IMPROVING STATE SOLID WASTE




          MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS




      (with Addendum and Appendix)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
                                                    7802
IMPROVING  STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

          with Addendum and Appendix
    This publication  (SW-74.of) was written

      by T.  EDGAR, Engineer, and J. ROAT
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     1972

-------
ADD ENDUM
I proving State Solid Waste Management Programs
The issue study “Improving State Solid Waste Management Programs” begins on
Page i. The research necessary for this study covered our planning program
through fiscal year 1970. The report was written June 30, 1970. This
addendum brings this issue study up to date through fiscal year 1971.
Since the first study of Solid Waste Planning Grants, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has become operational, and the Bureau’s name has changed
to the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency consolidated federal programs to control air and water pollution,
solid wastes, pesticides and radiation into a new administrative agency,
which has a regulatory emphasis.
In the past year the number of states with solid waste management programs
has increased from 42 to 46. Eighteen state plans have been completed, pre-
viously there were nine, and eight more are in press. With the further
completion of state plans and the reorganization of Federal and State environ-
mental programs, the findings of the previous study are made current.
State governments have established new institutions to strengthen environ-
mental controls and to demonstrate the State’s commitment to pollution clean-
up and natural resource protection. Presently fourteen States have established
environmental protection agencies and three more have them pending. State
environmental protection agencies increase the statue of the solid waste manage-
ment programs and bring the problems in the States closer to the governors.
Before State reorganization, solid waste management was often buried in the
administrative structure of the health department and, in any case, had to
compete with other health issues for staff-time and funds. But when solid
waste management is incorporated into a State environmental protection agency
the program is more likely to have full—time staff working only on this
problem.
The planning section of the Division of Technical Operations, Office of Solid
Waste Management, has been conducting an evaluation of State programs since
January 1, 1971. In general, it has found that the States need gyeater numbers
and types of personnel and funds for:
1. Training and Certification programs
2. Inspection and Enforcement
3. Technical assistance
4. information systems
5. Improved legislation along with rules and regulations, operating
criteria, and standards
6. Public information
7. Overall program support
111

-------
Simply, most States are financially hurting, and they need assistance
for the implementation of their solid waste management plans. In many
States, the new environmental protection agencies provide the organizational
structure for facilities and personnel to implement the State plans.
This report still recomends that the Federal government provide planning
support to State solid waste agencies on a continual basis including
matching funds for implementation of the plans and other State program
activities. The reconinendation associated with alternative number two
is being specifically examined by an EPA Task Force on Planning and
Control Agency Grants to States.
A problem that surfaced in the study last year was that some States have
not realized fully the role they should be playing in solid waste management
planning. These States have put too much effort into collecting data
and not enough time into the development of really effective plans. Whether
a State does a good job planning solid waste management or not certainly
depends on the competency of the people in that State, but it also depends
on the guidance provided by the Federal government.
Since last year the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs has published
a procedural manual, “Developing a State Solid Waste Management Plan”
(PHS Publication No. 2031). This guide will supplement direct technical
assistance to the States aiding them in completing their solid waste
management plans. Also to provide better assistance to the States, this
study has reconinended that the measurement criteria for the evaluation of
State planning grantees be revised to place a greater emphasis on the develop-
ment under State plans rather than on the collection of data.
As the Federal government is combining its programs in Solid Waste Management,
Water Quality and Air Pollution Control, many of the States are also bringing
their pollution control programs together. Within the State environmental
protection agencies, Solid Waste Management Planning can work closely
with Water Quality and Air Pollution Control. For example, it is important
that the treated quench water from incinerators meet water quality standards
and that the gases from combustion meet air pollution control standards.
While the Federal system of environmental grants and loans has had
strengthening effects on the content of State programs, it has also been
a strong influence on State governments to fragment their environmental
management effort. This deficiency lends support for block environmental
grants for planning and program activities. Block environmental grants
would improve the perspective and handling of the whole environmental
p rob] em.
In the last year, State solid waste management planning grant programs were
started in four States and completed in 17 others. State reorganizations
have increased the stature of solid waste management offices, and thus the
need for reliance on a developed solid waste management plan. When States
implement their solid waste management plans they will have the basis for
reducing solid waste pollution of the land, air, and water.
iv

-------
Improving State Solid Waste Management Programs
Introduction
The communities of this nation face the awesome task of providing for the
collection, transportation, and sanitary disposal of over one billion pounds
of solid wastes collected every day. Population densities are increasing
to the point where urban, suburban, and rural areas are crowding each other
at rapid rates. Land for proper waste disposal within the boundaries of
each municipality is becoming more scarce and more expensive. Many commu-
nities are realizing that waste disposal requires long-range planning and
cooperation with their neighbors. Those concerned recognize that each type
of solid waste has its own inherent problems depending on the combustibility,
salvability, disease-producing potential, and degree of organic and type of
chemical content. No matter what disposal method is practiced, or where it is
practiced, it must be such that it does not constitute a health or safety hazard
or cause pollution of land, air, or water.
In addition, exhaustion of the nation’s natural resource base is a very real
possibility. Currently, a few industries recycle waste materials recognizing
the long-term economic advantages. But this recognition has not significantly
reversed the trend toward greater waste generation nor has it reduced the
burden on communities across the nation that are responsible for the day-to-
day management of solid waste materials.
Confronted with these problems, the Bureau of Solid Waste Management has
identified two overall objectives:
1. To eliminate the deterioration of the nation’s environment
caused by the improper and inefficient management of solid
waste.
2. To conserve the nation’s natural resources by reducing the
amount of material which must be ultimately disposed of as
solid wastes.
This study examines the effectiveness of the Bureau’s Solid Waste Planning
Grants in assisting State planners to identify and resolve solid waste
management problems. It evaluates our planning grants to determine how
effective they are in achieving the above objectives. Planning dollars are
compared to other Bureau expenses to attempt to put their effectiveness in
perspective. An analysis is made of the planning grants in order to determine
both their strengths and the weakness. The weakness will be treated in-depth
in order to provide insights for improvements. This study will attempt to
define the appropriate Federal role in State and interstate planning. It
identifies the major issues and evaluates the courses of action open to the
program.
Statement of the Issues
This study is concerned with improving State solid waste management programs.
The State solid waste management plans are evaluated to determine the major
problems in developing State plans, the major weaknesses of State plans, and
any problem-solving resources that the Federal government can provide. This
1

-------
study also deals with the important issue of assuring that State solid waste
management plans are implemented.
Scope of Study
This study is based on an analysis of the first ten plans developed, inter-
views with two State solid waste agencies, and the files and professional
observations of the Planning Section of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
This “issue study” began as a Secretary of HEW priority and is the second such
“issue study” made by the Bureau in accord with the policy laid down by the
Office of Management and Budget in Bulletin No. 68-9, dated April 12, 1968.
It is one in a series of evaluative studies being conducted by the Office of
Program Development directed toward increasing the Bureau’s effectiveness by
examining its programs and activities.
Sumary of the Planning Program
Prior to 1965 only California, Indiana, Mississippi, New York and Pennsylvania
had operating solid waste programs. Congress recognized this deficiency and
included under the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 the provision of grants
to State and interstate agencies for up to 50 percent of the cost of developing
solid waste plans. These grants are available to the particular State or inter-
state organization which has been designated or established as the sole agency
for this environmental concern. The first of these planning grants, administered
by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management, was awarded on June 1, 1966. To date,
45 States and territories, and five interstate agencies are the recipients of
planning grants under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
The prime objective of the State and interstate grants has been to foster
comprehensive statewide or areawide programs in planning for the handling and
disposal of solid wastes. In developing their plan, the grantees consider
such factors as population growth, urban and metropolitan development, land
use planning, water pollution control, air pollution control, regional dis-
posal programs, economics, legal basis, and the management of solid wastes
in general. In addition, the Act recognized that adequate planning cannot
proceed without the provision of reliable data and information on current
solid waste practices. Accordingly, in an effort to ensure uniform reporting,
the Bureau of Solid Waste Management developed a set of survey forms, a
manual of instructions for conducting the survey, and sample replies for
completing the forms. To facilitate the acquisition and recording of the re-
quired information, these items were furnished to each State.
To aid in the completion of plans that sufficiently guide State and interstate
solid waste agencies, the Bureau provides technical assistance in professional
planning. This assistance includes the application of methods and techniques
of planning, management, finance, and public administration. A procedural
manual, “Developing a State Solid Waste Management Plan” (PHS Publication NO.
2031), was published in 1970 and will be used to supplement direct technical
assistance. The plan resulting from the program is designed to serve three
main purposes:
2

-------
*provjde an internal, technical, and policy guideline for
carrying out the purposes of the State solid waste agency;
*provjde a State—directed framework of standards for local
and regional solid waste management planning and for local
and regional planning and implementation; and
*provjde a legislative support document for furthering the
improved management of solid wastes in the State.
Exhibit I outlines the typical work schedule for State plan development.
Evaluation of State Planning Program
The overall effect of the State solid waste planning program has proven
to be an excellent investment. The money invested in planning has increased
the number of State solid waste programs from 5 to 42 and increased the num-
ber of full-time professionals engaged in these programs by over 900 percent.
It is generally conceded that the solid waste problem is essentially a State
and local responsibility. Thus, the Bureau’s planning program has made an
imense contribution by increasing the number of State solid waste offices
and professional personnel to handle State solid waste management problems.
The total amount expended by the Bureau since 1966 for all activities totals
$60,274,000. Of this, approximately ten percent, or six million dollars, has
gone for State planning. Exhibit II outlines the funding history of the
Bureau in relation to the amounts expended for planning. The six million
dollars spent on planning contrasts with 15 million dollars spent on research
grants and contracts, and 21 million dollars for demonstration grants. The
technologies employed to deal with solid waste problems have scarcely changed
over the past 10-20 years. There may be a threshold under which research and
demonstration money does not provide the maximum effectiveness, just as per-
haps there is a threshold over which additional planning money ceases to be
so effective. The investment made so far in planning, however, has yielded
definable worthwhile results. The staffed agencies resulting from planning
funds have been responsible for what legislation has occurred, generating
some public awareness of solid waste problems, providing needed planning data,
and developing a planning process.
Looking at the results of the planning program more closely, the number of
full-time permanent professionals working in State programs has increased
from 13 in 1966 to 125 in 1970. Exhibit III breaks out these increases by
State. Exhibit IV shows the increases in personnel that have occurred in
States with planning grants subsequent to qualifying for the grant award.
The fact that the amount of full-time perrn& ent personnel has increased by
the amount it has is even more impressive when some of the inherent staffing
problems are considered. These staffing problems have contributed to start-up
problems and have caused some of the agencies to lose one to two years in the
completion of the plan. These problems are:
1. Typically low State salaries.
2. Staff untrained in solid waste management.
3. No assurance that the program will be continued
after the initial plan development.
3

-------
Some of the States have temporarily avoided these staffing problems by
letting contracts for the development of the plan. Salaries have improved
quite slowly during the four years of the planning grant program. Most
States, however, have sent members of their staffs to solid waste training
courses for which planning funds have shared the cost. Of the 2,482 indi-
viduals attending one or more training branch solid waste courses, 330 were
supported with planning grant funds.
Exhibit V sumarizes an evaluation of each individual State planning grantee.
Six factors were considered in arriving at the total rating: Completion of
Statewide survey, staffing additions and upgrading, legislation efforts,
development of written State plans, public relations and information efforts,
and improvement of the solid waste agency stature. The method of rating was
designed to encourage a balanced program among many necessary activities a
State could conduct.
Exhibit VI is a sumary of the quality of the State solid waste legislation
and enforcement. The rating is based on the professional judgement of those
familiar with State legislation and ranges from A to C with A being the best.
The overall effect of the legislation must include a consideration of the
quality of State rules and regulations and the enforcement of the legislation
as well as the legislation itself.
An example of “A” legislation is Pennsylvania’s Solid Waste Management Act
(Act 241). This act is broad in its management and planning scope. A unique
feature requires municipalities to submit solid waste management plans to the
State for approval. Reimbursement of up to 50 percent is available to munici-
palities for the cost of preparing these plans.
Of course the poorest quality of legislation is no legislation at all. But
Texas is an example of “C” rated legislation where if wastes are disposed of
within 50 miles from where they are generated they are not subject to State
laws. Because of the available space in Texas few wastes are transported
great distances and consequently this legislation is not effective.
Kentucky is an example of “C” quality of enforcement of legislation. Kentucky
law states that open dumps cannot receive annual permits and yet the State
violates its own law by using open dumps in State parks.
When the overall evaluation of individual State planning grantees is compared
to an evaluation of the legislation (see Exhibit VII), it is clear that there
is a significant correlation. States with planning grants are four times more
likely to have solid waste legislation than States without grants. Furthermore,
States which received high planning evaluations in Exhibit V are more likely to
have better solid waste legislation.
Exhibit VIII is a measure of the overall acceptance of the concept of State
planning in State government. Exhibit IX is a correlation between this
measure and the solid waste planning evaluation. There is no positive correlation
except between those States that received outstanding ratings in both categories.
This could mean that for the average State whether it has good or poor solid
waste planning is more a result of the competence of that particular functional
area or how well the Federal program has conducted its planning assistance acti-
vities. In other words, good solid waste planning does not just happen.
4.

-------
The only truly valid way to evaluate planning is to measure the effect it
has had on solving the problem. The national survey of solid waste practices
offers a good baseline from which to measure future progress. This survey
was completed through the planning grant program and its influence in the
development of State plans is probably why most plans are very good at gathering
and depicting data. To measure progress against this baseline, the Bureau is
developing a pilot-scale National Solid Waste Data Network. Implementation
toward a full-scale National Solid Waste Data Network will begin in fiscal year
1972. This will provide a critically important tool to evaluate not only the
planning program but all the other program activities as well.
Main Problems in State Plans
One of the major weaknesses 0 f State planning is the preoccupation with the
accumulation of data. Experience has shown that, although the data is worth-
while, the preoccupation with its accumulation has required large portions of
the planning period leaving less time for the development of really effective
plans. For example, Oregon, like many of the States, has assembled a 125 page
report of which only seven pages outline a solid waste management plan. Thus,
the document that is finally produced in most cases is very far from a plan.
Instead, it is a collection of solid waste data and summary of current State
practices. The plans almost never consider alternative courses of action, very
seldom present any sort of strategy for a successful State role and neglect
almost completely discussions of how much State money might be required to
finance an appropriate State program. The failure to discuss dollars is in
many cases political. Fiscally conservative State legislatures might turn off
the solid waste program if it engaged in publicizing its financial needs.
There is also a reluctance to consider the solid waste problem from a financial
viewpoint at the local level. Other competing public services should be
considered and financial problems and priorities should be discussed.
Most of the plans have placed primary emphasis on physical planning (i.e.
sanitary landfill sites) rather than the comprehensive role a State agency
should be involved in. Consideration given to the State role in providing
technical assistance, solid waste training, regulation, and enforcement was
meager if not altogether absent. Actually, the plans that many States have
turned out have been solid waste disposal plans rather than solid waste manage-
ment plans. This might be partly due to the bias toward physical planning,
but on the whole reflect the narrow viewpoint of the solid waste problem that
is still generally accepted. Thus, the plans are weak in that they do not
include adequate consideration of all the activities which should be carried
out in the State agency. It is clear that many States have not realized fully
the role they should be playing in solid waste management.
The interstate plans that have been developed have all been done on contracts
with consultants. Nine State plans (this represents about 20 percent of the
State plans being developed) are being done with major reliance on consultants
(see Exhibit X). The interstate plans had two major deficiencies--few permanent
staff were attracted and the type of agency responsible for the interstate plan
had no type of line authroity to implement the plan. Although loose relation-
ships were established with operating agencies through the device of technical
advisory committees, it was assumed that participants of these committees would
implement the plan in their respective operating agencies.
5

-------
Other problems and weaknesses in the present planning program are listed
as follows:
**In the disbursements of funds, some States have received
a disproportionate share of funds. Three States received
42 percent and six States received 55 percent of the total
amount of funds available for State planning since 1966.
This occurred because these few States were prepared to
use the funds while many States were not. It is possible
that more effort could have been spent in encouraging
broader participation.
**Most of the planning documents are exceedingly wordy.
Plans that are the wordiest are usually done by contractors
trying to justify their fees.
**There has been almost no effort to encourage citizen parti-
cipation in the planning process.
**There has been a weakness in the State planning process
in working on and obtaining public acceptance for solid
waste management.
**The reliance on consultants in State plan development
has discouraged State agencies from adding staff and
building a more permanent agency.
Al ternati yes and Recommendations
There are several major issues needing resolution concerning the solid waste
planning program.
1. The amount and nature of future support to State solid waste planning
agencies must be determined.
Basically there are four alternatives :
1. Continue to fund new and existing grants until
completed. Place an absolute time limit of four
years on support to any individual grantee and
eventually phase out the program.
2. Continue to fund new and existing grants until
completed. After a maximum of four years support
for overall plan development fund additional special
in-depth planning studies--i.e. hazardous wastes,
hospital wastes, or other special areas.
3. Provide planning support to State solid waste
agencies on a continual basis.
4. Provide planning support to State solid waste
agencies on a continual basis including matching
funds for implementation of the plans and other
State program activities.
6

