Georgia solid waste management plan

GEORGIA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

In Cooperation with
GEORGIA ENVIRONMENTAL FACIUTIES AUTHORITY and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFIOALS

December 1990

GEORGIA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN;.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs 1200 Equitable Building 100 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Georgia Department of Natural Resources Twin Towers East 205 Butler Street Atlanta, Georgia 30334

In Cooperation with
Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority and Local Government Officials
Equal Opportunity Employers

December 1990

MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE WORK TEAM

Dr. Jim Rundell, Chairman Vinson Institute of Government University of Georgia
John Taylor Department of Natural
Resources
Ross King Association County
Commissioners of Georgia
Karen Bernheimer Georgia Chapter, Sierra Club
Dick Courtney Atlanta Regional Commission
Claude Goodley City of Atlanta
Horace Hudson Cooperative Extension Service University of Georgia
Steve Levetan Resource Services
Steve O'Day The Georgia Conservancy
Deanna Ruffer Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Rhett Ward Georgia Power Company

Lynn Thornton Department of Community
Affairs
James Thompson Georgia Environmental
Facilities Authority
Bill Thornton Georgia Municipal
Association
Sara Clark League of Women Voters
Dr. Sam Dayton Georgia Mountains Regional
Development Center
Ron Hogan Waste Management of
North America
Linda Jones Atlanta Audubon Society
Alec Little Institute of Community and
Area Development University of Georgia
Cheryl Randolph Campaign for a Prosperous
Georgia
David Turner Georgia Forestry Association
Jamie Wilson The Robinson-Humphrey Co.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

1

I. Introduction

5

A. Historic Perspective

5

B. New Directions in Solid Waste Management

7

1. Comprehensive Solid Waste Management. .

7

2. Georgia Comprehensive Solid

Waste Management Act

8

II. Current Status of Solid Waste Management

in Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

A. Waste Generation and Composition

11

1. Solid Waste Generation

12

2. Waste Composition . . .

14

B. Collection and Transportation .

15

c. Processing and Transfer .

16

1. Transfer Stations .

16

2. Materials Recovery Facilities

16

3. Volume Reduction Equipment

17

D. Recycling and Composting

17

1. Recycling

17

2. Composting

18

E. Solid Waste Disposal

18

1. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills .

18

2. Construction/Demolition Landfills .

20

3. Inert Landfills . . . .

20

4. Industrial Solid Waste Landfills

20

5. Thermal Treatment Facilities

20

6. Biomedical Waste Incinerators ..

21

F. Conclusions . . . . . .

22

III. State Solid Waste Management Strategy

25

A. Waste Reduction Procedures and Strategies .

25

1. State Municipal Solid Waste

Reduction Goal

. . .

25

2. Solid Waste Reduction Options

26

a. Source Reduction or Waste

Minimization

27

b. Reuse . . .

28

c. Recycling .

30

1) Recycling Market Development

Council . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

2) State Procurement of Recycled and

Recyclable Materials . . . . .

31

3) State Agency Recycling

Requirements . . . . .

33

4) Recycling by the General Public

and Businesses and Industries

34

d. Composting

36

B. Waste Disposal Procedures and Strategies

37

1. Disposal of Recoverable and Troublesome

Materials . . . . . .

38

2. Regional Solid Waste Facilities

41

3. Standards for New Sites . . .

43

4. Standards for Existing Sites

44

5. Industrial Landf.ills

46

6. Special Solid waste .

48

c. Public Education and Technical Assistance .

49

1. Public Education

50

2. Technical Assistance

51

D. Financing Solid Waste Management

53

1. Revenue Sources

54

2. Program Funding .

54

3. Solid Waste Grants and Loans

56

a. Solid Waste Grant Program

56

b. Oil Overcharge Grants

57

c. Georgia Environmental Facilities

Authority . . . . . . . .

59

4 . Solid Waste Management Financing

59

E. Conclusions . .

61

IV. Local/Regional Solid Waste Management Strategy

63

A. Local/Regional Solid Waste

Management Plans . . . .

63

1. Minimum Planning Standards

65

2 . Local Solid Waste Planning

Procedures

. . .

66

B. Local Public Involvement and Education

69

1. Public Involvement

69

2. Public Education

70

c. Local/Regional Solid Waste Management

Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

D. Solid Waste Management Facility

Conflict Resolution . . . . .

74

1. Multi-jurisdictional Mediation

75

2. Facility Issues Negotiation Process

76

E. Full Cost Accounting

78

F. Implementation and Financial Alternatives .

80

1. Local/Regional Financing Options.

81

a. General Funds . . . . . . . .

81

b. User Fees . . . . . . . . .

81

c. Local Option Sales Use Tax.

81

d. Special Purpose Tax . . . .

81

e. General Obligation Bonds.

82

f. Revenue Bonds . . .

82

g. Current Revenue Capital Financing.

82

2. Public and Private Financing

and Implementation Options .

82

V. Conclusions .

85

Glossary

87

Appendix

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

(Minimum Planing Standards and Procedures for Solid

Waste Management: Local, Multi-jurisdictional and

Regional Plans)

Tables

TABLES AND FIGURES

Table I-1

Conceptual Models of Waste Reduction

and Management Options . . . . . . .

8

Table II-1

Municipal Solid Waste Per Capita

Production . . . . . .

13

Table II-2

Materials Discarded Into the U.S.

Municipal Solid Waste Stream . .

14

Table II-3

Municipal Solid Waste Composition

15

Table II-4

Municipal Solid Waste Collection

16

Table II-5

Municipal Solid Waste (Sanitary)

Landfill Permit Applications .

19

Table II-6

Biomedical Waste Disposal

21

Table III-1

Existing, New and Proposed Solid

Waste Funding Sources

. . .

55

Table III-2

Georgia Solid Waste Staffing

and State Expenditures . .

56

Table III-3 EPD Solid Waste Grants to Georgia

Local Governments

. . . .

57

Table III-4

Oil Overcharge Grants in Georgia .

58

Maps/Figures

Figure IV-1

Recent Solid Waste Management

Planning Projects in Georgia

64

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1990, the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act (referred to as the Act) was passed by the General Assembly to institute a comprehensive solid waste management program for the state. The first step in implementing this legislation is the development of the Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan. The Act envisions the plan presenting: 1) a status report on current solid waste management efforts in Georgia; 2) the state strategy for reducing and managing solid waste; and 3) the criteria and procedures to be met by local and regional solid waste management plans and programs.

Current Status of Solid Waste Management in Georgia

Current solid waste management efforts in Georgia are not well documented. Little information is available on waste reduction, recycling and composting operations. As the Act is implemented and reporting of solid waste reduction, recycling and composting operations occurs, a better understanding of their role in solid waste management will emerge.

At this time, Georgia depends heavily on landfills to dispose of its solid waste. The 180 permitted municipal solid waste landfills represent a decrease of 15 in the past year. New landfills are not being developed at the rate of closure. This, coupled with increased generation due to population growth, may exacerbate efforts to dispose of waste. There has also been no increase in thermal treatment facilities. One facility is currently in operation in Georgia.

If solid waste is to be reduced and managed effectively, we must be able to quantify and monitor waste management efforts. These data will provide a clearer picture of what we are generating, what recycling programs are operating, how effective our waste reduction efforts are, what options are best suited to Georgia, and what additional steps, if any, are necessary to effectively manage solid waste in Georgia.

The State Solid Waste Management Strategy

The state solid waste management strategy includes 16 goals with numerous actions necessary to ensure that the goals are met. In addition, future issues and potential problems have been identified that might hamper reaching these goals and that might need to be addressed in the future. The goals identified for the state strategy are as follows.

Goal 1:

To minimize the amount of solid waste being generated in Georgia.

1

Goal 2:

To foster the reuse of those items that would otherwise enter the waste stream and that can be reused in their current condition.

Goal 3:

To ensure that adequate and sustainable markets exist for materials recovered from the solid waste stream and that these markets increase as more materials are recovered from the solid waste stream.

Goal 4:

To create and expand sustainable markets for recovered materials through state procurement procedures and guidelines.

Goal 5:

To increase the amount of material recycled from state agencies and the General Assembly.

Goal 6:

To increase the amount of material recycled by the general public and by businesses and industries.

Goal 7:

To reduce solid waste through composting of organic matter and grinding of tree stumps and branches to produce wood chips.

Goal 8:

To reduce reliance on disposal facilities by encouraging recovery of reusable and recyclable materials and imposing bans or restrictions on troublesome items.

Goal 9:

To encourage regional alternatives for solid waste management.

Goal 10:

To ensure all new solid waste facilities meet stringent environmentally protective siting, design, construction, operation and closure standards.

Goal 11:

To ensure that all existing municipal solid waste sites meet new environmentally protective operation standards or close and that horizontal expansions of all existing municipal solid waste sites meet new environmentally protective design and construction standards or close.

Goal 12:

To ensure that on-site industrial solid waste handling facilities are permitted and operated in an environmentally sound manner in accordance with regulatory and statutory standards.

Goal 13: To ensure that special solid waste handling facilities are permitted and operated in accordance with regulatory and statutory standards

2

and that all costs associated with these activities are passed on to these facilities and generators.

Goal 14:

To develop and implement a statewide public education program on solid waste reduction and management which emphasizes grass roots participation at all age levels.

Goal 15:

To provide sound technical assistance to local governments that will enable them to effectively plan for and carry out their solid waste management responsibilities.

Goal 16: To ensure adequate and stable funding for solid waste management programs.

Local/Regional Solid Waste Management Strategy

The Act requires that the Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan establish the standards and procedures to be met by local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements for their solid waste management plans. Additionally, the local/regional solid waste management strategy includes other requirements and recommendations relating to reporting, public education and involvement, conflict resolution, full cost accounting and financing solid waste management programs. Eight goals are included in the local/regional solid waste management strategy along with the actions necessary to implement each goal. In addition, future issues and potential problems have been identified that might impede efforts to reach these goals or that might have to be addressed in the future. The goals identified for the local/regional solid waste management strategy are as follows.

Goal 1:

To assist communities in preparing useable, useful solid waste management plans which will lead towards meeting the statewide goals of reducing waste by 25 percent, provide for effective management, and ensure ten years of waste management capacity (for "Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management" see the Appendix).

Goal 2:

To ensure meaningful public participation and involvement in addressing solid waste management.

Goal 3:

To educate the general public about local/regional solid waste reduction and management.

3

Goal 4:

To establish a mechanism for monitoring and reporting the status of local/regional solid waste management programs relating to meeting the state reduction goal and the effective management of their solid waste.

Goal 5:

To establish a process for equitably resolving multi-jurisdictional conflicts arising from comprehensive plans, local government actions relating to or affecting regionally important resources, and local government actions relating to or affecting developments of regional impacts.

Goal 6:

To establish a mechanism for equitably resolving conflicts with persons affected by the siting and operation of municipal solid waste management facilities.

Goal 7:

To provide a comprehensive, uniform database for policy decision making, at both the state and local levels, as well as to develop information that can be used for educating and motivating private citizens to change their personal habits in handling solid waste.

Goal 8:

To identify public and private alternatives available to local governments to finance and implement solid waste management programs.

The Act provides a sound framework for instituting a comprehensive solid waste management program for Georgia. The first step in implementing the Act has been the development of this Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan. Reaching the goals identified in both the state and local solid waste management strategies will help resolve the major problems currently associated with solid waste management in the state. As we do so, new problems and issues will appear. Generally, these problems and issues can be addressed within the framework created by the Act.

The plan calls for a wide variety of actions by a number of agencies, councils and committees (e.g., DCA, EPD, DOT, DITT, DOE, RDCs, local agencies, advisory committees, etc.). For these governmental agencies and advisory committees to carry out their responsibilities, adequate funding is necessary. Also, to ensure that the plan continues to address solid waste problems facing Georgia, it should be reviewed, revised and updated periodically. The first major revision should occur in 1997 to determine if the goals set forth in the Act and plan have been achieved.

4

I
INTRODUCTION
The term "solid waste" includes four categories of waste generated in Georgia: municipala, construction/demolition, inert, and industrial. These types of wastes vary in composition, potential environmental and health related problems, and management requirements. Although each of these will be discussed in this plan, the emphasis is on municipal solid waste in that this waste is currently presenting the most concerns and requires more stringent and expensive management efforts.
Municipal solid waste, the waste that we usually refer to as "garbage" or "trash," is more accurately defined as the combined residential and nonresidential (institutional, commercial, governmental and industrial waste which is co-managed with residential and nonresidential waste) solid waste generated and handled in a given city or county area. It does not generally include other types of solid waste such as industrial or agricultural waste which are handled separately. Municipal solid waste includes food scraps, packaging material, yard waste, discarded appliances, used tires, etc. Most commonly in Georgia, municipal solid waste is collected either by the local government or private contractors and taken to a nearby landfill for disposal.
The concern with municipal solid waste is that, if it is not handled properly, it can cause aesthetic, health and environmental problems including diseases, air pollution from fires, and contaminated water resources and unsightly litter. In addition, concern has mounted in recent years over the amount of resources being discarded and the use of expensive landfill capacity for materials which need not be placed in landfills. Consequently, the practice of just "throwing it away" is no longer appropriate.
Historic Perspective
Results of a solid waste survey in Georgia published in 1971 concluded that per capita daily production of municipal solid waste was 2.81 pounds. 1 While four municipal solid waste incinerators burned approximately 1,500 tons of refuse per day, an estimated 98 percent of Georgia's waste was disposed of in the 416 open dumps in use in the state. A survey of these disposal sites found that 29 percent were never covered (with soil), 81 percent allowed open burning, 78 percent had rodent problems, and 16 percent had potential ground water pollution problems.
aThe term "municipal" when used in connection with solid waste refers to both cities and counties.
5

Efforts to effectively manage solid waste in Georgia appeared with the enactment of the Georgia Solid Waste Management Act of 1972. Responsibilities for implementing the solid waste requirements under this law were assigned to the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) .
Since the passage of the 1972 law, all four of the solid waste incinerators, which could not meet the air quality standards enacted during the 1970s, have been closed. Since then, a 500 ton per day mass burn waste-to-energy facility has been constructed and is in operation in Savannah. So too, all 416 open dumps have been closed and replaced by 180 permitted sanitary landfills. Thus, the 1972 law has been effective in addressing concerns with solid waste as they were understood when the law was passed.
Conditions relating to municipal solid waste in Georgia have changed since 1972. There are some two million more people in the state today and the per capita production of municipal solid waste has apparently increased significantly. It is estimated that per capita daily production of municipal solid waste now exceeds 4.5 pounds and, in urban areas, it may be considerably higher. Unless steps are taken to reduce the amount of waste going to disposal facilities, Georgia will produce in excess of six million tons of municipal solid waste in the year 2000. Also, our understanding of how to manage municipal solid waste has increased as well as our knowledge of the consequences of not managing it properly. Currently, some 71 municipal landfills in Georgia have been identified as potential "superfund sites." The majority of these 71 landfills, most of which are no longer in operation, accepted hazardous waste prior to 1980.
Concern over environmental degradation and nonenvironmental impacts, such as the compatibility of municipal solid waste disposal facilities with neighboring land uses, have made it difficult to site new solid waste management facilities. Between July 1, 1985 and June 30, 1989, 142 permit applications were received by EPD. Of these, only 18b have received permits while 70 applications, nearly half of those applied for, were withdrawn. Although there are a variety of reasons for withdrawing an application, public opposition is a common reason. People simply do not want such a facility in their "back yard." However, if we continue to produce wastes, which we will, it is essential that well designed, well managed and operated facilities be sited in order to competently manage this waste.
bOf the 18 applications that received permits, 6 of them were for horizontal expansions of existing landfills and only 12 were actually for pew sites.
6

New Directions in Solid Waste Management
The result of these environmental and siting concerns is a reevaluation of how to effectively reduce and manage solid waste. To ensure that environmental degradation does not occur, three efforts are under way. First, through changes in regulations, we are requiring that more of the potentially hazardous waste from the solid waste stream be removed and treated as a category of waste needing special handling. Consequently, much less of this hazardous waste is finding its way to solid waste disposal facilities. Second, the standards for design and operation of municipal solid waste landfills are being increased. New municipal solid waste landfills will need protective measures such as liners, leachate collection systems, and ground water monitoring systems. They will also require closure and postclosure care that have not previously been called for. Third, it is anticipated that thermal treatment facilities will have to meet new standards under the federal Clean Air Act and special handling will be required for ash produced by thermal treatment facilities. The result of these efforts will be greater assurance that municipal solid waste disposal facilities will not result in the release of environmental contaminants.
These efforts will cause a substantial increase in the costs of managing municipal solid waste.c Currently, landfills designed to meet the new requirements range in cost from $80,000 to $200,000 per acre which is significantly higher than it has been in the past.d The greater cost has spurred considerable interest in decreasing the amount of material being disposed of in landfills. Through efforts to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost materials, the volume of waste being disposed of decreases, thus reducing disposal costs and the need for siting more disposal facilities. An important side benefit is the conservation of valuable resources but, in turn, efforts to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost materials create new management needs with associated costs and facilities.
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Recognizing the environmental and financial concerns relating to solid waste management, two conceptual models of
cThese increased costs although high will be less than the clean-up costs associated with correcting problems resulting from improperly designed and operated landfills.
dPrior to the recent increase in landfill costs, records showing full costs of landfills were not generally kept. Consequently, comparisons between new and old costs are not possible.
7

solid waste reduction and management planning options are presented in Table I-1.

