Kelly Hill Jim Glenn
3.10 LEGISLATING LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
During the 1980s and 1990s waste reduction legislation centered on requiring municipalities to develop recycling programs. In general, two approaches have been utilized. One type of law mandates that municipalities require generators to separate recyclables, and in some cases compostables, for further processing. The most prevalent form of legislation mandating municipal involvement is that which requires local governments to reach specified goals. The other model is legislation that requires local governments to provide some form of waste reduction system to its citizens.
Mandatory Recycling Laws
So-called mandatory recycling laws are employed by six states (see Table 3.6). In four of those states (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island) every municipality must pass an ordinance requiring municipal waste generators to recycle certain materials. For instance, in New Jersey, municipalities must collect a minimum of three recyclables. Connecticut and Rhode Island both require collection of a more extensive list of recyclables including, among other things, newspapers, glass containers, metal cans, and some plastic bottles. Connecticut also includes leaves in its list of recyclables that must be collected.
TABLE 3.6 States with Legislation Requiring Municipalities to Pass Mandatory Ordinances
State Municipalities involved Deadline Act ID
Connecticut All 1/91 PA 90-220
New Jersey All 8/88 P.L. 1987, C. 107
New York All 9/92 Chap. 70-1988
Pennsylvania Population of 5000 9/26/91 101-1988
or greater*
Rhode Island All † 23-18—1986
West Virginia Population of 10,000 10/93 S.B. 18—1991
or greater
* All municipalities with 10,000 and above must pass mandatory ordinances. For municipalities with populations between 5000 and 10,000, only those that have a population density of 300 people per square mile must pass ordinances.
†Deadline based on the implementation schedule for each municipality.
Source: Revised from Kreith (1994)
Original Source: Glenn (1992)
The two remaining states, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, limit the number of municipal- ities that are required to pass ordinances. In Pennsylvania, initially, only those municipalities with a population of 10,000 or greater needed to comply. As of September 1991, those munic- ipalities with a population between 5000 and 10,000 and a population density of 300 or more people per square mile were also required to comply. West Virginia limits its mandate to those municipalities with a population of 10,000 or greater. In both cases, waste generators have to recycle at least three materials.
In addition to requiring municipalities to pass ordinances, these laws compel them to establish recycling programs that meet certain criteria. For instance, West Virginia municipal- ities must establish curbside programs that collect at least on a monthly basis. The programs must also include a comprehensive public information and education element.
“Opportunity to Recycle” Laws
The prototype of recycling legislation in this country was Oregon’s “Opportunity to Recycle” Act. In this type of legislative scheme, municipalities are required to provide some form of recycling program, but the municipalities are not required to pass ordinances requiring par- ticipation by waste generators.
In Oregon’s first recycling law, curbside recycling programs (which collected at least monthly) had to be put in place in every municipality with a population of 4000 or more. Additionally, every MSW disposal facility had to provide a drop-off program. In 1991, the Oregon legislature saw fit to modify this earlier legislation. Some of the improvements in this update include requirements for weekly collection of recyclables, distribution of home stor- age containers for recycling, and an expanded education and promotion program.
Besides Oregon, 12 other states have passed legislation requiring local government to develop recycling programs (see Table 3.7). In six of those states (Alabama, Arkansas, Mary- land, Minnesota, Nevada, and South Carolina), counties are charged with the responsibility. In Arkansas, counties and municipalities can join together and form a single sanitation author- ity. Nevada’s law applies only to counties with populations of more than 10,000. Three states
TABLE 3.7 State Legislation Requiring Local Government Units to Develop Recycling Programs
State Local government units involved Deadline Act ID
Alabama Countiesa 5/92 824 1989
Arizona Cities & Counties Not set H.B. 2574-1990
Arkansas Sanitation Authorities 7/92 Chapt. 14-233
California Cities & Countiesb 1995 A.B. 939-1989
Maryland Counties 1/94 H.B. 714 1988
Minnesota Counties 10/90 115A 1989
Nevada Counties over 10,000 Not set A.B. 449—1995
North Carolina C 7/91 S.B. 111—1989
Oregond Municipality 7/92 S.B. 66—1991
South Carolina Counties Not set H.B. 388—1991
Vermont SW management districts Not set 78 1987
Virginia Regional SW Planning Unit 1997 H.B. 1750—1995
Washington Cities & Counties 1994 E.S.H.B. 1671—1989
aLocal municipalities can develop programs on their own if they choose. bCities and counties can combine to form regional agencies to carry out this task. cDesignated local government, of which 90 are counties and 15 are municipalities dOregon’s original legislation (S.B. 405) was effective July 1, 1986.
Source: Revised from Kreith (1994).
