Title: Legislative Policy Issue Monograph: Hazardous Waste Issues in Florida Referred in the Memo to Members of the Task Force on Water Issues by W'm Sadowski Dated April 28, 1983
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004084/00001
 Material Information
Title: Legislative Policy Issue Monograph: Hazardous Waste Issues in Florida Referred in the Memo to Members of the Task Force on Water Issues by W'm Sadowski Dated April 28, 1983
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Hazardous Waste Management Program Institute of Science and Public Affairs , Fla State U., Tallahassee, Florida
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Legislative Policy Issue Monograph: Hazardous Waste Issues in Florida Referred in the Memo to Members of the Task Force on Water Issues by W'm Sadowski Dated April 28, 1983 (JDV Box 54)
General Note: Box 17, Folder 2 ( Task Force on Water Issues, Bills Passed, Articles - 1980s ), Item 27
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004084
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text











LEGISLATIVE POLICY ISSUE MONOGRAPH:


HAZARDOUS WASTE ISSUES IN FLORIDA






A Paper Prepared for

The Public Managers Training and Advisory Service
The Florida State University


Prepared by

John E. Moerlins,
Christopher M. Teaf,
and
Dr. Roy C. Herndon, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Program
Institute of Science and Public Affairs
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32306
(904) 644-2007


April 1983









TABLE OF CONTENTS


Executive Summary iii

I. Introduction, Overview, and Background Information

A. Introduction 1
B. Federal Hazardous Waste Program 2
C. Florida Hazardous Waste Program 3
D. Hazardous Waste: Quantities, Types, Locations,
and Generators 4
E. Summary Comments 5

II. Identification of Issues and Problems

A. Introduction 7
B. Hazardous Waste Mismanagement in the Past 8
C. Ongoing Hazardous Waste Mismanagement 11
D. The Need for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities 13
E. Summary Comments 16

III. The Role of Local Government in the Overall Effort to
Regulate Hazardous Waste Generators in Florida

A. Introduction 18
B. Local Government and Hazardous Waste: An Example 19
C. Cost Effectiveness of Local Government Hazardous
Waste Programs 21
D. Summary Comments 23

IV. Recommendations 25

Glossary 28

Bibliography









EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Hundreds of thousands of tons of hazardous waste are generated each year in

Florida and much of this is not properly managed. The mismanagement of this

hazardous waste results in the contamination of ground and surface waters.

The state of Florida faces two categories of problems resulting from

hazardous waste mismanagement. First, there are uncontrolled hazardous waste

sites statewide that pose potential and actual threats to the quality of ground and

surface waters. These sites will require at least $12.5 million to clean up and/or

contain their wastes. An adequate and timely source of funding needs to be

identified to provide these funds.

Second, despite the existence of federal and state hazardous waste regula-

tions and programs, hazardous waste mismanagement continues statewide. With

Florida's heavy dependence on ground water for drinking purposes and agricultural

use, its natural resource dependent economy, its fragile environment, and its

forecasted high growth in population and industrial development, the need for a

fully implemented and effective regulatory program is critical. The causes of

ongoing hazardous waste mismanagement result from both the regulator's (Florida

Department of Environmental Regulation) difficulty in implementing the state's

hazardous waste regulatory program, as well as from the regulated communities'

difficulties in fully complying with state and federal regulations. Effective

solutions to these problems require an understanding of the circumstances facing

both the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) and hazardous

waste generators.

FDER has difficulties fully implementing its program principally due to

insufficient funding and staffing. Hazardous waste generators have difficulty

complying with state and federal regulations due to a lack of knowledge of legal

responsibilities, waste management costs, or a perception that the regulatory









process is complex and technical. To compound the problems of generator

compliance, Florida has many exempt, small quantity generators of hazardous

waste. These generators are exempt from manifesting their wastes as well as from

reporting their waste generation and management practices to FDER. Some

counties in Florida have a population of hazardous waste generators that is

comprised largely of these exempt, small quantity generators of hazardous waste.

Approximately 75 to 85 percent of Florida's hazardous waste requires some

type of off-site, commercial management, yet Florida has only one small transfer

facility in Pompano Beach. More off-site management capacity is needed to meet

the needs of Florida's generators and to reduce the state's dependence on out-of-

state disposal. In addition, as Florida industry grows, the need for these facilities

will become more acute. It is important to change Florida's facility siting process

to allow for the responsible development of these needed facilities. Florida's siting

process can significantly hinder facility development for two reasons. First, public

opposition to hazardous waste facilities can prevent development and second, the

waste management industry generally evaluates Florida's facility siting process as

being "unworkable" in terms of dealing with public opposition and the political

problems associated with approving facility development.

Although hazardous waste mismanagement ultimately occurs in Florida cities

and counties, no role is defined for local governments to play in the overall effort

to regulate hazardous waste. FDER, due to its limited staff, is unable to identify

and educate the smaller generators of hazardous waste statewide. By involving

local governments, they can identify and monitor all generators of hazardous waste

in their jurisdictions to complement the regulatory efforts of state and federal

agencies. However, local governments need technical and financial assistance to

assess hazardous waste activities in their communities. These local government

assessments can help define and resolve problems locally, while also allowing








FDER's regulatory program to function more effectively. Currently, FDER is

financially constrained to concentrate regulatory efforts on larger generators of

hazardous waste and on the clean-up of major uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

However, smaller generators of hazardous waste may be creating tomorrow's

uncontrolled sites by mismanaging their wastes in sanitary landfills and in other

environmentally unsound ways. Local government assessments and programs can

help the FDER to regulate and guide these smaller generators of hazardous waste

and therefore to mitigate Florida's future problems associated with hazardous

waste mismanagement.

In summary then, the 1983 Florida Legislature should examine closely the

need to identify an adequate and timely source of funding to clean up the state's

priority uncontrolled sites. Further, the Legislature should examine the need to

change the facility siting process while concurrently assisting local governments to

assess hazardous waste problems within their jurisdictions. These actions will

move Florida much closer to a fully implemented and effective hazardous waste

regulatory and management program.