-------
Recommendation : It is the conclusion of this s.tudy that alternative
four be followed. (It is possible that alternative four would require
additional legislation to provide matching funds for the implementation
of State plans.) Alternatives one and two are rejected primarily because
our belief that planning is a continuing process. Planning grant support
should continue to provide for the continuation of in—depth planning
studies but even beyond that, State solid waste management plans must
be updated periodically. Alternative three is rejected primarily because
it does not take cognizance of the need to assure that State plans are
implemented. The rationale for selection of alternative number four
revolves around the basic question of what role each level of government should
assume in the solution of our nation’s solid waste problems. It is generally
conceded that the real responsibility for solid waste lies with the State
and local levels of government. Before the Federally sponsored State solid
waste planning program the State’s participation in these problems was almost
non-existent and from an operational program standpoint is still extremely
weak. The appropriate level of government, however, for much solid waste
activity is at the State level. To insure a regional approach, the States
should conduct strong and effective planning programs. Because each State’s
problems are a little different and because they are closer to the action,
these agencies should be involved in providing technical assistance to local
communities. Successful public relation programs to gain community support
for solid waste management could best be handled at the State level. Finally,
the States should involve themselves more in setting standards and in monitoring
and enforcement activities both of which are preferable State level functions
in the case of solid wastes.
If we would discontinue our planning support at this time, most of the progress
that has been made in the establishment of State solid waste agencies and
the building of professional State solid waste staffs would be wiped out.
During the past five years, considerable progress has been made by State solid
waste management programs. Programs have grown in staff and competence,
legislation has been passed, and although measured improvements in solid waste
management have come about, each State program now recognizes the formidable
tasks that lie ahead. If the present rate of progress continues, effective and
efficient solid waste management can result. It is, therefore, essential that
planning support be continued and that additional program competence be built
in State government through matching support for these activities. The dev-
eloprnent of a plan is only the beginning, some provision has to be made for
its implementation. Furthermore, planning is not a one-shot project, it is
a continual process that needs sustained effort to bring results. Thus, the
States’ role in solid waste management must be strengthened.
The kind of program to achieve this result would be similar to the program in
the Federal Water Quality Administration for State program grant assistance
which is provided for under Section 7 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. FWQA presently spends 10 million dollars a year on this activity and
has plans for an expanded program. The following chart summarizes the amounts
estimated to be required to effectively support State planning and State pro-
gram implementation.
7

-------
1971 1972 1973 1974
Planning 2.8* 3.8 6.8 6.8
Program Implementation 1.0 3.0 6.0 6.0
TOTALS 3.8 6.8 12.8 12.8
*These figures are expressed in millions of dollars and represent the
Federal share in such a program. The Federal share has been assumed
at 66 2/3 percent of total program costs.
It is anticipated that the State agencies would use the funds for planning
as follows:
Data accumulations for planning, national 30%
survey up-dates, management information
systems for solid waste planning.
Assistance to local and regional planning 20%
groups.
Special planning studies such as abandoned 30%
automobiles, industrial solid wastes, agri-
culture, pesticides, hospital wastes, radio-
logical, and other hazardous wastes, and special
studies on recycling.
Actual plan formulation, updates and revision. 15%
Administration, reporting, and coordination 5%
with other programs and agencies.
Funds for program implementation would be used by the State agencies to
begin and/or supplement the much needed State activities in technical
assistance, getting good solid waste legislation adopted, training, and
enforcement.
Finally, it is recomended that when the program is established on a
continual basis that these funds be distributed to the States according
to a formula. This formula should take into account equally three factors:
population, extent of the solid waste problem, and financial needs. This
will prevent a few States from using up major portions of the available funds
and will concentrate the planning dollars where they will have the most im-
pact. Should a State not qualify for its allOtment, that allotment should be
divided between the remaining States according to the proposed formula.
2. Should solid waste planning be:
Al ternati yes
1. Included organizationally with comprehensive planning;
2. Included with block environmental planning grants (along
with air and water);
3. Maintained separately from other functional planning programs?
8

-------
Reconinendation : There are obviously many aspects of the solid waste
problem that are closely related to water and air pollution problems.
Block environmental grants for planning and program activities would
vastly improve the perspective of State activities. This combination
program should be established when EPA becomes operational--care should
be taken, however, to prevent the solid waste activity from being oblit-
erated by the larger program in water and air. This might be achieved
by breaking out a portion of the environmental block grant for allocation
to categorical program areas. Thus, a minimum of activity in each area
would be insured. In the interim period, the program should proceed as
an individual categorical planning program.
3. Concerning the internal arrangement of the expanded number of BSWM
planning personnel, should they:
Alternatives
1. Operate as done presently with BSWM planning personnel
in Cincinnati working with the regional representatives;
2. Be shifted permanently to the regions; or
3. Report to the Chief of Planning in Cincinnati but for
the most part work out of the regional offices?
Reconinendation : Permanent planning staff should be assigned to the
regional offices. This is where professional competence should be
located to most effectively help the State and local programs. Over-
all policy relating to the planning grant program should continue to
be set by the Chief of Planning.
4. Concerning the decision on grant awards, should it be made by:
Alternatives
1. The regional representative;
2. The regional representative, subject to approval by
the Bureau Director; or
3. A panel made up of BSWM senior staff?
Recomendation : The final decision on grant awards should be made by
the regional i epresentative with the concurrence of the Division Director
responsible for setting national policy on the planning grant program. The
Division Director would ascertain that funds were available and that over-
all policy and criteria are met. This would facilitate a coordinated
effort to carry out Federal responsibilities in State and local planning.
With the advent of local planning, regional planning, and expanded State
planning, the management of this program will become extremely complex.
The nunter of possible grantees will drastically increase and the pro-
blems of getting State, local, and regional agencies to work together
will be formidable. In addition to the organizational issues, certain
adminstrative policies should be decided.
5. Concerning the degree of Federal requirements that should be built
into the future State planning and implementation program:
Alternatives
1. Priority program areas should be established by the
q

-------
Federal program and adherence to these priorities will
be required.
2. Priority problem areas should be established by the Federal
program and adherence to these priorities should be a
factor in the grant award decision.
3. No program requirements should be established as a condition
for grant awards.
Recommendation : This study recommends that no major program re-
quirements be established as a condition for grant awards. The State
should allocate the resources and be judged only on how successful they
have been in solving the problem. This would be in the spirit of revenue
sharing as has been proposed by President Nixon and would put final
responsibility for the program with the State.
6. Concerning the degree of State control over local funding and planning,
the policy could be one of the following:
Alternati yes
1. State should have no formal control over local planning.
2. Local planning grant applications and completed plans should
be reviewed by the State agency. The State agency’s recommendations
will be a factor in the Bureau’s decision.
3. The State agency should have veto power over local planning
appli cations.
Recommendation : A policy should be established insuring a major role
for the States in the Bureau’s local planning program. This is essential
if we are ever going to achieve effective State solid waste programs. If
we short-circuit the States in this case, much of our successful efforts
in creating viable State programs will be seriously hindered. For those
States which have acceptable solid waste plans, it is recommended that they
have major influence in the funding of local and regional planning. In
rare circumstances only, should a local or regional grant be made over the
State’s objection. Effort should be made to involve the State agency’s per-
sonnel as much a ’ possible with local and regional plamiing programs.
Other Recommendati ons
It is the conclusion of this study that the following recommendations be followed:
In the future administration of the State planning program, no
planning should be done with consultants on contract. The objective
of the State planning program is to encourage and strengthen the State
agency so it can better perform its job. As noted above, the use
of consultants discourages the addition of permanent staff to the
solid waste agency and often the plan that is developed is shelved.
It would be better to let the States struggle with their own planning,
for in the long-run the competence will be in the agency where it is
needed. For special studies to supplement the general planning pro-
gram, consultants should continue to be allowed. These studies might
be concerned with various hazardous wastes, abandoned automobiles,
hospital wastes, or certain industrial wastes where special knowledge
is needed and a full-time addition to the staff in that area would be
uneconomi c.
in

-------
**The same problem will have to be met in the development of
local and regional plans. If no restriction is placed on
how consultants can be used for local and regional planning,
a group of “solid waste” consultants will spring up and the
communities are likely to be sold on a cook-book plan that
is being sold with modifications to many different jurisdictions.
Although this might not b to’tal1y useless, much more effective-
ness could be achieved if it were done in-house. First, acceptance
and implementation would be more likely and secondly, planning com-
petence would be developed in each agency. A good example of what
might happen if regional plans were done with consultants is the
group of interstate planning grants already funded by the Bureau.
The results of this investment have been marginal because these
agencies had no line authority to implement their plans and be-
cause little permanent staff was attracted. All were done with
consultants. To prohibit all consultants, however, would sev-
erely penalize the small communities who would never be able to
attract the necessary competence in-house. It is, therefore,
recoimiended that consultants be discouraged whenever possible.
Top funding priority should be for those applicants doing the
planning in-house. For applicants with populations greater
than 100,000 people, a condition for the grant should be estab-
lished (for those yrantees desiring to plan on contract) insuring
that one professional member of the staff be assigned full-time
to work on plan development.
**Meaningful citizen participation is essential if State, areawide,
and local agencies are to be responsive tO the needs of their
citizens. This is especially true in the area of solid wastes
where the location of solid waste facilities and their management
is often in the center of local politics. This means affording
affected citizens timely notice of projects being proposed or the
plans to be developed, opportunities to make known their views
and to influence the shaping of the projects, plans, and decisions.
It is recommended that a portion of the funds from the planning
program be a permitted expenditure to support technical advisory
groups and the citizens’ view in the development of plans.
Conclusion
It is impossible to do an analysis of State planning without considering
indepth the closely related planning problems at the local level. This
study indicated what the appropriate State role should be in solving the
solid waste problem. This could not be determined without considering
both the Federal role and the local role. It is for these reasons that
it would be very unwise to consider the State planning program as a sepa-
rate and distinct effort. Care should be taken to insure that decisions
made on the future program for solid waste planning reflect this under-
standing.
Finally, the State solid waste planning program and the proposed local
and regional programs are stand-alone activities. They are not intended
solely to be groundwork for future Federal grants in operational areas.
This program is intended to give the State and local jurisdictions the
11

-------
impetus to fulfill their own responsibilities. The beginning of this
endeavor is being completed in the State planning program. Additional
support is critical to the achievement of this objective. The real
dividends and results of this program have yet to be fully achieved.
12

-------
Exhibit I
TYPICAL WORK SCHEDULE
The typical three—year work schedule for a State planning
program is;
First--Year
1. Hire one or two professional staff members and
one stenographer in addition to the project director.
The project director is usually assigned to the project
100% of his time. Staff member’s time assigned to the
projectS Is about 50%.
2. One of the first activities is to publicize the
upcoming Statewide survey. This is usually the first
attempt at a public relations activity.
3. The Statewide survey is undertaken and demands
much of the staff’s time either by its conducting the
survey or its supervision.
Second—Year
1. The Statewide survey is continued. Many States
finish the survey during the second year and proceed
With analysis of the eel] ected data.
2. Public relations activities become more sophisti-
cated through issue of news releases, publication of
newsletters, speeches by staff members, and dissemina-
tion of brochures.
3. Many States make their first attempt to draft
solid waste bills and have them introduced in the
legislature.
1. The States begin considering elements of their
Statewide solid waste plans. About one—half the States
draft plan outlines.
Third-Year
1. Survey data is further analyzed for identification
of solid wa3te problems. Pertinent data is arrayed
for inclusion in the State plan appendix or separate
plan volume for data presentation.
13

-------
2. Public relations activfties continue. Some States
develop slide shows. Newspaper publicity is more
frequent and favorable. Many project directors and
staff appear on radio, TV, and Statewide panels.
3. Legislative activities become more active. States
which have succeeded in passing enabling legislation
begin writing rules and regulations.
1j Development of the State plan now begins in earnest.
However, most States only succeed in completing 25% to
50% of their plans during the third year. Plan
completion usually occurs during a three to six month
extension of the third year.
14

-------
Exhibit II.
Funding History of the Bureau of Solid Wastes Management*
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 Totals
Research $1233 2972 3361 3826 3944 15,336
Grants (853) (1677) (2261) (2444) (1944)
Contracts (380) (1295 (1100) (1382) (2000)
Training Grants 150 350 443 486 490 1,919
Demonstration Grants 1989 5000 4744 5134 4650 21,517
PLANNING GRANTS 400 997 1467 1858 1500 6,222
Direct Operations
(includes technical assistance) 562 2873 3342 3812 4691 15,280
TOTAL 4334 12,192 13,357 15,116 15,275 60,274
Planning Grants as
Percent of Totals 9% 8% 11% 12% 10%
Total dollars expended by
the Bureau since 1966 $60,274
Total dollars expended on
planning grants since 1966 6,222
Planning Grants as percent
of total expended 10%
*A11 dollar figures are in thousands of dollars
15

-------
Exhibit III
Total Full—Time Professional and Technical
Personnel Employed in State Solid Waste Programs
Totals 1966 1970
Alabama No planning grant
Alaska No planning grant
Arizona No planning grant
Arkansas 2
California 3 4
Colorado 1
Connecticut 7
Delaware 1
Florida 3
Georgia 2
Hawaii
Idaho 1
Illinois No planning grant
Indiana 2 4
Iowa No planning grant
Kansas 1
Kentucky 4
Louisiana 2
Maine 2
Maryland 4
16

-------
Totals 1966 1970
Massachusetts 4
Michigan 2
Minnesota 3
Mississippi 1 3
Missouri 2
Montana 2
Nebraska No planning grant
Nevada No planning grant
New Hampshire 1
New Jersey 12
New Mexico 2
NewYork 3 8
North Carolina 1
North Dakota 1
Ohio 4
Oklahoma 2
Oregon 4
Pennsylvania 4 15
Rhode Island 1
South Carolina 4
South Dakota 1
Tennessee
Texas
17

-------
Totals 1966 1970
Utah 1
Vermont 2
Virginia 3
Washington 4
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin No planning grant
Wyoming
TOTAL 13 125
18

-------
Exhibit IV
Increases in State Solid Waste Management
Staffs after Federal Planning Assistance was Provided*
Professional Staff Increases
l00%** +24
75-99% +10
50-74% +20
Techni cal
100% +21
75-99% + 3
50-74% + 3
Secretarial
100% +9
75-99% + 4
50-74% 0
Total dollars expended on State Personnel Budgets have increased
from $1,635,800 to $2,894,200 in these States that have received
Federal plani TI g assistance.***
* The increases in staff referred to in this chart are calculated
by totaling the staff as of July 1, 1970, in each State with a
planning grant and subtracting from this the staff in the States
when the agencies qualified for a planning grant. Figures
apply to the forty-two State agencies that have received grants.
** Percent of time spent on solid waste activities.
*** The increases in dollars referred to in this chart are calculated
by totaling the budgets as of July 1, 1970 for the 42 State
grantees and subtracting the personnel budgets that enabled the
State to qualify for the original grant.
19

-------
Exhibit V
Current Ratings by Agency*
July 1, 1970
Stature of
Public State Percent Solid Waste Total
Staffing Relations Survey Plan Completion Legislation Agencies Rating
Arkansas 4.0 2.0 7.0 0.5 5 8.0 0.0 3.6
California 8.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 100 3.0 5.0 7.5
Colorado 4.0 9.0 8.5 8.5 90 8.0 3.0 6.8
Connecticut 9.0 8.0 9.0 8.5 90 6.5 3.0 7.3
De1aware 2.0 2.0 6.0 0.5 5 1.0 1.0 2.1
Florida 6.0 7.0 8.5 5.0 50 1.0 5.5 5.5
Georgia 8.0 7.0 8.0 3.0 30 1.0 6.5 5.6
Guam 7.5 7.5 7.0 5.0 50 3.0 4.5 5.8
Hawaii 3.0 3.0 9.5 9.0 95 1.0 3.0 4.8
Idaho 7.0 8.0 9.5 9.5 95 8.0 3.0 5.8
Indiana 5.0 5.0 7.5 0.5 5 8.0 1.5 4.6
Kansas 6.5 8.0 9.0 8.5 90 7.0 1.5 6.8
Kansas City Inter. 8.5 90 B
Kentucky 6.5 9.0 9.0 10.0 100 8.0 6.0 8.1
*point rating is based on a 1-10 range with 10 as best.

