endowed with seafood, this material constitutes
a larqe portion of the averaoe dirt. Because seafood wastes putrify quickly, do-
most ic and cofffnnrc. i a I refuse collection is inordinately freouent. How Or logins
features three collections per woek from residences while several communities provide
six collections per woek. With collection this frequent, residents merely followed
tne "out of sinht, out of mind" philosophy.
Atypical also are the physical difficulties encountered in South Louisian.-i with
respect 1o the operation of sanitary landfills. A hiqh water tahle and a dearth
of suitable cover material coupled with hiqh costs for even marsh lands has imposed
severe e.nolneerinn and financial obstacles.
L«iroe municipal incinerators have niven poor service with poor Duality burnout,
hinh operational costs, numerous operational difficulties, unacceptable stack
emissions, an small staff has directed Its activities toward securinq Increased Input Into
sol to waste activities from otner personnel within the Division of Health Maintenance.
A virtually untapped resource W
-------
The major thrust has been toward the formation of "qarbaqe districts" or parish
(county)-wlde solid waste manaqemenT nroqraws. Program dovetonment has been hampered
by Inadequate funds at the parish and local levels and by severe comoetltion for
jvailahlft funds from other environmental nroorams, esr-ocinl ly those involvina federal
grants.
This problem notwithstandinp, considerable prooress has been made. Of 64
parishes, 17 have parish-wide proarams in operation, 1 have nroqrams in portions
of the parish, and 5 others have passed mlllaqe taxes or secured other financlno.
nrenaratory to commencinn operations.
PffiJF.CJS OF SPFCIAI. INTFPfST
Unconventional sanitary landfills are bet no operated in the marshes of south-
east Louisiana. In the judnernent of the State Gooloo'cal Survey, harmful effects
qion surface and subsurface waters are not expected. Those ar^a fills are commenced
at a berm borderino the marsh and are built up of successive layers of refuse and
river sand trucked to the location. After a workinn pad has been est.ibl ishr'!, ov-
nansion of the fill orooress e?thor radialfy or alono a line d^pervdinn upnn the
eonfInuration of the site.
Plans have beon completed for the installation of refuse mi 11 inn oneralionr.
lor the cftjes of r^ow Orleans and for Terrobonne Parish with the facility to be
located in or near the City of tkv.jma. Provisional annroval has been olven ly the
Division of Health Maintenance and Ambulatory Patient Services for the donositton
of the milled refuse without daily cover as lonn as no problems develop.
The plan for New Orleans envisions a sophisticated system of resources recovery,
wen separation rjlass accordtno to color, followinn tho miltinq operation.
Imlementation of the plan is bo I no delayed by I coal action involvina the hiddino
process for thn resources recovery systems. Conclusion of leqal action is ^xoeotetl
it the near f uturo.
Implementation of the nronram for Torrebonne Parish is contlnnent unon the
location of a suitable site. The Parish Police Jury has niven the Sanitation
iawiittee a one month extension of time to locate a site. Marrino further ohstruc-
construction of facilities for Terrebonne Parish, as well as for the rity of
Orleans, shouln commence oarlv In 1974.
ARFAS FOK FLCERAL ASS STANCE
Federal assistance is especially needed in dnvelooim methodoloov ^or safe
of Jinuid and semi-liquid industrial wastes and other toxic and ha?ardous
"stes. Treator investinative attention is needed to develop satisfactory land
procedures in marsh areas and other wetlands. Revenue sharino, which has
a major source of funds for capitalization rif reolonal solid waste manaaem<>nt
should continue. Federal financial incentives, on some match inn basis,
*( be the only way to secure fundlnq from state lonistatures necessary *o implement
'»lly the state solid waste manaqement plans.
"rtober 5, ll>7'5.
119
-------
STATE OF MAINE
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS
Our first comprehensive solid waste management law, An Act Relating to Solid
Waste Disposal, was signed into law on May 21. This Act gives the Board of
Environmental Protection authority to adopt and enforce rules and regulations
concernina "location, establishment, construction and alteration of solid waste
facilities". These regulations become effective July 1, 1975 and are presently
being written by the Department and reviewed by a technical committee.
We feel that our success in this program depends to a large degree on establish-
ing credibility with respect to enforcement of the "300 foot law". This law
states that disposal of solid waste within 300' of classified water is Illegal
after December 1, 1973, unless a two year variance is granted by the Board in cases
where no direct or indirect discharge into classified water will result.
Public hearings will be held for variance and enforcement purposes in December.
Implementation schedules will be assigned for those persons not qualifying for
a variance and/or who cannot meet the December 1 deadline. Such schedules will
take into consideration the progress towards a long term acceptable solution.
The new law gives the Board flexibility to write regulations which differentiate
between municipalities with respect to population, waste generation, waste type,
and geographic location. This makes our efforts more difficult. It does not seem
necessary to require a town of 50 to run a sanitary landfill but how about the
average town of 1500 (two thirds of Maine towns have a population of 2000) which
can feasibly join a regional effort? These questions will be discussed when the
regulations are reviewed at a series of meetings of socio-political leaders next
ironth.
120
-------
We anticipate that this law will provide a good vehicle for upgrading of solid
waste disposal facilities.
Another new law which became effective October 3 concerns septic sludge pumping,
conveyance and disposal. This law requires all Maine-based septic tank pumpers
to receive a license from the Department. Only pumpers with licenses will be
allowed to pump or convey septage in Maine. This virtually eliminates out of State
pumpers from doing business in Maine. The Solid Waste Management Division will
administer this law.
The law also requires each municipality to supply a site for disposal of septage
generated within its boundaries. These sites must be approved by the Department.
A septic sludge committee is working on guidelines for disposal of septic sludge
on land. These will include siting and loading criteria.
He are also working on a medium to long range resource recovery plan. It Is hoped
that several steps will be implemented by July 1, 1975. This 1s one area 1n which
we could use EPA expertise and financial assistance, as well as other State experience*
as available.
It would also be beneficial to the program and to the State in general to Institute
a sanitary landfill demonstration project. There is, at present, no landfill tn
Maine which can effectively demonstrate principals of good operation to the other
towns which will be faced with meeting our regulations by July 1, 1975. We also feel
that the financial and social aspects of winter operation have not been convincingly
demonstrated in EPA funded programs, especially for low population density areas.
Maine critics of landfills often say that we are cleaning up our air (by outlawing open
burning at the expense of polluting groundwater supplies). While we refute the logic
of this, the effects of leachate on groundwaters have not been adequately Investigated
and we would like to see continued work in this area by EPA.
121
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE
N«il Solomon, W.D., Ph.D., Secretary
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
610 N. HOWARD STREET • BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 2120? • A«o Cod* 301 • 383- 3137
MARYLAND •
SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES AND SPECIAL PROBLEMS
October 9, 1973
Solid wastes generated by the U,OCO,000 citizens of Maryland are presently
disposed of as follows:
Incineration -
four municipal incinerators receive 16% of the solid wastes in Maryland.
Three of these we to be phased out within the next three years. One may be
upgraded in an eifort to meet Bureau of Air Quality Standards. There are no
municipal incinerators in either planning or construction stages.
Permitted Sanitary Landfills -
There are presently 37 permitted sanitary landfills serving approximately
2,960,000 citizens or 71$ of the population.
Unpermitted Sanitary landfills -
Thirty-nine additional sites are presently used by 61*0,000 people, or 1%
of the population. These sites do not burn. Operation ranges from good day
to day sanitary landfill practice to circuit rider covering. We are presently
trying to bring these sites to permit or eliminate them with container systems.
Burning Dumps -
Thirty-two burning dumps presently serve approximately 35,000 people.
These small dumps are located in eight rural counties.
The law requiring all counties and.Baltimore City to adopt comprehensive
solid waste plans was enacted and became effective on July 1, 1971. This stat-
ute set January 1, 197U as the deadline for adoption and further required a
plan of action with an implementation time table. These final plans are now
being received and reviewed. They indicate that the major solid waste disposal
method to be used in Maryland will be the sanitary landfill. They further in-
dicate, that rural counties will move toward Green Box Systems, with centrally
located sanitary landfills.
Some special projects that are in the planning stage are a 1000 ton per
day pyrolysis plant for Baltimore City, and a recycling project using the Bureau
122
-------
- 2 -
Solid Waste Activities and Special Problems October 9, 1973
of Mines technique for Baltimore County. One current project of interest is
the composting of 200 tons per day of waste water treatment plant sludge
operated by the Maryland Environmental Services at Beltsville, Maryland.
Prime sol id waste management problems in Maryland at this time are:
1. The lack of a program for defining the hazardous wastes
problem and dealing with same.
2. The problem of public opposition to specific landfill sites.
The sanitary landfill method of refuse disposal is generally
acceptable to the citizens of Maryland if the sanitary land-
fill is not in their neighborhood.
3« The p.-oblem of coordinating the sanitary landfill permitting
procedure with other state and local regulatory agencies.
It* Leachate. It has not been our experience that leachate has
posed significant ground and surface water problems in the
past. We are, however, increasingly confronted with the
problem of consulting geologists serving as expert witnesses
for groups opposing sanitary landfill sites,
Further information concerning this brief summary nay be obtained by
writing:
Charles M. Kenealy, Chief
Division of Solid Waste Control
Environmental Health Administration
610 N. Howard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
123
-------
Status of Solid Waste Management in Massachusetts
October 1973
As in many other states, current disposal practices in Massa-
chusetts are generally inadequate. 'Historically, individual com-
munities, with few exceptions, have failed to provide acceptable
solutions to the solid waste problem. In recognitiqn of the need
for improvement in Massachusetts' solid waste practices, Governor
Sargent established, in January of 1972, a Solid Waste Council
comprised of the Secretaries of Environmental Affairs, Transportation
and Construction and Human Services ;to recommend a course of action
to solve the state's solid waste situation.
Under the Council's direction an interagendy task force was
formed* Through a series of statewide public meetings, it reviewed
a statewide solid waste study prepared by Raytheon Service Company
and then developed a Solid Waste Management Plan which was published
at a public hearing on August 24, 1973.
Concurrent with the development of a state policy on solid
waste, two important legislative programs affecting solid waste
were advancing in the state legislative process. First, a bill
to increase the authority of the state solid waste management agency
which would allow implementation of a statewide program was developed
in cooperation with the Legislative Committee on Natural Resources
and Agriculture. Second, as part of an on-going governmental reorg-
anization process, a bill was developed to consolidate the solid
waste functions of several state agencies into a single agency
with total responsibility for state solid waste programs. Both
of these measures are currently moving slowly through the legis-
lative process. Favorable action on either or both of the measures
is hoped for during the current legislative session.
Massachusetts' Solid Waste Management Plan calls for the
following:
1. A regional approach to solid waste management'with waste
aggregated at state sites with facilities owned and
operated by private industry.
2!l A system of municipal transfer .facilities to replace
existing inadequate local disposal areas.
124
-------
- 2 -
3. An extensive network of privately owned and operated
resource recovery facilities at state sites aimed at
recovering from the solid waste stream those components
which it is economically feasible to reclaim.
4. Consolidation of state solid waste functions into a
single agency.
5. Development of adequate funding programs based on a
combination of user charges and statewide charges to
support a statewide solid waste system.
Present activities relative to solid waste ,in Massachusetts
are directed at implementing the state's Solid Waste Management
Plan. Some of the major efforts toward implementation include:
1. Support of legislative measures necessary for the full
implementation of the program, including working with
legislative leaders and committees to strengthen such
measures.
2. An on-going study being conducted by Arthur D. Little, Inc
to examine markets for recovered materials and recommend
a resource recovery strategy for Massachusetts. This
study is due to be completed by December 1973.
3. An on-going inventory of state surplus lands.
4. Planning contracts with Massachusetts' Regional Planning
Agencies to examine in detail the solid waste needs of
each planning region and recommend sub-regional districts,
and alternative locations for facilities within each
respective region.
125
-------
DEPARTMENT OF fy,
SOLID WASTE MAI V
8th FLOOR :..;\ (, .
STATUS REPORT JLANSING, MICIilGA/N 48926
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN MICHIGAN
March k,
BACKGROUND
Prior to 19&5, Solid Waste Management was a little used term by the citizens
of Michigan and officials of local and state government. In general , garbage
and rubbish disposal operations were thought of only as a necessary evil and
the operations that existed were generally accepted as prevailing problems,
for which we had little concern or control. The general attitude was out of
sight out of mind with little thought given to the damages created to our
environment, both from the standpoint of air and water pollution and the
unsightly conditions that were prevalent throughout the State of Michigan.
It has been estimated, that through the 60's Michigan supported over 1,100
separate dumps located throughout the State. Very few of these operations
approached any degree of acceptability and subsequently were creating water
and air pollution problems and other nuisances and really established a damaging
name for solid waste disposal facilities that has been and will continue to be
very difficult to overcome. Credibility is needed in this field for technology
has developed to provide processes that can protect our environment. Now the
/
Image must be changed to permit necessary development of new disposal areas.
The disposal area licensing act passed in 1965 with enforcement responsibilities
in the Department of Public Health was criticized by many local governmental
units throughout the State, and in their interpretation it was dubbed the PHEW
Act, as it was imposing controls on the high percentage of operations in
Michigan that were uncontrolled but that were maintained by local governmental
•
units. In view of the great numbers of improperly operated disposal facilities
it was necessary after the first year of enforcement of the act to modify
126
-------
- 2 -
somewhat the requirements for rural and isolated refuse disposal facilities.
This was done on a temporary basis through a Health Department letter
providing those isolated areas some time to plan and develop facilities
that met the basic requirements for satisfactory refuse disposal. This
action established the modified landfill and the modified open dump
categories, and permitted the licensing of such facilities for an interim
period. Operational standards were developed for both of these types of
operations and while the program had some degree of success by permitting
some local governmental units to do the necessary planning and acquisition
of adequate landfill facilities to handle their needs, there was still a
great deal of indifference. Many operations during the interim period
did not work towards compliance or the elimination of the environmental
problems they created.
REFUSE BURNING
During the initial enforcement years we had considerable problems with
outdated and inoperable municipal incinerator facilities and TP or conical
burners. At one time there were 1A TP burners in the State and each was
contributing to environmental pollution as the TP burner design was not
/
capable of providing any treatment to the products of combustion to prevent
their discharge to the atmosphere. Over the years these facilities were
closed and the problems they created in our municipalities were eliminated.
The progressive local governmentally owned incinerators began to update
their operations, and to modify their equipment attempting to meet the
present air pollution standards and improve operating practices within the
facility. Very slowly progress was being made in at least the disposal
aspects of our refuse problems in Michigan.
127
-------
- 3 -
EXPANSION OF ACT 87. ! of 1965, AS AMENDED
In 1971, the Dtvir. of Solid Waste Management requested authority
to control other solio .;aste management facilities. This included existing
methods and some we anticipated were going to be developed in the near
future. This was done and Act 87, P.A. of 19&5, was expanded to cover
refuse transporting units, transfer stations, refuse processing facilities
such as those that will be used in recycling, and junk car collection
centers. This amendment also included the requirement that every local
governmental unit of over 10,000 people and every county develop a solid
waste management plan. At this point, as greater emphasis was placed on
the total field of solid waste handling, the statute became known as the
Solid Waste Management Act.
i
REFUSE TRANSFER
In a few areas in the State, and most of those in large population
centers, waste was being discharged from household collection vehicles to
open air collection points for transfer to larger vehicles. This procedure
did provide some economies in the long hauls necessary-to transport the
waste to the disposal areas for wastes delivered in 18 yard vehicles would
be transferred to 60 to 100 yard units. The unprotected pads with stock-
piled garbage and rubbish did present some environmental problems. As a
result of the amendments, and the rules that were promulgated thereunder,
transfer stations, must be designed and operated to prevent nuisance conditions.
An improvement program was scheduled with the various communities and
private operators in Michigan operating transfer stations to secure compliance
with basic operating design of transfer facilities. The open air facilities
have now been replaced for the most part by controlled dumping areas and
acceptable handling and loading facilities for the transfer of municipal and
industrial waste.
128
-------
REFUSE PROCESSING
The division has been fully aware of the potential we have available
in Michigan with reference to the recycling of solid waste. There is no
question but what some of our waste can effectively be recycled. It will,
however, have to be processed; therefore, prior to the development of
processing facilities, there has been established a licensing program and
rules that will have some input into design and operation of these processes
so they, too, can be a good neighbor and not an eyesore or a detriment to
the environment. While as yet Michigan does not have what we can call a
true processing operation, we do have the authority to control such facilities
to make them acceptable to the community if and when they are developed.
REFUSE TRANSPORTING UNITS*
Accepting the fact that much of the litter created in Michigan is caused
by irresponsible people, there still is a great deal of material that is lost
in the transporting of waste to transfer facilities and disposal areas. In
an attempt to control at least this facet of solid waste management the
licensing and inspection of refuse transporting units was initiated. The
rules and regulations promulgated under Act 8? were developed in 1971 and
the Division began implementing the program in 1973- Efforts were directed
to require the vehicles hauling refuse be designed, operated and maintained
to prevent loss of any liquids that might be included in the load or any
solid material that might be lost through open gates or open top containers
or vehicles. It is important to note in justifying this program that one
of the series of complaints normally received by citizens concerned with
the location of a refuse transfer station, an incinerator or a disposal
facility of any kind is the fact that they do not want their streets littered
129
-------
- 5 -
with solid waste. It will soon be possible for us to inform the local citzenry
that all waste commercially delivered to a processing or disposal facility will
be done so in enclosed vehicles, so that waste lost in transit should very
soon be a thing of the past.
It is expected this year that the Division will be processing some 8,000
licenses for refuse transporting units, and with requested police assistance
in enforcement that the conditions of our transporting units in Michigan will
soon consTst of the kinds of units that will keep their load confined until
they reach the licensed point of discharge. This is another step in the
development of acceptable solid waste management activities that will assist
in our overall program of improving and protecting our environment.
JUNK CAR COLLECTION CENTERS
The Division has been aware for some time of the concerns of the citizens
of Michigan of the unsightly conditions and the waste that has been created
by the irresponsibi1e abandonment of junk vehicles on state and private lands
in most all of the counties in the State.
In a number of areas in Michigan.there just wasn't a convenient place
available to take junk cars. Consequently, they were pulled out to an
/
isolated spot and abandoned or just left in the back yards and in farm lots.
There was also very little available from the standpoint of local controls.
The Division worked with the Attorney General's Office and developed a model
ordinance that could be adopted by counties in Michigan and utilized to help
control and eliminate the junk car problem. The precedence for local
ordinances was established by the provisions of Act 87 which gave counties
•
the right to develop junk car collection centers. Now, if a county wishes
to embark on such a program, they do have the authorization by State law to
develop ordinances for this activity.
130
-------
- 6 -
THE PRESENT
A look at our solid waste management program in Michigan as < day. The
Division of Solid Waste Management with its consultant staff of Di ,ion
Chief and six field representatives, a geologist and a vacant planner position
was reassigned to the Department of Natural Resources in April of 1973. It Is
unfortunate but true that little emphasis has been placed on the so-called
third pollution. In general, local government has not taken the approach that
solid waste management is a needed activity. Certainly it doesn't carry the
glamour and popularity of other community needs. The intensity, however, is
ever present. There is no easy way around the problem. Every home, business,
.industry and institution creates a generous quantity of waste that needs disposal.
The Act provides that local health departments assist in performing the
surveillance of solid waste management facilities due to the effects poorly
operated facilities have on the environment. This has placed a burden on some
already overloaded staffs but it has some political problems as well for
over l»5 percent of the refuse operations are local governmental ly owned
making enforcement virtually impossible by locally employed persons in all
but a few areas of the State.
The status of the present land disposal systems and the delay in adequate
local planning has resulted from lack of enforcement of the Act.
In July of 1973 it was the intent of the Division through the securing
of a Federal grant to provide additional surveillance for a test period to
identify deficiencies at existing facilities. The program was then expanded with
more emphasis placed on compliance with the provisions of the Act through the use
of one surveillance person employed under the grant. One vacancy exists in
this area and as there is a possibility that the grant might be continued
131
-------
- 7 -
for an additional year we can continue to try to fill that position to
permit carrying on this critical activity. The field observations support
the need for improved surveillance for many environmental abuses as suspected
have been found and are documented.
Solid waste management is a day-to-day function. With the tremendous
quantities of waste that we are generating each day, if proper daily
maintenance and control are not provided, these volumes can result in
nuisance conditions at transfer stations and disposal facilities that cannot
only cause environmental problems but set back the program goal of improving
the environment and establishing that solid waste handling and disposal does
not have to be a nuisance or a detriment to the area. So, while the Depart-
ment division staff is constantly encouraging the necessary planning and
i
implementation of acceptable solid waste management facilities they must still
carry on in a number of areas the function of surveillance activities to see
that the design and operation follows the criteria established by the statute
and the commitments of the applicant.
OPEN AND MODIFIED DUMPS -
In August of 197^ the departmental letter which permitted the operation
of modified open dumps and modified landfills is being rescinded, so that
every attempt will be made to see that operations, licensed for the 1975 year
will be in compliance with the provisions of Act 87, and that such operations
will no longer be jeopardizing the ground and surface waters of the State or
creating air pollution problems.
In July of 1974 local solid waste planning documents should be received
from each county and all local units with over 10,000 people describing their
problem and the procedures they have designed and proposed to develop to
handle their needs for approximately 20 years.
132
-------
- 8 -
During the consultations that the Division representatives have had with
local government, staff have been suggesting the approaches to follow in
both the metropolitan communities as well as the rural areas of the State
in the most economical manner to solve the solid waste problem. This naturally
results in some discussions which suggest a regional approach to develop the
economics in handling larger volumes of waste and utilize central areas for
land disposal operations with further benefits accrued if recycling actually
does become one of the solutions available to us for solid waste management.
It appears at the present time one of the most significant problems that
face local government in Michigan is the financing of new solid waste manage-
ment systems. In some areas it has been done through a fee for service
system. In others, attempts have been made to operate the program under the
general fund appropriations of the governmental unit. In most cases it appears
that the crying need is for some assistance, either by statutory authority
that would permit increasing tax revenues for the operation of the solid
waste management system or at least a part of the system, or the possibility
of developing some form of state financing.
PLANNING
County and regional solid waste management plans are beginning to be
delivered to the Department for review and approval. Approximately 17 plans
have been submitted with only a few having received final approval to date.
Comments on the plans are being returned to the appropriate agencies for
their action and resubmission. One certainly cannot expect these plans are
going to be developed to the enth degree. Staff, however, has been very
encouraged by the actions that have been taken by local governmental units in
working together and developing handling and disposal solutions that they can
implement.
133
-------
- 9 -
This approach will permit local units to provide acceptable and adequate
waste disposal facilities for their constituents. The plan may not be the
most elaborate or actually even the most suitable for an area at this point
in time, but it will provide a foundation upon which to build the program
needs for the future. Plans are required to be renewed, reviewed and
amended every two years which will give the local area an opportunity to
re-evaluate their situation, incorporate new ideas and new techniques that
become available, and, we hope, will at that time encourage more combining
of local units of government to provide a more economical system for their
sol id waste needs.
LICENSING
At the present time We are licensing kS7 land disposal systems, some of
which are in need of modification to fully comply xvith the statute which
we hope will be accomplished by the end of this licensing period in August
of 197^. We will be licensing about 20 transfer operations in Michigan.
Again, a few of these are in need of upgrading to meet the newly adopted
rules and guidelines for these facilities. These should be brought into
compliance by the end of 197^. We still are not licensing solid waste
processing operations but expect that within a matter of a few years these
facilities will be operational in Michigan, and will be a part of the program
in the at least large metropolitan centers. We do not presently license junk
car collection centers. A number of these have been started, both in the
Michigan car recycling project areas but also in other interested counties
as well.
The Department is presently licensing 4 incinerators. One other operating
plant will no doubt have to be closed in the immediate future due to vidations,
134
-------
- 10 -
Three of the major incinerators are constantly upgrading their operation to
meet the new air pollution control requirements and to generally improve
the environmental conditions surrounding the plant. One of the units licensed
is of an experimental design and will continue to be observed closely to
determine its effectiveness as a refuse burning unit.
MICHIGAN CAR RECYCLING PROJECT
The junk car collection program is in its second year and has been highly
successful. The project financed equally by the Upper Great Lake Commission
and the Automobile Manufacturers Association now called the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Association demonstrates a service for some of the rural
counties of the State in eliminating the eyesores of abandoned cars that
littered the landscape. The program demonstrated that cooperation of the
state and county government, with various civic organizations and students
could solve a problem. The counties provided land and the civic groups
and students spotting the cars and secured releases for the vehicles. At
that point the recycling crews took over the project and with converted
army surplus equipment picked up the isolated vehciles on public and private
property throughout six counties of the State. The Manistee County Project
/
was probably the most successful where over 3,000 cars were collected and
placed up for auction. The vehicles then were flattened, later crushed and
turned into the recycling process where the scrap metal was then sent back
to the mills and utilized in the manufacture of steel. The car recycling
program has worked very closely with private enterprise and utilizes their
services whenever possible. It has not been the intent of the project to be
a competitor to private enterprise. The program has been limited to those
135
-------
- 11 -
r/eas where private enterprise cannot economically function. The car
recycling program has identified another area of concern in the solid
waste picture and that is the disposal of automobile and truck tires.
Consideration must be given to some solutions to this problem. This
material does not lend readily to disposal in the land.
The Michigan Car Recycling Project will be terminated July 1, 197^,
as this is the end of the grant period. The Division agrees that the
demonstration project has shown that a car recycling program is very possible
with very rapid benefits. The expense involved is much lower than initially
anticipated by proposed Federal legislation of somewhere in the vicinity
of $50 per car. In Michigan we can carry on such a program for generally
under $10 a car. It is necessary to work with local units of government
and civic organizations, and there has been a real interest by these groups
in solving their junk car problem. The benefits are readily visible showing
almost instant success to the efforts of the people involved. The project
has enjoyed side benefits. The utilization of youths from the Department
of Corrections, prison*labor camps, has been enthusiastic not only by project
staff but also by the inmates. They have apparently enjoyed the program
and in some instances have learned a trade that has been a benefit to them
after their release. We would hope that this success story can be continued
in the future operations of any car recycling program in Michigan. One of the
needs at the present time is to develop legislation which will provide
fin'ancJng to permit the Michigan car recycling program to continue and for
such to permit the possible expansion into areas such as the disposal or
processing of tires to have this phase of our vehicle handling process become
another beneficial asset rather than its present detriment to society.
136
-------
- 12 -
. A part of the success of the Michigan car recycling project has been
the increase in the past year in the demand for salvaged steel. This has
nurtured the desire too for private enterprise to be more involved in the
project than during the initial phase. It may assist us in developing a
program that will touch all of the counties in Michigan and give us the
success and continuity we would like to see developed to prevent a
reoccurrence of those situations that blighted our countryside over the
past decade.
In summing up the present situation, one would have to indicate that
conditions in solid waste management in Michigan are better than they have
ever been before. Certainly we have not eliminated all the problems and
we still have a long way to go. Local government is now more aware of the
problems and is beginning to think of solutions. The public has become
more involved. Local government and industry are beginning to work together
in arriving at solutions to mutual problems. Industry has developed improved
inplant recycling operations in many areas utilizing to the maximum extent
some of the resources that in the past have been discards. This healthy
situation has been brought about by the mandate of Act 87 that discarded
waste must be handled in an approved manner. Such processes increased the
handling costs, therefore, in some industries recycling was the least expensive
way to go so resource recovery was accomplished. The general public is beginning
to look at methods that we should be utilizing. Solid waste management
should not only consider our solid waste problem but also our ability to conserve
natural resources and if possible to cut down on the quantities of waste we
are having to dispose of on a daily basis. This is now In the vicinity
of 5 Ibs. to 8 Ibs. per person per day for the community program. Our total
137
-------
- 13 -
waste needs for all aspects of solid waste including industry, logging,
mining and agricultural probably approaches 60 Ibs. per day. There is
need to look into the future to try to develop our patterns to not only
improve handling techniques but to improve the capability, technology
and processes that can justify the acceptance of solid waste management
facilities as a necessary and needed part of our way of life. We should
begin to look at waste handling facilities as a public need and, in fact,
a public uti1ity.
THE FUTURE
What is Michigan's plan for the future? The goal is relatively easy to
define. We must improve our solid waste management facilities to eliminate
the philosophy that they'are a detriment to the public health, safety and
jeopardize the environment. We must establish the kinds of programs that
will help preserve and conserve our natural resources by utilizing to the
maximum extent reprocessed waste materials. In developing any plan for
the future, the economic factor must be considered.
LAND DISPOSAL
' We expect in the future to be able to do more to protect the ground and
surface waters of the State in those areas where land disposal is still an.
acceptable means of handling solid waste. This could well include technology
that is developing in the area of providing soil sealants that would contain
any leachate material that might develop in a land disposal system. We
should also be obtaining additional background material on the decomposition
«
of waste as this occurs in a landfill and develop techniques that would
prevent such action from becoming a problem with respect to the future use
of a finished landfill area. Geological guidelines recently developed that
138
-------
will now be used for land evaluatio Ml be expanded to provide additional
information needed to protect the a: around completed landfills. This
activity can assist in making such op ations good neighbors.
LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Regardless of new technology and the seriousness with which we approach
recycling we will have a certain quantity of waste in the metropolitan
community that will need land disposal and our rural and recreational areas
will for some time have to rely on this approach for disposal. It is necessary
then to continue some solid waste management in our future land use needs.
The future of solid waste management could be somewhat in jeopardy unless
immediate action is taken to correct the existing deficiencies in present
legislation. It is possible at this time for a community not to accept the
responsibility for solid waste handling and disposal facilities. The
Division of Solid Waste Management has long been aware of this situation,
but the efforts to correct the condition have met with little success. Loc?l
government has a real responsibility here, not necessarily to provide the
service but they certainly should be responsible to see that the service is
available for their constituents. This approach would permit local govern-
ment to contract for any or all phases of solid waste management but it
would get them involved in the needed planning and development of these
faci1i ties.
OPERATOR CERTIFICATION
With respect to the operation of existing and future solid waste manage-
ment activities, consideration should be given to the development of an
operator certification program very similar to that which was done for sewage
treatment plant operators and water plant operators. This program could
139
-------
15 -
include safety as well as technical aspects of operating sanitary landfills,
incinerators and refuse processing facilities. Naturally there will be
some expense involved in this program as the Department would have to
provide financing and examination services but it would develop a qualified
field of operators that not only provide better protection for the public
health and environmental aspects it can reduce the existing surveillance
need.
CAR RECYCLING
The future of the Michigan Car Recycling Program is dependent as previously
mentioned on the providing of state funds for its continued operation. House
Bill No. 5525 provides for an amendment to the Motor Vehicle Code which
would set aside 90 cents of an extra dollar collected by the Secretary of
State for the transfer of registration from one vehicle to another. The
extra 10 cents is estimated as the cost that would be incurred by the
Secretary of State's office in collecting this fee. It is further anticipated
that the revenue for the Michigan CaryRecycling Program would be in the
vicinity of $900,000 a year. This would permit the purchase of new handling
equipment, cutting down on the tremendous maintenance cost and time that is
/
necessary when utilizing surplus vehicles and make possible a much more
continuous effort resulting in a speeding up of the process of picking up the
isolated vehicles. It would provide for some full time crews as well as
part-time crews having to be disbanded during the heavy snow seasons of the
winter months in the northern counties. Funding would also provide for
sufficient staff to work with interested counties prior to moving into the
area to have the groundwork formulated, the cars spotted and the releases
available for collection crews.
