• No results found

SPECIAL WASTE LEGISLATION

In document SolidWaste Hand book - unit 3 & 5 (Page 106-111)

Kelly Hill Jim Glenn

3.13 SPECIAL WASTE LEGISLATION

Beyond waste reduction, another trend in state legislation is an increasing awareness that certain waste products need special consideration when it comes to developing a legislative package. For example, special legislation is required for such products as scrap tires, used motor oil, and household hazardous waste. States are going beyond simply taxing a material and/or banning it from disposal sites and are developing comprehensive management pro- grams. For instance, 1991 saw Arkansas pass laws which developed a permit program for waste tire facilities, required solid waste management districts to establish collection sites, and provided grants for a variety of public education and collection activities. Pennsylvania has established a grant program for municipalities to establish hazardous waste collection programs.

Tires

The disposal of used tires has been a vexing problem for years. Whole tires cause operational problems at landfills (they tend to work their way to the surface after being buried). And with the exception of burning the tires as a fuel source, there has been only limited success at uti- lizing scrap tires. The result is thousands of tire piles, some numbering in the millions, through- out the United States.

The tire management laws in most states do not ban disposal outright. In all, 38 states have bans (see Table 3.8). However, of those states with tire bans, nine states (Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and New York) allow disposal if the tires have been shredded, chipped, or halved. To keep track of who is collecting and transporting tires some states also have put permitting or registration requirements into legislation. For instance, Florida and Iowa register haulers. Iowa requires haulers to be bonded. In Washing- ton, legislation requires that all used tire haulers be licensed and pay a $250/year fee. Perhaps most important, haulers have to document where the tires were delivered. Georgia has estab- lished a manifest-and-tracking system for scrap tires as well.

Disposal and processing facilities have also come under legislative oversight. In Kentucky, H.B. 32, which passed in 1990, required that piles with more than 100 tires had to be registered with the Department of Environmental Protection. Missouri dictates that anyone storing more than 500 tires for longer than 30 days must be permitted by the state.

Other states are taking scrap tire management one step further. To ensure that collection and disposal facilities are available, some are making it the responsibility of local govern- ments. Counties in North Carolina have had to provide collection sites, as do regional solid waste management authorities in Arkansas. A.B. 1843 in California includes provisions for a system of designated landfills that will accept and store shredded tires.

Another element of state tire management programs is the provision of grants to perform a variety of tasks. Arizona’s tire disposal law provides that grant monies be used for counties and private companies to establish tire processing facilities, and for counties to establish col- lection centers and contract for hauling and processing services. A number of states, includ- ing Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, and Oklahoma use grant monies to help with the cleanup of existing disposal sites. To help develop utilization programs, some states such as

Georgia and Illinois use monies to fund innovative technology development. In 1996, Iowa started a Waste Tire Management Fund to appropriate $15 million by 2002 to foster the cre- ation of new markets for used tires. Companies throughout the country have found markets for using used tires as crumb rubber, as a substitute for sand and gravel in landfill leachate control, running tracks and playground covers. These and other disposal technologies are treated in later chapters.

Used Oil

A second special waste to be tackled by state legislators is used motor oil. Unlike tires, there are not significant accumulations of used oil around the country. But that is not to say that poor used-oil disposal practices do not cause environmental harm. Less than two-thirds of the oil used in this country is accounted for. The speculation is that much of the remainder gets dumped in the drain or onto the ground.

Much of state used-oil legislation is directed at providing “do-it-yourselfers” with suffi- cient collection alternatives, and ensuring that once collected, the oil is properly handled and processed. In states such as Texas, the program consists of the voluntary establishment of used oil collection sites by private industry and local government. South Carolina has a similar pro- vision, although its Department of Highways and Public Transportation is ultimately respon- sible for ensuring that at least one collection facility exists in each county. Additionally, both statutes require, as many other states do, that retailers post signs about a citizen’s responsibil- ities and where to get additional information. In other states, like Arkansas, New York, and Wisconsin, retailers of motor oil must establish collection sites for used oil. Tennessee law requires each county has to provide a collection for not only used oil, but other automotive fluids such as antifreeze, as well as scrap tires and batteries.

