United States Waste Management

8/7/2019 United States Waste Management

1/39

United States WasteManagementUrban Planning 260

12/11/10Nicholas Jay Aulston


2/39

2


3/39

3

Table of Contents

The Other Kind of MSW ..................................... 4 A Dirty History of MSW Management ................... 4

Types of Waste ................................................. 6

The United States History of Waste Management ..... 8 Pre-RCRA of 1976 ............................................. 8

The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 ............... 1011

The Framework of the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act of 1976 ....................................... 12

How The Waste was Won (A Legislative History) .. 15

The Function of the RCRA ................................ 18

Post 1976 RCRA ( The Effect of RCRA) ............ 2021

A Clean Conclusion ......................................... 21

Bibliography ................................................... 23 Appendix A: Chronology of Waste ............................ 25Appendix B: Subtitles Descriptions for RCRA ............ 28Appendix C: Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 28Appendix D: Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996 .......................................................................... 36Appendix E: State Solid Waste Regulatory Agencies............................................................................. 3738

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field


4/39

4

The Other Kind of MSW

Today, every level of legal jurisdiction faces the same fundamental concern: how

to disposeof their waste products. This is not a new phenomenon. For centuries we have

faced this troublesome byproduct of advancement. Even though humans have a long

history of attempting to control how and where to dispose of their waste products, the

issue has continued to loom over our settlements. The failure of every early civilization to

solve this conundrum should be a lesson to us all today. These failures may provide the

correct context for todays solutions or at least provide an understandingthe severity of

what we face. The types of waste that are manufactured today are composed of more

hazardous materials than in the past, however we are going to focus on the waste that we

have in common with those ancient societies. This will provide the most complete

background when analyzing the waste management policies, or general lack of, that the

federal government of the United States (U.S.) enacted before 1976. The federal

government entered the waste management scene in 1965 through the passage of the

Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). This act set the foundation for future laws,

specifically the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). The

RCRAmade sure that there are more resources dedicated to the management of municipal

solid waste (MSW). The legislative history of the RCRA and its passage was just asinteresting as the changes in waste management that were legislated on the national level.

It is clear today that the RCRA was not the magic bullet to solve all of our MSW

problem. One might conclude that this lack of success reflects the fact that the federal

government is ill equipped to regulate away the MSW issue.

A Dirty History of MSW Management

The ability for an animal to control their waste products is paramount to their

survival. As humans have developed settlements, townships, cities, and nowmetropolises,we have had the constant need to manageour waste products in order to

avoid such negative consequences as disease and water pollution.However, humans have

yet to discover a new way of processing solid waste since the very beginning of

humanity. We have been limited to four basic means of dealing with trash:1. Dumping


5/39

5

(landfill)2. Burning (incineration)3. Recycling/Reuse and 4.Waste minimization

(compacting).

The Mayan Indians of Central America had garbage dumps, which occasionally

became over-bloated. During those occasions, the Mayans resorted to burning the excess

waste. 1Archeological studies have shown that Native Americans in Colorado generated

garbage as early as 6500 BC. Those Native Americans produced approximately 5.3

pounds of waste daily, compared to the average United States citizen, who in 2008

produced 4.5 pounds. 2The issue of MSW management has by no means beenrestrictedto

North America. Historians have determined that the Athenians of Greece used municipal

dumps as early as 500 BC. Remarkably, 4,000 years ago composting was a part of life in

China at the same time bronze scrap recovery systems were in place in Europe. Even

Biblical scripture mentions Sheol, which many consider to be a dump outside of Jerusalem.

These examples through out history have very little in common. MSW problems

cut through geography and government structure, economic prosperity. The

methodology of management was often limited to burying and burning, where the

resulting ash is buried in the ground, waste. These types of ancient disposal routines are

not often associated with brownfield sites, however, it has been discovered that Roman

Empire landfills developed over 2,000 years ago are still generating leachate. Based on

their study of Swiss landfills, Belevi and Baccini reported that they expected lead would

be leached from the landfilled wastes at concentrations above drinking water standards

for over 1,000 years .3

Predictably, pre-industrial societies had recycling and recovery programs that

encouraged conservation and reuse. Traditionally, recovered materials included leather,

feathers, and textiles. Timber was often salvaged and reused in construction and

shipbuilding. Materials, such as gold, weremelted down and re-cast numerous times.

Recycling even extended to include feeding vegetable wastes to livestock and using green

waste as fertilizer.Therefore, humans have been attempting to manage the waste product

1 Roberta Crowell Barbalace, The History of Waste: Do you want to be a Garbologist?2 United States Environmental Protection Agency 3 H. Belevi, and P. Baccini, Water and Element Fluxes from Sanitary Landfills (IN: Sanitary Landfilling: Process,Technology and Environmental Impact, Academic Press, San Diego, 1989) 391-397


6/39

6

created by their societies for centuries. Fortunately, the sheer volume of waste that had to

be oversaw in these manners before the industrial revolution was not as excessive as

today.

At the dawn of industrialization, a fundamental shift occurred in waste

management. City populations increased, space for waste disposal decreased, and

societies were forced to begin developing waste disposal systems. New technologies

were often viewed as the medium that a solution to the waste management problem

would be found through. In 1874 the City of Nottingham, England turned to a new

technology known as the destructor in order to manage garbage through a process of

systematic burning, later known as incineration. The first incinerator in the United States

was built only 11 years later in 1885 on Governors Island, New York. The United

States, even with its seemingly endless resources and their new technologies has takengreat strides, but has yet to resolve, the issue of municipal waste management. This is

not due to a lack of effort, but to the complexity of creating policies and government

regulations that curtail the problem. One component of the complexity of the matter is

the need to designing a MSW plan that sets definitions for the different types of waste.

Types of Waste

It is clear that throughout history,human activities havegenerated various types of

waste materials. It seems as though the fundamental reason humans discard items is

because they are considered useless and unwanted. George Tchobanoglous has argued

that:

waste management has become one of the most significant problems

of our time because [life in the United States] produces enormous

amounts of waste, and most people want to preserve their lifestyle,

while also protecting the environment and public health. Industry,

private citizens, and state legislatures are searching for means toreduce the growing amount of waste that homesand businesses [in

the United States] discard and to reuse it or dispose of it safely and

economically. 4

4 Frank Kreith and George Tchobanoglous eds. Handbook of solid waste management 2nd Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2002) 1.1


7/39

7

Even though governments have to separate sources of waste into different

categories, solid, liquid, gaseous, hazardous, radioactive, and medical, this paper focuses

on the solid waste goods. Even solid waste can be broken into two distinct

categories:hazardous and non-hazardous. For purposes of this paper, we are going to

concentrate on non-hazardous waste such as, paper, wood, metals, etc.

TheUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) separates out non-

hazardous MSW into two distinct categories. The first

category is

material which

includes,paper and paperboard, yard trimmings, food

scraps, plastics, metals, glass, wood, rubber, leather

and textiles, and other materials. The other categoryis defined by several major productcategories.

There are five product-based categories:containers

and packaging; nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers);

durable goods (e.g., appliances); food scraps; and

other materials.

The EPA reported that 250 million tons (500

billion pounds) of MSW was generated of the United

States in 2008. 5Paper and paperboard made up the

largest component of MSW generated, totaling31

percent (77.42 million tons).Yard trimmings were the

second-largest component with13.2 percent (32.9

million tons) and food scraps were the third largest at

12.7 percent (31.79 million tons). Smaller portions of

MSW include: glassat 5 percent (12.15 million tons);

metalsat 8.4 percent (20.85 million tons); plastics at 12 percent (30.05 million tons), and

wood at 6.6 percent (16.39 million tons) of the total MSW generated. Rubber, leather,

and textiles combined made up 7.9 percent (7.41 million tons) of MSW, while other

5 On average, the United States recycled and composted 1.5 pounds of our individual waste generation of 4.5 pounds per person per day. (Environmental Protection Agency)

Figure 1: Total MSW Generated (by Material) in2008. 250 million tons (before recycling)

Figure 2: Total MSW Generate(by Category) in 2008.

Consider that 250 million tons of MSWmaterials represents 100 pounds for every baby born in the U.S.