140
-------
16 -
Built into this program is also the very real possibility of providing
some research, demonstration and actual performance of handling other
components of junk cars that are presently entering the waste stream that
are difficult to handle. The prime example of that is tires. It is the
intention that if the Michigan Car Recycling Project continues that the
second year would permit the development of at least *» areas in Michigan
where tires could be delivered and ground for possible reuse in a secondary
manufacturing process, or as a fuel or some other beneficial need. The
grinding will make these tires usable as a road bed and if it is necessary
to continue to bury them it will make them more manageable. We are hopeful
however that during this demonstration stage additional reuses can be developed.
Considered in this area naturally will be the possibility of using this product
as a supplemental fuel for heat generation.
One of the other areas of concern in the junk car collection program is
the utilization of the fabric and plastics. It is the intention of the
project to work closely with the automobile manufacturing industry to develop
processes to handle this kind of waste. Hopefully, also to encourage that
in the manufacture of future vehicles that the stripping of these vehicles
be considered. It is possible that designs could make it easier to salvage
various aspects of the automobile with consideration being given to such things
as copper and other non-ferrous metals that can be mechanically separated as
it now is an expensive part of the recycling process.
It is anticipated if the Car Recycling Program proceeds as designed that
the need for its existence on a large-scale basis would be reduced in
approximately 7 or 8 years. Part of the intent of this activity is to see
that local areas are equipped to handle the problems and that the operations
141
-------
- 17 -
in the future are such that private enterprise can move into an area on a
periodic basis and process the cars in a pre-develo recycling stream.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
As more attention is being given to solid waste management and as a
greater awareness develops with respect to the kinds of waste that we are
discharging throughout the State, the staff realizes that it is going to be
necessary to develop special disposal facilities for certain kinds of waste
that apparently have little use or market in the recycling field. The
Division receives frequent calls relative to the procedure for handling
and disposal of materials such as arsenic, mercury, cyanide, PBC's,
pesticides, and many other chemicals that could have a very detrimental
effect on the environment.' A special task force committee has been formed
to assist the Division in making future decisions on handling this kind of
waste. It 5s very possible that soon at the national level hazardous wastes
regulations will develop. In knowing of our situation here in Michigan it
is apparent that we should be taking similar action. Regulations alone
aren't going to solve the problem. We should also be developing the
mechanism through which we can handle some of these liquids and solids.
Some thought should be given as to whether or not the State should become
the reservoir for the permanent storage of certain wastes so that we have perpetual
control over the areas utilized that would prevent future accidents. In a
sense this would be.similar to the control and disposal services that have
been provided by the Federal Government with radioactive wastes. It would
be the intent of the Division to have this established under the State but if
it could be a profitable venture that the continued operation would be maintained
by private enterprise with the State providing only the perpetual care and
142
-------
•- 18 -
control of the land used. One of the other advantages to this approach-
is the possibility that at some future date the materials which would be
duly logged and monitored might have a salvage value. Hazardous waste
must be effectively defined and we must in the near future develop a
better approach to the ultimate disposal of this material to continue
in our efforts to provide a safeguard to the environment.
REFUSE PROCESSING
Refuse processing is probably the one activity in which we will notice
some significant changes over the next few years. There will be new
techniques available to take the general stream of solid waste, deliver it
to a plant and have it processed into various components, such as a quality
scrap for steel manufacture and in some instances, fibers for use in paper
and paper product production. Some of it will be processed for fuel to be
fired in our steam or power generating plants or possibly other heating
facilities. Some of it will be processed for final disposal due to its
lack of value or lack of sufficient impact on resource recovery. The
processing plants will no doubt develop a homogenius material and be designed
to provide grinding and various separating processes within its complex.
/
Naturally, we hope that some of these processes will be self-sustaining. It
may, however, be necessary when establishing benefits to include not only
the money saved in developing one phase of the process but to also consider
the effect that material might have in the conservation of natural resources
or in the damage to the environment that disposal might initiate. These
benefits may have to be included in supporting the cost of a maximum system
*
designed for resource recovery and recycling.
143
-------
- 19 -
Some of the problems that will have an effective influence on slowing
down the recycling process involve national policy and national legislation.
The division and department as well must keep abreast of these concerns
and take an active role to seeing that the needed changes are made. A good
example is the present tariff rates on the transportation by rail of
recycled materials. It seems inconceivable that these particular products
should be penalized by higher freight rates than for raw materials but that
in fact is the situation as it appears today.
POWER GENERATION
(
There is a great deal of discussion throughout the country on the
possibility of utilizing much of our solid waste for fuel. One of the
potentials for the future'would be the development of refuse processing
facilities and the outward sale of a part of the waste as fuel to power
generating plants. It appears in the discussion with power generating
people that they are not at all interested in becoming refuse processing
facilities, but it would seem that there is some interest if a firm or a
governmental agency could provide them with a relatively standard size
product that had a relatively stable BTU rating. This would permit the
mixing of this material with the power generating plants usual fuel, at
least on a percentage basis, and provide not only a method of disposing
of paper, cardboard and other burnable refuse, much of which is a part of
renewable resource but also have a significant effect on conserving some of
our non-renewable resources. So, in a true sense of the word this practice
could be included as recycling and reuse of at least that portion of our
waste stream. More plants of this nature are being constructed throughout
144
-------
- 20 -
the country and it certainly appears tKat a wealth of information in this
particular field will be available shortly and should provide the kind of
supporting data that is needed to direct efforts towards a greater
involvement in power generation using refuse as fuel.
PUBLIC INFORMATION
The Division should develop a program for public information. At the
present time the staff limitations do not make it possible to devote the
needed time and effort for this function. The role of consultant to local
government and private enterprise along with surveillance and enforcement
that is now provided leaves no time for input into this activity. Some
meager attempts will be made to work with the public information and
education division of the- Department to provide public information. This
should be expanded so that we can provide the public with the kind of data
and background that is needed for them to assist in supporting political
decisions that will be an important part in developing our future course
of action in the solid waste management field.
PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Recycling and reuse of solid waste probably is the only glamour one might
associate with this particular field. There is need for more interest and
involvement with some concerted effort by government to get programs of this
nature initiated. The market for the bulk of the waste is not conveniently
available and there^is some degree of risk. These factors are acting as
sufficient obstacles for private enterprise to hesitate to plunge right into
recycling and offer their services in the field.
145
-------
- 21 -
Senate Bill No. 9*»6 now in the Conservation Committee of the Senate has
been developed in an attempt to provide a foundation for establishing a solid
waste authority or board. Such board would be within the Department of Natural
Resources with the Executive Secretary being a member of the Environmental
Protection Branch. The capability and participation of the board to perform
seems to be the controversy developing in discussions in which the Division
has participated. The drafters however considered what we needed in Michigan
was an agency that would have the following capabilities:
(I) Review and certify the feasibility of private enterprise proposals
for solid waste management facilities to assure the local govern-
mental unit of the sincerety and technical suitability of any solid
waste proposals. The expense of such an evaluation would be torn
i
by the private enterprise.
(2) Provide a solid waste management planning and service for a local
governmental unit when requested.
(3) Contract for service with any local unit or with private enterprise.
This would permit the consolidation of waste and develop meaningful
volumes needed to establish processes designed to provide resource
recovery and marketability of certain waste materials.
(A) Be an operating agency for refuse management and be self-sustaining
after the initial few years of operation through various financing
mechanisms.
(5) Encourage and promote a maximum effort in resource recovery and
reuse of recoverable resources from the solid waste stream.
•
(6) Encourage and promote the development of industry within the State
that would become involved in the collection, processing, resource
recovery, reuse and disposal of solid waste.
146
-------
- 22 -
(7) Provide for the proper storage, transporting and ultimate
disposal of the unusable portion of solid waste.
(8) Implement local plans if such is not accomplished within two
years after such plans have been approved.
This is a new approach to State involvement in solid waste management.
The bill in some respects ursurps local authority so there will be a great
deal of discussion and I presume changes made before it leaves the Committee.
Probably the most significant advantages are the capabilities it does provide for
recycling and reuse promotion and development. Possibly this year a redraft
of the bill might establish the permisabfIity of a management services authority
that would provide a foundation for future involvement to the extent of such
operations as Connecticut and Nashville. It appears at least right now that
a totally involved recycling and reuse system will not get off the ground
without some state and federal monetary participation either on a direct grant
or a percentage participation formula. Personally, I would prefer that these
programs be self-financed but that has not been the format for other public
need programs such as water and sewer services.
CLOSING STATEMENT
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the public and far too many
of our local officials are not aware of the extent, complexity and consequences
of an inadequate plan and an ineffective refuse management system.
For the most part Michigan communities are relying on land disposal for
their solid waste needs. The requirements for protection of the environment
are increasing somewhat the design and operating costs but probably the most
significant factors are the opposition from nearby residents and consequently
township officials through existing or interim zoning and the fact that state
land use controls may place further restrictions on the economical landfill
147
-------
- 23 -
approach to refuse disposal. Those involved in solid waste m.. .ment
must be strong advocates of volume reduction processes with recycling and
reuse the key.
Our future course of action will be governed by the answers to the
following questions:
(1) Should state legislation be corrected to improve the financial
capabilities of local units of government?
(2) Is it necessary and should the state develop and finance a
grant program to assist local units in solving their solid
waste problem?
(3) Should the state become an operating or contracting agency for
solid waste handling facilities and be financed by state funds?
i
(k) Should the Legislature provide additional statutory authority
that would permit but still control the potential of having
private enterprise much more involved in the total solid waste
management activity?
(5) Should the state take over the full responsibility of site
selection and acquisition to remove local controls?
(6) Is mandatory legislation needed to establish local responsibility
for solid waste management?
(7) Should the state propose requirements that would force local units
to develop recycling facilities and further require that public
utilities" and Industry utilize solid waste as fuel?
(8) Should the Department of Natural Resources honor the request of
local- health department to reimburse them for services performed
under Act 87, or develop a direct service program at the state level?
nePARTMt'NT 0!: I1 A,'l.'."!AL RESOURCES
MUD WASVE r.'Ar.lAGir.ENT DIVISION
8th FLOOR MASON BLDG.
LANSING, MICHIGAN 48924
148
-------
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
1935 W. County Rocd 82, / Roseville, Minnesota 55113
612-636-5740
MINNESOTA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM STATUS
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
v 149
-------
-1-
In 1970, Minnesota spent, according to Pollution Control Agency
staff estimates, $62 million to collect, transport and dispose of 6.2
billion pounds of refuse. Assuming no growth in population or inflation,
Minnesota will spend approximately $111 million in 1980 to handle 11
billion pounds 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 1969 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. From these planning directives, state solid waste
regulations were developed and adopted by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency in 1970 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 eight major
objectives. The following discussion outlines the objectives and the
degree of success in achieving each.
1. Agency promotion and assistance in the development of regional
solid waste management systems centered around the county level of
government.
To date, 86 of the 87 Minnesota counties have received Agency
approval for solid wac^e management system plans. The majority of the
150
-------
-2-
counties have begun implementation of their solid waste management
systems, primarily through establishing one or more regional sanitary
landfills for the county and proceeding with closing the open dumps
within the county.
Once the solid waste management system is established, an active
county enforcement program is vital to the success of the system. Each
county is encouraged to pass a solid waste ordinance and to appoint a
county solid waste officer to implement a county enforcement program.
To date, 55 counties have adopted county solid waste ordinances and all
counties in the state have appointed a county solid waste officer.
2. Engineer and construct controlled solid waste land disposal
sites which will not adversely affect the environment and which upon
coapletion, have a final land use.
In 1970, it was estimated that a total of approximately 240
regional solid waste land disposal sites would be required for the state.
i To date, 138 permits have been issued to solid waste land disposal
facilities in the state of these, 108 are for sanitary landfills.
Minnesota Regulation SW-6, deals with the state requirements for
sanitary landfill location, construction, operation and permit
application procedure. The amended SW-6 is substantially more
restrictive..
The major advances made by the amendments to SW-6 are:
1. A sanitary landfill may not be located in a wetland area.
2. No land disposal of hazardous wastes is allowed. In 1972,
the Agency permitted an incineration facility which is specially
tesigned to dispose of hazardous wastes. This is the only facility of
151
-------
-3-
of its kind in Minnesota/ but is expected to be adequate for the entire
state. All sanitary landfills are now required to have an on-site
restricted area for storage of hazardous wastes until their transportation
to an approved hazardous wastes disposal facility.
3. A hydrogeological report must accompany each sanitary landfill
permit application.
4. A registered Minnesota engineer must certify to the Agency,
prior to a permitted sanitary landfill beginning operation, that all
initial site construction has been completed in conformance with the
site plans. This is a key requirement, as much of the problems with the
permitted landfills stem from the site plans not being followed.
3. Abate existing pollution problems state-wide by properly closing
open dumps and controlling open dumping practices throughout the state.
In 1970/ there were over 1000 open dumps in the state; many of
these dumps presented associated environmental hazards. To date, 466 of
these dumps have been closed.
A recently adopted state solid waste regulation, SW-12, sets out.
state requirements for closing a solid waste land disposal site. Nearly
one-half of the 466 reported dump closings do not meet all the
requirements of regulation SW-12, mainly the requirement of covering the
old dump with two feet of cover material.
4. Register feedlots in the state and take corrective engineering
measures, when necessary, to insure that existing pollution problems are
corrected.
There are approximately 106,000 confined animal feedlots in the
state, of which about 50,000 need substantial improvements.
To date, 1500 permits for animal facilities have been issued. The
tremendous increases in permit issuance are a result of a highly
successful public informational program over the past year initiated by
152
-------
-4-
the Agency and county staff, with the cooperation of the University's
•gricultural extension department.
The large number of feedlots in the state and their scattered
locations pose a time and manpower problem for the permit issuance
program. With the 1973 Legislature's enactment of M.S. 573, which
gives counties the authority to instigate feedlot permits on the county
level (subject to PCA final review and approval) , it is anticipated
that the number of feedlot permits will increase substantially.
5. Collect motor vehicles, farm machinery and other scrap metal
abandoned in the state and to transport and recycle them back into the
economy.
Approximately 30,000 motor vehicles are abandoned annually in
Minnesota. Presently, about 400,000 abandoned motor vehicles are
scattered over the state.
In 1971, the legislature initiated a state-funded project to
reimburse counties for the inventory and collection of abandoned motor
vehicles.
As of September, 1972, the basic inventorying and tagging had been
ecnpleted. Approximately 30,000 abandoned motor vehicles had been
recycled. The goal during the period 1973-1975 is to recycle
170,000 more.
To date, 77 counties have conducted inventories of their
ibandoned motor vehicles and 47 counties have completed or have contracts
for collection, reduction and transportation. During fiscal year 1973,
approximately 41,000 abandoned motor vehicles were collected and
transported to scrap processors. An additional 9500 vehicles are
presently under contract for removal with 40,000 more anticipated to be
Kwed by the beginning of fiscal year, 1975. The goal of 170,000 vehicles
ttcycled during program period 1973-1975, should be attained and
Possibly exceeded.
153
-------
-5-
6. Develop systems to encourage the reductionf reuse and recycli.nq
of solid wastes.
The 1973 State Legislature gave the Agency the authority to
establish a statewide grants-in-aid program designed to assist any
region, municipality, or institution through 50% financing in the
following areas:
a) The development of feasibility studies for resource
recovery systems or facilities.
b) The planning or implementation of resource recovery
systems.
c) The development of programs encouraging solid materials
conservation, such as public education and encouragement
of market demand for reusable or recyclable materials.
The resource recovery grants-in-aid program is being administered
by the Division of Solid Waste and coordinated with other recently
established programs such as the Minnesota Environmental Education
Council. The Agency feels that resource recovery should be implemented
on a regional basis as part of the overall solid waste management plan
for a given region.
Projects illustrating this concept in Austin, Mankato, Rochester
and Moorhead are presently being considered for funding. Each demonstrates
a different aspect of resource recovery. Austin has an ordinance
requiring home separation of newsprint, glass, cans and plastics.
Rochester is investigating a similar home separation plan. Mankato
has home binding of newsprint which is then thrown in with the regulax*
garbage pickup and separated out at the landfill. Moorhead differs in
its separation of recoverable material in that it is done at a transfer
station.
154
-------
-6-
Both materials and energy recovery from solid waste are being
considered in Minnesota. Duluth is proposing to incinerate solid waste
along with its sewage sludge as is the Metro Sewer Board of the Twin
Cities Area. Two other projects that include previous materials
recovery before incineration are in Cedar Riverside (Minneapolis) and
St. Paul.
Recent developments of significance include a proposed combined
aarketing feasibility study jointly supported by several metropolitan
i
governmental agencies which are presently considering projects involving
laterials and energy recovery from solid waste. Through the coordinating
efforts of PCA and Metropolitan Council staff, representatives from
Hennepin and Ramsey counties and the Metropolitan Sewer Board are
considering pooling monies for their common study needs, and applying
for matching grants-in-aid money.
A grants application form and a point system for evaluation
of proposals are presently being printed. Grants money for the above
projects and others total $650,000 but no funds have actually been
spent as yet. Monies should start going out into the state by the
end of March.
r
An urgent need for resource recovery and conservation exists and
there is active concern about these issues on many levels throughout
the state. What is lacking, and the MPCA-Resource Recovery staff intends
to remedy this, is the cooperation of the interested parties to form a
toordinated effort to firmly establish recycling as an integral part of
our overall waste collection-processing-recovery-disposal system. Our
staff is working now with the state's regional development commissions to
create solid waste management plans that are unique in scope and design
for each region.
155
-------
-7-
7. Rrovide information about Solid Waste Division programs and
training to sanitary landfill operators, county solid waste officers^
feedlot operators and the general public.
To promote proper solid waste management, various seminars are held
on a regular basis:
* Sanitary Landfill Operator's Seminar, approximately yearly.
The sanitary landfill operators, as the personnel directly
responsible for the proper disposal of so much of the state' s
solid waste, must be kept informed of the Solid Waste Division's
programs and given a forum to discuss problem areas with the
Division staff and fellow operators.
Typical topics at this meeting are state regulations, hazard-
ous and infectious wastes, water monitoring, winter operation,
equipment selection and maintenance, safety, landfill operation
and group discussion, tax credits, and the county and state
surveillance programs.
* County Solid Waste Officer's Meetings held in each of the five
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Districts on a semiannual basis.
The County Solid Waste Officers are the local enforcement agents
and, therefore, are an extremely important part of the solid
waste program. At each of these meetings, the Solid Waste
Division attempts to get a large part of the staff and all of
an MPCA District's County Solid Waste Officers together in a
day of informal discussions. High attendance and near total
participation of the attendees in the discussions have been
the rule, resulting in an exchange'of information and
viewpoints beneficial to all. Topics discussed include dump
closing, county participation in permitting feedlots, the
abandoned motor vehicle program, the resource recovery
grant-in-aid program, etc.
156
-------
-8-
* Agricultural Pollution (Feedlot) Meetings held in the spring
of each year in approximately 9 locations.
As previously mentioned, there are approximately 106,000
confined animal feedlots which potentially fall under the
Division's jurisdiction. The Agricultural Waste Section of
the Solid Waste Division is working in cooperation with the
Agriculture Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service,
County Solid Waste Officers, County Zoning Officers, etc.
in preventing feedlot pollution in Minnesota. To this end,
the Division produces news releases and informational
brochures, and holds these spring meetings to discuss
federal, state and county regulations, pollution abatement
methods, available governmental assistance, etc.
The Solid Waste Division is presently developing an operator
certification program for solid waste disposal facility personnel, the
goal of this program being to insure that the sanitary landfills are
operated by competent persons. The staff is now drafting regulations
and subsequently will institute,with the help of the state vocational
technical schools, a training program and exam procedure. Initially, the
foremen of solid waste disposal facilities will be required to obtain
certification; with time the heavy equipment operators may also be
included.
8. Regulate the disposal of problem wastes, such as hazardous wastes
rod sludges, in an environmentally sound and safe manner.
* Hazardous Waste Study and Report
The Division of Solid Waste staff has participated in an
intergovernmental study concerning hazardous waste problems
in the Metropolitan Eight County Area. The report develops
157
-------
_Q ..
waste generation data and concludes 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 county study area. Approximately
75% of the potentially hazardous waste (non-oil) and 60% of
the waste oil disposed of through routes other than
sanitary sewer systems are being disposed of in an
unregulated manner.
The report recommends that the hazardous waste management
program which it proposes for the eight county study arcs
eventually be expanded into a statewide porgrara; county,
regional and state agencies would be given hazardous waste
planning and regulatory responsibilities from the point
of generation through disposal. Pending legislation would
give the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and county
governments the authority to pursue a hazardous waste
management program.
* Sludge Disposal
Presently, the only sludges regulated within the State of
Minnesota are those accepted for disposal in sanitary
landfills.
Revised regulations state that digested sewage sludges,
lime sludges, grit chamber cleanings, bar screenings and
other sludges, unless approved by the Director or in amounts
normal in household waste, shall not be acceptable for
deposit in sanitary landfills.
158
-------
-10-
Each individual sludge must be approved by the Agency
prior to disposal in a sanitary landfill. Approval is
based on factors such as chemical composition, free
moisture and workability.
159
-------
MISSISSIPPI'S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS
Mississippi's solid waste management program began in 1969
under a federal assistance planning grant. The State Board of
Health was named as the agency responsible for developing a
state solid waste management plan. In turn, the State Health
Officer placed this responsibility with the Division of Sanitary
Engineering.
The staff for solid waste management, so far, has consisted
of two full-time advisory sanitarians and one part-time engineer
with assistance from the local sanitarians.
The implementation of this program has been on a voluntary
basis. It has not been possible to get legislation adopted to
regulate solid waste management.
Because of the limited staff, it has not been possible to make
any input into a hazardous waste program, an operator training
program, a safety training program, industrial waste studies,
institutional waste surveys, an argicultural waste survey, financial
feasibility studies, or any specific solid waste management problems.
The plan for the state is to form county-wide solid waste
management programs whereby county and municipal governments join
in an effort to centralize the disposal site. Municipalities will
continue to give door-to-door collection service, and the county
government will provide four-cubic-yard metal storage containers
in the county for rural garbage storage with regular collection
service.
160
-------
Past accomplishments include a statewide survey, the development
and publishing of a state solid waste management plan, proposed
legislation for solid waste management, and publication of
guidelines for storage, collection> and disposal. Progress in
implementing the state plan is shown on the enclosed forms and map.
There have been problems because of the small staff, and these
problems will be compounded when an attempt is made to meet the needs
in hazardous waste management and other special programs.
Mississippi' s solid waste management program would be greatly
enhanced if some federal assistance could be obtained in program
grants to increase the staff in order to meet the needs.
161
-------
June 3. 1973
Ot
ro
Disposal;
Sanitary Landfill
Covered Damp
Open Dump
Processing;
Incineration
Shredding
Bailing
Resource Recovery
Collection;
House-to-house
Mail Box
Container
Combination( s )
statua aa or
Bounty/Regional
System
Per
No. Cent
—
—
82 100
—
—
—
No
—
—
—
i
Cities
Per
No. Cent
1 .004.
—
273 99
—
—
—
Data Availab
226 82
—
—
JLU1O JV t O.7U7
Population
Per
No. Cent
45,083 .02
—
2,171,829 99
—
—
—
Le on Junked
915,794 83
—
—
Aut
Bounty/Regional
System
Per
No. Cent
8 .09
—
74 91
—
— —
—
) Recycling
8 .09
—
8 .09
Cities
Per
No. Cent
54 22
— —
190 78
—
—
~~
229 83
—
—
Population
Per
No. Cent
734,833 33
"~
1,482,079 67
—
_—
— >«
919,039 84
—
170,889 .09
-------
of Darti* of
1969 Survey Thla Survey
I. TOTAL STATE POPULATION
Population served by: A. Approved disposal facility 45,083 734,833
B. Adequate collection 915,794 919,039
II. TOTAL POPULATION. INCORPORATED CITIES AND TOWNS
Population served by: A. Approved disposal facility 45,083 463,988
B. Adequate collection — 919,039
III. TOTAL POPULATION. UNINCORPORATED AREAS
— Population served by: A. Approved disposal facility — 170,889
u>
B. Adequate collection — 3,245
IV. NUMBER OF COUNTIES IN STATE
Number of County or Regional systems — 8
County/Regional systems serving: 270,835
A. Unincorporated areas only — 170,889
B. Combined incorporated/unincorporated areas — 99,946
-------
J I
NC~SMoiV"V'|~" ~KIM»CT«
___J [
---- T M4RIOM ! 1
sEl I
J*C~XSON
^^| County-wide program in operation
j\\\j County-wide program being develops
w Established sanitary landfills
164
-------
THE DIVISIOIN OK HEALTH
OF MISSOURI
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Missouri's solid waste management program is presently housed within
the Division of Health as the Bureau of Solid Waste Management. The
Bureau was established on May 1, 1972, thereby increasing the visi-
bility of the solid waste management program in State government.
The Missouri State Solid Waste Management Plan was finished in April,
1972, and approved and adopted by the Governor on June 29, 1972.
Also in 1972, the General Assembly enacted a comprehensive solid
waste management act similar to that recommended in the State Plan.
These three very significant events formed a strong foundation for
this increasingly important State program. These accomplishments
are attributable to the manpower that the Division of Health was
enabled to employ under a United States Environmental Protection
Agency state solid waste planning grant.
The Bureau of Solid Waste Management nov has three basic programs of
(1) Solid Waste Planning and Evaluation, (2) Solid Waste Management
Information and Training, and (3) Solid Waste Technical Services.
The attached chart indicates the organizational structure and man-
power of the Bureau. Following is a discussion of the functions
and accomplishments of the three programs.
PLANNING AND EVALUATION
It is an overall objective of the Planning and Evaluation program
that solid waste management planning be accomplished at all levels
of government so that efficient, economical, well-managed solid
waste systems are provided to all of the State in a manner that
will protect the health of the public, minimize pollution of the
environment, eliminate unsightly solid waste conditions, and con-
serve natural resources. The following functions are aiding the
planning program in the attainment of this objective:
Functions
1. Stimulate the development of local and regional Solid Waste
Management planning and implementation.
165
10/73
-------
2. Coordinate solid waste management planning activities of the regional
planning commissions with state and other regional solid waste planning.
3. Maintain an updated state solid waste management inventory and plan,
4. Coordinate, develop, and encourage passage of needed solid waste legis-
lation, both regulatory and enabling in nature.
5. Provide direct planning and assistance to regional planning commissions
or other groups.
6. Continue to evaluate solid waste management practices and progress in
meeting the goals and objectives of the State Plan.
7. Monitor solid waste management planning progress of every city and
county to assure the adoption of a solid waste management plan by
every local government by June 30, 1974, as required by recent state
legislation.
8. Review the progress of every local government in the scheduled im-
plementation of their officially adopted solid waste management
plans.
Accomplishments
Solid Waste Management planning at the State level is documented in the
Missouri Solid Waste Management Plan which, as previously mentioned, was
completed in 1972. Subsequent updates or addendums to this Plan may
evolve.
The State Plan outlined basic objectives for local government plans to
attain. It was recommended that the local government plans be developed
by the twenty regional planning commissions in the State. Every local
government is assigned to one of these regional planning agencies which
have professional planning staffs. The present involvement of the regions
in solid waste management planning is as follows:
1. Two regions had U.S.E.P.A. solid waste management planning grants and
have finished their grant program, although there is still continuing
involvement by these two regions.
2. Eight regions have U.S.E.P.A. solid waste management planning grants
currently, and are at various stages of development. One of these
regions has finished its planning document. The Bureau of Solid Waste
Managementand the regional U.S.E.P.A. office continually stress to
the regions the importance of implementation rather than the planning
itself. Many cities and counties have decided upon their plan of
action through the assistance of the regional planning commissions,
and are already operational although their solid waste management
plan has not yet been formally written in final form.
166
-------
3. Six regions have no funds whatsoever, or some other funding source;
but are involved to varied extents in solid waste management plan-
ning.
4. Three regions are developing solid waste management plans through
assistance from the Division of Health and the University of Mis-
souri, Rolla, Extension Division. With the aid of the Missouri
Department of Community Affairs, ^ grant was obtained for the Exten-
sion Division for this purpose.
5. One region was assisted by a Bureau of Solid Waste Management summer
employee in the preparation of the technical portions of their Solid
Waste Management Plan. The regional planning commission will develop
the remaining portions of the plan.
In summary, all of the regional planning agencies are now involved in
Solid Waste Management Planning on behalf of their local governments.
Other accomplishments of the planning program of the Bureau of Solid
Waste Management are:
1. A Model Solid Waste Managament Ordinance and a Model Solid Waste
Contract were developed and printed in August, 1972.
2. Regular monthly meetings are held for all regional planning com-
missions to present regular agenda items of mutual interest including
state policies, guest speakers, and exchange of ideas among the
regions.
3. Meetings are held for cities, counties, and regional planning
commissions to explain planning benefits and requirements.
4. Guidelines for Review of Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plans
have been developed and provided to the regional planning commissions,
counties and cities.
5. Ordinances and contracts are reviewed for compliance with plannning
guidelines and advice given on altering the documents.
6. A resource recovery survey and resultant report are now in progress.
7. Since the passage of state solid waste legislation, fifty to sixty
cities have instituted universal (mandatory) residential solid
waste collection, yielding a current total of approximately ninety
cities.
167
-------
INFORMATION AND TRAINING
The overall objective of this program is to improve existing and stimulate
establishment of new solid waste management systems through training and
education programs for operatory, regulatory, and managerial personnel.
This program also has an objective to increase public awareness of exis-
ting conditions and inform the public of what they can reasonably ex'-f?ct
from their local governments.
Functions
1. Publicize the findings and recommendations of the State and Regional
Solid Waste Management studies and plans.
2. Develop and implement informational and training programs for solid
waste planning, technical, supervisory, and managerial personnel.
3. Develop and implement an educational program to stimulate the general
public to recognize the need and increase the demand for good Solid
Waste Management.
Accomplishments
The Bureau of Solid Waste Management was successful in obtaining a two-
year United States Environmental Protection Agency training grant on
September 1, 1972. Following are the accomplishments of the Information
and Training Program.
1. Programs of training courses have been developed and presented on
(1) Solid Waste Management Planning, (2) Sanitary Landfill Design
and Operation, (3) Mission 5000 - Dump Closing, (4) Operation Safety,
(5) Routing for Municipal Collection, (6) Solid Waste Management
in Rural Areas (7) Solid Waste Management in Urban Areas, (8) On-
Site Storage, (9) Solid Waste Management, and (10) Engineering
Seminar - Sanitary Landfill Design.
2. These training courses have been given on 24 occasions to a total
of over 1,100 persons.
3. Hundreds of other informal training and informational programs have
been given.
4. Films have been purchased and made available to the public - (1) The
Green Box, (2) Sanitary Landfill - You're the Operator, (3) Operation
Responsible, (4) Realities of Recycling, (5) The Third Pollution,
(6) One Part Earth - Four Parts Refuse, and (7) Rat Eradication.