But today states are going far beyond simply encouraging the development of collection programs. As with scrap tires, a growing number of states are seeking to control who collects used oil and what is done with it. South Carolina requires that used oil transporters register with the Department of Health and Environmental Control. They must submit annual reports to the Department and have liability insurance. Used-oil recycling facilities in the state must be permitted. In Arizona, used-oil transporters have to register as a hazardous waste trans- porter. The transporter must also manifest any used-oil shipments.

Household Hazardous Waste

The first state effort to manage household hazardous waste (HHW) was probably in Florida. In the mid-1980s, it provided a series of temporary collection opportunities throughout the state. Since then, other states have begun to develop comprehensive HHW management pro- grams. For instance, in 1988, Pennsylvania’s Act 101 established the “Right-Way-to-Throw- Away” program. In addition to initiating a grant program of local governments wanting to develop HHW collection programs, it also required the Department of Environmental Resources to register the programs, establish operational guidelines, and inspect sites.

3.14

MARKET DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

States have come to recognize that developing recycling programs has to encompass more than the supply side of the equation. Markets hold the key to sustain growth in recycling. Therefore, states have included market development initiatives in waste reduction legislation. The earliest market development efforts were directed at providing financial incentives to companies willing to convert to the use of recycled feedstock. In the mid-1970s, Oregon insti-

tuted a series of tax credits that companies could use if they made recycling-related capital improvements.

New Jersey was the first state to incorporate a full range of financial incentives in legisla- tion. Its 1987 omnibus recycling law included a market development package that contained tax credits, loans, grants, and sales tax exemptions (see Table 3.11). Since then, numerous states have followed suit. Twenty-six states have tax credit programs. Most of the state legisla- tive activity promoting tax credits took place in 1992 when six states—Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—passed such legislation (Stoutville et al., 1993). The amount of credit given on income tax typically ranges from Colorado’s 20 percent to Louisiana’s 50 percent.

Montana put an innovative piece of tax legislation on the books in 1991. In addition to pro- viding for a 25 percent income tax credit, the state now gives a tax deduction to encourage businesses to purchase recycled goods. The law, S.B. 111, allows for a deduction of 5 percent “of the taxpayer’s expenditures for the purchase of recycled material that was otherwise deductible by the taxpayer as a business-related expense.” Montana extended this legislation in 1997 (S.B. 336).

Although the bulk of state tax credit programs were developed in the early 1990s, states continued to implement programs throughout the decade. In 1997 Virginia H.B. 544 provided a 10 percent tax credit on equipment purchases used in facilities to manufacture items from recyclable material. H.B. 595, of that same year, provides a tax exemption for certified recy- cling equipment.

Because the effectiveness of tax credits diminishes when they are applied to firms just starting, some states also give out low-interest loans and grants. In all, 33 states have grants and loan programs (Goldstein and Glenn, 1997).

In addition to financial and market incentives, a number of states recognize that advances in market development require the coordinated action of many players in both the public and private sectors. To help in that coordination, numerous states have put together market devel- opment councils. For instance, South Carolina’s Solid Waste Policy and Management Act established a council that was to analyze existing and potential markets and make recom- mendations on how to increase the demand for recovered materials. In Tennessee, not only was a markets council established, but its Department of Economic and Community Devel- opment had to set up an office of cooperative marketing.

Minimum Content Standards

Another approach states have taken to assist in the development of markets is to directly intervene in the market. In 1989, California and Connecticut passed statutes that required newspaper publishers to utilize print made with recycled paper or face fines (see Table 3.12). Since then another 11 states have passed newsprint “minimum content” legislation, and news- paper publishers in another 11 states have voluntarily agreed to increase purchases of newsprint containing recycled fiber (Glenn and Riggle, 1989a). As a result of these actions, numerous paper mills in both the United States and Canada have converted to the use of deinked fiber.

The content standards vary significantly in the statutes, ranging from Oregon’s 7.5 percent of postconsumer fiber to West Virginia’s requirement that 80 percent of the newsprint used by the newspaper publishers contain the highest postconsumer recycled paper content practica- ble. For the most part the standards were to be phased in through the year 2000.

Now that content standards for newsprint have started to take hold around the country, lawmakers are beginning to utilize them to tackle other products as well. In 1991 Maryland and Oregon passed laws that require phone directories to have recycled content of 40 percent and 25 percent respectively. Oregon is also pushing recycled content standards for plastic and glass containers. In the case of glass containers, the Oregon law (S.B. 66) requires that each glass container manufacturer use a minimum of 50 percent recycled glass by January 1, 2000.

TABLE 3.11 State Financial Incentives to Produce Goods Made with Recycled Materials

State Tax credits Loans Grants Other

Alabama Yes — Yes —

Arizona Yes — Yes —

Arkansas Yes — Yes —

California — Yes Yes —

Colorado — Yes Yes —

Connecticut — Yes Yes —

Delaware Yes — — —

Florida Yes — — —

Georgia — — Yes —

Hawaii Yes Yes — —

Idaho — — — Property tax

exemption

Illinois — Yes Yes Property tax

abatement

Indiana — Yes Yes —

Iowa — Yes Yes Sales & property tax

exemptions

Kansas — Yes Yes —

Kentucky Yes — — —

Louisiana Yes — — —

Maine — Yes Yes —

Maryland Yes Yes Yes —

Massachusetts — Yes Yes —

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes —

Mississippi — Yes Yes —

Missouri — Yes Yes Tax exemption

Montana Yes Yes — —

Nebraska — Yes Yes —

Nevada — — — Property tax

exemptions

New Jersey — — — Tax exemptions

New Mexico Yes Yes Yes —

New York Yes Yes Yes —

North Carolina — — Yes Property tax

abatement

Ohio — Yes Yes

Oklahoma Yes — — —

Oregon Yes Yes Yes —

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes —

South Carolina Yes — Yes —

South Dakota — Yes Yes —

Tennessee — Yes Yes —

Texas Yes — — —

Utah Yes — — —

Vermont — — Yes —

Virginia Yes — Yes —

West Virginia — Yes Yes —

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes —

Wyoming — Yes Yes —

Source: Revised from Kreith (1994).

TABLE 3.12 Recycled Content Standards

State Material Deadline Act

Arizona Newsprint 2000 California Newsprint 2000 Glass containers 2005 Connecticut Newsprint 2000 Illinois Newsprint 2000 Kentucky Newsprint 2004 H.B. 282 Maryland Newsprint 2000 H.B. 1148/H.B. 629 Phone directories 2000 H.B. 1148 Missouri Newsprint 2000

North Carolina Newsprint 1999 H.B. 1224/H.B. 1055

Oregon Newsprint 1995 S.B. 66

Phone directories 1995 S.B. 66

Glass containers 2000 S.B. 66

Plastic containers 1995 S.B. 66

Rhode Island Newsprint 2001 H.B. 5638

Texas Newsprint 2001 S.B. 1340

West Virginia Newsprint 1997 S.B. 18

Wisconsin Newsprint 2000

Source: Revised from Kreith (1994).

Original Source: Steutville et al. (1993).

Rigid plastic containers are to either contain at least 25 percent recycled content, be recycled at a 25 percent rate by the same date, or be a reusable package.

Procurement Provisions

Using the purchasing power of a state is another market development tool. Procurement ini- tiatives go back well before when most states began to seriously consider developing com- prehensive recycling programs. Initially, procurement provisions were directed at paper products, but more recently they have begun to be used in conjunction with a wide variety of products from plastics to compost.

Over the years, virtually every state in the country has passed some form of legislation encouraging the governmental purchase of products made from recycled materials. Legisla- tion tends to focus on two things: eliminating any biases against recycled products, and price preferences, particularly for paper and paper products. Additionally, some states have begun to direct their agencies to make specific purchases of recycled products.

One such law (H.B. 2020), passed in Illinois in 1991, required that by July 1, 2000, 50 per- cent of the “total dollar value of paper and paper products” must be recycled. In Arkansas, H.B. 1170 established a progressive goal which aimed to reach 60 percent of paper purchases by calendar year 2000. Oregon requires that 35 percent of their paper purchases be made from recycled paper, while West Virginia requires that figure to be 40 percent.

Procurement requirements are going far beyond paper these days. In addition to merely telling procurement agencies they have to give a preference to recycled products, states are now targeting what materials have to be procured. For instance, Oregon’s S.B. 66 requires the purchase of re-refined oil by both state and other public agencies. Illinois mandates that recy- cled cellulose insulation be used in weatherization projects done with state funds. Texas now can grant a 15 percent life-cycle price preference for rubberized asphalt. Main passed a bill that requires compost to be used on all public land maintenance and landfill closures that use state funds.

In document SolidWaste Hand book - unit 3 & 5 (Page 106-111)