Table I-1

CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF WASTE REDUCTION AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

Model 12

Model 23

Waste Reduction:
Waste minimization (source reduction)
Reuse
Waste Management:
Recycling (including composting)
Thermal treatment
Landfilling

Waste Reduction:
Waste minimization (source reduction)
Reuse
Recycling (including composting)
Waste Disposal:
Thermal treatment
Landfilling

Model 1 identifies ways to reduce the amount of waste entering the waste stream (reuse and minimization) and the three major management alternatives (recycling, thermal treatment, and landfilling) . Model 2 includes recycling (and composting) as a way of reducing the amount of waste going to disposal facilities and identifies the two major disposal options (thermal treatment and landfilling) . Although the models are very similar, they provide different ways of considering how to reduce and manage solid waste. The important point, however, is that the more waste not generated in the first place through reuse and reduction alternatives, the more material removed from the waste stream for recycling and composting alternatives, the less waste that must be disposed of through thermal treatment and landfilling. This makes good environmental and economic sense; the less waste we produce, the less waste we must manage and dispose. Consequently, the planning process should consider reduction alternatives before management or disposal alternatives are explored.
Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act
In 1989, the Georgia General Assembly passed SR 103 creating the Joint Solid Waste Management Study Committee to analyze the status of solid waste management in Georgia and to make recommendations for a comprehensive revision of the 1972 Solid Waste Management Act. The study committee labored during the
8

summer and fall, 1989, and released its report in December of that year. 4 The findings and recommendations in the study committee report were drafted as legislation and introduced as an administration bill in the 1990 session of the General Assembly as SB 533, the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act.e The bill unanimously passed both houses of the General Assembly.
SB 533 (the Act) provides a sound framework for comprehensively managing solid waste. The first step in implementing the Act has been the development of this document, the Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan. The purpose of this plan is essentially threefold:
1. to present a status report of solid waste management in Georgia,
2. to set forth the state strategy for reducing and managing solid waste, and
3. to establish the procedures and criteria for local/regional solid waste plans and other components of the local/regional solid waste management strategy.
The next step is up to you--the elected and appointed officials, other state and community leaders and citizens of the State of Georgia. By minimizing the amount of waste we each produce, recycling and composting materials, and effectively disposing of those wastes which remain, we can protect the quality of our environment and ensure that adequate solid waste infrastructure is in place and properly operated to meet current and future needs.
erdentical bills were introduced in the Senate (SB 533) and the House (HB 1364). Since the bill was considered first by the Senate, it was SB 533 that was acted upon.
9

References 1. John H. Venable, "A Comprehensive State Plan for Solid Waste
Management: Georgia, 1971," Georgia Department of Public Health, Atlanta, 1971, pg. 9.
2. Adapted from u.s. E.P.A., The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda
for Action, September, 1988. 3. Adapted from Office of Technology Assessment, Facing
America's Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste? Congress of the United States, October, 1989. 4. "Report of the Solid Waste Management Study Committee," Georgia General Assembly, Atlanta, December, 1989.
10

II
CURRENT STATUS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GEORGIA
The current status of solid waste management in Georgia involves primarily the regulatory responsibilities assigned to EPD; the Clean and Beautiful program of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA); local government collection, recycling and disposal efforts; private refuse collection and disposal firms; private recycling operations; and private on-site industrial waste disposal facilities. These efforts are evolving into new, more comprehensive programs with the implementation of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act. In addition, new programs such as the solid waste planning activities of DCA are now being instituted.
The purpose of this section is to present the current status of solid waste management in Georgia. This is the foundation upon which we must build to effectively manage solid waste in the future. It should be noted, however, that only limited efforts have been made to detail the exact status of solid waste management in Georgia. Data for this section have been drawn from DCA surveys and EPD records. Detailed data gathering has not occurred. These data will be generated through the local or regional and state reporting requirements of the Act. As the information is compiled and analyzed, a better understanding will develop as to what additional steps will be necessary to reduce waste quantities and ensure sound management of solid waste in Georgia.
Waste Generation and Composition
In order to reach the state goal of 25 percent municipal solid waste reduction in FY 1992 levels by 1996, it is necessary to determine how much waste is currently entering disposal facilities. Analyzing waste composition is also important so that governments may determine which materials are available for recovery from the waste stream and to identify which markets they should explore.
11

Solid Waste Generation
Solid waste generation and disposal rates in Georgia are generally not known. The reason for this is the lack of means and requirements for measuring waste generation or disposal. A survey conducted by DCA and released in January, 1990, revealed that only 15 percent of the cities and 18 percent of the counties have scales at their landfills.a It is for this reason that the Act requires disposal facilities to have mechanisms for measuring waste effective July 1, 1991, and to keep accurate records of the waste entering the disposal facility. These mechanisms may include stationary or portable scales at the disposal facility or the use of contractual or other arrangements for the use of scales at other locations.
Since wastes quantities have not generally been measured in Georgia, estimates are used. EPD relies on the national estimate of 4.5 pounds of solid waste per person per day to calculate waste quantities for Georgia. At this rate, six million Georgians produce approximately 13,500 tons of solid waste per day. Based on projected increases in population alone, an additional 225 tons per day will be added each year to the amount of solid waste to be managed in Georgia.
A distinction must be made between waste generation and waste disposal rates. Not all solid waste generated is disposed of in landfills. Identical materials may or may not become part of the solid waste stream depending on if they are removed or not. So too, litter, materials illegally dumped, and materials discarded by individuals on their own property decrease the amount of waste disposed of in solid waste facilities. What is generally measured is the disposal rate rather than the generation rate.
Waste quantities have been studied in some but not all regions of the state. As shown in Table II-1, the studies in Georgia have shown per capita amounts of municipal solid waste entering landfills to be greater than the national estimates. Until wastes are routinely weighed at disposal facilities, however, disposal rates in Georgia will not be known.
aThe DCA survey included all counties and 65 cities in Georgia.
12

Table II-1

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PER CAPITA PRODUCTION*

Region/County/City

Pounds/Day

Region

Atlanta Regional Commission1

7.93

Coastal Georgia2 Georgia Mountains3 Southeast Georgia4

7.92(Liberty) 5.00 (rural) 6.40
4.50 (rural) 5.50 (urban)

County

Camden5
Carroll 6 Clarke7 Coweta8
Glynn9 Gwinnett 10 Spalding11 Whi t f i e l d 12

9.00 6.89 11.00 6.88 8.50 10.10 5.00 10.74

City

College Park13 East Point 14

12.82 8.71

ull citations in Reference section.

13

Table II-2

MATERIALS DISCARDED INTO THE U.S. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE STREAM* (in millions of tons and percent)

Materials

1970

1986

2000

Tons Percent Tons Percent Tons Percent

Paper and Paperboard
Glass Metals Plastics Rubber and
Leather Textiles Wood Other Food Wastes Yard Wastes Misc. Inorganics TOTALS

36.5 32.4

12.5 13.5
3.0 3.0

11.1 12.0
2.7 2.7

2.0 4.0 0.1 12.8 23.2 1.9

1.8 3.6
11.4 20.6
1.7

112.5 100.0

50.1 35.6

11.8 8.4 12.6 8. 9 10.3 7.3
3.9 2.8

2.8 5.8 0.1 12.5 28.3 2.6

2.0 4.1
8. 9 20.1
1.8

140.8 100.0

66.0 39.1

12.0 7.1 14.4 8.5 15.6 9.2
3.8 2.3

3.3 6.1 0.1 12.3 32.0 3.2

2.0 3.6
7.3 19.0
1.9

168.8 100.0

*Franklin Associates, 1989. Study conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Waste Composition

As Table II-2 shows, waste composition has changed over time, and will continue to change. Paper and yard waste combined comprise over half of the municipal solid waste stream. Metals and glass have decreased as a percentage of the waste stream, but have remained about the same in weight. Plastics have increased significantly as a percentage of the waste stream and are projected to continue to increase.

It should be noted that differences exist between urban and rural municipal solid waste. Urban areas with more industrial and commercial waste will vary in both per capita generation rates and constituent composition from residential wastes. The municipal solid waste stream will also vary with seasons of the year (e.g., yard waste).

Studies conducted to date have not focused on waste composition as much as on waste quantities. Those studies that
have analyzed waste composition suggest that Georgia's waste composition tends to be similar to the national figures presented in Table II-3. A 1986 Gwinnett County study15 and a 1989 Southeast Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan16 show waste composition figures which are generally comparable to the 1989
national average.

14

Waste Component

Table II-3

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION (Percent by Total Weight)

Franklin 1989* Gwinnett County Southeast Ga.

Natl. Average

1986

Plan 1989

Plastics Paper Metal
Ferrous Non-Ferrous Aluminum
Glass Yard Food Wood Textiles Rubber & Leather Durable Goods Other/Misc.

8.1 28.0
9.5 7.9 0.3 1.4 9.0 17.2 7.8 3.7 2.2 2.5
2.0

5.0 40.0
9.0
9.0 18.0 12.0
2.0 2.0
3.0

3-5 36-47 4.5-8 2.5-4
2-4 1-2 7-9 5-7
5-2 2-4 1.7 5.6

*Franklin Associates, 1989; Gwinnett County Plan, 1986; Southeast Georgia Plan, 1989.

Collection and Transportation

In some cases, collection costs may be separate from other municipal solid waste management costs because private haulers charge individuals for this service. In 1989, EPD estimated, based on a DCA survey, that the average cost of collecting municipal solid waste is approximately $8.00 per month per household in Georgia. 17

The 1990 DCA survey supports the observation that cities and counties differ in their residential collection methods. Whereas cities provide door-to-door pickup; only 26 percent of the counties had door-to-door pickup, the rest usually relied on green boxes (dumpsters) . Most cities (94 percent) and counties (63 percent) provide collection services themselves rather than having private haulers provide the service. Cities are more likely than counties to bill their residents directly for the collection service. Virtually all of those cities and counties that do not bill their residents directly or do not contract with private haulers obtain the funds necessary for solid waste management from property taxes or directly from the general fund.

15

Table II-4

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION

Cities (Percent)

Counties (Percent)

Have Collection System

100

91

Door-to-Door Pickup

100

26

Public Collection

94

63

Bill for Collection

79

18

Processing and Transfer
Transfer Stations
Transfer stations are centralized facilities which consolidate waste before it is taken to the disposal facility. Smaller vehicles unload waste which is either processed or compacted for transportation in larger vehicles. Transfer stations may provide an excellent opportunity to recover recyclable materials from the waste stream or be used as drop off centers for recyclable materials. They will increasingly serve as a link to regional recycling and disposal facilities. According to the DCA survey, only 12 cities and 16 counties currently utilize transfer stations.
Materials Recovery Facilities
Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs)b are centralized solid waste facilities which receive, separate, process, and market recyclable materials from the solid waste stream. While publicly sponsored MRFs are not common in Georgia, they are well established in other parts of the country. MRFs are particularly suited to regional applications where materials may be pooled and shipped to a central location. MRFs are frequently large and quite expensive to operate. This type of facility may become more economically feasible as more waste is processed on a regional basis.
bMRFs differ from recovered materials processing facilities (RMPF) in that they receive solid waste and remove materials from that waste. RMPFs do not handle solid waste but separate already recovered materials for sale, use, reuse or recycling. RMPFs are located throughout Georgia.
16

Volume Reduction Equipment
Compactors, balers, and shredders reduce waste volume, thus saving valuable landfill space and, if used before solid waste is transported, transportation costs. According to the DCA survey, four cities and 24 counties have compactors, three cities and five counties have balers, and six cities and six counties have shredders.
Recycling and Composting
Recycling
According to the DCA survey, about one quarter of cities and counties in Georgia currently have government operated recycling programs. Sixty-two percent of the cities and 34 percent of the counties have private sector recycling operations. Waste oil is recycled by 23 counties and 15 cities. The City of Mountain Park in North Fulton County has the only mandatory recycling program in Georgia. A wide variety of voluntary recycling programs exist and range from curbside collection to drop off centers.
Paper (e.g., newsprint and corrugated) is the most commonly recycled material in Georgia, followed by aluminum, other metals, glass, plastics, etc. Georgia is fortunate to have strong private sector paper recycling capabilities. Fifteen paper mills in the state now use secondary fiber for part or all of their feedstock. Southeast Paper Manufacturing Company in Dublin (Laurens County) is the nation's largest mill producing 100 percent recycled newsprint. It consumes more than 500,000 tons of old newspaper per year to produce over 450,000 tons of newsprint. Fort Howard Corporation in Rincon (Effingham County) consumes large quantities of mixed paper annually to produce a variety of 100 percent recycled paper products including tissues, paper towels and napkins. It is the largest plant of its kind in the United States. Caraustar Industries headquartered in Austell recycles an estimated 420,000 tons of corrugated cardboard paper per year.
Recycling operations for other materials such as aluminum, ferrous metals, and glass have a strong presence as well. There are several consumers of aluminum and steel and two plants that use glass cullet in Georgia. Post-consumer plastics recycling is less well developed in Georgia but appears to be increasing.
Additionally, there is a well developed network of dealers, brokers, and processors of recovered materials in Georgia. It is estimated that over 100 companies exist that buy, sell and process recovered materials. These existing facilities represent investments of millions of dollars in land, buildings and processing equipment.
17

Compo sting
Composting can reduce the amount of leaves, grass clippings, branches and other organic wastes (e.g., food waste and sewage sludge) in the waste stream and consequently reduce the volume of waste entering a disposal facility. Composting operations can range from low-technology to expensive, land-intensive, highly mechanized operations designed to divert large amounts of organic wastes from municipal solid waste landfills. The resulting compost can be sold to landscapers and the general public as soil supplement or used by the local government for use on publicly owned lands. At present, composting programs are not widespread in the state but with more emphasis on end product marketing and use of available composting technology it could become more widespread.
Solid Waste Disposal
Solid waste disposal facilities include municipal solid waste landfillsc, construction/demolition landfills, inert landfills, industrial landfills and thermal treatment facilities, including biomedical waste incinerators.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Most municipal solid waste in Georgia is disposed of through landfilling in the 180 municipal solid waste landfills currently permitted by EPD. Of these 180 landfills, 169 of them are publicly owned and operated and 11 are private landfills. An EPD survey conducted in 1989 found that about three-fourths of the municipal solid waste landfills in operation at that time would be filled to capacity within two years. Since that survey was completed, 15 landfills in the state have closed. Only 12 new municipal solid waste landfills have been permitted in Georgia since 1985 (see Table II-5). Most communities have chosen to expand existing sites.
The DCA survey shows that county operated landfills are used by three-quarters of the 153 counties using disposal facilities, and another 18 percent of the counties use facilities which are jointly operated with cities. Approximately 50 percent of the cities use county landfills, and another 22 percent of the cities use landfills operated jointly with counties. According to EPD records, 52 landfills are operated by cities. Regardless of ownership, landfills are typically located outside of cities in unincorporated areas.
cMunicipal solid waste landfills were formerly called "sanitary" landfills.
18

Disposal at municipal solid waste landfills frequently costs more than $25.00 per ton in urban areas. As the new state and federal Subtitle Dd regulations are implemented, this cost will increase.

Table II-5

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (SANITARY) LANDFILL PERMIT APPLICATIONS (July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1989)

Status

Number

Applications Received

142

Applications Withdrawn (No Zoning)

2

Applications Withdrawn (Extensive Site Limitations)

28

Applications Withdrawn (During Site Review)

37

Applications Withdrawn (Less than 50% of Site Approved)

3

Site Acceptability Denied

6

Sites Currently Under Review by GSB-EPD

22

Design and Operation Plans Under Review by LPB-EPD

25

Permits Denied

1

Permits Issued (Horizontal Expansion)

6

Permits Issued (New Sites)

12

GSB = Geologic Survey Branch

LPB = Land Protection Branch

Many communities do not know the cost of managing solid waste. This is because communities' general tax revenues are frequently used to finance solid waste operations and their accounting methods do not identify these expenses. The cities and counties surveyed by DCA were asked if they used a separate fund, such as an enterprise fund, for solid waste accounting. Fifteen of the 65 cities (23 percent) use a separate fund while 20 of the 159 counties (13 percent) have a separate fund for solid waste accounting.

Tipping fees, the fees charged at the disposal facility generally based on the weight or volume of wastes to be discarded, are increasingly used in the state. The DCA survey found that 17 cities charge tipping fees or 57 percent of the cities involved in operating landfills. The percentage of counties charging tipping fees is slightly lower. The 66 counties that impose tipping fees represent about 48 percent of the counties involved in landfill management.

dSubtitle D of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended establishes the criteria for solid waste landfills.
19

The cost of the infrastructure required to properly manage municipal solid waste is increasing. EPD estimates the costs of solid waste facilities and equipment needs in Georgia to be in excess ofr$100 million.
Construction/Demolition Landfills
Landfills that accept construction and demolition wastes (e.g., concrete, lumber, and other construction materials) are permitted by EPD. Currently, 72 construction/demolition landfills are permitted in Georgia and, of these, 15 are privately owned.
Inert Landfills
Inert landfills are permitted by rule by EPD for nonputresable wastes including land clearing waste such as tree stumps and limbs. Since these landfills do not present the problems associated with municipal solid waste landfills, the standards for inert landfills are less stringent than those for municipal solid waste landfills. Currently, there are 64 inert waste landfills which have notified EPD of their operations. Potentially, inert landfills could present future problems by degrading into unregulated dumps. To prevent this, additional monitoring and enforcement may be necessary.
Industrial Solid Waste Landfills
Approximately 100 industrial solid waste landfills currently are used by Georgia industries to dispose of their solid waste. These wastes vary considerably from inert materials (e.g., wood and grit) to wastes that may contain constituents which are not legally hazardous but may be harmful to the environment. Although data are not available, it is estimated by EPD that generation rates for industrial solid waste in Georgia equal or exceed those for municipal solid waste.
Thermal Treatment Facilities
Georgia has one thermal treatment facility, which is operated by the City of Savannah. The mass burn facility has a capacity of 500 tons of solid waste per day and was built at a cost of $55 million. To date, of the studies done involving thermal treatment (see Table III-4), only the Atlanta region study has recommended a thermal treatment facility. Economic and other considerations suggest that landfilling will continue to be the primary method of waste disposal in Georgia for the foreseeable future. Thermal treatment could become economically attractive, however, if: 1) fossil fuel costs increase; 2) costs of environmental remediation at landfills result in landfilling being a less acceptable option; or 3) environmental and/or
20

development pressures limit the availability of land for land disposal facilities.

Biomedical Waste Incinerators

There are 14 permitted biomedical waste incinerators currently in Georgia. However, many small health care facilities have incinerators which, due to their size, do not require a permit. Thirteen of the permitted incinerators are located at hospitals and other health care facilities in the state and handle the waste they produce. The only existing commercial biomedical waste incinerator in operation is in Lake City (Clayton County) and is owned and operated by a private waste handling and disposal company. This company also has the one autoclave for treating biomedical waste permitted in Georgia. Combined, the private incinerator and autoclave provide a commercial capacity for handling biomedical waste of 28.8 tons per day. It is estimated that about 56 tons of biomedical waste are generated each day in Georgia.

Table II-6

BIOMEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Facility

Permitted Capacity (Maximum Tons/Day)

Location

Bio-Medical Service Corp.* (Incinerator)
Bio-Medical Service Corp.* (Autoclave)
Centers for Disease Control Centers for Disease Control DeKalb Medical Center Georgia Baptist Hospital Grady Memorial Hospital Humana Hospital Medical Ctr. of Central Georgia Memorial Medical Center Phoebe Putney Hospital South Georgia Medical Center St. Francis Hospital St. Mary's Hospital University Hospital

14.4
14.4
1.2 6.0 14.4 15.0 9. 6 4.2 15.0 4.3 16.6 10.6 8.2 8.4 22.5

Lake City
Lake City
DeKalb DeKalb Decatur Atlanta Atlanta Augusta Macon Savannah Albany Valdosta Columbus Athens Augusta

TOTAL

164.8

*Commercial facility.