-------
Staffing
1.0
Public
Relations
2.0
Survey
9.5
State
Plan
9.0
Percent
Completion
95
Legislation
Stature of
Solid Waste
Agencies
Total
Rating
1.0
0.0
3.8
6.0
8.0
8.0
3.0
30
1.0
1.5
4.6
5.5
9.0
9.0
0.5
5
1.0
1.5
4.4
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Md. -Va. Interstate
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Neb. -Iowa Inter.
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
1.5
2.0
9.0
4.5
6.0
6.0
1.0
7.0
8.5
10.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
10.0
5.0
8.5
7.5
1.0
8.5
8.0
8.5
8.0
9.5
5.0
7.0
7.5
6.5
7.5
9.0
9.0
2.0
9.5
7.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
7.5
2.0
0.0
5.0
6.0
3.0
2.0
9.0
10.0
0.0
9.0
3.0
10.0
0.5
6.5
4.0
20
0
50
60
30
21 )
95
100
0
95
30
100
5
65
40
1.0
8.0
8.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
8.0
3.0
1.0
8.0
8.0
1.5
1.5
7.0
2.0
5.5
5.5
1.0
7.0
3.0
8.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
C
3.0
5.1
7.8
3.R
5.3
6.3
B
1.0
7.8
6.3
8.1
4.3
6.8
5.1

-------
Public
State
Percent
Staffing Relations Survey Plan
Completion
0-K-I Interstate
50
50
Legislation
Stature of
Solid Waste
Agencies
Total
Ratin g
C
Oklahoma
5.0
9.0
8.0 9.0
95
8.0
1.5
6.8
Oregon
9.0
9.0
9.0
10.0
100
7.0
1.5
7.6
Pennsylvania
10.0
10.0
9.0
8.5
90
9.0
6.0
8.8
Puerto Rico
5.0
3.0
9.0
6.0
60
1.0
1.5
4.3
Rhode Island
4.5
8.0
9.0
8.5
85
8.0
3.0
6.8
South Carolina
4.0
2.0
9.0
3.0
30
1.0
3.0
3.6
South Dakota
4.5
6.0
5.0
0.0
0
1.0
1.5
3.0
Tennessee
N
Tenn.-Ga. Interstate
8.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
95
95
7.0
3.0
7.8
C
Texas 3.0 2.0 9.0 5.0 50
Utah 4.5 6.0 5.0 0.0 0
Vermont 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0
Virginia 6.0 7.0 9.0 2.5 25
Washington 8.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 80
West Virginia 6.0 7.0 9.0 8.0 80
Wyoming 1.0 1.0 9.0 0.0 0
For statistical comparisons, the ratings of the State agencies are also
A = total rating of 8.0 - 10.0 B total rating of 6.0 -
8.0 1.5 4.8
1.0 1.5 3.0
8.0 4.0 3.0
7.0 1.5 5.5
8.0 10.0 8.5
4.0 1.5 5.9
1.0 1.5 2.3
in letter grades:
C = total rating of 0.0 - 5.9
expressed
7.9

-------
Exhibit VI
Evaluation Suni iary of State
Solid Waste Management Legis1ation
July 1, 1970
Quality of State Quality of State Quality of
Totals Legislation Rules and Regulations Enforcement
Al abama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas C C C
California
Colorado C C C
Connecticut C C C
Del aware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho C C C
Illinois
Indiana C C C
Iowa
Kansas C C C
Kentucky B B C
Loui Si ana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan C C C
23

-------
Quality of State Quality of State Quality of
Totals Legislation Rules and Regulations Enforcement
Minnesota B B B
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana C C C
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey B C C
New Mexico C C B
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio C C B
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania A A B
Rhode Island B B B
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee C C C
Texas C C C
Utah
Vermont C C C
Virginia
24

-------
Quality of State Quality of State Quality of
Totals Legislation Rules and Regulations Enforcement
Washington A C C
West Virginia
Wisconsin B B B
Wyoming
*This evaluation was determined qualitatively with A being the highest rating and
C the lowest.
A blank signifies no legislation, rules or regulations and, therefore, no enforcement.
25

-------
Exhibit VII
Correlation of State Solid Waste Legislation with
Evaluation of State Solid Waste Planning
Solid Waste Planning Rating
No State
A B C Planning Grant
A 2*
4 3
0
•l-
I-
U)
•I-
a)
-J
I .—
o I O
Legislation 1 5 16 7
1
I-
I D
of States that were rated A for legislation and A for planning.
26

-------
Exhibit viii
Evaluation of the Overall Status, Effectiveness, and Acceptance
of the Concept of State Planning in State Governrnent*
B C D E F Total Points
Alabama 4 3 1 4 4 0 16
Alaska 2 1 3 4 4 2 16
Arizona 2 0 0 5 0 0 7
Arkansas 2 0 2 6 5 0 15
California 3 5 2 4 3 3 20
Colorado 5 7 2 4 7 3 28
Connecticut 5 2 6 6 1 5 25
Delaware 5 7 3 6 5 4 30
Florida 5 7 7 5 4 4 32
Georgia 7 6 6 7 6 2 34
FIawaii 5 7 7 5 4 5 33
Idaho 3 1 2 4 5 3 18
Illinois 1 3 3 3 6 2 18
Indiana 0 5 3 5 5 1 19
Iowa 6 6 8 4 6 3 33
Kansas 2 2 3 4 2 2 15
Kentucky 5 3 6 4 8 3 29
Louisiana 2 0 1 5 0 2 10
Maine 2 3 5 5 5 3 23
Maryland 5 7 8 6 6 5 37
Massachusetts 5 2 4 5 7 1 24
Michigan 6 1 4 4 4 3 22
Minnesota 7 2 5 6 6 4 30
27

-------
A** B C 0 E F Total Points
Mississippi 1 1 3 5 6 1 17
Missouri 4 2 7 5 7 5 30
Montana 4 1 3 4 6 5 23
Nebraska 4 1 3 5 2 3 18
Nevada 2 3 1 4 3 1 14
New Hampshire 2 2 1 5 1 0 11
New Jersey 3 5 4 7 7 1 27
New Mexico 5 3 8 5 8 4 33
NewYork 6 4 8 4 8 5 35
North Carolina 4 1 7 5 6 0 23
North Dakota 3 0 5 4 5 2 19
Ohio 1 0 0 6 3 0 10
Oklahoma 3 2 4 4 2 3 18
Oregon 6 5 4 3 4 0 17
Pennsylvania 4 6 4 5 6 1 26
Rhode Island 2 5 5 7 4 4 27
South Carolina 4 3 2 4 3 1 17
South Dakota 6 3 5 4 6 5 29
Tennessee 3 5 4 5 4 2 23
Texas 7 0 6 3 7 4 27
Utah 6 2 8 4 6 5 31
Vermont 5 3 5 6 4 5 28
Virginia 6 0 5 5 8 2 26
Washington 6 5 6 6 8 3 34
West Virginia 2 5 5 5 4 3 24
Wisconsin 5 1 5 7 3 3 24
Wyoming 3 2 4 4 6 2 21
28

-------
* This is an interpretation of the findings reported by the
Institute on State Programing for the 70’s--Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
** A - Index of Gubernatorial Coniiiitment
B - Index of Legislative Intent
C - Index of Legislative Branch Involvement
D - Executive Branch Involvement
E - Index of State Planning Agency Support Level
F - Index of State Planning Agency Performance
NOTE: The higher the number the better the rating.
29

-------
Exhibit IX
Correlation of Overall Planning Ability and the
Rating of State Solid Waste Planning Efforts*
•1-’
Overall State Planning Rating
Above Average Below Average
Rating Rating
A 4 0
4- )
U)
B 7 6
-o
- r-
i-
0
V)
4 )
0
4 )
*Thjs comparison includes only those States with planning grants.
30

-------
ExhibitX
(July 1, 1970)
Summary Data on State Planning Grantees Comparing Total Dollars Awarded with
Changes in Personnel Budgets, Grantees Relying on Contractors, and Other Data
States in
Change in which Grantee
Personnel Budget has relied
since Grantee heavily on State Solid
Total Dollars Qualified for Contractors to Waste Planning Percent Completion
Awarded* Planning Grant* Develop Plan Rating of State Plan
TOTALS
Al abama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas 39 -2 C 5
California 286 74 B 100
Colorado 89 13 B 90
Connecticut 206 93 Contract B 90
Delaware 44 6 C 5
District of Columbia 137 46 B 95
Florida 64 11 C 50
Georgia 113 7 C 30
Hawaii 140 -3 Contract C 95
Idaho 88 10 C 95

-------
TOTALS
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Total Dollars
Awarded*
Change In
Personnel Budget
since Grantee
Qualified for
Planning Grant*
States in
which Grantee
has relied
heavily on
Contractors to
Develop Plan
State Solid
Waste Planning
Rating
Percent Completion
of State Plan
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
I”
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
55
118
22
40
106
25
94
102
59
74
51
11
40
1
3
65
-17
62
10
0
13
Contract
Contract
B
A
C
C
C
C
C
B
C
C
B
90
100
95
30
5
0
50
60
30
20
95
21
C
5
Contract

-------
TOTALS
New Hampshire 12 C 0
New Jersey 472 180 B 95
New Mexico 78 -24 B 30
New York 1063 154 A 100
North Carolina 45 3 C 5
(A)
North Dakota 45 6 B 65
Ohio 191 C 40
Oklahoma 95 B 95
Oregon 62 B 100
Pennsylvania 745 A 90
Rhode Island 24 B 85
South Carolina 96 C 30
South Dakota 31 C 0
Tennessee 107 B 95
Total Dollars
Awarded*
States in
Change in
which Grantee
Personnel Budget
has relied
since Grantee
heavily on
State
Solid
Qualified for
Contractors
to
Waste
Planning
Planning Grant*
Develop Plan
Rating
Percent Completion
of State Plan
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
26
13
34
333
1
17
3
31
Texas 61
—4
C 50

-------
TOTALS
Utah
Vermont
Total Dollars
Awarded*
24
24
Change in
Personnel Budget
since Grantee
Qualified for
Planning Grant*
+4
States in
which Grantee
has relied
heavily on
Contractors to
Develop Plan
State Solid
Waste Planning
Rating
C
C
Percent Completion
of State Plan
0
0
Virginia
105
Washington 82
West Virginia 85
Wisconsin
Wyoming 14
-2
C
25
13
A
80
19
C
80
Guam
Puerto Ricd
Virgin Islands
*jy thousands of dollars
**see Exhibits V and VI
C
0

-------
APPENDIX A
July 1, 1970
3S

-------
This document is an analysis and summary of each solid waste
planning grantee. The following information is included for each
grantee.
*The population represented by each grantee.
*Critica] events that have occurred through 3/1/70.
*Critical events forecast through 7/1/71.
*A general description of the project.
*A sumary of the financial history of each grant.
*A summary of the initial and current planning staff for
each grantee.
36

-------
Critical Event Summaries of Solid Waste Planning Grantees
Arkansas
A. Population represented: 1,969,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Solid waste at same level as air and water in an
envi ronmental agency•
2. Open-burning prohibitions
3. Statewide survey complete.
4. Plan development in process.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1 Statewide plan to be completed.
D. Project Description:
Solid waste activities are carried out in the Arkansas Pollution
Control Commission which also has counterpart sections for air
and water. This organizational relationship provides an atmosphere
of cooperation which contributes to overall environmental quality.
For example, the Arkansas Pollution Control Commission has passed
an air pollution code which prohibits open burning of refuse within
an S.M.S.A., within 10 miles of cities having a population of 25 0O0
or greater, or within 5 miles of a city with a population of 5,000
or greater.
Having completed the state-wide survey of solid waste management
and prepared a preliminary outline of the plan document, the state
of Arkansas is five percent complete with their state solid waste
management plan. At this time, the preliminary outline is in
review by the Bureau, and as a result of the review coninents, the
outline will be reworked into a form acceptable to both the state
and the Bureau. The state will then be set on a schedule for
completion of the plan, with a target date of September 30, 1970.
*Estimated figures from Bureau of the Census 7/1/67
37

-------
ARKANSAS
At.’ t?nr’l). $30 535
(‘RANT t 0. : G05—EC-00032 (t L’ •
Arkansas Pollution Control Commission
Little Rock, Arkansas WITHDRAWN: .94 cents
ACTUAL
FJSCAL nISTORY: AWARUED EXPENDITURES - ROF;
10/1/67 - 9/30/68 01 Withdrawn
PHS FY—68 - $20,200* $11,341.06 $ .94
Grantee
$40,400 $22,858.12
10/1/68 - 9/30/69 - 02
PUS FY-69 - $l2,058
8 142 Carry-over
$20,200 Total PHS available $11,750 $ _0.
Grantee 12 Q26
$40,400 $23,8!-6
10/1/69 - 9/30/70 - 03
PUS FY. .70 - $ 7,278
9,166 Carry-over
$16,444 Total PHS Available
Grantee
$32,888
SIAL’c:
IN:rT pJ. CURRENT
Prc (ssion(d: 100% 1 1
7 7 - 097
S t MI 7 /
— — -. —
less th in 50% — 1 3
100% 2 1
75% - 99% - - -
50% - 75% - - -
less th in 50%
SecreLari 1: 100% — — I I
757 . - 99% - . -
50 ? ; — /4% — — —
less tLan 50% -
Extra Help Extra Help
Personnel Budget $27,200 $24,868
3g

-------
California
A. Population represented: 19,163,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Well qualified staff.
2. Survey completeS
3. Volumes I and II of Statewide plan complete.
4. Use of State Advisory Committee.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/70:
1. Add needed staff
2. Implement plan.
3. Possible reorganization of environmental agencies.
4. Further studies in certain problem areas.
D. Project Description:
The Statewide survey has been completed with the results published
in Volume I of the State plan “Status of Solid Waste Management
in California.’ Additional data was collected and analyzed
concerning role of governmental jurisdictions, and industry and
agriculture in solid waste management.
Considerable public relations and information activities have been
conducted throughout the program. Included has been the use of a
Statewide Technical Advisory Committee to recommend policy and
review progress in the implementation of the planning project.
The second volume of the State plan which contains recommendations
has been completed and is in review. Further State plan work will
be involved with studies designed to solve specific problem 3reas,
data updating, legislation, and public information activities.

-------
CALl FORNIA
TOTAL AWARDED: $ 296,843*
GRANT NO.: co5 -EC-OOoo8
WITHDRAWN: $ 10,268.12
GRANTEE : State Department of Public Health
Berkeley, California
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY:
AWARDED EXPENDITURES -ROE
Wi thdra r
6/1/66 - 5/31/67 - 01
PITS FY-66 $ 50,000* $ 37,435.12 $ .88
Grantee 67,799 _. L l69.00
$117,7 $ 88,604.12
6/1/67 - 5/31/68 - 02
PuS FY-67 $ 70,000*
1L000 Carry-over
$r OoirTotai PHS $ 73,828.41 $ .59
Grantee 89 500 73,989.49
6/1/68 - 5/31/69 - 03 $147,817.90
PHS FY-68 $68,385*
8.735 Carry-over
$77,120 Total PHS $ 66,853.35 $10,266.65
Grantee 28,500 71,253.00
$155,62ö $138,106.35
6/1/69 - 8/31/70 - 04 (Renewal)
PHS FY-69 $69,9 13*
Grantee JLP,21Q
$140,183
7/1/70 — 6/30/71 - 05 (Renewal)
(Partial funding-
PHS FY-70 $ 38,545* $29,658 on ‘71
Grantee 8,545 backlog)
STAFF: $77 ,090
IN IT IAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 3 4
75% -997 . 1
50%-74% 2
less than 507. - - - -
Technical: 100%
75% - 99%
50% - 757.
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 1007. 1 1
757. - 99%
50%-747 -
less than 507. - - - -
Personnel Budget $39,700 $114,027
40

-------
Colorado
A. Population represented: 1,975,000
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Statewide survey completed.
2. Legislation and regulations drafted.
3. State plan nearly complete.
4. Close involvement with the Denver Regional Council of Governments
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Increased public relations.
2. Conduct agricultural and industrial surveys
3. Examine the abandoned automobile problem.
U. Project Description:
Having completed its Statewide survey of solid waste practices,
development of legislation and regu’ations, and nearing completion
of the State solid waste management plan, Colorado is in the final
stages of its initial planning program.
Currently, the plan is 95 percent complete, with only final review
and comment necessary before the final draft is completed and the
plan is published for distribution. Additional planning activities
anticipated for the State are an increased public relations program,
a close involvement with solid waste planning through the Denver
Regional Council of Governments, an agricultural and industrial
survey, and increased attention to the abandoned automobile problem.
41