I. Introduction, Overview, and Background Information

A. Introduction

Contamination of land areas and water supplies with hazardous waste is one

of Florida's most urgent environmental and public health concerns. The state's

heavy dependence on ground water, its vulnerable ecological systems and natural

resource-dependent economy, combined with the forecasted rapid growth in

population and industry, require full implementation of a hazardous waste regula-

tory program that is integrated at the federal, state, and local government levels.

This program should be structured in a way which protects the environment and

public health, while at the same time contributes to the growth and stability of

Florida's economy. Such an integrated program will allow the state's economic

base to be broadened without diminishing the public health or degrading the

environment.

Florida's lawmakers must decide between the relative costs of implementing

an adequate hazardous waste program with the resultant costs of not implementing

such a program. A comprehensive hazardous waste management program in

Florida requires an annual multimillion dollar expenditure. Not implementing such

a program would result in serious and pervasive degradation of Florida's ground and

surface waters, as well as other environmental resources. This degradation can

easily be translated into prospective large-scale health costs far exceeding the

costs of preventative programs. Further, significant economic costs would result if

negative national media attention were to erode Florida's multimillion dollar

tourism trade and/or the demand for Florida agricultural crops, both of which

depend heavily on a healthy environment for their continued contribution to the

economy.

Activities to clean up uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal areas require

expenditures that are typically many times larger than those which are necessary










to fully implement regulatory programs to prevent the occurrence of such

uncontrolled sites. Florida's number of candidate Superfund hazardous waste sites

ranks in the upper five states in the U.S. Preventive programs for hazardous waste

management are clearly fiscally prudent to implement and these programs, in order

to be effective, must include an explicitly defined role for local governments in the

overall federal-state-local government cooperative effort. Local governments can

deal with specific concerns that exist at the local level, while at the same time

complementing the regulatory activities of both the Florida Department of

Environmental Regulation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In

Florida, local governments do not have a formally defined role regarding hazardous

waste activities.

B. Federal Hazardous Waste Management Program

With the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of

1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) began the task of

regulating the management of hazardous waste. The initial phase of the federal

regulations to implement RCRA were adopted on May 19, 1980, approximately four

years after the passage of the act. These regulations concern transportation,

treatment, storage, disposal, and reuse of hazardous waste as well as other related

issues. The Comprehensive Emergency Response and Compensation, Liability Act

of 1980 (Superfund) was passed as companion legislation to RCRA to provide

guidelines and funding for the clean-up of hazardous waste dump sites nationwide.

Explicit in both acts is a process for uniformly delegating regulatory authority for

these programs to the states. Receipt of federal grants by the states to administer

state level programs is contingent upon the implementation of state level rules and

regulations that are substantially equivalent to those promulgated by the U.S. EPA.

In Florida, the state's hazardous waste management program is approaching full

authorization from the U.S. EPA. It is uncertain to what extent federal grant







monies will continue once full hazardous waste regulatory authorization is attained

by the state.

C. Florida Hazardous Waste Management Program

On July 1, 1980 the Florida Legislature enacted into law the Florida Resource

Recovery and Management Act (FRRMA, Chapter 403, Part IV, Florida Statutes).

FRRMA provides authority to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

for the implementation of the state's hazardous waste regulatory program.

Concurrent with the enactment of FRRMA, a Tax on Hazardous Waste Generators

(THWG, Chapter 208, Florida Statutes) was passed. The primary purpose of this

tax is to generate revenues to be used for matching monies which are necessary to

acquire federal Superfund dollars for site clean-up (90 percent federal, 10 percent

Florida match for privately owned sites; 50 percent federal, 50 percent Florida

match for municipally and other publicly owned sites).

In order to validate the need to enact state legislation, three questions

required answers:

Is there hazardous waste generated in Florida?

Is there evidence of hazardous waste mismanagement?

Can Florida afford to implement a hazardous waste management

program?

The first two questions were answered with the completion of the 1977

Hazardous Waste Survey for the State of Florida (Institute of Science and Public

Affairs, Florida State University). This report indicated that hundreds of thousands

of tons of hazardous waste are being generated annually in Florida by firms which

vary widely in type and size. Further, the report concluded that most hazardous

waste in Florida was being managed in environmentally unsound ways. The third

question was answered by the completion of a report entitled Economic Impact of

Florida's Proposed Hazardous Waste Control Program on Selected Industries, 1980








(Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University). This research

showed that the direct and indirect statewide effects on waste generators resulting

from implementation of a hazardous waste regulatory program were negligible in

terms of income and employment losses. In essence, this work showed that the

state of Florida could not afford to be without a fully implemented hazardous

waste program when potential costs of compliance were weighed against public

health and environmental costs which could result from lack of a comprehensive

program.

In late 1981, the Florida Hazardous Waste Policy Advisory Council (HWPAC),

chaired by (now) U.S. Congressman Kenneth H. MacKay, sought an answer to a

fourth question: Is Florida's hazardous waste management program, which resulted

from FRRMA, fully and effectively implemented? In its final report entitled

Hazardous Waste: A Management Perspective, the council concluded that Florida's

program was underfunded, understaffed, and heavily dependent on federal funds for

continued support. To help correct this situation, the Advisory Council made

twenty-three recommendations to the 1982 Florida Legislature. Many of these

recommendations were incorporated into committee bills, both in the House and

the Senate. The Florida 1982 legislative session adjourned before these bills were

introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Many of the deficiencies identified

by the Advisory Council are identified and discussed in Part I of this paper along

with other issues as well.

D. Hazardous Waste: Quantities, Types, Locations, and Generators

As shown in the 1977 statewide survey, there are hundreds of thousands of

tons of hazardous wastes generated annually in Florida. These wastes originate not

only from from manufacturing but also from agriculture, commerce, government,









mining, construction, service industries, universities, and hospitals. Every sector

of Florida's economy and every county of the state contribute to the total

amount of hazardous waste generated annually. Although a large portion of the

total tonnage originates in Dade, Broward, Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Duval

counties, the issues relating to hazardous waste mismanagement affect all

Floridians. Further, it is not only the quantity of waste that must be evaluated

when considering the effects of mismanagement. The nature or type of the waste

may make only a relatively small quantity extremely dangerous to the environment

and human health (e.g., the improper disposal of dioxin in Times Beach, Missouri).C

Figure 1 shows a distribution of manufacturing employment that emphasizes

concentrations of industrial activity. Even areas of the state with relatively little

manufacturing may have service-oriented firms that can mismanage small

quantities of wastes which can pose environmental and health problems.