21

Conclusions Solid waste management efforts in Georgia are not completely documented. Little information is available on waste reduction, recycling and composting operations. As the Act is implemented and reporting of solid waste reduction, recycling and composting operations occurs, a better understanding of solid waste management will emerge.e
Currently, Georgia depends heavily on landfills to dispose of its solid waste. The 180 permitted municipal solid waste landfills represent a decrease of 15 in the past year. New landfills are not being developed at the rate of closure. This, coupled with increased generation due to population growth, will exacerbate efforts to dispose of waste. This stagnation is also evident with thermal treatment facilities. One facility is currently in operation in Georgia. Although one additional facility has been proposed for the Atlanta region, little progress is evident on moving forward with this facility.
If solid waste is to be managed effectively, we must be able to quantify and monitor waste management efforts. These data will provide a clearer picture of what we are generating, how effective our waste reduction efforts are, and what additional steps, if any, are necessary to effectively manage solid waste in Georgia. This information will also be important in increasing public understanding and involvement.
eReporting of recycling operations is required under the Act. The Act does not, however, require reporting of quantities of materials recycled, composted or removed in other ways. It is very difficult and expensive to attempt to quantify materials recovered from the waste stream. Instead, the Act requires measuring the amount of waste entering disposal facilities.
22

References
1. Roy F. Weston, Inc., Atlanta Regional Commission: Waste-toEnergy Study, August, 1989.
2. Roy F. Weston, Inc., Solid Waste Management Practices and Solid Waste Projections - Coastal Georgia Counties and Cities, 1990.
3. Fitchner USA, Inc., Feasibility Study for Waste-to-Enerqv Facility for Georgia Mountains Area Planning and Development Commission, Volume II, Technical Evaluation, 1989.
4. The Southeast Georgia Area Planning and Development Commission, The Southeast Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan 1987-2000 for the Counties and Cities of Atkinson, Bacon, Brantley, Charlton, Clinch, Coffee, Pierce, and Ware.
5. Roy F. Weston, Inc., Solid Waste Disposal Study for Glynn and Camden Counties, July 28, 1989.
6. Roy F. Weston, Inc., Carroll County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Study, May 2, 1990.
7. Athens/Clarke County Clean and Beautiful Commission, Solid Waste Reduction Recommendations for Athens and Clarke County, Georgia, June, 1990.
8. Hayden-Wegman, Inc., Solid Waste Management Study, Coweta County, Georgia, 1987.
9. Roy F. Weston, Inc., Solid Waste Disposal Study for Glynn and Camden Counties, July 28, 1989.
10. Hayden-Wegman, Inc., Gwinnett County Initial Resource Recovery Feasibility Study, December 16, 1986.
11. Tribble and Richardson, Inc., Phase I Analysis: Solid Waste Disposal for the City of Griffin and the Spalding County Board of Commissioners, December 8, 1988.
12. Roy F. Weston, Inc., Dalton-Whitfield County Waste-to-Energy Feasibility Study, June 1, 1990.
13. Gershman, Brickner, and Bratton, Inc., in association with Dames and Moore, Draft Feasibility Study for a Waste-toEnergy Facility: College Park and East Point, Georgia, August 29, 1988.
14. Ibid.
23

15. Hayden-Wegman, Inc., Gwinnett County Initial Resource Recovery Feasibility Study, December 16, 1986.
16. The Southeast Georgia Area Planning and Development Commission, The Southeast Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan 1987-2000 for the Counties and Cities of Atkinson, Bacon, Brantley, Charlton, Clinch, Coffee, Pierce, and Ware.
17. Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Georgia Solid Waste Management Issues, Atlanta, Georgia, August 15, 1989.
24

III
STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act envisions the state solid waste management plan addressing both the state strategy for reducing and managing waste and establishing the criteria and procedures to be met by local and regional solid waste management programs. The state solid waste management strategy addresses four key points:
1. reduction of materials requiring disposal;a
2. waste disposal;
3. public education and technical assistance; and
4. financing.
This section presents the goals and actions called for to implement each of these four key state responsibilities and identifies the role of each agency in fulfilling its charge. It also identifies future issues and potential problems that may be encountered in implementing the Act.
Waste Reduction Procedures and Strategies
State Municipal Solid waste Reduction Goal
Reducing the amount of municipal solid waste generated and recovering as much of the discarded material as possible for recycling and composting decreases the amount that must be disposed of through thermal treatment and landfilling. For this reason, the Act sets a waste reduction (including minimization, reuse, recycling and composting) goal for Georgia as follows:
It is the intent of the General Assembly that every effort be undertaken to reduce on a state-wide per capita basis the amount of municipal solid waste being received at disposal facilities during fiscal year 1992 by 25 percent by July 1, 1996; provided, however, that counties and municipalities that establish an annual measurement of municipal solid waste being received at disposal facilities prior to the end of fiscal year
aRecycling (including composting), along with thermal treatment technology and landfilling, are the three most common methods available to manage solid waste. However, since recycling is also a means for decreasing the amount of waste entering disposal facilities, it has been included in the waste reduction section.
25

1992 shall be given credit for reductions achieved based on that measurement period prior to fiscal year 1992.
This goal does a number of things:
A 25 percent reduction goal is a reachable, realistic goal which is consistent with federal policies.
Since the goal is set on a state-wide per capita basis, it allows for differences among local jurisdictions and accounts for growth in population.
Since the goal is to reduce waste being received at disposal facilities, measuring and tracking the effectiveness of reduction efforts are simplified and made more accurate. By weighing the waste entering the facility and keeping accurate records, the need to attempt to measure the amount of material being recycled, composted, or being removed from the waste stream through other means or which was not produced as a direct result of waste reduction measures is decreased.
Although current municipal solid waste generation levels can be estimated, they are not known. By establishing FY 1992 as the baseline year for measuring waste, Georgia will be able to accurately determine how much waste is being generated and to track reduction from that amount.
Local governments can be given credit for their waste reduction efforts that occur prior to FY 1992 but the credit must be based on an earlier base year with accurate documentation.
This goal thus establishes the framework for reducing and managing municipal solid waste in Georgia. Although the goal is set at 25 percent reduction, local governments are encouraged to reduce their waste stream beyond the state-wide goal.
Solid Waste Reduction Options
Solid waste reduction involves the following activities:
1. source reduction or minimizing the amount of waste actually generated;
2. reusing materials that would otherwise enter the waste stream;
26

3. recycling materials; and

4. composting organic matter.

Each of these activities, if implemented, will reduce the amount of solid waste entering disposal facilities and assist local efforts to meet the state reduction goal.

Source Reduction or Waste Minimization

Source reduction or waste minimization efforts focus primarily on education, basing fees charged for disposal on actual costs and waste quantities, and working with the private sector to design and package products with their recyclability and ultimate disposal in mind. Educational efforts are designed to inform the public about waste management concerns and the need and alternative methods to reduce the amount of waste they generate. Frequently individuals can find ways to reduce waste if they are aware of the value of doing so. Tying this educational effort to disposal costs is also of value. By setting the cost of disposal so that it reflects the actual costs of providing the service and is based on the quantity of waste being disposed, an incentive is created to reduce waste generation.

"Planned obsolescence" and inappropriate use of packaging have contributed to the mounting waste problem. Designing products so they last longer, so they can be repaired rather than replaced, and so they can be recycled at the end of their useful life; constructing them out of recyclable materials; and packaging them in a manner that minimizes waste generation would all aid in reducing solid waste generation. Since products are generally marketed across local and state boundaries, the federal government must take more of a leadership role in refocusing product design and packaging.

Goal 1:

To minimize the amount of solid waste being generated in Georgia.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: DCA and EPD, through their education efforts, provide information to local governments and the general public on source reduction of solid waste they generate.

Action 2: EPD work to influence, at the national level, policies designed to minimize the amount of solid waste being generated.

27

Action 3: DCA and EPD assist local governments to tie the costs of waste management directly to the service provided.

Action 4: EPD and DCA report to the Governor and General Assembly by July 1, 1991, if additional actions are necessary to minimize solid waste generation in Georgia. Specifically, consideration should be given to actions such as banning toxics from packaging and favoring of recyclable packaging.

Action 5: Based on the recommendations of EPD and DCA, the Governor and General Assembly, if necessary, institute policies and procedures to further minimize the amount of solid waste being generated in the state.

Action 6: The University System of Georgia provide technical assistance to industries on nonhazardous solid waste reduction alternatives.

Action 7: Board of Natural Resources in cooperation with the Board of Community Affairs promulgate rules setting forth the criteria for determining if local governments and regional arrangements are meeting the intent of the Act with respect to waste reduction and recycling.

Future issues and potential problems with minimizing the amount of municipal solid waste generated include the following.

Issue 1:

Results of efforts to minimize waste generation through education, quantity-based disposal costs, and working with industries in product design and packaging may be slow to come. These efforts should be monitored to determine implementation time schedules, their effectiveness, and if the state should take additional steps to decrease waste generation.

Reuse

Many materials that may be reused are discarded and, consequently, become part of the solid waste stream. By identifying these materials and setting in place mechanisms to provide for their reuse, the waste stream can be reduced.

28

Goal 2:

To foster the reuse of those items that would otherwise enter the waste stream and that can be reused in their current condition.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: EPD and DCA determine if participation in existing or new waste exchange programs designed to facilitate the use of waste products as resources would be effective in capturing reusable materials from the solid waste stream and, if so, take appropriate steps to foster such efforts, including the development of a reuse guide.

Action 2: DCA and EPD, through their educational programs, stress to local governments and the general public the value of reusing materials rather than discarding them and of purchasing items that can be reused rather than discarded.

Action 3: DCA and EPD, through their educational programs, highlight the value of the existing reuse industry (e.g., Salvation Army, Good Will) and consider state promotion of reuse activities such as flea markets.

Action 4: DITT attempt to attract business and industry to Georgia that foster reuse activities.

Future issues and potential problems with reuse of materials that if discarded would become part of the municipal solid waste stream include the following.

Issue 1:

Currently, a wide variety of items are manufactured to be used only once, or for a limited number of times, and then discarded. Such items include disposable diapers, fast food packaging, razors, lighters, beverage containers, etc. In most cases, alternatives are available. It will take a change in buying behavior to spur this increase in reusable items. An educational effort is called for but, in some states, bans on some items (e.g., disposable diapers) have been imposed and other requirements (e.g., bottle bills) have been adopted. Developments in this area should be monitored but before any change in policy is adopted, the impact and effectiveness of the alternatives should be thoroughly analyzed.

29

Recycling

Recycling is an increasingly popular and effective mechanism for reducing the amount of solid waste entering disposal facilities. It involves:

1. identification of markets for the separated materials;

2. collection, separation and temporary storage of recyclable materials;

3. preparing the separated materials for sale;

4. contracting with a broker or industry for the separated materials;

5. transportation of materials to the point of reprocessing;

6. reprocessing of material into a new product; and

7. sale and use of that product.

Until the new product is put into use, recycling has not occurred. The key point of concern in this process is the availability and sustainability of markets for recovered materials. Without these markets, recycling efforts will fail.

Recycling Market Development Council

The Act creates a 15 member Recycling Market Development Council to determine what actions, if any, are needed to facilitate the development and expansion of markets for recovered materials in Georgia. The council is created for a five year period and will report annually to the Governor and General Assembly on its recommendations.

Goal 3:

To ensure that adequate and sustainable markets exist for materials recovered from the solid waste stream and that these markets increase as more materials are recovered from the solid waste stream.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: The Recycling Market Development Council be provided staff support by DCA.

Action 2: The Recycling Market Development Council investigate the current status of processing capacity and markets for recovered materials throughout Georgia, analyze options for resolving

30

any problems identified with processing capacity and markets, and make recommendations annually to the Governor and General Assembly to resolve any identified processing capacity, market and other problems hindering recycling in Georgia.

Action 3: Based on the recommendations of the Recycling Market Development Council, the Governor and the General Assembly, if necessary, institute appropriate policies and procedures to resolve identified problems impeding recycling efforts in the state.

Future issues and potential problems with the Recycling Market Development Council include the following.

Issue 1: Although DCA is planning to staff the council, no budget is available to support the council's program.

Issue 2:

The policies and programs adopted by other states as well as the federal government can affect the availability of markets for recovered materials from Georgia.

Issue 3:

There is a relationship between post-consumer and industrial recycling. Altering policies for one can affect the other. These potential impacts need to be analyzed before new policies are implemented.

State Procurement of Recycled and Recyclable Materials

To create and expand sustainable markets for recovered materials, a demand must exist for those materials. This demand is created through the procurement decisions of both the public and private sectors as well as individual purchasing behavior. By increasing the purchase of recycled materials, governments, private companies and individuals create the demand for materials to be recycled. However, development of the infrastructure (i.e., manufacturing facilities using recovered materials) will take time. In addition, use of recovered materials in many instances will offset use of other raw materials which, while having positive impacts from the perspective of conserving natural resources, may actually have associated negative economic impacts.

31

Goal 4:

To create and expand sustainable markets for recovered materials through state procurement procedures and guidelines.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: The Commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) review the procedures for procuring goods and products purchased by the state to determine what percentage of these purchases contain recycled materials and file a report of the findings with the Governor and General Assembly by December 31, 1991.

Action 2: The Commissioner of DOAS complete by December 31, 1991, a review of the purchasing specifications, practices, and procedures of the state, paying particular attention to any procedures and specifications which concern or impact the purchase of recovered materials or goods or products made from recovered or recyclable materials. The Commissioner should report to the Governor and General Assembly recommendations for procedures and specifications for state purchasing which promote the increased purchase of goods or products made from recovered materials and goods or products which are recyclable.

Action 3: DOAS monitor federal activities to determine if Georgia's procurement procedures and guidelines are consistent with those adopted by the federal government and, if not, to recommend to the Governor and General Assembly changes necessary to maintain consistency.

Action 4: Based on the recommendations of the Commissioner of DOAS, the Governor and the General Assembly institute appropriate policies and procedures to increase the percentage of recycled or recyclable materials purchased for state use.

Future issues and potential problems relating to the state procurement of recycled materials include the following.

Issue 1:

Until industries develop or change production methods to utilize more recovered material while producing items of quality comparable to those produced from virgin materials, it may be difficult for the state to identify reliable, cost competitive sources of recycled goods.

32

Issue 2:

Some recycled materials, at least initially, may not compete in price with products made from virgin materials. In order to overcome this problem, some states have allowed recycled items to be purchased even if their cost is up to 10 percent higher than products made from virgin material. If recycled materials of adequate quality are not available at competitive prices, should a price differential favoring recycled materials be adopted? The effectiveness of these policies in other state's should be investigated.

Issue 3: Although the Act does not require local governments to procure materials produced from recovered materials, they are encouraged to do so.

State Agency Recycling Requirements

State agencies and the General Assembly generate large quantities of potentially recoverable materials. The Joint Solid Waste Management Study Committee felt that the state should set an example and institute programs to ensure that these materials were collected and marketed for recycling. The Act requires each state agency which is located in a state-owned building and the General Assembly to establish a collection program for recovered materials generated as a result of agency operations including, at a minimum, aluminum, high-grade office paper and corrugated paper.

Goal 5:

To increase the amount of material recycled from state agencies and the General Assembly.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: The Georgia Building Authority notify all state agencies in state-owned buildings, including the University System of Georgia, of the requirement to institute collection programs for aluminum, high-grade office paper, and corrugated paper and establish procedures for the collection and storage of recovered materials and contractual or other arrangements for transportation and purchase of these recovered materials.

Action 2: Whenever practical, the Georgia Building Authority recommend that items in addition to aluminum, high-grade office paper and corrugated paper be collected by state agencies for recycling.

Action 3: Wherever practical, the Georgia Building Authority assist those state agencies not occupying state-

33

owned buildings to institute collection programs for recoverable materials.

Action 4: All state agencies owning vehicle maintenance facilities institute waste oil, battery and tire recycling operations and where public access is practical, provide public access to its waste oil storage facility.

Action 5: The Georgia Building Authority report annually to the Governor and the General Assembly on the state recycling program, including recycling efforts of state agencies not occupying state-owned buildings.

Action 6: Based on the recommendations of the Georgia Building Authority, the Governor and General Assembly, if necessary, institute appropriate policies and procedures to increase the recycling efforts of the state.

Future issues and potential problems with state recycling efforts include the following.

Issue 1: The Georgia Building Authority and state agencies may face the problem of a lack of markets for the recovered materials.

Issue 2: With no new funds to implement recycling programs, some state agencies might have difficulty with starting a program.

Issue 3:

Should the state consider the institution of prison industries that use recovered materials for manufacturing? Should the state and its subdivisions expand the use of prison labor for recovering materials? Should those individuals given community service sentences be assigned to waste management activities? What impact would these programs have on existing or other potential recycling efforts?

Recycling by the General Public and Businesses and Industries

State policies can support, assist and, if necessary, require recycling activities by the general public and the private sector. Recycling, however, is overall a popular activity and public support exists. What appears to be necessary in Georgia is not a mandate to recycle but education and technical assistance to help the general public, local governments, and the private sector to effectively recycle

34

materials and efforts to stimulate markets for recovered materials. The state efforts are therefore directed toward setting a reduction goal, establishing a planning process to determine how to meet that goal, setting an example (state agency recycling) and analyzing the market situation and taking actions to expand sustainable markets for recovered materials (Recycling Market Development Council and procurement of products made from recovered materials or that are recyclable). Additionally,
educational and technical assistance efforts will be directed toward increasing recycling throughout the state.

Goal 6:

To increase the amount of material recycled by the general public and by businesses and industries.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: EPD and DCA actively encourage and assist local governments and other regional arrangements to institute new and enhance existing recycling programs that are effective and capitalize on identified markets for separated materials.

Action 2: EPD, in cooperation with the University System of Georgia, provide technical assistance to businesses and industries on methods for recycling and reducing the amount of waste they generate.

Action 3: DCA assist local governments to form cooperative arrangements for recycling.

Action 4: DCA provide local governments with information and assistance on establishing office recycling programs.

Action 5: EPD, DCA and other state agencies carry out their responsibilities related to recycling identified in other sections of this plan.

Future issues and potential problems with recycling by the general public and the private sector include the following.

Issue 1:

Although the Act does not require local governments to institute recycling programs for the materials they generate, they are encouraged to do so.

Issue 2:

Recycling by the general public and businesses and industries is critical for this plan to succeed. The thrust of much of this plan is to institute programs and procedures to increase recycling.

35

Time will tell if these steps are sufficient or if more actions will be required.

Compo sting

Organic matter such as most yard waste, food scraps and sewage sludge can be composted to produce a usable soil supplement. Additionally, tree stumps and limbs can be converted to wood chips for use in landscaping and for other purposes. By so doing, these materials are removed from the municipal solid waste stream and converted to usable products.

Goal 7:

To reduce solid waste through composting of organic matter and grinding of tree stumps and branches to produce wood chips.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: EPD and DCA actively encourage local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements to ban yard waste from their municipal solid waste disposal facilities and to institute composting and/or wood chipping operations.

Action 2: The Board of Natural Resources promulgate rules to ensure that composting of solid waste is undertaken in a manner that assures product quality without adverse environmental impacts.

Action 3: EPD, DCA and the University System of Georgia provide local governments and the general public with information on how to effectively compost organic waste, including backyard composting practices.

Action 4: The Georgia Building Authority and state agencies, whenever practical, use compost and wood chips recovered from the solid waste stream for landscaping and grounds maintenance purposes, including along the state highway system, and ensure that yard waste generated in the maintenance of state facilities is composted.

Action 5: The Georgia Building Authority and state agencies, whenever practical, engage in, contract for, or otherwise allow or arrange for composting of yard waste on property owned or controlled by those agencies.

Action 6: Based on the annual reports from local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements, EPD and DCA determine if further steps are

36

necessary to promote composting and wood chipping and make appropriate recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly.

