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

-------