8/39

8

miscellaneous wastes made up approximately 3.3 percent (3.78 million tons) of the MSW

generated in 2008. 6

The breakdown, by weight, of product categoriesgenerated in MSW in 2008 is

shown in Figure 2.Containers and packaging comprised the largest portion of products

generated in MSW, at about 30.8 percent (76.76 million tons). Nondurable goods were

the second-largest fraction, at 23.5 percent (58.71 million tons). The third-largest

category of products is durable goods, which made up 18.3 percent (45.67 million tons)

and Other Waste contributed 1.5% of total MSW generation. 7

The United States History of Waste ManagementPre-RCR A of 1976

The U.S. has had a long record of waste creation andthe current volumeof MSW

production in the United States is staggering.However, the history of federal, state, and

local legislation to address the municipal waste disposal problem is not as lengthy.The

U.S. federal government dodged any responsibility for MSW management and

equivocatedlocal governments to take care of the responsibility. Theychose to ignore the

management of MSW for the first 200 years after its founding as a republic in 1776. It

took an overwhelming volume of MSW tocompelthe federal government to take action

and enact legislation that established parameters for the safe collection and disposal of

MSW. But what was the regulatory atmosphere before thesemeasureswere taken in1976?

Prior to 1976,MSW management had been viewed solely as a local function

performed by individual citizens, private contractors, and county and municipal

governments. Cities loosely applied general health and safety ordinances to waste

disposal sites in lieu of creating MSW management regulations.Even after 1944, when

the federal government enacted the Public Health Service Act (PHSA),a lack of interest

on the state level existed. The PHSA law stated: The Surgeon General shall

conductand promote the coordination of, research, investigations, experiments,

demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes,control, and prevention

ofdiseases , including water purification, sewage treatment, and pollution of

6 United State Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposalin the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008 (Washington D.C., November 2009) 7 Ibid


9/39

9

lakes and streams. 8It also granted the Surgeon General authority to make and

enforce such regulationsnecessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or

spread of communicable diseases. 9 The PHSA could clearly be applied to MSW

management. The PHSA empowered the federal and state governments to create

restrictions and regulations on MSW facilities due to the well-recognized fact that

these facilities were infested with harbingers of disease such as rats and flies.

Twenty years after the passage of PHSA, few states had used the regulation to

apply it to the requirements of MSW management. By 1964,few citieshad a MSW

program and only two states had developed statewide programs for MSW

management.Both federal and state governments showed negligible concern about

creating well-developedMSW regulations even though they had been given the

regulative tools implement better management systems. The federal government

simply evaded responsibility and once again permittedthe municipalities to dispose

ofMSW however they saw fit. Of course neglectingthis responsibility was just a

continuation of the status quo, as many communities already had MSW policies

under general welfare provisions of their state constitutions, statutes or municipal

charters. Finally, in 1965, Congress enacted the first federal legislation to specifically

address MSW management. The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (SWDA) notonly affirmed reliance on local action, but also encouraged greater activity at the

state level. 10The SWDA directed the Department of Health, Education and Welfare

to provide technical and financial assistance to states and local governmentsin the

planning and development of resource recovery and solid waste disposal programs .11 The SWDA expanded the federal role to include direct financial assistance to

state and local governments through grants. Under the SWDA states and local

governments have to adhere to two rules, first,theyhave to develop statewide MSW

8 42 U.S.C. 264(a) (1970). 9 Ibid 10 The Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) (P.L. 89-272, 79 Stat. 992) became law on October 20, 1965 during the presidencyof Lyndon Johnson. 11 Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 202(b)(2), 42U.S.C. 3251(b)(2)(1970).


10/39

10

management plans and second, they must designate a single state agency to

implement the waste management plan .12

Even with the new precedents set by the SWDA, most federal environmental

protection legislation between 1953 and 1973 was designed primarily to regulate air

and water pollution. These regulations eliminated two of the most popular methods

of solid waste disposal at the time: incineration and ocean dumping .13With the

adoption of new technologies along with the enactment of SWDA, the federal

government believed that they had discovered the perfect recipe for a management

system that would be able to address the MSW issue. However, several other factors

occurred at the same time that hindered the solution process. These problematic

factors included, migration to urban areas and a more concentrated population. By

1973, approximately 74 percent of the U.S. population lived in urban areas. The

volume of MSW increased along with the increase in urban population. The amount

of MSW produced continued to increase after the passage of SWDA in 1965.

Between 1953 and 1973 the amount of MSW generated doubled in volume. 14To put

this shift in MSW in simply economic terms, there was a decrease in supply and an

increase in demand. The number of acceptable disposal methods decreased, while

the demand for a place to put MSW increased. Thischange led to approximately 90

percent of this country's waste being disposed of on the land.15

By 1978, many citiesincluding Jersey City, New Jersey, Kansas City, Missouri, and Boston,

Massachusetts, had already exhausted the landfill capacity, with many more

projected. 16Along with these physical restraints on MSW management,the programs

that were ratified by the state and local governments continued to significantlyvary.

Similarly, to the differences in laws, the allocated budgetsfor MSW management

programs greatly differed and often did not satisfy the most basic demand.

The Solid Waste Disposal Ac t of 1965

12 Ibid 13 H.R. REP. No. 1319, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1976). 14 Solid Waste Management Task Force of the National League of Cities and The U.S. Conference of Mayors,Cities and The Nations Disposal Crisis 1 (1973) 15 D.G. Fenn, H.J. Hanley & T.V. Degeare, Use of the Water Balance Method for Predicting LeachateGeneration from Solid Waste Disposal Sites (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, SW-168, 1975) 16 Materials Relating to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, supra note 8, at 1


11/39

11

As time passed the SWDA was no longer viewed as sufficient enough. In

reaction to States slow pace to develop MSW management plans Congressadded an

amended to the SWDA that expand the federal interest in MSW management. The

intention of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 (RRA) wasto promote the

demonstration, construction, and application of [MSW] management and resource

recovery systems which preserve and enhance the quality of air, water, and land

resources;...[and] to provide for the promulgation of guidelines for [MSW]

collection, transport, separation, recovery, and disposal systems. 17Thus, even as the

states were developing MSW management plans under the stimulus of federal grants

provided by the SWDA, the federal government werebecoming more directly

involved in waste management with the promulgation of waste management

guidelines.

The RRA also authorized federal grants for the construction of

facilities,which would recover usable materials from waste. 18This was the first federal

recognition that recovering materials and energy from waste was a promising

method of reducing the volume of waste. Eight resource recovery projects were

funded under the RRA. These facilities demonstrated the possibilities of recovery of

energy from wastes, as well as the recovery of such materials as paper fiber, ferrous

metals, aluminum, and tin.19

The funding for these projects came from the auspices of the recently established federal agency EPA. In 1970 the EPAtook over the

functions of the Department of Health, Education and Welfares Bureau of Solid

Waste Management. 20 With funding coming directly from Congress the EPA was

able to dedicate substantially greater funds to MSW programs than similar programs

under the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

In the mid-1970s, following the enactment of the RRA, MSW management

staff positions and agency activity decrease. These cutbacks happened despite EPA

17 Pub. L. No. 91-512, 84 Stat. 1227 (1970) 101, 42 U.S.C. 3251(b). 18 Pub. L. No. 91-512, 84 Stat. 1227 (1970) 104(b), 42 U.S.C. 3254b 19 The resource recovery projects funded by EPA under the Resource Recovery Act, include projects at: City of Franklin, Ohio,$2,154,000; City of St. Louis, Mo., $2,580,000; City of Baltimore, Md., $7,000,000; City of Lowell, Mass., $2,154,000; County of San Diego, Calif., $4,242,000; State of Delaware, $9,000,000; District of Columbia, $750,000. These facts are based upon a letter from the EPA to Fred B. Rooney, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce (Aug. 5, 1976). For an entirelisting see Materials Relating to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, supra note 8. 20 Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970, 3 C.F.R. 1072 (1966-1970 Compilation), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app., at 609 (1970) and in 84 Stat.2086 (1970).


12/39

12

reports to Congress thatdemonstrated that the volume of MSW requiring disposal

continued to increase and little real progress toward protecting the environment from

waste pollution had been made. 21

In spite of new state MSW management plans, the RRA, federal activity in

demonstrating environmentally sound alternatives to present waste management

practice, and increased funding, human health and the environment were still being

threatened by waste pollution in 1976.