Original Source: Glenn (1992).
(Arizona, California, and Washington) targeted both cities and counties. In addition to Ore- gon, only Virginia’s legislation puts the requirement at the municipal level where local and regional solid waste planning units have been created. In Vermont, solid waste management districts, which are generally groups of municipalities, are responsible, while in North Car- olina, it is “designated local governments,” of which 90 are counties and 15 are municipalities. Oregon’s law to the contrary, most “Opportunity to Recycle” legislation was constructed so that local governments could establish programs that were right for them. In Nevada, des- ignated counties are required to make available a program for the “separation at the source of recyclable material from other solid waste originating from the residential premises where services for collection of solid waste are provided.” Additionally, those counties are required to establish a recycling center if none are already available. In South Carolina, the legislation
states only that counties may include curbside collection, drop-offs, or multifamily systems in their recycling programs.
Arkansas’ statute defines the opportunity to recycle as the “availability of curbside pick- up or collections centers for recyclable materials at sites that are convenient for persons to use.” It is up to the county or regional solid waste board to determine the number and type of facilities needed and what type of recyclables are to be collected. However, each board must develop a public education program and establish a yard-waste composting program.
Required Goals
Beyond the fact that most legislatures generally feel that it isn’t prudent to dictate what type of recycling program will work best in a particular locality, one reason most states do not require a certain type of program be established is that they also specified in the law a goal which the program must reach. In fact, 10 of the 13 states that have “Opportunity to Recycle” laws also require local governments to reach certain waste reduction goals. These include Alabama, California, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, and Virginia. Additionally, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and South Carolina, which have mandatory recycling laws, also have goal requirements. Of the 21 states that put goal requirements on local governments and regional solid waste authorities, only eight (Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, and Tennessee) do not combine them with some other form.
In most cases, the goal a local government must reach is identical to the state goal estab- lished in the law. The major exception to that is Oregon, where different groups of counties had different goals to meet, ranging from 15 to 45 percent by 1995. Each county’s goal was revised after 1995 to assure that Oregon would meet its statewide goal of 50 percent by 2000. Other legislation has allowances for local governments that cannot meet a goal, either by pro- viding it additional time to comply, as is the case in Tennessee, or by allowing the state agency that oversees the program to reduce or modify the goal if circumstances warrant.
What happens if a local government does not meet a goal varies widely. In some cases, it is not clear if anything will occur. In Oregon, if a recovery rate is not achieved, the municipality must take steps to upgrade its program. In Tennessee, fines can ultimately be levied for not complying with the law.
Disposal Bans
There is probably no more direct approach to waste reduction than banning specific types of waste from disposal facilities. For MSW, bans were first ushered in back in 1984 when Min- nesota passed legislation banning the disposal of tires from landfills (Glenn and Riggle, 1989b). Since then, 47 additional states have passed bans on one or more waste materials (see Table 3.8).
Over the years, lawmakers have focused particularly on materials coming from vehicles, such as batteries, tires, and oil. Oregon goes so far as to ban the disposal of discarded vehicles. The most popular product ban is vehicle batteries. By the end of 1997, 43 states had passed such restrictions. Thirty-eight states have banned the disposal of, at least, whole tires, although Missouri allows landfill operators to use rubber chips for landfill cover (H.B. 783, 1999).Thirty states ban motor oil from landfills. Of those states that ban the disposal of tires, at least three (Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin), ban any form of tire from being landfilled. Another, Ohio, has banned the disposal of tires in MSW landfills, but will permit them to be buried in tire “monofills.”
