Solid Waste: State and Federal Efforts to Manage Nonhazardous Waste
(Chapter Report, 02/02/95, GAO/RCED-95-3).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed state and federal
efforts to manage municipal, commercial, and industrial solid waste,
focusing on: (1) how states are addressing the rising costs of solid
waste management and public opposition to solid waste facilities; and
(2) the federal role in addressing solid waste management issues.
GAO found that: (1) as of December 1994, 46 states had developed or were
developing solid waste management plans to address diminishing disposal
capacity, the rising costs of solid waste management, and public
opposition to new disposal sites in local communities; (2) the eight
state plans reviewed propose options for managing solid waste and
alternative financing mechanisms to support local recycling programs and
landfill closings; (3) states have used special fees and taxes to
finance 74 percent of their solid waste programs; (4) although local
opposition to solid waste management facilities has delayed site
selection and construction, two of the eight plans contain procedures
for selecting waste management sites; (5) some state officials and
industry experts believe that the federal government should assist in
developing national source reduction goals, setting packaging and
recovered material standards, developing markets for recyclable
materials, and ensuring sufficient disposal capacity; (6) although the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports state source reduction
and recycling efforts, it does not plan to enforce its 1992 municipal
solid waste agenda or believe that it should lead recycling or source
reduction activities; (7) although EPA projects that recycling rates of
25 to 35 percent may be achieved by the year 2000, additional advances
may have to be made to achieve these rates; and (8) although legislation
has been proposed authorizing states to restrict the interstate and
intrastate shipment of solid waste, sufficient data do not exist to
determine the impact of this authority on the solid waste management
industry.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-95-3
TITLE: Solid Waste: State and Federal Efforts to Manage
Nonhazardous Waste
DATE: 02/02/95
SUBJECT: Solid waste management
Solid waste treatment
Industrial pollution
Waste disposal
Pollution control
Environmental monitoring
Environmental policies
Financial management
Site selection
Recycling
IDENTIFIER: Colorado
Michigan
New Jersey
New Mexico
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
Washington
Los Angeles (CA)
New York (NY)
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate
February 1995
SOLID WASTE - STATE AND FEDERAL
EFFORTS TO MANAGE NONHAZARDOUS
WASTE
GAO/RCED-95-3
Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
GAO - General Accounting Office
NIMBY - not in my backyard
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-256811
February 2, 1995
The Honorable John Glenn
Ranking Minority Member, Committee
on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Dear Senator Glenn:
As requested, we are reporting on the status of state and federal
efforts to manage solid waste, including municipal, commercial, and
industrial waste. Our report contains information on how the states
are addressing issues such as financing the high costs of managing
solid waste and where the states see the need for a federal role in
addressing solid waste issues--for example, in authorizing the states
to control intrastate and interstate shipments of solid waste.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution
until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees;
the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; and the Director,
Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available
to others on request.
This work was performed under the direction of Gerald E. Killian,
Assistant Director, Environmental Protection Issues, who may be
reached at (202) 512-6552. Other major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Peter F. Guerrero
Director, Environmental
Protection Issues
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0
PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
Americans annually generate billions of tons of nonhazardous solid
waste. In 1992, 13 billion tons of waste, including 200 million tons
of municipal solid waste, required some form of processing:
recycling, incineration, or disposal. State and local authorities
are responsible for planning for the safe management of solid waste;
granting permits for landfills; and, in some cases, arranging for
waste collection, recycling, incineration, and/or disposal services.
Concerned about the states' ability to manage solid waste, the
Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
asked GAO to examine (1) how the states are addressing solid waste
issues, such as financing the high costs of managing this waste and
resolving public opposition to locating waste facilities in
communities, and (2) where the states see the need for a federal role
in addressing solid waste management issues.
BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
The Congress addressed the need to manage our nation's solid waste in
both the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as
amended, and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. RCRA required the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish minimum standards
for the safe design and placement of municipal landfills and to
develop guidelines for the federal purchase of products containing
materials recovered from waste. The Pollution Prevention Act
required EPA to develop and implement a strategy to promote
minimizing the amount of waste generated and directed EPA to
identify, as appropriate, measurable goals and tasks to meet those
goals. As mentioned, state and local authorities are responsible for
planning for the safe management of solid waste; granting permits for
landfills; and, in some cases, arranging for waste collection and
other waste management services. In part because not every
municipality in this nation has waste disposal services readily
available within its jurisdiction, waste has been transported to
other locations for disposal, causing concern in some of the
communities that receive this waste.
In 1989, EPA issued an Agenda for Action in response to concerns that
the nation had no national strategy for managing municipal solid
waste. This agenda calls for an integrated waste management
hierarchy, beginning with reducing the amount of waste generated
(source reduction), then recycling and reuse, and finally
incineration and the use of landfills. The agenda set a national
goal of reducing the volume of municipal waste by 25 percent by 1992
through source reduction and recycling.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
As of December 1994, state and/or local authorities in 46 states had
either developed or were in the process of developing plans for
managing solid waste to address issues such as diminishing disposal
capacity, the rising costs of managing solid waste, and the
difficulty of selecting sites for new waste disposal facilities given
increased resistance from local residents. While the states' plans
vary, some plans promote the use of EPA's hierarchy in order to
conserve landfill space, propose alternate financing mechanisms to
carry out solid waste management activities, and advocate alternative
procedures, such as arbitration, to resolve disputes about selecting
sites for facilities.
Some state officials and industry experts see the need for a federal
role in waste management to assist the states and industry in their
efforts to reduce and recycle waste, and to provide controls over
waste shipments. These officials see a need for (1) national goals
for source reduction, (2) uniform packaging standards, (3) national
standards for products containing recovered material, and (4) federal
assistance in developing markets for recyclable material. While EPA
supports and endorses source reduction and recycling as well as
efforts to develop goals and standards, the agency does not believe
that it should take the lead in these activities. To provide states
with control over waste shipments, the federal government would need
to authorize state and local governments to restrict waste shipped in
their jurisdictions. Courts have held that under the Commerce Clause
of the U.S. Constitution, state and local governments cannot
restrict waste shipments solely on the basis of their origin unless
specifically authorized by the Congress. Legislation has been
proposed in the Congress to provide the states with the authority to
restrict the interstate and intrastate shipment of waste. Because
solid waste is widely shipped both within and among states and
internationally, any legislative action authorizing the states to
control waste shipments will affect the solid waste management
industry. However, data are not currently available to assess this
impact.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS'
PLANS TO ADDRESS SOLID WASTE
ISSUES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1
Nationwide, 46 states, including 8 of the 9 states GAO visited, have
developed solid waste management plans. One of the primary reasons
for developing such plans is concern over diminishing disposal
capacity. To determine future capacity needs, five of the eight
plans contain an inventory of the state's waste streams and capacity
to manage those waste streams. Furthermore, all eight plans
recognize options for managing waste other than land disposal and
incorporate recycling and source reduction as well as state goals and
strategies that encourage such options.
Another reason for developing plans is concern over the rising cost
of solid waste management. As alternatives to the use of general
revenue funds for financing solid waste management, six of the eight
plans provide for financing mechanisms such as fees for solid waste,
recycling taxes, bond funds, and economic assessments. Funds from
these sources are used, for example, to award grants to support local
recycling programs and to pay for the costs of closing landfills. A
1992 survey of state funding found that the states are increasingly
implementing special fees and/or taxes as a means of obtaining
revenues for their solid waste programs. While special revenues
accounted for 57 percent of all funding in 1991, this figure
increased to 74 percent in 1992.
In some instances, because of local opposition, it has taken up to 12
years and millions of dollars in legal fees and contract negotiations
to choose a site for and construct a solid waste management facility.
To counter this opposition, two of the eight plans contain procedures
for selecting sites for waste facilities. For example, in Michigan,
counties must establish waste management plans that contain criteria
for selecting a site, and permits must be issued if a proposed
facility meets these criteria.
FEDERAL ROLE IN SOURCE
REDUCTION, RECYCLING, AND
CAPACITY ASSURANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2
Some state officials and industry experts see a need for a federal
role in solid waste management. They believe that the federal
government can assist the states in meeting source reduction and
recycling goals and provide the states with control over waste
shipments. In particular, officials see the need for a federal role
in (1) developing current national goals for source reduction, (2)
setting packaging standards, (3) setting standards for products
containing recovered material, and (4) promoting the development of
markets for recyclable materials. EPA has worked to educate
industry, state and local governments, and the public on source
reduction and recycling and supports the work of states and other
organizations. In addition, it has established some guidelines for
the federal procurement of products containing recovered materials.
However, the agency has no plans to set standards or goals beyond the
goal, established in its 1989 agenda, to use recycling and source
reduction to reduce municipal solid waste by 25 percent by 1992. The
agency also does not believe that it should take the lead in
recycling or source reduction because it does not view this as a
federal responsibility. About 22 percent of municipal waste was
recycled in 1993, and while EPA projects that recycling rates of 25
to 35 percent may be possible by the year 2000, additional advances
may have to be made to achieve these rates. Data are not available
on source reduction rates, and EPA is currently studying how to
measure source reduction.
The states also see a need for a federal role to ensure sufficient
disposal capacity. Federal courts have ruled that the states cannot
control private or commercial waste shipments within states and
between states solely on the basis of the origin of the shipments
because such controls would violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Some state and local officials maintain that such
controls are necessary to ensure sufficient local or in-state
disposal capacity and to ensure that local revenues are sufficient to
pay for publicly financed facilities or services. Data are not
available on how much solid waste is shipped either within or between
states. However, municipal waste is shipped out of or received by 47
states across the nation. Legislation introduced in the 103rd
Congress would have authorized the states to control intrastate and
interstate waste shipments. EPA is completing a report to the
Congress on intrastate waste shipments that could provide information
on the impact of authorizing states to limit these shipments. No
such review is being conducted on interstate waste shipments, and
without information, it will be difficult to decide how best to act
on this issue.
RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5
GAO is making no recommendations in this report.
AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6
As requested, GAO did not obtain written agency comments on this
report. However, GAO discussed its contents with officials from
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Municipal and
Industrial Solid Waste Division, who agreed that the report
accurately describes EPA's efforts.
INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1
Americans generated about 13 billion tons of nonhazardous solid
waste--including 200 million tons of municipal waste--in 1992, the
latest year for which data are available. All of this waste requires
processing by either recycling, incineration, or disposal. State and
local authorities are responsible for planning for the safe
management of solid waste; granting permits for landfills; and, in
some cases, arranging for waste collection and other waste management
services. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a
hierarchy of preferred methods for managing solid waste that
emphasizes first, reducing the amount of waste generated (source
reduction); second, recycling and reuse; and finally, incineration
and the use of landfills. According to EPA, total expenditures for
managing nonhazardous solid waste in 1972 were $8.4 billion, and
these costs could reach $75 billion by 2000.
AMOUNTS OF WASTE GENERATED AND
DISPOSAL METHODS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1
Of the 13 billion tons of nonhazardous waste generated in 1992, 7.6
billion tons was nonhazardous industrial waste, 5.2 billion tons was
special wastes (wastes from mining, oil and gas production, electric
utilities, and cement kilns), and about 200 million tons was
municipal waste (both commercial and residential wastes). Figure 1.1
shows the percentage, by type, of all the waste generated in 1992.
The amount of nonhazardous solid waste generated was almost 50 times
greater than the amount of hazardous waste.
Figure 1.1: Distribution of
Solid Waste, 1992
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: EPA.
In 1990, we reported that more than 95 percent of industrial waste
goes to surface impoundments (such as ponds and lagoons), where it is
stored, treated, and released into surface water.\1 The rest is
disposed of in landfills or waste piles, or applied to the land.\2
The waste management method used for special wastes varies according
to the type of waste. For example, EPA estimates that in the early
1980s, about 56 percent of waste rock was disposed of in on-site
waste piles and 61 percent of tailings were disposed of in on-site
surface impoundments. Municipal waste is managed quite differently
than industrial or special wastes. In 1993, the states reported that
about 17 percent of municipal solid waste was recycled, 11 percent
was incinerated, and 72 percent was sent to landfills. (App. I
provides state-by-state data on the percentage of municipal waste
recycled, incinerated, and sent to landfills.)
--------------------
\1 Nonhazardous Waste: Environmental Safeguards for Industrial
Facilities Need to Be Developed (GAO/RCED-90-92, Apr. 12, 1990).
\2 A landfill is an excavated area where wastes are permanently
disposed of. A waste pile is a mass of waste generally placed on the
ground for storage or treatment. A land application unit is an area
of land where wastewater or sludge is placed on or mixed into the
soil for disposal and sometimes treatment.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as
amended, establishes a cooperative framework for federal, state, and
local authorities to manage solid waste in an environmentally sound
manner and to maximize the use of limited resources. The act
requires EPA to establish minimum criteria for facilities that may
receive hazardous waste from households or from generators of small
quantities, in order to ensure that there is no reasonable
probability that human health or the environment will be adversely
affected. It also requires states to adopt a permit program or other
means of prior approval to ensure that landfills meet EPA's minimum
criteria. Furthermore, EPA must establish guidelines and may provide
technical and financial assistance to state and local authorities for
the development and implementation of state plans for managing waste.
Between fiscal year 1978 and fiscal year 1981, EPA provided funds to
states to develop and implement waste management plans. Beginning in
1982, EPA eliminated financial assistance for state and local
planning.
Both RCRA and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508)
address alternatives to land disposal of waste. RCRA advocates the
use of resource recovery, either through facilities that convert
waste to energy or through recycling. To promote recycling, RCRA
requires federal agencies that procure goods to purchase products,
such as paper, that contain recovered material. The act requires EPA
to develop guidelines that identify products that are or can be
produced with recovered materials and to recommend practices for
agencies to follow when purchasing the products. RCRA also requires
the Department of Commerce to encourage more commercialization of
resource recovery technologies through (1) promoting proven
technologies, (2) providing a forum for the exchange of technical and
economic data on resource recovery facilities, (3) providing accurate
specifications for recovered materials, and (4) stimulating the
development of markets for recovered material.
The Pollution Prevention Act also promotes reducing the amount of
material generated and thus reducing the amount of waste requiring
recycling, treatment, or disposal. The act requires EPA to develop
and implement a strategy to promote source reduction. As part of
that strategy, EPA is directed to, among other things, (1) establish
standard methods for measuring source reduction; (2) coordinate
source reduction activities in each office within EPA; (3) facilitate
the adoption of source reduction techniques by businesses; and (4)
identify, where appropriate, measurable goals, tasks necessary to
achieve the goals, dates for achieving these goals, and
organizational responsibilities.
In 1979, EPA issued minimum criteria for solid waste landfills.
Under these criteria, waste had to be covered and protected against
floodwater, and open burning of waste was prohibited. In 1988, EPA
proposed new criteria for municipal waste landfills that accept
hazardous waste from households or from small-quantity generators\3
because the Congress determined that the 1979 criteria may not
adequately protect human health and the environment. Beginning in
October 1993, the new criteria for new or expanding municipal
landfills require (1) liners to prevent liquids from leaking into the
groundwater, (2) collection systems to remove liquids that accumulate
in the waste, (3) monitoring of groundwater for hazardous substances,
and (4) plans for closing and then monitoring the waste sites. EPA
projected that these regulations would reduce the number of municipal
landfills in operation.
EPA has not revised its 1979 criteria for solid waste landfills other
than those that accept municipal waste. As a result of a January
1994 settlement agreement between EPA and the Sierra Club, EPA is
required, by May 1995, to propose rules revising criteria applicable
to all nonmunicipal solid waste facilities that may receive hazardous
waste from households or from small-quantity generators. The
settlement agreement further requires that the rules be made final by
July 1, 1996.
--------------------
\3 Under these criteria, a small-quantity generator is a generator
that produces less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per month
(or accumulates less than 100 kilograms at any one time), or one that
produces less than 1 kilogram of acutely hazardous waste per month
(or accumulates less than 1 kilogram of acutely hazardous waste at
any one time). A kilogram equals 2.2 pounds.
EPA'S AGENDA FOR ACTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3
EPA's Agenda for Action, issued in 1989 in response to concerns over
the lack of a national strategy for managing solid waste, calls for
an integrated waste management system consisting of a hierarchy of
waste management options: first, source reduction; then recycling
and reuse; and finally, incineration and the use of landfills. EPA's
strategy included a national goal of reducing solid waste through
source reduction or recycling by 25 percent by 1992. No specific
goal for source reduction or recycling was set beyond 1992.
In addition, the Agenda for Action identifies several objectives for
municipal waste management. These objectives included increasing (1)
the amount of information on waste planning and management available
to states, local communities, waste handlers, citizens, and industry;
(2) effective planning for municipal waste; (3) source reduction
activities by the manufacturers, the government, and citizens; and
(4) recycling by government, individuals, and corporations. The
agenda envisions that EPA, state and local governments, industries,
waste managers, and citizens will share the responsibility of
educating themselves and adopting integrated waste management
strategies.
OPTIONS FOR MANAGING SOLID
WASTE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4
While state and local authorities are responsible for planning for
solid waste management, the waste management entities or authorities
that provide waste management services and the services provided vary
considerably from community to community. A solid waste manager is
responsible for selecting and arranging for waste management
services, such as waste collection, land disposal or incineration, or
recycling and composting. The services selected are those that
appropriately address each component of solid waste in the most
cost-effective and environmentally beneficial way. For example,
recycling and reuse are appropriate for things whose physical
properties make it technically and economically feasible to use them
further; composting is used for organic substances; and incineration
and land disposal are used for waste with little or no commercial
value or for which recycling and reuse markets are poorly developed.
OWNERSHIP OPTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4.1
Once the types of services needed to manage solid waste are selected,
a solid waste manager must determine who will provide that service.
Depending on location, the services could be provided by
municipalities, private companies, large commercial firms, or the
company or business needing the waste management services. For
example, collection and disposal services may be owned and provided
by the government, or the government may contract with commercial
firms to provide these services. In some municipalities, households,
businesses, and manufacturers may make their own arrangements with
commercial haulers for waste collection. These haulers, in turn, may
either own recycling and disposal facilities or contract to use
services owned by commercial waste management companies. Other
options include (1) public ownership of the infrastructure, with
municipal waste collection services contracted to commercial
operators, and (2) public collection, with waste taken to privately
or commercially owned and operated facilities. For example, Los
Angeles and New York City both own and operate collection vehicles
that dispose of residential waste at publicly owned and operated
landfills. The city of Las Vegas and the surrounding county
partially contract out collection and disposal services to a
commercial firm. In areas of Colorado and New Jersey, homeowners
must contract with commercial firms for collection because the
municipalities do not provide or arrange for this service.
Ownership options for solid waste management services may also vary
by the type of solid waste being managed. Local governments may
provide services to households and small commercial establishments
but exclude large commercial establishments and industrial firms from
using those same services. Commercial waste collection and disposal
companies may provide collection and disposal services to commercial
establishments and industrial firms that generate nonhazardous
industrial waste or construction and demolition debris. Large
industrial firms may also treat, recycle, incinerate, or dispose of
their own waste on-site. According to 1991 estimates by the National
Solid Wastes Management Association, commercial firms served around
60 percent of all households and removed more than 90 percent of the
nation's commercial refuse. According to other estimates, commercial
land disposal facilities handled about 50 percent of the volume of
municipal solid waste, although they represented only 15 to 30
percent of the landfills operating in 1992.
INTRASTATE, INTERSTATE, AND
INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
OPTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4.2
Solid waste managers must also decide whether waste can be shipped to
a local private, public, or commercial landfill, incinerator, or
processing facility--such as a recycling facility--or to facilities
located elsewhere in the same state, in other states, or in other
countries. In 1992, there were only about 170 incinerators and fewer
than 5,400 landfills within the United States. However, given that
there are about 40,000 county, municipal and township governments,
some waste must be shipped to other locations.