The Framework of the Resour c e Conservation and Re c overyAc t of 1976

The lack of a full commitment by the

federal government, prior to 1976,left the primary

responsibility for setting the regulatory atmosphere

for the management of MSW to states and local

jurisdictions. This reliance on local governments

to develop waste management codes left the

country without a coherent federal scheme from

which these local governments could obtain

guidance. Therefore, these jurisdictions ended up

creating a hodge-podge of regulations. The

differences in the state plans could have been a good illustration that states have the

ability to regulate their waste in a regionally and culturally appropriate approach

without the intervention of the federal government. However, the lack of one

uniform baseline, the SWDA was not stringent enough, of policy-produced

confusion within both the public and private sectors of the economy. Confusion over

federal policy was an underlying cause of the absence of planning and investment

necessary to solve the problems created by increasing quantities of waste.22

21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, first report to congress: resource recovery and waste reduction (1973); U.S. EPA, secondreport to congress: resource recovery and waste reduction (1974); U.S. EPA, third report to congress: resource recovery and wastereduction (1975). 22 Kovacs, William L., and Klucsik, The New Federal Role in Solid Waste Management: The Resource Conservationand Recovery Act of 1976 , (3 Colum. Journal of Environmental Law 205, 1976-1977)

Figure 3: Outline of RCRA


13/39

13

The federal government was

confronted with the undeniable fact that

the issue of MSW management could

soon become a disaster as the supply of

waste continued to increase and the

SWDA nor the RAAwere able to address

all the issues of the nations problems with

MSW management.All of the various

regulatory bodies from the SWDAremained along with the new ones from the RAA,

but none of them, singularly or as a whole, were able to overcome concerns about

landfill capacity.The public believed that the

open dumping of waste not only contaminated

underground and surface supply of drinking

water, but also, the air and the land. 23In

addition to the concerns about landfill

sanitation, safety, and capacity, other concerns

arose as the public was confronted the external

costs of the lack of universal regulation on

landfills. In order to confrontthis ever-pressingmatter, a triad of government (state and local), industry, and environmental groups

urged the federal government to establish a consistent policy under which these

MSWproblems could be solved. The congressional response was to create legislation

termed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the first

comprehensive federal policy for waste management.

The RCRA included various measures for standardizing the management of

waste at the national levelthat states and local governments had to adhere to. The

twelve major aspects of the act are below:

1. Section 239 Divided the management of waste into two main categories: (1)Subtitle CHazardous Waste, and (2) Subtitle DNon-Hazardous Waste. 24

2. Directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate criteria

23 Molly K. Macauley, Waste Not, Want Not: Economic and Legal Challenges of Regulation-Induced Changes inWaste Technology and Management (Resources for the Future Press Discussion Paper, June 2009) 4 24 Appendix C (Details of all Subtitles of the RCRA)

Ex ternal Costs of the La c k of Regulation on Landfills (Cont.)

Pesticide poising Children playing in discarded

manufacturing waste Asbestos dust in the ambient air, which

can cause chronic inflammation of thelungs, lesions of the chest cavity and lungcancer

Human contact with cancer and birthdefect causing hazardous wastes

Exposure to wastes containing compoundsthat increase the risk of incapacitatingillness or painful death


14/39

14

within a year for determining which facilities should be classified as sanitarylandfills and which should be classified as open dumps. 25

3. No preclusion on a state from adopting or enforcing requirements that are morestringent or more extensive than those required under RCRA or from operating apermit program or other system of prior approval and conditions with more

stringent requirements or a broader scope of coverage that are required under Sec.239.4. The state must have compliance monitoring authority and enforcement authority

and must provide for the intervention in civil enforcement proceedings.5. Section 240. Specifies guidelines for the thermal processing of solid wastes in

terms of defining the solid wastes accepted, the solid wastes excluded, siteselection and general design, water quality, air quality, vectors, aesthetics,residue, safety, general operations, and record keeping.

6. Section 243. Provides guidelines for the storage and collection of residential,commercial, and institutional solid waste. The guidelines cover storage, design,safety, collection equipment, collection frequency, and collection management.

7.

Section 244. Provides guidelines for solid waste management for beveragecontainers.8. Section 246. Provides guidelines for source separation and materials recovery.9. Section 247. Provides comprehensive procurement guidelines for products

containing recovered materials.10. Section 254. Specifies requirements for prior notice of citizen suits.11. Section 255. Contains identification of regions and agencies for solid waste

management.12. Section 256. Provides guidelines for development and implementation of state

solid waste regulations.The RCRA set specific types of protections for seven general environmental

areas: 1. Floodplains2. Endangered species3. Surface water 4. Groundwater 5. Air (facilities are prohibited from engaging in the open burning of solid

waste)6. Disease vectors (including sewage sludge and septic tank sludge)7. Safety (including the control of explosive gases, prevention of fires,

control of bird hazards, and control of public access)The parameters set by the RCRA were clearly done so to protect the natural

environment from massive detrimental impacts that come from MSW. The RCRAwas intended to protect human health, conserve energy and natural resources, reduce

the amount of waste generated, and ensure that wastes are managed in an

environmentally sound manner.Just like its predecessor, the SWDA, the RCRA

25 Frank Kreith and George Tchobanoglous eds. Handbook of solid waste management 2nd Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2002) 2.1


15/39

15

affirmed the reliance on state and local government action. States and local

governments now had to follow new regulations promulgated by the EPA in

implementing RCRA. Provisions in RCRA subtitle D required states receiving

federal financial assistance under the Act to prohibit the establishment of new open

dumps and to require all MSW to be either utilized for resource recovery or

disposed of in sanitary landfills that met EPA standards. 26

How The WastewasWon ( A Legislative History)

The new regulations of the RCRA came from the need for the U.S. to gain

control over MSW and not allow these waste products to pollute cities and harm

their residents. Even though the issue was pressing and a lack of action would lead

to detrimental effects the RCRA still had to go through a long legislative process to

become an enacted by congress and eventually signed into law by the president.

It is often necessary to understand the processof how a law is "made" in order

to fully appreciate what the law says and what it does. When it comes to the RCRA,

the procedural history is atypical. It didnot strictly follow the normal legislative

pattern of two bills introduced and amended, one in the House and one in the

Senate, with the differences resolved in a third, compromise bill created by a House-

Senate conference committee. 27Instead, the House and Senate differences pertaining

to the RCRA were resolved and a new law was created without a House-Senate

conference committee agreeing to a compromise bill.In the Senate, Jennings

Randolph of West Virginia (D), Senate Public Works Committee Chairman, on July

21, 1975 introduced S. 2150 H.R. 14496 , "[a] bill to amend the [SWDA] to authorize

State program and implementation grants, to provide incentives for the recovery of

resources from solid wastes, to control the disposal of hazardous wastes, and for

other purposes. Normally, without opposition to a bill by lobbying groups

Randolph, ascommittee chairman,would have substantial control over the bill as itproceeded through the Senate Public Works Committee and Congress. S. 2150 did

not face major opposition from lobbyist and Senator Randolph was able to keep

26 Molly K. Macauley Waste Not, Want Not: Economic and Legal Challenges of Regulation-Induced Changes in WasteTechnology and Management (Resources for the Future Press Discussion Paper, 2009) 3 27 William L Kovacs and Klucsik, The New Federal Role in Solid Waste Management: The Resource Conservation andRecovery Act of 1976 (3 Colum. Journal of Environmental Law 205, 1976-1977)


16/39

16

control of the bill. However, the Senate Public Works Committee struck all but the

enacting clause and the authorizing section of the bill. 28

In December 1975, the EPA, realizing that legislation was imminent took the

unusual approach of soliciting comments on a problem without explicit statutory

authority to resolve the problem. The EPA held a series of meetings to solicit public

comment to assist the agency in determining the types and character of any advice

and guidance which should be developed for the environmentally safe management

of waste. 29

Even though the meetings were supposed to be for the public it is important to

acknowledge who actually was allowed to attend these meetings. The public

hearings were attended by the struggling hazardous waste industry. They advocated

for federal intervention for obvious economic self-interests. The corporations

realized that it was better to have one uniform federal law instead of fifty different

state regulations. The lack of environmental advocacy groups was striking. Only one

national environmental organization, Environmental Action, along with a few local

environmental groups or chapters participated.