-------
COLORADO
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-00001 TOTAL AWARDED: $90,196*
GRANTEE : Colorado State Dept. of Public Health WITHDRAWN: $984.21
Denver, Colorado
FISCAL HISTORY: AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
6/1/66 - 5/31/67 - 01 Wjthdrawr
PHS FY-66 $21,265* $14,879.94 $ .06
Grai-ttee 21,265
$42,530 $34,259.47
6/1/67 - 5/31/68 - 02
iis FY-67 $22,25o* $20,750.85 $ 84.15
Grantee 25O J0L82
$44,500 $48,852.67
6/1/68 - 8/31/70 - 03
PUS FY -68 $22,431*
6,900 Carry-over
FY-70 (s) 24,250*
$53,581 Total PuS Available
Grantee 58,799
$112, 380
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 1 1
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - — — 5 3
Technical: 100%
75% 997.
507 75% - -
less than 50% — —
Secretarial: 100% 1
75%-99%
50% - 74%
less ilmn 50% — - —
Personnel Budget $32,529 $45,650
42

-------
Connecti cut
A. Population represented: 2,925,000*
B. Critical events througb313J70:
I. Statewide survey completed.
2. Special incinerator survey conducted.
3. State plan is being developed.
4. Legislation has been passed which is air pollution oriented.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. State plan will be completed.
2. Public relations.
3. Examination of specific problem points as defined by the
State plan.
D. Project Description:
The survey is finished and much of the data is being updated during
quarterly site inspection. A special questionnaire collected more
detailed information about incinerators. Twelve million dollars has
been authorized for the construction of sanitary landfills and
incinerators. Two important activities are operator training and
public relations. A Study of Refuse Disposal Methods in Connecticut
was done in 1968. The State plan will be completed with the help
of a consultant by June 1970.
43

-------
CONNECTICUT
GRANT NO.: G05_EC_00 023 TOTAL AWARDED: $217,o66*
GRANTEE : Connecticut State Dept. of Health WITHDRAWN: 11,558.38
Hartford, Conn,
FISCAL HISI’ORY ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
6/1/66 - 5/31/67 - 01
PHS FY- 66 $ 25,402* $ 21,267.76 $4,134.24
Grantee 25 L O’ 22,273.87
$ 50,804 $43,541.63
6/1/67 - 5/31/68 - 02 (Renewal)
PHS FY -67 $ 41,013*
FY .-68 6049* (02S 1)
$ 47,062 Total PHS $39,637.86 $7,424.14
Grantee 45 , O2.88
$ 94,195 $84,940.74
6/1/68 - 6/30/70 - 03
PIIS Fi’-68 $ 62,119*
FY-69 35,484* (03s1)
FY-70 45 999* (03s2)
$144,602 Total PHS
Grantee 1( ,602
$289,204
7/1/70 — 6/30/71 - 04 (Renewal)
BACKLOG- FY -71 $81,544
STAFF:
INIT!AL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 4 5
75% - 997.
50%-74% 4
less than 50% - - - - 5 5
Teohnk a1; 100% 2
_/57 .-99% 1
50%-75%
less than 50% - - - -
SecretarIal: 100% 1 3
75% - 99% - - - -
50% - 74% - - - -
less than 50% - - 1 1
Personnel Budget $37,880 $120,637
6/1/69 - 5/31/70
44

-------
Del aware
A. Population represented: 523,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Statewide survey completed
2. Statewide framework was developed to guide regional planning
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Legislation to permit regional planning
2. Development of regional plans for the State’s three counties•
D. Project Description:
Survey data and other pertinent planning information were compiled
in a Solid Waste Framework Study. Although it represents only
5 percent of the total State Plan effort, this study will guide the
solid waste planning for each of the State’s three counties. Before
county planning begins, however, the intent of proposed State
legislation to finance these plans must be clarified. When the county
plans are finished, the Board of Health will prepare a plan for
administering its solid waste responsibilities.
45

-------
DELAWARE
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-00037 TOTAL AWARDED: $44,718*
GRANTEE : Delaware State Board o Health WITHDRAWN: .50 cents
Dover, Delaware
FISCAL HISTORY: ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
6/1/67 — 12/31/68 - 01 Withdra rn
PHS FY-67 $lO,00O $ 9,255.50 $ .50
Grantee 11,810 13,141.19
$21,810 $22,396.69
1/1/69 - 6/30/70 - 02
PHS FY-69 $28,718*
744 Carry..ovor
FY-.70
$35,462 Total PHS
Grantee 463
$70, 925
7/1/70 - 6/30/71 - 03
PHS FY-70 $ -O.-
10,695 Carry-over
$10,695 Total PHS
Grantee 16,376
$27,071
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 1 1
75% - 99% - - -
50% - 74% - - -
less than 50% - 1 1
TechnIcal: 100%
1 IIealth Educator
75% - 99%
traInee 10%
50% - 75%
less than 50% - - -
Secretarial: 100% 1
75% — 99% - - - -
50% - 74% - - - -
less than 50% - - 2 (not a full
yr.)
Personnel Budget $15,700 $21,670
46

-------
District of Columbia
A. Population represented: 811,400**
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. A solid waste management plan has been developed for the District.
The plan considers all operating considerations including collection
and disposal.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Plan inpiementation by both the District Health Department
and Sanitary Engineering Department.
D. Project Description:
Solid waste planning activities are shared by two departments. The
Health Department handles legislations, on-site collection and
disposal, private incineration, and hospital wastes. The Sanitary
Engineering Department is responsible for other special wastes,
collection, public incinerators and disposal sites. A solid waste
management plan for the District of Columbia is complete except for
final editing.
47

-------
DIST. OF COLUMBIA
GRA 1I NO.: G05-EC-00030 TOTAL AWARDED: $137,400*
GRANTEE : Department of Sanitary Engineering WITHDRAWN: NONE
District of Columbia Governnent
Washington, D.C.
FISCAL HISTORY: AWARDrD EXPENDITURES - ROE
2/1/68 - 1/31169 - 01 Withdra m
PHS FY-68 $50,000* $50,000 None
Grantee 68 712 58 046
$118,812 $108,046
2/1/69 - 7/31/70 - 02 (it)
PHS FY-69 $ 81,900*
FY -70 _ 5oo* (o2si)
$ 87,400 Total PHS
Grantee 87,412
$174,812
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% - -- - ---- — 3
75% .- 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - 11 11
Technical: 100% - -- --- -- 2 7
75% - 99%
50%—75% 1
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 100% 3
75% 997.
5Ø%.74% 1 1
less than 50% - ——— 1 1
7 Su irne
inec S
Persorir e1 Budget $99,787 $145,636

-------
Florida
A. Population represented: 5,996,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Statewide survey has been completed.
2. Analysis of data is n i underway with the plan development
to follow.
3. Extensive public relations are conducted.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. The State plan will be completed.
2. Special study areas identified by the Plan will be investigated.
D. Project Description:
A reorganization of State departments has temporarily hampered
solid waste planning progress and coordination among departments.
Nevertheless, the survey has been completed and the data is now
being analyzed. Public information activities include a bulletin
about the agency’s work, presentations to civic groups and special
articles for journals. The State plan is 20 percent finished and
will be done by October 1970.
49

-------
FLORIDA
GRM NO. O5-EC-00025 TOTAL AWARDED: $64,581*
GRANTEE : Florida State Board of Health WITHDRAWN: .99 cents
Jacksonville, Florida
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY: AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
6/1/67 - 8/31/68 - 01 Wjthdra .m
PHS FY-.67 $26,418* $13,837.01 $ .99
Grantee 26,418
$52,836 $31,846.01
9/1/68 - 9/30/69 - 02
PITS FY -69 $ 12,981*
12 ,O2 Carry-over
$25,005 Total PHS Available
Grantee
$50,010
10/1/69 - 9/30/70 - 03
PBS FY -70 $25, 182*
556 Carry-over
$25,738 Total PBS available
Grantee $2 ,738
$51,476
STAFF: TYl CURRENT
Professional: 100% 3
75% - 99% — - -
50% - 74% - - -
less than 50% - 3 (No chg. 3 (No chg.
to grant) to grant)
Technical. lOOh
75% 997
50% - 75%
loss than 50% — - —
S cr etarial 100% 1 1
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
Personnel Budget $30,600 $41,416
cn

-------
Georgi a
A. Population represented: 4,511,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Statewide survey of all communities with more than 5,000 peop1e
2. State plan is being developed.
3. Staff has been expanded.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1,. Survey of communities under 5,000 population.
2. The status report of solid waste conditions and plan will be
finished.
D. Project Description:
A survey of all conniunities with more than 5,000 people has been
completed; smaller coniiiunities will be surveyed next year. Future
inventories will collect data about wastes from hospitals, mental
health facilities, parks, food-service establishments, industrial
and agricultural operations. A few regional and metropolitan studies
are starting a trend for local solid waste planning throughout the
State. A status report of state-wide solid waste practices will
be available in early 1970. The remainder of the State plan, now
25 percent complete, will be finished by March 1971.
51

-------
GEORGIA
GRA [ NO.: G05 -EC..00022 TOTAL AWARDED: $118,985*
GRANTEE Georgia Dept. of Public Health WITHDRAWN: $5,657.18
Atlanta, Georgia
FISCAL HISTORY: AWARDED EXPENDITURES ROE
9/1/66 - 8/31/67 - 01 Withdrawn
PHS FY-67 - $30,284* $l7,996.8 $481.11
o 30284
ran ee 23 250 48
$60,568 $41,24L37
9/1/67 — 3/31/69 - 02
PHS FY-68 $27,286*
11 6 Carry-over
$39,092 Total PHS available $33,915.93$5,176.07
Grantee 39,103 44 ,4O
$78,195 $78,320.35
4/1/69 - 3/31/70 - 03 ( enewa1)
PHS FY-69 $41,869*
Grantee 41,908
$83,777
4/1/70 - 3/31/71 - 04
PHS FY-70 $19,546
14,761 Carry-over
$34,307 Total PHS available
Grantee 40,936
STAFF: $75,243
IN1T cURRENT
Professional; 100% 1 2
75%. 997 1
50%-747 . 1
less than 50% - - - 6 1
Technical: 100%
75% . 99% - - - --
50% - 7
less than 50% - — —
Secretarial: 100% 1 1
75% - 99%
50%-74% I
Jess than 50% - — — 1
Personnel Budget $43,348 $50,005
52

-------
Guam
A. Population represented: 67,044*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. The Territory-wide survey of solid waste practices has begun
2. Planning is a responsibility of the Department of Public Works--
the same agency responsible for implementation
3. Close coordination has been developed and is maintained with
the U.S. Air Force and Navy.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. The plan will be completed and implementation will continue as
an operating activity of the Department of Public Works
D. Project Description:
Guam has recently begun its Territory-wide survey and planning
program following a cooperative technical assistance activity
with the Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
The Guam planning program is unique in that the planning area
is a “closed system” contained within the confines of a single
island. In addition, the plan to be developed will be operation-
oriented and will be implemented by the Guam Department of Public
Works--the same agency which is preparthg the plan.
The Department of Public Works has prepared an atmosphere conducive
to planning and ultimate implementation by forming an advisory
connittee of representative citizens including members of the U.S.
Air Force and Navy. The armed forces on the island represent about
half the total population and a large portion of solid waste generation.
53