The domestic transport of solid waste is governed by state laws and
regulations, which are limited by the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.\4 The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state and
local governments cannot ban, impose restrictions on, or place
surcharges on solid waste solely on the basis of its origin.
Publicly owned facilities, however, generally may restrict the solid
waste they accept to waste generated within the state. The Court's
reasoning was that these facilities are operating as market
participants, not as regulators, and may benefit the residents who,
through taxes, paid for the facilities.
Some waste is also shipped between countries. International
shipments of waste between the United States and Canada and Mexico
are governed by international agreements.\5 The agreement between
Canada and the United States was amended in 1992 to require that the
receiving country be notified before municipal solid waste is shipped
for final disposal or for incineration with energy recovery.
Previously, this notice was required only for hazardous waste
shipments. The agreement between the United States and Mexico
governs hazardous waste shipments; however, many wastes classified as
industrial nonhazardous waste in the United States are classified as
hazardous in Mexico.
--------------------
\4 The Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants the Congress the
power to "regulate commerce among the states." The clause has been
interpreted as not only granting power to the Congress but also
limiting the states' power. Thus, even when the Congress has not
acted, states may not pass laws that unduly burden interstate
commerce. The Congress, however, may authorize states to enact laws
that would otherwise not be permissible under the Commerce Clause.
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the interstate movement
of solid waste is "commerce" under the Commerce Clause.
\5 Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America
and the Government of Canada Concerning the Transboundary Movement of
Hazardous Waste, dated October 1986, and Annex III to the Agreement
Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on
Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in
the Border Area, dated November 1986. In addition, the Basel
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and Their Disposal, completed in March 1989 and signed by 53
countries, including Canada, Mexico, and the United States, requires
advance notification of hazardous and solid waste shipments, prior
consent to receive shipments, and tracking. The U.S. Senate
consented to ratifying this convention in 1992; however, implementing
legislation to carry out the convention's provisions must be enacted
before the United States officially ratifies the treaty.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:5
Concerned about whether the nation has sufficient capacity for the
safe disposal of solid waste, the Ranking Minority Member, Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, asked us to examine (1) how the
states are addressing solid waste issues, including what efforts
state and local governments are making to pay for higher waste
management costs and to develop additional solid waste management
capacity amid growing opposition to placing waste facilities in local
communities, and (2) where the states see the need for a federal role
in addressing these issues.
To address the first objective, we interviewed managers of solid
waste programs, environmental specialists, or solid waste planners in
each of the 50 states and obtained information about the states'
plans for solid waste management. We also obtained data from a state
planning survey by the Texas Natural Resources and Conservation
Commission and a survey on funding of solid waste management plans by
the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. We also
surveyed EPA's regional solid waste officials to determine their
views on problems that the states have with solid waste management
and on the level of assistance provided by EPA's regional offices.
We reviewed studies and surveys of states' solid waste management
conducted by national solid waste organizations and editors of trade
publications, such as Biocycle and the Solid Waste Report, to obtain
an overview of the states' rates of generating solid waste, disposal
methods, recycling programs, goals and laws, and trends and potential
problems with solid waste management.
In addition, we visited nine states and two major metropolitan areas
and interviewed these states' directors of solid waste programs,
environmental specialists, recycling coordinators, solid waste
planners, county directors of public works, city commissioners,
sanitary engineers, and city directors and supervisors of solid
waste. Through these interviews, we identified state and local
concerns about solid waste management and determined how state and
local governments planned, carried out, and regulated solid waste
management. The states we selected were Colorado, Michigan, New
Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Washington; the metropolitan areas were Los Angeles and New York
City. We selected these states and cities on the basis of where they
were located, how much waste they generated, whether they had state
plans for managing waste, how much they used alternative waste
management methods, whether they were net exporters or net importers
of waste, and how dense their populations were.
We interviewed state and local officials in the selected states and
cities to identify potential problems they had in carrying out their
plans for managing solid waste and innovative approaches they used to
address these problems. We asked how they had implemented EPA's
hierarchy of source reduction, recycling and reuse, and incineration
or the use of landfills and what obstacles they had encountered when
choosing these options. We also contacted U.S. Customs officials in
Washington, D.C., and the Buffalo, New York, Port of Entry;
Environment Canada; the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy;
EPA's solid waste officials at headquarters and in the regions; and
state and local officials responsible for solid waste management to
obtain data on the volumes of solid waste involved in intrastate,
interstate, and international shipments. We also asked about the
rationale for and against restricting solid waste shipments and the
potential impact of these restrictions. We reviewed interstate
agreements and international bilateral agreements between the United
States and Canada and the United States and Mexico. We reviewed
trade literature, court cases, state regulations, and surveys on
state and local efforts to control interstate and intrastate solid
waste shipments.
To address our second objective, we discussed the problems of
managing solid waste with state and local government officials and
consulted industry experts representing solid waste associations,
nonprofit environmental groups, academia, the Congressional Research
Service, a solid waste management consulting firm, and a major
private solid waste company. (See app. II for a complete list of
these experts.) The organizations and groups were selected because
they represent both solid waste practitioners and professionals, have
academic backgrounds in environmental and solid waste issues, and/or
represent national environmental groups active in waste management.
We asked these experts to comment on the need for a federal role in
addressing solid waste issues and major issues affecting the
management of solid waste. We also obtained their opinions on the
elements that should be included in a federal role--for example,
source reduction, recycling, interstate and intrastate shipments of
solid wastes, and other issues facing state and local governments in
managing solid waste.
Additionally, we contacted representatives from the Canadian Council
of Ministers of the Environment, Washington Retailers Association,
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, Recycling Advisory Council,
Northeast Recycling Coalition, and International City/County
Management Association. From these organizations, we obtained and
reviewed model legislation on toxic substances and on packaging,
packaging guidelines, labeling standards, position papers on market
development, and descriptions of peer exchange programs. We also
reviewed EPA's publications on source reduction and recycling. We
conducted our review between October 1992 and January 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:6
As requested we did not obtain written comments on this report from
EPA. However we discussed its contents with officials in EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and they generally
agreed that the information was accurate. The Chief of the office's
Recycling and Implementation Branch, Municipal and Industrial Solid
Waste Division, stated that the report accurately portrayed the
current status of solid waste management in the United States and
EPA's role in assisting the states in their efforts. These
officials' comments have been incorporated where appropriate.
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE
DEVELOPING PLANS AND SOLUTIONS
============================================================ Chapter 2
In response to concerns about solid waste, states have increased
their efforts to address solid waste issues within the past decade by
developing solid waste management plans. State plans include
regulatory and technical guidance; assessments of facilities and
waste inventories; descriptions of options for managing the waste;
and goals, policies and strategies for carrying out those options.
Several states' plans address financing the rising costs of waste
management and include funding mechanisms for paying those costs.
Some states' plans also address where or how to locate new waste
management facilities.
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
HAVE DEVELOPED PLANS TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS ABOUT SOLID WASTE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1
As of December 1994, a total of 46 states had either developed plans
or were in the process of developing plans for managing solid waste.
While some state plans deal narrowly with municipal waste, others
deal more broadly with all solid waste, including municipal and
nonhazardous industrial wastes. States are primarily developing
these plans to address their concerns about protecting human health
and the environment, the rising costs of disposal, and diminishing
disposal capacity. Four states--Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and
Wisconsin--do not have plans because, according to officials in these
states, (1) the responsible state agencies have not initiated
planning, (2) the state does not perceive that it has pressing
problems in managing solid waste, or (3) the state believes that its
regulations adequately address solid waste management without any
formal planning document. Despite the lack of state planning
requirements, at least two of these states have voluntary planning
efforts at the regional and municipal level. For example, some
counties in Arizona and Colorado have initiated their own solid waste
management plans.
PLANS ADDRESS STANDARDS FOR
PERMITS AND SITING OF
FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.1
Of the nine states we visited, eight had solid waste management
plans. Seven of these plans refer to, require, or recommend
technical standards or instructions for siting solid waste facilities
and issuing permits for these facilities in order to protect human
health and the environment. For example, New Mexico's plan provides
criteria, such as transportation routes, geology, topography, and
proximity to population, that local governments must consider
selecting a site for a facility. Pennsylvania requires local
governments to describe their siting process in their municipal waste
management plans. Ohio's plan recommends that state permits restrict
certain toxic items, such as lead-acid batteries and used oil, from
municipal landfills.
PLANS ASSESS WASTE STREAMS
AND CAPACITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.2
To determine future capacity needs, five of the eight plans contain
an inventory of the state's waste stream and capacity to manage that
waste stream. For example, New Jersey's plan describes the state's
total municipal and nonhazardous industrial waste stream. It
includes county-by-county breakdowns of the rates of waste generated,
recycled, and disposed of. The plan estimates how much waste will be
generated through 2010 and describes how the state will reduce its
reliance on exporting waste out of state for disposal and reach
self-sufficiency by 1999. New Mexico's plan includes a breakdown of
residential, commercial, yard, construction, and agricultural waste,
and further distinguishes the composition of urban and rural
residential waste.
PLANS INCORPORATE WASTE
MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY WITH
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.3
All eight state plans we reviewed recognize options other than land
disposal and incorporate either EPA's waste management hierarchy or a
variation. Texas and several other states are required, by state
law, to develop plans that follow the hierarchy in managing waste.