In early 1976, Senator Randolph again introduced solid waste legislation in

the form of S. 3622 . This bill was essentially the same one he had proposed the year

before, S. 2150 . However, S. 3622 30

included a proposal to ban throwaway beveragecontainers, the forerunner to a national deposit scheme. Consequently, more than

half the Senate's time devoted to this bill centered on the beverage container proposal

not on how to regulate MSW. 31

28 All that remained of the 46 page bill was the following: Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of theUnited States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Solid Waste Utilization Act of 1976. SEC. 2.Section 216 of the SWDA, as amended by the RAA of 1970 (84 Stat. 1230)

29 Pub. L. No. 91-512, 84 Stat. 1227 (1970). 30 "[a] bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize state program and implementation grants, to provide incentives for therecovery of resources from solid wastes and for resource conservation, to control the disposal of hazardous wastes, and for other

purposes." 31 The resource recovery projects funded by EPA pursuant to either sections 204 or 208 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended

by the Resource Recovery Act, include projects at: City of Franklin, Ohio, $2,154,000; City of St. Louis, Mo., $2,580,000; City of Baltimore, Md., $7,000,000; City of Lowell, Mass., $2,154,000; County of San Diego, Calif., $4,242,000; State of Delaware,$9,000,000; District of Columbia, $750,000 awarded, not yet obligated; Palmer Township, Pa., $350,000. These facts are based upon aletter from the EPA to Fred B. Rooney, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce (Aug. 5, 1976). For an entirelisting of resource recovery systems constructed or under construction, with or without federal dollars, and a description of each

process undertaken by the resource recovery facility, see materials relating to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, supra note 8.


17/39

17

Also in early 1976, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and

Commerce of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee introduced a

companion bill in the House of Representatives. Representative Fred Rooney from

Pennsylvania (D) introduced H.R. 14496 , a bill to provide technical and financial

assistance for the development of management plans and facilities for the recovery of

energy and other resources from discarded materials, and to regulate waste

management .32 At this point, the overriding concern of the Public Works

Committee was the effect on the population and the environment caused the disposal

of discarded waste. This waste, was by virtue of their composition or longevity, was

harmful, toxic or lethal. MSW that was not neutralized or otherwise properly

managed in their disposal presented a clear danger to the health and safety of the

population and to the quality of the environment. In addition, the Committee

believed that too much waste was disposed of in an environmentally unsound

manner,using interstate commerce without adequate monitoring of its movement or

disposition. Businessoperated under the assumption that the lack of management

will cause waste to be disposed of in the ground or in ponds, lagoons, or other bodies

of water in a manner will result in substantial and sometimes irreversible pollution of

the environment.

Similar to the Senate proposal S. 3150 ,there was little debate over the problemwith waste management component in the House. The debate in the House centered

on the appropriate role of the federal government in financially supporting MSW

resource-recovery facilities. The House Commerce Committee approved H.R. 14496

on September 9, 1976.The House Rules Committee scheduled the bill for floor action

on September 27 th, only four days before the end of the session. Due to the lack of

time remaining in the session, and, because the House had not yet voted on the

combined bill, there was no conference committee to hammer out the details

between the approved Senate version and the yet-to-be-voted-on House version.

Staff from the House Commerce and Senate Public Works Committees met over the

weekend before adjournment and produced a version combining the previously

32 Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970, 3 C.F.R. 1072 (1966-1970 Compilation), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app., at 609 (1970) and in 84 Stat.2086 (1970).


18/39

18

approved Senate bill S. 3150 and the reported House bill H.R. 14496 .33 After numerous

delays and less than an hour of consideration, the House resoundingly approved the

bill by a vote of 369 to 8 on September 27, 1976. Three days later, on September 30,

1976 the Senate voted on S. 3150 . However, because the substitute bill was delivered

only minutes before its consideration on the floor, only the Senators that had crafted

the bill had read it. On the last day of the session, the Housevoted 877 to 369 to

approve H.R. 14496 . Subsequently, President Gerald Ford signed the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act or Public Law 94-580 into law on October 21, 1976.

The procedural history of the RCRAillustrates some of the pressures at work

during the legislative progress of the Act. The Senate, the house, and the President

understood the importance of finding a establishing a federal act that would

supervise waste management. The law was essentially forced through the legislative

bodies and set a national standard for waste management, outlining the requirements

for states and local governments to follow in order to best dispose of their waste

materials.

TheFun c tion of the RCR A

A law is only as good as its components. The purpose of the RCRA was to

not only engage the waste management issues of the time, but also into the future.

The goals of the RCRA were to first, protect human health and the environment

from the potential hazards of waste disposal and then conserve energy and natural

resources, reduce the amount of waste generated, and ensure that waste is managed

in an environmentally sound manner.

The RCRA addresses the problems caused by poor state and MSW disposal.

The act achieves thisby offering federal financial and technical assistance to the states

and their political subdivisions as an incentive to develop and implement the

required stateMSWmanagement plan.The RCRA stresses planning and coordination between neighboring jurisdictions and among other environmental laws so that a

33 All that remained of the 46 page bill was the following: Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of theUnited States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Solid Waste Utilization Act of 1976. SEC. 2.Section 216 of the SWDA, as amended by the RRA of 1970 (84 Stat. 1230)


19/39

19

future crisis, such as cities running out of landfill or the poisoning of drinking water

supplies can be avoided. 34

The states MSW management plan has to include guidelines on the recovery

of materials from waste, resource conservation, and environmentally sound methods

for the disposal of MSW.Regarding MSW in this broader

context rather than just viewing what is thrown away as

waste to be disposed of, the RCRA recognized that waste

contains resources that can be utilized if they are put back

into the economy.

If a state does not develop or implement a MSW

plan for its municipal waste, it does not receive federal

financial or technical assistance. This financial benefit is

perhaps the only incentive for a state to adopt a MSW

management plan considering under the RCRA,the EPA

has no regulatory authority to require state implementation of any federal standards

relating to MSWmanagement. 35

The RCRA required all federal agencies to review existing procurement

regulations of recovered materials recovered from waste, andamend those

regulations to give preference to items containing recovered materials. The RCRAforces agencies to consider the origin of the products that are purchased. If all things

are considered equalamong price and performance, the product that is made from

recovered or recycled materials must be chosen over the product made from virgin

materials. The purpose of this provision in the act was threefold. First, reduce the

consumption of virgin materials, second to stimulate resource recovery,and third, to

create markets for materials recovered from the municipal solid waste plan.

Federal facilities not only have to adhere to these purchasing rules, but also

comply with any state and local adopted rules in MSW management plans that are

more stringent than the federal regulations outlined by RCRA. Therefore, federal

facilities may be subject to differing MSWplanning requirements in different areas of

34 William L Kovacs and Klucsik, The New Federal Role in Solid Waste Management: The ResourceConservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (3 Colum. Journal of Environmental Law 205, 1976-1977) 35 Ibid

Figure 4: The Evolution of Significant RCRALegislation


20/39

20

the U.S. The requirements on where disposal and processing facilities can be

located, how they must be constructed, and how they are to be operated were

increasingly stringent. Beyond placing restrictions on the actual facilities, state

MSW management legislation has also mandated that municipalities and counties

start planning for the proper disposal of their solid waste.

The RCRAhas been amended several times since 1976, and continues to

evolve as Congress alters it to reflect changing waste management needs. The act

was amended significantly on November 8, 1984, by the Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments (HSWA), which expanded the scope and requirements of RCRA.

HSWA was created largely in response to citizen concerns that existing methods of

hazardous waste disposal, particularly land disposal, were not safe. Congress also

revised the RCRA by passing the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992

(FFCA), 36 which strengthened the authority to enforce the RCRA at federal facilities.

In addition, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996

(LDPFA) 37amendment provided regulatory flexibility for the land disposal of certain

wastes.

With the majority of state waste reduction goals set by the early 1990s, the latter

part of the decade proved to be a time for states to evaluate the effectiveness of their

MSW management programs and to adjust their expectations based on an evaluation of their progress. For example, some states increased their recycling goals in light of the

success of their recycling programs .38

Post 1976 RCR A (The E ffe c t of RCR A )

The passage of legislation is just the first step in developing a statewide MSW

management strategy. The RCRA necessitates the capacity to monitor and adjust aschanges occur. As state agencies report their MSWmanagement statistics there is

36 Appendix D: Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 37 Appendix E: Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996 38 After New Jersey reached its goal of diverting 25 percent of its waste from disposal, the state revised its goal todivert 65 percent of the waste by the year 2000. (Frank Kreith and George Tchobanoglous eds. Handbook of solidwaste management 2nd Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2002) 3.1)


21/39


22/39

22

The landmark policies, ratified by the U.S. federal government, PHSA,

SWDA, and finally the RCRA were a path to national waste management.

However, the question remains, how much has truly changed in the U.S. since this

legislation? Well, it appears the answer is not a lot. The simple fact is these federal

regulations have done one thingset a minimum standard for waste management.

So, prior to 1976 states and local government were left to make a hodge-podge of

waste management plans. After 1976 states and local governments have created a

hodge-podge of waste

management plans with a

federally mandated minimum.

The Social shifts and physical

constraints have caused U.S.

localities to set more restrictive

standards then the federal

government to confront their own

waste management systems,

however it has not been until recently that the volume of waste per capita has begun

to fall.

Figure 5: MSW Generation Rates, 1960 to 2008


23/39

23

B ibliographyBarbalace, Roberta Crowell, The History of Waste: Do you want to be a Garbologist?

Belevi, H. and Baccini, P., W ater and Element Fluxes from Sanitary Landfills, in Sanitary Landfilling: Process, Technology and Environmental Impact , Academic Press, SanDiego, pp. 391-397, 1989

Brunner, Hubbard, Keller & Newton, Closing Open Dumps 2 (U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, SW-61ts, 1971)

Fenn D.G., Hanley H.J. &Degeare, T.V., Use of the Water Balance Method for Predicting Leachate Generation from Solid Waste Disposal Sites (U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, SW-168, 1975)

Glenn, J. The State of Garbage in America, Part II , BioCycle, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 3037,Emmanus, Pennsylvania 1992

Kovacs, William L., and Klucsik, The New Federal Role in Solid Waste Management:The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 , 3 Colum. Journal of EnvironmentalLaw 205 (1976-1977)

Kreith, Frank, and Tchobanoglous, George, ed. Handbook of Solid Waste Management 2 nd Edition , McGraw-Hill, 2002

Macauley,Molly K., Waste Not, Want Not: Economic and Legal Challenges of Regulation- Induced Changes in Waste Technology and Management , Resources for the Future PressDiscussion Paper, June 2009

McDougall, Forbes R., White, Peter R., Franke, Marina, Hindle, Peter, Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory 2 nd Edition , John Wiley-Blackwell, 2009

Portney, Paul R., and Stavins, Robert N., Public Policies for Environmental Protection ,Resources For the Future Press, London, United Kingdom, 2000

Robinson, William, The Solid Waste Handbook: A Practical Guide , John Wiley and

Sons, New York, New York, 1986

Starkey, D., and Hill,K., A Legislators Guide to Municipal Solid Waste Management.NationalConference of State Legislatures: Denver, CO, 1996

United State Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008, Washington D.C.,November 2009


24/39

24

Van Haaren, Rob, Themelis, Nickolas and Goldstein, Nora,The State Of Garbage inAmerica , BioCycle , October 2010, Emmanus, Pennsylvania

Wager, Travis, Hazardous Waste:Evolution of a National Environmental Problem , Journal

of Policy History 16.4 (2004) 306-331

Williams, Paul T. Waste treatment and disposal 2 nd Edition , John Wiley and Sons, NewYork, New York, 2005

History of Waste--http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/HistoryofWaste.htm


25/39

25

Appendix A:Chronology of WasteYear Location Waste Management T actic

6,500 BC Colorado, USANorth America Archeological studies shows a clan of Native Americans produced an average of 5.3 pounds of waste a day

NewTestament of Bible Jerusalem Palestine

The Valley of Gehenna also called Sheoal in the New Testament of the Bible "Though I descent into Sheol, thouart there." Sheoal was apparently a dump outside of the city of that periodically burned. It became synonymouswith "hell."

3000 BC Knossos, CreteThe first recorded landfill sites were created where waste was placed in large pits and covered with earth atvarious levels.

2000 BC ChinaComposting is known to have been a part of life during the European Bronze age bronze scrap recovery systemswere in place

500 BC Athens GreeceThe state of Athens Greece, open a municipal landfill site and decree that waste is to be transported at least onemile beyond the city gates

1185 Paris, France Dumping of waste from windows forbidden

1220 Naples, ItalyWho deposits much or debris at other than the designated places it to be seized and sent on a galley ot bewhipped across the whole city.

1297 Britain

In response to the increasing amount of waste deposited in towns a law is passed to make householders keep thefront of their house clear from refuse. It is largely ignored. However, most waste is burned on household openfires.

1354 London, England "Rakers" are employed in each ward to rake rubbish together, load it into carts, and remove it once a week.1388 England Parliament bans waste disposal in public waterways and ditches1400 Paris, France Waste piles up so high outside the gates that it interferes with citys defenses

1407 London, England

It is ruled that household rubbish is to remain indoors until it can be removed by the rakers after which it is e ither

sold as compost or dumped in the Essex marshes. This preliminary attempt to manage and control waste is notparticularly successful, but paves the way for further regulation.

1408 France Henry IV's removal order instructs that refuse be removed or else forfeit s be paid.Medieval Germany German cities required the wagons, which bring produce into the city to carry out waste into the countryside.1507 France Louis XII decides to organize waste collection1500s Spain Copper mines use scrap iron for cementation of copper, a recycling practice that survives to this day.1560 Hamburg, Germany First Cleanliness Decree: market squares cleaned four times a year at public expense1588 Elizabeth I grants special privileges for the collection of rags for papermaking.

1690Rittenhouse Mill,Philadelphia Makes paper from recycled fibers originating from waste paper and rags

1700s and1800s

The Industrial Revolution begins in the 18th century when the availability of raw materials and increased tradeand population stimulate new inventions and the development of machinery. Coal powered machinery can nowproduce increasingly large quantities of materials quickly and cheaply. Increased production has led to increasedwaste, which lays in place the means of mass-producing materials, which we see in factories today.

Early 1800s

Many people lived by selling what they could find in other peoples rubbish, even dogs' dung, which was valuableas tanners used it for purifying leather.

'Toshers' worked in the sewers, a dangerous and smelly way to make a living, but lucrative as they found coins, bits of metal, ropes and sometimes jewelry. Mud-larks' scavenged on the riverbanks, and made a very poor living.Dustmen' collected the ash from coal fires. Over three and a half million tons of coal was burned in London in ayear!Men, women and children worked on the heaps of rubbish, sieving the breeze or course section of the dust. Thisis used as a soil conditioner and for brick making.

1842 A report links diseases to filthy environmental conditions: the age of sanitation starts1848 Britain The Public Health Act 1848 begins the process of waste regulation.

1874 Britain

Energy from waste begins its development as the first "destructor" is designed and constructed in Nottingham.Destructors were prototype incineration plants, which burnt mixed fuel producing steam to generate electricity.During the next 30 years, 250 destructors are built in Britain. They are opposed on the grounds of emissions of ashes, dust and charred paper, which fall onto the surrounding neighborhood. By 1945 incineration is at an alltime low, to reemerge in the 1960s and again today, where opposition is on the grounds of dioxin emissions.

1875

The Public Health Act 1875 charges local authorities with the duty to arrange the removal and disposal of waste,starting an evolution of local authority power. This replaces the previously widespread practice of scavenging.The Act also rules that householders keep their waste in a "movable receptacle", the beginning of the dustbin,which the local authorities have to empty every week. A charge could be made for every day the bin was notemptied.

1885Governor's Island,New York First waste incinerator built in the United States

1889 Washington, D.C. Reported that we were running out of appropriate places for refuse

1890 Britan

The British Paper Company is established specifically to make paper and board from recycled materials. Wastepaper is obtained from organizations such as the Salvation Army and rag and bone men. By the late1800s household waste is collected daily in moveable ash bins. The waste is sorted by hand, usually by women or girls, into salvageable materials, and coarser materials are sieved from fine ash (breeze). A large proportion of thewaste is salvaged, revealing the extent of reuse and recycling systems, for instance materials such as glass andmetal are returned to merchants, and the breeze and hard core from incinerated residue are used in buildingmaterials. The value of goods reclaimed from dust heaps shows that the level of recycling and reclamation has


26/39

26

always depended on economic incentive.

1896 United StatesWaste reduction plants arrive in US. (for compressing organic wastes). Later closed because of noxiousemissions.

1898The Association of Cleansing Superintendents is established, which today has evolved into the Institute of WastesManagement.

1898 New York, USA First rubbish sorting plant for recycling

1900

"Piggeries" were developed to eat fresh or cooked garbage (In the mid-50's an outbreak of vesicularexanthemaresulted in the destruction of 1,000s of pigs that had eaten raw garbage. Law passed requiring that garbage had to

be cooked before it could be fed to swine).

1907An amendment to the Public Health Act 1875 extends refuse collection to include trade refuse and authorizeslocal authorities to levy charges for waste collection.

1907

A delegate at the Association of Cleansing Superintendents conference is quoted in the Surveyor as suggestingthat the biggest change in municipal work would be the change from destruction to salvage "in the near future".Nine decades on this has still not happened.

1911 New York, USA Citizens were producing 4.6 pounds of refuse a day1914 United States About 300 incinerators trash burning facilities existed1920's Landfills were becoming a popular way of reclaiming swamp land while getting rid of trash.

1921 BritanThe British Waste Paper Association is established (initially as the Association of London Waste Paper Merchants) to help develop the trade in waste paper for recycling.

1930

The Ministry of Health urges that "the system of dumping crude refuse without taking adequate precautionsshould not be allowed to continue". Similar complaints about unsanitary landfill were to continue for severaldecades.

1930s

The manufacture of plastics from chemicals produced from petroleum begins (plastic products had been madefrom plants since 1862). The production and manufacture of plastics grows slowly over the next 20 years. In the

economic boom of the 1950s production begins increasing sharply due to increases in different types andapplications for plastics. While the development of plastics and other forms of packaging has reduced the amountof food wastage, the environmental consequences of increasing amounts of non-biodegradable plastic packagingand toxic inks is largely overlooked.

1930s

Most people live in houses where heating and hot water are provided by burning newspaper and coal in fires,hence the small quantities of paper and large quantities of dust in the bins. The small percentages of textiles, glass,and metals are also the result of recovery and reuse schemes.

1936

The Public Health Act 1936 rules that the accumulation of waste which is prejudicial to health, or a nuisance, isa Statutory Nuisance. Authorities are given the power to prosecute over uncontrolled dumping, cesspools andscavenging a practice which often resulted in the scattering of refuse. The Act also prohibits building uponcontaminated land and lays down regulation for the management of landfill sites, but these were mostlyoverlooked in the years that followed.

1947

The Town and Country Planning Act gives authorities planning powers over new waste management sites, butmost of the existing tips cannot be controlled. During the world wars waste regulation becomes less of a priority.Despite a rise in reclamation and recycling during the wars, the post-war years face the legacy of huge unsanitaryand uncontrolled refuse tips especially surrounding the larger cities. Although local councils make efforts tolegislate against the dumping of refuse, appalling situations develop throughout the country where vast tips up toa mile long burn continuously.

Britan

During the post-war years, economics are against incineration, hence the domination of landfill in British wastedisposal practice. Landfills are constructed at the most convenient cost and locations, with little thought of their environmental impact or consequences such as water pollution and methane gas. Contemporary consumer society evolves with the increase in production and consumption, as products are designed to be thrown awayand packaging increases. Increased consumption inevitably generates an increase in manufacturing, industry,mining and quarrying, agricultural and food processing wastes. However, the post-war period sees not only someeffects from the boosted salvage industry stimulated by the demand for raw materials during the wars, but alsoincreasing public awareness of the environment.

1954Olympia,Washington Olympia Washington pays for return of aluminum cans.

1956 USA

The Clean Air Act is passed signaling a decrease in the number of open fires in homes as they are replaced bycentral heating fuelled by oil, gas or electricity. Consequently the composition of household waste changes from

being predominantly ash, dust and cinder from fires, to being made up of other wastes such as food and paper which would previously have been put on the f ire.

1960 Britain

A working party set up by the Duke of Edinburgh criticizes the existing management of the countryside and theenvironment, especially waste management. Its recommendations lead to the setting up of the Royal Commissionon Environmental Pollution.

1960sPrivate waste contractors begin to take over in what had previously been considered a public works activity. In1968, contractors come together to form the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors.

1965 USA The first federal solid waste management laws were enacted1968 Companies began buy back recycling of containers.

1970 USAThe first Earth Day was celebrated, the Environmental Protection Agency EPA created and the ResourceRecovery Act enacted.

1970sIt takes a combination of increased new chemical waste, changing waste compositions after clean air legislation,and new health and safety guidelines to bring about the first serious waste regulations during the 1970s. This is


27/39

27

also linked to concerns over energy use and the wider depletion of resources.

1971

Some drums of cyanide waste are dumped at an abandoned brick kiln near Nuneaton, leading to a huge publicoutcry. The ensuing furore, along with press coverage of waste disposal drivers taking bribes to dump hazardouswaste illegally, and a report by the Royal Commission on toxic wastes, provides a catalyst for the first ever legislation to control hazardous waste. The consequent Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972 is drafted in 10days and passed through Parliament within a month. Friends of the Earth launch their first campaign byreturning thousands of bottles to Schweppes, an environmental stunt which successfully uses the media in

bringing issues of waste and product disposability to public attention.

1974 Increasing concern over waste leads to the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which aims for a much wider controlof waste disposal and regulation of sites, and begins a serious tightening up of waste disposal methods.

1976 USA

In 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was created emphasizing recycling and HWmanagement. This was the result of two major events: the oil embargo and the discovery (or recognition) of LoveCanal.

1977 Britain The first bottle banks appear 1979 USA The EPA issued criteria prohibiting open dumping.

1980s Britain

The decade sees increasing public concern over waste disposal especially hazardous waste. The construction boom results in an estimated 1 million tons of illegally deposited waste lying around London at any one time.Those who produce the waste have no responsibility for it. Directives from the European Union begin to putpressure on the British government, and there are contentious issues such as the import of wastes, contaminatedland and inadequate powers of waste regulators. The increasing number of private sector contractors in wastemanagement begin to challenge the enforcements and self regulation of the local authorities.

1986 Environmental protection finally gets included in the Treaty of Rome through the Single European Act.

1987

The National Council for Voluntary Organizations sets up a project called Waste Watch to promote and supportwaste reduction, reuse and recycling. Over fifteen years later, Waste Watch is an independent national charity

working alongside local authorities, community and voluntary groups, businesses, industry and Government,providing advice, training and information from the Wasteline, as well as practical support for action.

1989The Commons Environment Committee inquiry, chaired by Sir Hugh Rossi, recommends that waste regulationpass from local authorities to a central body.

1990

The Government produces "This Common Inheritance", its first comprehensive White Paper on theEnvironment. This sets out a waste strategy, which regards waste minimization and recycling as priorities, andsets a target of 25% for the recycling of household waste by 2000. The subsequent Environmental Protection Act1990 separates waste regulation from operational work in local authorities and implements more regulations andcontrols. It replaces the 1974 Act with a new licensing system covering all controlled wastes (certain household,commercial and industrial wastes) and requires local authorities to consider recycling in their waste strategies.

1992 The Basel Convention comes into force

1992

The Duty of Care is introduced, whereby anyone who "imports, produces, carries, keeps, treats or disposes of controlled waste" must take responsibility for it. Those who deal with waste are now given a duty to care for it,managing waste from its generation through to transfer and disposal. The Eco-labeling scheme is set up torecognize relative environmental impacts of similar products.

1994

An EU Directive introduces the idea of producer responsibility with regard to packaging waste requiring member states to set targets on the reduction and recovery of packaging waste. This was followed by the UK's Producer Responsibility Obligations Section 93 (Packaging Waste) Regulations.

1995

The Environment Act establishes the Environment Agency, replacing the National Rivers Authority, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, Waste Regulation Authorities and some parts of the Department of theEnvironment. As a central body its aim is to manage and regulate not only waste but also industrial pollution andwater resources.

1996

The Government publishes its waste strategy for England and Wales, entitled "Making Waste Work". Thisdocument sets out plans for sustainable management of waste, and also confirms the target of 25% of householdwaste to be recycled by the year 2000. The landfill tax is introduced, which levies 7 per ton on active waste goingto landfill in order to encourage alternatives such as reuse and recycling, and promote waste minimization. Thestandard rate will increase to 10/t from 1 April 1999, with a lower rate for inactive waste frozen at 2/t. Inertwaste used in the restoration of landfill sites and quarries will be exempt from 1 October 1999.

1997

The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) were implemented, requiring businesses to recover and recycle 38% of their packaging, increasing to 56% by 2001. There are also additional recycling targets toenforce a minimum percentage of recycling for each of the packaging materials (currently paper and card,plastics, aluminum, steel and glass). The obligations are shared between raw material manufacturers, converters,packers and fillers, and sellers.

1999 Britain

The Government releases "A Way with Waste", a draft waste strategy for England and Wales updating "MakingWaste Work". The national waste strategy for Scotland is also launched, with specific goals for reducing specialand industrial waste arisings. In the 1999 budget the landfill tax is placed on a "landfill escalator" of 1 per year until 2004.

2000 England and Wales

A finalized waste strategy for England and Wales "Waste Strategy 2000" is published, setting revised nationaltargets for the recycling or composting of household waste: 25% by 2005, 30% by 2010, and 33% by 2015. The"Waste Management Strategy for Northern Ireland" is launched, setting targets for household waste similar to"Waste Strategy 2000".

2002

The EU Regulation on Ozone Depleting substances comes into force. Under this Regulation any insulation foamor cooling circuits containing CFCs or HCFCs must be recovered from fridges and freezers prior to shredding anddisposal. Waste Not Want Not, the Strategy Unit's report on Waste Strategy 2000, is published.


28/39

28

A ppendi x B: Subtitles Des c riptions for RCR A Subtitle A: General Provisions Contains the motivation and objectives of the ActSubtitle B: Office of Solid Waste Creates the Office of Solid Waste within the EPA and requires the EPA Administrator to submit an AnnualReport to Congress and the President on all activities of the OfficeSubtitle C: "Cradle to Grave" requirements Tracks the progress of hazardous wastes from their point of generation, their transport, and their treatmentand/or disposal.Subtitle D: Non-hazardous Solid Waste Designates States as responsible for regulation of non-hazardous solid waste. By supporting and adopting solidwaste plans, States are eligible for funding and technical assistance from the EPA in carrying out plans. ThisSubtitle establishes requirements for municipal solid waste landfill units, including the use of composite liners toprevent contamination of groundwater sources.Subtitle E: Department of Commerce Responsibilities Mandates commercialization of resource recovery technology.Subtitle F: Federal Responsibilities Requires all federal facilities to comply with the regulations and promotes the procurement of products

manufactured from secondary materialsSubtitle G: Miscellaneous Provisions Provides citizens to file actions against any person, including the U.S., for violating the regulation. Subtitle H: Research, development, and information Instructs the EPA to conduct and promote the coordination of research, investigations, experiments, training,demonstrations, surveys, public education programs, and studies relating to topics such as waste management,resource recovery, and waste reduction.Subtitle I: Underground Storage Tanks Establishes requirements for underground storage tanksSubtitle J: Medical Waste (expired) Regulated medical waste. RCRA Subtitle C currently regulates hazardous medical waste.

Appendi

xC

:Federal Fa

cility Complian

ce

Act of 1992H.R. 2194

ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAAT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two

AN ACTTo amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to clarify provisions concerning the application of certain

requirements and sanctions to Federal facilities.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress

assembled,

TITLE I--FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE ACTSEC. 101. SHORT TITLEThis title may be cited as the "Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992".

SEC. 102. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS TO FEDERALFACILITIES(a) IN GENERAL. -- Section 6001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6961) is amended--

(1) by inserting "(a) IN GENERAL.---" after "6001.";(2) in the first sentence, by inserting "and management" before "in the same manner";(3) by inserting after the first sentence the following: "The Federal, State, interstate, and localsubstantive and procedural requirements referred to in this subsection include, but are not limited to,all administrative orders and all civil and administrative penalties and fines, regardless of whether suchpenalties or fines are punitive or coercive in nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, orcontinuing violations. The United States hereby expressly waives any immunity otherwise applicable to


29/39

29

the United States with respect to any such substantive or procedural requirement (including, but notlimited to, any injunctive relief, administrative order or civil or administrative penalty or fine referred toin the preceding sentence, or reasonable service charge). The reasonable service charges referred to inthis subsection include, but are not limited to, fees or charges assessed in connection with theprocessing and issuance of permits, renewal of permits, amendments to permits, review of plans,studies, and other documents, and inspection and monitoring of facilities, as well as any othernondiscriminatory charges that are assessed in connection with a Federal, State, interstate, or localsolid waste or hazardous waste regulatory program."; and(4) by inserting after the second sentence the following: "No agent, employee, or officer of the UnitedStates shall be personally liable for any civil penalty under any Federal, State, interstate, or local solidor hazardous waste law with respect to any act or omission within the scope of the official duties of theagent, employee, or officer. An agent, employee, or officer of the United States shall be subject to anycriminal sanction (including, but not limited to, any fine or imprisonment) under any Federal or Statesolid or hazardous waste law, but no department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive,legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government shall be subject to any such sanction."

(b) ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. -- Such section is further amended by adding at theend the following new subsections:"(b) ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. -- (1) The Administrator may commence anadministrative enforcement action against any department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive,legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government pursuant to the enforcement authoritiescontained in this Act. The Administrator shall initiate an administrative enforcement action against such adepartment, agency, or instrumentality in the same manner and under the same circumstances as anaction would be initiated against another person. Any voluntary resolution or settlement of such an actionshall be set forth in a consent order.""(2) No administrative order issued to such a department, agency, or instrumentality shall become finaluntil such department, agency, or instrumentality has had the opportunity to confer with theAdministrator.""(c) LIMITATION ON STATE USE OF FUNDS COLLECTED FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. -- Unlessa State law in effect on the date of the enactment of the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 or aState constitution requires the funds to be used in a different manner, all funds collected by a State fromthe Federal Government from penalties and fines imposed for violation of any substantive or proceduralrequirement referred to in subsection (a) shall be used by the State only for projects designed to improveor protect the environment or to defray the costs of environmental protection or enforcement."(c) EFFECTIVE DATES. --

( 1 ) IN GENERAL. -- Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the amendments madeby subsection (a) shall take effect upon the date of the enactment of this Act.( 2 ) DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE FOR CERTAIN MIXED WASTE. -- Until the date that is 3 yearsafter the date of the enactment of this Act, the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in section 6001(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act with respect to civil, criminal, and administrative penalties and fines

(as added by the amendments made by subsection (a)) shall not apply to departments, agencies, andinstrumentalities of the executive branch of the Federal Government for violations of section 30040 (j)of the Solid Waste Disposal Act involving storage of mixed waste that is not subject to an existingagreement, permit, or administrative or judicial order, so long as such waste is managed in compliancewith all other applicable requirements.(3) EFFECTIVE DATE FOR CERTAIN MIXED WASTE. -- (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B),after the date that is 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the waiver of sovereignimmunity contained in section 6001 (a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act with respect to civil, criminal,and administrative penalties and fines (as added by the amendments made by subsection (a)) shallapply to departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the executive branch of the FederalGovernment for violations of section 30040) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act involving storage of mixedwaste.(B) With respect to the Department of Energy, the waiver of sovereign immunity referred to insubparagraph (A) shall not apply after the date that is 3 years after the date of the enactment of thisAct for violations of section 30040 (j) of such Act involving storage of mixed waste, so long as theDepartment of Energy is in compliance with both--

(i) a plan that has been submitted and approved pursuant to section 3021 (b) of the Solid WasteDisposal Act and which is in effect; and(ii) an order requiring compliance with such plan which has been issued pursuant to such section3021 (b) and which is in effect.

( 4 ) APPLICATION OF WAIVER TO AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS. -- The waiver of sovereignimmunity contained in section 6001 (a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as added by the amendmentsmade by subsection (a)) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act with respect to anyagreement, permit, or administrative or judicial order existing on such date of enactment (and anysubsequent modifications to such an agreement, permit, or order), including, without limitation, anyprovision of an agreement, permit, or order that addresses compliance with section 30040 (j) of suchAct with respect to mixed waste.


30/39

30

(5) AGREEMENT OR ORDER. -- Except as provided in paragraph (4), nothing in this Act shall beconstrued to alter, modify, or change in any manner any agreement, permit, or administrative or

judicial order, including, without limitation, any provision of an agreement, permit, or order--(i) that addresses compliance with section 30040 (j) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act with respect tomixed waste;(ii) that is in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and(iii) to which a department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive branch of the FederalGovernment is a party.

SEC. 103. DEFINITION OF PERSONSection 1004(15) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903(15)) is amended by adding thefollowing before the period: "and shall include each department, agency, and instrumentality of the UnitedStates".

SEC. 104. FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSSection 3007 (c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6927(c)) is amended as follows:

(1) The first sentence is amended by striking out "Beginning" and all that follows through "undertake"and inserting in lieu thereof "The Administrator shall undertake".(2) The first sentence is further amended by striking out "Federal agency" and inserting in lieu thereof "department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States".(3) The section is further amended by inserting after the first sentence the following new sentence:"Any State with an authorized hazardous waste program also may conduct an inspection of any suchfacility for purposes of enforcing the facility's compliance with the State hazardous waste program."(4) The section is further amended by adding at the end the following: "The department, agency, orinstrumentality owning or operating each such facility shall reimburse the Environmental ProtectionAgency for the costs of the inspection of the facility. With respect to the first inspection of each suchfacility occurring after the date of the enactment of the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, theAdministrator shall conduct a comprehensive ground water monitoring evaluation at the facility, unlesssuch an evaluation was conducted during the 12-month period preceding such date of enactment."

SEC. 105. MIXED WASTE INVENTORY REPORTS AND PLAN(a) MIXED WASTE AMENDMENT. -- (1) Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 etseq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:"SEC. 30 21. MIXED WASTE INVENTORY REPORTS AND PLAN." (a) MIXED WASTE INVENTORY REPORTS. --"( 1 ) REQUIREMENT. -- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of the Federal FacilityCompliance Act of 1992, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Administrator and to the Governor of each State in which the Department of Energy stores or generates mixed wastes the following reports:

"(A) A report containing a national inventory of all such mixed wastes, regardless of the time they weregenerated, on a State-by-State basis."(B) A report containing a national inventory of mixed waste treatment capacities and technologies.

"( 2 ) INVENTORY OF WASTES. -- The report required by paragraph (1)(A) shall include the following:"(A) A description of each type of mixed waste at each Department of Energy facility in each State,including, at a minimum, the name of the waste stream."(B) The amount of each type of mixed waste currently stored at each Department of Energy facility ineach State, set forth separately by mixed waste that is subject to the land disposal prohibitionrequirements of section 3004 and mixed waste that is not subject to such prohibition requirements."(C) An estimate of the amount of each type of mixed waste the Department expects to generate inthe next 5 years at each Department of Energy facility in each State."(D) A description of any waste minimization actions the Department has implemented at eachDepartment of Energy facility in each State for each mixed waste stream."(E) The EPA hazardous waste code for each type of mixed waste containing waste that has beencharacterized at each Department of Energy facility in each State."(F) An inventory of each type of waste that has not been characterized by sampling and analysis ateach Department of Energy facility in each State."(G) The basis for the Department's determination of the applicable hazardous waste code for eachtype of mixed waste at each Department of Energy facility and a description of whether thedetermination is based on sampling and analysis conducted on the waste or on the basis of processknowledge."(H) A description of the source of each type of mixed waste at each Department of Energy facility ineach State."(I) The land disposal prohibition treatment technology or technologies specified for the hazardouswaste component of each type of mixed waste at each Department of Energy facility in each State."(J) A statement of whether and how the radionuclide content of the waste alters or affects use of thetechnologies described in subparagraph (I).


31/39

31

"(3) INVENTORY OF TREATMENT CAPACITIES AND TECHNOLOGIES. -- The report required byparagraph (1)(B) shall include the following:

"(A) An estimate of the available treatment capacity for each waste described in the report required byparagraph (1)(A) for which treatment technologies exist."(B) A description, including the capacity, number and location, of each treatment unit considered incalculating the estimate under subparagraph (A)."(C) A description, including the capacity, number and location, of any existing treatment unit that wasnot considered in calculating the estimate under subparagraph (A) but that could, alone or inconjunction with other treatment units, be used to treat any of the wastes described in the reportrequired by paragraph (1)(A) to meet the requirements of regulations promulgated pursuant to section3004(m)."(D) For each unit listed in subparagraph (C), a statement of the reasons why the unit was notincluded in calculating the estimate under subparagraph (A)."(E) A description, including the capacity, number, location, and estimated date of availability, of eachtreatment unit currently proposed to increase the treatment capacities estimated under subparagraph(A)."(F) For each waste described in the report required by paragraph (1)(A) for which the Department hasdetermined no treatment technology exists, information sufficient to support such determination and adescription of the technological approaches the Department anticipates will need to be developed totreat the waste.

"( 4 ) COMMENTS AND REVISIONS. -- Not later than 90 days after the date of the submission of thereports by the Secretary of Energy under paragraph (1), the Administrator and each State which receivedthe reports shall submit any comments they may have concerning the reports to the Department of Energy. The Secretary of Energy shall consider and publish the comments prior to publication of the finalreport."(5) REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. -- Nothing in this subsection limits or restricts theauthority of States or the Administrator to request additional information from the Secretary of Energy." (b) PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TREATMENT CAPACITIES AND TECHNOLOGIES. -"( 1 ) PLAN REQUIREMENT. -- (A)(i) For each facility at which the Department of Energy generates orstores mixed wastes, except any facility subject to a permit, agreement, or order described in clause (ii),the Secretary of Energy shall develop and submit, as provided in paragraph (2), a plan for developingtreatment capacities and technologies to treat all of the facility's mixed wastes, regardless of the timethey were generated, to the standards promulgated pursuant to section 3004(m)."(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply with respect to any facility subject to any permit establishing a schedule fortreatment of such wastes, or any existing agreement or administrative or judicial order governing thetreatment of such wastes, to which the State is a party."(B) Each plan shall contain the following:

"(i) For mixed wastes for which treatment technologies exist, a schedule for submitting all applicablepermit applications, entering into contracts, initiating construction, conducting systems testing,

commencing operations, and processing backlogged and currently generated mixed wastes."(ii) For mixed wastes for which no treatment technologies exist, a schedule for identifying anddeveloping such technologies, identifying the funding requirements for the identification anddevelopment of such technologies, submitting treatability study exemptions, and submitting researchand development permit applications."(iii) For all cases where the Department proposes radionuclide separation of mixed wastes, ormaterials derived from mixed wastes, it shall provide an estimate of the volume of waste generated byeach case of radionuclide separation, the volume of waste that would exist or be generated withoutradionuclide separation, the estimated costs of waste treatment and disposal if radionuclide separationis used compared to the estimated costs if it is not used, and the assumptions underlying such wastevolume and cost estimates.

"(C) A plan required under this subsection may provide for centralized, regional, or on-site treatment of mixed wastes, or any combination thereof."( 2 ) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLAN. -- (A) For each facility that is located in a State (i) withauthority under State law to prohibit land disposal of mixed waste until the waste has been treated and(ii) with both authority under State law to regulate the hazardous components of mixed waste andauthorization from the Environmental Protection Agency under section 3006 to regulate the hazardouscomponents of mixed waste, the Secretary of Energy shall submit the plan required under paragraph (1)to the appropriate State regulatory officials for their review and approval, modification, or disapproval. Inreviewing the plan, the State shall consider the need for regional treatment facilities. The State shallconsult with the Administrator and any other State in which a facility affected by the plan is located andconsider public comments in making its determination on the plan. The State shall approve, approve withmodifications, or disapprove the plan within 6 months after receipt of the plan."(B) For each facility located in a State that does not have the authority described in subparagraph (A),the Secretary shall submit the plan required under p

Documents

United States Waste Management