Action 7:

Based on the recommendations of EPD and DCA, the Governor and General Assembly, if necessary, institute appropriate policies and procedures to increase composting and wood chipping operations to decrease the volume of solid waste.

Future issues and potential problems with composting and wood chipping include the following.

Issue 1:

Local governments may opt to place yard waste and tree limbs and stumps in an inert landfill or to use air curtain destruction rather than to convert organic waste to a product that can be reused. These methods do not meet the intent of the Act to increase the recycling of these materials and, therefore, they do not count toward meeting the 25 percent reduction goal. Some local governments, however, have invested in these alternatives to reduce the amount of waste being disposed of in their municipal solid waste landfills.

Issue 2:

Markets and additional uses for composted and chipped material will have to be developed or expanded. Market strategies designed to change public perceptions as to the benefits of compost need to be developed. The Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the federal Resource Conservation and Development Councils in the state may be helpful here.

Issue 3:

There may be environmental and liability concerns associated with composted materials if they contain excess quantities of toxic constituents or pathogenic organisms. Therefore, the state should assist local communities in producing high quality, fully cured compost that meets all appropriate rules, regulations and market standards through the Multi-agency Compost Management Committee.

Waste Disposal Procedures and Strategies

There are two major disposal options for solid waste (e.g., landfill and thermal treatment) and, from an environmental standpoint, there are concerns with both. The major environmental problem with landfills is the potential for ground and surface water contamination. The major environmental concerns with thermal treatment are the potential for emitting

37

toxic substances into the atmosphere and the potential leaching of heavy metals once the ash is landfilled. Currently, efforts are under way at the federal level to raise standards for both landfills and thermal treatment technologies. The exact form of these standards is speculative at this time. The Board of Natural Resources has adopted new more environmentally protective standards for landfills but no action has been taken to change the standards for thermal treatment technologies.
As mentioned in Section II of this plan, landfilling of solid waste constitutes by far the most common method of waste disposal in Georgia, accounting for over 95 percent of waste disposal. This predominant waste handling method is expected to continue for the foreseeable future because of the relative abundance of inexpensive land in Georgia. Thermal treatment, which is limited to one mass burn waste-to-energy facility and the incineration of biomedical waste, is not likely to increase greatly due to high up-front costs and uncertainties relating to federal requirements for emissions and ash disposal.
It is the policy of the State of Georgia to assure that all solid waste facilities, whether public or private, do not adversely affect the health, safety, and well-being of the public and do not degrade the quality of the environment by reason of their location, design, method of operation, or other means which, due to the extent feasible and practical, makes maximum utilization of the resources contained in solid waste. It is clear that the continued high level of reliance on landfills will not solve our solid waste management problems nor achieve the stated policies of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act.
Thus, Georgia's waste disposal strategy is to: (1) decrease the disposal of recoverable and troublesome materials; (2) encourage regionalization; (3) ensure all new facilities meet stringent location, design, construction, and operation standards; (4) ensure all existing facilities meet new operation standards or close; and (5) ensure that facilities which have caused water quality degradation be remediated.
Disposal of Recoverable and Troublesome Materials
Decreasing waste disposal can be achieved through reducing the amount of waste to be disposed or through restrictions on the types of waste disposed. Waste reduction is discussed elsewhere in this plan. When certain wastes are restricted from landfills, the results can include increased landfill life, reduced potential for surface and ground water contamination, and increased recovery of available resources. So too, restricting items such as lead-acid batteries from thermal treatment facilities can improve the quality of both air emissions and the
38

ash that is landfilled.b Unfortunately, disposal restrictions may also result in increased illegal dumping of these materials.

Goal 8:

To reduce reliance on disposal facilities by encouraging recovery of reusable and recyclable materials and imposing bans or restrictions on troublesome items.

To meet the above goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: EPD continue to restrict troublesome items from disposal facilities and encourage the recovery of reusable and recyclable materials from the waste stream.

a. Yard waste: Restricting yard waste from landfills can preserve landfill capacity. Approximately 20 percent of the average solid waste stream is yard waste. Leaves contribute about 25 percent of yard waste. Urban counties generally collect greater quantities of yard waste than rural counties and thus would benefit more from banning yard waste and encouraging the establishment of composting and mulch production programs.

b. Biomedical Waste: Approximately 1,350 tons of biomedical waste are produced monthly in Georgia. Due to the potential risks posed to sanitation workers, health care workers, and to a lesser extent, the general public, more stringent packaging and treatment standards have been imposed on biomedical waste than other solid waste, including the requirement that it be incinerated or otherwise treated prior to landfill disposal. Incineration, which is the most common form of treatment, will generally reduce the volume needing landfill disposal by approximately 90 percent.

c. Liquids: Liquids in landfills contribute to the formation of leachate and if not controlled and collected can result in increased potential for ground water contamination. Georgia prohibits the landfill disposal of waste containing free-

bThe Act bans lead-acid vehicle batteries from disposal facilities after January 1, 1991 and requires retailers of lead acid vehicle batteries to accept them for recycling.
39

liquids and should further strengthen its enforcement program to ensure compliance and enhance leachate management and ground water monitoring in cases where high liquid content waste is disposed of.
d. Tires: Because tires consume disposal capacity and present problems with landfill operations, most landfills will not accept tires, or if they do, often charge higher rates. The Act allows city and county landfill operators to ban tires from their sites and/or to require that tires be recycled, shredded, chopped, otherwise processed prior to disposal. The banning of tires from landfills has resulted in an increase in the number of illegal tire dumps. To decrease occurrences of such dumping and promote increased recycling of tires, the EPD should develop a detailed strategy for the management of tires.
e. Batteries: Batteries may cause ground water contamination if placed in improperly designed landfills and can increase the lead content of municipal solid waste incinerator ash. The Act bans the disposal of lead acid vehicle batteries with municipal solid waste after January 1, 1991 and requires anyone retailing lead acid batteries to accept them from customers for recycling.
f. Used Oil: Used oil is a valuable nonrenewable resource when managed properly, but has the potential to cause excessive environmental damage when improperly managed. Project PETRO, a program to promote the recycling of used household motor oil, has met with limited success due to concerns with liability of voluntary collection stations. To encourage increased recycling of used oil, legislation should be considered to require retailers of motor oil to accept used oil from their customers, as is now done with lead acid batteries, and Project PETRO should be expanded to include collection stations operated by state and local agencies.
g. Other Wastes: Other wastes should be further considered by EPD for restrictions or special waste management strategies. These include such items as household hazardous waste,
40

electronic components, dry cell batteries, white goods, and paperboard. Household hazardous wastes contribute a very small part of the solid waste stream (usually less than one percent), but these wastes contain toxic or other compounds that can be harmful to the environment if improperly managed. In many cases, proper education and knowledge concerning these materials can prevent them from being discarded as waste or result in safer alternatives. Further research should be conducted by EPD on strategies to restrict the amounts of the above wastes discarded with municipal solid wastes.

Future issues and potential problems with decreasing the amount of waste entering landfills include the following.

Issue 1:

Further reductions in household hazardous waste generation may be obtained through educational programs. These need to be developed and information disseminated to the public. Additional reduction of the hazardous waste constituents in municipal solid waste is dependent, in part, on having a facility designed to treat and dispose of hazardous waste. Currently, no such commercial hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility exists in Georgia.

Regional Solid Waste Facilities

Currently, Georgia has 180 municipal solid waste landfills, most of which will not meet current minimum siting standards for new sites. Only 13 sites now have liners and leachate collection systems. Further, due to limited local resources for operation and limited state resources for compliance overview, many sites operate at minimal or below required environmental standards. By maximizing the number of multicounty municipal solid waste landfills, there will be fewer landfills but they will be easier to operate in compliance, monitor, and regulate. The Act envisions increased regionalization of solid waste handling services and provides the legal mechanisms for creating solid waste management authorities. Additionally, local governments can contract with each other to provide services, including solid waste management services, on a shared basis.

Goal 9:

To encourage regional alternatives for solid waste management.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

41

Action 1:

DCA, RDCs and EPD provide information and technical assistance to local governments concerning the desirability and methods for forming regional arrangements for solid waste management and facilitate interlocal discussions, agreements and resolution to conflicts.

Action 2: EPD continue to provide assistance to RDCs in mapping of those areas which are poorly suited for landfilling.

Action 3: EPD give regional facilities priority in review of permit applications.

Action 4: EPD through its grant program and GEFA through its loan program give priority to grants and loans for regional facilities versus facilities serving a single jurisdiction.

Action 5: DCA and RDCs promote planning on a regional basis, rather than county by county.

Action 6: GEFA continue to request funding for the solid waste loan programs and EPD request additional funding for solid waste grants.

Future issues and potential problems relating to the regionalization of landfills include the following.

Issue 1:

Local governments frequently have difficulty in reaching agreements on how to address mutual problems, especially controversial problems such as solid waste management. Additionally, not all local governments are faced with solid waste management problems at the same time; thus, the incentive for cooperatively addressing a problem may be absent. The Act envisions regional efforts evolving from the local level rather than being imposed from the state. Time will tell if this approach will work or if additional legislation will be necessary to regionalize solid waste management efforts.

Issue 2:

Support for regionalization will be required from the state and RDCs. Limited staffing may present a problem in working with local governments to reach this goal.

Issue 3: The regional solid waste management authority provision of the Act has not been tested to determine if technical amendments are needed.

42

Issue 4:

Should the state be a major implementer of solid waste management projects? This is done in other areas. The state has the advantages of money, economies of scale, and being slightly removed from public opposition to efforts to site solid waste management facilities.

Standards for New Sites

The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act defines "municipal solid waste disposal" as either landfilling or thermal treatment. The Solid Waste Management Rules currently classify landfilling into one of four categories, which require varying degrees of regulation. In addition, waste received from out-ofstate is identified as special solid waste and must meet certain additional requirements.

1. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

2. Construction and Demolition Landfills

3. Inert Waste Landfills

4. Industrial Waste Landfills

5. Special Solid Waste.

Municipal solid waste landfills must meet stringent siting, design, and construction standards and by law are subject to more involved public participation and planning standards than the other three categories of landfills. Georgia's Solid Waste Management Rules were significantly strengthened in 1989 for both new and existing facilities. In addition, when new federal performance standards are promulgated by U.S. EPA, the Act requires EPD to adopt standards which meet or exceed these federal standards and to ensure that all new thermal treatment facilities meet these standards in order to receive a permit.

Goal 10:

To ensure all new solid waste facilities meet stringent environmentally protective siting, design, construction, operation and closure standards.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: EPD fully implement the operator certification program so that all municipal solid waste disposal facility operators are fully qualified to operate and EPD inspectors are fully qualified to inspect all facilities handling municipal solid waste.

43

Action 2: EPD continue to identify and map poorly suited areas for municipal solid waste landfills and develop additional technical publications concerning the siting of landfills so that the regulated community and general public are made aware of the criteria and general location of better areas for landfilling.

Action 3: EPD develop and implement a system of quality assurance and construction oversight so that all newly permitted sites are constructed in accordance with the approved design and operational plan and permit.

Action 4: EPD evaluate its current siting criteria and upon promulgation of new federal Subtitle D standards strengthen regulatory siting criteria, if necessary. The current criteria or upgraded criteria will be uniformly applied to all new sites as well as horizontal expansions of existing sites.

Action 5: EPD inspect all new sites at least quarterly. Where violations are found, timely and appropriate enforcement action be taken to ensure compliance with the permit.

Action 6: EPD develop regulations for solid waste thermal treatment facilities that are at least as stringent as the federal regulations currently being developed to ensure that these facilities do not adversely affect public health and safety and do not degrade the quality of the environment.

Future issues and potential problems relating to new standards for solid waste sites include the following.

Issue 1:

The Board of Natural Resources has adopted new rules for landfills. When the federal Subtitle D regulations are finalized, changes may be necessary in the Georgia rules to keep the state in compliance with federal requirements.

Standards for Existing Sites

On June 29, 1989, significantly more stringent solid waste management rules became effective in Georgia. Most existing sites do not comply with the new rules and owners were given, in some cases, up to two years to upgrade the facilities. Some existing sites can not be retrofitted to comply with these standards. If these facilities are not resulting in environmental

44

degradation, they will be able to operate until the existing capacity is exhausted. They will then have to close.

Goal 11:

To ensure that all existing municipal solid waste sites meet new environmentally protective operation standards or close and that vertical and horizontal expansions of all existing municipal solid waste sites meet new environmentally protective design and construction standards or close.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: EPD, by the end of FY 1991, have at least 80 percent of all sites on at least quarterly inspections. Where sites are in violation, take aggressive enforcement action to return the facility to compliance.

Action 2: EPD ensure all sites have ground water monitoring systems installed by July 1, 1991 and check for parameters set for in federal and state regulations.

Action 3: EPD require all horizontal and vertical expansion of existing landfills to meet the same standards as new sites. Permits for vertical expansion be limited to no greater than two years unless it can be shown that the site is not impacting the environment and the facility meets substantially the same location standards as a new site.

Action 4: EPD stimulate the upgrading of all existing facilities to meet new regulatory standards over the next five years by prioritizing and targeting those facilities which have the highest potential for impacting the environment for priority enforcement corrective action.

Action 5: EPD require that existing solid waste thermal treatment facilities meet the standards established for existing facilities set by the federal regulations currently being developed to ensure that these facilities do not adversely affect public health and safety and do not degrade the quality of the environment.

Future issues and potential problems with upgrading existing solid waste management sites include the following.

45

Issue 1:

It is essential if sound solid waste management is to occur in Georgia that EPD take a firm stand on upgrading or closing existing sites that do not meet the new standards. This effort will not be popular, nor may adequate resources be available to accomplish this goal.

Issue 2:

During compliance inspections, some existing facilities will likely be found to be contaminating surface or ground water and require expensive remedial clean up.

Issue 3:

If EPD is forced to close an existing disposal facility, arrangements will have to be made to handle the waste which has gone to that facility in the past. Such arrangements could require waste to be transported across a county line, which could be inconsistent with the receiving county's solid waste management plan.

Industrial Landfills

Currently, there are approximately 100 industrial solid waste handling facilities in Georgia. However, due to a lack of EPD resources, many of these facilities do not have current permits and, therefore, do not comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act and rules. Given the lack of EPD resources and the high priority placed on municipal solid waste, infrequent inspection of these facilities has been common, unless the facility was thought to have a hazardous waste problem or unless complaints have been received by EPD.

The Act exempts private industrial solid waste disposal facilities from the facilities negotiation process as well as the requirements for planning. Industrial waste disposal sites must, however, comply with all other requirements of the Act applicable to solid waste handling facilities. Additionally, in order to allow local officials the opportunity to effectively address industrial solid waste that was previously handled by the industry on site, an amendment to the local solid waste management plan is required by the Act before the private facility can substantially reduce the amount of waste accepted at that facility.

Industrial solid waste may exhibit a wide range of characteristics. It may essentially be inert material, such as wood chips and grit, or it may contain harmful constituents, that when improperly managed may cause serious environmental damage. Although no data are currently available, it is estimated by EPD

46

that as much or more industrial solid waste is generated in Georgia as is municipal solid waste (an estimated six million tons per year) .

Goal 12:

To ensure that on-site industrial solid waste handling facilities are permitted and operated in an environmentally sound manner in accordance with regulatory and statutory standards.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: EPD, during FY 1991, complete an audit of all known industrial solid waste handling facilities and prepare a report concerning the status of these facilities and, to the extent that resources allow, undertake enforcement action on facilities disposing of waste containing significant amounts of hazardous constituents.

Action 2: EPD request resources in its FY 1992 budget to allow adequate regulatory overview of industrial facilities.

Action 3: DCA, in cooperation with local/regional planning efforts, assure that local and regional officials assess the impact of high volume industrial solid waste generators on future capacity needs.

Action 4: EPD, assuming adequate resources are appropriated by the General Assembly, implement an aggressive five-year plan, beginning in FY 1992, to require the upgrading or closing of all industrial solid waste handling facilities not meeting current and future regulatory standards.

Future issues and potential problems with industrial solid waste landfills include the following.

Issue 1:

Large quantities of industrial solid waste are being disposed of with little oversight. As a better understanding of how these wastes are being managed emerges, additional steps may be required to ensure that they are recycled or composted where appropriate and do not cause environmental degradation.

Issue 2:

Additional responsibilities for addressing industrial solid waste management will require additional resources for EPD. It may also have an economic impact on the industries.

47

Issue 1:

It is essential if sound solid waste management is to occur in Georgia that EPD take a firm stand on upgrading or closing existing sites that do not meet the new standards. This effort will not be popular, nor may adequate resources be available to accomplish this goal.

Issue 2:

During compliance inspections, some existing facilities will likely be found to be contaminating surface or ground water and require expensive remedial clean up.

Issue 3:

If EPD is forced to close an existing disposal facility, arrangements will have to be made to handle the waste which has gone to that facility in the past. Such arrangements could require waste to be transported across a county line, which could be inconsistent with the receiving county's solid waste management plan.

Industrial Landfills

Currently, there are approximately 100 industrial solid waste handling facilities in Georgia. However, due to a lack of EPD resources, many of these facilities do not have current permits and, therefore, do not comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act and rules. Given the lack of EPD resources and the high priority placed on municipal solid waste, infrequent inspection of these facilities has been common, unless the facility was thought to have a hazardous waste problem or unless complaints have been received by EPD.

The Act exempts private industrial solid waste disposal facilities from the facilities negotiation process as well as the requirements for planning. Industrial waste disposal sites must, however, comply with all other requirements of the Act applicable to solid waste handling facilities. Additionally, in order to allow local officials the opportunity to effectively address industrial solid waste that was previously handled by the industry on site, an amendment to the local solid waste management plan is required by the Act before the private facility can substantially reduce the amount of waste accepted at that facility.

Industrial solid waste may exhibit a wide range of characteristics. It may essentially be inert material, such as wood chips and grit, or it may contain harmful constituents, that when improperly managed may cause serious environmental damage. Although no data are currently available, it is estimated by EPD

46

that as much or more industrial solid waste is generated in Georgia as is municipal solid waste (an estimated six million tons per year) .

Goal 12:

To ensure that on-site industrial solid waste handling facilities are per.mitted and operated in an environmentally sound manner in accordance with regulatory and statutory standards.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: EPD, during FY 1991, complete an audit of all known industrial solid waste handling facilities and prepare a report concerning the status of these facilities and, to the extent that resources allow, undertake enforcement action on facilities disposing of waste containing significant amounts of hazardous constituents.

Action 2: EPD request resources in its FY 1992 budget to allow adequate regulatory overview of industrial facilities.

Action 3: DCA, in cooperation with local/regional planning efforts, assure that local and regional officials assess the impact of high volume industrial solid waste generators on future capacity needs.

Action 4: EPD, assuming adequate resources are appropriated by the General Assembly, implement an aggressive five-year plan, beginning in FY 1992, to require the upgrading or closing of all industrial solid waste handling facilities not meeting current and future regulatory standards.

Future issues and potential problems with industrial solid waste landfills include the following.