Of the total tonnage of hazardous waste generated annually in Florida,

approximately 5 to 10 percent has potential value in secondary raw material markets.

Another 10 to 15 percent of this waste can be cost-effectively managed on-site in an

environmentally sound fashion, typically by the larger manufacturing firms. It is

estimated that 75 to 85 percent of Florida's hazardous waste requires some form of

off-site, commercial management service. However, Florida has only one small

transfer facility operating in Pompano Beach. Additional off-site management

capacity is clearly needed in Florida if alternatives are to be available to

generators at reasonable cost.













CONCENTRATIONS OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IN FLORIDA



CLUSTER D
.-\ 7 6.08% of
S ---I Total Manulacluring
,'-i \ ,- -. I Employment
(Duval)



CLUSTER C

A "- 13.83% of
s Tolal Manufacluring
r' I Employmen
I (Orange, Brevard. Seminole.
CLUSTER Volusla)
24.53% of a
Total Manufacturing nufacr
SpEmployment
(Hillsborough. Pinellas. Polk. P B a -
Manatee. Sarasola) \ ." .


l CLUSTER A
36.51% of
STotal Manufacturing
Employment
(Dade. Broward, Palm Beach)








s.,.1
v '*'










Table 1 shows an estimated percentage distribution of the types of hazardous

wastes generated from the manufacturing sector in Florida. Data used to

determine this distribution were adapted from the 1977 Hazardous Waste Survey

for the State of Florida and the Florida Waste Exchange Study (Institute of Science

and Public Affairs, 1981). The nonmanufacturing sectors of the Florida economy

are not represented in this distribution and as such the actual statewide percent-

ages of these waste categories may vary.



TABLE 1

Estimated Percent Distribution of Types of Hazardous Wastes
Generated in Florida* (1977 data)



Waste Category Percentage of Total Waste


Heavy Metal Solutions and Sludges 35
Organic Solvents and Oils 7
Caustic and Acid Solutions 18
Inorganic Chemicals: Solutions and Sludges 4
Organic Chemicals: Solutions and Sludges 29
Pesticide and Fungicide Wastes 3
Paint and Ink Wastes 3
Explosive Wastes I

TOTAL 100


*Does not include wastes from nonmanufacturing sector.


E. Summary Comments

1) Water and land contamination with hazardous waste is one of Florida's

most urgent environmental and public health concerns. This threat of

contamination will continue until appropriate measures are taken by the

state to provide a comprehensive and fully implemented hazardous

waste management program.









2) There is a need to implement a state funded hazardous waste regulatory

program that is integrated at the federal, state, and local government

levels as opposed to the federally assisted, state operated program

which is currently in place.

3) The cost of implementing an integrated, intergovernmental hazardous

waste program is small relative to the costs of not implementing such a

program.

4) Local government hazardous waste programs can help control the

mismanagement of wastes from generators in a way not presently

feasible at the state and federal governmental levels. In this respect,

local government programs will serve to complement regulatory

activities at these other levels of government, particularly in the areas

of generator identification, notification, and education.

5) Florida's hazardous waste management program is substantially equiva-

lent to the federal program which is administered by the U.S. EPA.

Florida, however, may need to take additional or more stringent

regulatory actions to preserve its ground water and other natural

resources.

6) The Florida Hazardous Waste Policy Advisory Council evaluated the

effectiveness of Florida's hazardous waste regulatory program. It

concluded that additional activities need to be performed in order to

fully implement the program statewide and that funding sources were

inadequate at their present level.

7) Each year there are hundreds of thousands of tons of hazardous waste

generated statewide-in Florida. Hazardous waste is generated in every

county in Florida and by every sector of the state economy.

8) Concentrations of hazardous waste generation occur in four clusters in

the state: Dade-Broward-Palm Beach counties; Hillsborough-Pinellas-

8








Polk-Manatee-Sarasota counties; Orange-Brevard-Seminole-Volusia

counties; and Duval county.

9) Approximately 75 to 85 percent of Florida's hazardous waste requires

some form of off-site management service (e.g., treatment or disposal).

There is only one small transfer station in Pompano Beach, Florida.

II. Identification of Issues and Problems

A. Introduction

The problems associated with hazardous waste and the issues relating to

these problems can be divided into two broad categories: problems resulting from

hazardous waste mismanagement in the past and problems resulting from present

and future mismanagement of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste mismanagement

includes practices that result in the contamination of ground and surface waters.

Despite the presence of regulatory programs at the federal and state

levels, hazardous waste mismanagement continues in Florida. Deficiencies exist

under the current regulatory scheme, particularly with regard to identification of

small quantity generators, compliance by all generators, enforcement programs of

regulatory agencies, and the provision of adequate off-site management services

by the waste management industry.

B. Hazardous Waste Mismanagement in the Past

Prior to the passage of the May 19, 1980 federal regulations which imple-

mented RCRA, hazardous wastes were managed in ways that were typically least

costly to the generators of these wastes without regard to potential environmental

consequences in many cases. Traditional practices included depositing hazardous

wastes in various on-site, unlined, surface impoundments (e.g., pits, ponds, and

lagoons) or depositing bulk, containerized, or drummed wastes in private and public

landfills. These wastes have accumulated and may have contaminated soil and

waters at what are known as potentially hazardous uncontrolled waste sites.








Approximately 200 of these sites have been identified in Florida and 25 have been

included on the U.S. EPA list of priority clean-up sites. More sites will probably be

identified as efforts to locate uncontrolled sites continue. The U.S. EPA estimates

that it will cost an average of approximately $5 million to clean up a typical

Superfund site.

