AUDITOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH DIVISION OF LOCAL MANDATES 100 NASHUA STREET, ROOM 01O 1 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS021 14 TEL.(617)727-0980 1-800-462-COST Financial Effect Determination of Unlined Landfill Closure on Massachusetts Cities and Towns 60VG?NMENT D0CL'MENT<5 COlLECnON SEP 15 1993 April 1993 UHWersity of Massachusetts Depository Copy Office ofthe StateAuditor Division of Local Mandates A. Joseph DeNucci, Auditor lilt; AUDITOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH STATE HOUSE. BOSTON 02133 A JOSEPH DENUCCI TEL (617) 727-2075 April 13, 1993 AUDITOR The Honorable Steven V. Angelo, House Chairman of the Joint Committee on Natural Resources The Honorable Robert A. Durand, Senate Chairman of the Joint Committee on Natural Resources Honorable Members of the General Court I am pleased to submit this review of the fiscal impact of the Department of Environmental Protection regulations, 310 CMR 19.000, as amended on July 3, 1992, which require that all unlined landfills cease accepting waste by January 1, 1994 and complete final closure by July 1, 1995. This study was undertaken in accordance with G.L. c.ll, s.6B, which allows the State Auditor's Division of Local Mandates to determine the financial effect of regulations impacting cities and towns. These landfills closure requirements will have a significant financial impact on 90 municipalities throughout the state. My report estimates that the statewide cost impact of these closure requirements will be $265 million and that the affected municipalities will also have to spend an additional $27 million annually to pay for alternative methods of waste disposal. The importance of having a safe and clean environment dictates that protective action be taken now. However, I respectfully request that you consider the immediate and significant fiscal consequences that these closure requirements will have on municipal budgets. I hope that you can develop a means to provide fiscal relief to the affected communities. If you have any questions or need any additional information regarding this report, please contact Thomas Collins, Director of the Division of Local Mandates, at 727-0980. I look forward to continuing to work with you on this and other issues affecting the quality of state and local government and the services that the Commonwealth provides to its citizens. Digitized by the Internet Archive 2014 in https://archive.org/details/financialeffectdOOmass_0 INTRODUCTION The Office of the State Auditor, Division of Local Mandates (DLM) conducted this statewide cost impact study at the request of the House Chairman of the Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Agriculture. The purpose of the study is to estimate the cost impact on Massachusetts cities and towns of a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulatory requirement that unlined landfills stop accepting solid waste by January 1, 1994, and complete DEP final closure requirements by July 1, 1995. The cost to affected cities and towns includes capping, post-closure monitoring, and providing for alternative disposal. Capping includes covering the landfill with an impervious seal to keep precipitation from percolating through trash layers, and covering this seal with a topsoil layer to support vegetation as an erosion control measure. Post-closure monitoring systems must be installed to analyze potential air and water pollution for 30 years after closure. Alternatives to disposal at closed landfills will increase the cost to local taxpayers no matter which alternative is chosen. These alternatives are contracting with a private landfill or incineration facility, constructing a lined landfill on a local or regional basis, (in areas where landfills are not prohibited by DEP location restrictions) or , even allowing residents to determine their own disposal options if a local government decides that this is a responsible approach. Although these costs are a major problem, municipal officials realize that all landfills must eventually reach approved capacity and close down. However, it is the timing of DEP's closure requirement that is also troublesome. Most municipalities had expected that remaining capacity would last at least a few years. Many planned to use their landfills well into the next century. This report is divided into six sections: o A brief synopsis of the regulatory and statutory history of this requirement; o Study methodology; o Cost impact findings; o Financial implications for municipalities; o The state mandate issue; and o Appendices. -2- HISTORY AND BACKGROUND The requirement originated in Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Solid Waste Management Facility Regulation 310 CMR 19. 022 (1) effective July 3, 1992. , 310 CMR 19.022(1); Accelerated Closure Schedules Existing Landfills . (a) Existing landfills which are located in areas described at 310 CMR 19.038(2) (c) 1. or 2. [Zone II, IWPA, sole source aquifer, and unmonitorable area] shall complete closure of the entire landfill prior to July 1, 1995. (b) Existing landfills or phases thereof, other than those described above at 310 CMR 19 . 022 ( 1) (a) , shall cease accepting solid waste in all unlined phases prior to January 1, 1994 and shall have completed closure of those unlined phases no later than July 1, 1995. Prior to this amendment to the regulations, many municipal landfill operators had anticipated that unlined landfill capacity would remain available according to landfill plans formerly approved by DEP. Section 19.022 now requires simultaneous closure of all unlined landfills unless the conditions necessary for a variance can be demonstrated to DEP's satisfaction. (See 310 CMR 19.080: Variances.) Section 23 of Chapter 153 of the Acts of 1992 took effect on August 7, 1992. Section 23, among other things, provides a statutory recognition of DEP's regulatory authority to allow landfilling in unlined areas beyond the January 1, 1994 cut-off date, if a landfill operator can demonstrate that migration of leachate does not present a threat to public health, etc. Federal law also plays a newly expanded role in state regulation of landfills. Revisions to Subtitle D-Criteria of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (40 CFR 258) , effective October 9, 1993, require new landfills and lateral expansions of existing landfills to have a composite liner and leachate collection system or, in EPA-approved states, an alternative design that will control leachate. According to the federal regulations, "lateral expansion means a horizontal expansion of the waste boundaries of an existing [Municipal Solid Waste Landfill] unit." Although there are similarities between EPA and DEP requirements, there are also differences. For example, the federal regulations do not prohibit vertical expansions, i.e., depositing solid waste on areas of landfill space actively receiving waste as of October 9, 1993. . -3- In the preamble to regulation 40 CFR 258, EPA recognizes the traditional role of states in regulating landfills. It also states its intention for states to maintain the lead role in implementing solid waste policy. After reviewing state programs, EPA will approve those it deems adequate. (Massachusetts applied for program approval in March.) Approved states may allow, under certain conditions, alternative compliance schedules and methods or procedures. Once DEP receives approval of its program from EPA, DEP will control landfill design standards, compliance schedules, and enforcement in Massachusetts with oversight from EPA. METHODOLOGY At the time of the Committee's request, DLM found that data available from DEP's Division of Solid Waste Management was limited and outdated. We nonetheless used DEP's listing of Massachusetts landfills as a guide to DLM's original research for this study. Other data compiled by DEP at our request was also helpful DLM developed a questionnaire and attempted to contact all cities and towns as a check against DEP's data. This first screening was intended to identify municipalities which operate an active unlined landfill. Having identified these municipalities, the questionnaire sought information concerning the number of acres to be capped, the estimated capping cost per acre, and whether a variance from the closure regulations had been requested. The questionnaire also sought information concerning current solid waste disposal costs and the cost of providing an alternative to unlined municipal landfill capacity. In addition, the survey asked for an estimate of the useful life of remaining landfill capacity. Definitive answers to some of these questions were readily available from the municipal officials questioned, e.g., the number of acres to be capped. For the few instances where this information was not known, we used information from DEP's list. Other questions were more difficult, and many answers were based on the best estimates of the respondents, e.g., tons of solid waste disposed per year. DLM used the standard generation rate of approximately one-half ton per capita where no answer was provided. Relatively few respondents could predict the cost of alternative disposal. Where the respondent could not answer, DLM inserted the average of actual responses to this question. This average cost was in line with the average actual commercial disposal cost reported by cities and towns in our report on mandatory recycling submitted to the Committee on Natural Resources and Agriculture last June.