Issue 1:

Large quantities of industrial solid waste are being disposed of with little oversight. As a better understanding of how these wastes are being managed emerges, additional steps may be required to ensure that they are recycled or composted where appropriate and do not cause environmental degradation.

Issue 2:

Additional responsibilities for addressing industrial solid waste management will require additional resources for EPD. It may also have an economic impact on the industries.

47

Special Solid Waste

The Act defines "special solid waste" as waste generated by any source not subject to regulation under the Act. As all solid waste generators in Georgia are subject to regulation, this means that all waste generated by out-of-state generators would be classified as special solid waste and must meet all standards applicable to special solid waste, in addition to all other standards in the Act and rules.

All facilities receiving special solid waste are required to pay into a special trust fund $10.00 per ton on all special solid waste received. In addition, a manifest must accompany each shipment of special solid waste and the facility must have in place a waste analysis plan to provide identification of the waste.

Goal 13:

To ensure that special solid waste handling facilities are permitted and operated in accordance with regulatory and statutory standards and that all costs associated with these activities are passed on to these facilities and generators.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: EPD continue efforts to ensure that no facility in Georgia is accepting special solid waste unless a permit has been issued authorizing its acceptance.

Action 2: EPD put into place such programs as are necessary to ensure that all costs associated with the permitting and regulation of special solid waste handlers are born by the special solid waste generator or facility.

Action 3: EPD ensure that by July 1, 1992, all out-of-state jurisdictions which intend to dispose of their solid waste in Georgia are actively involved in a strategy for meeting the statewide goal of waste reduction before a special solid waste disposal facility may accept their solid waste.

Future issues and potential problems with special solid waste include the following.

Issue 1:

The effectiveness of the special solid waste requirements for managing these wastes has yet to be tested. If problems appear, additional legislation may be required.

48

Public Education and Technical Assistance
Public education and technical assistance (information transfer) are critical components of the solid waste management strategy. The links between the extraction and use of virgin resources and the waste management problems facing us today must be made apparent to the public. So too, manufacturers and consumers need to know how their decisions about products affect solid waste generation and management. Additionally, if we are to maintain programs to effectively reduce and manage solid waste, the next generation of consumers must be informed. Thus public education needs to focus on solid waste in relation to other environmental problems.
Since people produce waste, it will take the cooperation and participation of people to reduce and manage waste properly. Public recognition and concern regarding solid waste management issues have increased recently but educational programs designed to help people understand the problems and how they might be resolved have lagged behind. It is evident that the public will participate in matters that concern them, if they understand the alternatives to address them or not. It is essential, therefore, if we are to manage waste effectively, that educational programs be established that result in an informed citizenry that can actively participate in solving solid waste problems.
Public participation and involvement in the decision-making process for municipal solid waste management are discussed in the Local/Regional Solid Waste Management Strategy section of this plan. This section addresses public educational responsibilities of the state, including educational programs for public schools. In addition, it addresses technical assistance that should be provided by the state to local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements and to the general public.
It should be noted that a considerable effort on solid waste education is already under way. In addition to the efforts of state and local governments, private organizations have developed a wide variety of educational programs and materials on solid waste reduction and management. Consequently, a major focus of the state's solid waste education program should be to coordinate and, when possible, to assist the efforts of various public and private groups involved in solid waste education.
Several agencies, including DCA, DNR, DOT and DOE, as well as the RDCs, have responsibilities related to solid waste education, information transfer, and technical assistance.
49

Public Education

Public education requires a concerted and sustained effort to reach all segments of the public and should be coordinated among various state agencies.

Goal 14:

To develop and implement a statewide public education program on solid waste reduction and management which emphasizes grass roots participation at all age levels.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: The Georgia Clean and Beautiful Program continue to initiate creation of and provide support for local clean community programs as well as provide information on solid waste management issues to other organizations and agencies involved in solid waste education in Georgia.

Action 2: DCA provide support to the Georgia Clean and Beautiful Citizens Advisory Committee and coordinate the efforts of the Interagency Council on Solid Waste Management.

Action 3: The Georgia Clean and Beautiful Citizens Advisory Committee meet on a regular basis to develop a strategy for public education relating to solid waste planning and management in Georgia.

Action 4: Based on the recommendations of the Georgia Clean and Beautiful Citizens Advisory Committee, DCA in cooperation with EPD, the University System of Georgia, ACCG and GMA initiate a statewide public education program on solid waste with emphasis on the citizen's role in waste reduction and management.

Action 5: DCA develop a center for solid waste information which will serve as a central information and education source for the state.

Action 6: DOE, in cooperation with DCA and DNR, initiate a review of existing curricula on solid waste management and incorporate related curricula effectively in the public education program.

Action 7: The Interagency Council on Solid Waste Management meet on a regular basis to share information and to coordinate state agency actions that will improve education, information and technical

50

assistance efforts on solid waste management throughout the state.

Action 8: DOT, in cooperation with DCA and DNR, continue to conduct its "Keep Georgia Peachy Clean" antilitter campaign designed to decrease littering along Georgia's highways and in Georgia's parks and recreation areas. DNR and DOT should place recycling bins at appropriate locations such as in parks and at interstate rest areas.

Action 9: EPD continue operation and dissemination of information on the used motor oil recycling program (Project PETRO) .

Future issues and potential problems with the solid waste public education efforts include the following.

Issue 1:

The responsibilities given to DCA and EPD regarding statewide solid waste education efforts are currently being funded through a grant from the Office of Energy Resources. Once these funds are used, additional resources will be required.

Issue 2:

Georgia Clean and Beautiful has historically worked with its participating local programs on litter control, recycling programs and, increasingly, on a broader range of solid waste management issues. With DCA's expanded responsibilities to provide a solid waste management education program, Georgia Clean and Beautiful will be a mechanism to facilitate dissemination of educational materials. An effort to provide materials to a broader range of solid waste management interests will also be required, however.

Issue 3:

Coordination of various agency activities is difficult. The success of this coordination is based on the support of and commitment to the Interagency Council on Solid Waste Management.

Technical Assistance

For solid waste management efforts to be effective, technical assistance must be provided to local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements on methods to properly deal with their wastes.

Goal 15: To provide sound technical assistance to local governments that will enable them to effectively

51

plan for and carry out their solid waste management responsibilities.
To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.
Action 1: DCA provide information and technical assistance to local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements on solid waste planning.
Action 2: DCA provide information and technical assistance to local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements on solid waste financial reporting and true cost accounting.
Action 3: EPD provide information and technical assistance to local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements on equipment used in solid waste management (e.g., balers, shredders, compactors, separators); transportation of waste; facility design, operation, closure and monitoring requirements; and design and operation of recycling centers.
Action 4: EPD, through Southern Tech and the University System of Georgia, continue to implement the municipal solid waste operator certification program.
Action 5: EPD, in cooperation with the University System of Georgia, provide information and technical assistance to local governments, RDCs, other regional arrangements and the general public on composting.
Action 6: DCA establish guidelines for office, residential and community recycling programs and provide technical assistance to local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements on recycling program development.
Action 7: DCA provide information and technical assistance to local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements on consensus building, conflict resolution and solid waste facility siting.
Action 8: EPD and DCA develop and disseminate jointly and individually information to local governments, RDCs, other regional arrangements and the media on solid waste reduction and management. Such information should deal with current solid waste issues and clarify respective agency and
52

individual roles in solid waste reduction and management.

Future issues and potential problems relating to solid waste technical assistance include the following.

Issue 1:

Two agencies, EPD and DCA, are involved in providing technical assistance on solid waste management. Efforts should be monitored to ensure that information provided to local governments, RDCs, other regional arrangements and the general public is consistent and accurate and that duplication and overlap between the two agency's programs are kept to a minimum.

Issue 2:

For EPD and DCA to provide technical assistance, adequate funding and staff training is necessary. With budget constraints, this may be one area that suffers if funds are not available.

Financing Solid Waste Management

For solid waste to be managed effectively, adequate financing is essential, both at the state and local or regional level. Historically, state programs have been funded through general appropriations and from federal grants. Local and regional programs have been funded by ad valorem taxes, state grants, and in some areas, collection and tipping fees. Local and regional options for funding solid waste management are discussed in the Local/Regional Solid Waste Management Strategy section of this plan.

As the cost of solid waste management increases, additional revenues will be required to pay for the services. Identifying funding sources for solid waste management programs will be difficult, both because the sources are limited and because of competition with other worthwhile programs for the scarce financial resources. Additionally, Georgia can not effectively use a number of funding mechanisms adopted by other states. The Georgia Constitution does not allow for funds raised by a specific program to be dedicated for use by that program. Funds generated from solid waste management purposes that go to the state must be placed in the general account with no assurance that they would be used for solid waste management activities. Consequently, if the state imposed a disposal fee on solid waste entering disposal facilities or levied a tax on items contributing to solid waste problems, the moneys would be placed in the state's general account. There is little incentive to adopt either of these approaches with no assurance that the funds will be used for the desired purpose. Thus, it appears that, at the state level, dependence will continue on the use of general appropriations to fund state agency activities.

53

Revenue Sources
Table III-1 presents a breakdown of existing, new and proposed revenue sources for solid waste management. At the state level, appropriations are, and will likely continue to be, the major source of revenue. Private support has been valuable for the Clean and Beautiful Program and its local systems. Additionally oil overcharge moneys have been used by EPD for its project PETRO and are now being used to support the expanded educational effort of DCA. EPD has established a special fund for moneys received from the $10.00/ton fee on out-of-state (special) waste. To date, only one permit has been issued to handle special solid waste.
Other states have grappled with the need to identify revenue sources to support their solid waste management programs. According to a recent survey of state funding programs, 1 the most common revenue sources used by states are: appropriations (22), disposal fee surchargec (22), pollution product excise taxesct (18), oil overcharge money (11), bond programs (8), importation fee surcharge (6), and litter tax (5). The amount of money obtained from these different programs varies considerably.
Program Funding
Table III-2 presents the state expenditures for EPD staffing for its solid waste management program since 1974 in nominal and 1974 real dollars. Higher levels of funding between 1974 and 1979 reflect federal solid waste planning support. From a funding level of nearly $800,000 in 1979, the financial support for solid waste efforts dropped to under $200,000 in 1980, causing a loss of more than half of the program positions. Although state funding for solid waste management has increased since 1980, in constant dollars less than half as much support is available today as in 1979. In 1990, additional staff positions were created in EPD bringing the total to 20. DCA's added responsibilities in solid waste planning and technical assistance require funding through the appropriations process.
cA surcharge on the amount of solid waste disposed of at a disposal facility and is in addition to the regular tipping fee charged.
ctFees/taxes levied on specific products which may cause environmental problems.
54

Table III-1

EXISTING, NEW AND PROPOSED SOLID WASTE FUNDING SOURCES

Government Level

Program

Source

Existing State State State State Local/Regional
Local/Regional
Local/Regional

EPD Regulatory EPD Local/Regional
Grant EPD Project PETRO DCA Education Collection
Disposal
Recycling

New State
State State State Local/Regional

EPD Regulatory
EPD Recycling DCA Planning DCA Education Disposal

Proposed and Potential

State

GEFA Loan

Appropriation Appropriation
Oil Overcharge Grant Appropriation,
Private Ad Valorem
Taxes, Fees, Revenue Bonds Ad Valorem Taxes, Tipping Fees, Revenue Bonds Ad Valorem Taxes, Private, Sale of Recovered Materials
$10.00/Ton Special Waste Fee
Oil Overcharge Grant
Appropriations Oil Overcharge
Grant $1.00+/Ton
Local User Fee
Appropriation, Bond Sale

55

Table III-2

GEORGIA SOLID WASTE STAFFING AND STATE EXPENDITURES

Fiscal Year

Number of Positions

Nominal State
Expenditures (in dollars)

1974 Real State
Expenditures (in dollars)*

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

20

412,704

28

579,204

26

650,673

26

672,192

33

709,356

33

790,085

14

199,275

16

163,446

16

244,525

13

216,481

13

362,976

13

432,169

13

430,069

13

408,696

13

498,370

13

511,844

412,704 515,492 546,565 537,754 532,017 537,258 119,565
86,626 119,817 103,911 166,969 190,154 184,930 171,652 199,348 194,501

*1974 real dollars were calculated by using a correction factor derived from the Consumer Price Index.

Solid Waste Grants and Loans

The Act states that permits, grants and loans from the state will be based on the existence of a solid waste plan and its active implementation. For this approach to be effective, funds must be available for the grant and loan programs to serve as incentives for local/regional solid waste management.

Solid Waste Grant Program

Since 1974, EPD has administered a grant program for local governments to address water, wastewater and solid waste problems. Funds for this program are provided through the appropriations process. As Table III-3 presents, funding for this program has fluctuated between $1.0 million and $2.5 million per year but in real dollars, the amount of money available to local governments through this program for solid waste management purposes is only about one third of its original level. If this grant program is to serve as an incentive for local and regional solid waste management efforts, additional funding is called for.

56

Table III-3

EPD SOLID WASTE GRANTS TO GEORGIA LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Fiscal Year

Number of Grants

Nominal Dollars (in millions)

1974 Real Dollars*
(in millions)

1974

51

1975

46

1976

49

1977

53

1978

28

1979

28

1980

65

1981

55

1982

42

1983

46

1984

46

1985

41

1986

59

1987

59

1988

52

1989

47

1990

51

1991

Total

818

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1. 00 1. 00 2.50 1. 60 1. 50 1. 50 1.50 1. 00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1. 70 1. 85 1.565 30.715

2.00 1. 78 1. 68 1. 60
.75 .68 1. 50 .85 .74 .72 . 69 .44 . 86 .84 .80 .65
16.58

*1974 real dollars were calculated by using a correction factor derived from the Consumer Price Index.

Oil Overcharge Grants

Between 1972 and 1981, there were federal price controls on all petroleum products sold in the United States and several lawsuits ensued which found the companies guilty of overcharging for their products. The courts ruled that the fines imposed were to go to the states to use generally for energy related purposes. Many states have used these funds for solid waste programs, including thermal treatment planning. Since 1987, Georgia has used a total of $633,500 of overcharge moneys to fund solid waste related programs. Table III-4 shows how these funds have been used.

57

Table III-4 OIL OVERCHARGE GRANTS IN GEORGIA

Agency

Year Amount ($)

Use

EPD Atlanta Regional
Commission Brunswick and
Camden and Glynn Counties Georgia Mountains RDC Southwest Georgia RDC Coastal Georgia RDC ChattahoocheeFlint RDC Dalton/Whitfield County Heart of Georgia RDC South Georgia RDC
EPD
DCA

1987 1987 1987
1987 1987 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1991 1991

116,500 25,000 25,000
25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 217,000

Project PETRO Feasibility
Study Feasibility
Study
Feasibility Study
Feasibility Study
Feasibility Study
Feasibility Study
Feasibility Study
Feasibility Study
Feasibility Study
Project PETRO & Recycling
Education

Most municipal solid waste planning that has occurred in Georgia since 1987 has been funded by the oil overcharge grants to local governments and RDCs to conduct waste-to-energy feasibility studies. Since these nine grants require matching funds, a total of $400,000 has been generated through this program for local/regional municipal solid waste planning. Additionally, $216,500 in oil overcharge funds have financed EPD's Project PETRO which is designed to increase used oil recycling in Georgia. DCA will receive $217,000 in 1991 to fund the added local solid waste educational efforts.
Although the oil overcharge funds have been very helpful in stimulating and financing local/regional municipal solid waste planning efforts and financing state solid waste programs, they are projected to end in 1995.

58

Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority
Although the solid waste grant program administered by EPD and the oil overcharge grants have been excellent stimulants for planning, they are too small to have much of an impact on the capital and operating costs for solid waste infrastructure needs of local governments and regional arrangements. For that reason, expansion of the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority's financing capability to include solid waste management facilities was called for by the Solid Waste Management Study Committee. Although a resolution to allow bond funding of a solid waste loan program was considered in 1990, the General Assembly did not pass the resolution. In light of this, it is important to determine the most effective approach for financing solid waste infrastructure and to ascertain the most effective way to leverage state and local dollars to meet the needs. One option to achieve this is to fund the GEFA loan program with a cash appropriation in the FY 1991 state budget to be followed by passage of a resolution authorizing a state constitutional amendment in 1992 to allow state general obligation bond funding of the solid waste loan program.
Solid Waste Management Financing
To effectively manage solid waste, stable financing mechanisms must be instituted and adequate funds must be available.
Goal 16: To ensure adequate and stable funding for solid waste management programs.
To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.
Action 1: The Governor and General Assembly provide adequate funding through the appropriation process to enable EPD and DCA to effectively fulfill their responsibilities.
Action 2: DCA and EPD in cooperation with the Association County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) and the Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) study alternative mechanisms for funding solid waste management programs and make recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly.
Action 3: Based on the recommendations of DCA, EPD, ACCG and GMA, the Governor and General Assembly consider instituting alternative mechanisms for funding solid waste management programs.
59

Action 4: The Governor and General Assembly financially support the EPD grant program at a level that enables it to serve as an incentive to assist local governments and regional arrangements to competently manage their solid waste.

Action 5:

The Governor and General Assembly appropriate funds and authorize a constitutional amendment to allow state general obligation bond funding for GEFA to help local governments and other regional arrangements to finance their solid waste infrastructure needs.

Action 6: EPD utilize the grant program, the oil overcharge grants and, if funded, the GEFA loan program to stimulate adoption of waste reduction and regional solid waste management programs by local governments.

Future issues and potential problems with funding state solid waste management programs include the following.

Issue 1:

The Solid Waste Management Study Committee provided local governments and regional arrangements the flexibility to decide through the planning process what reduction and recycling activities would work best in their jurisdiction to meet the state reduction goal. The alternative was to require separation of materials regardless of markets. The key to the more flexible approach is to require a local/regional solid waste management plan that shows how the reduction is going to be achieved and then to tie the issuance of permits, grants and loans to the active involvement by the local government or regional arrangement in implementing the reduction strategy. When this approach was selected, it was assumed that the GEFA loan program would be funded. This did not occur. Additionally, the EPD grant program does not provide a great deal of financial support for local solid waste management efforts. Consequently, without these "carrots," the incentives for active local/regional participation in meeting the intent of the Act is reduced. Additional "carrots" in the form of financial incentives will be necessary in the future.

Issue 2:

Solid waste management plans are one component of comprehensive plans. To be "Qualified Local Governments" under the Georgia Planning Act, cities and counties must develop and implement

60

comprehensive plans and, through inclusion, municipal solid waste management plans. The same "carrots" and "sticks" available to the state to ensure local participation in the comprehensive planning process should apply to solid waste management planning.

Issue 3:

One of the most effective means for reducing waste generation is to tie the cost of managing the waste to the service provided. The inability to dedicate funds at the state level is an impediment to doing this. It also hinders raising funds through the use of disposal fees, waste taxes, and other means. Although there are valid reasons for not dedicating funds, alternatives for addressing this problem should be explored.

Conclusions

Under the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, state efforts in the solid waste arena are being expanded. Previous regulatory requirements of EPD are strengthened and new planning and educational responsibilities for DCA are being instituted. Adequate funding will be necessary if these responsibilities are to be met.

