Talking Trash: Five solid waste pros tell you what they think you should know
To learn more about the present state of the solid waste business, American City & County went straight to the source: local government managers dealing with the daily challenges of solid waste collection and disposal.
Five managers from cities and counties around the country were asked to highlight the most pressing solid waste matters their agencies face and what they see happening in the future.
The idea was to inform the local elected officials who have the political and budgetary authority to shape solid waste services, so the managers were asked to write as if they were at city hall or the county courthouse, briefing the council or board on their greatest concerns.
Mack Belue, Executive director of the Dalton-Whitfield (Ga.) Regional Solid Waste Management Authority
To make decisions on solid waste matters, Dalton and Whitfield County, Ga.’s elected officials need to understand several basic points. Perhaps most important is the fact that financial health is at the core of providing a good public service.
As federal and state regulations concerning the land, air and water gradually change and strengthen, we must be financially prepared for the changes to continue offering viable solid waste services to residents of the city and county. Closely monitoring the fees we charge users of our facilities is the only way to assure we are thus prepared.
As an enterprise, the solid waste authority depends solely on those user fees to meet often expensive obligations in operations, development, and landfill closure and post-closure. But all too often, public entities decide to provide solid waste services without considering the present and future costs of these services.
Undertaking a 20-year financial analysis to be reviewed and updated biannually is a helpful step (Ours indicated that we needed to average at least 250 tpd over the life of the landfill). The user fee must be set from the tpd figure and must offset any present and future costs. When officials understand where the money is coming from and how much is likely to be available, they will be better able to plan for mandates.
Elected officials must also keep in mind that, as with most issues, the communities and constituents whom they represent will want immediate answers about solid waste matters – even though that expectation may often be unreasonable. In Dalton, for example, officials are frequently bombarded with questions and comments about recycling.
To provide an effective channel for hearing about and responding to problems, the city and county have had a citizens advisory task force in place for seven years. The task force offers input to elected officials in the planning and decision-making processes and has been integral in developing the solid waste management plan required by the state. It also guarantees that public opinion will be heard and responded to appropriately.
Education is the most important tool for securing continued support for solid waste services. To this end, the solid waste authority supports the local “clean and beautiful commission,” both philosophically and financially. In turn, the commission provides volunteers and staff to work with school systems, civic organizations, environmental groups and business and industry in promoting the concepts of waste reduction, reuse and recycling.
As far as recycling is concerned, all things are possible if officials want to spend the money to make them happen. However, the authority and citizens may be better served if the solid waste management plan allows the flexibility to offer recycling programs only when markets are good – and when residents will make a personal commitment to help with source segregation of materials and use voluntary drop-off points.
Dalton and Whitfield County have several options for helping with recycling efforts. For example, the solid waste authority could establish processing facilities at its MSW landfill site to recover recyclables. Such pre-disposal facilities, operated in-house or through a public-private partnership, could also include the necessary equipment for baling some waste products before landfilling to save air space in the high-dollar Subtitle D landfill cells.
The promise is there for that kind of project and others. Educating the public and ensuring financial soundness are the key steps in pursuing such opportunities.
Gerry Newcombe, Contract administrator for the waste system division of the San Bernardino County, Calif., public services group
Solid waste handling and disposal have become two of the more complex services provided by San Bernardino County and other local governments. Over the last decade or so, the fairly simple process of digging large holes in the ground and filling them with all sorts of trash has been replaced by high-tech systems for excavation, lining, leachate collection and management, landfill gas collection and environmental monitoring and inspection programs to ensure that hazardous materials are not landfilled.
The costs associated with these new technologies have turned trash into a sought-after commodity, challenging local governments to respond to competitive market situations we have not typically faced. Solid waste issues have become much more prominent, and elected officials often face technically complicated decisions to approve plans, spend money and enter into agreements that they may not clearly understand.
Some of the critical elements of the solid waste business not often adequately explained or understood include:
* Solid waste facility permits. The federal Subtitle D rule and state laws written to comply with it have led to mountains of paperwork related to day-to-day operation of disposal facilities or transfer stations. Especially in California, revised permits for existing landfills are issued only after completion of volumes of technical reports and engineering studies describing everything from the smallest details of daily activities to the preliminary aspects of final closure.