-------
GUAM
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-00050 TOTAL AWARDED: $53,775*
(RA TEE : Department of Pubflc WorI
-------
Hawaii
A. Population represented: 741,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Statewide survey is complete.
2. The State plan is being developed in association with the
University of Hawaii.
3. A close relationship is maintained among all other agencies--
particularly those concerned with environmental quality.
4. A City-County plan for Honolulu is also being developed.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. The State and Honolulu plans will be completed.
2. Legislation will be updated and amended.
D. Project Description:
The Hawaii State Department of Health is conducting its solid
waste planning program using in-house staff and a service contract
with the University of Hawaii.
The survey has been completed and the State plan is 80 percent
complete. Installation of system analysis procedures and a
management information system will provide a method of optimizing
the overall operation and provide continuing data for planning.
In addition, the approach to planning for solid waste management in
Hawaii is to recognize the geographical separation and the problems
of a “closed system” presented by each island-county. The State
plan will accordingly prescribe separate detailed solid waste
management plans for each county. The counties of Kauai, Maui,
Hawaii, and Honolulu have a total of sixteen hard-pressed com-
munities which need imediate solutions. Proposals for the 1970-
1979 period are being developed for these communities.
Additional recommendations are to combine solid waste management
with air and water pollution control in each county.
cc
-------
HAWAII
GRANF NO.: G05 -EC-00013 TOTAL AWAPJ)1 D: $140,482*
CRANTEE : Hawaii State Dept. of Health WITHDRAWN: $443.44
Honolulu, Hawaii
FISCAL HISTORY ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
6/1/66 - 12/31/67 - 01 Withdrawn
PBS FY-66 $20,400* $19,900.56 $443.44
Grantee 22,704
$43,104 $40,296.51
1/1/68 — 12/31/70 — 02
PHS FY -68 $40,924*
56 Carry-over
$40,980
FY -69 28,330* (SI)
FY-69 828* (S2)
FY -70 50 ,Q * (53)
$120,138 Total PHS available
Grantee 139 , 2Q3
$259,341
STAFF: ____
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional 100% - - I
75%-997,
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - 21 6
Technical: 100%
75%-99%
50%-75%
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 100% 1
75% - 99% - - - -
50% - 74% - -
less than 50% — - 1 1
—--
Personnel Budget $39,390 $18,203 -
(Personnel budgeted
for period 7/1/69
12/31/70)
56
-------
Idaho
A. Population represented: 699,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Statewide survey is complete
2. Plan is being developed.
3. Legislation has been developed.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. The State plan will be completed
2. Model county plans will be developed.
3. Industrial and agricultural surveys will be undertaken.
D. Project Description:
The state of Idaho has completed the preliminary planning
activities of a state-wide survey of solid waste management
practices and an outline of the plan document. Currently,
one chapter of the plan has been completed, and other
chapters are in the early writing stages. This represents
approximately a 35 percent completion of the plan. A schedule
has been arranged for plan completion with a publishing date
of June 1, 1970. Additional work in solid waste planning is
anticipated in the areas of: interagency planning cooperation,
an industrial and agricultural survey, an expanded public
relations program, and development of a model county solid waste
management plan.
57
-------
I DM 10
C;RA! fl NO.: G05EC000 15 TOTAL AWARDED: $88,259*
CRAN EE Idaho Department of Health WITHDRAWN: $971.80
Boise, Idaho
FISCAL HISTORY: ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
6/1166 - 5/31167 - 01 Withdr n
PBS FY -66 $21,610* $11,318.63 $ .37
Grantee 24,010
$45,620 $26,112.29
6/1/67 - 5/31/68 - 02
PUS FY-67 $11,702*
,OOO Carry-over
$20,702 Total PBS available $14,723.57 $971.43
Grantee 22,268 17,963.19
$42,970 $32,686.76
6/1/68 - 5/31/70 - 03
PHS FY -68 $16,285*
6,298 Carry-over
$22,583
FY -69 14,026k (Si)
$36,609 Total P1-IS Available
Gi uLt 36,619
$73,228
6/1/70 -5/31/71 - 04 (Renewal)
PUS FY -70 $24,636*
Grantee 24,645
STAFF $49,281
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 1OO 1 1
75h - 99/.
50i - 74h
less thaii 50% - - 27 28
Technical: 1007.
75% - 997.
50%-75%
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 100% 1 1
757 997
50%-76%
less than 50% - - - 1
Personnel Budget $32,824 $43,464
58
-------
Indiana
A. Population represented: 4,999,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Work under the grant program has just begun.
2. The Statewide survey is complete and was accomplished prior
to the grant award.
3. Legislation prohibiting open dumping will become effective
on January 1, 1971.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. The State plan will be completed.
2. Local and regional model plans will be formulated.
D. Project Description:
Indiana has completed its Statewide survey of solid waste practices
and has begun development of phase 1 of its State plan. Through
coordination with a governor’s task force the State solid waste plan
will result in local solid waste plans supervised by the State
Division of Planning in the Lieutenant-Governor’s office. The State
has developed regulations prohibiting open dumping and is conducting
public information activities.
59
-------
I NDIANA
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-00044 TOTAL A AIU)ED; $2l,O25
GRANTEE : Indiana State Board of Health
Indianapolis, Indiana
FISCAL HISTORY: ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
12/1/69 — 11/30/70 - 01
PHS FY-70 $21 025*
Grantee 33 O56
$54,081
STAFF:
INJTIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 4
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - - 10
Technical: 100%
75% - 99% - - -
50% - 75% - - -
less than 50% -
Secretarial: 100%
75% - 99% - - - - -
50%-74%
less than 50% - - - 5
Personnel Budget $44,856
60
-------
Kansas
A. Population represented: 2,275,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. The Statewide survey is complete.
2. Legislation has been drafted and is in committee.
3. The State plan is being developed.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. The State plan will be finished.
2. Pending solid waste legislation wilL propably be passed.
D. Project Description:
The Statewide survey of solid waste practices is finished and the
State plan 85 percent complete. The plan is quite comprehensive
in its approach. A section of the plan is concerned with organization
and management of solid waste systems on a regional basis.
Legislation has been drafted and is in legislative committee and
will probably be acted upon during 1970.
Extensive public relations and information activities have been
conducted throughout this program. In addition, moves have been
taken to form the solid waste program as a section within the
Division of Environmental Health Services.
61
-------
KANSAS
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-00035 TOTAL AWAIWEI): $55,6O2’
W ITHDRAWN $ .51
GRANTEE : Kansas State Dept. of Health
Topeka, Kansas
ACTUAL
FISCAL UISTORY:
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
WIthdrawn
2/1/68 — 1/31/69 - 01 -—
PHS FY -67 $17,877* Amended $16,555.49 $ .51
Grantee 18,249 p0.68
$36,126 $36,056.17
2/1/69 - 1/31/70 — 02
PHS FY -69 $20,451* $18,320.94
Grantee 22 2 19,107.32
$43,443 $37,428.16
2/1/70 — 1/31/71 - 03 $17,274
PHS - FY.-.70 j04 Carry-over
/ 4
$21,378 Total PuS
Grantee
$42,870
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
1 2
Professional: 100% - -
75% - 997.
507.-. 74%
less than 50% 12 4
Technical: 1007.
757. - 99% - -
50%-75% --
less than 50%
Secretarial: 100% 1 1
75% - 99% - -
50% - 74% - -
less than 50%
Personnel Budget $27,450 $39,095
62
-------
Kansas-Missouri Inte _ rstate (K. C. Area)
A. Population represented: I ,45O,00O
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. A region-wide survey has been completed.
2. The regional solid waste management plan is being developed.
3. A technical advisory contnittee provides guidance to the agency
in solid waste management.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. The plan will be completed with steps for implementation to follow.
D. Project Description:
A consultant has finished an intensive survey of the Kansas City
Region and will complete a comprehensive solid waste management
plan by June 1970. The grantee organized a technical advisory
comittee which has been instrumental in reviewing the consultant’s
progress and providing guidance. An accelerated plan for several
immediate problems in the area has already resulted in replacing
one dump by a sanitary landfill.
63
-------
KANSAS -NI SSOUR I I NTERSTATE
GRANT NO.: G05 -EC-00038 TOTAL AWAI{DED: $155,900*
CRANTEE : Metropolitan Planning Comm. - KCR WITHDRAWN: None
Kansas City, Misso.iri
FISCAL HISTORY A
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
3/1/68 - 2/28/69 - 01 Withdrawn
PHS FY-68 $50,000* $50,000 none
Grantee 50 000
$100,000 $100,000
3/1/69 - 6/30170 - 02
PHS FY—69 $75,000*
FY-70 4,900k (02s1)
$79,900 Total PHS
Grantee 79,900
$159,800
7/1/70 - 6/30/71 - 03 (Renewal)
PHS FY-70 $26,000*
Grantee 26,000
$52,000
STAFF:
INfl 1AL CURRENT
Professional: 100% - - 1 1
7570 - 997.
507 . - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
Technical: 100%
75% - 99%
5070-757. 1
less than 50’Z - - - - 1
Secretarial: 100%
75% 99% 1
50% - 747
less than 507. - - 1
Personnel Budget $14,800 $39,750
64
-------
Kentucky
A. Population represented: 3,191,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. The Statewide survey is complete.
2. Legislation in effect establishes construction and operating
standards for disposal.
3. The solid waste plan is being developed.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. The State plan will be completed.
2. Additional studies will be conducted in problem areas
identified by the State plan.
D. Project Description:
The State survey is complete and has been augmented by a mail-
out questionnaire to small comunities about their collection
and disposal practices. Recently enacted legislation requires
a permit for each disposal site and establishes rigorous
construction and operation standards. Coordination has prompted
other State departments which have solid waste responsibilities
to improve their operations. A non-profit consultant, retained
by the State for several projects, is assisting the development
of the Kentucky solid waste management plan. This work is now
50 percent complete and will be completed by July 1970.
65
-------
KENTUCKY
CRANT HO.: G05-EC-00005 TOTAL AWARDED: $118,725*
WITHDRAWN:
CRANTEE : Kentucky State Dept. of Health $2,306.25
Frankfort, Ky.
FISCAL HISTORY: ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDiTURES - ROE
6/1/66 — 5/31/67 - 01 Withdr m
PHS FY-66 $ 15,000* $ 7,765.80 $ .20
Grantee 15jJ00 1L,031.Ol
$30,000 $18,796.81
6/1/67 - 5/31/68 02
PHS FY -67 $15,000* $10,840.95 $2,306.05
Grantee 15,000 i4 223.43
$30,000 $25,064.38
6/1/68 - 9/30/70 - 03
PHS FY-6S $ 5,9j3*
9,087 Carry—over
FY -68 19,750* (03S1)
FY—70 30,0OO (o3s2)
FY-70 26,062* (o3s3)
FY-70 7,000* (o3s4)
$97,817 Tot 1 PuS
Grantee ____
$195,624
STAFF:
IN1T AL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 2 4
75% - 99% - -
50% - 74% -
less than 50% - - —
TechnIcal: 100%
75% - 99%
50% - 75%
less than 50 - - - -
Secretarial: 100% 1
75%-99%
50% - 74% - - - - -
less than 507 - - -
Personnel Budget $19,959 $50,543
66
-------
Louisian.a
A. Population represented: 3,660,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. The Statewide survey is complete.
2. A State plan has been developed.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Further work might be conducted in the industrial problem
areas of solid waste.
D. Project Description:
Having completed the state survey and preliminary draft work,
the Louisiana state plan is in the final draft stage with only
the incorporation of final review coninents necessary before
printing. This represents a 95 percent completion of the plan.
The plan is exceptionally broad, covering industrial and agricultural
wastes and automobile bodies, topics generally reserved for
additional planning activities to supplement the basic plan. It
is hoped that additional planning activities will be undertaken
by the state, especially in conducting a more thorough examination
of the industrial and agricultural waste problem in the state.
67
-------
LOU iS lANA
GRANT NO.: GO5-EC-0001O TOTAL A MRUED: $96,837*
WITHDRAWN’ $21 928.17
GRANTEE : Louisiana State Ed. of Hcalth
New Orleans, La.
FISCAL HISTORY: LAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
9/1/66 - 8/31/67 - 01 Wjthdrawr
PUS FY-67 $31,035* $10,399.39 $4,065.61
Grantee i _ t 35 11,384.50
$62,070 $21,783.89
9/1/67 - 8/31/68 - 02
PUS FY-68 $29,322*
161 570 Carry-over
$45,892 Total PUS $28,029.44 $17,862.
Grantee 47,661 29,199.15
$93,553 $57,228.59
9/1/68 - 6/30/70 - 03 (Renewal)
PUS FY-69 $36,480 *
Grantee 37,335
$73,815
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: ]0O% - - 5* 2
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - 12 13
Technical: 100%
75% - 99%
50%-75%
less than 5O - - - -
Secretarial: 100% 1 3
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - - 1
Personnel budget $50,562 $51,490
*Ofle professional at 100% for
6 iuos. only)
68
-------
Maine
A. Population represented: 973,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Basic Statewide survey complete.
2. State plan is in process of development.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Proposed solid waste bill is being drafted.
2. State plan will be completed.
D. Project Description:
Two surveys of statewide solid waste practices preceded the data
collection work under this grant. All this information has now
been compiled and analyzed. More support for proposed legislation
will be fostered through a broader public relations program.
Guidelines on solid waste planning will be prepared for State
agencies, regional planning connissions and municipalities. The
State plan is keying on soluticns to six categories of problems.
The plan is 5 percent done and the completion date is June 1970.
69
-------
NAT NE
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-00024 TOTAL AWARIJED: $40,986*
GRANTEE : Maine Dept. of Health and Welfare WITHDRAWN: $5 9.2o
Augusta, Maine
S U S opy- ACTUAL
Fl CAL I T AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
6/1/66 12/31/67 - 01 Withdrawn
PUS FY-66 $l4,000 $10,426.80 $559.20
Grantee 14 000 jQ .8O
$28,000 $20,853.60
1/1/68 - 6/30/69 - 02
PUS FY -68 $J1,986*
3,014 Carry. over
$15,000 Total PUS available
Grantee 15 0OO
$30,000
7/1/69 - 8/31/70 - 03 (Renewaj)
PHS FY -69 $15,000*
Grantee
$30,000
STAFF:
NTTtAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 2 2
75% - 99% - -
50% - 74% - - -
less thafl 50% -
Technical: 100%
75% - 99%
50% - 75% - - - -
less than 50% - - -
Secretarial: 100% 1 1
757 - 99%
50%-747
less than 50% - - -
Personnel Budget $19,216 $22,690
70
-------
y1and
A. Population represented: 3,685,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the statewide survey.
2. Extensive public relations work, including informational
pamphlets and newsletters.
3. Prepare a ten-year plan for the solid waste responsibilities
of the State Health Department.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Expand the ten-year plan into a comprehensive State solid
waste management plan.
2. Develop a computer program which selects sanitary landfill
sites through the use of systems analysis techniques.
D. Project Description:
The survey is finished and much of the data is updated through
site inspections. This program is organized into three sections:
technical advice and assistance, planning and program evaluation,
and special studies and research. Two popular publications, a
pamphlet describing the State’s solid waste problems and a monthly
newsletter, receive wide distribution. New legislation requires
a public hearing prior to the operation of any disposal facility.
A “Waste Acceptance Authority” is being considered by the 1970
Legislature. Engineering students are hired for sunuiiertime work
as part of the agency’s career development program. A ten-year plan
has already been developed. It will serve as the basis for the
State’s solid waste management plan, scheduled for publication in
October 1970.
71
-------
MARYLAND
CRANr N0. C05 -EC- 0 0009 TOTAL A ARUED: $106,046*
(RANTEE : Maryland State Dept. of Health WITHDRAWN: $ .40
baltimore, Maryland
FISCAL HISTORY ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
1/1/67 — 12/31/67 - 01 ‘Wjthdra n
PUS FY-67 $29,467* $ 3,445.60 $ .40
18,747.61
Grantee 30,318 —
$59,785 $22,193.21
1/1/68 - 9/30/69 - 02
PUS FY-68 $24,863*
Carry-over
$50,884 Total PHS $35,086 $ -0-.
Grantee i .L26O ___
$102,144 $115,809
10/1/69 - 9/30/70 - 03
pUs FY -70 $5 1,716*
15, 8 Carry-over
$ 7,514 Total PUS
Grantee L264
$158,778
STAFF:
1 1TIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 3 5 - (one for
i inos.oniy)
5070-747.
less than 50% - - - -
Technical: 100% -
7570 - 9 970
5070 - 7570
less than 50% - - -
Secretarial: 100% 1 1
1 2
50% 7t %
less thea 501 - - - - (4 part-time
students—
Personnel Budget $52,164 $116,794 25%)
72
-------
Massachusetts
A. Population represented: 5,421,000**
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Initiated a statewide survey of solid waste practices•
2. Received authorization to approve operational plans for
disposal sites.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the survey.
2. Develop the state plan, with the aid of a consultant.
D. Project Description:
This project had to be postponed for nearly three years until
State administrative procedures were clarified. Now the solid
waste survey has begun and additional delays are not expected.
Recent legislation authorized the Department of Public Works
to operate disposal sites within the State. These operations
must have the Health Department’s approval.
73
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-000 16 TOTAL AWARiJED: $25,000*
GRANTEE : Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Dept. of Public Health
Boston, Massachusetts
FISCAL HISTORY: ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDI TURES ROE
7/1/79 - 10/31/70 - 01
PuS FY-67 $25,000* (Amended)
Grantee 25, 000
$50,000
(Additional Support Recommended)
02 - $30,882
03 - $32,094
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 4
7570 99%
50%-74%
less than 50% - - - -
Technical: 100%
75%-99%
50% - 75%
less than 50% - - -
Secretarial: 100% 2
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
Personnel Budget $34,213
74
-------
Mary 1 and-Vi rgi ni a Interstate