The ban which can have the greatest effect on reducing the amount of waste being dis- posed of is a ban on yard waste. In all, 22 states have put yard waste bans on the books. For 20 of those states the ban is on all types of yard waste. In the remaining two it applies only to a
TABLE 3.8 Disposal Bans for Selected Waste Materials
Vehicle Yard Motor White
State batteries Tires trimmings oil goods Others
Alabama X — — X — — Arizona X X — X 6X1 — Arkansas X X — — — 6X3 California X X — X X — Connecticut X — 6X2 — — 6X3 Delaware — X — — 6X1 — Florida X X X X X 6X4 Georgia X X X — — — Hawaii X 6X5 6X6 X X 6X7 Idaho X X — — — — Illinois X 6X5 X X 6X1 — Indiana X 6X8 6X9 — — — Iowa X 6X5 X X — 12X10 Kansas X 6X5 — — — — Kentucky X 6X5 — X — — Louisiana X 6X5 — X X — Maine X X — X — 12X11 Maryland — X 12X12 X — — Massachusetts X X X X X 12X13 Michigan X — X X — — Minnesota X X X X X 12X14 Mississippi X 6X5 — — — — Missouri X 6X5 X X X — Nebraska X X X X X — Nevada X — — X — — New Hampshire X X X — — 6X3 New Jersey X — 12X15 — — 6X3 New Mexico X — — X — — New York X 6X5 — — — — North Carolina X X X X X 12X16 North Dakota X — — X X — Ohio — X X — — — Oklahoma — X — — — — Oregon X X — X X X7 Pennsylvania X X 12X17 — — — Rhode Island X X — — — — South Carolina X X X X X — South Dakota X X X X X 6X18 Tennessee X X — X — — Texas X X — X — — Utah X X — X — — Vermont X X — X X 12X19 Virginia X — — — — — Washington X X — X — — West Virginia X X X X — — Wisconsin X X X X X 12X18 Wyoming X — — — — —
1White goods containing CFC gases, mercury switches, and PCBs;2Grass clippings;3Mercury batteries;4Dis- posal ban on demolition debris, devices containing mercury banned from incinerators;5Whole tires;6Landfills must divert 75 percent of commercial and 50 percent of residential green waste, or face a ban;7Scrap automo- biles;81996 legislation allows incidental disposal of amounts of whole tires;9Leaves and woody vegetation greater than 3 feet in length;10Nondegradable grocery bags, carbonated beverage containers and liquor bottles with deposits;11NiCad, mercuric-oxide batteries;12Separately collected loads of yard trimmings;13Glass and metal containers, recyclable paper and single polymer plastics;14NiCad batteries, telephone books and sources of mercury, motor vehicle fluids and filters;15Leaves;16Antifreeze;17Leaves and brush;18Old newsprint, corru- gated and paperboard, glass, steel and aluminum containers;19Various dry cell and NiCad batteries, paint.
portion of the yard waste stream. In New Jersey (which in 1987 was the first state to pass a yard waste ban) and in Pennsylvania the prohibition against disposal does not include grass. There are instances where the bans are not absolute. In Pennsylvania and South Carolina, the bans pertain only to loads that are primarily yard waste. In both Florida and North Carolina, yard waste is banned from incinerators and certain classes of landfills.
Another ban that can have significant effect on the amount of disposal is white goods. By the end of 1997, white goods had been banned in 18 states (U.S. EPA, 1999). In 15 of the 18 states, the ban applies to all the appliances that are discarded. However, in Arizona, Delaware, and Illinois, it applies only to those appliances that have not had CFC gases, mercury switches, and/or PCBs removed.
Since 1991, another item that has become the target of bans is dry cell batteries. In H.B. 7216, Connecticut put a disposal ban on mercury oxide batteries. Minnesota prohibits the dis- posal of rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries. The Vermont legislature passed a ban on mercuric oxide, silver oxide, nickel-cadmium, and sealed lead acid batteries used in commer- cial applications. Additionally, the Vermont law bans the disposal of retail nickel-cadmium batteries and bans alkaline batteries from incinerators. By the end of 1997, six states had passed bans on at least some household batteries (U.S. EPA, 1999).
While many states have legislatively banned multiple materials from disposal, none have developed as extensive a list as Wisconsin. In its 1989 recycling act, the legislature banned from disposal: appliances, waste oil, automotive batteries, yard waste, cardboard boxes, glass containers, newspapers, plastic bottles, office paper, magazines, steel cans, tires, aluminum cans, and foam polystyrene packaging (waste oil, yard waste, and tires are allowed to be incin- erated if there is energy recovery). Wisconsin estimates that those items account for about 60 percent of the discarded waste in the state. Other states with extensive lists of banned items include Massachusetts, Oregon, and South Dakota (see Table 3.8).
3.11
MAKING PRODUCERS AND RETAILERS RESPONSIBLE FOR WASTE
Several states have attempted to shift some of the burden of waste disposal and recovery of materials back to the manufacturers of products. To accomplish this shift, one approach is to require manufacturers to take back products or packages after their useful life has expired.
Beverage Container Deposits
The first attempts at making manufacturers responsible for products came in the 1970s with the passage of mandatory deposits on selected beverage containers. The first mandatory deposit law was passed in Oregon in 1971. Since then, another eight states have passed mandatory deposit legislation, the last being New York in 1983.
The principal focus of these laws is the packages that are used for soft drink and beer con- tainers, and to a lesser extent, mineral water and liquor. Maine has the most extensive list of containers. It includes the four mentioned previously as well as juice, water, and tea. In nine states the legislation includes glass, steel, aluminum, and plastic containers. Delaware has exempted aluminum cans from the deposits (see Table 3.9).