Lengthy reviews by several layers of regulatory agencies may eat up years of staff and consultant time. A request from elected officials that the waste system division adjust landfill operating hours to better accommodate local haulers may seem simple, but meeting the request will probably require months of working through the regulatory review process. Solid waste staff are often as frustrated as the decision-makers in dealing with regulations that, while well-intentioned, often actually result in less efficient operation of facilities;
* Landfill capacity. How long local landfills will last is one of the most frequently asked questions in discussions of solid waste issues. The response often has so many qualifications that no one is sure if the question was answered at all. The fact is predicting the remaining life of a landfill is part science, part art and part crystal ball.
Landfill capacity is measured in cubic yards of air space and based on the permitted footprint of waste and the closure design. However, incoming waste is measured by weight, and the formula for converting tons to cubic yards varies depending on the type of waste and compaction techniques. Additionally, the volume of incoming waste can change depending on the economy, weather and price competition.
Estimating the amount of settlement that will occur is one of the more difficult technical aspects of determining remaining capacity. As a result, the best staff can do is identify a particular six-month window within which the expected capacity will be reached; and
* Closure costs. Disbelief is often the first reaction from elected officials when they hear cost estimates in the tens of millions of dollars for landfill closures. Add 30 years of required post-closure work, and the costs seem even more unbelievable. And if the landfill is contributing to groundwater degradation, the remediation costs of pumping and treating the contaminated water add yet another layer of expense.
The good news is that all these expenses can be reasonably well covered by appropriate tipping fees. But accurate estimates of the costs are critical to the level of comfort San Bernardino County and any other local government will feel when confronted by the huge dollar amounts.
It is important to note that the estimates must be revised as time and technology move forward, and where underground investigation is required for groundwater issues, actual costs can easily be much higher than the estimates.
Failing to allow enough time for understanding complex issues in the solid waste business is perhaps the greatest mistake that we can make. Special workshops or study sessions are excellent means for staff to present issues in sufficient detail to elected officials. Reducing solid waste matters to convenient sound bytes can cause misunderstanding that is frustrating for officials and solid waste staff, as well as the taxpayers.
Lou Guilmette, Manager of the solid waste management division of the Rochester, N.Y., department of environmental services
When you consider the past decade, the fact that improvements in operating efficiencies and changes in service levels evolved as easily as they did is amazing. We now consider recycling to be a baseline service to our customers, while not too long ago it was considered a custom add-on. And frankly, just speaking of the taxpayers as customers is a big step in the right direction.
The increased use of automation in the last decade has also been remarkable. Still, when we look back again at the end of the next decade, this change will actually seem slight. Most of the change will come in the effort to meet evolving OSHA standards. OSHA has begun to take a long look at ergonomics – the study of how the human body performs tasks – and has written new standards that pay special attention to how work is done, dealing specifically with muscular/skeletal disorder (MSD).
The new standards will have a significant effect on the business of solid waste collection, as the tasks in that field subject employees to many risk factors. Under the new OSHA standard, an “at-risk” job is one that has caused one or more employees to suffer an MSD or a job that scores five points or more on an OSHA risk-factor checklist.
Factors that will be considered on the checklist include, but are not limited to: * repetitive motion; * awkward working positions; * the use of vibrating tools; * forceful hand exertion; * frequent manual handling; * excessively bright or dim lighting; * extreme temperatures; and * uncontrolled work areas.
Clearly, almost all of these factors are present in the normal work environment for most solid waste collection employees. If the job in question is identified as at-risk, we, as the employer, will be required by law to make the necessary changes to bring the job below the risk factor standard within two years (a single two-year extension will be allowed).
In the past, collecting solid waste and recyclables was considered to have a “high fatigue level,” which meant only about 20 percent of the entire work force in the United States had the aerobic capacity to perform this task. With its new standards, OSHA intends for the entire work force to be physically able to perform the tasks without injury.
Once imposed, these standards will require a great deal of change in what Rochester’s solid waste division does and how we do it. While we have seen much progress in recent years in automation-based technology that has improved operating efficiencies, we will be looking more and more for technology that can reduce the physical stress on collection employees.
Curbside residential recycling using the traditional blue boxes will become an at-risk job in the future. How will we reduce risk levels and physical stress on our employees in box collection? Will we have to consider a recycling system that excludes any items requiring manual sorting at the curb or the materials recovery facility?