Funding sources for clean-up operations include those private parties respon-

sible for creating the site and the public sector. Government cost-sharing

arrangements for clean-up include a variety of combinations with the most likely

being a federal/state matching agreement. If the site is privately owned, then

Florida would have to match 10 percent of the total clean-up costs or $500,000

(average). If the site is publicly owned (e.g., municipal landfill), then the state

would have to match 50 percent of a typical $5 million site or $2,500,000. Using

this 10 percent matching rate for the 25 U.S. EPA selected sites, it would result in

a cost to Florida of $12.5 million. Other identified sites will also require clean-up

at a cost borne by Floridians.

In addition to the direct problems facing the state regarding uncontrolled

sites, indirect problems from these sites involve the potential health consequences

of groundwater contamination that may occur even after clean-up is completed.

From a policy standpoint, however, the most immediate problem facing Florida

involves providing the matching monies to clean-up the Superfund candidate sites.

In Part I, section C, the Tax on Hazardous Waste Generators was identified as

the mechanism used to generate revenues to be used as Superfund matching

monies. Tax revenues are to be deposited in the Florida Hazardous Waste

Management Trust Fund (FHWMTF) as defined in Section 403.725, Florida Statutes.

The FHWMTF received an initial $600,000 general revenue appropriation to

establish the fund and to allow remedial work to begin as quickly as possible. The

tax revenues generated by the Tax on Hazardous Waste Generators has been far









below anticipated levels. During fiscal year 1981-82, approximately $15,000 was

generated by the tax. It is clear that under its present structure this tax will not

generate sufficient revenues to provide adequate matching monies for federal

Superfund dollars. In fact, the Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR) indicates

that the costs to collect this tax far exceed tax revenues.

Essentially, there are two problems with the use of this tax as a revenue

source for Superfund matching money. First, FDOR pursues tax revenues only

from firms identified by FDER. All small quantity generators are legally exempt

from notifying FDER and therefore, they are not on the FDER list provided to the

FDOR. These generators typically have not voluntarily identified themselves for

taxation. Due to these deficiencies as well as others, FDOR's list of potential

taxpayers is incomplete. Finally, FDOR does not audit potential generators for

payment of this tax. In addition, many hazardous waste generators in Florida may

not be complying with state regulations and therefore are not paying the tax.

The second problem involves the calculation of the base upon which the tax is

assessed. For out-of-state disposal, the only currently available off-site option for

Florida generators, transportation costs comprise approximately 70 percent of the

total cost of waste mangaement. Under Chapter 208, Florida Statutes, the

transportation cost component of the total waste management cost is excluded

from the tax base. For example, if the total cost of out-of-state disposal for one

drum of waste is $100, where $70 is for transportation and $30 is for disposal, then

only $30 is subject to the prevailing tax rate of 2.0 percent. Therefore, only $.60

in tax revenues would be collected by FDOR instead of $2.00.

It is clear that the Florida Legislature needs to identify an alternative

funding source for generating money to clean-up hazardous waste sites in the state.

This source may include additional general revenue funding. However, some type

of impact fee on hazardous waste generators would lead to a more efficient tax in








terms of placing the burden on those who have contributed to the problem. The

need to identify an alternative funding source is underscored by the recognition

that additional sites may be identified.

C. Ongoing Hazardous Waste Mismanagement

In the introduction of Part II, it was noted that despite the existence of

federal and state regulations hazardous waste mismanagement continues in Florida.

In order to fully understand why this is still occurring, it is important to understand

the circumstances facing both the hazardous waste regulator (FDER) and hazardous

waste generators.

The FDER is limited by staffing and funding in its ability to regulate all

hazardous waste generators in the state. This is particularly true regarding the

identification and regulation of legally exempt, small quantity generators.

Exempt, small quantity generators are legally defined as generators that produce

less than 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste each month (1000 kilograms equals

approximately one ton). They are not exempt from complying with federal and

state regulations defining safe waste management practices. However, they are

exempt from certain regulations that require nonexempt generators to manifest

their wastes as well as to notify FDER annually of their waste generation and

waste management practices. Hazardous waste manifesting involves continuous

documentation of the status of wastes "from cradle to grave" or from generation to

ultimate disposal. FDER is also financially constrained in its ability to identify

nonexempt, noncomplying generators, and therefore, enforcement of responsible

management practices by these generators is difficult. In summary, the FDER

currently has problems fully implementing its hazardous waste regulatory program

due principally to funding and staffing limitations and the existence of the small

quantity generator exemption.









Many hazardous waste generators, especially smaller quantity generators, in

Florida have problems in complying with the state regulations for principally three

reasons. Smaller quantity generators, both those below and above the legal

exemption level, represent a major problem for the state. These generators are

typically mismanaging their hazardous waste for one or more of the following

reasons:

They are unaware of their legal responsibilities and therefore may not

be properly managing their wastes.

They are aware of their legal responsibilities but do not comply due to

the costs of responsible management.

They view the entire regulatory process as complex, technical, and

geared for larger companies.

Most importantly, these smaller quantities of mismanaged waste can have

two serious consequences:

They can contaminate large quantities of ground water

They can accumulate to become future uncontrolled sites

Larger hazardous waste generators can frequently manage their wastes on-

site using cost-effective techniques. Larger firms typically manifest their wastes

in accordance with state and federal regulations, and they typically notify FDER of

their hazardous waste related activities. Smaller generators of hazardous waste

are large in number, diverse in geographic location, and often from the non-

manufacturing sector in Florida. These smaller generators present logistical

problems to federal and state regulatory agencies. Due to the fact that many of

these generators fall below the legal exemption limit, they are almost totally

removed from the federal and state regulatory programs. Florida needs to develop

a strategy to fully implement its hazardous waste regulatory program and this full

implementation will require programs to identify, enforce, and monitor all hazard-

ous waste generators in the state.