Another approach similar to mandatory deposits for beverage containers was taken in California in 1987. California’s law is different from the other nine in that no actual deposit is paid by the consumers; instead distributors pay either two or four cents per container (based on size) into a state-administered fund. Consumers returning the containers to state- approved redemption centers receive 2.5 cents for each container under 24 oz and five cents for those over 24 oz.
Deposit requirements have been applied to other products, most notably auto vehicle bat- teries. The first vehicle battery deposit law was passed by the Rhode Island legislature in 1987.
TABLE 3.9 State Mandatory Deposits and Take-Back Laws
Type of Deposit or Effective Effective
State product take back Act ID year date
Arizona Vehicle batteries Take-back H.B. 2012 1990 9/90
Arkansas Vehicle batteries Deposit* HB1170 1991 7/92
Connecticut Beverage Sec. 22A 243- 1978 1980
containers 246
Connecticut Mercury oxide Take-back H.B. 7216 1991 1/92
batteries
Delaware† Beverage Deposit Title 7, Chap. 60 1979 1982
containers
Florida Ni-cad batteries Take-back H.B. 461 1993 10/95
Idaho Vehicle batteries Deposit H.B. 122 1991 7/91
Illinois Vehicle batteries Deposit PA86-723 1989 9/90
Iowa Beverage Deposit Chap. 445C 1978 1979
containers
Louisiana Vehicle batteries Take-back 185 1989 8/89
Maine Beverage Deposit P.L. 1975, C. 1975 1978
containers 739 (as
amended)
Massachusetts Beverage Deposit 301 CMR 4.00 1981 1983
containers
Michigan Beverage Deposit M.C.L. 445.571- 1976 1978
containers 576
Michigan Vehicle batteries Deposit P.A. 20 1990 1/93
Minnesota Vehicle batteries Take-back 325E.115
Mississippi Vehicle batteries Take-back S.B. 2985 1991 7/91
Missouri Vehicle batteries Take-back S.B. 530 1990 1/91
Nevada Tires Take-back A.B. 320 1991 1/92
New Jersey Vehicle batteries Take-back S.B. 2700 1991 10/91
New York Beverage Deposit Title 10, C. 200 1982 1983
containers
New York Vehicle batteries Deposit Chapt. 152 1990 1991
North Carolina Vehicle batteries Take-back H.B. 620 1991 10/91
North Dakota Vehicle batteries Take-back H.B. 1060 1991 1/92
Oregon Beverage Deposit O.R.S. 459.810- 1971 1972
containers .890
Oregon Vehicle batteries Take-back H.B. 3305 1989 1/90
Pennsylvania Vehicle batteries Take-back 101 1988 9/88
Rhode Island Vehicle batteries Deposit 23-60-1 1987 7/89
South Carolina Vehicle batteries Deposit S.B. 366 1991 5/92
Texas Vehicle batteries Take-back S.B. 1340 1991 9/91
Utah Vehicle batteries Take-back H.B. 146 1991 1/92
Vermont Beverage Deposit Title 10, C. 53 1972 1973
containers
Vermont Vehicle batteries Take back Title 10, C. 6622 1991 7/93
Washington Vehicle batteries Deposit E.S.H.B. 1671 1989 8/89
Wisconsin Vehicle batteries ‡ 335 1990 1/91
Wyoming Vehicle batteries Take-back W.S. 35-11-509- 1989 6/89
513
* Retailers must take back lead-acid batteries.
†Any container that holds a carbonated beverage, except aluminum cans.
‡Retailers are required to accept old lead acid batteries when a person purchases a new one and may place up to a $5 deposit on a battery which is sold.
Source: Revised from Kreith (1994).
Since then, five other states (Arkansas, Idaho, Michigan, South Carolina, and Washington) have put deposits on auto batteries.
Beyond putting an added value on the batteries in question, these laws also require that retailers take back at least as many old batteries as customers buy new ones and also require that wholesalers accept the old batteries from the retailers.
Take-Back Provisions
What has become even more prominent than deposits on batteries is requiring retailers and then wholesalers in turn to take back products. As of the end of 1998 a total of 17 states had laws requiring retailers to accept batteries from consumers (see Table 3.9). These actions have come about since 1988, when Pennsylvania passed a “take-back” provision without including a deposit.
But the first state to require retailers to accept what they sell was Minnesota. In 1985, it applied that concept to tires. Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, and Nevada have since passed similar requirements. Additionally, Connecticut and Vermont passed legislation in 1991 mandating retailers to take back mercuric oxide batteries and lead acid auto batteries respectively.
Mandating Manufacturer Responsibility
In 1991, a number of the state legislatures developed another approach to requiring manu- facturers to become responsible for their products. Vermont’s H.B. 124 requires that manu- facturers of dry cell batteries containing mercuric oxide electrode, silver oxide electrode,