A. Population represented: 3,000,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Compile the findings and recommendations of many studies about
solid waste management in the six county-District of Columbia
areas
2. Establish the Metropolitan Waste Management Agency to operate
systems of waste collection and disposal
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Plan and implement a system of rail hauling solid wastes to
disposal sites.
D. Project Description:
During the past decade many studies, including some about solid
wastes, have been made in the Metropolitan Washington area. The
findings of this work endorse a system of rail-hauling solid wastes
to disposal sites. A strategy to implement this system is now being
planned. The Metropolitan Washington Waste Management Agency, a
subsidiary of the grantee, will be the operating agency for the adopted
plan.
75
-------
METROPOLITAN WAS HI NGTON
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
GRANT NO.: G05-EC- 0 0 046 TOTAL AWARDED: $lOO,O0O
Wjthdra :
GRANTEE : Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments
Washington, D.C.
FISCAL HISTORY: ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES .. ROE
3/1/69 - 6/30/70 - 01
PUS FY-69 $40,000*
Grantee 40,000
$80,000
7/1/70 — 6/30/71 — 02 (Renewal)
PHS FY-70 $60,000*
Grantee 60,000
$120,000
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100%. - - 1 1
757._99%
50%—74%
less than 507 - - - 6 5
Technical: iooz
75%-99%
50% -75% -__ _ I
less than 507 - - - -
Secretarial: 100% - -. 1 1
75% - 99%
50% - 74% - . - - - -
less than 50% - - - - 1 1
plus 5% Admin. staff plus Adsiln. st- ff
Personnel. Budget $43,260 $45,137
76
-------
Michigan
A. Population represented: 8,584,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of statewide survey.
2. Good coordination channels with other State and local
agencies which have pollution control responsibilities.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State solid waste management plan.
2. Increase the solid waste planning staff.
D. Project Description:
Michigan’s Statewide survey has been completed as has the analysis
of much of the data collected. Public relations activities have
been conducted throughout the program. Legislative activities in
solid waste problems have been actively pursued since Act 87,
Public Acts of 1965. In addition, the County Plan Act authorizes
counties to establish and provide solid waste collection and disposal
facilities for or between cities, villages, townships, and improvement
districts.
Coordination between other State agencies, the Southeast Michigan
Council of Governments, county planning agencies, and other
pollution control agencies has been conducted.
The State plan development has been delayed somewhat due to personnel
shortages. Nevertheless, the plan is now about 20 percent complete.
It is anticipated that the entire plan will be completed during 1970.
77
-------
MICHIGAN
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-00036 TOTAL AWARDED: $I0l,911*
GRANTEE : Michigan Dept. of Public Health
Lansing, Michigan WITHDi AWN: $7,741.48
FISCAL HISTORY: ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDiTURES - ROE
6/1/67 - 5/31/68 - 01 Withdrawn
PHS FY-67 $58,035* $25,263.52 $7,741.4s
Grantee 58,057
$116,092 $53,569.85
6/1/53 - 6/30/70 - 02
PHS FY..68 $43,87f
25,930 Carry-over
$68,905 Total PHS available
Grantee 906
$13 ,812
7/1/70 - 6/30/71 03 (Renewal)
BACKLOG- FY -71 $82,612
Future support recommended
04 - $82,612
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% - - 2 2
75% - 99%
50%-74%
loss than 50% - — 69 76
Technical: 100%
75% - 99%
5Oi -75
less than 50% — - - -
Secretarial: 1OC% 1 1
75% - 99% - - -
50%-74% __ I
less than 50! - 1
Personnel Budget $87,039 $69,872
7g
-------
Minnesota
A. Population represented: 3,582,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
I. Survey of statewide solid waste practices is nearly completed
2. Broadly—oriented public relations acti vi ties, including newsletters
and slide program.
3. Enabling legislation with rules and regulations
4. Constructive staffing activities
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State survey
2. Develop the State plan
3. Planning studies of the auto-hulk and feedlot solid waste problems
D. Project Description:
Solid waste activities in Minnesota are conducted by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency which is also concerned with air and water
pollution and pollution related to land use planning. The Statewide
survey is 50 percent complete. In addition, considerable planning
and coordination has been accomplished in cooperation with the
Metropolitan Council which represents 78 percent of the State’s
population. Enabling legislation, followed with rules and regulations
have been adopted to provide proper disposal procedures. These
activities were conducted in conjunction with an active public
relations and information program.
The State plan is 50 percent complete. The plan will consolidate
the eleven regions delineated by the State Planning Agency into four
solid waste regions.
Further work in solid waste planning will investigate the auto hulk and
feed-lot problems. Following studies into these problems will be
recommended solutions for updating the original plan.
79
-------
MINNESOTA
GRANt NO.: C05—EC-00034 TOTAL AWAi DED: $102,618*
GRANTEE : Minnesota Pollution Control Agency W1TI1 M1N $
Minneapolis, Minn.
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
6/1168 - 6/30/69 - 01 Withdr jn
PHS FY-67 $16,303* $16,303 -0 --
Grantee 16,303 80,821
$32,606 $97,124
7/1/69 - 6/30/70 - 02
PUS FY -69 $40,758*
FY-70 10,000* (02S1)
FY-.70 12 ,500* (o2s2)
$63,258 Total PHS
Grantee 63 ,25Q
$126,517
7/1170 - 6/30/71 - 03
PUS FY -lO $23,057* (rti fund ing-
backlog)
Grantee 23,057
$46,114
STAFF:
INITIAl. CURRENT
Professional; 100% 1 3
75%-097.
50% - 74%
less than 507 . - - - - 4
Technical: 100% - -
75%-997.
50%-75%
less than 50% - - - -
Secrerarjal 100% 1
75%99% 2
50% - 74%
less than 507. - - - -
Personnel Budget $24, 184 $66,586 (ir c1.
$17,838 for
Athnin. S rv.)
80
-------
Mississippi
A. Population represented: 2,348,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. The Statewide survey is nearly finished.
2. Several ccmnunity solid waste management plans have been prepared.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the survey.
2. Prepare the first draft of the State solid waste management plan.
D. Project Description:
Currently, the Statewide survey is underway and nearly complete.
Public relations and information activities are also being conducted.
The state has been active in solid waste management for a number
of years and has prepared community solid waste management plans
for several local governments in the State. These plans will
provide an important guide in development of the State plan
following the solid waste survey.
81
-------
NI S SI S SI PP I
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-00045 TOTAL A ’(A1 L)Ei); $59,497*
GRANTEE : Mississippi State Board of Health
Jackson, Mississippi
ACTUAL
FISCAL HiSTORY: AWARDED EXPENDITUnES . - ROE
3/1/69 - 2/28/70 - 01 With rawn
PHS FY69 $31,029* $25,836
Grantee 31 O29 27,317.30
$62,058 $53,15 T7i3
3/1/70 - 2/28/71 — 02
PHS FY-70 $28,468*
_ ,777 Carry-over
$33,245 Total PuS available
Grantee 45
$66,490
Future support recommended -
03 yr. $25,100
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 3 3
75% - 997
50%-74% 1
lees than 50% - — — 1 1
Technical: 100%
75%.- 997
50% . - 757 .
lcss than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 100% 1 1
757 - 997.
50% - 74%
less than 50% — - - - plus Ccunty
plus county Sanitar ans Sanjtarjans
Personnel Budget $48,264 $57,794
82
-------
Missouri
A. Population represented: 4,605,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the State survey
2. Strong cooperation with the statewide regional planning comission
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State plan
D. Project Description:
The survey is nearly finished and data analysis will follow.
Legislation to license and reguhte disposal sites was introduced
in the last legislature but final action was postponed until the
next legislative session. Special efforts are made to interest
the State’s 20 regional planning commissions in solid waste planning.
83
-------
MISSOURI
GRMfl NO.: G05-EC-00039 TOTAL AWARDED: $74,398 *
GRANTEE : Missouri Division of Health
WITHDRA 4N: .30 cents
Jefferson City, Hissouri
( Restricted to 03 - $5,568 )
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY:
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
8/1/68 - 7/31/69 - 01 r
PHS FY-68 $36,831* (A nended) $31,262.70 $ .30
Grantee 36, 1 36,254.55
$73,662 $67,517.25
8/1/69 - 7/31/70 - 02
PUS FY-70 $37,567*
Grantee 37,567
$75, 134
Future support recommended -
03 yr. $39,433
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% - - - - - 1 2
75% - 99% - - -
50%-74%
less than 50% - 4 3
Technical: 100% - - - - -
75% - 99% - -
50% - 75% - - -
less than 50% -
Secretarial: 100% 2 1
75% - 99% - - -
50%-74%
less than 50% — 1
Personnel Budget $59,231. $59,231
Note : Staff atove also includes for both $19 800 $22,667
Initial & current year - County & District these figures are inc1udv
Persorrn.el @5% - Number & position rot listed personnel figure sh ;n hov
84
-------
Montana
A. Population represented: 701,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of statewide survey.
2. First draft of the State solid waste management plan.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State plan.
2. Develop a model regional plan for solid waste management.
3. Initiate an industrial and agricultural survey
D. Project Description:
Progress in Montana has reached the writing stage with approximately
45 percent of the plan complete. The state survey has been completed
and drafts of three individual plan chapters have been submitted
and reviewed. It is anticipated that the entire plan will be
reviewed as a whole once all the individual chapters have been
completed. The state is working on a completion schedule which is
aimed at a June 1, 1970 publication date for the plan. Further
planning activities include: developing a model regional plan
and a model county plan, conducting an industrial and agricultural
survey, and giving additional attention to the abandoned automobile
problem.
85
-------
1 K NTANA
GRANF NO.: G05 .EC -00028
GRANTEE : Montana State Bd. of Health
Helena, Montana
TOTAL AWAiU.) D: $
WITHDRAWN:
$53 , 992*
$ 2,782
FISCAL HISTORY;
6/1/67 - 5/31/68 - 01
PHS
$ 14,087*
- 2,902 Carry-over
$16,989 Total PHS
i i
$36,820
ACTUAL
EXPENDITURES -ROE
Wjthdra m
$17,532 $ -0—
17,914
$35,446
$12,557 $2,782.00
13,911
$26,468
6/1/69 - 8/31/70
PHS
Grantee
- 03
FY69
$19,471*
1. 650 Carry-over
$21,121 Total PHS
22,120
$43,241
100%
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
100% -
75%-99%
50% - 75%
less than 50% - - - -
100%
75%-997.
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
Personnel Budget
INITIAL CURRENT
1 2
33 5
AWARDED
$20,434*
22 232
$42,666
FY-.67
Grantee
6/1/68 - 5/31/69 - 02
PHS FY-68
Grantee
STAFF:
Professional:
Technical:
Secretarial:
1
1
$32,564 $46,178
86
-------
Nebraska-Iowa Interstate (Omaha area)
A. Population represented: 546,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Prepare and publish the Omaha-Council Bluffs Solid Waste Disposal
Plan
2. Public educational program to inform the citizens about the plan
for solid waste disposal
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Public hearings to have the plan accepted by local jurisdictions
within the interstate planning area.
D. Project Description:
A consultant conducted an intensive survey of the Omaha-Council
Bluffs metropolitan area and completed a solid waste disposal
plan in July 1969. Now a committee of local officials is reviewing
the plan and making suggestions for its implementation. A program
has been launched to inform the public about the plan’s recommendations
for waste disposal.
87
-------
OMAUA-COUNCIL BLUFFS
TRO. AREA PLANNING AGENCY
CRA?( NO.: G05-EC-0004 1 TOTAL AWAkD D: $ 75,155*
GRANTEE : Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan WITHDRAWN:
Area Planning Agency
Omaha, Nebraska
FISCAL IUSTOaY ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENU 1TURES ROE
7/1/68 - 12/31/70 - 01 Withdr jn
PHS FY-68 $60,405* (Amended)
FY-69 14750* (olSi)
$75,155 Total PHS
Grantee 75j55
$150,310
STAFF:
1NITi/ L CURRENT
Professional: 100%
75% - 99%
50%-74% 2
less than 50% - - - - 3 2
TechnIcal; 100%
75%-99%
50% - 75%
less than 50% - - - - 1 1
Secretarial: 100%
75%_99%
5O% -74%
less than 50% - - - - 1 1
Persoi ne1 Budget
$12,300 $18,790
88
-------
New Hampshi re
A. Population represented: 685,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. A three—year solid waste planning grant project was recently
approved by the Public Health Service.
2. An Interim Study Coninittee of the State Legislature was formed
in order to review status of solid waste management in New Hampshire.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Employ a solid waste planning staff.
2. Initiate the statewide survey of solid waste practices.
0. Project Description:
This agency applied for a Solid Waste Planning Grant, and the
application is now being reviewed by the State’s Clearinghouse,
as required by Bureau of the Budget circular A-95.
The project is expected to begin shortly.
89
-------
I 4EW HAMPSHiRE
(;RANT ND.: G05-EC-00051 TOTAL AWARDED $12,725*
Div. of Public Health Services WITHDRAWN:
Dept. of Health & Welfare
Concord, New Hampshire
FISC. L HISTORY: ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITUR ES -ROE
6/1/70 — 5/31/71 — 01
PHS FY -70 $l2,725 ’
Grantee 12 725
$25,450
Future support recommended
02 - $13,000
03 - $14,500
STAFF:
T1AL CURRENT
Profe sjo- ;j : 100%
75% - 997.
50% - 74%
less then 50% — - - 8
Technica): 100%
75% - 99% — -
50% - 75% - -
less than 5o% —
Secretarial: 100%
75%_99%
50% - 71%
less thai 1 50% - - - 1
Personnel Budgct $20,995
90
-------
New Jersey
A. Population represented: 7,004,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Statewide survey complete.
2. State solid waste plan draft complete including data base,
built—in management techniques, such as map plotting, regression
analysis and allocation model. Plan is on tape and is automated,
but is supplemented by a plan report.
3. Extensive legislation with accompanying rules and regulations.
4. Inspections are conducted for enforcement and to provide planning
data.
5. Interdisciplinary staff has been formed.
Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Special studies of problem areas including reclamation and recycling.
2. Development of more definitive reporting of solid waste conditions
for management information system (MIS) input.
3. Staff training course development.
). Project Description:
The Statewide survey is complete including spot field verification
of some of the data. In addition, representative local comprehensive
plans with solid waste data and plan elements have been collected
and evaluated. Extensive public relations activities have been
conducted during the project period as well. Solid waste program
legislative efforts have resulted in two new acljs and introduction
of four additional bills now before the legislature.
Current efforts are being placed upon development of the State plan
for solid waste management which is about 40 percent complete. A
systems approach is being taken in planning for New Jersey. In addition,
a continual planning process system is being installed and will
include a management information system to provide continual current
and historic data. Once the basic planning process has been formulated,
implementation guidelines will be prepared.
91
-------
NEW JERSEY
$50 , 000*
61.625
$111,625
$ 46,000*
24,000 Carry-over
$ 70,000 Total PHS
78,884
$148,884
$ 33,927*
22,618*(03S 1)
35,000*(03S2)
45,662*(03S3)
148.012*(03S4)
$285,219 Total PHS
285,236
$570,455
- 04 (Renewal)
FY-70 $ 96,435*
193,675
$290, 110
100%
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
100%
75% - 99%
50% - 75%
less than 50% - - - -
100%
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
$ 477,654*
$ 5,485.20
ACTUAL
EXPENDITURES - ROE
$ 25,485.43 $ 514.57
_ 43,729.78
$ 69,215.21
$ 65,029.37 $4,970.63
73,956.57
$138,985.94
CURRENT
7
GRANT NO.: G05-.EC.-00007
GRANTEE • bepartinent of Environitiental
Protection
Trenton, New Jersey
FISCAL HISTORY: AWARDED
6/1/66 - 5/31/67 - 01
PHS FY-66
Grantee
6/1/67 - 5/31/68 - 02
PBS FY-67
Withdrawn
- 03 (Renewal)
FY-68
FY-69
FY-69
FY- 69
FY -70
Grantee
6/1/68 - 6/30/70
P BS
Grantee
7/1/70 — 6/30/71
PHS
Cr ant ee
STAFF:
TOTAL AWARDED;
WITHDRAWN:
INITIAL
4
1
$42,076
Professional:
Technical:
Secretarial:
Personnel budget
5
2
(2 Student As t ,
i IflOS.)
$222,673
92
-------
New Mexico
A. Population represented: 1,003,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the Statewide survey.
2. Conduct a project for weighing solid wastes in four communities
3. Recommend standards and regulations for solid waste management,
including an open burning prohibition
4. Organize a State technical advisory conuiiittee.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State solid waste management plan
D. Project Description:
New Mexico has completed its Statewide survey using Bureau of Solid
Waste Management forms. In addition, a detailed one-year weighing
program in four communities has been completed in order to develop
representative per capita weights for planning.
The State program has recommended solid waste disposal standards and
has been instrumental in having regulations adopted prohibiting disposal
of solid waste in any water course. Furthermore, municipalities of
5,000 or more population are prohibited from opern burning.
Extensive public relations activities have been conducted in association
with the planning project. An advisory committee has also been formed
with broad representation from Federal, State, and local and private
organizations.
The State plan is 40 percent complete with proposals to the year 2000
and coordinated closely with air and water quality and local comprehensive
planning conducted by the State Planning Agency.
-------
NEW MEXICO
TOTAL AWARDED: $78 161*
CRANI NO.: G05-EC-00019
W ITHDRMN: -0-
GRANTEE : l!ealth * Social Serv. Dept.
Santa Fe, New Mexico
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY: AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
10/1/67 - 9/30/68 — 01 WIthdrawn
PHS FY-68 $28,860* $19,815 $ -0-
Grantee 30,234 19,815
$59,094 $39,630
10/1/68 - 9/30/70 - 02
PHS FY-69 $27,184*
FY-70 22,117*
Carry-over
$58,346 Total PHS
Grantee 58 347
$116,693
STAFF: INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 2 2
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 507. - - - - 49 Various Sanjtarjans
TechnIcal: 100%
75%-99%
50% - 75%
less than 50% - - - - 2
Secretarial: 100% 1
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - - 1
Personnel Budget $47,414 $23,070**
10/1/69 - 9/30/i0**
94