One additional result of new federal, state, and local efforts to adequately manage solid waste is the increased incentive to illegally dump wastes. To combat this there are three major options. First is enforcement. Georgia's laws make it illegal to dump waste improperly and penalties are in place. The major responsibility rests with law enforcement officials to effectively enforce these existing laws. Increasing the penalties for illegal dumping could help to alleviate the problems and should be investigated. The second alternative for addressing illegal dumping is education. By educating people not only about the problems of illegal dumping (and littering) but the consequences of doing so would help deter such behavior. The thi~d option for dealing with illegal dumping is to require universal collection of waste. Although the Solid Waste Management Study Committee considered requiring universal collection, no recommendation was made and no requirement is included in the Act. It may be necessary to institute universal collection of municipal solid waste in the future.

61

References 1. Robert A. Bohm and Michael P. Kelsay, "Solid Waste Financing
Alternatives," presentation at the Tennessee Solid Waste Roundtable, Nashville, Tenn., June 7, 1990.
62

IV
LOCAL/REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The cornerstone for local/regional solid waste management is the planning process. The Act requires the state solid waste management plan to include the criteria and procedures to be used by individual local governments and groupings of local governments into multi-jurisdictional and regional arrangements for developing their solid waste plans. In addition to discussing these criteria and procedures, this section addresses the other components of the local/regional solid waste management system as defined by the Act. These include the following:
1. public involvement and education;
2. local/regional reporting requirements;
3. mediation and negotiation procedures;
4. full cost accounting requirements; and
5. implementation and financing options.
Local/Regional Solid waste Management Plans
Planning for the reduction and management of solid waste is critical if we are to properly manage that waste. Most of the solid waste planning that has been undertaken in recent years has been funded through the oil overcharge grants discussed in the state strategy section of this plan. Figure IV-1 presents a map depicting the counties in the state that have already conducted their own solid waste management plan or are included in a regional solid waste management plan. These counties account for about one third of the state and possibly over half of the population of Georgia. Although these plans were not done under the planning standards and procedures presented in this plan, they provide a firm foundation upon which to build and should only require updating to meet the standards. These plans also show the importance of outside seed money to serve as an incentive for solid waste planning. With an investment of $200,000 in oil overcharge moneys, an additional $200,000 in local funds were used to develop the plans.
63

Figure IV-1
Recent Solid Waste Management Planning Projects in Georgia
64

The Act requires that every local government be included in a solid waste management plan prior to receiving a permit, grant or loan for a solid waste management facility. This plan may be its own, or it may be prepared and adopted jointly by two or more cooperating governments.
In order to assist in the preparation of local/regional solid waste management plans, minimum planning standards and procedures that are consistent with those ratified under the Georgia Planning Act of 1989 are to be developed by DCA.
~nimum Planning Standards
The Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management (see Appendix) require that localities, in preparing their plans, answer three basic questions:
1. What do we have now? This step involves determining quantities of waste currently being disposed of as well as inventorying existing solid waste management facilities, operations, programs and practices, and assessing if these are sufficient to meet the 25 percent reduction goal and ten year required handling capacity assurance.
2. Where do we want to go? This step involves acknowledgement of the minimum 25 percent reduction and ten year handling capacity goals, and adoption of specific objectives or programs to help meet these and other goals which the community may adopt for itself, such as establishing a recycling program, carrying out a litter and waste reduction and management education program in the schools, etc.
3. How are we going to get there? This step involves deciding on actions which will be taken by the community to implement its program of solid waste management. These steps may include a capital improvement budget for purchase of land and equipment, programs of recycling and public education, establishment of a full cost accounting procedure, a work program detailing time frames for purchase of land and equipment and implementation of the overall program, and all other actions needed to meet the goals.
The Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management require localities to answer these questions in seven basic areas, or for seven basic planning elements. These are:
1. Amount of Waste: inventory, analysis and forecast of present and future waste quantities (by weight),
65

sources and composition based on analysis of projected population and industrial growth;

2. Collection: inventory, analysis and forecast of past, present and future system capacities, capabilities, costs and programs;

3. Waste Reduction: inventory, analysis and forecast of past, present, and future achievements, potential markets, goods, costs and programs;

4. Disposal: inventory, analysis and forecast of past, present, and future practices, environmental controls, costs, operating procedures, capacities and programs;

5. Land Limitations: inventory, analysis and determination of land areas which, due to environmental and land use factors, are considered unsuitable for landfill development;

6. Education and Public Involvement: assessment and analysis of existing and potential educational programs; and

7. Implementation and Financing: inventory, analysis and forecast of financing options including a full cost accounting system.

The Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management also outline implementation strategies which can be adopted to help meet the goals. Alternative strategies are suggested.

Local Solid Waste Planning Procedures

The procedures in the Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management parallel those adopted under the Georgia Planning Act of 1989. A review of the procedures follows.

Step 1:

Public Input and Involvement: Two public hearings must be held prior to submission of the plan to the RDC for review and approval. One hearing should be scheduled prior to development of the plan and would be designed to solicit input on the planning process, goals, needs and issues. A second would be held to review the draft plan, just prior to its submission for review, and would provide opportunity for public comment leading to revisions in the draft. After the last hearing, the elected body developing the plan is required

66

to take action, by resolution, authorizing transmittal of the plan to the RDC.

Step 2:

Regional Development Center Review: It is the responsibility of the RDC to confirm that the local or regional plan is consistent with the state plan and furthers the state goals. The RDC receives the "approved for submission" plan; reviews it for compliance with the state plan; sets a date for a public hearing; notifies any affected local governments, contiguous local governments, and state agencies of the plan and the hearing date; determines if any conflicts exist; and determines consistency with the state plan. Additional responsibilities follow if conflicts are identified. These are spelled out in detail in the Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management, but in summary, they also parallel those steps followed for comprehensive local plans prepared under the Georgia Planning Act of 1989.

Step 3:

Local/Regional Action: Once the RDC has completed its review and made recommendations, local governments have five options: to adopt the plan as submitted, if found in compliance; adopt the plan with RDC recommended changes if found in compliance; request a reconsideration hearing or mediation; revise the plan to bring it into compliance and resubmit it to the RDC; or officially adopt a plan not found in compliance, however, the local government will not be eligible to receive solid waste permits, grants or loans.

Step 4:

Department of Community Affairs Action: The RDCs are to notify DCA of their findings on submitted solid waste management plans. For those plans found in compliance with the state plan, DCA will officially notify local governments that their solid waste management plan has been found in compliance with the State Solid Waste Management Plan and thus they are eligible for permits, loans and grants relating to solid waste management.

These steps will aide local governments and regional arrangements in meeting the intent of the Act. The Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management are included in the Appendix.

Goal 1:

To assist communities in preparing useable, useful solid waste management plans which will lead towards meeting the statewide goals of reducing

67

waste by 25 percent, providing for effective management and insuring for ten years of waste management capacity.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: DCA in cooperation with EPD develop Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management for local/regional solid waste management planning.

Action 2: Local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements prepare solid waste management plans, per the Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management.

Action 3: RDCs review and certify local/regional plans per the review processes established under the Georgia Planning Act of 1989.

Future issues and potential problems with the Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management include the following.

Issue 1:

No funds have been provided to assist in preparing and reviewing local/regional solid waste management plans. Nor have either of the state agencies with major responsibilities been given funds. The RDCs were not funded to hire staff to either assist in plan preparation or plan review. Local governments were provided no funds for help in planning. Given the lack of funding, the quality of plans prepared, reviewed and approved under this scenario may be less than adequate to meet goals.

Issue 2:

Few incentives have been provided to encourage local governments to develop plans or to join together to prepare multi-jurisdictional or regional plans. In addition, little technical assistance is being provided to help local governments understand the pros, cons and complexities of establishing joint planning and operating procedures or regional solid waste management authorities.

Issue 3:

Cooperation between counties and municipalities will be essential to effective implementation of regional planning. For multi-jurisdictional or regional planning to occur in some areas of the state, disputes between counties and the municipalities within those counties over landfill

68

tipping fees and other solid waste related issues must be resolved.

Issue 4:

The Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management have been designed to be consistent with the comprehensive planning requirements under the Georgia Planning Act of 1989. Meshing the requirements of the solid waste management act and the planning act in the local/regional planning process may result in unforeseen problems. If this occurs, these standards and procedures may need to be revised.

Local Public Involvement and Education

Public involvement and education at the local/regional level are vital to the success of municipal solid waste management. This section addresses the public involvement and education opportunities local governments and regional arrangements should provide the general public relating to solid waste planning and management.

Public Involvement

Three factors which foster public acceptance of a facility are: 1) credibility of the planning and siting processes, 2) equity issues (i.e., assuring that health and environmental risks are not unfairly borne by residents), and 3) public involvement in the decision making process.

Many of the local governments who have completed solid waste management plans have involved citizens in the planning process by establishing advisory committees who serve two very important purposes. The first is to inform the consultants or planners about local solid waste history, problems and priorities perceived by the public. The second purpose of the advisory committee is to become sufficiently educated on solid waste options through its involvement that members may effectively aid in explaining the issues to their fellow citizens.

Involving the public and building trust can add a significant amount of time and expense to the process of siting a facility. Allowing limited opportunities for public involvement, however, can fuel opposition and add delays and high costs to a project. It has become apparent during the past two decades that people will become involved in solid waste management decisions in one way or another. Involving citizens in the waste management planning process and educating the citizenry on the full costs and liabilities of managing the waste they produce will lead to greater public support of and more constructive participation in waste management programs.

69

Goal 2:

To ensure meaningful public participation and involvement in addressing solid waste management.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: Local government officials involve citizens by establishing solid waste advisory committees to assist in developing and implementing the local/regional solid waste management plan. Persons serving on advisory committees should be representative of the community.

Action 2: The solid waste advisory committee become informed about the local/regional solid waste management system. At minimum, the advisory committee should be involved in the analysis of options for effectively managing solid waste and provide direction to local officials involved in developing the solid waste management plan.

Action 3: On an ongoing basis local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements be encouraged to involve and educate the public about the solid waste management system.

Future issues and potential problems with actively involving the public in solid waste management efforts include the following.

Issue 1:

Actively soliciting public involvement in the solid waste decision making process has not historically been enthusiastically embraced by governmental officials. It has been viewed as "asking for trouble." But experience has taught us that the public will participate in decisions that affect them. If opportunities to participate are not afforded them, opportunities will be created by the public. Frequently these are disruptive, nonconstructive actions. It is thus important to bring the public into the process early and let them have meaningful involvement. Ultimately, however, it is the elected officials who have the responsibility to make the decisions. Consequently, the balancing act for the elected official is to have public involvement without abdicating the decision making responsibility.

Public Education

During the solid waste management planning and implementation processes, some percentage of the local/regional population will want to participate. A larger percentage will simply want to know what is happening and why. It is essential that the general public be kept informed as to the development of

70

the plan. Additionally, as discussed in the state strategy section of this plan, an informed public is essential for sound solid waste management. Consequently, an on-going public information and education effort should be instituted.

Goal 3:

To educate the general public about local/regional solid waste reduction and management.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: Local officials prepare a solid waste education plan as a part of the overall solid waste management plan. It may be advantageous to do this with the help of a solid waste advisory committee and/or to include community groups such as the League of Women Voters, Garden Clubs, Rotary, Chamber of Commerce, etc. Funding of the education effort should be addressed in the overall solid waste management plan and accounted for through the full cost accounting process.

Action 2: Local government officials and the solid waste advisory committee consider existing public education programs, such as Clean and Beautiful programs initiated by DCA, and similar model projects in designing public education efforts.

Action 3: Local government officials, working with the solid waste advisory committee, ensure that public education efforts reach a broad cross section of citizens at all age levels.

Action 4: Local government officials consider use of solid waste management curricula available from DOE, DCA or other agencies and organizations.

Action 5: Local/regional officials consider potential for regional education and participation to maximize available funding and resources.

Future issues and potential problems with public solid waste management education efforts at the local/regional level include the following.

Issue 1:

Many local governments have adopted clean community programs and have a mechanism for public education already in place. However, the charge of the advisory committee may not be the same as the clean community commission and some problems may appear.

71

Local/Regional Solid Waste Management Reporting

The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act requires that

effective January 1, 1992, each city and county report annually

to DCA on the status of solid waste management within its

jurisdiction. These reports can be submitted individually or

collectively by two or more local governments, or a regional

report may be filed by the RDC for the jurisdictions within its

region. The annual report is to include the following

information:



1. the amount of solid waste collected, processed, and disposed of in the area (Note: Waste disposal rates shall be for the previous year based on solid waste facility reports received by EPD from solid waste
handlers);

2. the progress on reduction in solid waste generation in the planning area since the previous reporting period and total cumulative progress made toward meeting the 25 percent reduction goal (Note: The reduction rate is for that waste generated within the planning area);

3. the remaining permitted capacity of disposal facilities;

4. recycling and composting activities in existence;

5. public information and education activities during the reporting period; and

6. any other pertinent information as may be required.

To obtain accurate information on municipal solid waste handling and disposal in the state, EPD must require as a permit condition that each solid waste handler report annually the amount of waste handled during the previous year (due October 1 of each year) . EPD shall in turn provide this information by January 1 of each year to DCA, local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements. DCA is required to compile the information provided by EPD, local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements and report annually to the Governor and the General Assembly on the status of solid waste management in Georgia.

Goal 4:

To establish a mechanism for monitoring and reporting the status of local/regional solid waste management programs relating to meeting the state reduction goal and the effective management of their solid waste.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

72

Action 1: DCA develop a survey instrument for local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements to use for reporting the status of solid waste management within their jurisdiction and distribute the instrument annually to local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements. The survey instrument should be developed in light of the interrelationship between solid waste planning and the reporting process.

Action 2: DCA provide technical assistance to local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements in accurately reporting the desired solid waste management information.

Action 3: EPD require as a permit condition for solid waste handlers in the state annual reports, due October 1, 1992 and each year thereafter, of the weight of waste handled in accordance with their permit and the jurisdiction in which the waste was generated.

Action 4: EPD compile data received from solid waste handlers and, by January 1 of each year, provide this information to DCA, local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements.

Action 5: DCA annually compile the information provided by EPD and the local/regional reports, develop a status report on solid waste management in Georgia, and present the report to the Governor and the General Assembly each year.

Action 6: Board of Natural Resources in cooperation with the Board of Community Affairs promulgate rules setting forth the criteria for determining if local governments or regional arrangements are meeting the intent of the Act with respect to waste reduction and recycling.

Action 7: EPD analyze alternative methodologies for annually surveying remaining landfill capacity and determine if a capacity surveying technique should be adopted.

Future issues and potential problems with annual solid waste management reporting include the following.

Issue 1:

Obtaining accurate information upon which to base policy decisions is very important. The information received from the local/regional reports and solid waste handlers will be used to determine what policy changes are necessary. If

73

the information received is not accurate, bad decisions may result. DCA and EPD should evaluate the quality of the information received to determine if additional actions are needed to
obtain accurate data.

Issue 2:

Private sector activities constitute a significant portion of solid waste management efforts in metropolitan areas. These activities must be factored into the annual report if it is to be of value. To gather needed data from the private sector may require additional regulatory action by EPD.

Solid Waste Management Facility Conflict Resolution

Siting of solid waste management facilities has become increasingly difficult in recent years for two basic reasons. First, people are concerned about the potential environmental impact of such a facility. These concerns are being addressed through the new requirements for solid waste management facilities which impose higher standards for design, construction, operation, closure and post-closure care of solid waste facilities. Additionally, most of the hazardous waste that used to be disposed of in municipal solid waste facilities is now required to be disposed of in hazardous waste facilities. Consequently, the potential environmental impacts of municipal solid waste management facilities are being reduced. Second, municipal solid waste facilities can have nonenvironmental impacts such as decreasing nearby property values and increasing nuisance factors such as noise, truck traffic, etc. These nonenvironmental factors have historically been ignored in the facility siting process. A site that was "out-of-sight" for most people was selected and nearby landowners and residents had little recourse to deal with these concerns. Under the Act, however, mechanisms are included that allow for equitably resolving nonenvironmental conflicts associated with municipal solid waste management facilities.

There are generally three points at which conflicts tend to appear in the solid waste facility siting process:

1. when general areas that might be acceptable for either a local or regional municipal solid waste management facilities are identified in the planning process;

2. when facilities are proposed that have external impacts on other local governments or when a regional facility is sited that has a greater impact on the host local government than the other participating jurisdictions; and

74

3. when a regional or local facility is proposed and concerns about potential impacts are raised by neighboring landowners and residents.

To resolve conflicts during the planning stage, an open planning process is called for. This process is discussed in the Local/Regional Solid Waste Management Planning section of this
plan.

Multi-jurisdictional Mediation

The best way to avoid conflict is to establish a process that involves the various parties early and is designed to build consensus. To ensure early notification of residents, the Act requires any jurisdiction beginning a site selection process to first call a public meeting to inform people about the process. Even with early notification and involvement, some conflicts will appear that will require resolution through mediation or litigation.

Under the Act, certain multi-jurisdictional conflicts relating to regional solid waste management facilities are to be mediated through the process developed under the Georgia Planning Act of 1989. Moreover, certain multi-jurisdictional conflicts relating to a local municipal solid waste facility are to be mediated if such a facility affects a regionally important resource, constitutes a development of regional impact, or creates an inconsistency or conflict among two or more comprehensive plans.

The conflict resolution/mediation process is designed to allow conflicts among local governments to be worked out in a constructive way. The process does not, in the final analysis, detract from a local government's authority to take certain authorized actions, but rather creates a vehicle whereby a government notifies other potentially affected governments of certain proposed actions that may affect other governments and works to resolve any conflicts with that government. Mediation pursuant to the planning act shall not exceed 90 days in duration.

Goal 5:

To establish a process for equitably resolving multi-jurisdictional conflicts arising from comprehensive plans, local government actions relating to or affecting regionally important resources, and local government actions relating to or affecting developments of regional impacts.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: DCA develop procedures and guidelines for mediation or other means for resolving conflicts.

75

Action 2: DCA, in cooperation with local governments and RDCs, define developments of regional impacts and regionally important resources for each region of the state.

Action 3: DCA, in cooperation with local governments and RDCs, develop rules and procedures which require that local governments submit for review any proposed actions that would affect regionally important resources or further any development of regional impact.

Action 4: DCA establish and oversee an ongoing educational process to train personnel in each RDC, and others, in resolving multi-jurisdictional conflicts. Such training should be geared toward encouraging informal resolution of conflicts through early disclosure and early intervention.

Action 5: DCA establish a process whereby mediators will be available to intercede in a formal mediation process.

Action 6: DCA establish a funding system whereby the costs of mediation can be properly budgeted by local governments, RDCs and the state.

Action 7: DCA monitor the overall effectiveness of the informal and formal mediation processes and report on such activities to its Board annually.

Future issues and potential problems with the multijurisdictional mediation process include the following.

Issue 1:

The multi-jurisdictional mediation process is new. With experience, deficiencies or improvements will be identified. These deficiencies or improvements will have to be addressed when they emerge.