D. The Need for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities

In Part I, Section D, it was mentioned that hundreds of thousands of tons of

hazardous waste are generated statewide in Florida each year. It was also

mentioned that at least 75 percent of this waste requires some type of off-site

service to safely treat, store and/or dispose of these wastes. Currently, Florida is

dependent solely upon out-of-state disposal for all of the wastes requiring off-site

disposal and treatment. Permitted hazardous waste landfills are located in

northwestern Alabama and in South Carolina. Transportation costs to ship wastes

to these landfills are high. In-state storage facilities located close to the

concentrations of hazardous waste generation can reduce management costs and

generally reduce Florida's dependence upon other states for the solution to our

waste management problems. Appropriate in-state facilities for Florida would

exclude hazardous waste landfills.

Florida's short-term waste management needs will be best served by facilities

that consolidate and reship small (e.g.,. less than a truckload) quantities of

containerized wastes for out-of-state disposal. These facilities are referred to as

transfer facilities. Transfer facilities resemble warehouse operations. Often,

transfer facilities are three-sided, covered structures on concrete slabs,

constructed with leachate (spill) collection/detection systems. Wastes are picked

up from individual generators in smaller vehicles for consolidation in tractor

trailers for reshipment. Without these facilities, smaller generators must arrange

for transportation and disposal independently, which is often more costly and more

complicated. Transfer facilities can not only reduce waste management costs but

also significantly reduce the complexity and inconvenience of out-of-state disposal

through annual service contracts with permitted facility operators.

Florida's longer-term waste management needs will be best served by process

facilities that treat hazardous waste in ways that reduce the quantity of waste








requiring out-of-state disposal or that render wastes nonhazardous. Examples of

these facilities include incinerators, sludge dewatering operations, recycling

facilities, neutralization operations, etc. Florida's growth in manufacturing will,

according to the Florida Department of Commerce, lead the nation during the next

decade. The economic feasibility of operating these process facilities will increase

as industrial activity and waste volume increases. Further, the presence of these

facilities serves as a positive inducement for further economic development and

diversification. Most importantly, in-state hazardous waste management facilities

will help guide this growth in an environmentally sound and economically stable

way.

The siting or development of all types of hazardous waste facilities is

significantly hindered by public opposition to these facilities. Public opposition

exists due to a general fear of hazardous wastes. This fear may be excessive and

irrational, and often results from a lack of information regarding both the facilities

as well as ignorance of the dangers of not having such facilities. Public opposition

channeled through the political process can effectively prevent facilities from

being successfully sited in Florida. Florida's current facility siting process, defined

in Section 403.723 Florida Statute provides local governments, in conjunction with

the Regional Planning Councils, the power to prohibit facility development.

Two alternative solutions to the siting problem have been suggested. The

first alternative involves changing Florida's siting process to allow the state to

more easily override local governments' rejection of a facility developer's applica-

tion. A state-level board or commission could replace the Regional Planning

Council's role in recommending a local government override to the Governor and

Cabinet. Under this alternative the impetus for facility development lies with the

private developer and/or the state in constructing a facility within a specific local

government jurisdiction. The problem often is that local government officials may









not recognize the need for the facility and also they may not trust the judgment of

either state officials or private industry.

The second alternative approach involves working with local governments in

establishing needed management facilities. This approach calls for local govern-

ment to assess hazardous waste mismanagement problems within their communi-

ties. Once the problems are revealed to local government officials and citizens, it

becomes clear that a reasonable solution to the mismanagement problem must be

obtained. For some communities, a reasonable solution for hazardous waste

mismanagement is the development of a transfer or treatment facility. In

addition, the alternatives to the solution can be compared with any potential

dangers associated with the solution. The alternatives to a solution may include

closing down local businesses or allowing mismanagement to continue. The impetus

for facility development may at this time lie with local and regional government

officials.

The advantages to the first approach involve expedience--needed hazardous

waste management facilities would probably be sited more quickly under the first

alternative. While less expedient, the second alternative has two advantages

associated with it. The first is that in order to determine or assess the extent of

hazardous waste problems in their communities, it is necessary for local govern-

ment officials to identify generators, the wastes that they produce, and the

methods that they employ to manage these wastes. This information can serve as

the basis for enforcement by FDER, as well as the development of waste

management strategies for the generators in the community. Most importantly,

this information can identify problems that may be developing within the

community. The second advantage to this approach is that it directly involves

local governments and citizens in the overall regulation and management of

hazardous waste. Citizens and local government officials can jointly take a lead








role in determining the need for hazardous waste management facilities. The first

alternative tends to be adversarial, disruptive, and less effective in terms of the

overall goal of hazardous waste regulation, i.e., minimizing or eliminating mis-

management. Further, the siting of a facility does not guarantee that generators

will utilize the services of the facility unless they are identified and induced to

comply with state and federal regulations. Ideally, some combination of these two

approaches would lead to a timely development of hazardous waste management

facilities in a way that would minimize conflicts due to public opposition.

E. Summary Comments

1) Florida faces two broad categories of problems with hazardous waste:

(a) financing the clean-up of uncontrolled sites in the state, particularly

the Superfund candidate sites and (b) developing effective and fully

implemented regulatory programs to prevent hazardous waste misman-

agement.

2) Florida has approximately 200 uncontrolled sites that have been identi-

fied statewide as having potentially hazardous waste; 25 of these sites

are of particular concern and are candidates for federal Superfund

clean-up monies. It is likely that more uncontrolled sites will be

identified.

3) Clean-up of an average Superfund candidate site can cost $5 million;

the state matching portion of this cost is most often 10 percent or

$500,000. At a minimum, the 25 Superfund candidate sites will cost

$12.5 million.

4) Florida's Tax on Hazardous Waste Generators is not adequate to

produce the state matching dollars to acquire federal Superfund monies.

An alternative funding source needs to be developed.








5) The FDER is limited by staffing and funding in its ability to regulate all

hazardous waste generators in the state. This is particularly true

regarding the identification and regulation of legally exempt, small

quantity generators.

6) Many smaller hazardous waste generators have difficulties in complying

with federal and state regulations due to lack of knowledge of regula-

tions, perceived high costs of compliance, and a perception that the

regulatory process is complex and geared for large industry.

7) Taken together, FDER's problems in fully implementing the state's

hazardous waste program and generators' difficulties in complying with

state and federal regulations indicate that hazardous waste mismanage-

ment continues statewide.