-------
New York
A. Population represented: 18,335,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Statewide survey is complete.
2. The State plan including several regional plans have been completed
3. A substantial State budget has been developed.
4. Interdisciplinary staff has been formed.
5. Efforts have been made to develop comprehensive 1egis1ation
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Studies of special problem areas of reclamation and recycling.
2. Develop an automated data and management system for planning.
3. Staff training course development.
D. Project Description:
The State has completed its Statewide survey of solid waste practices.
Additional data is being developed through several regional studies.
Considerable interagency coordination and public information activities
have been conducted as well.
New York is operating under Part 19 of the State Sanitary Code which
requires that land disposal operations be conducted as sanitary landfills.
The State plan is approximately 86 percent complete and is being
developed in two phases. Phase I, sketch plan is complete and Phase II
is underway. Phase II is being approached through system analysis and
development of models. Mathematical models are being developed which
can be applied to solid waste management throughout the State. The
State is studying the solid waste problem on a regional basis. Six
separate regional studies have been underway during the past two years,
covering nine counties and New York City. Plan reports which result
from this Statewide planning activity are designed to enhance
implementation of study recommendations.
95
-------
NEW YORK
TOTAL AWARDED: $l,063,007*
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-0002 1
GRANTEE : New York State Dept. of Health WITHDRAWN: $ 79.71
Albany, New York
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY: AWARDED EXPENDITURES- ROE
6/1166 - 5/31/67 - 01
PUS FY-66 $ 50,000* $. 49,920.58 $ 79.42
Grantee 99,268 177 571 .4O
$149,268 $227,492.28
6/1/67 - 5/31/68 - 02 (Renewal)
PHS FY-67 $125,000* $114,898.71 $ .29
Grantee 397,127 407,652.46
$522,127 $522,551.17
6/1/68. - 10/31/70 - 03
PHS FY-68 $250,000*
10, 101 Carry-over
FY.-69 250,000* (03s1)
FY-69 250,000* (o3s2)
FY40 1.38,007* (03S3)
$898,108 Total P11S
Grantee
$1,886,115
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
5 8
Professional: 100%
75%99% 1 1
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
Technical: 100%
75% - 99%
50% - 75%
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 100% 4 4
75%-99% 1
50% - 74%
less tlian 50% - - -
Personnel Budget $104,333 $258,014
-------
North Carolina
A. Population represented: 5,027,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the Statewide survey.
2. Prepare plans for the collection and disposal of solid wastes
in counties.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State solid waste management plan.
2. Initiate a study on industrial solid wastes.
D. Project Description:
The state—wide survey is finished and has been supplemented by data
on popul ati on dens i ti es, soil chara cteri s ti cs, watershed protecti on
and ground water supplies. Plans are being prepared for collection
and disposal operations in several counties. Industrial solid wastes
are a major problem throughout the State and future studies are planned.
The State plan will be complete by September 1970.
97
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
GRANT NO.: G05 -EC-00006 TOTAL AWARDED: $45,511*
CRANTEE North Ca o1jna State Board of Health WITjjD AWN: $82.07
Raleigh, North Carolina
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY. AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
9/1/66 - 8/31/67 - 01 Withdrawn
P BS FY-67 $14,376* $4,929.60 $ .40
Grantee 15 .303
$29,679 $9,980.95
9/1/67 — 8/31/68 - 02
PI FY-68 $ 5,174*
9,214 Carry-over
$14,388 Total PHS available $11,472.33 $ 81.67
Grantee l7 264 23O.03
$31,652 $25,702.36
9/1/68 - 8/31/70 - 03
P 1 1 5 FY-69 $11,499*
3 Q 6 Carry-over
$14,565
ri -70 J4,462 (0351)
$29,027 Total PuS available
Grantee 39,146
$68, 173
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 1 1
75%_99% 2 1
507.-74Z 2
less than 507. - - - -
Technical: 100%
75%-99%
50% -75%
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 100%
75%-99%
50%-74X
less than 50% - - -
Personnel Budget $22,052 $25,608
Note: Staff and personnel budget shown are those on 03S1 for the
period 9/1/69 - 8/31/70 - not for full 03 yr. which is 24 inos.
98
-------
North Dakota
A. Population represented: 639,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the Statewide survey.
2. Draft comprehensive State legislation for solid waste management.
3. Conduct an intensive public information program through speeches
and the distribution of pamphlets
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State solid waste management plan.
9. Project Description:
The Statewide survey has been completed and much of the data
analyzed. Legislation has been drafted, but will not be submitted
until the 1971 session. In the meantime an extensive public
relations and information program is being conducted. A promotion
called “Starve a Rat Today” has resulted in distribution of over
18,000 copies of this one—page story.
Work is now beginning on a State plan which will have a strong
local orientation.
99
-------
NORTH DAKOTA
CRM’ T NO.: G05 -EC-00 029 TOTAL AWARDED: $45,827*
GRANTEE : North Dakota State Dept. of Health WITHDRAWN: $21 .38
Bismarck, North Dakota
FISCAL HISTORY ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
7/1/67 - 6/30/68 - 01 Withdrawn
PUS FY-67 $13,016* (A nendeci) $11,523.63 $ .37
Grantee 13 0l6 13,780 ,93
$26,032
7/1/68 - 6/30/69 - 02
PHS FY- 8 $13,496*
1,492 Carry-over
FY-69 2,832* (o2s1)
$17,820 Total PuS available $12,081.99 $ 21.01
Grantee 184000
$35,820 $24,23! .35
7/1/69 — 12/31/70 — 03
PHS FY-69 $16,483*
5,717 Carry-over
$22,200 Total PHS available
Grantee 22,200
$44,400
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 1007. 1 1
1
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - - 1 8
Technical: 100%
75% - 997 - -
5O% -75%
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 100% 1
75%-99% - - -
50%-747 .
less tItan 50% — 1 1
Personnel Budget $20,278 $26,904
100
-------
Ohio
A. Population represented: 10,652,017*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
I. Completion of the Statewide survey.
2. Passage of a comprehensive solid waste management law with
the subsequent adoption of regulations to control all solid
waste disposal sites within the State.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State solid waste management plan.
2. Initiate a study on industrial solid wastes.
3. Publish design and operating guidelines for sanitary land-
fills in the State of Ohio.
D. Project Description:
The Statewide survey is finished. Additional data has been gathered
on geologic and soil characteristics, water basins, groundwater
supplies land use, and population characteristics. Industrial solid
wastes are a major problem; future studies are planned to determine
the depth of the problem. The State solid waste management plan
will probably be completed by July 1971.
101
-------
OHIO
CRANF NO.: G05-EC-000l1 TOTAL AWARDED; $200,930*
GRANTEE : Ohio Depar n ent of Health WITHDRAWN: 9,768.02
Colunthus, Ohio
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY:
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
Withdra m
9/1/66 - 8/31/67 - 01
PHS FY-67 $34,34o*
FY -68 4,000* (oisi)
$38,340 Total PHS $36,425.36 $1,674.64
Grantee 50,670 44,148.18
$89,010 $80,573.54
9/1/67 - 8/31/68 - 02
PHS FY-68 $45,760*
240 Carry-over
Grantee Total P1 -IS $37,906.62 $8,093.38
47,789.30
9/1/68 - 11/30/70 - 03 (Renewal)$113,442 $85,695.92
PHS FY-69 $ 59,165*
FY-70 57 , 665 k (o3sl)
$116,830 Total PHS
Grantee 12Q ,005
$236,835
STAFF:
_____ CURRENT
5 4
Professional; 100%
75% - 99%
50%-74% 1
less than 50% - - - - 15 4
Technical: 100%
75% - 99%
50% - 75%
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 1007. 1
75% - 99%
50%-74% 1 1
less than 50% - - -
Personnel Budget $71,280 $97,140
102
-------
Ohio—Kentucky- mdi ana Interstate (Cincinnati)
A. Population represented: 1.600,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Initiate an inventory of data on solid waste management withiin
the nine—county interstate region.
2. Form an interstate technical advisory cormiittee.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Develop the interstate solid waste management plan, with the
aid of a consultant.
D. Project Description:
The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Authority is a regional
agency representing nine counties in three States and centered in
Cincinnati, Ohio.
0—K—I is presently in its inventory phase I in which data will be
collected and analyzed on a detailed basis. An EDP program will be
developed to handle information for planning and design. En addition,
an advisory comittee has been formed to provide interfaces with
government agencies and private organizations. Further coordination
has been developed and is maintained with the respective State solid
waste agencies representing the States of which 0—K-I is a part.
Phase II will be concerned with actual regional plan formulation.
in
-------
OHIO -KENTUCKY.- I NDIANA
INTERSTATE
CRA T r NO.: G05-EC--00049 TOTAL AWA WED: $88,9OO
CRANfEE Ohio-I(entucky.-Indiana Regional WITHDRA !N:
Planning Authority
Cirtcinnati, Ohio
FISCAL HISTORY: ACTUAL
A LARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
7/1/69 - 9/30/70 - 03.
PHS FY-69 $88,9 00*
Grantee 88,900
$177,800
Future support recorn ended -
02 - $64,667
STAFF:
_____ CURRENT
rofessiona1: 100% - - 2
75% - 997,
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - - 2
Technical: 100%
75% - 99% - - -
50% - 75% - - -
less than 5O —
Secretarial: 100%
75% - 99% - - -
50% -74% I
less than 50% -
Personnel Budget $25,250
-------
Oklahoma
A. Population represented: 2,496,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the Statewide survey.
2. Prepare a major portion of the State solid waste management plan.
3. Launch an extensive public relations program.
4. Draft legislation.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State plan.
2. Secure passage of proposed State legislation on solid waste
management.
D. Project Description:
Oklahoma has completed its Statewide survey and 80 percent of its
State plan for solid waste management.
The State has conducted extensive and effective public relations
during the course of this project. Much of these efforts have been
designed to support legislation. Leqislative activities are presenty
underway which will provide the State solid waste agency major controi
of solid waste problems in the State. A bill has been introduced and
has passed the House and is pending in the Senate.
105
-------
OKLAHOMA
TOTAL AWARDED: $97,444*
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-00018
WITHDRAWN: $ 2,837.06
GRANTEE : Oklahoma State Dept. of Health
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY:
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
Withdr n
6/1/66 - 5/31/67 - 01 —_______
PHS FY-66 $29,5OO 9,250.87 $ .13
Grantee 29,500 9 1
$59,000 $31,301.78
6/1/67 — 5/31/68 - 02
PHS FY-67 $12,5O0
J,Q Carry-over
$29,500 Total PuS $26,663.07 $2,836.93
Grantee 26 729.3O
$59,000 $53, 392 .37
6/1/68 - 6/30/70 .. 03
PHS FY-68 $31,712
3,249 Carry-over
FY-69 2 732 (o3sl)
$58,693 Total PHS
Grantee 58 ,
$117,386
COMPLETED
- --
STAFF:
CURRENT
Professional: 100% 2 2
75% - 99%
50%-74% ------ 1
less than 50% - - - 7
Technical: 100%
75% - 99%
50%-75%
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 100% 1 1
75%-99% -
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
Personnel Budget $25,500 $38,924**
7/1/69-6/30170 **
106
-------
Oregon
A. Population represented: 1,999,000*
8. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the Statewide survey and the State solid waste
management plan.
2. Completion of a special study on commercial arid residential waste,
3. Establishment of a Department of Environmental Quality.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Conduct a special survey on industrial and agricultural wastes
2. Develop a regiona model plan.
D. Project Description:
The Statewide survey and State plan are both complete. In addition,
a separate study on commercial—residential waste has been completed
and preparations have been made to begin a survey of industrial-
agricultural waste.
Considerable public relations and information efforts have been made.
A new Department of Environmental Quality was established in 1969
and is responsible for State rules and regulations on solid waste,
air, and water pollution.
107
-------
OREGON
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-000 14 TOTAL AWARDED: $62,687*
WITHDRAWN: $ 633.36
GRANTEE : Oregon State Bd. of Health
Portland, Oregon
FISCAL HISTORY: ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
911/66 - 8/31/67 - 01 Withdrawn
PBS FY -67 $12,040* $7,382.55 None
Grantee i O41 11,Q j 2
$24,081 $18,424.27
9/1/67 - 8/31/68 - 02
PHS FY-68 $15,298’ $19,322.09 $633.36
(reduced) Carry-over
$19,955 Total PHS $41,834.11
Grantee 25 l80
$45,135
9/1/68 -10/31/70 - 03
PHS FY-69 $21,157
FY-70 JJ (o3si)
$35,349 Total PHS
Grantee Z.4. 215
$110,064
STAFF:
INIT IAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% --- - - 1 4
757. - 997. - - -
50%-74% __ 1
less than 50% - 2
Technical: 1007.
75%-99% -- -
50% - 757. -
less than 50% -
Secretarial: 100% 1
75% - 997. - - -
50% - 74% -
less than 50% - 1
Perso:rnel Budget $18,924 $52,151
1 flR
-------
Pennsylvania
A. Population represented: 11,626,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Statewide survey completed.
2. Agricultural study conducted and included in State plan draft.
3. Preliminary draft of State plan completed including local and
regional guidelines.
4. Extensive public relations.
5. Interdisciplinary staff formed.
6. State budget increasing.
7. Legislation developed. Rules and regulations for local and regional
planning, disposal site licensing and local grants-in-aid are
carried out.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Conduct special studies in industrial wastes and reclamation
and recycling.
2. Automate data base and planning management system.
3. Staff training course development.
D. Project Description:
The State has completed its Statewide survey which included 100 percent
of the total 2559 political subdivisions. In addition, an industrial-
agricultural survey was conducted.
Significant legislation, the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act
(Act 241), was signed into law by the governor on July 31, 1968.
The Act is broad in its management and planning scope. A unique
feature requires municipalities to submit solid waste management plans
to the State for approval. Reimbursement of up to 50 percent is
available to municipalities for the cost of preparing these plans.
Extensive public relations and information activities have continued
throughout the project. Current activities include preparation of
the State plan document which is 80 percent complete.
I nq
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
GRANT NO.: G05—EC-00020 TOTAL AWARDED: $758,231*
GRANTEE : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania WITUDRA% N: $ 13,608.06
Department of Health
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
FISCAL HISTORY: ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
6/1/66 - 5/31/67 - 01 Wjthdra n
PHS FY -66 $ 40,374* $ 33,642.40 $6,731.60
Grantee 70,952 68011.00
$111,326 $101,653.40
6 11/67 - 5/31/68 - 02 (Renewal)
PHS FY -67 $125,000* $111,495.54 $6,876.46
Grantee 130,056 128,482.15
$255,056 $239,977.69
6/1/68 - 6/30/70 - 03
P uS FY -68 $193,380
6,628 Carry-over
FY -69 11,072* (o3sl)
FY -69 163,331* (o3s2)
$374,411 Total PHS
Grantee 378,610
$753,021
7/1/70 - 6/30/71 - 04 (Renewal)
PHS FY.-70 $225,o74*
Grantee 332,267
$557,341
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% - -- - 4 14
75%_99% 1
507. -74% ---- 1 1
less than 50% - — 141 166
TechnIcal: 100% I
75% - 99%
5O% -75% 2
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 100% 1 1
75%-99%
50% - 74% - - -
less than 50% - - — - 3
Personnel Budget $C9,956 $422,946
110
-------
Puerto Rico
A. Population represented: 2,584,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the island—wide survey of solid waste practices
2. Completion Of solid waste plans for three comunities
3. Completion of Phase I of the Puerto Rico solid waste management
plan.
4. Active involvement with the Governor’s Task Force on Pollution
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete Phase II of the plan and begin imp1ementation
D. Project Description:
An island—wide survey is finished and special studies in three
comunities provided additional data.
Solid waste personnel were active on the Governor’s Task Force
on Pollution.
Phase I of the Island’s solid waste management plan is completed.
Alternatives for Phase II are now being considered by a technical
advisory comittee. The plan will ‘be done by January 1971.
111
-------
PUERTO RICO
GRANT NO.: G05 -EC- 0 0027 TOTAL AWARDED: $ 56,408*
GRANTEE : Dept. of Health WITHDRAWN: $ .50
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Santurce, P.R.
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY. AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
9/1/67 - 8/31/68 - 01 Withdrawn
PHS FY -68 $ 8,330* $ 3,050.50 $ .50
Ff-68 i5 362* (aisi) 12 O.96
$23,692 Total PHS $15,991.46
Grantee 23,692
$47,384
9/1/68 - 11/30/69 - 02
PBS FY-69 $20, 17J.*
fl ,j50 Carry_over
$33,321 Total PUS $20,203 $ -0-
Grantee i 321 49,052
$66,642 $69,255
12/1/69 - 11/30/70 - 03
PBS FY-70 $ 12,545*
20,609 Carry-over
$33,154 Total PHS
Grantee 33,155
$66, 309
STAFF: INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% - -- - - 1 1
757 - 997 -
50%-74% -- 1
less than 50% - - 1 6
Technical: 100% 2
75% - 99% - -
50% - 75% - -
less than 50% 5
Secretarial: 100%
75% - 99% - - -
50%-74 --- 1 1
less than 50 - - - -
Personnel Bu3get $12,260 $34,709
112
-------
Rhode Island
A. Population represented: 901,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the Statewide survey
2. Preparation of the final draft of the State solid waste management
plan
3. Establish a State grant-in-aid program for constructing volume
reduction and disposal facilities
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete and publish the State plan
D. Project Description:
The Statewide survey has been completed and the solid waste management
plan is 80 percent complete. The Plan will be finished during 1970.
Legislation for a local grant—in-aid program which assists communities
in establishing volume reduction and disposal facilities was passed
during this program. The State solid waste agency administers this
program. Grant funds are only awarded if the comunity’s long-range
disposal plan is approved by the Department of Health. An incentive