Issue 2: The costs associated with the mediation process are not known. With professional mediators, the expense could become a problem.

Facility Issues Negotiation Process

Once a regional or local municipal solid waste disposal facility site is selected and the suitability of that site is determined to be acceptable by EPD, affected persons have the option to petition to have a negotiation process with the local government and the permit applicant, if the applicant is a private company. The process is designed to allow issues relating to the nonenvironmental impacts of the site to be

76

negotiated and resolved. The process doesnot preclude court action but, if entered into in good faith, will decrease the need for expensive litigation.

Goal 6:

To establish a mechanism for equitably resolving conflicts with persons affected by the siting and operation of municipal solid waste management facilities.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: DCA provide the parties with the procedures and guidelines called for by the Act to be followed during the facility issues negotiation process.

Action 2: DCA provide the host local government a list of potential facilitators, from which a person shall be chosen to assist the parties through the facility issues negotiation process.

Action 3: To foster a sound negotiation process, DCA encourage the provision of educational and training programs for facilitators.

Action 4: DCA monitor the effectiveness of the facility issues negotiation process and make recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly if changes in the process are necessary.

Action 5: Based on the recommendations of DCA, the Governor and General Assembly, if necessary, institute policies and procedures to increase the effectiveness of the facility issues negotiation process.

Future issues and potential problems with the facility issues negotiation process include the following.

Issue 1:

Although there is considerable evidence that the negotiation process as spelled out in the Act will be effective in resolving issues relating to siting municipal solid waste management facilities, it is a new and untested process. With experience, a better understanding of this process and what can be done to make it more effective will emerge. As it does, amending the Act may be necessary.

Issue 2:

There are costs associated with any conflict resolution process. There will be costs to the state in overseeing and guiding this process and to the local government and facility proposers for

77

the facilitator, etc. If the process results in timely and equitable resolution of issues, however, the total costs of siting the facility is likely to be less than if litigation was required.
Full Cost Accounting
Local governments should review and evaluate the costs and benefits of their solid waste management systems. For this to occur, managers should have ready access to accurate and complete solid waste management cost data. Unfortunately, most local governments in Georgia are unaware of the full cost of solid waste management activities. Local government accounting systems generally do not isolate, and then consolidate for reporting purposes, the direct and indirect costs that relate to the operation of their solid waste management systems. Consequently, local governments should employ accounting practices that will identify and report such costs fully.
The Act provides that " ... effective January 1, 1992, each city and county shall be required to report to the Department of Community Affairs the total annual cost of providing solid waste management services and to disclose this information to the public. The Department of Community Affairs shall develop the forms, rules, and procedures necessary for cities and counties to meet the requirement ... " In requiring local governments to report their "total annual costs in providing solid waste management services," the law, in effect, calls for local governments to collect and report all direct costs as well as indirect costs associated with the provision of these services. It is the role of DCA to provide the cost accounting procedures that local governments can employ to meet this requirement.
The Act's total cost accounting provision will, when implemented, serve to accomplish four purposes:
1. help local government officials understand the value of the current management system and facilities;
2. permit local governments to accurately evaluate their current solid waste management systems and assess alternative systems;
3. make citizens aware of the actual costs of the management of solid waste within their jurisdictions; and
4. assist local governments in selecting the most appropriate method for financing their solid waste management operations by providing accurate and complete cost information.
78

These purposes can be realized by accumulating an accurate, comprehensive accounting database.

The cost accounting system should include direct, indirect and outside contractor costs and should be reported for both residential and commercial generators. The accounting system should also include collection, recycling, treatment and disposal costs.

Goal 7:

To provide a comprehensive, uniform database for policy decision making, at both the state and local levels, as well as to develop information that can be used for educating and motivating private citizens to change their habits in handling solid waste.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: DCA provide local governments with cost collection procedures so that they can capture the true costs of operating their solid waste management systems.

Action 2: DCA develop a general list of cost centers, or a chart of accounts for local governments use in identifying cost data related to solid waste management and generate forms for data collection that can be used to record actual expenditures.

Action 3: DCA provide the necessary training and technical assistance to local officials to help assure the accuracy of the information in each local government and its uniformity with other local governments that will be reporting this same cost information.

Action 4: DCA publish this information annually and make such statewide cost data available to the public.

Future issues and potential problems with full cost accounting for solid waste management include the following.

Issue 1:

Currently there is no uniform chart of accounts for local governments in general financial management, including solid waste management. Consideration should be given to moving in that direction.

Issue 2:

A cost/benefit model should be established that employs a cost accounting standard against which any individual local government can measure its costs and efficiency for its type of service area and population.

79

Issue 3: When federal Subtitle D requirements are finalized, they may contain financial assurance requirements.

Issue 4: Given the limited understanding of past costs, initial full cost accounting efforts may lead to skepticism or misuse of information.

Issue 5:

In regions of the state where collection is not government controlled and more than one disposal option may exist, local governments may face a dilemma of whether or not to charge tipping fees that reflect total costs. This will most likely lead to a need to evaluate options for assessing users the full cost of the services provided.

Implementation and Financial Alternatives

For local governments and regional arrangements to be able to effectively manage solid waste, adequate and reliable funding is necessary. Certainly, federal and state funding for local efforts is not currently sufficient to meet the needs; nor are the prospects for increased outside funding good for the foreseeable future. Consequently, it is essential that local governments and regional arrangements identify revenue sources and implement strategies to finance their solid waste management programs through their own funding mechanisms.

Dependence on local financing of solid waste management programs raises two issues. First, are there sufficient funds locally to support solid waste management or should local governments consider some form of regional mechanism through which they manage their solid waste? As previously discussed, the costs of solid waste management are increasing greatly. Local governments faced with this reality should consider working collectively to manage their waste. The Act provides one mechanism for regionalizing solid waste management through the creation of regional solid waste management authorities. Another alternative is to enter into contractual agreements with each other or private contractors for provision of the services. The best mechanism for regional solid waste management will depend on the local/regional circumstances and the concerns of local officials.

The second issue related to local financing of solid waste management programs relates to the alternative mechanisms available to local governments. Generally, it is better to tie the cost of the service to the provision of that service. In addition, charging a tipping fee at the disposal site that reflects the full cost of managing the solid waste serves as an incentive to reduce the amount of waste being generated.

80

Local/Regional Financing Options
There are several options from which to choose in order to finance solid waste management. Some sources of revenue are more widely used than others. In choosing financing options, local governments must consider their specific situations and choose accordingly. Below are some sources that are frequently used.
General Funds
Funds for financing of solid waste are collected in the local government's general fund. Most of the general fund revenues are collected in the general property tax. The philosophy behind using this revenue source to finance solid waste management is that the service is viewed in relation to its benefit to the community rather than to the service received by each waste generator.
User Fees
User fees distribute the cost of providing solid waste management among users on a proportional basis. The amount of money charged for the service should reflect the total amount of revenues spent to provide the service. User fees are a widely accepted source of revenue for local governments and will continue to be a sound source of revenues as more pressures are placed on the general property tax. Enterprise funds have been used in conjunction with user fees to better allocate revenue.
Local Option Sales Use Tax
This sales and use tax is a joint county and municipality venture, levied at the rate of one percent. All counties may participate, but municipalities must qualify in order to impose the tax. The governing authority must pass a resolution calling for a referendum and, if approved, pass a resolution calling for the tax. The jurisdictions in which the tax is imposed must agree in writing on a formula for distributing tax proceeds, submitted in the form of a "certificate of distribution" to the State Revenue Commissioner.
Special Purpose Tax
Georgia law authorized a special purpose tax in 1985, whose aim is to enable counties to raise funds to finance a single purpose facility. The law requires that a resolution or ordinance be passed to initiate the referendum that will adopt the tax. Maximum duration is five years for the tax. A new referendum is required for any extensions or change of purpose for the tax.
81

General Obligation Bonds
These bonds are quite flexible because the issuing municipality guarantees the general obligation bond with its full faith and credit based on its ability to levy on taxable real property in order to pay the principal and interest on the bonds. The authorization to issue these bonds requires a referendum. The bonds can be paid for with user fees. No technical or economic analysis is needed in order to receive these bonds.
Revenue Bonds
Revenue bonds pledge the net revenue they receive from the project to guarantee payment. The interest rate tends to be higher on revenue bonds due to the high risk factor. Revenue bonds require technical and economic analysis of the project that must be financed. They are most useful for arrangements which do not have taxing powers, such as regional or multi-jurisdictional authorities.
Current Revenue Capital Financing
Current revenue financing has been the main source of financing collection vehicles and selected landfill disposal systems. The major advantage of buying equipment as needed is its simplicity, with no institutional, informational, analytical or legal arrangements required. This method, however, depends on the ability of the authority to generate surplus capital.
Public and Private Financing and Implementation Options
Essentially all components of waste management may be conducted by either the public or private sector. It is a local government's decision whether to provide solid waste services itself or in conjunction with other local governments or to enter into an arrangement with private companies to provide part or all of the solid waste management services. One important consideration for local governments and regional arrangements is that private companies may be able to help resolve the problem of financing facility construction. Whereas local governments or regional arrangements might find it difficult to generate the upfront capital for facility construction, private companies may be able to provide this financing. However, privatization does not necessarily alter the total cost that local residents must pay for waste management nor does it eliminate local government responsibilities.
Basically, there are three ways for a local government or regional arrangement to engage the private sector in their waste management efforts.
82

1. Contracts: Qualified contractors are selected (usually through a competitive bid process) to perform solid waste management services. Such contractors are paid by the local government.

2. Franchises: Agreements reached between the local government or regional arrangement and the private company to provide solid waste management services in which the private company bills and collects payment directly from each household or customer. Rates are set by the local government or regional arrangement.

3. Private Subscription: The local government or regional arrangement is not involved in the provision of the service. For example, each household or customer hires a refuse collection company and pays for the service.

In addition to collection services, the private sector provides disposal services. Eleven private landfills currently operate in Georgia and the one thermal treatment facility is operated by a private company under a contractual arrangement with the City of Savannah. The private sector is also heavily involved in recycling.

Goal 8:

To identify public and private alternatives available to local governments to finance and implement solid waste management programs.

To meet this goal, the following actions are called for.

Action 1: DCA provide technical assistance to local governments and regional arrangements in identifying alternative mechanisms to finance solid waste management programs.

Action 2: The University System of Georgia, in cooperation with ACCG, GMA and DCA offer training programs for local/regional officials in financing solid waste management programs.

Action 3: DCA provide a model contract for local governments interested in managing solid waste on a regional basis with other local governments.

Action 4: DCA provide technical assistance to those local governments interested in creating regional solid waste management authorities.

Action 5: DCA in cooperation with ACCG and GMA undertake a complete review of existing statutes to identify impediments to financing alternatives and cost accounting and report to the Governor and General

83

Assembly on how these impediments might be addressed to allow for improved funding of solid waste management programs.

Future issues and potential problems with financing and implementing solid waste management alternatives include the following.

Issue 1:

No matter what alternatives are explored, under the new requirements, some local governments will not be able to financially support solid waste management efforts on their own, especially with short-term capital needs. Alternative mechanisms for providing these services will have to be developed and implemented.

Issue 2:

Additional state funding or assistance in financing will likely be required in some form to aid local/regional solid waste management efforts, especially as planning incentives and for capital projects.

84

v
CONCLUSIONS
In 1990, the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act was passed by the General Assembly to institute a comprehensive solid waste management program for the state. The first step in implementing this legislation is the development of the Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan. The Act envisions the plan presenting: 1) a status report on current solid waste management efforts in Georgia; 2) the state strategy for reducing and managing solid waste; and 3) the criteria and procedures to be met by local and regional solid waste management plans.
Current solid waste management efforts in Georgia are not well documented. Little information is available on waste reduction, recycling and composting operations. As the Act is implemented and reporting of solid waste reduction, recycling and composting operations occurs, a better understanding of their role in solid waste management will emerge.
At this time, Georgia depends heavily on landfills to dispose of its solid waste. The 180 permitted municipal solid waste landfills represent a decrease of 15 in the past year. New landfills are not being developed at the rate of closure. This, coupled with increased generation due to population growth, may exacerbate efforts to dispose of waste. There has also been no increase in thermal treatment facilities. One facility is currently in operation in Georgia.
If solid waste is to be managed effectively, we must be able to quantify and monitor waste management efforts. These data will provide a clearer picture of what we are generating, what recycling programs are operating, how effective our waste reduction efforts are, and what additional steps, if any, are necessary to effectively manage solid waste in Georgia.
The state solid waste management strategy includes 16 goals with numerous actions necessary to ensure that the goals are met. In addition, future issues and potential problems have been identified that might hamper reaching these goals and that might need to be addressed in the future. Certainly, if the state is to fulfill its role in reducing and managing solid waste, adequate funding is necessary.
The Act requires that the Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan establish the standards and procedures to be met by local governments, RDCs and other regional arrangements for their solid waste management plans (see Appendix). Additionally, the local/regional solid waste management strategy includes other requirements and recommendations relating to reporting, public education and involvement, conflict resolution, full cost
85

accounting and financing and implementing solid waste management programs. Eight goals are included in the local/regional solid waste management strategy along with the actions necessary to implement each goal. In addition, future issues and potential problems have been identified that might impede efforts to reach these goals or that might have to be addressed in the future.
The Act provides a sound framework for instituting a comprehensive solid waste management program for Georgia. The first step in implementing the Act has been the development of this Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan. Reaching the goals identified in both the state and local solid waste management strategies will help resolve the major problems currently associated with solid waste management in the state. As we do so, new problems and issues will appear. Generally, these problems and issues can be addressed within the framework created by the Act. To ensure that the plan continues to address solid waste problems facing Georgia, however, it should be reviewed, revised and updated periodically. The first major revision should occur in 1997 to determine if the goals set forth in the Act and plan have been achieved.
86

GLOSSARY 87

GLOSSARY
Air curtain destruction means a thermal treatment technology used to reduce waste volume through combustion in the ground with air forced over the pit opening.
Autoclave means an apparatus used for sterilizing biomedical waste. The process of autoclaving involves using superheated steam under pressure.
Baler means a machine used to compress waste or recyclables into bundles to reduce volume.
Biomedical waste means pathological waste, biological waste cultures and stocks of infections agents and associated biologicals, contaminated animal carcasses (body parts, their bedding, and other wastes from such animals), sharps, chemotherapy waste, discarded medical equipment and parts, not including expendable supplies and materials which have not been decontaminated, as further defined in Rule 391-3-4-.15 of the board, and other such waste materials.
Certificate means a document issued by a college or university of the University System of Georgia or other organization approved by the director stating that the operator has met the requirements of the board for the specified operator classification of the certification program.
Closure means a procedure approved by the division which provides for the cessation of waste receipt at a solid waste disposal site and for the securing of the site in preparation for postclosure.
Combustion means the process of thermal treatment to reduce waste volume (the act of burning) .
Commercial waste means waste resulting from business activities.
Compactors means devices which compress solid waste in order to reduce volume, usually associated with collection or transfer equipment.
Composting means the controlled biological decomposition of organic matter into a stable, odor-free humus.
Construction/demolition landfills means landfills that accept construction and demolition waste such as concrete and lumber.
Corrugated cardboard {paper) means paper or cardboard manufactured in a series of wrinkles or folds, or into alternating ridges and grooves.
88

Disposal facility means any facility or location where the final deposition of solid waste occurs and includes but is not limited to landfilling and solid waste thermal treatment technology facilities.
Disposal fee surcharge means an additional cost imposed for those who dispose of solid waste in landfills or in other disposal facilities.
Disposal rate means the amount of solid waste being disposed of in disposal facilities. Disposal rates are different from the generation rates because not all waste generated is disposed of in disposal facilities.
Environmental remediation means actions to restore environmental conditions to former state or established standards.
Facility issues negotiation process means the process by which affected parties can work with the local government and facility applicant to equitably address their concerns with a solid waste facility.
Financial responsibility mechanism means a mechanism designed to demonstrate that sufficient funds will be available to meet specific environmental protection needs of solid waste handling facilities. Available financial responsibility mechanisms include but are not limited to insurance, trust funds, surety bonds, letters of credit, personal bonds, certificates of deposit, financial tests, and corporate guarantees as defined in 40 C.F.R. Part 264 Subpart H -- Financial Requirements.
Full cost accounting means the use of an accounting system that isolates, and then consolidates for reporting purposes, the direct and indirect costs that relate to the operation of the solid waste management system.
Generation rate means the rate at which solid waste is produced.
Generator means any person in Georgia or in any other state who creates solid waste.
Hazardous constituent means any substance listed as a hazardous constituent in regulations promulgated pursuant to the federal act by the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency which are in force and effect on February 1, 1990, codified as Appendix VIII to 40 C.F.R. Part 261 -Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste.
Horizontal expansion means the lateral addition of space for disposing of solid waste in a landfill.
89

Incinerator means a thermal treatment facility in which the combustion of solid waste takes place without energy recovery.
Industrial solid waste landfills means landfills used to dispose of industrial solid waste.
Inert landfills means landfills permitted to dispose of inert wastes which are wastes that will not release pollutants to the environment after disposal.
Institutional waste means waste materials originating in schools, hospitals, prisons, research institutions and other public buildings.
Interagency Council on Solid Waste Management means the council composed of representatives from state agencies charged with coordinating the state's anti-litter and other solid waste management activities.
Label means a code label described in paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) of Code Section 12-8-34.
Land limitations means those areas of land which, due to their environmental characteristics or land use factors are not suitable for solid waste disposal facilities.
Landfill means an area of land on which or an excavation in which solid waste is placed for permanent disposal and which is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or compost pile.
Landfill capacity means the maximum amount of solid waste that can be contained in a landfill.
Leachate collection system means a system at a landfill for collection of the leachate which may percolate through the waste and into the soils surrounding the landfill.
Manifest means a form or document used for identifying the quantity and composition and the origin, routing, and destination of special solid waste during its transportation from the point of generation, through any intermediate points, to the point of disposal, treatment, or storage.
Mass burn means a municipal waste combustion technology in which solid waste is burned in a controlled system without prior sorting or processing.
Materials recovery facility means a solid waste handling facility that provides for the extraction from solid waste of recoverable materials, materials suitable for use as a fuel or soil amendment, or any combination of such materials.
90