8) Hundreds of thousands of tons of hazardous waste are generated

annually in Florida with at least 75 percent requiring off-site manage-

ment. Florida has only one small transfer/reshipment facility. More

in-state (nonlandfill) facilities are needed.

9) The development of hazardous waste management facilities is signifi-

cantly hindered due to public opposition that can effectively impede

facility development through Florida's siting process (Section 403.723,

F.S.Y.

10) Alternative approaches to remedy Florida's siting problem involve

either state-level override of local government or working with local

governments directly to allow them to recognize the need for facilities

as a solution to a recognized local problem or some combination of the

two approaches.








III. The Role of Local Government in the Overall Effort to Regulate Hazardous

Wastes Generators in Florida

A. Introduction

The national effort to deal with the problems of hazardous waste began with

regulatory efforts focused at the federal level with the passage of RCRA. The

intention was to encourage the states to assume full responsibility for the

implementation of these hazardous waste programs. The rationale for encouraging

state level assumption of this program includes a recognition that the individual

states are better able to diagnose their specific problems and therefore provide for

their remedies. In addition, permitting and enforcement activities can be more

efficiently administered at the state government level. A similar rationale can be

evoked for justifying a formal local government role in the federal-state-local

hazardous waste program. Local governments can effectively and efficiently

perform certain regulatory and management activities that complement and

strengthen activities at the state and federal levels. However, to do so, it is often

necessary to provide assistance to local governments for the same reasons that

federal assistance was provided to encourage state programs.

Despite federal and state management and regulatory efforts, hazardous

waste mismanagement continues to occur throughout Florida. Although mis-

management ultimately occurs at the city and county levels, there is no well-

defined role for local government in the overall federal/state program. Many local

governments throughout the country are recognizing the need to take actions that

complement regulatory efforts at the federal and state levels; however, individual

local government activities are uncoordinated, often fragmented, and generally

more costly and less effective than comprehensive programs that could be

developed through a well-defined role in the federal/state program. On a broader

scale, successfully implemented local government hazardous waste programs









improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of state regulatory programs by

identifying, controlling, and assistihg generators (especially the smaller generators)

of hazardous waste. While state regulatory efforts are generally focused on the

larger generators, local governments can concentrate efforts on smaller hazardous

waste generators. This emphasis on smaller quantity' generators will help prevent

the development of future problem sites that require costly clean-up activities. In

many communities throughout Florida, smaller generator waste is being deposited

and accumulated in municipal sanitary landfills, and these landfills may become

tomorrow's problem hazardous waste sites. Expenditures to implement and operate

local government programs would be small in comparison with the dramatic costs

to clean-up future problem sites. It is clear that the problems facing both the

federal and state regulatory agencies in fully implementing effective hazardous

waste programs are related to the fact that the local government nexus is not

recognized as part of the overall national hazardous waste program. In particular,

both the facility siting issue and the small generator exemption issue can only be

clearly understood and resolved in the context of local government concerns and

needs.

B. Local Government and Hazardous Waste: An Example

Due to problems associated with private wells contaminated with an indus-

trial solvent, the Leon County and City of Tallahassee Commissioners jointly

decided to assess the nature and extent of hazardous waste activities throughout

Leon County. The assessment is comprised of ten interrelated components. The

major objectives of the assessment are to:

Identify hazardous waste generators in the county

Determine the volume and types of hazardous wastes generated

Determine the management practices of hazardous waste generators









Provide recommendations regarding the development of effective poli-

cies to eliminate mismanagement of hazardous waste

The procedures for assessment begin with the identification of all potential

hazardous waste generators in the county. On-site interviews are conducted with

generators from each industry or subindustry. Survey results are corroborated with

data on waste generation from trade associations, government sponsored research,

and other sources.

The City of Tallahassee/Leon County work is still in progress; however, some

preliminary results indicate that tons of hazardous waste are generated annually

within the county. Almost all of this waste is being mismanaged. Much of Leon

County's hazardous waste is generated by exempt, small quantity generators.

These generators manage their hazardous waste like all other solid wastes. The

wastes are picked up by the county and deposited in the sanitary landfill which is

not permitted to accept hazardous wastes.

The nature of the problem in Leon County has generic applicability to all

counties in Florida. Almost all hazardous waste generators interviewed in Leon

County said they were unaware of their legal responsibilities regarding state and

federal regulations. The wastes were containerized in a variety of smaller

containers mixed with other solid wastes. The employees that pick up wastes on

the garbage trucks are not trained to recognize or deal with hazardous wastes. The

landfill employees are accepting hazardous wastes in essentially unrecognizable

containers mixed with trash and garbage. This phenomenon is probably occurring in

most cities and counties throughout Florida. While state efforts are concentrating

on cleaning up major uncontrolled sites and regulating larger hazardous waste

generators, new sites may be developing in sanitary landfills and other locations

due principally to smaller quantity generators.








C. Cost-Effectiveness of Local Government Hazardous Waste Programs

The cost-effectiveness of local government hazardous waste programs can be

evaluated at the local, state, and federal government levels. For the purposes of

this paper, it is most appropriate to evaluate these programs at the local and state

levels. The cost-effectiveness of local government hazardous waste programs can

be determined by comparing the costs of implementing these programs with the

estimated cost of not implementing such programs. In order to make an economic

determination regarding the desirability of local government programs, it is

important to set the stage by identifying certain parameters.

The first parameter involves an estimate of the average annual cost to local

government to administer a program to prevent or minimize hazardous waste

mismanagement. Preventative programs at the local government level typically

consist of efforts to monitor the activities of hazardous waste generators that have

been identified within the county. Hazardous waste generators can be required to

disclose their waste generation and waste management practices annually as a

result of a "right-to-know" ordinance. Other ordinances may require owners of

underground storage tanks to test'for leaks at a predetermined frequencies. Other

program components may involve providing information to citizens, including

hazardous waste generators.