is offered for regional operations by increasing the State’s share
of the grant.
113
-------
RHODE ISLAND
TOTAL A ARDED: $26,558*
GRANT NO.: G05 -EC .-00012
GRANItE : Rhode Island Dept. of Health WITHDRAWN: $ 2,337.42
Providence, Rhode Island
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY: AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
6/1/66 - 5/31/67 - 01 Withdra %m
PBS FY.-66 $12,020* $ 1,095.69 $1,924.31
Grantee 12 ,020 1,095.70
$24,040 $ 2,191.39
6/1/67 —12/31/68 — 02
PBS FY—67 $ 2,438*
000 Carry-over $ 413.11
$11,438 Total PHS $11,024.89
Grantee 11,438 U , 24.90
$22,876 $22,049.79
1/1/69 - 9/30/70 - 03 (Renewal)
PHS FY 69 $ 3,025*
FY -69 9,075* (03s1)
$12, 100
Grantee IWO O
$24, 200
STAFF:
Ii l? L CURRENT
Professional: 100% - - 1 1
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
Technical: 100%
75% - 99%
50% - 75%
less then 50% - - - -
Secretarial 100% I I
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
Personnel Budget $16,118 $17,092
114
-------
South Carolina
A. Population represented: 2,603,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the Statewide survey
2. More intensive surveys were conducted in a representative
rural and representative urban county
3. Prepare a review draft of the State solid waste management plan
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Intensive program to technical assistance to communities
and counties
D. Project Description:
The State survey has been completed and has resulted in considerable
interest from local officials throughout the State. Consequently,
the State solid waste program has been continually requested to
prepare local solid waste plans for communities whose problems
demanded in-mediate attention. This local activity has resulted
in d4version of resources from State planning. However, a State
plan has been in preparation for the past year. The plan is about
25 percent complete.
115
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
TOTAL AWARDED: $136,888*
GRANT NO. : •G05-.EC -000 17
1’ WITHDRAWN: $ 40,568.40
(,RAM E South Carolina State Bd. of Health
Columbia, South Carolina
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY: AWARDED EXPENDITURES-ROE
6/1/66 — 5/31/67 — 01 W ithdra ’n
PHS FY-66 $35,0 00* $32,462.86 $2,537.14
Grantee 35,000 32,834.79
$70,000 $65,297.65
6/1/67 - 5/31/68 - 02
PHS FY-67 $57,794* $19,762.74 $38,031.2
Grantee 57,794 9 ,949.14
$115,588 $49,711.88
6/1/68 -12/31/70 - 03
PHS FY.-68 $44,094
Grantee 44,094
$88, 188
STAFF: CURRENT
Professional: 100% 1
2
50% - 74% - - - - - -
less than 50% - - - — 2
Technical: 100% 3
757 1-99%
50%-75% 2
less than 50% - - - -
Secrc-tarial 1OO 1
75 -99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% L - - - 1
Personnel l 3 ucet $32,939 $49,569
116
-------
South Dakota
A. Population represented: 674,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. The Statewide survey is nearly complete.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Develop the State solid waste management plant
2. Establish guidelines for a training course in solid waste
management at the local level
D. Project Description:
South Dakota is presently conducting its Statewide survey of solid
waste practices. In addition, extensive public relations activities
and coordination with other governmental agencies are underway.
Further activities include guidelines development for a pilot program
for an area-wide training course in solid waste management at the
local level.
117
-------
SOUTH DAKOTA
GRANT NO.: GO5 EC _00040 TOTAL AWMWED: $31,801*
GRANTEE : South Dakota State Dept. of Health WITHDRAWN: $ .84
Pierre, South Dakota
( Restricted to 03 - $1,637 )
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY:
AWARDED EXPENDITURES ROE
9/1/68 - 8/31/69 - 01 Wjthdra jn
P BS FY-68 $15,274* (Amended) $13,636.16 $ .84
Grantee 15,274 13,636.61
$30,548 $27,272.76
9/1/69 - 8/31/70 - 02
PHS FY -70 $ 16,527*
Grantee 16,527
$30,054
Future support recommended -
03 yr. $15,870
STAFF:
LNITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 1 1
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 507. - - - 17 17
TechnIcal: 100%
75% - 99% - - -
50% - 75% - - -
less than 50% -
Secretarial: 100% 1 1
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
less than 507
Personnel Budget $25,500 $26,004
118
-------
Tennessee
A. Population represented: 3,888,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the Statewide survey
2. New State solid waste legislation
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State solid waste management plan.
2. Conduct a special study on the abandoned automobile problem.
3. Develop a model solid waste management plan for a county
D. Project Description:
An extensive Statewide survey is complete having reached 99 percent
of the Stat&s population. Public relations and legislative efforts
have been carried on since the beginning of the program with favorable
results. For example, the new Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act
authorizes the Health Department to promulgate rules and regulations,
review plans for new facilities and organize a technical advisory
conimi ttee.
Most of the data has been analyzed for the State plan and is 5 percent
complete. The plan will be completed during 1970.
119
-------
TENNEESEE
CRA ’f NO.: G05-EC -00026 TOTAL AWARDED: $109,625
CRANTEE : Tenn. Dept. of Public Health WITHDRAWN; $ 2,094.43
Nashville, Tenn.
FISCAL HISTORY: ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
111/67 — 12/31/67 - 01 Wjthdr wn
P 1- IS FY-67 $18,23o* $14,502.16 $ .64
Grantee 18 ,230
$36,460 $29,004.31
1/1/68 - 6/30/69 - 02
PBS FY-68 $22,841
_3 03 Carry-over
$25,875 Total PHS $23,781.61 $2,093.59
Grantee ,875 781 4O
$51,750 $47,562.81
/1/69 - 6/30/70 - 03
PHS FY-69 $32,142*
693 Carry-over
$32,835 Total PHS
Grantee
$65,670
711170 - 6/30/71 - 04 (Renewal)
PHS FY-70 $36 ,412*
Grantee 40,571
$76,983
STAFF:
INIT!AL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 2
2
50%-74% - - - 4
less than 50% - - 1 1
Technical: 100% -
75%-99% - -
507. - 75% - -
less than 50% -
Secretarjdj: ICO% 1 1
7570 - 99 - -
50%-74% - -
less than 50%
Personnel Dudget $27,110 $58,723
120
-------
Tennessee-Georgi a Interstate (Chattanooga)
A. Population represented: 350,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the preliminary plan for solid waste management
in the interstate region.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Gain acceptance of the plan and implement it.
D. Project Description:
This interstate region centered at Chattanooga, Tennessee, has
completed its regional survey and a preliminary plan for solid
waste management. Incineration was selected as the basic disposal
method for the region. Collection, transportation, and overall
system management was not examined in detail in this planning
phase. Coordination between the Tennessee and Georgia solid waste
agencies and programs was developed and maintained. These agencies
provided a source of data, advice, and standards.
121
-------
TENNESSEE -GEORGIA INT.
GRANT NO.: G05-EC-0 0042 TOTAL AWARDED: $25,882*
GRANTEE . WIThDRAWN:
Chattanooga Area Regional Council
of Governments
Chattanooga, Tenn.
VTCI’Al t1T 1’f PV.
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
Wjthdraw’n
6/1/68 - 8/31/70 - 01
PuS FY- .68 $25,882*
Grantee 25,883
$51,765
Future support recommended-
02 - $2,405
STAFF: ! N ITIAL CURRENT
Professional: ioo% 1
75% - 997.
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
TechnIcal: 100%
75% - 99%
50% - 75%
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 100%
75%-99%
50%-74%
less than 50% - - — - 1
Personnel BudEet $8,000
197
-------
Texas
A. Population represented: 10,873,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the Statewide survey.
2. Strong coordination with local and regional planning agencies
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State solid waste management plan.
2. Survey the State’s industrial solid waste
D. Project Description:
The Statewide survey is complete and the State plan development is
underway. There has been a close relationship with “701” local
planning assistance and the solid waste program which has been
advantageous in comprehensive plan coordination.
For planning purposes, the county has been delineated as the basic
unit. This delineation corresponds with those of councils of
government and various regional designations. Other planning
activities have included public relations and information.
123
-------
TEXAS
GRANF NO.: G05-EC-00031 TOTAL AWARDED: $ 62,125*
1,360.00
GRANTEE : Texas State Dept. of Health
Austin, Texas
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY: _________________
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
1/1/67 - 12/31/67 — 01 Withdr n
PHS FY-67 $27,806* (Mended) $ 3,834.40 $ .60
Grantee 27,806 9,049.59
$55,612 $12,883.99
1/1/68 - 12/31/68 - 02
PHS FY-68 $12,945*
21,210 Carry—over
$34,155 Total PHS $24,770.00 $1,360.00
Grantee
$68,310 $54,105.00
1/1/69 - 9/30/70 - 03
PHS FY-69 $21,374*
jp ,786 Carry-over
$32,160 Total PHS
Grantee 32,160
$64,320
STAFF:
I TI L CURRENT
Professional 100% 2
75%-99% _ 2 3
50%-74% --- 1
less than 50% - 9 3
Technica l 100%
75%_99%
50% - 75%
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial 1007. 1
75%—99%
50%-74% 1
less th n 50% - - - - 1
Personnel Budget $39,956 $35,392
124
-------
Utah
A. Population represented: 1,022,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. The State survey is nearly complete.
2. Completion of an outline for the State solid waste management plan
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Employ more personnel
2. Complete the State plan
D. Project Description:
The Statewide survey is nearly complete. Once completed, steps can
be taken to begin development of a plan outline and formulation of
a State solid waste management plan. Difficulty in obtaining staff
has contributed to delays in completion of this project.
125
-------
GRANT NO.: G05 -EC.. OO033 TOTAL AWAL DElJ : $24 ,627*
CRANTE : Utah State Dept. of Social Serv. WITHDRAWN: $ .03
Salt Lake City, Utah
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY:
AWARDrn EXPENflITURES ROE
9/1/67 - 8/31/68 - 01 Withdrawn
PHS FY-68 $ 9,298* $3,929.97 $ .03
Grantee _2L J.. ,390.56
$18,639 $8,32o.5E
9/1/68 - 6/30/69 02
PUS FY -69 $ 3,541*
5,368 Carry over
FY-69 _ _i .r (o2si)
$ 9,072 Total PUS $ 9,072.00 $ -0-
Grantee
$18,158 $19,747.78
7/1/69 - 6/30/71 - 03
PUS FY -69 $11,625*
Grantee i j ,642
$23,267
BACKLOG: FY-71
03 yr. Admjn. Supplement
for $4494
STAFF:
______ CURRENT
ProfessIonal: 100% 1 1
75% - 99%
50% - 7470
less than 50% - - - - 7 5
Technjca1 100%
757. - 99%
507. - 75%
less than 50% - - - —
Seeret 1a1: 100%
75% - 997.
50%-74% 1 1
less than 50% - - - -
Persor no1 Bud er $15,989 $19,7 17**
7/1/69 — 6/30/7 0**
l2
-------
Vermont
A. Population represented: 416,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. A three-year solid waste planning grant project has been
approved for the State by the Public Health Service.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Hire a staff for the project.
D. Project Description:
The State survey has not started because staffing problems have
temporarily delayed all work. Hopefully, a full-time solid waste
planner will be recruited soon.
127
-------
VERMONT
GRANT NO.: GO5-ECr OO047 TOTAL AWARDED: $23,830*
GRANTEE : Department of Health WITHDRAWN:
Burlington, Vermont
FISCAL HISTORY: ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDITURES ROE
Wjthdr q n
7/1/69 - 9/30/70 - 01
PHS FY -69 $23,83O ’:
Grantee 1 Q
$47,660
Future support recommended -
02 - $23,680
03 - $24 250
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% 1
75% - 99% - -
50% - 74% - - - -
less than 50% - - 10
Technical: 100% 1
75% - 99 ’
5070 - 75% - - - -
less than 50% - 12
Secretarial: 100% ---- -- 1
75% - 99% - - -
50% - 74% - - - -
less than 50% - -
Personnel. Budget $31,780
I
-------
Virginia
A. Population represented: 4,533,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the Statewide survey.
2. Completion of solid waste disposal plans for most of the
counties and communities in the State.
3. Distribution of a bimonthly newsletter.
4. Formation of a special legislative committee to study the
Stat&s solid waste problems
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State solid waste management plan.
2. Develop a more extensive program of technical assistance.
D. Project Description:
Plans for the disposal of solid wastes during the next 20 years
have been prepared for 75 percent of Virginia’s counties, cities
and tcMns. Data for this planning was obtained through the Statewide
survey. Regulations will not be promulgated for some time but disposal
standards have been distributed widely. A special legislative
committee is studying the State’s solid waste problem and will
report its findings to the ‘1970 Assembly. A bimonthly newsletter
promotes better solid waste practices to its 700 subscribers.
129
-------
ViRGINIA
GRANT I O.: G05-EC_00003
TOTAL AWARDED:
$ 105,642*
GRANTEE
Virginia State Health Dept.
Richmond. Virginia
WiTHDRAWN:
$ 1.56
100%
75% - 997 . - -
50% - 74% - -
less than 507.
1007. - -
757 - 997 - - - -
50% - 75% - - - -
less than 50% - -
100
75% - 99% - - -
50% - 74% - - -
less than 50% -
Withdrawn
$24,751.24 $ .76
4 884.oo
$49, 635. 24
ACT UAL
EXPENDITURES - ROE
$ 9,336.20 $ .80
15 ,627.00
$24,963.20
FISCAL HISTORY: AWARDED
9/1/66 - 8/31/67 - 01
PHS FY-67 $36, 188*
Grantee
$73,136
9/1/67 - 8/31/68 - 02
PHS FY-68 $11,441*
26 839 Carry-over
$38,280 Total PuS
$82,692
$24,447*
12,501 Carry over
33,566*
1, 39 Carry- over
r C .1’ . .
LOLal tL1
$156,323
Cr ant cc
9/1/68 - 9/30/70 - 03
PHS FY -69
FY -70
Grantee
STAFF:
Professional:
Technical:
Secretarial:
Personnel Budget
I NXTIAL
3
2
2
(Various Sanjtarjans)
CURR ENT
1
1
(Various
Sani tar ians)
2
2
1
$53, 925 *
9/1/69_613 017 0**
1
$55,336
130
-------
Washi ngton
A. Population represented: 3,089,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the Statewide survey
2. New State Department of Ecology which includes solid waste, air
and water pollution control responsibilities
3. Prepare major portion of guidelines for local and regional solid
waste planning.
4. Increased staffing.
5. State plan is underway.
6. Local and regional grants-in-aid programs
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete Phase I of the State solid waste management plane
2. Administer State grant-in-aid funds for local solid waste planning
D. Project Description:
Washington’s Statewide survey is complete with much of the basic
data assembled and analyzed. Public relations and information
and legislation efforts have been successful. In early 1970,
the Legislature passed a bill sponsored by the Governor to combine
solid waste, air, water in a new Department of Ecology.
The State plan is 60 percent complete with completion scheduled for
October 1970. This Phase I plan will include guidelines for local
and regional planning. The solid waste agency will administer grant-
in-aid funds for local solid waste plans using these guides.
Additional planning work for Phase II and III plan will consider
industrial and agricultural solid waste.
131
-------
WAS HI NGTON
GRANT NO.: G05-EC -00 O4 TOTAL AWARDED: $82,016*
GRANTEE : WASHINGTON WITHDRAW1’ : $ 92.55
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY:
AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
9/1/66 - 8/31/67 - 01
PHS FY-67 $20,000* $11,941.45 $ 92.55
Grantee 20 356
$40,756 $33,552.64
9/1/67 - 10/31/70— 02
PHS FY -68 $24,332*
7,966 Carry-over
FY-70 11,470* (02S1)
FY—70 26 ,214* (o2S2)
$69,982 Total PUS
Grantee
$163,398
STAFF:
INITIAL CURRENT
ProfessIonal: 100% 2
757.99% 1
50% - 747. 1 (3 inos.)
less than 50% - - - - 11
TechnIcal: 100%
75% - 99% - - -
50% - 75% - - -
less than 50% -
Secretarial: 100%
757. - 99% .. - -
50%-74% 1 1
less than 50% -
Personnel Budget $30,169 $43,461
3/1/70 — 10/31/7O
132
-------
West Virginia
A. Population represented: 1,798,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Completion of the Statewide survey.
2. Propose a State solid waste law.
3. Prepare an outline for the State solid waste management plan.
4. Attain a substantial State budget
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State plan.
2. Increase the public educational and local training activities
D. Project Description:
Data from the state-wide survey is now being analyzed. The grantee
prepared several county solid waste plans which have been implemented.
A proposed solid waste law could not be accommodated by the 1970
Legislatur&s schedule, and the bill will be resubmitted at next
year’s session. Public education continues to be one of this
agency’s most important activities. The State Plan is 20 percent
done and will be finished by September 1970.
133
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
GRANr NO..: G05-EC - 0 0 032 TOTAL AWARDED: $85,434*
GRANTEE : West Virginia State Dept. of WITHDRAWN: $ 616.11
Health
Charleston, ?W.Va.
ACTUAL
FISCAL HISTORY: AWARDED EXPENDITURES - ROE
6/1/66 - 5/31/67 - 01 Withdra ’n
PHS FY-66 $15,412* $13,138.73 $ .27
Grantee l ,412 15,390.45
$30,824 $28,529.18
6/1/67 - 5/31/68 02
PHS FY-67 $26,70O $16,993.16 $ 615.84
Grantee 70O 26,143.17
$53,400 $43,136.33
6/1/68 - 10/31/70 - 03
PHS FY -68 $15,336*
11,364 Carry..over
FY -69 2,700* (03S1)
FY-69 4,214* (o3s2)
FY-70 21,072* (o3s3)
$54,686 Total PHS
Grantee 54,686
$109,372
STAFF
IN iTIAL CURRENT
ProfessIonal: 100% - -
75% - 99%
507. - 74%
less than 50% - .. - -
Technical: 1007.. 2
757 0-99%
50/. - 75/0
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 100% 1 2
7570-99%
50% - 74%
less than 50% - - - -
1 (Janitor-5O%)
Personnel Budget - 6/1/69 -5/31/70 $39,630 $58,696
134
-------
Wyomi ng
A. Population represented: 315,000*
B. Critical events through 3/1/70:
1. Initiate the Statewide survey of solid waste practices.
C. Critical events forecast to 7/1/71:
1. Complete the State survey.
2. Begin developing the State solid waste management plan.
D. Project Description:
One of the newest solid waste management planning grantees, Wyoming
is in the process of conducting its state-wide survey of solid
waste management practices in association with the State’s natural
resource and planning agency. This coordination will have long-term
benefits in that solid waste plan recommendations will have a
greater likelihood of being implemented along with other State
comprehensive plan proposals.
135
-------
WYONI NC
GRANT NO.: G05..EC_00043 TOTAL At WED: $14,224*
GRANTEE : Wyoiiung Dept. of Health and WITHDRAWN:
Social Services
Cheyenne, Wyoming
FISCAL HISTORY ACTUAL
AWARDED EXPENDiTURES ROE
6/ 1f68 - 11/30/70 - 01 Wjthdra rn
PHS FY -68 $14,224*
Grantee 4 224
$28,448
STAFF:
1N lTIAL CURRENT
Professional: 100% - - - -- — -
75% - 99% - - -
50% -747. --- 1
less than 50% - 4
TechnIcal: 100%
757.-99% -
50% - 75%
less than 50% - - - -
Secretarial: 100%
5 0%-74%
less than 50% - - - -
Per c nne1 Budg. t $6,427
i cm72—2—0004s
136
-------