Texas's goal, by the year 2000, is to reduce, reuse, and recycle 60
percent of municipal waste and to reduce industrial and hazardous
waste by 50 percent or more. Washington State's plan sets forth
goals and recommends courses of action to reach these goals. The
state's chief goal, established by state law, is to reduce waste by
50 percent through source reduction and recycling by 1995. The law,
as well as the state plan, incorporates the waste management
hierarchy outlined in EPA's 1989 Agenda for Action. Michigan's
overall policy is to promote waste reduction, reuse, composting,
recycling, and incineration with energy recovery, while limiting the
use of landfills. Its long-range goals, to be achieved by the year
2005, include reducing the solid waste stream by 8 to 12 percent;
increasing composting from 8 to 12 percent of the waste, recycling
from 20 to 30 percent, and incinerating from 35 to 45 percent; and
sending from 10 to 20 percent of the waste to landfills.
Nationwide, 42 states have adopted all, or some variation, of EPA's
waste management hierarchy in order to reserve disposal capacity.
New Jersey ranked recycling higher than source reduction since
recycling is a key waste management option. Other states, like
Nebraska, rank the use of landfills over incineration because of
concerns about air pollution.
A majority of states have also adopted goals and/or strategies for
waste management. Approximately 41 states have reduction and/or
recycling goals; these goals range from 15 to 70 percent by the year
2000. In about 35 states, the recycling goals are legislated.
SEVERAL STATES ARE ADDRESSING
THE RISING COSTS OF FINANCING
WASTE MANAGEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2
Localities pay over 95 percent of the more than $18 billion that EPA
estimated was spent on managing municipal solid waste in 1991. Given
the high and rising costs of solid waste management, alternatives to
using general tax revenues are becoming increasingly important.
Unless other sources of funding are available to augment limited
general tax revenues, the plans that states have developed may not be
carried out. Several states have addressed the need for additional
funding, and their plans include options for funding mechanisms.
ALTERNATIVE FUNDING
MECHANISMS ARE NEEDED TO PAY
RISING COSTS OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1
Nationwide, a majority of states continue to rely on general revenue
funds to finance the majority of their solid waste management
planning and programs. As shown in figure 2.1, six states were using
only general tax revenues to fund their programs while eight states
used no general tax revenues, as of November 1992. The remaining
states used various percentages of general tax revenues. States not
using general tax revenues to finance all or a portion of their
programs used other sources of revenue, such as special fees levied
on waste and permits.
Figure 2.1: Number of States
Funding Solid Waste Programs
With General Tax Revenues,
November 1992
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Alaska was not included in the survey.
Source: GAO's illustration based on New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation's Survey of State Funding for Solid Waste
Management Programs, November 1992.
We reported on the need for additional sources of funding for solid
waste management as early as July 1981.\6
At that time, we stated that no long-term funding was available for
waste programs at the federal, state, or local levels. More
recently, EPA noted the need for more state funding for environmental
protection in its 1993 report on state capacity.\7 For example, EPA
estimates that local governments will have to spend 65 percent more
for environmental protection by the year 2000 than they did in 1988
just to maintain their current level of effort. In addition, EPA
estimates that local governments will need to raise 32 percent more
money just to cover operating and debt service costs. The report
identified over 80 financing mechanisms, in 11 major categories, that
state and local governments could use, including fees, grants, bonds,
loans, credit enhancements, public-private partnerships, economic
incentives, special districts, environmental finance centers, and
taxes. Other financing mechanisms can be used to finance a wide
variety of capital and operating costs. For example, bond financing
is well suited to financing recycling centers or landfills, and fees
are suitable to pay ongoing program costs, such as the costs of
curbside trash removal services.
--------------------
\6 Solid Waste Disposal Practices: Open Dumps Not Identified, States
Face Funding Problems (CED-81-131, July 23, 1981).
\7 Report of the Task Force to Enhance State Capacity: Strengthening
Environmental Management in the United States, EPA-270-R-93-001 (July
1993).
STATES ARE IMPLEMENTING
OTHER FINANCING MECHANISMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2
Even though 41 states are still relying, to some extent, on general
revenue funds to finance their programs, a 1992 survey of state solid
waste funding showed that special sources of revenue are becoming a
larger and more significant source of funding than general
revenues.\8 Of the 32 states responding to the survey that had
knowledge of special revenue funding, special revenues accounted for
74 percent of total funding for solid waste. This was a significant
increase since 1991 in the proportion of funding supplied by special
revenue sources. In the 1991 survey, 45 states responded that
special revenues accounted for 57 percent of total funding for solid
waste. The 1992 survey also found that special revenue funding
varied widely by state: Some states used no special revenues to fund
their programs, while other states funded 100 percent of their
programs with special revenues.
Of the nine states we reviewed, six use alternatives to general
revenue funds to finance a portion or all of their costs because
general revenue funds are increasingly insufficient to finance the
growing costs of waste management. For example, New Jersey funds its
program through solid waste fees, recycling taxes, bond funds, and
economic assessments. In addition, New Jersey assists local
governments through a number of grant and loan programs financed by a
per-ton levy on waste disposed of in-state, general revenue
appropriations, and taxes on solid waste generation and disposal.
Ohio uses fees rather than the state's general revenue fund to pay
its waste management costs. Even so, Ohio officials are still
concerned that the fees, as currently structured, are not sufficient
to cover the costs of managing their program.
Pennsylvania requires its counties to establish trust funds to
finance the costs of closing landfills and implementing any measures
that must be taken after closure. The amount paid into the fund is a
tonnage surcharge based upon the estimated cost of closing the
landfill and the weight of waste to be disposed of at the landfill
before it is closed.
Texas levies a $1.50 surcharge on each ton of municipal solid waste
disposed of in the state. A portion of the funds collected is used
to finance the state's solid waste planning and management efforts.
The state also allocates half of the funds for grants that local
governments and eligible organizations can use for programs that save
or recover resources, minimize the amount of waste generated, or
improve the operating efficiency of waste facilities.
Washington authorizes local governments to collect taxes and fees,
such as a fixed collection fee, a $1 purchase fee on tires, and a $5
fee on the purchase of car batteries. In addition, the state
provides grants and loans for, among other things, planning by local
governments and the development of recycling facilities.
--------------------
\8 Survey of State Funding for Solid Waste Management Programs, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Revised November
1992).
SOME STATES ARE USING
INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES FOR
LOCATING NEW FACILITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3
Public opposition to new and expanding landfills has intensified in
recent years and is causing difficulties in ensuring sufficient
capacity for managing waste in some locations. Local officials
continually face the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) syndrome, in which
residents oppose locating a waste disposal facility in their
communities. At best, it can take years to select a site for a
facility. At worst, a site may never be selected, and the locality
may be faced with the alternative of shipping waste long distances.
LOCAL OPPOSITION IS INTENSE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.1
A study by the International City/County Management Association found
that local opposition can add years to the time it takes to obtain a
site and construct a solid waste facility.\9 In Claremont, New
Hampshire, it took nearly 10 years to obtain a site for a
waste-to-energy facility. According to the project manager, the
delay resulted in expenditures of $1.2 million in legal fees and
contract negotiations, disenchantment on the part of the citizens,
and the loss of political goodwill. The association reported on
seven cases in which local governments sited facilities; these cases
are summarized in table 2.1.
Table 2.1
Length of Time Local Governments Took to
Site Facilities
to
comp
Location Project lete
-------------------------- -------------------------- ----
Fairfax County, Va. Drop-off center 1
New Hampshire and Vermont Waste-to-energy facility 10
Ash monofill 7
Suffolk, Va. Regional landfill 12
Arlington Co. and Waste-to-energy facility 6
Alexandria, Va.
Columbia Co., Wis. Materials recovery 11
facility
Compost plant 11
Pasco Co., Fla. Waste-to-energy facility 6
and landfill
Maricopa Co., Ariz. Regional landfill 4
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Based on data from the International City/County Management
Association.
In contrast, Los Angeles County, when it identified unoccupied
canyons as potential landfill sites, was thwarted in its efforts when
environmental groups purchased land on the canyon floors. The county
is now considering whether it must ship waste, via interstate rail,
to a landfill located 200 miles away in Utah. New York City has
attempted to build a waste-to-energy incinerator in the vacant
Brooklyn Naval Yard, but local opposition has delayed the project
since 1978. According to an official in the New York City Department
of Sanitation, as a result of this opposition, the cost for this
project has escalated into the millions of dollars, and construction
has not yet begun.
--------------------
\9 Siting Solid Waste Facilities: Seven Case Studies, International
City/County Management Association, Management Information Service
Report, vol. 24, no. 10 (Oct. 1994).
INNOVATIVE SITING TECHNIQUES
ARE BEING TRIED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.2
Not all local governments are having difficulty siting facilities and
thus ensuring sufficient capacity for their waste. Of the nine
states we reviewed, one state is trying innovative techniques to
address citizens' opposition. We also identified other innovative
techniques being tried in states not included in our detailed review.
In Michigan, counties must establish siting criteria in their solid
waste management plans before receiving a state permit to construct
new capacity. Citizens, elected officials, and environmental groups
are invited to participate in developing the plan. After a county's
plan is approved, the county must grant a permit to a facility if it
meets the conditions outlined in the plan.
Wisconsin takes a different approach. Local governments form a
committee to negotiate with the waste facility's developer over the
economic and operating terms of a proposed landfill. If the parties
are unable to reach an agreement, a 1981 Wisconsin law mandates
binding arbitration by the state's Waste Facility Siting Board. Only
two cases have gone through arbitration since the law was enacted,
indicating that developers and local governments are able to
establish new facilities in Wisconsin.
In another successful technique, owner/operators offer financial
incentives to the local government in exchange for permission to
locate the facility within the community's jurisdiction. For
example, Gilliam County in eastern Oregon is the site of a privately
owned landfill. The landfill owner pays the county government $1.25
per ton of waste disposed of in the landfill, or about $875,000
annually. Given that the county's population is only about 2,000,
this source of revenue is substantial. Other benefits that landfill
owner/operators can offer to host communities include (1)
environmental guarantees ensuring water quality; (2) contingency
funds in case of contamination; (3) protection of property values;
and (4) the provision of recreational, health, or other facilities.
STATES SEE A FEDERAL ROLE IN WASTE
REDUCTION, RECYCLING, AND PLANNING
FOR CAPACITY
============================================================ Chapter 3
Because the states' progress has been slow towards meeting goals and
objectives for source reduction and recycling and towards ensuring
that waste disposal capacity is sufficient, state and industry
officials believe the federal government has a role in (1) developing
current national goals for source reduction, (2) setting standards
for packaging, (3) setting standards for products containing material
recovered from recycled goods, and (4) promoting the development of
markets for recyclable materials. States also see the need for a
federal role in determining whether they can control the intrastate
and interstate flow of waste and hence better plan for capacity.
State laws aimed at limiting interstate movements of waste by
imposing bans or higher disposal fees have been found to violate the
Constitution's Commerce Clause, but a number of legislative proposals
that address the states' desires to limit or control waste imports
from other states have been introduced in the Congress.
STATES ARE SUPPORTING SOURCE
REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1
As discussed in chapter 2, 42 states incorporate EPA's waste
management hierarchy--in which source reduction and recycling are
preferred to waste disposal--in their solid waste management plans.
Source reduction is aimed at reducing the amount of waste generated,
including the amount and toxicity of packaging, while recycling is
aimed at using waste as a resource. To achieve their goals and
objectives for source reduction, some regions and states are trying
to develop packaging standards, educate consumers, and limit the
toxicity of packaging. To achieve their goals and objectives for
recycling, they are developing markets for recyclable materials
(secondary markets), identifying uses for material recovered from
recycled goods or recovered material, and developing standards for
products containing recovered material. While some efforts are aimed
solely at municipal waste, other efforts are also aimed at industrial
nonhazardous waste.
STATES ARE MAKING SOME
PROGRESS IN REDUCING AMOUNTS
OF WASTE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.1
State officials identified source reduction as a key element in
reducing their future needs for capacity and as a central tenet in
their solid waste management plans. Some regions and states are
taking actions to carry out their plans. For example, the Coalition
of Northeastern Governors' Source Reduction Council,\10 which has
representatives from state governments, public interest
organizations, and industry, developed voluntary guidelines in 1989
to reduce packaging waste. The guidelines call for industry to (1)
eliminate packaging whenever possible; (2) minimize the amount of
material used in packaging; (3) design packages that are returnable,
refillable or reusable; and (4) produce packages that can be recycled
and use recovered material in packages. Although these guidelines
are voluntary, as of August 1993, 8 of the top 40 retailers in the
country have endorsed them. For example, Sears, Roebuck and Company
adopted these guidelines and is working with its private-label
manufacturers to reduce the packaging used for appliances and
clothing. The company had eliminated 1.5 million tons of packaging
by September 1994.
The coalition also developed model legislation that establishes
standards for packaging sold or distributed in the Northeast. The
legislation was developed to make the individual states' legislative
initiatives to achieve source reduction more effective and, at the
same time, to minimize economic disruptions by having a regional (if
not a national) approach. The model legislation would (1) formalize
and codify the coalition's 1989 guidelines on preferred packaging;
(2) provide industry options for achieving, by January 1996, a
15-percent reduction in the amount of packaging used; and (3)
encourage industry to take additional actions to reduce packaging.
In addition, the legislation sets a goal of reducing solid waste by
50 percent by the year 2000 and calls for an evaluation to determine
if more stringent packaging standards should be adopted to achieve
that goal.
Some states have also initiated source reduction efforts aimed at
consumers and industries. In Washington, the Department of Ecology
developed a program to help consumers practice "smart shopping" to
reduce waste. For example, one brochure urges consumers to avoid
buying disposable products, use durable shopping bags, and purchase
recyclable products. Similarly, in Colorado, EPA Region VIII and the
Colorado Office of Energy Conservation produced a public service
video urging citizens to reduce, reuse, and recycle waste. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources offers an award
for innovative projects to minimize waste, giving preference to
industries and municipalities that prevent waste from being
generated. The state also requires those who generate 2,200 pounds
or more of nonhazardous industrial waste annually to file a document
identifying ways to reduce the weight or toxicity of their waste.
The states and others are also developing their own approaches to
reduce the toxicity in packaging as well as the use of toxins in
manufacturing. In addition, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
developed model legislation for reducing toxicity in packaging, which
has already been adopted in 14 states. Furthermore, as of 1991, more
than a dozen states had enacted laws that promote reducing the use of
toxic substances in manufacturing. For example, the law in
Massachusetts has a target of reducing the use of certain chemicals
by 50 percent by the year 1997.
--------------------
\10 The coalition was formed in 1976 to address issues such as
energy, economic development, employment, and the environment. The
member states are Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
STATES ARE ENCOURAGING
RECYCLING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.2
One key to successful recycling is to ensure ready markets for
products that can be recycled as well as markets for products
containing recovered material. According to the National Conference
of State Legislatures, as of 1990, 31 states had undertaken studies
on developing markets for products that are recyclable. For example,
the Council of Great Lakes Governors\11 launched a multistate effort
to purchase recycled copy paper and rerefined oil. In Washington,
the state legislature established and funded the Clean Washington
Center in 1991 to develop and expand markets for materials and
products containing recovered material, develop the necessary
infrastructure, and eliminate barriers to using recovered materials.
Under the program, the center has distributed a directory of products
as a guide for individuals and/or companies seeking to purchase
products made from recovered materials. It also identified
additional uses for recycled glass and spent $1.5 million to help
retrofit pulp and paper mills to include old newsprint in their
production processes.
--------------------
\11 The council comprises Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New York,
Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
SOME STATES SEEK NATIONAL GOALS
AND STANDARDS AND FEDERAL HELP
IN DEVELOPING SECONDARY MARKETS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2
Officials in some of the states included in our review said that they
are having difficulty meeting their source reduction goals or
objectives because of the lack of national (1) goals for reducing the
volume and toxicity of packaging and (2) packaging standards. They
also said they are having difficulty meeting recycling goals or
objectives because there are few national standards for products
containing recovered material and because of the lack of markets.
Industry experts also support these views. EPA does not believe that
it should take the lead in promoting source reduction or recycling
because it views solid waste management, for both municipal and
industrial nonhazardous wastes, as primarily a state responsibility.
STATES HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
SOURCE REDUCTION AND
RECYCLING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1
State officials said that source reduction is difficult to address on
a state-by-state basis because manufacturers might encounter numerous
different goals and standards across the nation, and the potential
impact on production costs could be significant if manufacturers have
to produce different products for different markets. State and local
officials told us that the interstate commerce in consumer products
discourages them from legislating goals for reducing the toxicity and
volume of packaging or packaging standards. A state official also
said that states cannot individually influence industry's
predisposition for built-in product obsolescence. Other officials
noted the lack of a coordinated national policy that clarifies the
roles of governments, industry, and consumers in reducing waste.
Changes in packaging offer significant opportunities for reducing the
amount of waste generated. Figure 3.1 shows the amount, by weight,
of containers and packaging in the municipal waste stream. The total
weight of 34 percent is the percentage before any recycling occurs.
After recycling, containers and packaging still make up 32 percent of
all discarded waste.
Figure 3.1: Percentage
Distribution of Municipal Solid
Waste by Type and Weight, 1993
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Based on EPA's data.
Some of the states included in our review also have difficulty
recycling because of the lack of national standards for products
containing recovered material. According to state and local
officials and industry experts, national standards requiring products
to contain specific amounts of recovered material are needed to
encourage markets. In their view, such standards are needed because
manufacturers cannot be expected to conform to many different
standards across the states.
State officials also said that the lack of nearby markets for
recovered material affects the states' recycling efforts. For
example, while citizens in New Mexico are interested in recycling,
the nearest markets for glass, plastics, and paper are in bordering
states and Mexico. Because of the high cost of shipping materials,
recycling programs are cost-effective only in communities with a high
population density.
According to state and local officials and industry experts,
recycling efforts need to be coordinated and initiated at the
national level if significant increases in recycling rates are to be
achieved. A 1991 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that
states' attempts to develop markets have only a slight effect on
demand for recovered material because such material is exchanged in
markets extending beyond individual state boundaries.\12
Similarly, minimum content standards, if established on a
state-by-state basis, would have only a slight effect because markets
extend across state lines.
Nationally, efforts to recycle other types of solid waste need to be
initiated if recycling rates are to increase. About 7 percent of all
municipal solid waste was recovered for recycling and composting in
1960. This proportion increased to 22 percent in 1993. EPA
projected in 1994 that recycling rates of between 25 and 35 percent
may be achievable in 2000. To achieve the recycling rates that EPA
projects, however, 50 percent or more of some wastes may have to be
recovered. Some types of waste are easier to recycle than others.
For example, composting of yard trimmings could be substantially
increased. While food, yard, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes
accounted for nearly 24 percent of the total municipal solid waste
generated in 1993, as table 3.1 shows, only 13.1 percent of these
wastes were recovered for recycling or composting.
Table 3.1
Recycling Rates for Municipal Solid
Waste, 1993
generated
(millions of recycled (millions recy
Material tons) of tons) cled
---------------- ---------------- ------------------ ----
Paper and 77.8 26.5 34.0
paperboard
Glass 13.7 3.0 22.0
Metals 17.1 5.2 30.4
Plastics 19.3 0.7 3.5
Rubber and 6.2 0.4 5.9
leather
Textiles 6.1 0.7 11.7
Wood 13.7 1.3 9.6
Other\ 3.3 0.7 22.1
Food, yard, 49.7 6.5 13.1
misc.
Total
206.9 45.0 21.7
(ave
rage
)
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Based on EPA's data.
To achieve higher recycling rates, industry would need to continue to
invest in plant and equipment to use recovered materials, most
citizens would need access to recycling programs, and markets for
recycled materials would have to grow.
--------------------
\12 Federal Options for Reducing Waste Disposal, Congressional Budget
Office (Washington, D.C., Oct. 1991).
EPA HAS ENCOURAGED BUT NOT
LED SOURCE REDUCTION EFFORTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2
EPA has no specific congressional mandate to take the lead in
developing a program to reduce the volume of solid waste generated,
and it has not achieved significant advances in source reduction for
solid waste. EPA has largely focused on encouraging states and
industry to act; it has not set current goals for reducing the volume
and toxicity of packaging or packaging standards.
According to the Chief of EPA's Waste Reduction and Management
Branch, Source Reduction Section, because the agency has no specific
legislative authority to take a more proactive approach, it relies on
voluntary participation from business, federal agencies, state and
local governments, and the public at large. To foster source
reduction among business, EPA launched a Waste Wise Program that
promotes waste prevention and recycling in industry. About 300
companies have agreed to participate in the program. Under the
program, EPA suggests approaches, such as reusing products and
supplies, reducing the amount of packaging, and using and maintaining
durable equipment and supplies. EPA has also published two documents
to help businesses design and implement waste reduction programs in
their facilities.
To foster source reduction in state and local governments, EPA is
participating in a conference sponsored by the National Recycling
Coalition promoting procurement practices among state and local
agencies that emphasize purchasing durable products; EPA is supplying
a guide for setting up a program for exchanging solid waste materials
at the state and/or local level. In addition, EPA sponsors regional
meetings that promote meetings among solid waste professionals and
unit pricing for residential trash collection whereby, for example,
households are charged according to the number of bags of trash
collected. It has also awarded a grant to develop educational
materials on composting for local governments.
To foster source reduction among the public, EPA has awarded grants
to (1) the Smithsonian Institution to create a traveling exhibit on
source reduction, (2) the League of Women Voters to train community
volunteers to conduct workshops on source reduction, and (3) the
National Audubon Society to develop a public service announcement on
source reduction.
While the Pollution Prevention Act requires EPA to develop and
implement a strategy to promote pollution prevention through such
means as source reduction and recycling, EPA has not yet developed
this strategy. A strategy for municipal solid waste had already been
issued in EPA's 1989 Agenda for Action, before the act's passage.
Furthermore, while the act also directs that strategies are to
identify, where appropriate, measurable goals and the tasks necessary
to achieve the goals, EPA's agenda does not. Rather, the agenda sets
a national goal of 25 percent for source reduction and recycling by
1992. However, the agenda includes no goals beyond 1992 and no
specific tasks to meet its goals. The Chief of EPA's Source
Reduction Branch said that data are not available on the amount of
solid waste that has been reduced through source reduction, largely
because source reduction is very difficult to measure and is not
highly visible. However, EPA has contracted with a private firm to
develop a process to measure the nation's progress in reducing the
amount of solid waste generated. We concur that source reduction is
difficult to measure and that EPA will need measurable goals before
it develops a source reduction strategy as called for in the
Pollution Prevention Act.
FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE
RECYCLING AND DEVELOP
MARKETS HAVE BEEN LIMITED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.3
EPA also does not believe it is responsible for taking the lead in
establishing recycling goals, encouraging recycling, or developing
markets for recycled materials. However, RCRA did assign limited
responsibilities to EPA for encouraging the use of recycled materials
through federal purchasing power by having EPA (1) designate which
products containing recovered material should be purchased by federal
agencies and (2) develop guidelines for such purchases. Lacking a
federal mandate, EPA views recycling as primarily a state
responsibility and supports the states' recycling efforts through
grants and other assistance. Furthermore, RCRA assigns the
Department of Commerce, not EPA, several responsibilities to
encourage the development of such markets.
EPA has published guidelines for federal purchases of products
containing recovered material. The agency has established minimum
standards for the amount of recycled material in five classes of
products: paper and paper products, lubricating oils, retread tires,
building insulation products, and cement and concrete containing
incinerator fly ash. However, in our May 1993 report on EPA's
progress in implementing the program,\13 we reported that EPA took 17
years to develop these standards because of the lengthy process it
uses to develop standards and the low priority accorded the program.
We recommended that EPA complete a strategy for developing
procurement guidelines that includes a streamlined process for
developing guidelines. In April 1994, EPA proposed standards for
another 21 items.
EPA also provides financial or technical assistance for recycling
efforts. For example, the Recycling Advisory Council, composed of
representatives of environmental and public interest groups, the
recycling industry, business, and the public sector, is partially
funded by an EPA grant. The council was established to build
consensus on public policies and private initiatives to increase
recycling and to make recommendations on the basis of its findings.
EPA also provided (1) technical assistance to the Federal Trade
Commission to develop labeling guidelines in 1992 and (2) financial
and technical assistance to the Environmental Defense Fund to support
a recycling campaign.
The Department of Commerce, which is responsible under RCRA for
stimulating the development of markets for recycled material, has
done little since 1982. RCRA requires Commerce to, among other
things, (1) provide accurate specifications for recovered materials,
(2) stimulate the development of markets for these materials, (3)
promote proven methods for recovering resources, and (4) provide a
forum for exchanging technical and economic data on resource recovery
facilities. As we reported in May 1993,\14 because of competing
priorities Commerce has done little to stimulate market development.
In 1982, Commerce terminated the limited work it had conducted
because it believed that it had carried out its responsibilities
under RCRA. However, since 1982, the lack of markets for recycled
material has created an oversupply of recyclable material.
In our report, we recommended that Commerce establish a program to
support the recycling industry and stimulate the demand for recycled
materials. While Commerce did not implement our recommendation, it
did designate a senior official to help industries develop expertise
in domestic environmental technologies for preventing pollution,
minimizing waste, and recycling and improve their ability to compete
internationally in these areas. H.R. 1821, which was introduced but
not passed in the 103rd Congress, would have required Commerce to
study markets for recovered materials from discarded consumer waste
and establish an office of recycling research and information. The
office would make grants for studies and scientific research on
recycling materials from discarded consumer waste and conduct a
public outreach program.
To assist in the development of markets for recycled materials, the
Recycling Advisory Council, partially funded with an EPA grant, is
addressing such topics as market development initiatives and economic
incentives to promote recycling. According to the Recycling Advisory
Council's Program Coordinator, the group has studied policy options
for increasing the demand for recovered materials, and the council's
5-year strategic plan incorporates several recommendations and policy
options for the council to carry out its vision for recycling in the
year 2000.
--------------------
\13 \ Solid Waste: Federal Program to Buy Products With Recovered
Materials Proceeds Slowly (GAO/RCED-93-58, May 17, 1993).
\14 GAO/RCED-93-58.
STATES ARE CONCERNED THAT WASTE
SHIPPED FROM OTHER STATES AND
COUNTRIES COULD AFFECT THEIR
DISPOSAL CAPACITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3
Currently, 47 states ship waste to and receive waste from other
states and countries, and these shipments are increasing. Some
states are concerned that waste shipped in from other states could
use up their disposal capacity if such shipments are not controlled.
INTERSTATE WASTE SHIPMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.1
According to the National Solid Wastes Management Association,
interstate movement of solid waste increased by 54 percent between
1990 and 1992. Solid waste is routinely shipped between 47 states;
shipments between neighboring states account for 66 percent of the
total interstate movement of waste. According to the report, these
figures may be underestimated because 10 states--Colorado, Georgia,
Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South
Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming--reported that although they
believe waste is being exchanged between neighboring states, they
lack quantifiable data. According to the National Solid Wastes
Management Association, about 19 million tons of municipal waste, or
about 9 percent of the total 200.6 million tons generated, was moved
in interstate commerce during 1992. Data are not available on what
percentage of the remaining 13 billion tons of nonhazardous solid
waste is shipped.
These movements represent partnerships between and among states,
municipalities, and commercial waste managers. Waste can be
transported out of state for processing or disposal if (1) the
nearest processing center or landfill is in another state, (2) the
in-state capacity is insufficient, (3) the costs of managing and
disposing of waste within the state exceed the costs of disposing of
waste in another state, or (4) it is not feasible to ensure local
capacity because of either political or environmental opposition.
Some localities use interstate shipments as a solution to their local
problems with waste disposal. For example, commercial haulers of
business waste in New York City export about 3 million tons annually
for disposal because the publicly owned landfill raised its rates for
commercial waste to the point that it was less expensive to transport
and dispose of waste out of state. New York City officials raised
the commercial rates in an effort to conserve the disposal space for
residential waste in their only remaining landfill.
Interstate shipments have also been attributed to new and stricter
federal criteria for landfills; increasing state regulation; economic
and environmental factors, such as the increasing privatization of
municipal solid waste management; and trends towards building larger
and better but fewer landfills for municipal solid waste. Also, as a
result of stricter federal and state regulations, the cost of
constructing small locally owned and operated solid waste management
facilities has exceeded the resources of many governmental bodies.
Thus, intrastate and interstate transport of waste becomes a viable
option for containing costs because wastes can be combined at a
single location to achieve economies of scale.
According to the report by the National Solid Wastes Management
Association, in 1992 only three states--Hawaii, Montana and South
Carolina--reported that they did not ship waste to other states,
while five states--Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, and New
Jersey--reported that they did not receive waste from other states.
All other states both export and import waste. While some state
officials told us that their state is becoming a dumping ground for
other states, these states also export waste. For example, Texas
imports from Arkansas, Louisiana, and New Mexico and exports to these
same three states plus Oklahoma. Pennsylvania imports from 8 states
and the District of Columbia, while exporting to 10 states. Ohio
imports from 20 states and exports to 6 states. While some states
ship relatively small amounts of waste, others are major exporters.
For example, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey
exported more than 1 million tons of municipal solid waste in 1992.
In contrast, Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico, and Washington State
exported between 0.1 and 1 million tons in 1992.
INTERNATIONAL WASTE
SHIPMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.2
According to data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Canada,
Mexico, Japan, Italy, Germany, Finland, Sweden, and Austria shipped
waste into the United States in 1992. However, these data do not
specify whether these exports are destined for disposal or recycling.
This waste includes unsorted paper or paperboard, glass, waste
plastic, and rubber. In total, about 322,000 tons are received.
(App. III provides detailed information on the volume of waste the
United States receives.)
The majority of waste shipped to the United States comes from
bordering countries, particularly Canada. Tipping fees\15 in Canada
average about $3,000 per truckload\16 at a landfill, while such fees
in the United States average about $600. Between 1984 and 1992,
tipping fees for commercial waste in metropolitan Toronto increased
from $18 to $150 per ton to finance local recycling efforts. As a
result, landfills in Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and Michigan
attracted Canadian solid waste because their fees, plus
transportation costs, ranged between $56 to $140 per ton. (App. IV
compares the costs of disposing of waste in Ontario landfills with
the cost of transporting and disposing of waste in the United
States.) Table 3.2 shows the amount of waste that five states
received from Canada in 1993 through Buffalo, New York.
Table 3.2
Destination of Solid Waste Imported into
the United States from Canada Through
Buffalo, N.Y., 1993
of
tota
l
ship
ped\
Destination state of waste a
-------------------------- -------------------------- ----
Pennsylvania 265,824 56.8
New York 142,740 30.5
Ohio 58,500 12.5
Michigan 936 0.2
New Jersey <468 <0.1
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.
Source: U.S. Customs Service, Buffalo District.
Waste imported through Buffalo from Canada was not being shipped for
recycling and reuse but was destined for disposal facilities.
Along the U.S.-Mexican border, American companies operating in Mexico
are required, under a bilateral agreement between the two countries,
to return any waste the Mexican government defines as hazardous,
which includes more wastes than EPA defines as hazardous. For
example, Mexico considers used lubricants as hazardous, while EPA
does not. About 6,000 tons of waste that Mexico considered hazardous
were received from Mexico in 1993. According to an EPA Region VI
official, this waste includes waste that EPA defines as nonhazardous
solid waste. About 12 percent of this waste is recycled in the
United States. Data maintained by EPA to track imported waste shows
that Texas and California are the final destinations for the vast
majority of this waste. Other states that receive waste from Mexico
include Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, and
Oklahoma.
The United States also exports solid waste to other countries,
including materials to be recycled. For example, North Dakota
exports white goods (such as household appliances), crushed autos,
and scrap metals to Canada; Massachusetts exports wood waste to
Canada. However, national data are lacking on solid waste exported
from the United States.
--------------------
\15 A "tipping" fee is the amount paid by the hauler per ton to
dispose of waste at a waste processing facility.
\16 On average, a truckload contains 20 tons of waste/garbage.
CONCERNS ABOUT OUT-OF-STATE
WASTE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.3
Some state authorities do not want to continue receiving waste from
other states and/or countries because of concerns about the impact on
local disposal capacity, among other things. Some state officials
said that imported waste affects a state's ability to plan for
sufficient disposal capacity for in-state waste and discourages
citizens from recycling because their efforts only serve to make room
for waste from other states. Oregon officials said that although the
state's disposal capacity is expected to be sufficient for 100 years,
the state should be compensated through surcharges placed on imported
waste. This surcharge should be based on the costs incurred for (1)
managing solid waste, (2) issuing new and renewal permits for solid
waste disposal sites, and (3) funding environmental monitoring,
groundwater monitoring, and waste facility closure and post-closure
activities. Some state officials were concerned that imported waste
might present additional risks. For example, officials in Ohio were
concerned that imported waste destined for nonhazardous landfills
would contain hazardous materials and that this waste could go
undetected if the shipments are baled or shredded.
SOME SEE THE NEED FOR A FEDERAL
ROLE TO ENSURE SUFFICIENT
DISPOSAL CAPACITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4
Some states, because of concerns that out-of-state waste threatens
their disposal capacity, have passed laws aimed at controlling such
shipments. However, the Supreme Court has held that these statutes
violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Federal courts have
also struck down state laws aimed at ensuring sufficient revenues for
their publicly financed waste facilities. As a result, some state
and local governments believe that the federal government should
authorize them to act to protect their disposal capacity. Several
legislative proposals to provide the states with more control over
waste have been introduced in the Congress.
COURTS HAVE STRUCK DOWN
STATES' LAWS AND FEES ON
IMPORTED WASTE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.1
At least 41 states have enacted legislation or issued executive
orders to control interstate shipments of solid waste, either by
banning, setting limits on, or imposing higher fees on waste imports.
The purpose of these laws is to conserve capacity at in-state private
or commercial landfills. However, since the Congress has not
authorized states to enact such measures, the U.S. Supreme Court has
struck down several of these statutes, holding that they violate the
Commerce Clause. Because the Congress has not provided the states
with authority to limit interstate shipments of waste, some state and
industry officials state that federal action is needed to provide
them with this authority.
In one instance, in City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey,\17 the state
enacted legislation that banned importing most solid waste that
originated outside the state. New Jersey argued that the ban was
intended to preserve existing landfill space in order to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of the state's citizens. The Court held
that a state may not discriminate against waste coming from outside
the state based solely on its origin. The Court stated that the law
was discriminatory because it "imposes on out-of-state commercial
interests the full burden of conserving the state's remaining
landfill space."\18 The Court held that the New Jersey statute was
unconstitutional.
States' attempts to impose a differential fee structure on
out-of-state waste also have been struck down. On April 4, 1994, in
Oregon Waste Systems v. Department of Environmental Quality,\19 the
U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Oregon statute that imposed a
surcharge on the disposal of solid waste from outside the state,
ruling that the charge violated the Commerce Clause. The Court
stated that "it is well established . . . that a law is
discriminatory if it taxes a transaction or incident more heavily
when it crosses state lines than when it occurs entirely within the
state."\20
States also may not curtail the movement of solid waste through the
subdivisions of a state. A Michigan statute generally prohibited
private landfill operators within a county from accepting solid waste
originating outside the county where the facility is located.
Michigan had enacted the statute to help counties plan for the
disposal of solid waste. In Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources,\\21 Michigan claimed that
the statute was constitutional because it treated waste from other
Michigan counties the same as waste from other states. The Supreme
Court disagreed and held the statute unconstitutional. The Court
stated that Michigan could attain its planning objective without
discriminating by limiting the amount of waste a landfill may accept
each year regardless of the source of the waste.
State and local authorities can generally ban, restrict, or impose
surcharges on out-of-state waste received at publicly owned
facilities without being in conflict with the Commerce Clause. In
these cases, state and local authorities are acting as market
participants rather than as regulators. Publicly owned facilities
currently account for about 86 percent of the land disposal
facilities operating. However, the commercial industry owns about 50
percent of the available landfill capacity. Data are not available
on the types of waste being shipped between states and whether these
shipments are destined for private, commercial, or publicly owned
facilities.
--------------------
\17 437 U.S. 617 (1978).
\18 437 U.S. at 628.
\19 114 S. Ct. 1345 (1994).
\20 114 S. Ct. at 1350.
\21 112 S. Ct. 2019 (1992).
COURTS HAVE OVERTURNED LAWS
AIMED AT CONTROLLING WASTE
FLOW AND RESULTING REVENUES
AT PUBLIC FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.2
Local governments are enacting laws to ensure a sufficient amount of
waste, and thus sufficient revenues, to pay the costs associated with
financing and/or operating publicly arranged services. These laws
(1) direct that all municipal waste be disposed of at specific sites
for specific disposal fees, thus prohibiting the shipment of waste to
another facility, or (2) establish a private party as the exclusive
provider of waste management services. Thus far, the courts have
struck down several of these laws on the grounds that they also
violate the Commerce Clause.
It is estimated that ordinances to control the flow of waste to
specific companies or facilities, commonly referred to as flow
control laws, exist in about 41 states. However, data are not
available on the amount of waste subject to flow control laws or the
number of publicly financed facilities or services that rely on flow
control to repay public debt or finance the service. According to
state and industry officials, flow control provides the financial
assurance that investor communities and bond rating agencies require
by guaranteeing, over the life of a waste management facility,
contracts for a specified amount of solid waste and/or recyclable
materials, for which the facility will receive a specific revenue.
Most local governments have "put or pay" contracts with solid waste
management facilities: If a specified amount of solid waste and/or
recyclable material is not delivered, the local government must pay
the shortfall.
Because some state and local flow control ordinances have been held
by federal courts to violate the Commerce Clause, several state and
industry officials believe that federal action is needed to provide
states and localities with the authority to control the flow of
waste. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has more recently ruled
against a local flow control ordinance. In Minnesota, counties that
had built a new composting facility required all compostable solid
waste generated in those counties to be delivered to the new
facility. The county ordinances were intended to ensure an adequate
supply of waste to the facility and thus finance the debt incurred in
building the new facility. Previously, waste had been disposed in an
Iowa landfill. In Waste Systems Corp. v. County of Martin,\22 the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the county
ordinances violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against
companies that dispose of waste outside of Minnesota. More recently,
the Supreme Court struck down, on the grounds that it violated the
Commerce Clause, a local flow control ordinance.\23 An ordinance in
Clarkstown, New York, required all nonrecyclable solid waste
generated within the town be processed at a designated facility
before being shipped elsewhere for disposal. The town had argued
that the ordinance did not affect interstate commerce because, after
treatment, the waste still had to be shipped out of town because
there is no local landfill.
--------------------
\22 985 F.2d 1381 (8th Cir. 1993).
\23 C & A Carbone Inc. v. Clarkstown, 114 S. Ct. 1677 (1994).
SEVERAL BILLS INTRODUCED IN
THE CONGRESS WOULD PROVIDE
STATES WITH CONTROL OVER
WASTE SHIPMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.3
In response to the states' desires to see federal action that would
provide them with authority to control interstate shipments and the
flow of intrastate waste, several bills that would allow states to
limit or restrict waste received from out of state and to impose
controls over intrastate shipments have been considered, but not
passed, by the Congress. The Congress has also directed EPA to
conduct a study on flow control.
From 1991 through 1994, more than 30 bills were introduced in either
the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives that would authorize
the states to impose restrictions on out-of-state waste; however,
none of these bills were enacted. The bills varied considerably in
(1) who was authorized to restrict waste and under what conditions,
(2) whether higher fees could be imposed on out-of-state waste, (3)
what types of waste could be restricted, and (4) whether exemptions
from restrictions could be obtained.\24 Some of these bills allowed
the states to place a surcharge, or a differential fee, on such
waste. Several of the bills specified that restrictions can only be
placed on municipal waste; others imposed restrictions more
generically on all solid waste. Three bills also allowed exemptions
from the restrictions; for example, landfills that accepted
out-of-state waste in 1991 and that complied with state design and
operation laws would not be subject to restrictions.
Several bills have also been introduced that would provide state or
local governments with control over shipments of waste within the
state or locality. One bill specifically exempts flow control
contracts entered into before January 1994, but requires state and
local governments to have recycling programs in place before entering
into new contracts after that date. Another bill allows communities
to continue to adopt flow control arrangements; however, facilities
would have to compete against each other to qualify for entering into
a flow control arrangement.
--------------------
\24 For example, of the bills introduced in the 103rd Congress, H.R.
963 would have authorized local governments to approve the receipt of
out-of-state waste at landfills or incinerators unless the governor
determined that this waste was using capacity needed by the local
jurisdiction. S. 439, H.R. 1076, and H.R. 2848 would have
authorized governors to limit the disposal of municipal solid waste
from outside of the state. H.R. 1052 and S. 822 would have allowed
the states to restrict such waste, but only if they had EPA-approved
solid waste management plans.
IMPACT OF INTRASTATE AND
INTERSTATE REGULATION IS
UNCLEAR
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.4
While state officials and industry experts told us that congressional
intervention is needed to resolve the issue of interstate and
intrastate waste shipments, there is insufficient information to
determine the benefits or potential negative impacts of such action
on the economics of waste management and waste management options,
such as ownership. While a congressional conference committee report
directed that EPA study issues associated with flow control, the
Congress has not directed a study on issues associated with controls
over interstate waste shipments.
Allowing state and local governments to restrict the waste received
at private and commercial facilities could have some benefits,
including (1) an improved ability to plan and project capacity needs
and (2) an extended life for existing landfills, thereby delaying the
need to build new capacity in specific locations. According to state
officials and industry experts, bans or limits would also allow the
state to address citizens' concerns that
the state is being used as a dumping ground for other states less
willing to make decisions about solid waste management,
the imported waste may contain hidden environmental and health
hazards,
the imported waste adversely affects local recycling efforts by
discouraging some citizens from recycling because they believe their
local capacity will be used for out-of-state waste, and
increased traffic will result in additional costs for maintaining
publicly financed roads.
Likewise, allowing state and local governments to control the flow of
waste to certain facilities could benefit those communities that have
made major financial commitments in waste management operations,
either through "put or pay" contracts or through construction funded
by public debt, by providing those communities with more certain
financing for these efforts.
However, allowing state and local authorities to limit or restrict
waste received at private or commercial facilities, or to control
where waste must be taken, also has potential negative consequences.
First, competition could be impeded, opening the way for potential
inefficiencies that drive up the costs to the public. Second, the
number of options that state and local authorities, households,
commercial firms, and manufacturers have for managing their solid
waste could decrease if the waste cannot be shipped across state
lines, thus possibly raising the cost to those who pay for the
services. Third, communities with insufficient capacity could be
required to make significant outlays as they attempt to finance and
construct local waste management capacity because they would no
longer be able to use out-of-state facilities. Fourth, land disposal
facilities that may not comply with EPA's revised criteria on
landfills could continue to be used because options to ship waste out
of their jurisdictions would have been precluded. Finally,
communities that could be precluded from shipping waste out of their
jurisdictions might be required to construct new facilities locally,
where land and water resources could more easily be compromised, thus
posing a potential threat to human health and the environment.
The conference committee report accompanying EPA's fiscal year 1993
appropriating legislation directed EPA to provide the Congress with a
review of flow control laws and an analysis of their effect on health
and environmental protection, state and local management capacity,
and source reduction, reuse, and recycling. EPA estimates that its
study will be provided to the Congress by early 1995. According to
EPA solid waste officials, the study will compare states that have
flow control with those that do not to determine the impact that flow
control has on planning, interstate shipments of solid waste, and
recycling. However, according to one official, EPA does not have a
position on flow control. It is not known if EPA's study will
provide sufficient information to determine whether legislative
action to address flow control is necessary.
Federal legislation that was proposed but not acted upon during the
103rd Congress on the interstate shipment of waste addressed a number
of issues, but that Congress did not direct EPA to conduct a study,
similar to the one currently being conducted on flow control, to
review state laws affecting interstate waste shipments and the impact
these laws have on waste management issues. While we attempted to
obtain data useful to the Congress to address interstate shipments of
solid waste, we were unable to identify sources for that data. This
lack of data makes it difficult to determine the impact of
legislative action that places restrictions on interstate waste
shipments.
STATES' METHODS FOR MANAGING SOLID
WASTE
=========================================================== Appendix I
sent
inci to a
recy nera land
State cled ted fill
-------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ---- ----
Alabama 12 8 80
Alaska 6 15 79
Arizona 7 0 93
Arkansas 10 5 85
California 11 2 87
Colorado 26 1 73
Connecticut 19 57 24
Delaware 16 19 65
Florida 27 23 49
Georgia 12 3 85
Hawaii 4 42 54
Idaho 10 0 90
Illinois 11 2 87
Indiana 8 17 75
Iowa 23 2 75
Kansas 5 0 95
Kentucky 15 0 85
Louisiana 10 0 90
Maine 30 37 33
Maryland 15 17 68
Massachusetts 30 47 23
Michigan 26 17 57
Minnesota 38 35 27
Mississippi 8 3 89
Missouri 13 0 87
Montana 5 2 93
Nebraska 10 0 90
Nevada 10 0 90
New Hampshire 10 26 64
New Jersey 34 21 45
New Mexico 6 0 94
New York 21 17 62
North Carolina 4 1 95
North Dakota 17 0 83
Ohio 19 6 75
Oklahoma 10 8 82
Oregon 23 6 71
Pennsylvania 11 30 59
Rhode Island 15 0 85
South Carolina 10 5 85
South Dakota 10 0 90
Tennessee 10 8 82
Texas 11 1 88
Utah 13 7 80
Vermont 25 3 72
Virginia 24 18 58
Washington 33 2 65
West Virginia 10 0 90
Wisconsin 24 4 72
Wyoming 4 0 96
Average 17 11 72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: States include different waste types in their calculations.
For example, at least 12 states include some industrial waste in
their figures.
Source: Biocycle, May 1993.
EXPERTS CONSULTED BY GAO
========================================================== Appendix II
Carole J. Ansheles
Manager, Solid Waste Program
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association
South Portland, Maine
Allen Hershkowitz, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Natural Resources Defense Council
New York, New York
Reid Lifset
Associate Director, Program on Solid Waste Policy
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C.
Edgar Miller
Director, Policy and Programs
National Recycling Coalition
Washington, D.C.
Michael Ohlsen
Staff Engineer
Solid Waste Association of North America
Silver Spring, Maryland
Edward W. Repa, Ph.D.
Director, Technical and Research Programs
National Solid Wastes Management Association
Washington, D.C.
Deanna Ruffer
Project Director
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Norcross, Georgia
Diane Shea
Associate Legislative Director
National Association of Counties
Washington, D.C.
Jan Trettner
Director of Energy Committee
Director of Environment Committee
National Conference of State Legislatures
Washington, D.C.
(additional contributions made by Michael Bird, Frank
Kreith, and Deb Starkey)
Marcia Williams
President
Williams and Vanino, Inc.
Los Angeles, California
(for Browning-Ferris Industries, Houston, Texas)
VOLUME OF WASTE MATERIAL IMPORTED
INTO THE UNITED STATES
========================================================= Appendix III
Table III.1 shows the amounts of waste that various countries shipped
to the United States during 1992. This waste includes generally
unsorted paper or paperboard, glass cullet or scrap of glass or waste
plastic or rubber.
Table III.1
Volume of Waste Imported into the United
States by Country of Origin, 1992 (Tons)
Country
----------------------- ---- ----------------------- ====
Belgium 4 17 8,24
0
Canada 111, 23,231 40,6
537 08
China 2 30 3,35
7
France 125 0 10,2
17
Germany 39 0 22,9
12
Italy 40 4 16,4
78
Japan 31 93 2,24
2
Mexico 22,3 4,213 14,5
66 49
United Kingdom 1,04 0 8,53
0 4
All others 582 1 31,7
51
Total 135, 27,589 158,
766 888
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, National Trade Data Bank.
COMPARATIVE COSTS OF DISPOSING OF
WASTE IN ONTARIO VERSUS THE UNITED
STATES
========================================================== Appendix IV
Table IV.1 compares the cost of disposing of waste in local landfills
in Ontario with the cost, including transportation, of shipping waste
from these locales to the closest landfills in the United States with
the most competitive tipping fee.\25
Table IV.1
Comparison of Commercial Waste Tipping
Fees in Ontario With Disposal Costs in
the United States, 1992
Disposal
cost per
Tipping ton,
fee Closest U.S. including
Ontario location per ton location hauling
-------------------- ---------- ------------ ------------
Durham (Brock West) $152 New York $85
Hamilton-Wentworth 180 Pennsylvania 108
Region of Peel 150 Michigan 76
York Region 152 Ohio 72
Essex County 45-77 Michigan 56
Waterloo Region 65 Michigan 56
Peterbourgh 150 New York 140
Peterbourgh 150 Michigan 76
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy.
--------------------
\25 A "tipping" fee is the amount a hauler pays per ton to dispose of
waste at a waste management facility.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES
AREA
Jeffrey L. Knott, Evaluator
Marcia B. McWreath, Regional Management Representative
Patricia Sari-Spear, Evaluator-in-Charge
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Doreen Stolzenberg Feldman, Assistant General Counsel