Local government hazardous waste programs have as a main component the

administration of hazardous waste generator disclosure or monitoring. This

component consists of administering generator disclosure forms to existing and new

businesses in the county. While this figure will vary across Florida counties, a

reasonable average annual cost has been estimated to be approximately $20,000. It

should be noted that the filing of generator disclosure forms is normally accompan-

ied by a nominal fee (e.g., $5.00 to $10.00).5 These filing fees will offset the

$20,000 average annual cost of local government programs.








The second parameter is an estimate of the costs associated with not having

a local government program. A measure of this parameter is the potential clean-

up costs associated with hazardous wastes that accumulate in the county/municipal

sanitary landfill. It is assumed that accumulated wastes become detected at

serious levels in ten years. It was indicated in Part II, Section B of this monograph

that clean-up costs for an average Superfund uncontrolled site is $5.0 million in

1983 dollars. For this brief analysis, it is assumed that the clean-up of

accumulated hazardous waste in a sanitary landfill would be at least $500,000 in

1993 dollars. A more elaborate analysis of the costs of not implementing effective

local government programs would include public health costs as well as the costs

associated with diminished property values and other indirect costs associated with

a problem site. It is possible that the health and other indirect costs could be

similar in magnitude to the direct clean-up costs.

At the local level, the cost-effectiveness of implementing a hazardous waste

program involves comparing the costs of the program over the ten-year period with

the resulting costs of the uncontrolled site clean-up. An examination of the

estimated present value of each of these costs are shown below:

Costs Present Value

Program, $20,000 per year for 10 years $122,891.34
Clean-up of municipal landfill $192,771.64


*Present value calculation is for 10 years (n)h discounted at 10.0
percent (i). (Present value = future value x (1 + i) .)

From the perspective of this analysis, the cost-effectiveness of implementing

a local government program is clear. It is less costly to implement a preventive

local government program than to clean up a problem hazardous waste site ten

years from today. However, this analysis is incomplete. It does not include the

revenues from filing fees which would reduce the annual cost to local governments










for administering programs. Further, it does not include an estimate for the

indirect costs of not implementing a preventative program (e.g., health costs,

reduced property values, etc.). Estimation of these indirect costs is beyond the

scope of this monograph. It is reasonable to assume that these indirect costs would

be positive, thereby increasing the costs of not implementing a local government

program. Inclusion of the filing fee revenue and estimates of the indirect costs of

a problem site would increase the cost-effectiveness of 'the local government

program.

From the state perspective, these programs are cost-effective as well. The

identification and control of generators at the local level generally improves the

effectiveness of the FDER regulatory and enforcement program. In addition, the

protection of the state's ground and surface water quality will ensure continued

demand for Florida tourist attractions and agricultural crops.

D. Summary Comments

1) A rationale similar to the one used for defining a role for the states to

play in the national hazardous waste regulatory program can be evoked

for defining a role for local governments as well. Each level of

government can perform complementary regulatory roles to fully

implement a preventative hazardous waste- regulatory program at the

federal, state, and local governmental levels.

2) Despite federal and state management and regulatory efforts, hazard-

ous waste mismanagement continues to occur throughout Florida.

Although mismanagement ultimately occurs in cities and counties,

there is no well-defined role for local government in the overall

federal/state program.







3) Fully implemented local government hazardous waste programs improve

the efficiency and effectiveness of the Florida Department of Environ-

mental Regulation's regulatory program by identifying, controlling, and

assisting generators of hazardous waste.

4) The problems facing both the federal and state regulatory agencies in

fully implementing effective hazardous waste regulatory programs are

related to the fact that the local government nexus is not recognized as

part of the overall national hazardous waste program.

5) The problems being revealed by the Leon County, Florida Hazardous

Waste Assessment are common to most cities and counties throughout

the state. Hazardous waste is generated and mismanaged in every

county of the state. Much of the mismanaged waste is being deposited

in municipal/county sanitary landfills.

6) While state efforts are concentrating on cleaning up major uncontrolled

sites and regulating larger hazardous waste generators, new sites may

be developing in sanitary landfills due principally to smaller quantity

generators.

7) The typical cost of a local government hazardous waste program is

generally only a fraction of the cost of mismanagement that these

programs prevent. In this respect, these programs are cost-effective at

the local government level.

IV. Recommendations

Solutions to Florida's hazardous waste problems are not difficult to identify.

The mechanisms for implementing these solutions can be difficult to employ.

Florida needs to better identify and educate all hazardous waste generators

statewide. Florida needs hazardous waste management facilities to reduce waste

management costs and to reduce the inconvenience and complexity of responsible







waste management. Florida needs to clean-up its uncontrolled sites. Florida needs

to plan for the growth of new industry so that hazardous wastes can be managed

properly and at reasonable costs.

Floridians will need to pay at least $12.5 million to clean up uncontrolled

hazardous waste sites statewide. It is the responsibility of the FDER and the

Florida Legislature to identify an adequate source of funding for this purpose. It is

particularly important to immediately determine a source of the matching money

to acquire Superfund dollars. Florida's Task Force on Water Issues has recom-

mended using the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund as this source of funding.

This fund is currently capped at $35 million and it may serve as an appropriate

source of matching dollars for federal Superfund clean-up money.

Identification and effective regulation of hazardous waste generators state-

wide can be pursued in alternative ways. One method is to provide additional

funding to FDER to accomplish this work in a centralized fashion through the

Tallahassee and district offices. An alternative and more effective method is to

define a role for local governments and to encourage local governments to identify

and monitor the management practices of generators, especially smaller quantity

generators in their jurisdictions. Enforcement, permitting, rule-making, and other

FDER hazardous waste-related program components would not be duplicated;

rather they would be complemented at the local level. Generator identification,

education, and assistance, particularly for smaller quantity generators, may be

more effectively provided at the local government level.

The development of hazardous waste facilities is a critical component in the

overall effort to provide for the responsible management of hazardous waste in

Florida. In order to comprehensively deal with the statewide management of

hazardous waste, three components need to exist:









Hazardous waste generators need to be identified, assessed, and moni-

tored.

Compliance with state and federal hazardous waste regulations needs to

be enforced.

Waste management services need to be available to Florida's hazardous

waste generators at reasonable costs.