These are just a couple of the difficult questions we will face. One answer may be rotation of employees’ daily tasks to allow them to work one day collecting solid waste, a day collecting recyclables, a day mowing grass and another driving a street sweeper.
I am not sure whether to be challenged or depressed by what the next decade promises to bring. The only certain thing is that changes are coming, and the city’s elected officials and solid waste division need to work together to be ready for them.
Tom Horton, Integrated waste manager in the solid waste division of the San Joaquin County, Calif., department of public works
In the business of solid waste, the list of major issues that cities and counties are facing is largely the same as that related to any public service they provide.
The reality of limited resources, for example, is a common thread between solid waste departments and other local agencies. In San Joaquin County, there is rarely enough money to pay for all the things we would like to have or do. Thus, a decision to start up a new program or service has the ripple effect of reducing the resources available for all the other programs that we want or need.
We are constantly considering questions on priorities: Should a household hazardous waste collection program be established, or should the funds be used to install liners and leachate systems at landfills? Should refuse collection rates be increased to provide for curbside collection of recyclables, or should that money be used to subsidize collection costs for low-income residents? Should recycling programs be subsidized by local government, or should those funds be used for health and safety programs instead?
The bottom line is that solid waste programs should be begun or expanded only with a full realization of their costs and benefits, as well as the lost opportunities associated with providing such programs.
Legislative and regulatory actions affecting solid waste have escalated significantly over the past two decades. For example, San Joaquin County is dealing with the state’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which drastically revised solid waste management policy and placed onerous mandates on local government. In addition, several hundred pieces of legislation have been brought before the state legislature amending and attempting to revise the 1989 Act.
Regulation at both the state and federal level has imposed new requirements on local governments with little consideration of the true costs and benefits associated with these actions. The net result is that the costs to manage solid waste are rising at an escalating rate.
Size reduction seems to be the direction in which both businesses and governments are headed. It may be driven by the suspicion that government organizations have become fat and lazy and generally unresponsive to the needs of the public.
Actually, this is a misconception as it pertains to cities and counties. Most local government employees I know are dedicated, hardworking people who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties assigned to them.
Another misconception is that fewer employees can provide the same level of service. Again, this is not the case, and local governments considering downsizing must be prepared to reduce the level of services they provide to citizens. For downsizing to work, a corresponding reduction in legislative and regulatory requirements must also take place.
The privatization option
As with many local government services, privatization is a part of the solid waste debate. This approach is being pursued as a way to reduce costs, improve services and perhaps gain revenue for other purposes.
However, a switch from public to private services to take advantage of lower initial costs or to receive a large initial payment may not necessarily be cost beneficial in the long term. Furthermore, the prices paid by private firms for public facilities like landfills ultimately get paid back by users of the facilities.
But the loss of control on long-term costs and the potential loss of future use of the facility by the jurisdiction are perhaps the greatest disadvantages of turning public facilities over to the private sector.
Controlling the flow
Flow control is the ability of a city or county to designate where solid waste generated within its jurisdiction must be taken for handling and/or disposal in an integrated waste management system. This practice has not fared well in the courts, and Congress is considering legislation that would give cities and counties only limited authority to enforce flow control.
>From our perspective, however, flow control has several significant >benefits. Most importantly, it can ensure a revenue stream for local >jurisdictions to pay back funds advanced for the construction of >facilities like transfer stations, recycling centers, materials recovery >facilities and sanitary landfills.
Most states require local jurisdictions to reduce waste being landfilled, even though many of the materials to be diverted have minimal or no value in the marketplace and will not be handled by the private sector without subsidizing by local governments. Fines have been threatened for jurisdictions that do not meet these state-mandated diversion goals.
Local governments have responded by constructing costly facilities, financed by revenue bonds to be paid back with gate fees charged to users of such facilities. Without flow control, waste from these jurisdictions can be taken to less costly landfills and revenues are lost. And when materials recovery facilities are bypassed, the recyclables are not removed from the waste stream, making it more difficult for jurisdictions to meet mandated diversion goals.
The solid waste issues that we and other local governments face are complex, and their solutions require careful public deliberations. Decisions should be made only after thorough cost-benefit analyses of the alternatives are completed, with knowledge of opportunities that are lost by a particular course of action.
Teree Caldwell-Johnson, Polk County, Iowa, county manager
Over the last 10 years, solid waste managers and elected officials have been challenged to respond to numerous state and federal laws dictating more environmentally responsive ways of doing business. Initially, the focus was on the development and installation of systems intended to decrease landfills’ potential for harming air and water quality. On the heels of this legislation, Polk County and other local governments were challenged to develop a variety of programs, services and facilities aimed at reducing reliance on landfills and allowing for the systematic redirection of waste streams through integrated solid waste management systems.
And finally, in the late 1980s and early ’90s, various levels of government established independent goals and mandates for reducing, recycling and diverting waste.
With all these changes, both solid waste managers and elected officials have found themselves in a constant mode of reactive implementation. They have been required to balance regulatory compliance and the public demand for system and program development with the need to provide efficient and effective solid waste services. And in the post-Carbonne era of solid waste management – when cities and counties cannot guarantee the flow of waste to their facilities – we must provide these services in a highly fluid and somewhat treacherous free market economy.
If some of us feel like we are being pushed and pulled in many directions, those feelings are real. And it is certainly understandable if managers and officials find themselves second-guessing some of the system decisions made over the years. But the bottom line is that the realities of solid waste management are much different today, and we must ready our systems for even more changes.
Historically, many public solid waste organizations have funded integrated systems via landfill tipping fees. But with the loss of ordinance-based flow control, local entities find themselves competing openly with landfill-only operations. When private waste haulers have the choice to deliver their loads to the facility with the lowest fees, public agencies simply cannot charge more than the going rate without risking the loss of significant revenue. As a result, tipping fees are in a downward trend nationally.
That situation may benefit those paying the fees, but it puts cities and counties in a tough spot. If a local government’s mandate to serve its citizens means it must build a landfill, then a reliable flow of tipping fees will be crucial in paying for the facility.
As public solid waste entities work to improve competitiveness, they must reduce their overall cost of operation, determine opportunities for increasing revenues and become aggressive market participants. Only then will they maintain or increase their market share. A number of strategies must be considered:
* Managed competition and public-private partnerships. In reviewing facilities, public services like collection or any private contracts, a managed competition procurement should be evaluated. Also, privatization of facility operations or some form of public-private venture may minimize local governments’ financial exposure;
* Regionalization and other cooperative solutions. Opportunities for regionalizing services and developing cooperative solutions to achieve economies of scale, increase efficiencies in service delivery and spread fixed costs will be key;
* Strategies for reducing landfill costs. Current operating practices should be reviewed to find techniques to increase landfill volume and capacity and decrease lost air space. Review leachate and methane management and recovery options to reduce overall costs; and
* Recycling collection costs. Many communities are finding recycling harder to justify and finance given fluctuating markets and an inability to raise tipping fees to cover costs. Thus, steps like re-routing vehicles and negotiating clauses for recyclables collection productivity will be critical. Local governments should also consider changes like adding materials to be collected, combining pickups or establishing biweekly collection.
As we approach the new millennium, solid waste professionals and their elected officials must look closely at all operations and programs to ensure they are providing customers with environmentally sound and cost-effective services. To compete successfully in the post-Carbonne economy, it is critical to establish a clear vision; evaluate and understand current market conditions; identify specific measures to be implemented; and monitor effects. The goal should be an efficient and effective system of integrated solid waste management that uses each of its components fully, based on sound economic principles.
In Knoxville, Tenn., the city’s department of fleet services has developed a unique Municipal Modular Equipment System (MMES) for city-wide collection of curbside yard waste and trash deposits as well as snow and ice removal. A custom-designed modular truck platform from which pieces of specialized equipment can be quickly interchanged is the key component of the system.
Eight years ago, the city was using standard equipment to clean 850 miles of city streets, primarily on a complaint-response basis. Because the equipment was basically for seasonal use, much of it sat idle for most of the year with seals drying out and fluids gelling. Consequently, the equipment often needed extensive maintenance before each use.
In February 1990, Mayor Victor Ashe appointed Laurens Tullock as the new public service director and gave him a mandate to improve the city’s service delivery without increasing budget requirements. Tullock divided the city into five service areas and assigned a manager for each area. The five managers were assigned their own personnel and equipment and given total responsibility for cleaning their area every two weeks.
While this reorganization did improve service delivery, the desired two-week schedule could not be attained without more equipment and personnel or a change in the way work was accomplished. The premise that each piece of equipment should have the greatest year-round use possible became the driving force in equipment selection.
The department of fleet services, led by Mel Cummings, developed the MMES as its solution. Within the current MMES, a basic equipment grouping consists of two medium-duty trucks equipped with a modular platform for year-round use; two large dump trailers; one waste and trash loading machine; one leaf vacuum machine; one salt spreading machine; and one snow plow. Innovative redesigning of standard truck frames, loading machines, trailer netting and salt spreaders, combined with the design of the platform, has saved the city time, labor and money.
Companies working with the city included locally based Machine Fabrication; the local office of H.H. Hooper Machinery; Ramer, Ala.-based Ramer Manufacturing; and Tarrant Manufacturing, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Knoxville now has 30 trucks equipped with the modular platform that can be matched, in less than 15 minutes, with any one of 15 loading machines, leaf machines, salt spreading machines, snow plows or any one of 30 trailers. Neighborhoods are served at the desired two-week interval, and trash and leaf collection are performed at double capacity.
Total new cost of one basic equipment group within MMES is approximately $155,000, compared to $272,000 for a standard equipment group used for the same functions. Estimated useful life exceeds that of a standard group by 30 percent, and annual ownership and operating costs are estimated to be more than 50 percent less. And while six employees were required to operate a standard group, just three employees now operate a MMES group.
The natural resistance to change found in any governmental entity is the primary hurdle in implementing such a new system. But reorganizing the city’s departments of public service and fleet services planted the seeds of change by giving front-line employees and supervisors more responsibility, accountability and involvement. This recharged work environment made possible the step-by-step process of formulating the MMES and other improvements simply by allowing mechanics and operators to help solve systematic problems.
In conjunction with other maintenance services, the functions executed with the MMES contribute dramatically to maintaining Knoxville’s appearance and upkeep and therefore to citizens’ quality of life.
Driven by costs as well as state law, Brown County, Wis., has responded well to the challenge of reducing the volume of waste reaching its landfills. The county’s programs for recycling paper and disposing of sharps (needles and syringes) are key components of this effort.
At its materials recycling facility, the county processes mixed recyclable containers collected from businesses and municipalities. However, no paper is processed at the facility. Instead, the municipalities deliver residential mixed paper directly to Fort Howard Corporation’s Green Bay paper mill.
The county signed a five-year contract with five one-year extensions with the company in 1992 to recycle mixed paper collected from curbside and drop-off programs. The company uses the paper in making tissue products. Recyclable items include: * dairy and frozen-food boxes; * drink boxes, milk cartons and frozen-juice containers; * newspapers and inserts, magazines and all books; * junk mail, phone books, catalogues, writing paper, copier paper, corrugated and non-corrugated cardboard; and * grocery bags and box board.
The county instructs residents to put paper products in paper grocery bags next to their curbside bins and requires the paper to be clean and dry. In addition, plastic liners from boxes must be removed and cardboard boxes must be cut down.
Dealing with sharps
In November 1994, Wisconsin made it illegal to dispose of untreated sharps in landfills and prohibited residents from placing sharps in their household garbage. The law, meant to protect sanitary workers and the public, left local governments with the “sticky” problem of helping residents legally dispose of used sharps.
Brown County’s health and solid waste departments organized a workgroup and surveyed household sharps users. The survey revealed that the materials were generally disposed of in garbage cans and toilets or stockpiled at home, awaiting the development of a disposal option. So the workgroup established a free collection and disposal program in 1996, asking clinics, pharmacies and hospitals to serve as collection stations.
Such facilities agreed to distribute empty, one-gallon containers to their customers and to take back full containers. Training sessions were mandatory for personnel from every collection station.
During the first six months of the program, 3,192 containers were provided to residents and more than 1,100 pounds of used sharps and containers were incinerated. Thirty-one pharmacies, retail stores and other outlets now serve as collection stations. The facilities call the health department if they need additional supplies or container pickup.
This article was written by Scott Huguet, recycling specialist in Brown County’s solid waste department.