168
-------
5. A periodical newletter is being developed for statewide distribution.
6. A brochure on Solid Waste Management has been developed, and a bro-
chure summarizing the State Solid Waste Management Plan is now being
written.
7. A booklet on recommended methods for dump closing is ready to be
printed.
TECHNICAL SERVICES
The overall objective of this program is to improve solid waste systems
serving the citizens of Missouri through providing technical assistance
to local government elected officials, state officials, consultants,
public works officials, and private enterprise.
Functions
1. Inspect proposed solid waste processing facilities and disposal sites
to insure compliance with the 1972 Missouri Solid Waste Management
Act.
2. Provide technical assistance to cities, counties, state agencies, and
private individuals.
3. Review and approve engineering plans and specifications of new or re-
vised solid waste processing facilities and disposal areas.
4. Provide technical supervision of solid waste management functions of
the district and county health offices. The district and county per-
sonnel provide technical assistance and will conduct routine inspec-
tion of solid waste processing facilities and disposal areas.
5. Issue operating permits to facilities having satisfactory engineering
plans.
Accomplishments
1. Proposed regulations for sanitary landfills, demolition landfills,
and processing facilities have been developed. Public hearing on
the proposed regulations was held on October 3, 1973.
2. Engineering plans for sanitary landfills have been received for 56
sites, and 20 of them have been approved thus far.
3. Eighty open dumps have been closed since the program began.
A. Approximately 150 preliminary sanitary landfill site approvals have
been given.
169
-------
In the near future, an enforcement program will be established parallel
to the other three functional programs. Failure of persons to comply
with the planning requirements and the permitting provisions of the
Missouri Solid Waste Management Act can then be referred to this pro-
gram.
The past year has led to significant physical improvements in the
solid waste management systems throughout Missouri. Also a tremen-
dous amount of solid waste management planning is progressing which,
when implemented, will bring Missouri even closer to its solid waste
management goal "... to improve management practices- *f(storagt,
collection, transportation, processing, and disposal in order to
protectg^hey*eAth of the public, to minimize pollution of the en-
vironment, &g&cflffliinate unsightly solid waste conditions, and to
prevent economic loss."
170
-------
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
OF THE
MISSOURI SOLID WASTE AGENCY
GOVERNOR
DIRECTOR
Department of Public
Health and Welfare
DIRECTOR
Division of Health
Director, Section of
Environmental Health
(L. F. Garber, P.E,)
Director, Bureau of
Solid Waste Management
(Robert H. Robinson, P.E.)
Director, Bureau
of Community
Health Engineering
Planning and Evaluation
John R. Meyer, P.E., Chief
Thomas ft. Fiesinger, Solid
Waste Planner
Technical Services
Rick L. Roberts, Chief
4 Sanitary Engineers
(to be hired)
1
.Information and Training
Ralph H. Frederickson, Chief
Dan R. Swyers, Solid Waste
Engineer
District Health
Office Engineers
-------
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Environmental Sciences Division
Solid Waste Section
Helena, Montana 59601
MONTANA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS
STRATEGY
Blue skies, mountains, prairies, clean air, clear waters, acres of wide open
spaces, and a paucity of people, the ecological fairy tale, in reality can be a
nightmare of problems for a state solid waste department. Too few people and the
wide open spaces are the significant culprits Impeding solutions to solid waste
problems In Montana. The financial strain for proper refuse collection and disposal
on the few residents is horrendous because of the population and the vast distances
that separate them. To combat this financial dilemma, the Montana Legislature
enacted solid waste legislation designed to coagulate the population and distance
problems and aid in implementing solutions to refuse and junk vehicle collection
and disposal.
The laws that were created to control refuse disposal have been In effect
since 1965. The law focusing on the easing of the financial burden of a refuse
collection and/or disposal system to the local citizen was legalized In 1969 and
is known as the Refuse Disposal District Law. The law allows county commissioners
to establish refuse disposal districts, including the incorporated cities at their
consent, thus providing enough residential units and commercial and industrial
establishments to operate a district collection and/or disposal system at an
economical user-fee to all units in the district.
When the law was enacted for counties to create refuse disposal districts,
deadlines were then set by the State Department of Health for compliance with the
law. The following deadlines were enacted:
Population of Cities Deadlines Established
4tOOO or more July I, 1971
2,500 or more July lt 1972
1,000 or more July lt 2973
lf 000 or less (To be determined on a
oase-by-oaee basis)
In 1970, nine communities In Montana were operating modified sanitary land-
fills. Today, 70 sanitary landfills are in operation, representing 61 percent of
the population. The remaining 39 percent are either fanners or ranchers or live
In small farm communities of under 1,000 population.
172
-------
During the 1973 Legislative Session, a law concerning junk vehicles was
passed. This law allows for the collection and disposal of junk vehicles on a
state-wide basis. The program Is financed by a special fee added to the vehicle
licensing costs. At least one free auto graveyard is required in each county.
Thus, people are offered a place to deposit their junk vehicles at no additional
cost
SPECIAL PROJECTS
One refuse pulverizer plant is presently In operation In Great Falls, Montana.
The plant started operation on September 18, 1973; thus, no Information will be
available for several months.
The Solid Waste Section of the Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences is currently assisting In the development of low cost trailer-container
systems for rural areas. The container system to be tested, which will replace
the small local disposal areas, is the goose-neck trailer. It is low enough in
initial and operating costs to allow all counties to implement a solid waste pro-
gram for its rural residents.
PPTPI FM AREAS
As with all projects, the financial strain on the citizen to operate the
project Is the most significant problem. If some method is not found to secure
RDnies to finance projects, such as rural pick-up systems, then any progress that
might be made In solving state and local problems will be seriously hindered. Also,
lack of training funds hinders progress in rural areas where we are only beginning
to get people to give up the open, burning dumps and convert to sanitary landfills.
173
-------
Nebraska Solid Waste Management
Program Status
I. Strategy for Solution of State/Local Problems
In 1972, Nebraska received a Federal Grant from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a State Solid
Waste Management Plan. This plan will be completed by December 31,
1973.
Nebraska currently has a licensing program for solid waste
disposal sites which has been in effect since 1967. The 1972
Unicameral* passed an amendment to this legislation which excluded
all disposal sites serving communities below 5,000 population.
A major recommendation of the State Plan being developed is to
provide for licensing of all disposal sites.
Nebraska is composed of a large number of small communities
(only six communities out of 417 are over 20,000 population).
These small communities, as well as some of the larger ones, lack
the necessary equipment, facilities, personnel and regulations to
properly maintain a solid waste management system.
In an attempt to broaden the number of people served by each
disposal site and improve existing storage, collection, transpor-
tation, disposal and management practices, the Nebraska Department
of Environmental Control is proposing thLt counties across the
State develop and implement a solid waste management plan. Plans
will be required to consider available alternatives for each segment
of a solid waste management system and to select the most viable
system.
*One-house legislative body
174
-------
Legislation to require these county plans will be introduced
in the 1974 Unicameral with 1978 the proposed date for plans to
be implemented and all disposal sites to be under a permit provision.
II. Special Projects of Interest
Nebraska currently has no special on-going projects.
III. Critical Problem Areas For Federal Assistance
The Federal Government should enact measures to curb the
spiraling solid waste generation rates and to develop the necessary
incentives to encourage increased activity in the area of resource
recovery.
Additional support and guidelines are needed in the area of
hazardous and liquid wastes disposal.
175
-------
STATE OP NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OP HUMAN RESOURCES
DIVISION OF HEALTH
BUMCAU or ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CARSON crnr. NEVADA s»?oi <7O2) es2-787o
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN NEVADA
STATUS REPORT - OCTOBER 1, 1973
An Abstract Prepared For
Solid Waste Conference, Kansas City, Missouri
Prepared by: Lewis H. Dodgion, Public Health Engineer, Project Director
The Nevada Solid Waste Management Planning Program was commenced in
May 1972, with the aid of a federal planning grant which extends through June 197<+.
The project is presently about two-thirds complete, with the State plan currently
being assembled in preliminary final form.
GENERAL
Nevada is sparsely populated with about 80 percent of the population centered
in the Carson City - Reno-Sparks area in west central Nevada and the Las Vegas area
some 400 miles to the south.
With a State population just under 500,000 in the 1970 census, it may be
noted that half of the counties in the State, although comprising over half of the
total land area in the State, have an average population density of less than one-half
person per square mile.
Substantial distances separate many communities, it being not uncommon to
have to travel 60 or 80 miles between places.
PERSONNEL
The program is headed by the Chief of the Bureau of Environmental Healrh.
The project director devotes one-half of his time to the program while the project
engineer is assigned full time. Other personnel include some 8 sanitarians and a
secretary, all on a very limited basis. Total personnel in the program amounts to
a total of 2.1 men during the current year.
176
-------
LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING ACTIVITY
The Solid Waste Act passed by the 1971 Legislature provides for the develop-
ment of a State plan and requires development of a solid waste management plan by each
county and municipality.
The Act further requires the development of rules and regulations.
Regulations governing solid waste management in Nevada have been developed and were
adopted by the State Board of Health in January 1973.
PROGRAM ACTIVITY
The survey of existing conditions and practices is on a continuing basis
concurrently with preparation of the State plan. One regional plan is currently
nearing completion in Clark County. The Clark County plan is noteworthy since it is
assisted by a planning grant and includes the Las Vegas area with about sixty percent
of the State's population.
Liaison is maintained by the project director and project engineer with
all cities and counties in order to expedite and assist in development of their
respective plans. The development of these local and regional plans is considered to
be of major importance to the success of the State plan.
The wide diversity of needs and abilities to provide solutions in the
various widely separated communities poses a particular problem. Special considerations
•re given to the smaller and more isolated communities.
PUBLIC RESPONSE TO PROGRAM
Efforts are continuous in public information and relations concerning
problems connected with solid waste. It may be noted an excellent response is received
from individual citizens while a primary difficulty would appear to be in obtaining
•dequate response from many city and county governing bodies. Many of the local
governments are operated at the maximum statutory tax limit and have failed to make
•dequate provisions, if any at all, in their budgets for solid waste management.
177
-------
The staff of the Bureau of Environmental Health, through meetings with city
and county officials, is continuing its efforts to upgrade existing collection and
disposal methods. The need for upgrading these facilities is widespread and urgent.
Technical assistance by the available staff of the Bureau is offered, particularly to
those cities or counties which do not have an engineer or public works director
trained in solid waste management.
SUMMARY
Solid waste management problems in Nevada are not unlike those in many parts
of the United States. Funding is a particular problem where the relative smallness
and isolation of the community served makes adequate financing very difficult.
There appears ever more clearly a significant need to reduce the amount of
solid wastes that must be disposed of. This effect is our greatest challenge with
possible solutions to be found in deliberate curtailment of practices generating
excessive amounts of residual solid waste and by increased efforts to provide an
incentive for the re-cycling of recoverable resources. It may be necessary to place
a "price tag" on the energy represented by the net waste from any production or
consumption process.
PROBLEMS REQUIRING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Of concern to many small communities is the continuation of their present
use of federally owned lands for'land disposal sites and the acquisition of land
for new disposal sites. Some 87 percent of Nevada is in federal ownership and
suitable privately owned land often is not available.
Some burning of Class III sites (population under 1,000) has been the
traditional mode of disposal management. Generally very dry climate conditions,
the need to reduce volumes and the need to control blowing litter has encouraged this
practice in the past. The conversion of small disposal sites, which are presently
without daily supervision, into sanitary landfill operations will require substantial
financial assistance not presently available.
178
-------
Federal assistance through planning or implementation grants would appear
essential if the State Solid Waste Management Program is to be continued at its
present level, or at any increased level of service, beyond June 30, 1974.
RELAi^u ACTIVITIES
The Nevada Solid Waste Management Program closely correlates its activities
with other federal, state and local agencies in environmental health functions in
ttter pollution, air pollution, and land pollution. Aesthetics and enhancement of
the environment are also considered.
179
-------
fctatc at Sfrui
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE
DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH
61 S. SPRING STREET
CONCORD 03301
GERARD J. ZEILLER
COMMI**ION1I>
M. WIESE. M D..M.P.H
DIHtCTOH OF PUBLIC ML«I_TM
October 24, 1973
SUMMARY OF STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
There are, presently approved and operating, 25 sanitary landfill
sites handling 36 towns. There are 4 sites pending approvnl as sanitary
landfills plus 2 incinerators now operational. Also, there are three firm
recycling projects now underway on a municipal basis. These should be
completely operational within 6-9 months. These recycling projects all in-
clude incinerators and recycling of paper, cans and bottles. These three
projects are requesting funds from a $100,000 grant from the State Legislature
funded under House Bill 151 established for operational pilot projects in the
recycling of solid wastes.
Although recycling is steadily gaining ground in New Hampshire,
sanitary landfill is still the leading method being adopted by the towns and
cities. The regional planning commissions are working very hard at completing
their solid waste studies and attempting to help the towns implement these
programs prior to the towns scheduled closing of its open-burning dumps.
The State's Solid Waste Management Plan is ready for final review
and approval. It is anticipated thit printing will take place with 60-90
days. Although many of the regional planning commissions are well along in
their planning procedures and the State Plan is not completed, close coordination
has been maintained in an effort to be sure all regional plans are in concert
with the State Plan.
The House Bill 151 previously mentioned also established a 7 meriber
committee for studying recycling and the state plan with the intent of proposing
necessary legislation to the 1975 legislature. Some of the expected legislation
would probably include a grant-aid-program, an increased solid waste management
staff and increased program emphasis to aid the towns, and a program established
for public information and education.
180
-------
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
BUREAU OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM SUMMARY
October 1973 at
Kansas City, MO
In 1970, New Jersey published, and the Governor adopted, the
New Jersey State Solid Waste Management Plan. In that same year,
Governor Cahill signed into law the Solid Waste Management Act (1970)
and the Bureau of Solid Waste Management revised its regulations
governing the disposal of solid wastes within the State.
Today, the New Jersey Bureau of Solid Waste Management registers
and supervises over 390 solid waste disposal facilities and 13,000
collectors and haulers of those wastes. The Bureau reviews engineering
designs for all existing and proposed disposal facilities, provides
technical assistance to counties and municipalities, and conducts a
vigorous surveillance and enforcement program throughout the State.
The Solid Waste Management Act is a broad statute empowering the
Department of Environmental Protection to regulate solid waste
collection and disposal operations and providing for the selective
registration of new facilities to accomplish the State's regional
goals. The statute provides for the establishment of a Solid Waste
Advisory Council, for research and development activities, and for
an administrative enforcement program reinforced by penalties of up
to $1,000 per day for each violation of the Department's regulations.
The New Jersey Bureau of Solid Waste Management considers that
it exists to protect the public health and New Jersey's environment as
they are affected by the collection, utilization, and disposal of
solid wastes. The Bureau's objectives are to minimize environmental
damage resulting from the improper management of solid wastes, and to
•aximize the conservation of our resources through waste avoidance
and resource recovery. New Jersey is the most densely populated State
in the nation, and nowhere is solid waste management more critical.
While resource recovery is a national Priority for good
environmental reason, in New Jersey it is a Necessity. The large
quantities of waste generated, the lack of open land, and an
abundance of both energy markets and secondary-materials dealers
sake New Jersey singularly suited for resource recovery operations.
The New Jersey Division of Environmental Quality is committed to
•aking resource recovery a reality today, and is actively pursuing
that end. A program is currently being conducted to identify markets
for materials recovered from New Jersey's solid wastes.
181
-------
- 2 -
The Bureau of Solid Waste Management staff level currently
rests at 23, and the Bureau is steadily expanding. With the aid
of a recent EPA grant, the Bureau has upgraded and streamlined
its enforcement procedures. In the month of September, 1973,
the State collected more than twice as many penalty dollars for
solid waste violations as it had in all its previous history.
While the collection of penalties is not the Bureau's goal, it
is a clear demonstration that New Jersey means business. In the
past three months, the Bureau of Solid Waste Management has revoked,
or refused to renew, the registrations of 22 landfills within the
State, and has ordered the correction of deficiencies at 18 other
sites.
Enforcement of Standards isn't the Bureau's only activity
directed at improving solid waste management in New Jersey. An
extensive network of ground water monitoring stations are being
established at or near solid waste disposal operations to determine
their effect on the State's water resources. Most new sanitary
landfills now include the collection and treatment of leachate
and gas venting provisions. The Bureau is cooperating with a
number of counties in planning for, and establishing, regional
solid waste processing facilities. In one case, the Bureau is
actively involved in studying the feasability of establishing a
regional resource recovery operation within New Jersey. A small
grants program was administered to aid community recycling programs,
and the Department has participated in, and sponsored, seminars
and conferences aimed at all levels of the population.
A unique feature of Solid Waste Management in New Jersey is
the "Utility" concept. At the same time as legislative action
created the Solid Waste Management Act, a Solid Waste Utility Act
was passed. In effect, these two acts gave dual jurisdiction over
collection and disposal of solid wastes to two separate agencies
The Department of Environmental Protection and the Public Utility
Commission. Rather than causing confusion and conflict, the arrange-
ment freed the Department of Environmental Protection to promulgate
and enforce regulations designed to protect the environment with
the knowledge that the Public Utility Gommission vill see to
providing proper service at a reasonable price. The Public Utility
Commission, in turn, is free to insure continued service at the
least cost to the public, knowing that the Department of Environmental
Protection will look after the interest of health and the environment.
Richard D. Goodenough, Director
Division of Environmental Quality
Bernhardt V. Lind, Acting Chief
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
182
-------
STATE SOLID WASTE PROGRAM STATUS
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
NEW MEXICO - 1973
The Solid Waste Management Section of the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
has continued to provide consultant service to communities and counties on a state-
wide basis.
The section has, upon request, provided indepth studies of community and county solid
waste management systems. These studies are used to identify problems in those systems
and provide solutions to the problems. Training is provided to a community or county
based on their own local conditions rather than a broad approach that has been used in
the past. Our experience indicates that the training is far more successful when the
people are able to relate to their own solid waste problems rather than a situation
in some other area.
The section is now in the second year of conducting a state-wide, eighteen-hour solid
waste management training course. During the first year of this program, sixteen such
training programs were held throughout the state. The program was developed primarily
for those in the solid waste management industry, but we were pleased at the number
of Interested citizens that did attend. The course presents subject matter to the
attendees in the areas of; categories of solid waste, recycling, storage, collection,
transportation, disposal, safety, special problems, legislation, and public relations.
In conjunction with the training program, the Solid Waste Section has a full-time
heavy equipment operator trainer. This employee not only serves as an instructor
at the training course, but provides valuable assistance to disposal operators st
disposal sites throughout the state. By actually operating the equipment,'the
operator trainer can demonstrate the practices of trenching, spreading, compacting,
and covering, all on the disposal operator's own piece of equipment.
The training program is funded in part by a training grant from the Environmental
Protection Agency, and in part by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency.
The training grant will end August 31, 1974. Based on the excellent response we.have
received from attendees of the program and improvements that have been achieved state-
wide in solid waste management through training, we would hope that additional fund-
ing from the Environmental Protection Agency will be made available to continue this
program. It is one of the few projects conducted by the Environmental Protection
Agency that has been of practical use in New Mexico.
The section Is actively involved in an abandoned and/or junk car program on a state-
wide basis. Since December 1971, approximately 15,000 cars have been removed from
the state and delivered to smelters. The section has actively worked with communi-
ties to develop collection and stockpiling of cars and promoting car crushing
operations prior to transport. A bill passed in the last session of the New Mexico
Legislature has helped resolve the problem of obtaining legal release of vehicles.
The lest ssssion of the New Mexico Legislature appropriated $50,000 to be expended
over the next two years for the purpose cf implementing programs for the prevention,
reduction, and control of litter 'in New I'axico. The director of the f.'cw Mexico
Environmental Improvement Acjen^Lpay enter into contracts for the purchase of
183
-------
services in order to effectively carry out and implement such programs. The agency
has entered into contract with "Keep New Mexico Beautiful, Incorporated."
Regarding the Federal role in solid waste management in New Mexico, the following
suggestions are offered:
The proposed Federal guidelines will, as this agency has already formally stated,
have great impact on New Mexico. Over fifty percent of the landfills in New Mexico
are presently on Federal land. Most communities of populations below 3,000 people
and counties in New Mexico with low population densities are not able to maintain
sanitary landfills because of economic reasons. The options left to the small com-
munities and counties are: (a) get off Federal land, (b) try to obtain state or
private land which in many cases is virtually impossible, and (c) dump refuse indis-
criminately over the Federal land, returning to practices that existed in the state
in years past. It is only reasonable that Federal assistance be made available to
the low density population areas in the form of'construction grants so these areas
may comply with a regulation that has been forced upon them.
« .- '
In the proposed Federal guidelines, facilities that choose to use thermal processing
are not required to meet the guidelines unless the facility is designed "to process
or 1s processing fifty tons or more solid waste per twenty-four-hour day." It,
therefore, seems practical that similar consideration based on daily volumes should
be given to areas of low population and economic base for land disposal of solid
waste.
We 1n New Mexico strongly recommend that the Environmental Protection Agency recognize
and study specific problem areas such as New Mexico and then adopt realistic and
enforceable guidelines. Regulations must be forthcoming that are practical and
economically feasible if the Federal Government desires to effectively provide im-
provement in solid waste management.
New Mexico's own solid waste regulations presented for adoption to the New Mexico
Environmental Improvement Board on October 2, 1973, cover requirements,for those
communities with populations below 3,000 and our counties were based on practicality
and economic considerations.
In these cases, modified landfills may be used. Using our definition, a modified
landfill must," be covered with a minimum of six inches of clean earth at least
once each week during the period of April 1, through October 31, and at least once
each two weeks during the period of November 1, through March 31."
•
The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency does have as one of its goals use
of sanitary landfills in all areas of the state, but we feel that we have realistically
dealt with a situation that would have deteriorated had we proposed regulations of
an Impractical and unenforceable nature. We firmly believe that our approach to the
problem will continue to improve solid waste management practices in our state.
184
-------
STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PKOGKAM STATUS
MEM YQRJC STA'"K
October 1, 1073
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
New York State has maintained a broad solid waste mane-ce
ei9ht
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 through applicable
source reduction method.-;.
FIRST GOAL - EFFECTIVE DISPOSAL
Sanatary Code Regulations became effective in 1963. Currently there arc
E
185
-------
The enforcement posture of DEC has Ix.-en strengthened with the
enactmant of Chapter 399 of the Laws of 1973. A new legal base is now in
existence for regulatory control of all solid waste wanayer.icnt faciliticr,,
effective September 1, 1973. This enabling legislation authorises DEC to:
Promulgate regulations governing the operations of 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 developed, a dual permit system will be initiated
and an operator certification program will be established.
An innovative approach in enforcement of State regu]ations has
been taken through the use of Conservation Officers for making routine
inspections of refuse disposal areas. Conserv tion Officers have State
Police powers and the periodic appearance of uniformed officers at refuse
disposal facilities has a cathartic effect in 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; 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 552 operators were registered.
First year activities were directed primarily toward problem identifica-
tion to obtain an accurate picture of existing practices and inadequacies.
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.
The major requirement for progressing at the most desirable rate
is additional manpower i>. our regional offices.; There are now only eight
solid waste management engineers in our nine regional offices, and work
loads have been increasing not only in program scope but also in geographic
areas of responsibility. Local programs carried out by full-time county
health departments under contract with DEC exist in 24 counties. With the
withdrawal of State Health Department personnel1 from field involvement in
the solid waste program as a result of the 1973; Solid Waste Management Act,
our regional sti;ff must carry the entire :;olid y/aste program in 33 counties.
186
-------
SECOND .Ga^L_-_J5FFIC.IETCT MANAGEMENT
The ma.in focus of this goal is the development of local and
regional solid waste management systems that operate efficiently and
ically. The state program has provided substantial assistance in ovcx~comivij
planning inadequacies of the past. Comprehensive planning studies financed
by the State since 1966 have established a framework for local decision.-: 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, 33 counties and the City of New York have received assistance
under this program and a contract is now being negotiated for a comprehen-
sive planning study in another county. The tot I cost of these projects is
$3.2 million, including $530,000 federal funds, and coverage is 91.4 percent
of th.: State's population. Comprehensive plannx-ig studies initiated at
local expense have been conducted in 14 additional counties. No compre-
hensive planning activity has been conducted yet in eight 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 recover; as an emerging technology, the scope of
pla- .ling projects funded since 1971 has been expanded to explore ths
potential of recovering resources from solid wastes generated v;ithin each
new study area. Previously completed studies are being updated to reflect
resource recovery potential.
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 enforcement 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 have been limited until fairly recently. Despite these limi-
tations, there has been noticeable progress; 27 county and regional systems
are now in operation find 17 systems are being actively implemented. Of
these 44 systems, 21 were developed as a direct result of State planiu-'cj
assistance.
An essential element in the establishment of efficient management
systems is the development of operator skills so that facilities can
function at satisfactory performance levels. Soli'.! waste training activ-
ities 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 laut
year, 20 training courses were presented and 732 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.
187
-------
THIRD GOAL - QP-VTMUM UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES
The emphasis of this goal is on the recovery and rouse of resourre-
new wasted and the reduction of quantities of wastes generated. Until tl,i-~ '
pant year, activities had been limited primarily to the promotion of resou-ro
recovery practices and the evaluation of new technology. Two factors have"
had significant impact on stimulating substantial progress toward thi-
objective: staff expansion to focus solely on resource recovery and imple-
mentation 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 procrron
will be carried out by the Bureau of Facility Design and Opera Lion. The nev
Bureau of Resource Recovery will consist of two sections. The first of t ese
the Resource Recovery Technology Section has the following functional
responsibilities:
1) Evaluation of systems and equipment for recovery of re- -rce-
from solid waste.
2) Monitor performance of demonstration systems.
3) Technical assistance to local government in facility
selection or operation.
4) Review and approval of plans for new or modified facilities.
5) Promotion of resource recovery systems.
Recognizing the importance of economies 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 ince :ives & legislation to enhance
recovery of resources.
6) Promote resource recovery and; recycling pra- Liccs in
governmental agencies.
7) Promote: construction of sound major resource recovery c
188
-------
With the reorganization of the solid waste program stu nov
positions have been created and active recruitment is now in progr^ An
expanded organization is essential to the success of the New ?ork i'^
program, particularly in view of the second major element for progrcJ- "in
resou-rce recovery -- implementation' of the solid waste portion of the"
Lnvx.;. -,ju:ientnl Quality Bend Act of 1972.
a $1 i-, binf V^ 1972 Sf Si°n' the New Yo*.: State Legislature authorized
L V <- bUl1?" b°'ld lssue for environmental improvements in the State. Thr
Bond net provides ?175 million for solid waste management projects. Con.tr'
txon 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
°.equi^nt for Disposal projects. '.Che Bond Act received wide-
favored in
Rules and regulations have been established to administer the Bond
o amnser te Bond
to date^^ ab°^ ^ a*Plications f- St^e assistance have been received
to date The majority of these applications are for regional or areawide
disposal projects. A number of county solid waste disposal systems have
been proposed to eliminate existing widespread duplication of ^uil.nt and
manpower to support substandard or uneconomic operations. As ant
applications for resource recovery projects are being generated in
^ °f ^ «*-*«• — ^ -us far
early
th
the
bridth-
budge the financial gap in instituting operations that are predictably more
expensive than traditional means of disposal. We expect that an monie^
£"£ 75-76. ^ ^^ ACt f°r S°lid WaEte ^'^ont projects win be assigned
*** DiVisi°n of Solid w*sto Management has made
~
palities to develop ultimate ,»e plans for completed disposal sites. This
inadequacies. El^nination of these scars on the landscape will not orly
restore unused areas to productive municipal use, but win begin to place
emphasis upon the positive aspects of environmentally sound disposal
189
-------
PROBLEM AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
State prograv, support appears to be one of the most .i\.-,-t.ilo areas
for future federal assistance. Many of the states received major bene/i i 1:
from the 19G5 Solid Waste Disposal Act. In many casor the plan l.-.ur grants
provided a springboard for estab' ishing a roalis tic: program stair to begin
needed new activities. This financial support was instrumental in A.cusinq
attention upon personnel needs ard provided an important impetus in beLtor
budget ry support at the state level. Federal support of state air
pollution and water pollution pro-jrains c- .'itinucs to escalate, :md thr ' r
expand Liu; program activities provides the solid v;ast.o proyrtxifj v;ith in<:rear-,-
ing qu.-i)!' iticis of unv/anted reaidue;-, and tightening constraints for o;•.<:• ..iting
solid wasLe management facilities. Increasing manpower rcquir-.-vrnent:.; in
these other major programs will be met with difficulty, feder, 1 finunclal
a; Distance notwithstanding. Obtaining additional solid waste program staff
in the absence of federal support is supremely difficult.
Continued support of research and development is another important
clement of a sound federal solid waste managerr>c;i[• program. Much progress
has been made since 1965 because of the stimulus of federal financial
support for research, for study and investigation, and for demonstrating
nev/ equipment and techniques. This has been a major contribution to help
overcome the low level of research and development that prevailed in the
past. Research efforts should be expand-sd — particularly applied research
to explore practical improvements in solid waste management technology
Do,, -stration projects should also be supported in order to stimulate de-l,-,-
t. of new systems through reducing the risk to municipal corporatism-
William G. Wilkie, Director
Division of Solid Wasto Management
Nev; York State Doparbnont of KnviroiDin-nf-.ul Conservation
190
-------
PRESENT STATUS
OF
NORTH CAROLINA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
October 1, 1973
The North Carolina solid waste management program was first initiated in
September 1966.
A statewide survey was implemented in 1967 and was made by three members
of the staff of the Solid Waste and Vector Control Section with two of the
staff members being borrowed from other assigned duties. The survey was com-
pleted in 1968. At this time, the entire staff of the Solid Waste and Vector
Control Section decided that the best approach for the development of an
effective solid waste management program for North Carolina would be on a
county-by-county basis. Since this decision was made in 1968, this agency
has never varied from its original plans and have now completed the planning
for all of the State.
In the preparation of proposed legislation, this agency conferred with
and sought the advice of the North Carolina League of Municipalities, the
North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, the North Carolina League
of Women Voters, and the Keep North Carolina Beautiful groups. These groups
all supported and encouraged the enactment of legislation and have been of
great assistance in the promotion of effective solid waste management programs.
The 1969 North Carolina General Assembly enacted the proposed enabling
legislation that provided the State Board of Health with the authority to
adopt appropriate rules and regulations for an effective solid waste manage-
ment program. These rules and regulations were adopted by the State Board of
Health on March 11, 1971.
It is felt that the status and success of the North Carolina program
can be best illustrated by the attached charts. The charts show pictorially
the rapid development that has taken place in North Carolina in the develop-
191
-------
raent of effective solid waste management programs. It is estimated that
70 percent of the population of North Carolina is now being served by an
approved solid waste disposal facility. It is estimated that since 1970
there has been a total capital investment in excess of $15,000,000 for land
and landfill equipment in this State. This represents more investment than
had ever been spent on solid waste prior to this time.
The 1973 North Carolina General Assembly enacted the Recordation Law
which requires that all sanitary landfill sites be recorded with the register
of deeds in each county in which a sanitary landfill is to be operated.
The Solid Waste and Vector Control Branch is now planning to utilize
all available new technology as it becomes available for the disposal of
solid waste. The paper industry located in this State has already expressed
an extreme interest in the possibility of a system for the reclamation of
the waste paper that is being generated throughout North Carolina.
In summary, North Carolina considers that its goal of 1968 is on
schedule. Our present regulations require that all solid waste disposal
sites be in full compliance by July 1, 1974.
192
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
SOLID WAS.TE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
£
b
COUNTIES WHICH HAVE ESTABLISHED CONSOLIDATED SANITARY LANDFILL PROGRAMS FOR MUNICIPAL AND
COUNTY RESIDENTS' USE SINCE THE ADOPTION OF STATE STANDARDS OF MARCH 11, 1971.
Octobti, 1073
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1C
i
COUNTIES WHICH ESTABLISHED MULTIPLE DISPOSAL SITE PROGRAMS PRIOR TO THE STATE'S RULES ANH
REGULATIONS AND ARE NOW IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THEIR PROGRAMS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH MATE
STANDARDS.
. >!.> o , . I O 7 '5
-------
EFFECT OF SANITARY LANDFILL PROGRAM ON DUMP CLOSURES IN NORTH CAROLINA
600
500
400
300
200
100
1968
1969
1970
1971
Fiscal Year
195
-------
COUNTY CONTAINER SYSTEMS OPERATIONAL
60
50
40
-
I
-
.-
•-
i
3C
1
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
Fiscal Year
1974
196
-------
ACRES APPROVED IN LANDFILL SITES
6,000
5,000
A, 000
v 3,000
2,000
1,000
1968 1969 1970
1971 1972
Fiscal Year
1973 1974
197
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
AND
ENGINEERING SERVICES flffiL-JMtR J""" " *"°' M °
W Van H«ov»l«n. Chief
DIVISION
OF
WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL State Capitol
Norm.n L P«t«f«on. P.E . Dif.ctof BISMARCK BS5O1
(7O1) 224-2386
North Dakota State Solid Waste Management Program Status
DATE: October 10, 1973
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.
In 1947, the North Dakota Water and Sewage Works Conference, addressed
itself to finding a better method of solid waste disposal. The Conference,
working with the State Department of Health appointed a committee to
study the State's refuse collection and disposal problem. The result:
was a cooperative program between the North Dakota State Department
of Health, the United State's Public Health Service and the Federal
Security Agency. A study of disposal techniques of solid wastes in winter
conditions in North Dakota, was proposed. In March of 1949, the
City of Mandan was selected as the site for an experimental project.
The primary objective of the Mandan Experimental Sanitary Landfill
Project was to determine the feasibility of operating a Sanitary
Landfill in extreme winter conditions. Although the technique
found successful at Mandan will have to be varied to meet local conditions,
the two years of successful operation showed that land filling could b^
accomplished. The resulting effect of "The Sanitary Landfill in
Northern States" project at Mandan, North Dakota, resulted in a slow
trend in upgrading of municipal refuse disposal facilities in the
State.
The Solid Waste Management Regulations of the State of North
Dakota, were approved by the Attorney General and adopted by the
North Dakota State Health Council, 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 these
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
198
-Buy North D*koU Product*"
-------
districts for garbage collection and/or disposal. Further, the
Bill allows the Board of County Connissioners to establish a fee
system or special assessment method for repayment for services rendered.
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
a 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 registration of a
motor vehicle in the State of North Dakota.
The North Dakota State Department of Health sponsored a bill during
the 1973 Legislative Assembly to provide for Solid Waste Management
and Land Protection. This bill was modeled after the Council of State
Government's Act, although sections on recycling and resource recovery
were eliminated due to the agriculturally-oriented state with its small
population. This bill was narrowly defeated but will be reintroduced
during the 1975 Legislative Assembly.
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, and has been implemented.
The Environmental Protection Agency has provided a planning grant
to the North Dakota State Department of Health in the amount of
$20,080, for the planning of the administration of the abandoned
automobile act. At the present time the Department is providing
1.65 man-years of effort in solid waste management. In addition, county
and district health units are providing at least one man-year of effort.
According to the 1970 Federal Census, there were 617,761,000 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.
199
-------
The cllmatologtcal conditions during the winter months cause extreme
problems in conducting sanitary landfill operations. It is not uncommon
to have temperatures of -40° below zero farenheidt. The average
number of days with zero or below is S3. 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
paying a somewhat higher cost for solid waste collection and disposal
in the 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 do not believe that
solid wastes in North Dakota are a problem. These people will have to
be informed of the magnitude of the problem and shown proper methods
for resolving the situation. 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 best example of community cooperation for solving the county
solid waste problem has occurred in Stutsman county. A county
sanitation committee was organized to study the solid waste problem
and to evaluate the possible solutions. After several meetings, the
City of Jamestown agreed to dispose of the collected refuse from a
county system at the rate of $.50 per compacted cubic yard. After much
additional study, bids for the solid waste collection based upon the
container method were received. For various reasons, the citizens of
the communities objected and bids based upon door-to-door collection
were advertised and received. Surprisingly, the costs of door-to-door
collection were comparable to the costs for the container system. The
successful contractor ordered a new 16-yard compactor truck and the
system was put into operation in the summer of 1972. The costs are
$2.25 a month per residence for once a week collection. The small business
establishments in these communities are required to pay $6.00 per
month for twice a week collection. The fees are added to the municipal
water and sewage billing and the city auditor sends, a check for the
amount due to the county auditor each month. At che end of each month,
200
-------
the county auditor forwards a check to the C-ity of Jamestown for the
disposal fee based upon the cubic yards received. The collection
contractor is also paid from the county auditors office at the end of
each month. There are other examples of area-wide and multi-community
collection and/or disposal systems operating in the State of North
Dakota with varying degrees of acceptibility. The Department plans
to continue promoting this type of system to enable solid waste
management to be within the economic reach of all communities.
The Grand Forks Air Force Base has not been able to acquire a
site for a sanitary landfill due to high ground water. The
recommendation has been made that the Air Force acquire a shredder
and that an above-ground fill be established on existing Air Force
property. The date of the operation of the shredding and disposal
operation will require additional surveilance until it is functioning
properly. There is a definite lack of training for solid waste disposal
operators, collection supervisors, and solid waste management personnel
within the State. Efforts are underway to establish a training program
and Federal assistance is being requested. Further, the handling
and disposal of pesticide containers is becoming more of a problem.
Technical assistance from the Federal agencies is anticipated in
this area. Program grants would help to establish a stronger
solid waste management program in the State of North Dakota.
201
-------
STATUS OF
OHIO'S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
October, 1973
BACKGROUND
The background of Ohio's solid waste management activities
dates back many years with spotty permissive types of legislation
which gave certain legal rights to tfcwnships, counties, and cities.
This legislation dealt primarily with operation of dumps and
collection services.
In 1967, the present Ohio solid waste disposal law was
prepared by the Division of Engineering of the Ohio Department of
Health, and enacted by the legislature. After regulations were
appropriately adopted, the law was implemented over a predeter-
mined period of eighteen months. Basically, the law required
that sites and plans be reviewed by the Ohio Department of Health.
After plans were approved the local health department issued
licenses (maximum annual fee of $500), conducted routine inspections,
and enforced the state regulations. The law required annual
surveys of local programs by the Ohio Department of Health.
As of 1967, Ohio had about 800 to 900 solid waste disposal
operations. Enactment and implementation of the solid waste disposal
law precipitated the closing of many dumps and the upgrading of
others.
On October 23, 1972, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
was created. Included in the many changes that took place was the
transference of solid waste responsibilities to the OEPA.
202
-------
Simultaneously, some minor changes were made in the solid waste
disposal law.
PRESENT STATUS
The OEPA was set up with a functional organization rather
than categorical. For a period of nine months the solid waste
program activities were divided primarily between the OEPA Division
of Surveillance and the Division of Waste Management and Engine-
ering. In early summer, 1973, these duties were combined in a
newly created group within the Division of Waste Management and
Engineering. Working presently with less than a full staff, it is
intended to employ an engineer and supervising sanitarian in the
central office and one solid waste sanitarian in each district
(five districts in the near future).
The existing solid waste laws provide only for proper disposal.
Planning, especially on a regional basis, and true resource
recovery activities are encouraged but cannot be legally mandated.
Under the OEPA organization better procedures for state level
enforcement have been established and are in the process of
implementation. One attorney in the OEPA Office of Regulation
and Enforcement, devotes much time to solid waste matters. The Ohio
Attorney-General's office has been reorganized to assign the time
of several attorneys to matters of environmental protection.
FUTURE
Improved legislation for resource recovery and solid waste
management planning will probably not be presented to the state
203
-------
legislature this year. It is anticipated that regulations and
enforcement will be improved and that there will be more contacts
with local governmental entities in an effort to promote regional
planning for solid waste management. Concurrently, the activities
of other states will be studied so that Ohio can benefit from the
successes of others.
10/18/73
pds
204
-------
OKLAHOMA
SOLID WASTE
PROGRAM STATUS
OCTOBER
1973
OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
SANITATION SERVICE
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
NE 10th & STONEWALL
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105
205
-------
OKLAHOMA STATE SOLID WASTE PROGRAM STATUS
I. STATE STRATEGY FOR SOLUTION OF STATE/LOCAL PROBLEMS
Developing and implementing strategy for solutions of state and local
problems is a continuous and flexible function. Two basic stratagems
are the Oklahoma Solid Waste Planning Report and State Plan and the
Oklahoma Solid Waste Management Act of 1970 with rules and regulations.
These basic strategies provide the Oklahoma State Department of Healt>
with the strategy needed for setting specific objectives; with alter-
native methods for the achievement of the state's overall mission in
solid waste management and, with legislation to enable the people of
Oklahoma to bring good solid waste management practices into proper
fruition and consonance.
The Oklahoma State Plan for solid waste management provides a statewido
strategy plan for the management of solid waste compatible with the
interests and responsibilities of local, regional and state agencies,
and private industry. Major specific objectives in this plan are:
1. To determine the quantities and sources of each major type of
municipal, industrial, and agricultural solid waste generator'
in the state.
2. To determine and evaluate existing facilities and methods for
handling solid waste, and to determine their potential for
continued use.
3. To determine the effects of existing solid waste management
practices on the total environment and to upgrade these practices
to enhance the quality of the environment.
4. To estimate and delineate future problems facing Oklahoma in the
areas of:
a. Quantities and composition of solid waste generated,
b. Changes and trends affecting solid waste management
practices, and
c. Their effects and impact on the quality of the environ-
ment.
5. To provide technical assistance to the people of the state of
Oklahoma in planning and implementation of acceptable solid
waste management practices.
6. To strengthen and enlarge the chains of communications among the
environmental programs within the state of Oklahoma, the Federal
Agencies and local environmental, developmental and political
entities.
7. To develop an educational training program for solid waste
management personnel.
206
-------
All objectives are being achieved with the implementation of the State
Plan. County-by-county surveys provide a recognition of existing
problems and are a means of data collection. Considerable efforts
are expended by every County Health Department as an interaction to
bring about meaningful information for developing ideas and plans with
options for feasibility studies, and ways and means to solve area solid
waste management problems. After analyzing existing data, redefining
situations and evaluating accomplishments, modifications are made to
meet the changing conditions of the economy, society and the environment.
A workable strategy for upgrading environmental quality and particularly
solid waste management can only be implemented with the full cooperation
of the local communities. The Department works extensively with the
Office of Community Affairs and Planning. This procedural strategy
promotes greater environmental interest for solid waste management priori-
ties within the eleven sub-state planning districts and assists our Depart-
ment with collecting socio-economic data needed for providing studies,
evaluations and technical assistance.
As Robert Preston profoundly announced in the Music Man, "you have to
know the territory!" This same strategy is used in the selling of a
good solid waste management system. The Department utilizes the people
who know the territory for rich promotional advantages. The county ex-
tension director is invaluable in furnishing methods of organizing the
people of the county. It is the USDA1s Soil Conservation Service that
supports the territory and the Department with valuable soil data and
environmental information. The Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation
Service also lends a hand in forming workable groups and yielding important
data. A local man from the Farmers Home Administration is ever present to
aid in the development and advise groups of financial alternatives
available.
Cooperative involvement between Oklahoma State Department of Health and
federal agencies such as EPA and USDA has been a key in developing and
implementing the strategy of grass roots formulation with federal, state
and local governments to produce a workable solution for the people in
the state of Oklahoma.
The purpose of the Oklahoma Solid Waste Management Act is to regulate the
collection and disposal of solid wastes. This Act provides the state with the
necessary legislative tool to meet strategy objectives and with rules and
regulations which set goals and furnish acceptable solid waste manage-
ment procedures to the people of Oklahoma.
It is the responsibility of the Oklahoma State Department of Health to see
that the provisions of this Act are carried out in an acceptable manner.
Tools supplied the Department are the use of court injunctions and the
use of permits for disposal sites. Also, under terms of the Act, indis-
criminate dumping and littering are prohibited and violators of any part
of the law may be subject to imprisonment for not more than 30 days or a
fine of not more than $200 or both. Each day or part of a day during
207
-------
which a violation continues or is repeated constitutes a separate
offense and is punishable accordingly.
While this legal document states specific paths to follow for compliance,
the Act maintains a flexibility needed for continuous and every changing
conditions which exist in our environment. The Act includes provisions
for the disposal of hazardous wastes which exemplifies the flexibility
maintained for a difficult-to-define area.
Long range plans and day-by-day operational procedures yield systematic
strategies for achieving the objective of solving state/local problems.
This process is continuous and the effectiveness of the state's strategies
is constantly measured and modified for the consideration of alternative
actions necessary for upgrading solid waste management in the state of
Oklahoma.
II. SPECIAL PROJECTS OF INTEREST
An interdiciplinary approach is used for special projects as well as the
day-to-day functions of the state solid waste program. The Solid Waste
Management Divisional staff's expertise lies in the areas of engineering,
public health, economics and management. Working together as a team or
separately, it is possible to increase the proficiency of special solid
waste management projects by utilizing the available expertises and ex-
perience. Special projects of interest using this approach include
feasibility studies, technical evaluations and the disposal site permit
program.
The feasibility study project is basically developing county-wide solid
waste management systems upon request from individual counties. These
studies are printed models that are used as a guide to other counties
with similar needs. The county health and county development agencies
have supplied significant data that has become the major thrust of
developing county-wide solid waste feasibility studies.
Oklahoma's rural cities and counties need economical solid waste manage-
ment systems that eliminate indiscriminate and open dumps. Feasibility
studies are utilized by these rural communities and counties to determine
the problem, to propose feasible solid waste management plans, to recom-
mend a feasible approach and as a basis for gathering leaders of communi-
ties in the county to discuss the situation and organize for a cooperative
solution.
County-wide feasibility studies have been completed for the following
counties: Blaine, Kiowa, Nowata, Ottawa, Craig, Delaware, Lincoln and
Okfuskee. * These have been reported to, and discussed with County
* Single copies of county-wide feasibility studies are available upon
request to the Solid Waste Management Division, Oklahoma State Department of
Health, NE 10th & Stonewall, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105.
208
-------
Development Councils and other interested groups and citizens.
Studies in progress and proposed Studies include the counties of Noble,
Mclntosh, Pawnee, Mayes, Adair, Jackson, Pottawatomie, Seminole, Hughes
and LeFlore. Each county's interaction with federal, state and local
agencies increases the effectiveness of the study and results in a more
workable solid waste management system.
Technical evaluation projects have been initiated to determine new
methods of solid waste management, to determine the feasibility of existing
systems, and to provide technical guidance and recommendations. These
evaluations furnish the Department with necessary information needed to
prepare more accurate feasibility studies and increase proficiency in the
Department.
According to Section 2258 of the Oklahoma Solid Waste Management Act, the
State Department of Health requires a permit be issued for any site or
facility for the purpose of solid waste disposal. This action was
adopted as a control measure to eliminate open dumps in the state of
Oklahoma.
Any person operating a collection system and/or disposal site for solid
waste and serving an incorporated town shall have a sanitary landfill or
other acceptable disposal operation under permit by July 1, 1974. At
the present time, sanitary landfill permits total greater than 70 and the
Department is actively processing a number of applications for permits.
As of this date, 59.93% of the population of the state is being served by
sanitary landfill sites.
III. CRITICAL AREAS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
There are basically three major critical needs areas for federal assistance
that should be explored for the state of Oklahoma. These needs areas
include:
(1) A sanitary landfill operators school (manpower training),
(2) Federal financial assistance for fixed income retirees
such as social security pensionaires who are over
burdened by mandatory fees set for solid waste systems,
(3) Federal financial assistance in the form of a loan
program or in some cases grants available to communities
or an organization qf political sub-divisions that need
working capital to finance acceptable solid waste manage-
ment systems.
Surveys and study evaluations have indicated a critical need for landfill
operators to be trained on-the-job. At present, only a few landfill
operators understand the proper techniques and procedures of good land-
fill design and operation.
Preliminary efforts are underway in our Department to establish a regional
statewide landfill operators school in connection with monies from Man-
power Training Funds. A personnel and funds shortage in the Department
has delayed this action, however, avenues are being cleared to establish
a procedure for this school within the next 6 months with the help of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
209
-------
A critical need exists where spiraling inflation has made it impossible
for people on fixed incomes to pay an additional fee for solid waste
collection and disposal. It is the view of the Department that
federal legislation be considered for enactment to promote supplemented
funds for this part of the population who desire to work toward a better
environment, but are unable because they cannot afford to pay their
share. A member of society who is able to participate economically and
politically could hope to feel more useful in life and assist the nation
in upgrading environmental quality.
As it is difficult for certain parts of our society to pay for an acceptable
standard of environmental quality, it is also difficult for communities
to obtain reasonable financing for the systems to comply with state legis-
lation and federal guidelines. It is extremely significant that a loan
program be available to these communities with financing at a reasonable
rate of interest to provide all citizens with the best system effectively
tailored to the community. A system must be available to consumers at
costs that are not prohibitive. This type of funding should be readily
available with representatives for the funding agency or agencies being
physically located within the political sub-division of which the community
is a part, the county. The Farmers Home Administration is equipped to
furnish this function. Also, consideration should be given to awarding
grants along with loans to communities or organizations of political sub-
divisions that indicate a true need due to existing public health solid
waste problems and financial distress situations and have shown an active
interest to comply with legislation and guidelines and have a feasible
plan.
210
-------
NATIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
October 10-11, 1973
Kansas City, Missouri
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 including
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 Department
of Environmental Quality, which has included:
1. Promulgation of regulations and standards (April 1972).
2. Inplementation 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).
These major activities are described in more detail below.
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 tiie 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 Department of
Environmental Quality.
This Act also specified development of a state regulatory program by the
Department of Environmental Quality 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 10/1
lacked a timetable as well as funds to finance the necessary state and local programs
for planning and implementation of improved and innovative regional facilities.
211
-------
These facilities would provide the desired upgraded statewide solid waste
management system, to be regulated by permits.
To provide for the needed planning the Department in 1972 placed the disposal
sites throughout the state undnr temporary permits and proceeded to develop a
statewide solid waste management implementation planning program. The Department
proposed to obtain State grant funds to initiate and support this statewide program
through regional planning projects performed by local governmental units to meet
specific goals and objectives. A 32 member Citizens' Advisory Committee represent-
ing various disciplines from throughout the State was appointed to advise the
Department in the development of this program and to assist with obtaining
$1,229,630 in State bond grant funds, which were appropriated beginning in
November 1972.
Twenty-three local-regional projects encompassing the entire state are now
developing their portions of the Statewide Plan, which will be assembled by the
Department in early 1074. Twenty-two of these projects are funded by State grants.
Each project is developing an implementation plan which includes:
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 which emphasizes:
a. Consolidation, upgrading and minimizing the number of disposal
sites, location of new sites, and elimination of unauthorized sites.
b. Replacing disposal sites with transfer stations and long haul
concepts, where possible.
c. Special wastes management.
d. 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 in the planning
process.
Several notable examples of current planning and implementation activities
include two regional studies of energy recovery from wood wastes and municipal
refuse and partial completion of a rural transfer station system in one western
Oregon County.
The primary emphasis of this entire effort is on implementation of the plane,
with permits confirming compliance of planned facilities. Approximately $20 million
of State grant and loan funds are potentially available to aid implementation.
212
-------
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 enter-
prise and the public sector at the federal, state and, most importantly, local
level.
Hazardous Waste Program
The Department of Environmental Quality'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.
Subsequent to passage of this legislation, the Department of Environmental
Quality conducted a planning study during the period of March 1972 through June
1973, under an EPA solid waste planning grant. The goals of this planning effort
have been as follows:
1. Define the existing hazardous wastes situation with respect to sources,
types, quantities, current disposal methods and other important factors.
2. Develop regulations to classify specific wastes as environmentally
hazardous which would then be regulated under the hazardous waste statutes.
3. Define areas of the State in which hazardous wastes disposal sites should
or should not be located.
4. Determine the necessity for hazardous waste disposal sites within the State.
5. Determine acceptable hazardous waste disposal methods.
For the most part, each of these goals has been achieved, except that regulations
for classification of specific wastes have not yet been completely developed and
that acceptable disposal methods for rr.ost, but not all, potentially hazardous wastes
have been determined. It is expected that a final report on this planning program
will be published before the end of the calendar year.
With the initial planning studies completed, implementation activities will be
initiated shortly. Implementation will focus on three main elements: control of
waste sources; disposal facilities; and regulations. In dealing with all types of
wastes and waste sources it will be desirable to group wastes into several categories,
for example, heavy petals, pesticides, solvents/oils, radioactive wastes, and other
chemicals. In developing detailed strategy for control of each of these waste
categories, the following important factors must be considered: number of waste
sources; type and volumes of waste; in-plant treatment/recovery; off-site treatment/
recovery/ disposal; compliance with and enforcement of regulations and statutes;
logistics and economics of waste collection and transportation; and technical
assistance to non-technically oriented organizations.
213
-------
Obviously, hazardous waste disposal facilities or sites must be available for
disposal of wastes which cannot be properly treated at the waste source. Implemen-
tation activities related to disposal facilities will include licensing and other
administrative duties associated with hazardous waste disposal sites. It should be
noted that an application for a hazardous waste disposal site has already been
received and is under review. It is anticipated that no more than one or two such
sites will be necessary within the State. In addition, it will be necessary to
monitor the activities of hazardous waste disposal and recycling firms, waste
transportation firms and hazardous waste disposal at general solid waste disposal
sites.
It is anticipated that regulations to classify specific v/astes as hazardous
may be adopted within the next several months, but regulations cannot be finalized
until all of the necessary criteria for classification of hazardous wastes have
been established. Consideration must also be given to the availability of a disposal
site within Oregon in the tining of regulation adoption. In addition, areas whicn
were found during the planning study to be unsuitable for disposal sites will be
officially designated as such to preclude further consideration for use as disposal
sites.
One other important activity which should be mentioned is the development of
hazardous waste criteria. Under the planning program, a task force of Oregon State
University and Department of Environmental Quality staff members was established to
provide the necessary criteria and guidelines to the Department for evaluation of
hazardous wastes. One major area in which this task force is working is the
development of a simplified computer model which will predict the extent of ground
water or surface water contamination resulting from burial of haz?.rc"ous v.'?.ster.
This model is nearing completion and other necessary criteria for classification of
hazardous wastes should be available from the task force in the near future.
214
-------
STATUS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 1973
Strategy For Solution of State/Local Problems
The Solid Waste Management Program in Pennsylvania has expanded
in significant ways in 1973. Of particular importance is the initial
steps taken to resolve critical problems related to indiscriminate
disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous solid waste materials.
Hazardous solid waste management regulations were developed pursuant
to the requirements of The Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act,
Act 241.
The regulations were developed to prevent adverse environmental
impact occurring as a result of improper and indiscriminate disposal
of hazardous solid waste materials. The regulations define hazardous
solid waste as any waste which by virtue of its quantity or content
presents a hazard to the individuals handling it, a hazard to public
health, or potential pollution to the air or waters of the Commonwealth
or makes land unfit or undesirable for normal use. This category shall
include but is not limited to chemicals, explosives, pathological wastes
and radioactive materials.
The regulations require that no one shall make any consignment
of solid waste to another without the disclosure of its hazardous
nature or assurance that subsequent handling and disposal shall be
accomplished in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with the laws
and regulations of the Commonwealth. All those disposing of hazardous
solid waste shall use only sites or methods permitted pursuant to
Act 241.
At present the Division of Solid Waste Management has the
responsibility to develop listings of specific hazardous or potentially
hazardous materials as determined by experience, investigation or
literature search. This is proving to be a task of mean proportions
which has been impeded due to staffing inadequacies. In order to
acquire expertise in this matter it is necessary to expand the present
technical sta.ff and to draw upon the current projects sponsored by
E. P. A. for guidance.
215
-------
7 ; ..oil for comprehensive solid waste L-ana.._;eiceat p 1 ^;-.r.j.v.^ as
req-.^rati and encouraged under Act 241, is neari.ng conpiecion.
^l;ir.s are In development for all of Pennsylvania's 67 counties
with 57 counties having submitted completed plans for technical
review and approval. Although most of the planning has been
completed, insignificant progress has been made to date towards
implementation of the approved plans. State monies are not avail-
able for assisting municipalities in bringing about implementation
programs although a total of $1.3 million was provided totally from
State sources for the successful solid waste management planning
efforts. In order to further the implementation, the following
considerations will be made:
1. The potential for utilizing available State-owned
lands for establishment of solid waste processing
facilities.
2. The potential for establishment of broad-based
resource recovery programs throughout the Commonwealth.
3. The establishment of a separate resource recovery office
within the Division of Solid Waste Management to further
the goals for maximizing the potential for recovery of
usable materials from solid waste and recouping energy
from the remainder.
4. Development of need incentive and depletion allowance-
type programs applied to recyclable materials.
5. Investigation into the potential for furthering the
development of compost operations.
6. Establishment of a Research and Development program
within the Division of Solid Waste Management.
7. Establishment of a continuous industrial solid waste
inventory survey to determine associated problems and
to provide for suitable hazardous solid vaste processing
and disposal.
8. Establish an effective public information program to
serve as a coordinating tool for furthering the
Implementation of solid waste management plans.
9. Pursue the implementation of a bonding program which
could provide ready money to municipalities seeking
financial wherewithal to implement management plans.
10. Seek financial and technical assistance from the federal
E. P. A. Solid Waste Program which will once again
stimulate advancement toward resolving inherent probleci.
associated with proper solid waste management.
216
-------
. • ... -'i. nnsylvania Solid Waste Management Pro/:-.!-.- was eiv....rc:_
signi.icar.tiy by the development, enaction and promulgation of
specific regulations for coal refuse management. In Pennsylvania,
approximately 20 million tons of non-burning coal refuse have been
generated as a result of deep mining of coal with an additional
2 million tons generated each year. The Division of Solid Waste
Management developed a draft of regulations which covered the environ-
mental effects of this type of industrial activity. The draft was
furthered through the cooperation of coal industry representatives
who met frequently with Division staff members to finalize the
regulations. As a result of this cooperation with industry repre-
sentatives, the solid waste management program in Pennsylvania has
the most modern, thorough and functional regulations governing coal
refuse disposal, a solid waste of long standing disrepute as a
causative agent for environmental degradation.
The coal refuse regulations in general require that operations
be conducted so as to eliminate the possibility of slumping or
shifting of banks, to minimize the potential for combustion to
occur, to minimize surface and ground wacer contamination and to
provide for revegetation of completed areas of coal refuse piles.
At present the Division is seeking sufficient positions throughout
the State to adequately carry out this additional solid waste
program.
Special in-service training sessions have been held at various
locations in the coal regions of Pennsylvania to train existing
staff as to their responsibilities in carrying out the coal refuse
disposal management program. Further detailed training programs
are being developed for the latter part of fiscal year 73-74.
Special Projects of Interest
The Division of Solid Waste Management staff members have been
involved, on request, in the explanation of the environmental aspects
of sanitary landfill operations conducted in abandoned strip mine
sites for the purpose of disposing of large volumes of solid waste
brought into the site via train. Railhaul has been proposed as a
solution to the critical problem of solid waste management being
experienced by the City-County of Philadelphia. Should such a
system be developed for implementation within Pennsylvania assur-
ances can be made that environmental conditions can be properly
maintained. Sufficient staffing will be devoted to evaluate the
operation on a continuing basis in order to impede any improper
operacing techniques. Monitoring of the sites will be done on a
continuous basis to provide the staff with izineciate evidc.-.c«; of
any adverse effect operations may have on underground waters o~ tl'.t
Commonwealth. Maximum effort will be utilized to assure the .-; Access
of any railhaul system which may be established within the Common-
wealth and any proposal which is not completely acceptable to all
parties will not be promoted by the Division.
217
-------
'Jv.ij Division staff is. currently working with the ?ennsyl\ ^..-.ia
.idle Waste Management Advisory Committee to ?ut together a complete
program which will eliminate existing problems encountered with
abandoned and out-of-service automobiles. State-wide regulations
which will encourage the recycling of these vehicles and will bring
about environmental controls in respect to automobile graveyard
operations are being readied for adoption by the Environmental
Quality Board.
Flood debris disposal, which lingers as a result of the furious
Storm Agnes of July 1972, remains as a major responsibility of the
Division's Wilkes-Barre Area personnel and those in the Harrisburg
Area. The slow removal of condemned housing and flood damaged debris
and the environmental impact of disposal sites continue to require
close supervision and technical assistance provided by Division
personnel. A new policy has been developed specifically for review
and approval of proposed sites for demolition debris within the
Commonwealth. All bids for disposal of solid waste resulting from
demolition of urban renewal or redevelopment projects are required to
be accompanied by an approval to dispose of the material at a State-
permitted demolition debris disposal site.
III. Critical Problem Areas For Federal Assistance
Although great strides towards proper management of solid waste
have been attained in Pennsylvania through the assistance and under
the initial guidance of the Federal Solid Waste Program, there is
presently a void felt in respect to the Federal-State-Local approach
to taming the "Third Pollution". Little advancement has been made
to date toward the resolution of the potential for applying modern
technology to reducing the solid waste problem through materials
reuse, energy recovery and general recycling. The establishment of
a Federally guided grants program is long overdue. Such a program
is essential to convince and encourage local municipalities to make
the capital investment necessary to implement their plans.
Without encouragement and assistance it becomes difficult for
local municipal officials to do much more than make superficial
advances toward implementation of their plans. If plans are not
implemented soon after final approval they become less acceptable
to the general public and less likely to be ultimately implemented.
Once planning has been done in an area and the plan is not implemented
it is extremely difficult to encourage a new planning phase ct a
later time. Better stated, any delays experienced in implex mating
plans will ultimately result in general discouragement of ^ no of cne
^rtatest advancements made since the Solid Waste Act of 1965 w^t,
enacted, that of applying management concepts to refuse disposal.
218
-------
C'c/.-i_- areas in whicn financial assistance and _echr.^.'..'il .•; j.rvice.-.
provided by the Federal Solid Waste Program would be of th^ -.u3t
benefit to Pennsylvania are:
1. Public Information and education programs which could
provide the average citizen with the message that
solid waste management systems including recycling,
processing and disposal operations are essential to the
well-being of any and all communities.
2. Expansion of the hazardous solid waste program.
3. In-service training courses are needed to be offered
to solid waste program staff with assistance of the
E. P. A. technical staff.
4. Sanitary landfill demonstrations including operator
training programs are needed to be conducted in several
areas of the State.
5. With Federal assistance, the staffing pattern for the
Solid Waste Management Division would assume the correct
configuration necessary to carry out new programs such as
coal refuse and abandoned automobile regulations.
The dissolution of the E. P. A. conducted Solid Waste Management
training programs, the withdrawal of critical technical services and
the lack of funding for resource recovery aspects of the solid waste
program have greatly affected the Federal-State and Local teamwork
which had been so instrumental in making the initial rapid advances
toward resolving problems related to solid waste generation and
disposal. A renewal of Federal interest in this program, at this time,
will serve to bring about a reversal in this trend.
219
-------
PUERTO RICO SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
STATUS REPORT
Existing Problem
Solid waste problem In Puerto Rico Is reaching alarming proportions.
Our urban and rural development Is placing a heavy burden on the quantity
and complexity of the collected refuse. Total production of these wastes
now comes to approximately 5,300 dally tons In our urban cities. Within
the next 20 years, total production will reach 14, 300 tons per day. Studies
made by our Solid Waste Program, shows that our municipalities and private
firms collect around 2 millions tons of solid waste per year. Including those
generated and left In their point of origin, or taken directly to open dumps.
Law No. 9 approved In June 18, 1970, provides for the development of
a comprehensive program for the control of a Solid Waste Management Plan.
The amendments to Law No. 9, approved In May 31, 1973 extends the
responsibilities and functions of our Solid Wastes Program In establishing
regulations for the provision and operation of solid waste processing,
resource recovery and final disposal.
I. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
A. Solid Waste Management Plan
A comprehensive plan was prepared for the Puerto Rico Solid
220
-------
Administration, which recommends the policy to be established to tackle
the problem. This plan Is now In the process of Implementation.
B. Regulation
The project for the Regulation for the Control of Solid Waste
establishes standards and requirements for the storage, collect Ion, transpor-
tation, treatment, utilization, processing, transfer and final disposal
of solid waste.
It was discussed In public hearings In 1972. The final document
was submitted to the consideration of the Board of Directors of the Environ-
mental Quality Board In May 10, 1973, approved by the Board, and Is now
at the Department of State. It shall go Into effect In October 4, 1973.
C. Law
A Bill was prepared for the creation of the Agency for the
Administration of Solid Waste. It was submitted to the Office of Legislative
Affairs for study and corresponding action.
D. Public Hearings
Public hearings were celebrated to submit comments for or
against the use of disposable containers In Puerto Rico. Comments, as
well as Information gathered during these hearings will help making final
recommendations of the public law to be established.
F. Sanitary Landfills
Fifteen (15) municipalities of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
22]
-------
have been granted land for the establishment of sanitary landfills. About
80% of these municipalities will receive federal help from the FHA to Imple-
ment sanitary landfill systems.
At present, 18 sanitary landfills have been already established,
and there are still 60 municipalities using open dumps creating health pro-
blems and polluting the environment.
F. Difficulties
1. Lack of land to establish sanitary landfills
2. Lack of budgetary provisions
3. Citizens o posit Ion In regard to the location of the sanitary
landfill
H. STUDIES
A study was made for the creation of a Solid Waste Management Authority
based on a regional criteria. It was sent to the Governor In August 31, 1973.
The study was formally presented to the Governor Cabinet and Special Aids
on September 27, 1973.
! . •
Several studies have been conducted on storage, collection, and final
disposal of solid waste In several towns of the Island: Utuado, Vieques,
Jayuya, Lares and Ad Juntas.
A study was conducted on the solid wastes generated by all Industries
In the Metropolitan Area, Including Carolina, Trujlllo Alto, Bayam6n and
Catafto. Another study was made of the type of solid wastes deposited
222
-------
in the margens of Rfo Guaynabo.
Studies shall be conducted on the existing facilities of all the Island's
municipalities to make an Inventory of equipment, personnel and budgetary
funds available. Also, a study shall be made on the localization of regional
sites for the facilities of the final regional system proposed.
IV. MEASURES AND STEPS TO BE TAKEN
The following measures have been taken In order to provide reliable
control of emission sources of solid waste.
1. Implementation of compliance plans
2. Implementation of the Regulation for the Control of Solid
Waste, which will soon come Into effect
3 . Surveillance and Inspection
4. Preparation of a permit formulary
5. Licenses
6. Routine Investigations
7. Complaints
V. ADOPTED MEASURES FOR A BETTER COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
A high level Interagency technical committee was created In which
representatives of the Department of Natural Resources, Puerto Rico Planning
Board, Health Department, Transportation Department & Public Works and
the Environmental Quality Board shall study and evaluate the sites for the
sanitary landfills systems. It shall also expedite the procedures of these
agencies In regard with the solid waste problems.
223
-------
Also, the idea of active participation In meetings and trainings Is being
considered.
VI. ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES TO ELIMINATE THE SOLID WASTE PROBLEM
IN THE MUNICIPALITIES
1. The Regulation which will soon come Into effect, puts the
responsibility In each Municipality to establish adecquate facilities for the
solid waste final disposal.
Only 13 of 78 municipalities on the Island, operates a
sanitary landfill. There are 60 open dumps creating health problems and
polluting our rivers, our shores, and waters.
2. Guidelines have been prepared for the revision of the
compliance plans In regard with solid waste pollution.
3. The system of continuous evaluation Is also directed
to the elimination of this problem, and we hope to double this phase once
the Regulation comes Into effect.
4. No doubt, the technical help given to the municipalities
has been one of our major goals.
5. Fifteen (15) municipalities of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico have been granted land for the establishments of sanitary landfills.
6. To develop public conclence In our citizenship, we have laun-
ched a vigorous educational and Informative program, on the storage and final
disposal of solid wastes.
224
-------
Rhode Island
To fully comprehend the solid waste management situation in
Rhode Island, one has to have some understanding of the size of the
state in both land area and population.
Rhode Island, as you probably know, is the smallest state in
the union. it contains only roughly 1,000 square miles and measures
approximately 4O miles from north to south and 20 railes from east to
west. The state has a population of, at last count, 96O,OOO people--
most of which are clustered in the capital city of Providence and
surrounding suburbs. Therefore, the situation in Rhode Island is
probably no different, and perhaps a lot less complex, than that
which can be found in many of the counties in the other states.
Rhode Island does not have, by the way, any county government.
The primary responsibility for the disposal of solid waste in
Rhode Island rests with city and town governments. By state law,
each of the cities and towns must provide for the disposal of all
the wastes generated within their boundaries—though the disposal
site need not be within those limits.
There is no responsibility for refuse collection and of the 39
incorporated communities which make up the entire state, only 21
provide any form of organized collection service. Ten of these
provide this service through municipal employees while the other 11
provide the service through municipal contract with private collectors.
Refuse collection in the other communities is, however, available by
individual contract with private collectors.
225
-------
The state's role since 1968 in the solid waste management area
has been principally in the fora of regulatory and financial opera-
tions. The Rhode Island Solid Waste Law of 1968 authorized the
Department of Health to exercise its regulatory powers within this
area and required that it administer a grant-in-aid program. This
same legislation authorized the appropriation annually of $35O,OOO
for the implementation of the grant-in-aid program and allocated the
money to each of the cities and towns meeting Department of Health
standards on approximately the basis of 25£ per capita, with some
allowance for industrialization of a community, and a 60% bonus to
those communities involved in regional operations.
The Department of Health established regulations allowing only
two types of facilities--municipal incinerators and sanitary land-*
fills—without special authorization. Landfills and incinerators were
further restricted* Any other type of facility could be operated—
but only with written permission from the Director of Health.
Rhode Island has 44 land disposal facilities. In addition,
there are three active incinerators serving approximately 2O% of the
population. However, of these three, one will close prior to
January 1, 1974--replaced by a transfer station—and another will
probably close prior to January 1, 1975. The one remaining incinera-
tor, now serving approximately 1OO,OOO people, will have to spend
an amount equivalent to its initial capital cost in 1965, $1.4 mil-
lion, in order to meet the 1975 air pollution standards. A bond for
this expenditure is to be placed before the voters on November 6. It
226
-------
is expected that this bond issue will be approved and that the state
will have in operation only one incinerator in the future.
There are under consideration or in the planning stage several
transfer stations. The operation of these facilities will, of
course, result in greater regionalization of the state and will
substantially lessen the number of land disposal facilities. For
a short period of time, Providence, our largest city, had resorted
to the use of a 40 ton/hr. Eidel shredder for processing of its
refuse. But financial and technical problems have forced the city
to, temporarily at least, seek a solution in a regional landfill.
Regionalization, for the most part and despite the incentive
of the bonus portion of the grant-in-aid program, has not been widely
successful in Rhode Island on a municipality to municipality basis.
There are currently only two regions, each composed of two munici-
palities, operating within the state. These were formed before the
grant-in-aid program was instituted and were the result of one com-
munity in each of the regions having a facility or substantially
greater capacity than that which it required.
There are, however, several quasi regions operating within the
state involving the operation of privately controlled refuse disposal
facilities. Essentially, these are privately owned and operated
landfills which contract for their service to several cities and
towns.
Private disposal facilities receive approximately 40% of the
municipal refuse generated within the state and, although exact
227
-------
figures are difficult to obtain, somewhat more than that percentage
of commercial and industrial refuse—a condition which, I might add,
has had to be considered in any planning activities of the state.
The state has not yet been able to develop a plan substantially
different from that developed in 1968 and implemented by the 1968
Refuse Act, However, there is now an Environmental Task Force con-
sidering the solid waste disposal area and it is expected that prior
to the end of the year they will produce a plan and legislation
directing greater state operational involvement.
228
-------
TIfK SOl'Tlf CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF //KALI// & ENSIRONKENTAL CCT/TROL'S
IvV-5TE rAHAGEKENT DIVTSIOr
The recent merger of the South Carolina State Board of Health and the
South Carolina Pollution Control Authority into the South Carolina Depart-
ment of Health and Environmental Control completed a consolidation which
was be~un just over t:vo years ago. Dr. E. Kenneth tiycock, former State
Health Officer, was appointed Corunissioner for the ne&T agency and Mr. John
L'. Jenkins, fcrr.crly of the State Board of Health, will serve as Deputy
ssioner 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, 85% of the town and community dumps
have been closed and 51 sanitary landfills have been pernitted and meet the
stringent regulations promulgated by the Health Department.
The staff of the Solid Haste Division included three men and a secretary
in July, 1971. Today the Solid Waste Division has a staff of six graduate
engineers, ten college graduates with varying degrees, two heavy equipment
supervisors, and three secretaries. The budget of the Solid Waste Division
has grown from $63,000 to over $250,000 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 classroom 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
instruction. 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
two heavy equipment operators who possess in excess of 34 years combined
experience. These men are responsible for the initial training, retraining,
and certification of all landfill operators. They visit the approved
landfills 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
within 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.
Two very good examples of this regional approach can be found in five
southern counties of South Carolina. Jasper, Allendale, and Hampton counties
make use of one centrally located sanitary landfill owned by Hampton County.
Jasper and Allendale are allowed to utilize the Hampton County facility on a
fee basis; therefore, these two counties have been relieved of the expense
229
-------
and responsibility for the operation of their own sanitary landfills.
Dorchester County also transfers all solid i-:ai;tc generated within the
boundaries of that jurisdiction to Charleston County disposal facilities.
Charleston County is located on the coast of South Carolina and is or.e of
several coastal counties that has had problems with conventional landfilling
procedures.
These 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 throuijliout this entire area. Couple this problem with
the extrer.cly high cost of land in the coastal areas and the almost
prohibitive cost of cover material and you will readily see why this area
of our state sought other moans of disposal than conventional landfilling
operations. Approximately three years ago when the South Carolina State
Board of Health began closing the open dur.ips of cities and counties and
trying to get them to open up approved disposal operations, it quickly
became evident that seme 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 ar.d volume reduction methods, including incineration, it
was decided that the shredding concept would be the nest acceptable.
As of today, three counties serving a total population of 316,000 are in
the process of installing this system of disposal. The first county facility
to become operational will be irJilliamsburg County with its dedication
ceremonies set for the last of this month. This county will have one twenty-
ton unit in operation and a landfill site immediately adjacent to its pulverization
plant. It is estimated that this area will accommodate the entire county's
needs for over twenty years.
Georgetown County is expected to follow suit within six months utilizing
one twenty-ton unit and an adjacent disposal site with an estimated capacity
of over twenty years also.
Charleston County anticipates having an operational pulverization plant
within ten months. This unit will be one of the largest pulverization plants
in the United States/ having two twenty-ton units and one forty-ton unit with
adequate space being constructed near the plant to accommodate an additional
twenty-ton unit if needed in the immediate future. 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 should give Charleston County
a comfortaJble margin for their anticipated 300,000 tons of solid waste generated
per year. Although the initial cost of pulverization is higher than conventional.
disposal operations ve feel that its final cost will be much 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 Haste Division also provides guidance in organizing, financing,
and operating solid waste collection and transportation services to implementing
jurisdictions. Regulations requiring minimum standards for refuse storage,
collection, and transportation and permitting of private franchised collectors
have also been adopted by tho Solid Waste Division and are scheduled to become
230
-------
i.-ffrct ivc.- on January 1, 1974. These. regulation.-: will evf-ntually eli
t.h'. colIvcr..;'or: prob2<.r;~<; r^L'ited to variations .ir. container r,i.~c, fru
of p:ck>:p, r;.'>J /^rvi.'K,- o.f litter from uncovered collection \->-':dclos.
In conjunction ::i th the centralized sar.it,try landfill s-ystra which is
now established in South Carolina, approximately one-half of the country
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
01 the totzl solid waste collection and J:.spczal system. Not all of these
rurul "Cr'.i.-rj Sox" collection system are opei.otf"fJ by the county. In some
instances, the county has let bids tc private contractors and paid th.e con-
tractor fcr the operation ar.d 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.
In addition to the "Grecr. Box" approach to solid waste collection, transfer
stations and house-to-house pickup are being initiated in areas where the
"Green Box'' system would not be practical due tc varying population densities.
To surr^narize the present status of solid waste collection in South Carolina,
twenty-two or the .forty-six counties in the state at present have some form of
county-vice collection system in operation. In addition six countie-s now have
equipment on order or contracts awarded, and ter. counties have a system under
study. The rc~iair.irig eight jurisdictions have no plans for a county-wide
collection system at the present time.
Keeping in mind these figures and also that at this time there are no lavs
or regulations requiring any county to involve itself with solid waste collection,
it is obvicus 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 historically
have been the dominant employers among South Carolina manufacturers, and
despite significant gain in other industries, they still remain the primary
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
landfills. Ninty-two permits for the operation of industrial landfills were
issued under the old PCA organizational structure and it is anticipated that
this number can be substantially reduced with improved solid waste planning
and manager-ient by private industry.
The disposal of industrial solid waste is governed by a separate regulation
adopted for industrial disposal sites and facilities. Ir addition, three
guidelines for permitting specific type solid waste sites are also utilized by
the Division. These include:
231
-------
a. Permit rcquj.ri.-ir.cnt to clispo:,,-* r.i Inert, Nonburnablc,
J-'.oiitoxic i-ras.'-c such as cinders, brokc-u concrete, crur.hol
stone ar.il glazs wasl.t;.
b. Permit requirements to discos-:1 of ccJJ'.:?o?;ic r-ater.ijls
such as wood Lark, shavings and r.jxdust.
c. Permit require:nents to dispose of Hazardous I'astes by
earth burial. Such wastes include insecticides and insecti-
cide containers, herbicides and herbicide containers, solvent
residues, infectious wastes, dyes, chemical precipitates,
sludges and slurries and any other material that may be
deterrir.rd: hazardous by the Solid h'aste Division.
Existirc; state solid waste regulations require tJiat nil rta^c-.rdcus and
toxic liquidsf solids and serii-solids bo analijzc-c! ar-r? (Unjro:;ed cf in state
approved sites designed by a registered engineer or a consulting engineering
firm.
An industry found not to be in compliance with state regulations is
personally contacted and given a reasonable amount of tir.ie in which to
initiate positive corrective action. If the Division is unsuccessful in
this manner, thr.n a public hearing is scheduled and all facts pertaining
to the problen arc open7y discussed. Legal proceedings conducted through
the state Attorney Generals Office arc sought only as a last alternative.
The Solid K&ste Division has turned the corner in its efforts to
eliminate ar.d consolidate ope^t dumps and now faces the challenging task
of implementing a comprehensive state-wide solid waste rcanaoenent program.
William E. Stilwell, Jr., P.E.
Director, Solid Waste Management Division
Environmental Quality Control
232
-------
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
Subject: Solid Waste Management Program Status
For Distribution at: National Solid Waste Management Conference, Kansas City,
Missouri, October 9-11, 1973
By: Ronald Disrud, Chief, Solid Waste Program
South Dakota's Solid Waste Management Program was initiated on September 1,
1968 and funded with a Solid Waste Planning Grant in cooperation with the
U.S. Public Health Service. The program originated in the Division of
Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Prbtection of the South Dakota State
Department of Health. On July 1, 1973 all environmental programs in the Health
Department were transferred to a new state agency, the South Dakota
Department of Environmental Protection as the result of executive reorganization
of state government.
During the first two years the program consisted of mainly survey work,
evaluating the existing conditions in the state with regard to the handling
and disposal of solid waste. A solid waste management plan was developed
and written, Legislative needs were evaluated and new legislation was
written and passed. Three pieces of legislation dealing with solid waste
have been passed, one deals with abandoned and junked automobiles and
established procedures for obtaining their titles, another allows local
governmental units to establish solid waste management systems, and the
third one deals with solid waste disposal and allows the Department to
write rules and regulations for all aspects of solid waste management.
These regulations have been drafted and will go to public hearings the
first week in November.
The current program activities in addition to writing regulations include:
Providing technical assistance to local units of government, providing
public education information and lectures to the people of the State,
conducting routine inspections of collection systems and disposal sites,
investigating complaints and routine office work.
Current Solid Waste Laws in South Dakota allow county or multi-county
wide Solid Waste systems. This Department is encouraging regional systems
whenever such systems are possible. With the rural nature of South
Dakota and the extremely sparse population, the only economically
feasible system for proper disposal of solid waste seems to be a sanitary
landfill system. South Dakota1s disposal sites presently consist of
only six true sanitary landfills and approximately 400 open dumps.
With adoption of the Solid Waste Regulations and more stringent air
pollution laws banning open burning, the number of sanitary landfills
should increase tremendously in a very short time period.
233
-------
The State is currently broken into six multi-county planning districts
each approximately ten counties in size. Being multi-county in size,
these districts have the unique capability to establish regional Solid
Waste Systems which do not necessarily follow local government boundaries.
One district is currently funded by an EPA Solid Waste Planning Grant
and is developing a solid waste plan for its ten county area. Two other
districts are developing plans
-------
THE TENNESSEE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
In 1969, The General Assembly passed legislation known as the
"Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act" TCA 53-4301-53-4315. The
purpose of this Act is:
(1) Provide for safe and sanitary processing and
disposal of solid wastes.
(2) Develop long-range plans for adequate solid
waste disposal systems to meet future demands.
(3) Provide a coordinated state-wide program of
control of solid waste processing and disposal
in cooperation with federal, state, and local
agencies responsible for the prevention, control
or abatement of air, water, and land pollution.
(4) Encourage efficient and economical solid
waste disposal systems.
Presently, the most widely used method of solid waste disposal
in Tennessee is the sanitary landfill. Prior to the passage of the
"Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act" the open dump was the predominant
method of disposal for local government. However, because of the
environmental problems associated with the open dumping, the sanitary
landfill has proven to be the most feasible alternative. The open
dump consists simply of dumping refuse in a selected area and thus
providing conditions for rats, odors, fires, and water pollution.
In contrast, the sanitary landfill is a well-planned and designed
system to confine, compact, and cover refuse on a daily basis and
thus alleviate the problems associated with the open dump.
235
-------
The operation of a sanitary landfill, as opposed to the open
dump, 1n some cases involves additional costs for the aquisition of
suitable land, earth-moving equipment and manpower. Local govern-
ment feels that this increased cost should be shared by the state
and in 1971 the legislature passed a bill entitled "State Grants For
Local Solid Waste Disposal" TCA 53-4316 - 53-4320. The purpose of
this law is to provide financial assistance to those Tennessee towns,
cities, and counties which jointly or severally provide solid waste
disposal services approved by the Tennessee Department of Public
Health. These assistance grants are to be used for the acquisition,
construction or alteration of solid waste processing and disposal
facilities and for costs incurred in the purchasing of equipment or
operation of the facility. The grants law also provides that cities
and counties may contract with one another or with private operators
for, disposal.
The funding rate provided for in the law is seventy-five cents
($.75) per person per year for those people served by approved
facilities. This funding rate was thought to be approximately 50%
of the actual cost for disposal.
Both the "Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act" and the "State
Grants For Local Solid Waste Disposal" law are administered by the
Solid Waste Management Section which is located within the Division
of Sanitation and Solid Waste Management, Tennessee Department of
Public Health. Administration of these laws includes the approval
of the design and location of proposed disposal facilities and
routine inspection of the facilities after they are in operation.
236
-------
Administration of thi program also includes training programs and
technical assistance for sanitary landfill operators and managers
for both local government and industry.
The combined strength of the "Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal
Act" and the incentive provided by the "State Grants For Local Solid
Waste Disposal" has had a very significant effect on the solid waste
management picture in Tennessee.
The first year that the law became effective, Tennessee had a
total of 63 registered solid waste disposal facilities servicing a
total of 169 cities and counties. In many cases this was the first
successful attempt at any cooperative effort among neighboring cities
- it was not uncommon this first year to see 2 or 3 towns cooperating
on one disposal site.
The first year the number of eligible cities and counties was
underestimated and only $1,000,000 was put into the state budget for
solid waste grants. The total population served in the state was
2,153,569 people which represents approximately 55 per cent of the
state's total population. Due to the large number of people eligible
for state grant money, the per capita funding rate was 44.67
-------
This year the state grants funding will total $2,573,298 with
registered solid waste disposal facilities serving approximately 86
per cent of the state's total population. Along with the registration
and the relocation of new landfills and transfer stations, we have had
a proportional closing out of the old open dumps.
The Solid Waste Management Program will be working in the future
towards the problems associated with solid waste collection and the
problems of disposal of industrial and hazardous wastes. The imple-
mentation of these programs will necessitate the addition of at least
one environmental engineer and two environmental consultants. This
will be a total of four environmental engineers, two environmental
geologists, eight environmental consultants, one training specialist,
and three secretaries.
Attached is an organizational chart for the Section. The program
*
is directed by Mr. Tom Tiesler with the Nashville office being located
In Suite 320, Capitol Hill Building, 301 7th Avenue North, Nashville,
Tennessee 37219.
238
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAOBMENT PROGRAM
IVS
GO
US
Environmental
Geology
Gene D. Lockyear
Craig Sprinkle
DIRECTOR - Tom Tiesler
Engineering
•3. Mike Apple
Municipal Collection
And Disposal
Mrs. Renate Stasiunas
Secretary
,Grants And
Enforcement
Bobby W. Morrison
Training and Public
Education
Ronald S. Cooper
Ralph C. Loyd
Industrial and Hazardous
Waste
Jerry M. Loftin
JL
Jackson
Randal B. Harris
Nashville
Joe H. Walkup
1
Knoxville
D. Larry Gilliem
John M. Leonard
BRANCH OFFICES
-------
TEXAS STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PROGRAM STATUS
:;>
October, 1973
Prior to 1969, solid waste management in Texas was virtually uncon-
trolled except for the control of public health nuisances provided by a 1945
statute entitled the "Texas Sanitation and Health Protection Law" and the 1963
statute, Article 696a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, which prohibited the
dumping of refuse near highways unless done in a manner approved by the State
Health Department.
In 1969, the Texas Legislature passed the "Solid Waste Disposal Act",
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 bill, the State Health Department was
given broad powers to regulate the operation of existing municipal solid
waste sites and to approve the establishment of new sites. While the statute
seems adequate to meet the State's needs, only $30,000 was appropriated to
implement its provisions. Although the "Solid Waste Disposal Act" provides
for the establishment of a state-wide permit system to control all solid
waste processing and disposal facilities, the State Health Department has
been unable to implement the permit system due to insufficient legislative
appropriations.
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 new regulations were designed to give
the people of Texas as much protection as possible against health hazards
240
-------
and pollution from solid waste operations without the State Health Depart-
ment actually entering into a permit system without sufficient funds.
The improvement in the conditions of sites existing at the time the law
was passed, and the evaluation of all newly established sites has progressed
slowly but successfully since the passage of the State regulations. However,
in recent months, citizen opposition to the establishment of new sites has
increased considerably. In a recent lower court decision, the court held
that the State Health Department was operating a de facto permit system.
Should this decision be upheld, it would mean that all the provisions in the
"Solid Waste Disposal Act" pertaining to the operation of a permit system
would be mandatory. Some of these provisions include the holding of public
hearings on all new sites and notification requirements relative to these
public hearings. Under the present funding and staffing pattern, it would
be impossible for the Department to carry out such a judicial mandate. The
alternative would be to revise the Department's regulations and thus reduce
the degree of protection presently afforded to the people of Texas.
Following is a list and brief description of projects in Texas which
may be of interest to other states:
1. Odessa Landtill Project
The City of Odessa, which is located in Ector County, is in the pro-
cess of developing a program that would include the milling of all
municipal solid waste and subsequent "disposal" by tilling the milled
refuse into land of marginal agricultural value near the City of
Odessa. The objectives are threefold: to provide for land enrichment
in a semi-arid climate, to provide for resource recovery, and to dis-
pose of solid waste. The City of Odessa is pursuing this project
jointly with the Newell Manufacturing Company of San Antonio, Texas,
who will provide the funds for the installation of the milling plant
and in turn be entitled to metals that can be recovered from the solid
waste stream. Initial resource recovery efforts will include the
recovery of ferrous metals by the use of magnetic separation. Addi-
241
-------
tional efforts to recover and reclaim non-ferrous metals and other
materials are also being investigated.
2. City of Galveston/Damars Incorporated — Milling Project
The City of Galveston has entered into a contract with the private
corporation, Damars Incorporated, to handle all solid waste generated
by the City of Galveston. Damars Incorporated has constructed a
milling plant which recently went into operation. Although some re-
source recovery will take place, it will be initially of a limited
nature. Milled solid waste is being transported by conveyor to an
adjacent 5.63 acre experimental disposal site. The experimental
disposal operation is designed to evaluate the operational and en-
vironmental implications of disposing of milled solid waste without
daily earth cover in a high rainfall area. The entire disposal area
has been lined with clay material to prevent the escape of leachate.
The site is sloped so that leachates can be collected in one end
where a sump pump will be provided and the leachates pumped to the
City of Galveston sewage treatment plant nearby.
3. Ambassador College Compost Operation
Ambassador College, located at Big Sandy, Texas in Upshur County,
has constructed a small capacity rotary-drum compost plant to ex-
plore various aspects of this method of handling various types of
solid waste. Since initial mechanical difficulties were resolved,
the system seems to be functioning satisfactorily with no apparent
environmental problems. Most of the compost generated by this
facility is used on land owned by Ambassador College for various
agricultural and testing purposes.
4. County-wide Operations
County-wide operations consisting of one or more sanitary landfills
and rural collection system are being established in the following
counties: Polk, Tyler, and Hardin.
242
-------
5. Coordinated Surveillance and Enforcement Project
The Texas State Department of Health, in cooperation with the Texas
Water Quality Board, has recently received a $75,000 Federal Grant
from the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a surveillance
and enforcement project in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. This project
is designed to investigate procedures and manpower necessary to im-
plement an effective state-wide solid waste management control program
including the institution of a permit system. One phase of the pro-
ject will be to evaluate the use of aerial surveillance in monitoring
and enforcement efforts.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
This Department feels that the Environmental Protection Agency has an
essential role in solid waste management in at least three specific areas.
It is recommended that the Environmental Protection Agency, (1) accelerate its
research efforts in resource recovery methods, (2) reinstitute its training
and education program for solid waste technical personnel and (3) continue
to provide technical assistance to State agencies.
243
-------
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE PROGRAM FOR TEXAS
1. Introduction
The Texas Legislature enacted the Solid Waste Disposal Act
in May, 1969. One of the unique features of the Act was to divide
the responsibility for solid waste disposal between the Texas State
Department of Health and the Texas Water Quality Board. The Health
Department has the regulatory authority for the disposal of all
municipal solid waste. The Water Quality Board is charged with a
similar responsibility for the disposal of industrial solid waste.
Any site which receives combined waste (both municipal and industrial)
is regulated by the Health Department. All comments in this paper
are limited to industrial solid waste management in the State of
Texas.
The Texas Water Quality Board exercises control of industrial
disposal sites through a Certificate of Registration system. These
disposal sites are classified as either commercial or non-commercial.
Both have essentially the same standards except that a public hearing
is required prior to the registration of commercial sites. Non-
commercial registrations are utilized for disposal of industrial waste
by an industry on its own property or property under its control
within 50 miles of that industry. All other industrial disposal sites
are classified as commercial. Registrations are effective until
cancelled, and can be amended as required. Failure to comply with
the Certificate of Registration can result in either revocation of
the registration or referral to the Attorney General for appropriate
civil action.
2. State Strategy for Solution of State/Location Problems;
The industrial solid waste strategy is channeled toward the
identification of the magnitude of the disposal problem through an
initial and continued inventory of wastes generated by various
industries, elimination or reduction of public apathy toward the
solid waste disposal problems through an active public awareness
program at all levels of government, the development of suitable
commercial industrial disposal sites by private enterprises and
local governments, and an adequate enforcement program which will
eliminate or drastically reduce promiscuous dumping.
244
-------
3. Specific Projects of Interest;
The Texas Water Quality Board is currently participating in a
Federal matching fund grant to determine the optimum organization,
procedures, controls and laws necessary to establish an effective
solid waste disposal program. All phases of the program will be
identified, investigated in detail, analyzed and included in the
final report. Several other projects are in progress. One is an
inventory of waste generated versus that disposed of in authorized
sites. Another in the embryo stage is the practicality of instituting
a "chit" system for tracing and verifying solid waste disposal. A
program to train operators in solid waste disposal is needed. While
some progress has been made, the present program is limited by the
number of instructors the Water Quality Board can provide. Resource
recovery, recycle and reuse studies are needed.
4. Critical Areas for Federal Assistance:
Enabling legislature which will permit local and state govern-
ments to approve suitable solid waste sites is essential. A grant-
in-aid program for the development of solid waste sites similar to
the Sewage Treatment Program requires close examination. Public
opposition to solid waste disposal sites is a major deterent to the
solid waste disposal program. A significant number of approved sites
are frequently restricted in their operation by legal actions taken
by irate citizens without regard to the successful operation of the
disposal site. Such public opposition discourages development of
commercial sites and compounds the problem through increased
promiscuous dumping. A major concern of this agency is the proper
disposal of pesticides, herbicides, PCB and other hazardous wastes.
More definitive disposal techniques and protective measures are
required. Federal legislation to aid in the acquisition of suitable
hazardous waste disposal sites to the point of condemnation should
be given high priority.
Robert G. Fleming, P.E. ,C«irector
Central Operations Division
Texas Water Quality Board
245
-------
October 4, 1973
UTAH STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS
State Strategy for Solution of State/Local Problems
Responsibility for solid waste management in Utah lies with the General
Sanitation Section, Bureau of Environmental Health, State Division of Health.
Authority for the program is contained in Section 26.15.5, Utah Code Annotated,
1953, as amended.
The solid waste program is currently placing emphasis on education of
public officials and the general public to make them aware of solid waste
problems in local areas and possible solutions to these problems. This is
being accomplished by meeting with local officials, organizations, and agencies
to explain problems associated with improper management of solid wastes and to
provide information on current concepts in solid waste management.
Future training courses are being planned to instruct elected officials in
the need for proper management of solid wastes and alternatives that may be
available to them. Training sessions will also be held to instruct operators
in the proper operation of sanitary landfills.
Communities throughout the State are being encouraged to work together on
a county or regional basis to consolidate solid waste disposal sites whenever
practical. Properly run consolidated landfills have proved to be much more
economically feasible than several individual operations.
State rules and regulations for solid waste disposal sites are now in
draft form and are expected to be finalized for public hearing in the near future.
The State Board of Health will accomplish final adoption following a review and
analysis of public hearing inputs.
Included in the Division of Health legislative authority is power to review
and approve plans for all new solid waste disposal sites and all extensions of
such sites. Only sites which conform to accepted sanitary landfill standards
246
-------
are being approved by the Division. Although enforcement processes to
close existing dumps are not yet functional, some dumps are being closed
voluntarily, this affording an opportunity to enforce appropriate standards
for alternate sites.
An important feature of the program is its interrelationship with
all other environmental programs, made possible by the centralization of
these programs in the Bureau of Environmental Health.
Special Projects of Interest
State solid waste personnel are cooperating in several projects through-
out the State concerned with improvement of solid waste management systems.
Projects currently being worked on include the following:
1. A committee has been established by the Utah State Legislature to
study the solid waste problem in Utah. This legislative committee will
report to the legislature what action should be taken on a legislative level
to help solve the State's solid waste problems.
2. Salt Lake County, in cooperation with Salt Lake City and other
incorporated communities in Salt Lake Valley, has received a grant from EPA
to study present solid waste programs and to make recommendations for future
solid waste systems in the Salt Lake metropolitan area.
3. The Wasatch Front Regional Council, a five-county planning organization,
has set up a committee to study the solid waste problems in the five counties,
which contain approximately 68 percent of the total population in Utah.
4. Cache County, located in the northern part of the State, is in the
process of setting up a consolidated disposal site for the entire county. A
special service district as authorized by Utah law, will be set up to implement
the operation. The new site will replace twelve open dumps which are now being
used by residents of the area.
247
-------
5. Garfield County, a rural area in the southern part of the State,
is implementing a county-wide collection and disposal system for solid
wastes. This is being done in cooperation with the U. S. Forest Service,
the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The "green
box" system will be the basis for the program.
6. State solid waste personnel have recently developed a colored
slide presentation keyed to a tape recording, which explains the solid waste
problem in Utah and the proper methods of operating a sanitary landfill.
This program was recently presented in an exhibit at the annual meeting of
the Utah League of Cities and Towns in Salt Lake City. Solid waste literature
was also distributed to public officials who attended the meetings.
7. Information on junk automobile recycling is being disseminated to
communities throughout the State. An automobile shredder company in Salt
Lake City, with capacity to process 250 cars per day, will haul cars from
anywhere 1n the State if they are stockpiled in large enough numbers. Several
communities have taken advantage of this service and have effectively cleaned
up the junk autos in their areas.
8. A new furnace cell is being added to the Weber County incinerator
1n Ogden. This is the only municipal incinerator in Utah and it will have a
450 ton capacity when construction is completed. The enlargement project will
include addition of wet precipltators to present scrubbing equipment to achieve
better particulate removal. Other improvements will eliminate an existing
water pollution problems resulting from improper handling of scrubber wastes.
Critical Problem Areas for Federal Assistance
Utah has received a substantial assistance from solid waste personnel in
the Denver office of EPA, and this help has been appreciated. One frustration
has been rejection of 2 plan to use federal funds for a geological study of
248
-------
appropriate areas of the State for the purpose of delineating soil
structures for landfill operations. An unusual opportunity was afforded
the State to employ a highly knowledgeable consultant for this study,
through which information of a value exceeding the cost many times could
be obtained. It is hoped that EPA will reconsider their earlier
rejection of this proposal.
One critical need in Utah for additional federal assistance concerns
the rural areas of the state. There is a real need for financial assistance
for implementation of solid waste facilities in these rural regions. Rural
areas characteristically lack adequate monies for puchasing landfill and
collection equipment necessary to establish adequate solid waste management
systems.
Another need of the state is to have training for solid waste staff
members. Revival of federal solid waste training programs would be helpful
in upgrading current state solid waste management capabilities.
249
-------
STATE OF VERMONT
AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTS
CONSERVATION
ABSTRACT
1. Findings
The primary method of disposing of solid waste in Vermont is
by using land. There is no organized system, but rather a number
cf uncoordinated systems involving both the private and public
sector. Current methods of handling solid waste in Vermont will
be inadequate to fulfill the State's future needs.
2. Needs lor a System
Population growth will result in an increase of over 50 percent
of the municipal waste stream — from the current level of
313.0CO tons per year to 474,000 tons per year in 1980. The
waste generation rate per capita per day will increase from 3.8
pounds in 1970 to 5.3 pounds in 1960. Out of the 116 sites
currently being used for disposal, only a dozen meet sanitary
landfill standards. Seventy-four percent of Vermont's population
is not served by sanitary landfills. Furthermore, the existing
disposal sites have a capacity of only 15 years at present per
capita rates of generation. If the current system is continued, the
average price paid by the private individual for disposal of his
refuse will double by 1975. Finally, the Acts of 1971 (Adjourned
Session 1972) mandate the establishment and operation of a
statewide solid waste management and recycling system.
3. Problems
• A dispersed, low density population is the single most
important factor affecting solid waste management in Ver-
mont Transmits generate 15 percent of total municipal
waste, and the burden of this significant amount of waste
faHs heavily on small towns.
• Presently over 190.000 tons of marketable materials
with an economic value of S2.5 million are buried in landfills.
• Tne existing collection and disposal system requires sub-
stantial pubbc investment to make it acceptable in terms of
current standards.
•4. Recommendations
Recommendaions are formulated in terms of minimizing the
burden en land through effective resource recovery as well as
by optirr.um use cf present landfills The Solid Waste Manage-
ment-Resource Recovery Plan will (1) initiate matenr.l recovery
fnrough mandatory domestic, commercial and industrial source
Loparaton and s:r,pie processing in regional trestir.ent facilities;
(e planned so th.it no person in the State would havo to drive
more than 12 miles to dispose of his refuse The private individ-
ual or collector will bring his segregated waste to tho most con-
venient site. To achieve reduction ol trie waste stro.im boyond
the level reached by mandatory source separation, the Plan
r'ecommends both source reduction and addidonni processing
Such as methane production, composting and incineration.
To manage the overall system a single Stale entity should he
created. Howevor. operating control and maintenance shouid
remain at the local level. The State would only assume the cap'ta'
risks associated with the development ot fie recommended
system and monitor and enforce standards for sanitary landdils.
collection and resource recovery.
Rather than traditional funding mechanisms, the Plan pro-
poses that a solid waste management fee ol S3 per S1COO
(3 mills) be placed on all products sold at the retail level This foe
would generate more than S2 nui'ion per yenr — pnough to
implement the Plan and defray additional collection costs at the
local level. The entire solid waste mancjen-ei't-re^ource
recovery system could be financed by this solid waste
management fee. In conjunction with the mans Cement and
financial program it is recommended that enforcement of trie
"bottle ban" be delayed three years.
The capital expenditure program is based on a step by stco
approach. The implementation ot the collection. d,;>posal ?^d
resource recovery system is phased over the next scv rr.oot current standards a'
incorporates a iccychng etlort mandated by
ids aspect
peration
i.-i ;;'JdiJ- .•'->'"' ''
250
-------
THE SOLID WASTE PROBLEM IN VIRGINIA
R. E. Dorer, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste and Vector Control
Virginia State Health Department
H/STORY
The State Health Department has been concerned with the proper dis-
posal of domestic solid waste for many years because of its public
health implications. In the past, the program consisted of persua-
sion as there were no laws or regulations.
In 1965 the State Board of Health passed a resolution requiring
that each city, town, and county submit each year to the State Health
Commissioner a statement as to what it was doing with its solid waste
and what its plans were for the future. This served as a flashing
i-.d light!
The 1968 session of the General Assembly created a study commission
vl-.o recommended a state law which was subsequently passed by the 1970
legislature. The law directed the State Board of Health to regulate
the disposal of solid waste and required that each city, town, and
ccunty submit a 20-year plan. The State Board of Health adopted
regulations that became effective April 1, 1971.
Tba 1972 session of the legislature recreated the solid waste study
commission, and the 1973 session made it a permanent commission.
I i 1966 the state received a planning grant from the U. S. Public
Health Service (later the Environmental Protection Agency). This
resulted in the development of a state plan.
A survey made under the federal planning grant revealed that there
were 380 authorized disposal sites in the state. Of these, 75% were
considered to be unsatisfactory. It is the goal to reduce the num-
ber of disposal sites in the state and to establish all sites on
acceptable locations by closing those which could not meet standards
and relocating on approved sites.
Of interest is the grant which the City of Virginia Beach received
to construct a mountain out of municipal refuse. This has now been
completed and is being developed into a unique city park. This pro-
ject has three features: (1) It was built above ground thereby pro-
tecting the ground water from possible pollution. (2) It conserved
space. In a normal sanitary landfill, about 50-60 acres of land
would have been needed. Only 8i acres were used. (3) An amphitheat-
rr and soap box derby ramp were constructed out of an unwanted mater-
ial.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
With the added responsibilities, the Bureau of Solid Waste and Vector
Control did not get an increase in staff. All progress has been ac-
complished with a limited staff of only 6 people. It is encouraging
251
-------
that the next budget calls for an increase to 21 people and there
appears to be a good chance that this will be approved.
Under the state regulations, each city, town, and county is respon-
sible for all solid waste generated within its jurisdiction. They
can pass the responsibility of industrial waste on to the industry.
The regulations state "It shall be unlawful for any person to con-
struct or operate a solid waste disposal system unless a valid permit
has been obtained from the Health Commissioner ..." Also, all open
dumping of solid waste shall be illegal after July 1, 1973. The san-
itary landfill and incinerator (backed up with a sanitary landfill)
are the only methods which can be approved. However, any new and
unique method that may be developed subsequent to the adoption of the
regulations, that in the opinion of the Health Commissioner can be
constructed and operated without environmental degradation or ereatinc
hazards to the public health, can be approved.
Much time has been spent on evaluating sites for the issuance of
valid permits. At least two sites are studied for every one approved.
Soil borings are made and reviewed by a soil scientist, and the State
Hater Control Board must give its approval of the site and operation-
al plan before a judgment is made on the issuance of a permit.
In rural areas the Bureau has been promoting the establishment of a
container system with a central sanitary landfill. Many counties
which had never accepted any responsibility for the disposal of solid
waste, let alone appropriate any money, have spent thousands of dol-
lars in developing model systems. This portion of the Virginia pro-
gram is progressing so fast that delivery of equipment is several
months behind schedule. One-half of the rural counties have solved
their solid waste disposal problems for years to come and the rest
are well on the way.
Another system which is acceptable for rural counties is one where
several landfills are located throughout the county convenient to
the people who haul their own refuse. The county supplies a tractor,
a trailer, and a truck, and this mobile unit travels from one site
to another, compacting and covering. The drawback to this method is
that the refuse may not be covered each day; however, with only a
small amount of refuse involved it cannot be economically justified
to have a bulldozer at each site. This system is being replaced with
the container system.
A special effort has been made to promote joint operations where
cities, towns, and counties in close proximity go together in the op-
eration of a single sanitary landfill. Generally in Virginia local
governments do not always cooperate, but in the case of solid waste
they are able to save local taxpayers' money, and this has been the
theme under which the program has been sold.
As new sites are approved and become operative, open dumps are closed
Before a dump is officially declared closed, it must be poisoned for
-------
rats, covered with two feet of earth, and the entrance barricaded.
Bureau personnel have assisted in rat eradication.
In several locations arrangements have been made for local communi-
ties to use federal or state-owned land. Acquisition of land for
use as a sanitary landfill meets with much local opposition and when
government-owned land can be used, this solves a most perplexing
problem.
The following chart will show work that has been accomplished since
che regulations became effective on April 1, 1971:
Valid permits issued 129
Container systems in operation 32
Container systems in process of development 18
Circuit rider systems in operation 7
Number of joint operations 8
Number of joint operations in planning stages.... 4
Dumps closed 148
Sites using federal or state lands 9
PROBLEMS
With the limited staff, it has been impossible to proceed and pro-
gress as fast as one would like. It has been impossible to do much
in the way of inspection of operations. When all localities are
operating on approved sites, this will be the major function of the
Bureau. Additional personnel will solve this problem.
It is difficult to obtain landfill sites. No one wants one in his
neighborhood. A law has been proposed to allow the state to take
title to land and, under certain restrictions, assign it to local
communities for solid waste disposal. Such a law would help the
t-~>lid waste program but might have a difficult time passing the legis
lature.
There is a need to give training to operators. Many new sites are
commencing operation and it is essential that they get started in
the proper manner. The machine operator is the key to this situation
It is planned to develop a training program if and when more person-
nel are available. Eventually it is planned to license solid waste
lisposal operators.
At the moment, air and water hold the public and political attention.
: olid waste is a very poor third, and there is need for solid waste
to have equal status with water and air. When an air or water prob-
lem is solved, many times a solid waste problem is created, and vice
versa. Therefore, solid waste must have an equal place in relation
to air and water. This situation starts at the federal level and is
<*.-»t-r-i«»rl down to the state.
The federal government should furnish leadership and technical guid-
ance to the states, just as the states must furnish these services
to local governments. Perhaps construction grants at the federal and
state levels should be considered.
253
-------
'..Mie oolid .-iste i ro.-^rafi for the V. . Virgin I --l-'Mi-'s is
controlled 01: tiio stftes level. The ."; ppro;: rh t<> o3v?;it'; o'ir
solid v.-«ste probler: t~V;es n different r.^-ect froi., stntcs on i '-o
I'-.:- i M! "ml . 'cc.'iusc oT our .-^cr .i^n nhy .MI.; r>r«oiio ;y , t ' .• I'.fijnrity of
«oli<' '..•:> st.p ;-;o!'era te:' in the I". _> . Virgin '•" I ••••?- i .-- rcjllocLi--'
•• .•' 'i'oc-e'i of 'i\ t. .- '.iQv
• Mir 1 oiif1; rrtvp-e solution to solid \vnnte pro'-^^rv <-oi : ist of
n two-year i-.olitl '.astc .\cv>-,-; • :e"t I ro,-;rai \ funded by o : ! . 'i'hr
Ye^r "i Mro.^ro: • i dent if ic)lens an'l rrco- ;• 'oi'-'o*' '•'Tut ions to
upgrade existii:;; soliil \v:-,ste practices. T!:o Yonr O? p^o.^rrr: vi «
to i-:nlemcr;t t'm.fe rcconv'c>ndr. t j.oris ai -•' 'U-voiop ,-• ~<>rri t ori?i 1
ioli.J asto 1'lan.
7ho U7\-;rru)i n^ of existin; practices c;u. bo divided into throe
! :r jor r>re?35 nr(i sone of tbo 1; PV i!;i;jrovt:rnci.ts in one!; ^ro:
I : lr.ii3Qep.ient
:xi. ?tiny; legislation lias been revised wit1) n now section
for solid va.c:-te disposal rule^ HI ;• re^,ulntions. ..'eckly
op'-rationwl record? nro nnintr>inod . ivin;; in.'-nr^/M'i,^; t
stati-ticnl Hntf in th>.- follov.in- nrens: ocjuij^inei: t nfety arii
Training courses are {;iven periodically.
254
-------
II tora,':e a r. -.' Collection
-i three year pro,_;rnri to iricrer. ;e .'• to !•;:,;<> r:i->acity ••'.'••[
•->1)1 n in s;;f ficient collection e^ui.-fM-- 1. to meet .recent ,ir-.;«>n started. "o date (urn i omuii t
re c ori'.i'-'nd ed Tor t}io ri rst vonr h: ;-• bc<-ii purc^ri seo."=a 1
'•.11 oiion ii'r i jiii:," a nil t'liriiin^j !:,••-!- c<-;v -o>\ ;•;' ! h.i^ li •<>!•!
r<> :-lric«;i 1 b\ .-pr.it^ry landfills on o;:c!: i !.-;i.i. t o::ij >1 .•• t <•
closure of t IP OJMMI .inripis vill be Pinj-liCM.] by the erii; of
N ovonber.
rho lori;: ranr.e solution for solid waste .;i.sf>osal on t. Yhon.ns
i- v..irt!'y of : u:rit ionin^; because ve hope to !;- v(; t.:-c: fir: t ,\aririe
Land f'il ] in oncrntion. .Vn ocononiic annlysis corip;'riii; .sanitary
laiKifill, coiiipa ction , incineration and Marine? landfill was rnrule.
Th«^ tr.r>rine landfill was th(j riopt feasibJe solution.
)ince coastal cities are faced with similar solid waste disposal
problems as the U. :•;. Virgin I -1-nnds, it is felt t':ut tlio T'arine
Landfill sliould receive strong siipport from ()..i-..';i . The CCJILS t rue ( ion
cost o !" the project will be borne by the local ' "loverrime >t ( v 1 ( OOO , OOO . )
It is felt that O^'iiJ1 can obtain valuable information frori this
concent by rionitorin.^ the operatio:i of the conp.letcd facility.
255
-------
State of Washington
Solid Waste Management Program
Department of Ecology
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 strategy.
Traditionally, solid waste management has primarily been aimed at the control
of disposal activities, while other components and elements of a total manage-
ment 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, 1n
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 technological con-
straints.
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
coordinated 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 1s 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.
Since adoption of the 1970 Act, the Washington solid waste management staff has
grown from 1 full-time member to a current manpower level of 18. To more fully
reflect the total manpower and dollar expenditure by the coordinated local/state/
federal program, reference is made to the following:
256
-------
Manning
tnd
Program
Local
pan ife»r$
US*
Data currently
being collected
58
Currently
not available
173
•57.6
Dollar Anount I
295.000
Data currently
being collected
435.906
819,000
Currently
rot available
1.549.906
516.635
TABLE I
Solid Wastt Management Activities
Ouly 1, 1970 to June 30. 1973
Manyear and Dollar Expenditures
State (DOE
Federal
il«ent»t1on
•BStraffon
Projects
Mentions
and
kfbrcement
•king
TOTAL
nr/Tear
' Includes only pcrwanent tuff Input, not that donated by loctl solid wast*
• advisory coanUUes. public Interest groups, ttc.
Pan Years
12
8.5
5.0
12.0
37.5
12.5
Dollar AMOU.I*. ]
997,007
616.705
226,898
89.689
1.930.299
643.43J
flan Years
.5
.1
.2
.5
.2
1.5
.5
bollar Amount!
475,204
150.000
872,149
50,846
100.000
1.648.199
549.399
pan Years
127.5
8.6
.2
63.5
12.2
212
70.6
Dollar Aii.ountl
1,767.211
766.7CS
1 .308 .OSS
1.096,744
189.689
5.128.404
1.709.468
Administratively, the Department of Ecology is in a unique position to imple-
ment the necessary systematic approach to solid waste management, because it is
organized along functional lines. Specifically, the agency is divided into four
offices: (1) Office of Planning and Program Development; (2) Office of Opera-
tions; (3) Office of Technical Services; and (4) the Office of Administration.
Each office has specific objectives in relation to solid waste management
activities, which must be implemented in accordance with established priorities
and in conjunction with similar air and water quality control efforts. Currently,
the Office of Planning and Program Development, and the Office of Operations are
charged with most solid waste management responsibilities since most of the
solid waste management needs are in these functional areas.
Planning
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
management system, at least county-wide. As a first step toward this coordinated
effort, the legislature appropriated $669,000 ($269,000 for July 1, 1970 to
June 30, 1971 and $400,000 for July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1973) to assist local
government toward the development of required comprehensive solid waste manage-
ment plans.
By Law, the local plans must include the following:
(1) A detailed inventory and description of all existing solid waste
handling facilities including an inventory of any deficiencies in
meeting current solid waste handling needs.
257
-------
(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 required 6 year construction
and capital acquisition program, with a 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 suc-
cessful 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 sub-
mitted plans to the Department of Ecology for approval as of June 30, 1973. The
remaining 7 counties are in various stages of developing their plan. More
importantly, at least 23 of the completed plans are approved, adopted and in
various stages of implementation.
Although the initial regional planning efforts are quickly being completed, efforts
for total solid waste management planning have just begun. These early plans
speak to residential and conmercial waste handling practices and provides a
recommended management system for proper handling of these wastes. Additional
elements of the overall system are and will continue to be considered in further
detail; elements relating to industry, hazardous materials, resource recovery,
hospital wastes, governmental facilities, agricultural, logging practices, litter,
abandoned automobiles, mining, etc. These and other possible elements will
become major portions of the plans as they are updated at least once every 2 years.
Changes can also be expected in regard to expanding the area governed under
individual regional plans. Planning efforts have indicated the need and
economic advantages, etc. of combining various aspects of existing and proposed
county and/or regional solid waste management systems. Advantages have similarly
been seen in combining these efforts with those of other environmental control
programs. The Department has and will continue to very strongly support these
concepts.
Training
Concurrent with the development of these local plans and with assistance of
an EPA grant, emphasis was also placed on training and educating government
officials and the public on the need for solutions to their solid waste manage-
ment problems. This program has been very closely coordinated with the county
planning program and, particularly, with the efforts of local solid waste
advisory committees.
258
-------
(2) The estimated long-range 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 opera-
tions and needs within each respective jurisdiction which shall
include:
(a) Any franchise for solid waste collection granted by the Utilities
and Transportation Commission, including 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.
To counteract this practice and assure that they become an Implemented Plan,
the following 3 requirements were added to the normal planning process:
(1) A coordinated effort by means of a local Solid Waste Advisory Committee
to assure that all those concerned had a voice in the planning process
and were adequately kept informed. This was accomplished by selecting
representatives from key groups in the area - representatives who, in
turn, would keep their particular group involved and informed. These
include the following:
259
-------
Training courses and seminars varying in length from 1 day to 1 week were
conducted on a wide range of subjects, including legislation and regulations,
planning, public relations, financing, storage, collection, transportation,
disposal and safety. Perhaps the most successful and widely known are the
"Potluck Seminars" dealing with such specific matters as Rural Transfer Systems,
Leachate, Recycling, Grinders and Shredders, Hazardous Wastes, Safety, Agricul-
ture Wastes, Collection Equipment and Disposal Equipment.
The success of these training courses and seminars can be attributed to the
ability to maintain them at an informal level, allowing the maximum opportunity
for the exchange of ideas and experiences. Approximately 3300 people have taken
part in these activities during the last 1 year period.
In addition to these training sessions, a considerable amount of effort has been
expended toward providing individual speakers, and for the development of train-
ing materials, etc. for similar activities of other groups. Materials include
general information brochures, written training manuals, hundreds of audio and
video tapes (including recording of the above training courses and seminars),
overhead transparencies, thousands of 35 mm slides and other visual aids. By
providing these materials, federal and privately developed literature, films,
etc., and by making equipment available for their use, thousands of additional
individuals, groups, etc. around the State have been served.
The training element of the coordinated local/state/federal solid waste manage-
ment program has played a very significant role in development of the total
program.
Enforcement
Another critical element for development of a complete solid waste management
strategy was completed by the Department of Ecology, in coordination with
local government and the public, by adoption of the Minimum Functional Standards
for Solid Waste Handling on October 24, 1972. Formulation and adoption of these
Standards were in response to the Solid Waste Management Act.
This 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 plan-
ning, education and technical assistance - one of trying to inform all those
involved of the existing solid waste handling problems and the critical need
to improve 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, recycling
and reclamation, and final disposal, including sanitary landfills, incinerators
and composting facilit^s.
260
-------
Of particular importance is that portion relating to the upgrading of existing
non-conforming sites and/or facilities. If sites and/or facilities can not
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 July 1973, 70% of the 319 remaining dumps were
on compliance schedules to be systematically eliminated prior to January 1, 1976.
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 depar^Sfents may either adopt the State Minimum Functional Standards for
Solid Waste Handling^ or enact more stringent ordinances. It is required that
jurisdictional health departments also use application forms prepared by the
Department of Ecology for the annual registration of sites and facilities.
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:
(1) the lack of sufficient funds for the immediate improvement of existing
sites and facilities, and, at the same time, for the construction of
critically needed new facilities;
(2) difficulty to locate and acquire adequate disposal sites acceptable
to residents of the area; and
(3) the corresponding need to use existing and new technology toward the
development of new economic alternatives for solid waste handling.
Attention is being directed at solving these major problems through the newest
activity, the Washington Future Program.
In November 1972, the people of Washington overwhelmingly voted for a financial
assistance program, known as the Washington Future Program, that among other
activities, authorizes $225 million for construction of solid waste management
and water pollution control facilities. This program is to be conducted for a
period of 6 years and will terminate in 1979. The solid waste portion of this
Program will make in excess of $30 million available to local government to
implement the capital construction projects designated in their local solid
waste management plans, a $90 million need.
During development of the Solid Waste Kanagement portion of the Washington
Future Program, continued emphasis has been placed on closely coordinating
these activities with other elements of a total management system. Efforts
261
-------
to counteract the dilemma of local government falling into the practice of
wholely relying on state and/or federal funds to implement necessary local ^
construction needs have also been of primary emphasis. Based on these con-
cerns, the following five mandatory requirements were established and must
be fulfilled before an applicant can become eligible for a loan and/or grant
through the Washington Future Program.
(1) The proposed project must conform to the local comprehensive solid
waste management plan approved by the Department of Ecology.
(2) Existence of a permit system, administered and controlled by the
local jurisdictional health department, for the annual licensing of
all sites and facilities within that jurisdiction.
(3) Existence of local regulations or ordinances relating 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 management plan.
(5) Existence of a viable financing structure including supporting agree-
ments, rate structures, tax structures, etc., to assure financial
support for proper operations and maintenance and fulfill future con-
struction needs.
A total of $7 million has been appropriated for the allocation of loans and
grants to local government during the period of July 1, 1973 to June 30, 1974.
Interest free loans will be made on the basis of up to 7% of the estimated
total capital cost of a project. Grants are on the basis of 50% local and
50% state matching funds.
Four contracts, 2 for loans and 2 for grants, totalling $277,657, have already
been entered into with local government. Four additional contracts, 3 loans
and 1 grant, totalling $576,717 are in the final phases of negotiations.
Efforts have and will continue to also be undertaken to find solutions to the
problem of acquiring sites for local solid waste handling facilities. A
feasibility study has just been completed regarding the rail transport of solid
waste to a 20,000 acre centrally located active strip mining operation in
Western Washington. This study conducted in cooperation with private industry
operating both the mine and recently constructed coal burning power plant at
that location, the railroad, the several local governments involved, and the
Department of Ecology was aimed at both economic and environmental acceptability.
It contains several alternatives or combination of alternatives, including the
interrelationship with existing and proposed local facilities, rail loading
techniques, various means of solid waste rail transport, unloading techniques,
landfill disposal at the mine site, energy conversion of wastes in the existing
power plant, and the reclamation and recycling of various reclaimable materials.
Completion of this study provides a possible alternative for the site acquisi-
tion "problem" facing the many local governments involved and the 2.6 million
people they serve.
Realizing that new technology will play a dominant role in the solid waste
handling systems of the future, the Department is also participating in and
262
-------
promoting ot'ier innovative proposals. Research has been undertaken by Battelle
Northwest and the City of Kennewick, Washington, through an EPA Grant, to con-
sider pyrolysis as a means of energy conversion. This research has shown very
favorable results and, as a consequence, pyrolysis is being considered by
several counties of the State as an economic alternative to their local needs.
Through pyrolysis, solid wastes, including 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. Negotiation toward the neces-
sary agreements between local governments and industry, and preparation of
required engineering and design documents are currently underway.
Although Washington is fortunate to have a hazardous waste reclamation and
disposal site available for State and interstate use, there is a tremendous
need to analyze and develop a program for the handling of industrial, hospital,
and hazardous wastes. In coordination with local government and EPA, a State-
wide inventory relating to the quantities, types and current methods of handling
such wastes is being conducted and the results analyzed by the Department of
Ecology. This represents a beginning toward the development of a better manage-
ment system and improved techniques for the handling, recycling, reclamation,
neutralization and/or final disposal of industrial, hospital, and other hazardous
waste materials.
More and more emphasis is also being placed on finding solutions to agriculture
and logging waste problems. Guidelines for animal waste disposal currently
exist, but provide little alternative other than land disposal which is becoming
increasingly expensive.
Efforts toward elimination of the excess quantities of packaging materials and
the recycling of the resulting wastes must also be drastically expanded by both
the State and federal government. Although the increased cost of proper solid
waste management is moving the economically minded society in this direction,
much needed legislative incentive will increase this pace. Primary importance
must be directed toward the expansion of available markets for reclaimed materials,
and the equitable tax incentives for recycled materials and for the elimination
of packaging materials.
Summa ry
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 accomplisning the purposes of the State Solid Waste Manage-
ment 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.
At this most critical point in time, it is indeed unfortunate that the federal
government has abandoned its previous commitments for a joint local/state/federal
solid waste management program. Unless this recent trend is reversed, not only
will EPA become the weak link in this joint solid waste relationship, but the
land management element of the much needed total environmental program will con-
tinue to suffer.
Problem areas needing continued support and new commitment on the part of the
federal government, and on the part of local and state government are well
defined in the recently p-'blished Task Force Report on "The States' Roles in
263
-------
Solid Waste Management" (Project Number S-802179) prepared by the Council of
State Governments and supported by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs (April 5, 1973). Because
this report so adequately addresses its self to the key "problems" associated
with solid waste management, it is strongly urged that the document be used as
a guide to fulfill existing and future needs.
264
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN WEST VIRGINIA
OSWMP CONFERENCE
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
NOVEMBER 1973
SECTION 1-PROBLEMS
Our observation is that solid waste problems in West Virginia
are really very little different from those in any other state. Our
analysis of the situation has, however, been an evolutionary one, and
the following represents our current understanding of these matters.
PROBLEM 1
Absence of a unified waste management system is undoubtly the
major problem. A comprehensive state wide solid waste manage-
ment plan should include natural waste sheds or regions as the
smallest independent element. So far, no truly regional systems
are operational in West Virginia. A few areas have reached the
"consideration" stage of the concept, but mostly, we still have
the unconcerted activity of individual communities and private
operators.
PROBLEM 2
There is an almost complete lack of trained competent personnel
at all levels in the solid waste management field. Even 1n those
Isolated instances where trained personnel are available they
seldom devote more than a fraction of their time to solid
waste; although solid waste management is a full time proposition.
265
-------
PROBLEM 3
Many regions in this state are far from being ideally suited
for sanitary landfill. Any installation in these places is a
compromise and although design can overcome these shortcomings,
poor management and untrained personnel compound the problem. A
really separate problem but one included under this category is
local opposition.
PROBLEM 4
We possess a distinct disadvantage in the area of public
information programs. Unfortunately, other well publicized
efforts are creating long range adverse affects. Anti-litter
campaigns appear to be concerned solely with the visual aspects
of a single piece of paper on the landscape without once
considering that paper's final resting place. Altogether too
many people now think that when they have "Pitched In", they
have solved the problem. That darling of the environmentalist,
recycling, is commonly accepted as an immediate reality. In one
county nineteen communities refused to co-operate in a $200,000
landfill program but gleefully jumped onto a $16,000,000 energy
conversion bandwagon built around untested ideas and concepts
which had not even reached the drawing board.
OTHER PROBLEMS
Financing 1s often a very real problem, but more often it is
merely an excuse. There is a reluctance to pay for the disposal
of unwanted discards. We cling tenaciously to cherished
traditional habits and methods of personal disposal. Enforcement
266
-------
of existing laws and regulations is difficult. Legal remedies
are time consuming and discouraging. At present, and for the
forseeable future, landfill disposal is the only available
solution.
SECTION 2-PROPQSED APPROACH
The West Virginia Solid Waste Program has for three years
actively proposed legislation to create a statewide solid waste
management authority based upon a public utility concept. Service
would be "free" to the user, being supported by general revenue funds.
Basically, the proposed integrated system would:
1. Contract with existing private and municipal waste services to
construct, acquire or lease additional services and operate
directly or by contract.
2. Establish a network of disposal facilities.
3. Continue conventional house-to-house service in urban areas.
4. Innovate and expand services to rural areas.
5. Initiate a viable waste recovery program. Recycling losses
or costs would be offset by savings in disposal costs.
6. Provide new employment opportunities.
Effective solid waste management would be provided through:
1. A unified single purpose activity.
2. Integrated system of regional waste sheds.
3. An efficient engineering management approach to design and
operations.
4. Recovery/reclamation and research orientation with
capabilities to perform them.
267
-------
5. A sound financial (operating revenue) basis.
Management procedures to promote maximum service at lowest cost,
and safeguards include:
1. Regulatory powers withheld from the Authority.
2. Governed by an appointive commission.
3. Planning and operations by a board of professional personnel,
4. Hearings required priori to implementing proposals. Minutes
and other records part of the public domain.
5. Employees covered by W. Va, Civil Service Council.
6. Protects, utilizes and strengthens existing private solid
waste sector.
7. Provides continuing management analysis service to all
contractural elements, with procedures and standards set by law.
8. Limits total business that can be placed with «.: v one
contractor.
268
-------
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
BOX 1»50
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
STATE OF Wisconsin
1973 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROGRESS REPORT
FEBRUARY, 1971*
269
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IHTRODUCTIOH 1
SUMMARY 1
PROGRAM DETAILS, ACTIVITIES, AMD PROGRESS 3
Wisconsin Solid Waste Management Programs-Overview 3
Revised Wisconsin Solid Waste Management Rules (11R 151) .... U
Licensing of Sites 5
Enforcement of Standards and Issuance of Orders 8
Education and Collection and Dissemination of Information ... 9
Technical Assistance 10
County Planning and Plan Implementation 11
Auto Salvage and Recycling 12
Resource Recovery 12
Toxic and Hazardous Waste Disposal 13
Environmental Impact Procedures lit
State Plan ll»
Other Programs 15
270
-------
STATE OF WISCONSIN
1973 PROGRESS REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The State of Wisconsin Solid Waste Management Program has substantially
accomplished the early program goals of promulgating regulations and
licensing disposal sites and facilities and is now entering a new period
which will see a change in emphasis toward recycling, cooperative solid
waste management on at least the county level, upgrading of solid waste
management practices and dealing with special waste handling problems
and special waste materials.
This report discusses solid waste management programs established by State
legislation, indicates progress made in carrying out these programs, and
outlines some future program activities. The programs, progress and future
activities are first summarized and then discussed in detail.
SUMMARY
Chances in the field of solid waste management and in State level programs
are occurring rapidly. The original Solid Waste Disposal Standards (NR 151),
adopted in 1969, were revised in 1973 to reflect changes in environmental
concerns and changes in solid waste technology. Legislation passed in 1971
allowing counties to plan and operate systems has greatly increased coopera-
tive solid waste management in the State.
Resource recovery also appears to be accelerating as evidenced by proposed
recycling legislation, AB922. If made law, AB922 would establish a state-
vide recycling agency. This agency would actually operate resource recovery
facilities through contracts with private industry. Federal efforts being
directed at resource recovery programs as well as toxic and hazardous waste
management will significantly affect .programs in Wisconsin.
Department solid waste programs based on existing legislation have made
significant progress dealing with the State solid waste situation. While
changes and additions based on new legislative action will occur for exist-
ing programs, much progress has been made toward meeting existing goals and
objectives.
Licensing
One thousand two hundred and twenty-six municipally operated sites and 134
privately operated land disposal sites were licensed for the 1973-7A year.
With collection and transportation facilities, salvage yards, incinerators,
etc. included, two thousand five hundred and seven licenses were issued for
solid waste management related activities. At this writing, 96 percent of
all known operations in the State have been licensed.
271
-------
2.
Enforcement
In 1973, 129 orders were issued, 152 orders were complied with and 14 orders
were referred to the Attorney General for court action. As of January 1, 1974,
129 orders were outstanding. In 1973 efforts were made to combine education
and technical assistance with enforcement, an essential requirement, to achieve
compliance with standards.
Education
Education and the collection and dissemination of information on solid waste
management were carried on through use of the press, television, State Fair,
participation in engineering institutes, district newsletters, speaking be-
fore governmental associations and groups, etc.
Technical Assistance
The Department has significantly increased its efforts in technical assistance
relating to site operating and design problems, special waste handling, and
planning. This assistance will continue to increase.
County Plans and Plan Implementation
In 1973 county governments made significant strides toward becoming involved
in solid waste management through planning efforts and implementation of
plans. Sauk, Fond du Lac and Green Counties are operating solid waste dis-
posal sites. More than 80 percent of all counties in Wisconsin are involved
in some form of solid waste management activity. The Department is active in
plan review, assistance, and education in this area.
Auto Salvage and Recycling
A aajor part of this program during the past year has been directing and
locating and licensing auto salvage and auto graveyards. Revisions made
on license application forms are expected to yield information that will
enable the Department to identify those yards where hulk inventory is not
actively being moved. Future activities will include further location of
abandoned autos, and coordination with county and local officials and pri-
vate industry to encourage increased recycling of auto hulks.
Resource Recovery
A detailed study of resource recovery in Wisconsin by the Governor's Task
Force on Recycling has resulted In AB922 passing the Assembly in 1973. If
adopted, the bill would result in significant amounts of solid waste heing
either recycled or used for resource recovery. Ultimately, such a proposal
would reduce the amount of space needed each year for land disposal and would
272
-------
3.
provide a higher level of solid waste management service to the urban and
rural areas of Wisconsin. Should the bill become law, close coordinantion
will be developed between Department programs and programs carried out by the
Wisconsin Solid Waste Recycling Authority.
Toxic and Hazardous Waste Management
The Solid Haste Section of. the Bureau of Air Pollution and Solid Waste
Management is developing a program for the management of toxic and hazard-
ous wastes. The implementation of the program will require new legislation
and administrative rules to make it comprehensive and in keeping with pro-
posed Federal level programs on hazardous substances. A comprehensive pro-
gram without pieceneal approaches is needed to handle this complex problem.
Environmental Impact Statements
Environmental Impact Statements on proposed landfill sites for the City
of Merrill, Lincoln County and the John DeUeck site in Dane County have been
written. Site approval has been granted on the Merrill and Lincoln County
sites after EIS hearings. The DeBeck site hearing is scheduled in !larch,
1974.
State Plan
The final draft of a report on the Wisconsin Solid Waste Management Plan
has been completed and is being prepared for printing. The report in-
cludes a discussion of goals, objectives and programs as directed by the
Legislature. It also examines possible future Legislative actions that
could be directed toward resource recovery, planning and cooperative solid
waste management.
Other Programs
Other programs the Department has been involved in during the past year
include investigation and evaluation of special waste problems such as wood
waste and papermill sludge disposal and the development of a statewide
solid waste generation prediction model.
Details of these programs follow in the remainder of this report.
PROGRAM DETAILS. ACTIVITIES, AND PROGRESS
Wisconsin Solid Waste Management Programs - Overview
The overall solid waste management goal for the State of Wisconsin was
established by the State Legislature when it adopted Chapter 83, Laws of
273
-------
1967. The goal is to "enhance the quality, management and protection of
the State's air and land resource".
The same legislation assigned the task of accomplishing this goal to the
DNR and established a program outline to obtain the goal. The legislation
established two program elements that form the cornerstone of the program:
1. The promulgation of minimum standards for the location, design, con-
struction, sanitation, operation and maintenance of solid waste disposal
sites and facilities.
2. The establishment of an annual licensing program for solid waste dis-
posal sites and facilities to insure that they conform to the minimum
standards.
Program 'details as stated or implied in the legislation are:
- Promulgate minimum standards
- License sites
- Enforce standards
- Hold public hearings on standards
- Issue orders
- Collect and disseminate solid waste information
- Provide technical assistance
- Coordinate air and solid waste programs
- Undertake research
Also contained in the legislation are four policy statements to guide
operation of the program:
;
- Protect wetlands, shorelines and floodplains
- Encourage voluntary cooperation
- Encourage local units of government on an operation basis to handle
their own waste management
- Encourage solid waste management on a regional basis
Chapters 83, Laws of 1967 and 130, Laws of 1971, provide the basic framework
for the existing program. The policy of encouraging regional solid waste
•anageaent was further emphasized with the passage of Chapter 130, Laws of
1971 which enabled counties to plan and manage solid waste and which assigned
to DLAD and the DNR the responsibility to review county solid waste plans.
The existing State Solid Waste Ttanagenent Program is a continuous living pro-
cess which is modified with tine based on input from the monitoring of pro-
gran results by the public, DNR and other institutions. Revisions in 1973
of the Wisconsin Solid Waste *(anageraent Rules (NR 151) and proposals for a
State recycling law (AB922) are examples of the use of this dynamic process
to further modify State level programs.
Revised Wisconsin Solid Waste Management Rules (NR 151)
The original State of Wisconsin Solid Waste Disposal Standards were adopted
In March, 1969. The revised rules, entitled "Wisconsin Solid Waste Manage-
274
-------
5.
raent Rules," became effective July 1, 1973. The revisions were based on
monitoring the results of the use of the original standards since 1969. The
experience obtained using the original standards indicated a need to reorganize
the format of the rules, to require more rigorous site investigation and design,
to recognize the changing of environnental standards in other environmental
programs such as air pollution, and floodplain, shoreline, and wetland control
and preservation, and to include regulation of recent technological develop-
ments.
The proposed rule changes were presented in public hearings, modified on the
basis of hearing results and, after adoption by the Natural Resources Board,
became effective July 1, 1973.
One of the most significant changes in the standards revisions is a two-step
procedure for tightening of opening burning at disposal sites. The first
step bans open burning of wood at sites serving over 2,500 population begin-
ning October 1, 1973.
Throughtout the State approximately 30-35 sites are affected by this change.
The Department has contacted a large share of affected communities to assist
in the transition away from wood burning. Of these conmunities, 20 have
made technical inquiries or have requested more time to provide alternative
wood disposal methods. The other communities have been informed of the rules
changes but have not responded. Temporary burning exemptions are currently
being granted in cases where improved wood waste disposal programs are being
implemented, but where time and budgeting are needed for implementation. To
date, seven exemptions have been granted and four have been denied. Exemptions
have been granted only where positive effort toward developing alternative
methods has been demonstrated.
Most proposals for improved wood waste management Involve the use of brush
chippers or air curtain destructors. However, as communities have attempted
to improve their handling of wood wastes, they have in several cases discovered
markets for selling portions of the wastes. As more attention is given to
this problem, it is anticipated that additional markets will be found. The
Department is providing up-to-date market information to communities dealing
with this situation.
The second step, beginning October 1, 1975, will affect many other sites.
Burning of general refuse will not be allowed at sites serving less than
2,500 except that clean wood may be burned at these smaller sites under
exemptions listed in the rules. The revised rules require the January 1, 1975
subtaittal of plans for meeting the new requirements. The Department is
•aking preparations for informing and assisting site operators in developing
these plans so that smooth transition can be made in meeting the 1975 burning
restrictions.
Licensing of Sites
The early years of the program were oriented toward identifying and licensing
those sites which appeared to be environmentally acceptable and closing sites
275
-------
6.
which were obviously poorly located. Much early effort was required just to
identify and locate disposal sites and facilities. Sites receiving municipal
and commercial solid wastes located in marshes, lakes, linestone quarries,
etc., either were not licensed or were phased out as soon as an alternate
disposal site could be opened. TJith each relicenslng period, sites and faci-
lities were inspected more closely to identify those with subsurface or other
problems not evident from surface or casual inspection. 'Jhile subnission of
detailed site investigation information and plans were required for all new
sites, existing sites were required to be investigated in depth and to be
redesigned only as the need became apparent. By 1973 only a few snail un-
identified and unlicensed land disposal sites existed which were receiving
residential or commercial waste. Operators of a number of old sites exist-
ing before the licensing program was established had not submitted detailed
investigation and design information.
During the 1973-74 year, relicenslng program emphasis was placed on examining
licensed sites for subsurface problems not obviously or visibly apparent such
as high ground water, bedrock, etc., and those sites having problems result-
ing from lack of engineering and operating plans. As a result of this closer
look at sites, substantial numbers were either ordered to close and relocate
in 1974 or were only licensed for part of the 1973-74 year to allow a new
site to be opened. This category Includes approximately 70 land disposal
sites. An example of this approach is in Door County where 16 orders vere
issued to all sites in the county because of proximity of the bottom of the
site to the linestone bedrock and/or groundwater. The orders were coordinated
with planning efforts by Door County to begin a countywide solid waste manage-
ment program. The Department has provided assistance in these planning efforts
and has participated in three Door County solid waste informational meetings.
A similar approach to licensing is being taken in Brown County.
276
-------
The following is a surmary of site licensing information for the 1973-74
year:
Summary of Solid Waste Management Operations
Identified and Under Lep.al Control
I. Land Disposal Site Sunmary
A. Municipally Operated
S_._L_._ Other Total
1. Landfills serving less than 2,500 population 41 935 976
2. Landfills serving more than 2,500 population 161 41 202
3. Agency use 21_ 2J7 48
Total 223 1,003 1,226
B. Privately Operated
1. Landfills serving less than 2,500 population 48
2. Landfills serving more than 2,500 population 86
Total 72 62 134
II. Other Type Operations
A. Incinerators
1. Licensed (private) 9
2. Licensed (municipal) 1
3. Under Air Pollution Orders 12_
Total 22
B. Collection and Transportation Services 586
C. Salvage Yards 551
D. Transfer Stations 8
E. Air Curtain Destructors 7
III. Operations Under Order or Referral Action 146
IV. Total Operations Identified and Under Legal Control 2,680
277
-------
8.
Summary of Operations By Estimated Population
As of January 1, 1974 Based on 1973
Tax Distribution Population Data
1. Population served by licensed sanitary landfill 3,435,500 76.01 T.
2. Population served by licensed incinerators 3,000 .001
3. Population served by licensed open dunps 574,600 12.70
4. Population served by licensed land disposal
operations under order to upgrade to sanitary
landfills 105,140 2.32
5. Disposal operations under order to close 181,500 4.01
6. Population served by unlicensed incinerators under
order to upgrade or close 219,552 4.86
Emphasis of Department efforts has been on identifying, closing, relocating
and licensing land disposal sites used for disposition of municipal and com-
mercial solid waste. Other parts of the licensing program will require in-
creased emphasis in the future. A number of land disposal sites used by
Industry for bark, flyash, paper mill sludge, demolition debris, etc., still
remain to be identified and either licensed or closed. Sone small salvage
yards still exist in the State that are not licensed and others are under
order to be licensed due to lack of voluntary compliance. While almost all
collection and transfer systens collecting municipal and commercial waste
in the State are identified and licensed, many small systens and those
serving industry remain to be Identified and licensed.
To streamline procedures, in the 1974-75 licensing period, license applica-
tion and inspection forms are being revised and computer processing capabili-
ties are being updated.
Enforcement of Standards and Issuance of Orders
Unlike some states such as Illinois where the solid waste program is oriented
toward surveillance, enforcement, and licensing, the Wisconsin program is a
balanced program which includes education, technical assistance, information
collection and dissemination, etc. It is also strongly oriented toward vol-
untary cooperation and compliance with regulations by persons and groups that
are subject to statutory control of solid waste management practices. To
these ends, enforcement in 1973 was combined with education, technical assis-
tance and planning, and was used to achieve compliance with the regulations
In a broader framework of regional systems and longer term objectives. A
great deal of district and bureau staff time has been utilized in technical
assistance and education when problems with compliance have occurred. The
following table contains a cumulative summary of order and enforcement status
on January 1, 1974 and compares this status with that of January 1, 1972 and
January 1, 1973.
278
-------
9.
Enforcement Summary
Orders issued
Orders complied with
Orders referred to the Attorney General
Orders outstanding
(Cumulative Totals)
1/1/72 1/1/73 1/1/74
305 632 761
144 363 515
53 110 134
108 159 112
Compliance with orders has been good throughout the State relative to the
number Issued.
Education and Collection and Dissemination of Information
Information was disseminated through the following vehicles during 1973:
1. Publication of articles on solid waste management in the Wisconsin
Conservation Bulletin.
2. Presentation on solid waste 'n the DNfc television program "Wisconsin
Outdoors".
3. A booth and exhibit at the State Fair. A booth and exhibit were pro-
vided at the 1973 State Fair. The exhibit included a display of one
week's typical solid waste from an average family of four. Pictures
were also displayed which showed good and bad landfills in Wisconsin.
The exhibits generated much interest and the booth allowed personnel -
from the Department to meet many people and distribute informational
handouts.
4. Staff members appearing as speakers at such meetings as:
a. County Boards Association
b. League of Municipalities
c. Zoning Administrators
d. Hospital Engineers
5. Participation in three University of Wisconsin Engineering Institutes
on Solid Waste Management. This included working on planning committees
to arrange the institutes and also making formal presentations. The
institutes were on "Special Topics in Sanitary Landfill," "Planning,
Designing, and Implementing Cooperative-Areawide Solid Waste Systems,"
and "Technology for Recycling Municipal Solid Waste."
279
-------
10.
6. Sponsoring with !>LAD and University-Extension, four two-day meetings
throughout the State on County Solid Waste Manap.enent Planning and Plan
Implementation. These meetings were held in Madison, Green Bay,
Khlnelander and Eau Claire and were attended by a large cross section
of technical and elected officials.
7. Joint publication with University-Extension of manuals entitled
"Technical Guide for Solid Waste Ttanagement" and "Itaplementing Coopera-
tive Solid Waste Management in Wisconsin."
8. Providing informational and educational presentations at county planning
meetings. Approximately 30-35 counties were included in this category.
9. District level newsletters discussing pertinent solid waste management
matters such as relicensing procedures and the revision of regulations
which were mailed to all license holders and local governments.
10. Mailings to acquaint local officials with various aspects of the program.
This included informational letters to county and regional planning com-
mission officials and consultants regarding county solid waste plans and
available technical assistance.
Solid waste management education will be an increasingly important progran
element in the future for the continued upgrading of solid waste management.
Technical Assistance
An analysis of the early phases of the program and of early county solid
waste management efforts indicates that violations of NR 151 many times
occur, not through willful intent, but because the party violating NR 151
does not have the background or experience in solid waste management to
properly manage the waste materials. A second problem area that has been
identified which results in enforcement actions Includes those existing
sites which have inadequately designed operational plans or are inadequately
located. The heavy rainfalls and high groundwater conditions in 1973 re-
sulted in a number of the latter cases occurring. Sites licensed in the
early part of the program had trenches located only four or five feet above
the average groundwater table. Consequently, during this year of high
groundwater the bottoms of many landfill trenches have had several feet
of water in then. The result has been that the site could not be used with-
out an increasing number of operational violations of NR 151. In these cases
attempts have been nade to work with the site owners to relocate trenches and
fill areas on existing sites to provide adequate operation while new sites
could be properly located and designed in reasonable lengths of time.
Technical assistance has also been provided to the many counties now in sone
stage of county planning or plan implementation. The assistance has been in
the form of providing information from the files, reviewing proposed plans,
and meeting with decision-making committees and county staff.
280
-------
11.
County Planning and Plan Implementation
One of the more promising developments in the State Solid Waste Program has
been activity on the part of counties to plan and implement solid waste manage-
ment systems.
Some examples of county activity are Sauk and Brown County which have had
plans approved in 1973. Sauk County started a new landfill in 1973 and is
presently considering establishing a rural collection system. Another exam-
ple is Fond du Lac and Green Counties where licensed county disposal sites
are in operation even though approved county management plans based on DLAD
planning criteria do not exist. Outapamie County is constructing a refuse
shredder which should be in operation in the summer of 1974 and is presently
trying to organize a county level rural collection system. Lincoln County
has an approved landfill site and a county plan in the approval process at
this tine.
At the present tine approximately fifty counties are in sone stage of the
planning or implementation process.
The first practical implication of the existing county sites is the elimina-
tion of many of the small inefficient sites serving under 2,500 people. The
second implication is an economy of scale. In raost cases a higher level of
service is provided at about the same cost as the old system of many small
sites if all costs are analyzed. This is not always apparent if only obvious
current local solid waste costs are examined. Usually many hidden costs such
as snow plowing at sites, insurance, and machine maintenance are excluded in
the overall cost comparisons.
It is anticipated that a number of county plans will be submitted for DLAD
review and DtfR approval under Chapter 130 in 1974 and some form of county
system implemented in at least five more counties. A sunmary of county
involvement in solid waste management is given in the following lists.
Summary of Known County Solid Waste
Management Activities - January 1, 1974
Counties operating a solid waste management system: Green, Sauk, and
Fond du Lac.
Counties with approved solid waste management plans: Sauk. and Brown.
Counties with completed plans or in the process of planning or implementing:
Lincoln, Shawano, Columbia, Dane, Jefferson, Marathon, OneIda, Door, Manitowoc,
Forest, Ozaukee, Sheboygan, Outagamle, Washington and Juneau.
Counties with completed inventories of existing conditions or in the process
of completing them: Barron, Chlppewa, Clark, Dunn, Eau Claire, Polk, St. Crolx,
Grant, Iowa, Lafayette, Richland, Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Iron,
281
-------
12.
Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor, Washburn, Buffalo, Tremnealeau, Adams?, Calumet,
Uinnebago, Vilas, La Crosse, Monroe, Dodge, Oconto, Portage and Marquette.
Counties not known presently to be active in planning for solid waste manage-
ment: Langlade, Pepin, Pierce, Rock, Walworth, Waupaca, Waushara, Kcwaunee,
Kenosha, Jackson, Green Lake, Waukesha, Crawford, Milwaukee, Racine, Vernon,
Marinette, Wood, Menominee and Florence. While these counties are not known
to be currently involved in planning waste management systems, some are be-
ginning to discuss possible future planning and some are examining potential
county sites.
The Department has provided extensive planning and technical assistance for
development of county solid waste systems. Ongoing and future Department
assistance to counties is summarized on the attached State map.
Auto Salvage and Tlecycllng
Wisconsin has an active scrap metal processing industry, which currently
handles about 240,000 vehicle hulks per year. These hulks comprise about
75 percent of the State's scrap metal processing load. The Department of
Natural Resources controls sites where scrap metal is stored for futura
use or sale. The Wisconsin Solid Waste Management Rules include licensing
and operational provisions for salvage yards and now also for scrap metal
processing facilities. The most visible and pressing control problem is
the auto graveyard where automobile hulks and other materials are abandoned
without efforts at marketing. The graveyards are eyesores and are a waste
of valuable resources, economy and technology. It is now feasible to recycle
junked vehicles on a large scale. Eighteen portable car flatteners now
operating in Wisconsin will play a key role in the future.
About 580 licensed salvage yards exist in the State; 200 do about 802 of
all salvage business each year. In addition to these, 400 or nore unlicensed
sites may exist. ?Iany are graveyards. The Department's efforts during the
past year have been directed primarily toward locating and licensing these
yards and toward Industrial processing of stripped hulks.
"Graveyardin*" of auto hulks at licensed sites is often preventable. Answers
to questions Included on revised annual license application forms will, during
the next year, help to identify salvage yard instances where hulk inventory is
increasing without significant turnover or marketing. Efforts can then be
•ade to encourage more active turnover. In addition, work during the next
year will be especially directed toward differentiation between active salvage
operation and auto graveyards and expansion of county and local salvage pro-
graas and coordination of these programs with the scrap metal industry.
Resource Recovery
In 1973, the State Assembly passed AB922. If made law, this bill would
create a State agency to utilize industry to carry on resource recovery on
282
-------
13.
a large scale in the State of Wisconsin. The proposed legislation was the
result of over two years of work by the Governor's Recycling Task Force and
the Board of Engineering Consultants which prepared an Engineering Predesign
Report. Staff members of the Bureau of Air Pollution Control and Solid
Waste Management served on the Governor's Task Force and worked with the
Board of Engineering Consultants in preparing their reports.
If the legislation to create the Resource Recovery Agency is passed, the
character of solid waste management in Wisconsin should change drastically
in the years to cone. In populated areas the current heavy demands on land-
use for disposal space should be drastically reduced as more and more waste
is either recycled or used for energy recovery. The remaining residues will
take less space and will probably be disposed of in fewer and larger sites.
In rural areas there will be a higher level of service and fewer sites. The
emphasis will be on containerized collection and on transportation to central
recycling and disposal facilities.
The regulatory role of the Department of Natural Resources would change from
that of regulating many small sites in rural areas and relatively few very
large disposal sites in urban areas, to regulating sophisticated transporta-
tion systems in rural-areas and complex recovery systems with fewer large
sites in urban areas.
If AB922 is passed by the Senate, many small rural sites would eventually
be eliminated allowing more staff time to become available for work on in-
dustrial waste problems such as toxic and hazardous waste disposal.
In addition, passage of AB922 will require substantial coordination between
Department programs and programs to be carried out by the proposed recycling
agency.
Toxic and Hazardous Waste Disposal
Considerable time and effort was expended in 1973 investigating various ap-
proaches to in-depth regulation and control of toxic and hazardous wastes,
many of which are not suitable for land disposal.
The regulation of toxic and hazardous wastes is presently being considered
at a Federal level through the Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973. The
Act, if passed by Congress, would require within 13 months of passage, the
establishment of Federal standards for labeling, on-site storage, transporta-
tion, processing, and disposal. It would also establish guidelines for State
programs to implement the Federal Standards and require states, within 13
months of adoption of final Federal Standards, to develop State programs in
keeping with Federal Guidelines. If the states chose not to administer the
Federal program, it is expected that the Federal Government will administer
it in those states.
The early study of the toxic and hazardous waste problems indicates it is
very complex and not readily solved. Many toxic and hazardous wastes as
283
-------
14.
they are produced are not suitable for land disposal in Wisconsin. Control
of toxic and hazardous wastes in Wisconsin will involve a coordinated
•ultifaceted approach that will address generation, storage, labeling, pro-
cessing, collection, transportation, recycling and disposal. The problems
with these wastes should first be thoroughly evaluated to.determine overall
regulatory program needs before attempts are made to extensively control any
particular aspect. Initial steps are now being taken by the Solid Waste
Disposal Section to inventory these wastes and to evaluate existing methods
for handling. An in-depth analysis of the proposed Federal program and pro-
grans utilized by other states is also presently beinq made. It is antici-
pated that preliminary recommendations will be made during the coning year
for legislation and administrative rules to provide a comprehensive toxic
and hazardous waste program for the State of Wisconsin.
Environmental Impact Procedures
Environnental Impact Statements have been prepared by the Department of
Natural Resources for three proposed landfill sites. These include the
City of Merrill and proposed Lincoln County sites in Lincoln County and the
John DeBeck site in Dane County. EIS hearings have been held and site ap-
provals given for the City of >ferrill and the Lincoln County sites. The
EIS hearing on the John ^eSeck site is scheduled for March 1, 1974.
Sorae of the practicial results of the EIS procedures are that much more
field Investigation and more detailed engineering plans on new sites are
required. The procedure for approving sites for which EIS may be required
is very lenthly - perhaps six to twelve months in time. In addition, staff
time allocated to this procedure is, in many cases, substantial.
State Plan
During the past year the Solid Waste Disposal Section has completed several
drafts of a report on the Wisconsin Solid Waste Management Plan. This re-
port Is in fulfillment of planning grant funds provided by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Substantial staff time has been involved
in developing the report to the point where it is about to be formally
printed. The report includes two major parts.
The first part of the report discusses goals, objectives and programs directed
by the Legislature for solid waste management in Wisconsin. It also examines
possible future Legislative actions that could be directed toward resource
recovery, planning and cooperative solid waste management.
The second part examines solid waste management by discussing the various
physical elements such as waste generation, storage, collection, transporta-
tion, processing, recycling and disposal. It provides data which is pertinent
to Wisconsin and gives supporting information for programs discussed in the
first part of the report.
284
-------
15.
Other Programs
The Department of Natural Resources has several other ongoing programs.
One is the examination of special waste problens. In the summer of 1973,
several wood waste disposal sites were investigated in the State. The
purpose was to document disposal methods and apparent problens. The re-
sults of the investigation are beinp, applied to waste nanagmeent and
regulatory programs to insure the most efficient, problen-free waste handl-
ing possible.
Disposal of paperraill sludge causes problems similar to those arising
from wood waste disposal. A field inspection of papermill sludge sites,
analogous to the investigation of wood waste disposal sites, is being
conducted. Recommendations for an expanded program of licensing and control
will be based on a summary of the study. Similar investigative activities
will be carried out for other problem wastes.
As an aid for future solid waste management planning, a prediction model
dealing with waste quantities and composition Is being developed. The basic
model was prepared as part of a project commissioned by the Recycling Task
Force appointed by the Governor in 1971. The concepts of this model are
being computerized.
285
-------
WHEHF COUIJTY TEC1CIICAL ASSISTANCE IS BEIIIG DIRECTED III THE STATD
Counties that ve are presently
directing technical assistance at
286
Counties that ve will be directing
technical assistance at in the next
U months
-------
a t .e of Wyoming
Honorable Stanley K. Hathaway, Governor
WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Lawrence J. Cohen, M.D. — Administrator,
Division of Health and Medical Services
Herman S. Parish, Jr., M.D. -- Assistant
State Administrator, Disease Prevention
and Environmental Control Section
Arthur E. Williamson, M.S..P.E. — Director.
Sanitary Engineering Services
287
-------
INTRODUCTION
As our Society has become more affluent it has tended to
produce more effluents. Great amounts of scientific and tech-
nical knowledge have been applied to making better products
and better packaging for these products. Unfortunately a dis-
proportionately small amount of effort has been applied to the
disposal and re-use of these products and packages.
The extent of the solid waste problem can be realized
when we consider that in 1969 Che U.S. produced 250 million
tons of residential and commercial solid wastes. Only 190
million of these tons were collected, and an even smaller
amount was ever disposed of in an acceptable manner. In addi-
tion, approximately 110 million tons of industrial wastes and
4 billion tons of agricultural and mineral solid wastes are
produced annually.
The situation in Wyoming certainly reflects the nation
as a whole in the need for improved management techniques.
There are very few well operated disposal sites in Wyoming.
In fact, the majority of the disposal sites are open burning
dumps. Collection and storage systems are often operated in
out-of-date and economically inefficient ways. The sight of
an open burning dump or mass of discarded automobiles becomes
particularly unpleasant when found in one of the nation's
more scenic states.
An article is defined as being waste when it no longer
has sufficient value to be retained. It is important to
define solid wastes not as pollutants, but as used resources.
It should also be remembered that almost all solid wastes
which are presently discarded still have some value and that
this value will change as conditions change. As man continues
to deplete his resource base, it is certain that he will have
to look to his refuse as a new source of raw material. It is
therefore most probable that the economic value of solid wastes
will increase through time.
It is proper that the production of large amounts of solid
wastes be recognized as one of the disadvantages of a highly
affluent society. The proper disposal of these wastes must
be considered as a part of the price man must pay to live in
such a society.
The objectives of this Wyoming Solid Waste Management
Plan are as follows:
1. To explore the present conditions of solid waste
management for the purpose of:
288
-------
a. Evaluating past, solutions and programs.
b. Providing a basis from which to measure
and evaluate progress and the adequacy
of the plan.
c. Provide accurate assessments of priorities
and problem areas.
d. Assure the most economically efficient use
of funds from public or private sectors.
2. To explore the probable future conditions of solid
wastes management, and make evaluations and recom-
endations concerning the solutions of reasonably
anticipated problems.
289
-------
SUMMARY
Many of Wyoming's Solid Waste Systems, especially those
in the smaller communities, are not being operated in an
acceptable manner. Improper solid waste storage, collection,
and disposal are resulting in health hazards, air pollution,
water pollution, and aesthetic degradation of the landscape.
Solid wastes are being generated by a variety of sources
including domestic sources, agriculture, and industry. Domes-
tic wastes are by far the most significant problem. In larger
communities the solid waste problem is usually handled by the
municipal government. In most of the smaller communities and
In essentially all rural areas, the responsibility for solid
waste transport and disposal is the responsibility of the
individual.
The most pressing problem at the present time concerns
the improper disposal practices which are occurring through-
out the State. Many municipal, private, and promiscuous open
burning dumps still exist.
Of all presently acceptable alternatives to the open dump,
the sanitary landfill is the most economically efficient in
Wyoming. This is due to Wyoming's large land area and low
population density. Most of Wyoming's larger communities are
now operating or have plans to begin operating sanitary land-
fills. Many smaller communities have hot been able to make
such commitments due to their inability to obtain the finances
necessary to establish and operate a sanitary landfill. The
best solution for small communities which are unable to inde-
pendently finance a solid waste management system and sanitary
landfill is to investigate the possibility of combining with
other legal entities within an area on a regional basis. All
such entities could then utilize the same centrally located
dispos.al site, and perhaps even a common collection service.
Regionalization of this type will be encouraged by the State
government whenever such a solution is practicable.
The most Important State statute pertaining to solid waste
prohibits open burning dumps. Other State statutes are designed
to prohibit water pollution, nuisances, littering and placement
of a disposal site within one-half mile of a public roadway or
inhabited dwelling.
Revisions in State law which would require licensing and
regular inspection of disposal sites will be proposed at future
legislative sessions. Since sanitary landfills can be operated
In a clean and nuisance free manner, and when completed can
290
-------
provide valuable recreation land; the statute which prohibits
disposal sites within one-half mile of a public roadway or
inhabited dwelling should be revised to exempt sanitary land-
fills from such provisions.
The future role of the State will continue to be one of
providing public information and technical assistance. If
proposed legislation is passed, a future function will include
the licensing and approval of disposal sites.
291
-------
THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
•I"
NEWS RELEASE
FOR RELEASE MONDAY, MAY 14 a.m.'s Contact: Sylvia V. Hewitt
TASK FORCE URGES STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO HELP SOLVE SOLID WASTE PROBLEMS
The Council of State Governments' Task Force on Solid Waste Management has
urged an expanded role for the federal government in assisting State efforts to
solve mounting solid waste and resource recovery problems.
"The time has come to set national goals and a new federal policy for solid
waste management and resource recovery just as such goals have been established
for wacer and air pollution," said Michigan State Rep. Thomas Anderson, chaircan
of the task force which released its report "The State's Role in Solid Waste
Management" today.
Over four billion tons of solid waste are generated annually in the United
States with an anticipated increase to five billion by 1980. Studies indicate that
nine pounds of solid waste per person each day is collected from major urban centers,
In calling for increased federal and state roles in solid waste management and
resource recovery, the report makes clear that while national commitments have been
made to water and air pollution control, these commitments serve only to increase
the demands on land for the disposal of waste material.
>
"While striking headway has been made in alleviating water and air pollution,"
said Anderson, "we are still disposing zaore than 80 percent of the solid waste col-
lected by local governments in open dumps."
'Sot only does open dumping represent a waste of vital resources, It also con-
tributes significantly to air, water and land pollution," said Anderson.
292
-------
The report states that inefficient and improper management of solid waste
continues to place economic stress on the users of solid waste management systems,
to degrade the environnent and to deplete natural resources. The task force con-
cludes that nost local governments, upon whom the collection and disposal burden
ultimately falls, are unable to meet the demand for efficient management of solid
waste and economic resource recovery without increased commitments from both state
and federal governments.
Therefore, the task force recommends:
—the federal government establish geographically flexible national standards
for the disposal of hazardous vastes and guidelines for processing and disposing
of other types of solid wastes.
—the federal government provide financial assistance to state agencies which
vould be charged with the responsibility for administering and enforcing both na-
tional standards and state adopted guidelines.
—a strengthened federal-state partnership to continue and expand solid vaste
management manpower training, research development, and demonstration and technical
assistance program.
—strong state action be taken to assist local governments by providing the
legal and financial mechanisms necessary to improve solid waste management services
and encourage local governments to jointly manage solid waste in order to achieve
economies of scale.
—federal, state and local governments provide financial incentives for in-
creasing the recovery of material and energy resources from solid waste and take
positive action to broaden the markets for products manufactured from recovered
resources.
Members of the Council of State Governments Solid Waste Management Task Force
are:
Thomas Anderson, Chairman, Michigan State Representative;
293
-------
Donal R. Andres, Senior Sanitary Engineer, California Bureau Vector Control
and Solid Waste Management;
June Brown, National Representative, League of Women Voters, Toledo, Ohio;
Harold Gershowitz, President, Waste Management Inc., Oak Brook, Illinois;
State Representative Thomas Jensen, Knoxville, Tennessee;
Gordon Johnston, Mayor, Tacoma, Washington;
Charles P. Mclntosh, Pennsylvania Budget Secretary;
Massachusetts Attorney General Robert H. Quinn; and
Janes Record, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners, Madison County, Alabama.
Project director for the Council of State Governments was Charles Vigh.
"This report reinforces a growing belief that major initiatives must be taken
at the federal level to reverse the current de-emphasis of solid waste and resource
recovery programs—a problem which may become the most vexing of the decade,"
said Anderson.
The Council of State Governments is a Joint agency of all the state governments-
created, supported and directed by them. Its purpose is to strengthen state govern-
ment and preserve its role in the federal system.
73-R-18
294
-------
PcMcy ?osiiioii5
if\t f -* t r*."". •
^ /O" .,> /-.
\
295
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Federal legislation is being introduced to amend the Solid Waste Disposal
Act of 1965, as amended by the Resource Recovery Act of 1970. Such legislation
should set federal policy and establish national goals in order to provide
reliable, economic solid waste management service, improve the environment, and
maximize the recovery of material and energy resources from solid waste. Be-
cause of the States' unique responsibilities and povers, and because of their
proximity to the problems of solid waste, state government must be recognized
as a major focal point for planning and action in solid waste management.
The implementation of the federal policy and the attainment of the national
goals can best be achieved by: the establishment of minimum federal management
Standards for solid and hazardous wastes which may be set higher by the Stares;
the enforcement of such standards by the States, supported by a federal con-
solidated environmental program grant; continued federal support, in partnership
with the States, of solid waste management manpower and technology development
and technical assistance programs; and, the provision of incentives, at all
levels of government, to broaden the markets for material and energy resources
recovered from solid waste.
296
-------
POLICY POSITIONS
and
FINAL REPORT
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS CQMPJITT.
ith
J 150 S«M<-Mlrrnt!l Si., N.\V
w.-i-iiiiiL'ioii, i). <:. 2
-------
Solid Waste Management^
Inefficient and improper management of solid waste continues to place an
economic stress on local government, degrade the environment, and deplete
natural resources. Solid waste,* from its place of generation to ultimate
disposal, must, be purposefully, r;ys? rr.atically controlled by all levels of
govcrn:.:cnt in orticr to provide efficient service, ir.prove the environment
and achieve successful resource recovery.
Federal legislation to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as
amended by the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, should provide the resources
to, and stimulate the cooperation of, all elements of the public and private
sector that are essential to the attainment of states environmental goals for
solid vaste management.
The Intergovernmental Relations Cor-jnittee of the National Legislative
Conference therefore record-lends that:
1. Operational standards for the management of hazardous
waste and minimum performance standards for the processing
and disposal of other types of solid uaste be established
by the federal government; such standards should be enforced
primarily through federally assisted state solid vaste
management programs.
2. The federal government, in partnership with the States,
continue to support solid vaste management manpower and
technology development and technical assistance programs.
3. State legislation provids local govcrrj~.cnt, and combinations
thereof, with the legal basis and financial mechanisms to
ensure reliable, econcrr.ic, and cnvircr.-.cntaily sound solid
waste collection services, ar.d to acquire land outside their
jurisdiction for state approved solid vaste processing and
disposal facilities.
4. Federal, State, and lo-jal governments provide incentives for
increasing the rescuer;/ of material and energy resources
from solid ;.'zsie and take imedicte, positive action to broaden
the markets for products r.iunufacturcd j'rcn recovered resources.
5. Jn ih>: interim, u*:iil r.c.u ley's lii'J-o: ir c;:r.st~d, fluids for
the czisti'i^: f>: ':-?>.~l :r-r.\:-jv.v. • '.:'j/: " ",' .„'».::•:£.:.•£?£;/ red:<^t~.:i
in the FY Iff- i---..;;;.?t r>-'.u;>> ; r~ :v.-; v .->.J, i>:';ludiii.-i funds to
support slate puinning i::'cgrz:~.s.
29fi
-------
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL
SECRETARIAT THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
RESOLUTION VI.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
WHEREAS the Federal Environmental Protection Agency is
considering legislation to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act of
1965, as amended by the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, by establish-
ing minimum federal standards for the design, construction, operation,
and maintenance of certain solid waste management facilities and ser-
vices;
WHEREAS the aforesaid amending legislation should provide
that such federal solid waste management standards will be primarily
enforced by offices of the State Attorneys General and similar state
law enforcement agencies;
WHEREAS the establishment of minimum federal solid waste
management standards should assist the States in reducing and eliminat-
ing environmental insults resulting from improper or inadequate solid
waste management practices, and that enforcement of such federal mini-
mum standards can best be achieved through an adequately financed State
enforcement program;
WHEREAS those States which have established or may establish
ongoing solid waste management programs which include uniform state
standards should retain the power to enforce such standards notwith-
standing that federal minimum standards are promulgated pursuant to
the aforesaid amending legislation;
299
-------
WHEREAS the propriety of funding State enforcement agencies
from federal funds in environmental matters has already been established
by similar legislation in the fields of air and water,
BE IT RESOLVED by the 1972 Winter Meeting of the National
Association of Attorneys General in San Diego, California, that the
Association goes on record as being in favor of federal legislation
establishing minimum federal solid waste management standards, the
enforcement of which shall remain primarily the responsibility of the
States pursuant to the clauses expressed in this resolution, and further
that copies of this resolution be sent by the Secretariat of this Assoc-
iation to pertinent officials of the Environmental Protection Agencies
and the Congress.
300
BYE 73
-------
C.OLTD W.PSTE DISPOSAL
National Association Of Counties
April 1973
NACo's Task Force on Solid Waste Management recommends the adoption of the following
"Statement on Solid Waste Management" by the NACo Environmental Quality Steering
Committee and the NACo Board of Directors:
"The counties view with alarm the administration's drastic reduction in funds
available to the solid waste program for FY 74. A major environmental problem
has been recognized and great strides are being taken to address solutions. We
believe that the initiative provided by the national solid waste program, resulting
from the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 and the Resource Recovery Act of 1970,
should not be lost.
We laud particularly the elimination of open dumps, the sponsoring of improved
disposal techniques, action toward resource recovery, generation reduction studies
and the development of training programs. Additionally, the counties are concerned
with the -increasing energy needs of this country and the potential use of solid
waste products to aid in reducing these needs.
While the counties agree with the view of many administration officials that solid
waste is basically a local problem -- particularly in the area of collection,
storage and disposal of Type III waste — we must observe that there are many
problems that must be vigorously attacked, directed and funded by the federal
government. For example, generation reduction, the handling and disposal of
hazardous wastes, the demonstration and dissemination of data on improved techniques,
the dire personnel training requirement at all levels in the solid waste chain,
the continuing R&D requirements, funds needed by poor local governments to start
301
-------
acceptable solid waste programs -- none of these is local in scope. Federal funds
needed to organize and execute these phases of a national solid waste program.
302
-------
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE
January 24-25,1974
Major New Recommendations
1. Allocation of at least 2 percent or $40 million annually
of the proposed federal energy research and development
funds for the purpose of energy recovery and conservation
from solid waste.
2. Expanded technical assistance program for all major aspects
of solid waste management, collection, processing, dis-
posal, materials separation and energy recovery.
3. Establishment of a National Center for Research in Waste
Management.
4. Recognition that sanitary landfill will remain the primary
and most feasible disposal mode in many sections of the
country, including disposal of residuals that are not
reclaimed, converted or recovered.
5. The Office of Solid Waste Management in EPA should receive
parity with both the Offices of Air and Water Pollution.
303
1620 Eye Street. N.W.. Washinoloa D. CL POOOfi / 20
-------
The Solid Waste Task Force of the National League of Cities and
the United States Conference of Mayors (NLC and USCM) met in
Washington, D. C. on January 24-25, 1974, to review the past
year's developments in the field and to assess their impact on the
disposal crisis faced by the nation's cities.
The 15-member Task Force reaffirmed the validity of the find-
ings and recommendations contained in "Cities and the Nation's
Disposal Crisis," its report to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in March, 1973.
In addition, the Solid Waste Task Force addressed four points
of crucial importance in the cities' drive to meet the nation's
disposal challenge. They are: (1) the increasing significance
of municipal solid waste as a supplementary source of fuel due to
energy shortages; (2) the continuing need to optimize produc-
tivity in municipal solid waste collection systems, including
an expanded program of technical assistance and research; (3)
the recognition that sanitary landfill will continue to be a
primary disposal alternative, and therefore, requires additional
research, technical assistance and public education; and (4) the
urgency of a higher legislative priority in Congress in dealing
with the solid waste problem, and the restructing of administra-
tive responsibilities within federal EPA to ensure solid waste
parity with air and water protection programs.
Energy Conservation; The NLC and USCM Solid Waste Task Force
recognizes that energy recovery from solid wastes is a potential
source of non-polluting energy that will meet stringent environ-
mental standards. For example, EPA estimates that total energy
generated from these sources would equal any one of the following:
(1) 1.5 percent of our national total energy consumption (some
estimates run as high as 2 or 3 percent) ; (2) over half our
direct oil imports from the Middle East in 1972; (3) one-third
the energy to be delivered by the Alaskan pipeline; or (4) 12
percent of current utility coal use. Energy recovery from solid
waste could light the nationI
Consequently, major federal commitments should be made to
stimulate energy recovery from solid waste. The current limited
demonstration program should be expanded to provide for further
development of applicable technology, to test the replicability
of these technologies under varying institutional circumstances,
and to assure rapid state of the art advancements in related
materials separation and recycling technology. Cities need
immediate help with technology transfer of deomonstrated new
technologies in the form of practical, federally funded,
feasibility studies.
Only a fraction of EPA's FY 74 appropriation of $14.8
million now goes toward demonstration of energy recovery from
solid waste. But the administration has proposed $2 billion
for energy research and development during the next fiscal year.
304
-------
In light of the immediate energy savings represented by energy
recovery from solid waste, a minimum of 2 percent of the energy
R 6 D budget, or $40 million, should be directed toward the
demonstration of energy recovery from solid waste.
In addition to energy recovery from solid waste, recycling
of municipal wastes offers equally significant energy savings.
The National Association of Recycling Industries points out that
doubling our current aluminum recycling rate — from 1,000,000
to 2,000,000 tons — would represent a savings of 29.1 million
barrels of oil; doubling our current use of recycled paper would
mean an energy saving of 32.5 million barrels of oil; and that
each million tons of steel scrap that is lost as a raw material
costs this nation over 1,500,000 barrels of oil. Therefore, the
Task Force is pleased that both the NLC and USCM have adopted
national policy statements advocating irore equitable freight
rates and federal tax policies for recycled versus virgin materials.
Optimum Productivity; Seventy to eighty percent of local solid
waste budgets is allocated to refuse collection. In the Task
Force's opinion, EPA's technical assistance program, which con-
tributes directly to increased efficiency and lower costs in
local collection systems, should be expanded and should receive
a greater funding commitment from Congress. It is recommended
that the technical assistance program be further developed to in-
clude disposal and resource recovery systems in addition to
collection, so that greater effectiveness and savings might be
realized in these areas as well.
All aspects of solid waste management stand in vital need of
further research and development efforts supported by the federal
government. Therefore, the Solid Waste Task Force recommends
the establishment and funding of a National Center for Research
in Waste Management, designed to further advance the state of the
art and geared to the practical needs of public and private
waste management.
Landfill Disposal Mode: The NLC and USCM Solid Waste Task Force
urges wider recognition of the fact that, while new technology
will reduce the volume and change the chemical and biological
characteristics of the residuals from municipal solid waste,
disposal via landfill will continue to be required for ultimate
disposition of residuals that are not reclaimed, converted or
recovered.
We need to know more than is now known about the true de-
trimental impact on the land and underground water of typical
municipal solid waste. But we also underscore the increasing
importance of lifting the veil of ignorance, suspicion, and possibly
exaggerated concern manifest in the not-in-my-neighborhood
attitude toward new landfill sitings. One research track of
the National Center proposed above should address a full range
of disposal problems, such as leachate studies and testing,
305
-------
I
research in transportation requirements and safe guards relative )
to rail haul, and extensive work on imporved methods of sludge
disposal.
The Solid Waste Task Force feels that landfill operations —
properly planned, engineered and implemented — are environmentally
acceptable and, because of their competitive economic edge, are
likely to remain the primary disposal mode in many sections of
the country for several years.
Solid Waste Parity; Air quality and water quality legislation in
the U.S. have increased and compounded disposal problems on
the land. Yet, we cannot protect the nation's air and water if
we do not adequately protect its land. The federal solid waste
or land protection program should have recognition comparable
to air and water protection within EPA and in the Congress. As
long as the solid waste program is subordinated to either the air
program or the water program or both, then solid waste issues,
land protection issues, and resource and energy conservation
issues will continue to give way to air and water issues and will
not be adequately addressed.
The Solid Waste Task Force expresses concern over continuing
delays and indications of general disinterest in getting signi-
ficant solid waste legislation moving through Congress. Further-
more, the Task Force suggests that the pending separation of
EPA's Air and Water Programs into two offices offers a convenient
and appropriate opportunity to restructure the Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs at a level reflecting the priority
attention it deserves in a national program for environmental
protection.
Finally, the NLC and USCM Solid Waste Task Force expresses
appreciation to officials of EPA's Solid Waste Office for their
efforts to assist cities in spite of severe funding and policy
limitations.
306
-------
CONFERENCE OF STATE S/NITARY ENGINEERS
Resolution No. _5
SOLID WASTE LL G I SU\TION
WHEREAS the proper and safe nanagerrert of solid waste, including
recycling, is essential to ptotect public health, enhance
environmental quality, and conserve natural resources; and
WHEREAS there are mounting volumes of complex solid wastes which are
generated by residential, industrial and commercial sources; and
WHEREAS increased stringency of air ; nd water pollution control standards
results in larger amounts of residues of "hard-to-handle" iolid
wastes; and
WHEREAS the national effort to improve solid waste management is jeopardized
by uncertainty of Federal legislation and appropriations: Therefore
be it
RESOLVED, That the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers supports Federal
legislation and oppropriations which would:
(a) Provide a program of research, development and studies to
create new and improved methods and systems for solid waste
handling, disposal and recycling.
(b) Augment professional manpower development activities through
training and education; and conduct training courses 'or
state personnel without tuition charges.
(c) Demonstrate through grai.ts the engineering, economic, and
administrative feasibil ty or promising approaches to
Improved solid waste management and recycling; and
(d) Provide program grants 10 state solid waste agencies.
Further be it
RESOLVED, That the Conference supports the concept of State and Federal
legislation which would encourage beneficial uses of secondary and
reclaimed materials as a vital aspect of solid waste management;
and further be i t
RESOLVED, That copied of this resolution be transniiled by the Secretary
to the Adnini st rotor of the Federal Envi ronr.icn ta 1 Protection Agency
and such other distribution as may be deerred appropriate.
May 1973
copies to the ten EPA Regional Administrators
307
-------
ISW POLICY STATEMENT
Resource Recovery
WHEREAS there is a continuing growth in the volume of solid wastes
discarded, and
\
WHEREAS past and present practices of open dumping and uncontrolled
burning are no longer acceptable, and
WHEREAS there is a need for the conservation of resources and an
increasing public awareness of this need, and
WHEREAS inaccurate publicity on resource recovery is inspiring a
misleading mixture of information resulting in emotional
rather than factual approaches to this problem, and
WHEREAS many APWA members are responsible directly or indirectly
for the collection, transportation, processing and disposal
of municipal solid wastes, now therefore, be it
RESOLVED that it shall be the policy of APWA Institute for Solid
Wastes to encourage recovery of resources from the solid
vastes stream by:
1. Aiding in the development of a practical and
realistic public attitude toward resource
recovery from solid wastes.
2. Acknowledging that there will not be any single or
best system feasible or practical for all locations
and conditions.
3. Encouraging research, development and demonstrations
related to implementation that will improve the
state-of-the-art.
4. Cooperating at all levels with the private sector
involved in collection, processing and disposal of
solid wastes.
5. Supporting the premise that after recovery of
materials from the solid waste stream that further
processing and marketing can best be done by private
industry.
308
-------
RESOLUTION
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
RESOLVED
RESOLVED
the APWA Institute for Solid Wastes developed the attached
statement of policy on resource recovery which has been
endorsed by the Board of Directors of the American Public
Works Association and distributed to the membership of the
Association, and
the mounting volumes and increasingly hazardous characterist-
ics of solid wastes tend to drain away natural resources and
threaten our environment, and
the,development of adequate solid waste management programs
is a joint responsibility of federal, state and local '
governments and, in its broadest dimension, includes a wide
range of solutions involving reductions at the source, more
favorable procurement policies encouraging the use of recycled
•materials, removal of freight rate disparities between virgin
and salvageable materials and incentives for users of reclaimed
materials, now therefore be it
that the membership of the American Public Works Association
assembled here in Denver, Colorado this 17th day of September,
1973, does hereby adopt the policy statement developed by the
Institute for Solid Wastes and approved by the Board of
Directors, and be it further
that the membership endorses and supports the principle of
providing economic incentives x^hich would encourage reductions
of solid waste at the source, and which would increase the
demand and stabilize the market for recycled materials.
309
-------
nay ID, iv/j
X
X
THE FEDERAL ROLE IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT*
In the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (PL 89-272) the Congress listed
several pertinent reasons for passage of this Act, including: ever-increasing
volumes of discarded material, a continuing concentration of population in
metropolitan areas, the pollution of air and water resources from improper
disposal, and the waste of natural resources resulting from the failure to
reuse resources.
Section 202 (a) (6) of this Act states: "The Congress finds that while
the collection and disposal of solid wastes should continue to be primarily
the function of state, regional, and local agencies, the problems of waste
disposal (as set forth above) have become a matter national in scope and in
concern and necessitate Federal action through financial and technical assist-
ance and leadership in the development, demonstration, and application of new
and improved methods and processes to reduce the amount of waste and unsalvage-
able materials and to provide for proper and economical solid-waste disposal
practices." (underlining supplied for emphasis)
There has been absolutely no change or development--local, national or
international — to cause the Congress, or anyone, to reach different conclusions
now. The conditions that lead to those conclusions are recognized and accepted
nationally by a broad spectrum of informed official, technical and citizens'
groups. Under this Act and its amendment, the Resource Recovery Act of 1970
(PL 91-512), a national program was initiated and great strides were taken, but
much remains to be done in order to help establish adequate local solid waste
management systems to protect the environment throughout the Nation.
The initiative provided by the national solid waste program must not be
lost. Successful solid waste programs are being developed by many local govern-
ments, counties, and states to provide the framework and the incentives necessary
to furnish this essential service that constitutes 0.97, of the Gross National
Product, or about $10 billion annually.
At thia point in time, rather than decreasing the Federal Solid Waste
Program, all facts clearly substantiate the need for greatly strengthening it.
Massive increases in Federal and local funding for water pollution control,
Including an extensive program of construction grants, are underway. These
projects will markedly increase the quantities of sewage and industrial sludge
that must be handled at local solid waste disposal facilities. Although no con-
struction grants are contemplated or requested for solid waste programs, drastic
reductions have been proposed in the Federal solid waste program budget from
$36.7 million in fiscal year 1973 to $5.8 million in fiscal year 1974, and in
the staff of EPA's Office of Solid Waste Management Programs from 320 to 127 for
the same periods. These would be cuts of 84 percent in dollars and 62 percent
In positions.
It is of highest priority to state and local governmental agencies that
the technical capability, so carefully assembled by the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs over the past seven years, not be lost at this crucial time.
* Prepared by the American Public Works Association/Institute for Solid Wastes,
Headquarters Office: 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Phone: Area Code 312 324-3400
Washington Office: 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20036
Phone: Area Code 202 833-1168
310
-------
These governmental agencies are making increased use of this important
resource, and expectations are high that long-sought goals will be met by
the continued availability of this valuable assistance from the Federal level
for upgrading local practices. Dismembering their aggregate talent would be
a critical national loss which could take years to recreate. The technical
assistance staff is already being dissipated as individuals seek other employ-
ment in the face of propoyed staff reductions. Immediate action is necessary
to at least avert the loss of critical personnel. It is also of the highest
priority to continue the finding for the innovative, progiaiuo which cannot be
continued at any other level of government. Frequently overlooked, but of
major importance, is tha fact that a significant, ongoing Federal solid wastes
management program helps to develop the public support so necessary for appro-
priate state and local solid waste management activities.
It is therefore recommended that:
1. The Federal Government strengthen rather than reduce its technical programs
to process, store, and disseminate the solid waste information required by state
and local governments, and that Federally-assisted training arid educational
programs be broadened to enhance the performance of state and local officials
so they can improve the productivity of their solid waste programs.
2. State solid waote management program grants should be instituted to replace
the defunct planning grants. Such progrcm grants can and should serve as incen-
tives for state action programs in such fields as development of Inter-local
mechanisms for areawide systems, encouragement of improved iiiduatrial programs,
stimulation of markets for secondary materials, and environmental surveillance
and enforcement.
3. The Federal government provide strong and positive incentives for increasing
the recovery of material and energy resources from solid waste, and take Jtnraediate
positive action to broaden the markets for products manufactured from recovered
materials.
4. Federally-supported research, development and demonstration projects be fund-
ed at the level necessary to develop and furnish the expanding technology required
to deal more effectively with the increasing volume and complexity of solid waste;
and, in addition, that a Research and Development Advisory Board, composed of
knowledgeable officials and representatives outside the Federal government, be
established to furnish assistance to the Government in the creation, selection,
development and implementation of these projects.
5. The Federal Government establish operational standards for the maviagement
of hazardous waste and minijnuro performance standards for the processing and dis- •
posal of other types of oolid wc3te~-such otandards to be enforced primarily
through Federally-assisted State solid waste management programs.
6. Waste generation be examined by Federal, State and local governments and by
private groups to determine how this increasingly upward trend can be reversed,
and that packaging standards be considered by the Federal Government in conjunc-
tion with other solutions, to accomplish this goal.
311
-------
7. All Federal laws applicable to solid waste management be reviewed so
that economic disincentives to resource recovery such as reduced freight
rates for virgin materials can be revised. Consideration should be given
also to the enactment of new legislation to prohibit the enactment of laws
barring the transportation of solid waste from one scnte to another nince
such non-importation laws frustrate the establishment of sound solid waste
management programs.
We fully support the viewpoint and the practicality that the collec-
tion and disposal of solid wastes are the responsibility of state and local
govera-nents; and that, after recovery of materials from the solid waste stream,
further processing and marketing may best be done by private industry. However,
some solid waste problems require the development and application of new tech-
nology which must be provided and funded by the Federal government through
demonstration projects, if real progress is to be achieved and continued. A
significant example is the unique cooperative venture between the City of
St. Louis, Missouri, and the Union Electric Company wherein an investor-owned
utility began processing municipal solid waste so that it could be burned to
produce electric power. Potential benefits being evaluated include an environ-
mentally-acceptable means of solid waste disposal, conservation of irreplace-
able natural resources, more effective control of land use, and economic ad-
vantage to the utility and the public.
Another example is Mission 5000, a program conceived (by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the states with the aid of public-interest
groups) to eliminate 5,000 dumps by mid-1972. Although this project received
strong support, it achieved only 60 percent of its goal early in 1973. The
3,000 dumps represent less than 25 percent of the total 12,500 actually identi-
fied and documented by state solid waste agencies. Any significant reduction
in the Federal Government's current solid waste management efforts will be a
severe psychological deterrent to further state and local action.
These constitute but two laudable examples of the accomplishments of
the Federal solid waste program, a program that must be continued if the Nation
is to deal effectively with such related programs as environmental protection,
land use, conservation of resources and production of sufficient energy. The
battle against solid waste is far from won; it has only begun. The price of
poor solid waste practices will be environmental degradation, in spite of better
air and water pollution efforts. The continuation of strong Federal support
in solid waste management is mandatory to link the efforts of all levels of
government in a synergistic chain to take full advantage of not only science
and technology, but to exploit the opportunities opening up that will make the
achievement of worthy goals possible.
Vio923a
312
------- |