Deficiencies within any of these components will seriously hinder a solution

to the problem of ongoing hazardous waste mismanagement in Florida. It has been

recommended that local governments in the state may be most effective in

implementing the first of these components. FDER is responsible for enforcing

compliance to statewide hazardous waste regulations. Solutions to the facility

development or siting problems will partially be provided by the local government

assessments of generators and waste management practice. Once hazardous waste

activities are assessed by local governments, the need to provide responsible

solutions becomes apparent and politically more feasible to implement. In effect,

local constituent opposition to the development of hazardous waste management

facilities is lessened.

Representatives from the waste management industry have indicated the

need to develop, and the economic feasibility of developing and operating,

transfer/storage facilities in Florida. In addition, the need for and economic

feasibility of treatment facilities have been emphasized by these representatives.

Treatment facilities will become economically attractive to operate in the near

future (2-5 years). However, one important potential impediment to the timely

development of facilities may still exist.

This impediment involves a reluctance on the part of the waste management

industry to develop facilities in Florida due to its facility siting process (Section

403.723, Florida Statutes). The prevailing attitude of some industry repre-








sentatives is that unless Florida's facility siting process is changed, industry will

riot invest the substantial site-specific dollars necessary to apply for a facility

permit. Florida's construction permitting process calls for the completion of costly

engineering plans as well as environmental impact statements. Industry is

generally reluctant to make these expenditures because they feel that Florida's

facility siting process will allow local governments to prevent the proposed

development of their facility. Industry feels that despite the fact that FDER

approves its request for a construction permit, local governments will deny

development based upon comprehensive plans, zoning, or due to strong constituent

pressure.

Two important changes need to be made concurrently to Florida's hazardous

waste regulatory program. First, a formal role for local government needs to be

defined in the statewide regulatory effort. Initially, this role should be to assess

hazardous waste related problems locally through generator identification and

through a determination of generator waste management practices. This first

change is important because local governments can conduct work that the FDER is

currently not staffed to perform. In addition, local government hazardous waste

assessments provide city/county officials with information that they themselves

have acquired. This local government acquired information will help to resolve the

problem of the exempt and nonexempt, small quantity generator, as well as to

diminish public opposition to the development of hazardous waste management

facilities if they are needed.

Second, Florida's facility siting process defined in section 403.723 Florida

Statutes needs to be changed in a way that allows for a statewide evaluation of the

hazardous waste problem. The regional planning councils should be replaced by a

statewide siting commission that would perform the role of evaluating local

government decisions to deny facility development and to make recommendations









to the Governor and Cabinet regarding proposed developments. This change to the

siting process would expedite Florida's need to develop hazardous waste manage-

ment facilities. In addition, this change would indicate to the waste management

industry that Florida encourages the development of facilities to provide for the

needs of generators statewide.

The solutions to Florida's hazardous waste related problems are financial,

political, structural, and educational. Financially, Florida needs to provide for the

funds to clean up uncontrolled sites. Politically, Florida needs to deal with its lack

of waste management facilities. Structurally, Florida needs to define a role for

local government to complement the efforts of FDER in a way that closes existing

regulatory gaps. And educationally, Florida needs to provide information and

guidance to hazardous generators, government officials, and the public so that the

state can make informed decisions regarding the safe and economical management

of its hazardous waste.








GLOSSARY

FDER The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

FRRMA The Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act (Section 403.701 to

Section 403.730 Florida Statutes)

GROUND WATER The supply of fresh water under the earth's surface that forms

a natural reservoir and a source of approximately 90 percent of Florida's

drinking water.

LEACHATE Liquid that has percolated through solid waste and has extracted

dissolved or suspended materials from it.

MANIFEST- Manifests are detailed lists of quantities and types of hazardous

wastes. Included in the manifest is information identifying the generator,

and the management practices used by the operator. The purpose of the

manifest system is to track the waste from generation to ultimate disposal.

ON-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT The treatment, storage or

disposal or hazardous waste on the premises where it was generated in an

environmentally safe manner. (Off-site: commercial waste management

methods)

PHASE I INTERIM AUTHORIZATION Authorization from the U.S. EPA to state

governments for the implementation of certain aspects of hazardous waste

regulations, including inspection and enforcement. Phase I Interim Authori-

zation excludes the function of permitting hazardous waste management

facilities.

PHASE II INTERIM AUTHORIZATION Authorization from the U.S. EPA to state

governments for the implementation of all functions performed under Phase I

Interim Authorization as well as the permitting of (1) storage facilities, (2)

incinerators and, (3) land disposal facilities.









PRESENT VALUING OR DISCOUNTING An analytical technique to adjust

benefits (costs) to allow for the fact future benefits (costs) are less valuable

(costly) than present ones.

RCRA The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the principal piece

of federal legislation concerning the regulations and management of

hazardous waste.

SANITARY LANDFILL A facility for the disposal of solid waste which meets the

criteria published under section 4004 Kof RCRAY2; a land disposal site

employing an engineering method of disposing of solid wastes on land in a

manner that minimizes environmental hazards by spreading, compacting and

covering wastes daily.

SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR Waste generators that produce less than 1,000

kilograms (2,200 pounds) of nonacutely toxic hazardous waste per month.

These generators are exempt from the manifesting of waste as well as the

annual reporting of waste generation and management practices.

UNCONTROLLED SITE Abandoned or uncontrolled sites are areas where

hazardous wastes have been dumped and pose a potential or actual threat to

ground and/or surface waters.


I









BIBLIOGRAPHY


Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University. Hazardous Waste:
A Management Perspective. Florida's Hazardous Waste Policy Advisory
Council. 1981.

Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University. Florida Waste
Exchange Study. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, State
Report. 1981.

Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University. Hazardous Waste
Incidents in Florida (Volume II). Florida Department of Environmental Regu-
lation State Report. 1980

Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University. Assessment of
the Economic Impact of Florida's Proposed Hazardous Waste Control Program
on Selected Industries. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
State Report. 1979.

Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University. Hazardous Waste
Incidents in Florida (Volume I). Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation State Report. 1978.

Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University. Hazardous Waste
Survey for the State of Florida, Final Report, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation State Report. 1977.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs