United States General Accounting Office

GAO 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

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

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

Purpose 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 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.

Page 2 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Executive Summary

Results in Brief 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

State and Local

Governments’ Plans to

Address Solid Waste Issues

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

Page 3 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Executive Summary

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

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

Page 4 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Executive Summary

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 GAO is making no recommendations in this report.

Agency Comments 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.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

8

Amounts of Waste Generated and Disposal Methods 8

Federal Requirements for Solid Waste Management 10

EPA’s Agenda for Action 11

Options for Managing Solid Waste 12

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 14

Agency Comments 16

Chapter 2 

State and Local

Governments Are

Developing Plans and

Solutions

18

State and Local Governments Have Developed Plans to Address

Concerns About Solid Waste

18

Several States Are Addressing the Rising Costs of Financing

Waste Management

20

Some States Are Using Innovative Techniques for Locating New

Facilities

23

Chapter 3 

States See a Federal

Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling,

and Planning for

Capacity

26

States Are Supporting Source Reduction and Recycling 26

Some States Seek National Goals and Standards and Federal Help

in Developing Secondary Markets

28

States Are Concerned That Waste Shipped From Other States and

Countries Could Affect Their Disposal Capacity

34

Some See the Need for a Federal Role to Ensure Sufficient

Disposal Capacity

38

Appendixes Appendix I: States’ Methods for Managing Solid Waste 44

Appendix II: Experts Consulted by GAO 46

Appendix III: Volume of Waste Material Imported Into the United

States

48

Appendix IV: Comparative Costs of Disposing of Waste in Ontario

Versus the United States

49

Appendix V: Major Contributors to This Report 50

Tables Table 2.1: Length of Time Local Governments Took to Site

Facilities

24

Table 3.1: Recycling Rates for Municipal Solid Waste, 1993 31

Table 3.2: Destination of Solid Waste Imported into the United

States from Canada Through Buffalo, N.Y., 1993

37

Page 6 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Contents

Table III.1: Volume of Waste Imported into the United States by

Country of Origin, 1992 (Tons)

48

Table IV.1: Comparison of Commercial Waste Tipping Fees in

Ontario With Disposal Costs in the United States, 1992

49

Figures Figure 1.1: Distribution of Solid Waste, 1992 9

Figure 2.1: Number of States Funding Solid Waste Programs With

General Tax Revenues, November 1992

21

Figure 3.1: Percentage Distribution of Municipal Solid Waste by

Type and Weight, 1993

29

Abbreviations

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GAO General Accounting Office

NIMBY not in my backyard

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Page 7 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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

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.

Page 8 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Figure 1.1: Distribution of Solid Waste,

1992

39% • Special Wastes

57%•

Industrial Solid Waste

2%

Industrial Hazardous Waste

1%

Municipal Solid Waste

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,

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.

Page 9 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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.)

Federal Requirements

for Solid Waste

Management

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

Page 10 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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 generators3

 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.

EPA’s Agenda for

Action

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.

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.

Page 11 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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

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 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

Page 12 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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

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.

Page 13 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

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.

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.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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

Page 15 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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 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

Page 16 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 1 

Introduction

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.

Page 17 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 2 

State and Local Governments Are

Developing Plans and Solutions

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

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

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.

Page 18 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 2 

State and Local Governments Are

Developing Plans and Solutions

Plans Assess Waste

Streams and Capacity

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

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.

Page 19 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 2 

State and Local Governments Are

Developing Plans and Solutions

Several States Are

Addressing the Rising

Costs of Financing

Waste Management

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

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.

Page 20 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 2 

State and Local Governments Are

Developing Plans and Solutions

Figure 2.1: Number of States Funding

Solid Waste Programs With General

Tax Revenues, November 1992

Number of States

0

5

10

15

20

25

100% of Program

More Than 50% of Program

Less Than 50% of Program

0% of Program

Percent of Program Financed With General Tax Revenues

6

15

20

8

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

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).

Page 21 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 2 

State and Local Governments Are

Developing Plans and Solutions

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.

States Are Implementing

Other Financing

Mechanisms

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.

8

Survey of State Funding for Solid Waste Management Programs, New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (Revised November 1992).

Page 22 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 2 

State and Local Governments Are

Developing Plans and Solutions

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.

Some States Are

Using Innovative

Techniques for

Locating New

Facilities

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 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.

9

Siting Solid Waste Facilities: Seven Case Studies, International City/County Management Association,

Management Information Service Report, vol. 24, no. 10 (Oct. 1994).

Page 23 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 2 

State and Local Governments Are

Developing Plans and Solutions

Table 2.1: Length of Time Local

Governments Took to Site Facilities

Location Project

Years to

complete

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 Alexandria, Va. Waste-to-energy facility 6

Columbia Co., Wis. Materials recovery facility 11

Compost plant 11

Pasco Co., Fla. Waste-to-energy facility and landfill 6

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.

Innovative Siting

Techniques Are Being

Tried

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.

Page 24 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 2 

State and Local Governments Are

Developing Plans and Solutions

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.

Page 25 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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

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

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

10The 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.

Page 26 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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

Page 27 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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.

States Are Encouraging

Recycling

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 Governors11

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.

Some States Seek

National Goals and

Standards and Federal

Help in Developing

Secondary Markets

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

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

11The council comprises Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin,

and Ohio.

Page 28 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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

27% • Nondurables (54.8 Million Tons)

34% • Containers and Packaging (70.6

Million Tons)

16%•

Yard Trimmings (32.8 Million

Tons)

•

8%

Food and Other (16.9 Million Tons)

•15%

Durables (31.9 Million Tons)

Source: Based on EPA’s data.

Page 29 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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.

12Federal Options for Reducing Waste Disposal, Congressional Budget Office (Washington, D.C.,

Oct. 1991).

Page 30 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

Table 3.1: Recycling Rates for

Municipal Solid Waste, 1993

Material

Volume

generated

(millions

of tons)

Volume

recycled

(millions

of tons)

Percent

recycled

Paper and paperboard 77.8 26.5 34.0

Glass 13.7 3.0 22.0

Metals 17.1 5.2 30.4

Plastics 19.3 0.7 3.5

Rubber and leather 6.2 0.4 5.9

Textiles 6.1 0.7 11.7

Wood 13.7 1.3 9.6

Other 3.3 0.7 22.1

Food, yard, misc. 49.7 6.5 13.1

Total

206.9 45.0

21.7

(average)

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.

EPA Has Encouraged but

Not Led Source Reduction

Efforts

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

Page 31 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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.

Page 32 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

Federal Efforts to

Encourage Recycling and

Develop Markets Have

Been Limited

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

13Solid Waste: Federal Program to Buy Products With Recovered Materials Proceeds Slowly

(GAO/RCED-93-58, May 17, 1993).

Page 33 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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.

States Are Concerned

That Waste Shipped

From Other States

and Countries Could

Affect Their Disposal

Capacity

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.

14GAO/RCED-93-58.

Page 34 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

Interstate Waste Shipments 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.

Page 35 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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

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 fees15 in Canada average about

$3,000 per truckload16 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.

15A “tipping” fee is the amount paid by the hauler per ton to dispose of waste at a waste processing

facility.

16On average, a truckload contains 20 tons of waste/garbage.

Page 36 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

Table 3.2: Destination of Solid Waste

Imported Into the United States From

Canada Through Buffalo, N.Y., 1993

Destination state

Tons of

waste

Percent of

total

shippeda

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

aPercentages 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.

Concerns About

Out-Of-State Waste

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

Page 37 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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

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

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

17437 U.S. 617 (1978).

Page 38 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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

18437 U.S. at 628.

19114 S. Ct. 1345 (1994).

20114 S. Ct. at 1350.

21112 S. Ct. 2019 (1992).

Page 39 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

between states and whether these shipments are destined for private,

commercial, or publicly owned facilities.

Courts Have Overturned

Laws Aimed at Controlling

Waste Flow and Resulting

Revenues at Public

Facilities

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

22985 F.2d 1381 (8th Cir. 1993).

Page 40 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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.

Several Bills Introduced in

the Congress Would

Provide States With

Control Over Waste

Shipments

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

23C & A Carbone Inc. v. Clarkstown, 114 S. Ct. 1677 (1994).

24For 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.

Page 41 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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.

Impact of Intrastate and

Interstate Regulation Is

Unclear

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

Page 42 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Chapter 3 

States See a Federal Role in Waste

Reduction, Recycling, and Planning for

Capacity

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.

Page 43 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Appendix I 

States’ Methods for Managing Solid Waste

State

Percent

recycled

Percent

incinerated

Percent

sent to a

landfill

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

(continued)

Page 44 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Appendix I 

States’ Methods for Managing Solid Waste

State

Percent

recycled

Percent

incinerated

Percent

sent to a

landfill

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.

Page 45 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Appendix II 

Experts Consulted by GAO

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

Page 46 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Appendix II 

Experts Consulted by GAO

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)

Page 47 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Appendix III 

Volume of Waste Material Imported Into the

United States

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 Paper Glass

Plastic/

rubber

Belgium 4 17 8,240

Canada 111,537 23,231 40,608

China 2 30 3,357

France 125 0 10,217

Germany 39 0 22,912

Italy 40 4 16,478

Japan 31 93 2,242

Mexico 22,366 4,213 14,549

United Kingdom 1,040 0 8,534

All others 582 1 31,751

Total 135,766 27,589 158,888

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, National Trade Data Bank.

Page 48 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Appendix IV 

Comparative Costs of Disposing of Waste in

Ontario Versus the United States

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

Ontario location

Tipping fee 

per ton

Closest

U.S.

location

Disposal

cost per

ton,

including

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.

25A “tipping” fee is the amount a hauler pays per ton to dispose of waste at a waste management

facility.

Page 49 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Appendix V 

Major Contributors to This Report

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

(160190) Page 50 GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/RCED-95-3 Managing Nonhazardous Solid Waste