Minimum planning standards means the minimum standards of the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan.
Multi-agency Compost Management Committee means the committee composed of Cooperative Extension personnel and state agency staff charged with determining how to increase composting of organic matter in Georgia.
Multi-jurisdictional mediation means the process for resolving conflicts among local jurisdictions established by the Georgia Planning Act of 1989 (1989 GA Laws, Act 6340) .
Multi-jurisdictional solid waste plan means a solid waste management plan created jointly by two or more cities or counties.
Municipal solid waste means any solid waste resulting from the operation of residential, commercial, governmental, or institutional establishments except such solid waste disposed of in a private industry solid waste disposal facility. The term includes yard waste but does not include solid waste from mining, agricultural, or silvicultural operations.
Municipal solid waste disposal facility means any facility or location where the final deposition of any amount of municipal solid waste occurs, whether or not mixed with or including other waste allowed under Subtitle D of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, and includes, but is not limited to, municipal solid waste landfills and solid waste thermal treatment technology facilities.
Municipal solid waste landfill means a disposal facility where any amount of municipal solid waste, whether or not mixed with or including other waste allowed under Subtitle D of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, is disposed of by means of placing an approved cover thereon.
Oil overcharge monies means funds received by states from oil companies to be used for energy-related purposes.
Operator means the person stationed on the site who is in responsible charge of and has direct supervision of daily field operations of a municipal solid waste disposal facility to ensure that the facility operates in compliance with the permit.
Person means the State of Georgia or any other state or any agency or institution thereof and any municipality, county, political subdivision, public or private corporation, solid waste authority, special district empowered to engage in solid waste management activities, individual, partnership, association, or other entity in Georgia or any other state. This term also includes any officer or governing or managing body of any
91

municipality, political subdivision, solid waste authority, special district empowered to engage in solid waste management activities, or public or private corporation in Georgia or any other state. This term also includes employees, departments, and agencies of the federal government.
Post-closure means a procedure approved by the division to provide for long-term financial assurance, monitoring, and maintenance of a solid waste disposal site to protect human health and the environment.
Post-consumer recycling means the reuse of materials generated from residential and commercial waste, excluding recycling of material from industrial processes that has not reached the consumer, such as glass broken in the manufacturing process.
Private industry solid waste disposal facility means a disposal facility which is operated exclusively by and for a private solid waste generator for the purpose of accepting solid waste generated exclusively by said private solid waste generator.
Recovered materials means those materials which have known use, reuse, or recycling potential; can be feasibly used, reused, or recycled; and have been diverted or removed from the solid waste stream for sale, use, reuse, or recycling, whether or not requiring subsequent separation and processing.
Recovered materials processing facility means a facility engaged solely in the storage, processing, and resale or reuse of recovered materials. Such term shall not include a solid waste handling facility; provided, however, any solid waste generated by such facility shall be subject to all applicable laws and regulations relating to such solid waste.
Recycling means any process by which materials which would otherwise become solid waste are collected, separated, or processed and reused or returned to use in the form of raw materials or products.
Regional solid waste landfills means landfills which are used by more than one county and are owned or operated by a public agency.
Reuse means taking a component of solid waste and, possibly with some slight modification (e.g., cleaning, repair), using it again for its original purpose (e.g., refillable beverage bottles).
Revenue bonds means bonds paid back by revenues received from the project.
Shredders means equipment used to shred waste or recovered materials in order to decrease volume.
92

Soil supplement means a substance added to the soil to fertilize or improve the quality of the soil.
Solid waste means discarded putrescable and nonputrescable waste, except water carried body waste and recovered materials, and shall include garbage; rubbish, such as paper, cartons, boxes, wood, tree branches, yard trimmings, furniture and appliances, metal, tin cans, glass, crockery, or dunnage; ashes; street refuse; dead animals; sewage sludges; animal manures; industrial waste, such as waste materials generated in industrial operations; residue from solid waste thermal treatment technology; food processing waste; demolition waste; abandoned automobiles; dredging waste; construction waste; and any other waste material in a solid, semisolid, or liquid state not otherwise defined in this part. Such term shall not include any material which is regulated pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 5 of this title, the 'Georgia Waste Quality Control Act,' or Chapter 9 of this title 'The Georgia Air Quality Act of 1978.'
Solid waste handling means the storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing, or disposal of solid waste or any combination of such activities.
Solid waste handling facility means any facility the primary purpose of which is the storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing, or disposal, or any combination thereof, of solid waste.
Solid waste thermal treatment technology means any solid waste handling facility the purpose of which is to reduce the amount of solid waste to be disposed of through a process of combustion, with or without the process of waste to energy.
Special solid waste means any solid waste not otherwise regulated under Article 3 of this chapter, known as the 'Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act,' and regulations promulgated under such article originating or produced from or by a source or generator not subject to regulation under Code Section 12-8-24.
Subtitle D Regulations means the solid, non-hazardous waste section of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) .
Superfund means the common name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to clean up abandoned or inactive hazardous waste dump sites.
Tipping fees means a fee, usually dollars per ton, for the unloading or dumping of waste at a landfill, transfer station, recycling center, or waste-to-energy facility usually stated in dollars per ton; also called a disposal or service fee.
93

Tire means a continuous solid or pneumatic rubber covering designed for encircling the wheel of a motor vehicle and which is neither attached to the motor vehicle nor a part of the motor vehicle as original equipment.
Transfer stations means a permanent place where waste materials are taken from smaller collection vehicles and placed in larger vehicles for transport, including truck trailers, railroad cars, or barges. Recycling and some processing may also take place at transfer stations.
User fee means a fee imposed for the use of a facility.
Vertical expansion means enlarging the capacity of a landfill by increasing the allowable elevation for waste disposal.
Volume reduction equipment means devices used to process waste materials so as to decrease the amount of space the materials occupy, usually by compacting or shredding (mechanical), incineration (thermal), or composting (biological).
Waste composition means the contents by type (e.g., glass, plastic, paper, etc.) of municipal solid waste entering disposal facilities.
Waste generation means the amount of waste being produced.
Waste minimization means reducing the amount or type of waste generated.
Waste reduction means decreasing the amount of waste requiring disposal.
Waste stream means the total flow of solid waste from homes, businesses, institutions and manufacturing plants that must be recycled, burned, or disposed of in landfills; or any segment thereof, such as the "residential waste stream" or the "recyclable waste stream."
Waste-to-energy facility means a solid waste thermal treatment facility that provides for the extraction and utilization of energy from municipal solid waste through a process of combustion.
Yard waste (yard trash) means vegetative matter resulting from landscaping maintenance and land-clearing operations other than mining, agricultural, and silvicultural operations.
94

APPENDIX
95

MINIMUM PLANNING STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT:
Local, Multi-jurisdictional and Regional Plans
In Compliance with the
Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act
December, 1990

Prepared By Georgia Department of Community Affairs
1200 Equitable Building 100 Peachtree St., N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Jim Higdon, Commissioner
December, 1990

For Further Information

State Solid Waste Management Plan and general solid waste planriirig questions should be directed to the DCA Office of Coordinated Planning at (404) 656-3879.

..

. . .

.

General information an(i management assistance requests should be directed to

the DCA Office of Technical Assistance at (404) 656-5534.

Information on mediation or the facility siting negotiation process should be directed to the DCA Executive Office at (404) 656~3836.

Requests for information on solid waste permitting and any regulatory requirements should be directed to the Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources at (404) 656~2836.

An Equal Opportunity Employer

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preamble .................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ...............................................................................................3 I. The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Planning Process ..............8 II. Minimum Solid Waste Planning Elements ........................................... 10 III. State, Regional and Community Solid Waste Management
Planning Goals ................................................................................. 13 IV. Plan Implementation Options ............................................................. 18 V. Minimum Procedural Standards for Solid Waste Management
Planning .......................................................................................... !!>
1

PREAMBLE
Mter extensive study, the 1990 session of the Georgia General Assembly passed the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act. This Act requires that, after July 1, 1992, in order to receive a permit, grant, or loan for a solid waste management facility, each city and county shall develop or be included in a comprehensive solid waste management plan.
The Act sets out two statewide goals to be met in each local or regional plan:
1) achieving a 25 percent reduction in solid waste disposed of by 1996, based on the amount disposed of in FY 1992; and
2) ensuring adequate solid waste handling capability and capacity for the subsequent ten year period.
The Act declares that it is the policy of the State of Georgia "to educate and encourage generators and handlers of solid waste to reduce and minimize to the greatest extent possible the amount of solid waste which requires collection, treatment, or disposal, through source reduction, reuse, composting, recycling, and other methods, and to promote markets for and engage in the purchase of goods made from recovered materials and goods which are recyclable."
The Act requires preparation of a State Solid Waste Management Plan, to which local or regional plans must conform. It also requires preparation of Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management, to guide preparation of local or regional plans.
Cities and counties are encouraged by the Act to join together to jointly develop, with other jurisdictions, regional (or multi-jurisdictional) plans, preparation of which is to be guided by the Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures.
The Act also requires that these Minimum Standards and Procedures conform in certain respects to the plan standards and procedures outlined in the Georgia Planning Act of 1989, which govern the preparation oflocal comprehensive plans.
2

These Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management are written in response to the above requirements. They were prepared through a policy development process involving representatives of city and county governments, regional development centers, state agencies with solid waste responsibilities, the University System, environmental groups, and the private sector. They were presented to the public at six public briefings during September and October 1990. Comments received at these briefings were considered by the Boards ofthe Department of Community Affairs and the Department ofNatural Resources prior to their adopting the Minimum Standards. The Solid Waste Management Act requires that the Minimum Standards and Procedures, as well as the State Solid Waste Management Plan, be adopted by both these boards and be in place by January 1 of 1991.
INTRODUCTION
Because the Solid Waste Management Act incorporates certain aspects of the Georgia Planning Act, the following section discusses both these pieces of legislation, summarizing their highlights and pointing out important differences between the two. Background on both will help understand these Minimum Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management.
Solid Waste Management Planning: The Solid Waste Management Act
The Solid Waste Management Act requires that each solid waste plan developed include several items as listed below:
Each solid waste plan is to provide for the assurance of adequate solid waste handling capability and capacity within the planning area for at least ten years from the date of plan completion.
Each solid waste plan must indicate how the community proposes to reduce the amount of solid waste received at disposal facilities during FY 92 by 25 percent (weight) by July 1, 1996.
3

Each solid waste plan must identify the solid waste handling facilities within the plan's area as to size and type.
Each solid waste plan must identify land areas unsuitable for solid waste handling facilities.
Each solid waste plan must be in conformance with the State Solid Waste Management Plan.
In addition, as part of the statewide solid waste management planning process, each local government (or group ofjurisdictions which are part of a multi-jurisdictional or regional plan) must report annually to the Department of Community Affairs on progress in meeting solid waste reduction goals. A second annual report is required on the costs of operating solid waste management programs and waste handling facilities.
Comprehensive Planning Requirements: The Georgia Planning Act of 1989
The local comprehensive planning process is based on minimum planning standards and procedures which have been developed by the Department of Community Affairs and ratified by the General Assembly. This basic planning process is detailed below and basically incorporates three steps:
Step 1 A Basic Inventory and Assessment
What do you have as a community? What is the adequacy of what you have as a community? Step 2 Statement of Needs and Goals Based upon the inventory and assessment, what do you need as a
community? Based upon the inventory and assessment, what do you want as a
community? Step 3 Implementation Strategy
Based upon the inventory, assessment, and needs and goals, what do you need to do to get to where you want to be as a community?
4

The minimum planning standards include six topical areas or elements that are considered critical as components of any local planning process. These six elements are:
Population Economic Development Natural and Historic Resources Community Facilities Housing Land Use
Each local government participating in the local planning process must answer each of the three questions relative to each planning element.
Solid waste facilities are one of the many types of community facilities which must be planned for as part of the comprehensive planning process. However, this planning process does not call for the extensive, in-depth look at amounts of solid waste generated and types of actions which can be taken to reduce the amount disposed of by 1996. However, it is anticipated that, regardless of whether the two types of plans are prepared concurrently or at different times, they can be folded together.
A Comparison of Solid Waste Management and Comprehensive Planning Requirements
This section describes some of the similarities and differences between the two pieces oflegislation.
Types of Plans Prepared:
Plans prepared per the Solid Waste Management Act are referred to in these Minimum Standards and Procedures as "solid waste plans."
Plans prepared per the Georgia Planning Act are referred to in these Minimum Standards and Procedures as "local comprehensive plans."
5

Participation Requirements
The Solid Waste Management Act requires that, in order to receive a permit, grant, or loan after July 1, 1992, for a solid waste management facility, each city and county in the state shall develop or be included in a comprehensive solid waste management plan.
The Georgia Planning Act requires that each city or county in the state have a local comprehensive plan in place by September 30, 1995, which meets the Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures, in order to maintain its "Qualified Local Government" status, a certification which qualifies the local government for receipt of certain state grants and loans. Each local government was awarded that status by the Georgia Planning Act, and must prepare its local comprehensive plan in order to maintain that status.
Joint Planning
The Solid Waste Management Act encourages cities and counties to join together in their planning for solid waste management by preparing regional plans. "Regional" refers to groupings of more than one local government. The term may refer to a county and the municipalities within its borders; to several counties joined together with several municipalities; or to all the counties and cities which are members of a regional development center. In most cases, these regional groupings will be multi-jurisdictional, rather than including all members of an RDC. Therefore, when these Standards use the term "regional", "multi-jurisdictional" is also included. The Solid Waste Management Act also advocates that preference be given to facilities included in regional, or multi-jurisdictional, plans. Multijurisdictional plans may include any number ofjurisdictions and can cross RDC boundaries.
The Georgia Planning Act encourages preparation ofjoint city-county plans but does not require them.
State Plan First, versus Local Plan First
The Solid Waste Management Act puts in place a "top-down" planning process, which requires that the State Solid Waste Management Plan be prepared first, and
6

that local and regional plans be prepared in compliance with the State Plan. In this case, the State Plan specifies some of the "answers" which must be found in local plans (a 25 percent reduction in solid waste generated, and a ten year handling capacity). An "in-between" tier of plans is not required.
The Georgia Planning Act puts in place a "bottom-up" planning process which gives localities the responsibility to first prepare local plans, on which regional plans will be based, and from which the State Plan will be prepared. In this case, regional plans are an "in-between" tier of plans, summarizing the highlights oflocal plans and pulling them together to enhance regional planning and development efforts. In this case, no special "answers" are required. Localities are free to prepare plans to reflect their own wishes and desires for the future. The only requirement is that they follow a specific procedure of answering the three basic questions described previously, about the six basic planning elements.
Time Frames:
The Solid Waste Management Act requires that a State Plan be prepared by January 1, 1991, and that local plans be prepared prior to receiving permits, grants or loans requested after July 1, 1992. For those local governments anticipating a request for solid waste permits or financing the State Plan requires submission of locaVregional plans by January 1, 1992, to provide adequate time for review.
The Georgia Planning Act requires that local plans be prepared by September 30, 1995. A schedule for phasing in planning has been prepared by the regional development centers so that all plans are not due on that date, but are due on a yearly basis between September 30, 1991 and September 30, 1995.
How Will the Two Planning Processes Fit Together?
The major difference is in time frames in which plans must be prepared, it is anticipated that most local governments will prepare their solid waste plans apart from the comprehensive planning process; that is, most solid waste plans will be completed by January 1, 1992. When a local government's solid waste plan has been completed by January 1, 1992, this plan may be submitted as part of its local comprehensive plan.
7

The Solid Waste Management Act goes into far more detail than the Georgia Planning Act in terms of requirements, it is also anticipated that solid waste plans will be far more detail-oriented than local comprehensive plans.
Section I
THE COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLANNING PROCESS
These Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures outline the steps required in preparing a community, regional, or multi-jurisdictional solid waste management plan. The intention is to provide a framework for those preparing the plan to follow in looking at the current status of solid waste management within the planning area, determining needs, addressing goals, and deciding on how an effective and comprehensive program of solid waste management will be implemented within the area.
As communities enter into the planning process they may find that they will need to join with neighboring communities in order to insure the successful implementation of a solid waste plan
Two statewide goals, achieving a 25 percent per capita reduction in solid waste disposed of, measured from the base year of 1992, and ensuring that all facilities have a ten year handling capacity, must be obtained. Within this framework, each community, or grouping of communities for a multi-jurisdictional or regional plan, may determine how they choose to attain the goals.
The outline and chart that follow are designed to help communities think through this basic solid waste planning process. The steps involved in the solid waste planning process are as follows:
8

Step 1 A Basic Inventory and Assessment What facilities, systems and programs for handling solid waste are currently in place in your community? How much solid waste is being generated? (Municipal solid waste disposal facilities are required to keep accurate written records of all amounts of solid waste, measured in tons, received at the facility, beginning July 1, 1991.) How much will be generated in the future? What is the adequacy of existing facilities and programs to meet future solid waste disposal needs and the 25 percent reduction and ten year handling capacity goals? What is the adequacy of private on-site industrial or biomedical facilities?
Step 2 Statement of Needs and Goals Based upon the inventory and assessment, what do you need (what programs, facilities, etc.) to meet your future solid waste management waste handling requirements? Based on the inventory and assessment and needs, what do you want as a community to meet these needs? What programs and facilities do you desire?
Step 3 Implementation Strategy Based upon the inventory, assessment, and needs and goals, what steps will your community take to meet its solid waste management goals and your solid waste handling needs?
9

Section II
MINIMUM SOLID WASTE PLANNING
ELEMENTS
Amount of Waste Element
* Inventory, analysis and forecast ofpresent and future waste amounts
and composition, with a method for deriving the information, which may include population estimates and forecasts and national average or estimated waste generation rates and composition figures. The inventory should consider:
Source - Residential, Commercial and Industrial Estimated Composition, although a detailed waste stream analysis
is not required Quantity; amount by weight, tied to population trends and
projections Amount of waste imported and exported Amount of solid waste received at disposal facilities during
FY 92 must be determined, so that reduction goals can be based on this measure.
* Population trends and projections, as well as forecasts for economic, and
industrial growth should be considered. The sets of population projections provided by the Department of Community Affairs for local comprehensive plans may be used for this analysis.
Collection Element
* Inventory, analysis and forecast of present and future systems,
capabilities, capacities, costs and programs. Some of the items to be considered include:
Service Area: Size, Number of Customers Private and Public Collection Systems Vehicles- Type, Number, Capacity, Condition
10

Green Box and/or Convenience Center Systems Transfer Points Existing Multi-jurisdictional Agreements
Waste Reduction Element
* Inventory, analysis and forecast of present and future achievements,
potential markets, goals, costs, and programs. Some of the items to be considered include:
Reduction of waste disposed Reuse Recycling Composting (including yard waste) Processing
* It might be helpful to specify large amounts or unique types of waste
from single sources (for instance, from specific industries not using onsite waste handling facilities) which might be targeted for source reduction or recycling.
Disposal Element
* Inventory, analysis and forecast ofpresent and future practices,
environmental controls, costs, capacities and programs. Some of the items to be considered include:
Pre-disposal Treatment (Shredding, Baling, etc.) Thermal Treatment Technologies (including waste to energy,
incineration, etc.) Landfill Utilization Facility Mix - Existing Facilities, Planned and Projected Private and Public Disposal Dedicated Waste Handling Facilities (biomedical waste, tires, etc.)
* Includes inventory of wastes which are shipped out of or imported to the
jurisdiction from other jurisdictions, especially in regards to operation of privately operated landfills within the jurisdiction.
11

Land Limitation Element
* Inventory, analysis and determination ofland areas which, due to
environmental limitations or land use factors, are considered unsuitable for development for a solid waste handling facility. Some of the items to be considered include:
Environmental Limitations: Floodplains Wetlands Groundwater Recharge Areas Other (Water Supply Watersheds, Fault Zones, Seismic Impact Zones, Unstable Areas [Karst Areas]) Land Use Factors:
Land Use Plan/Zoning Restrictions Built-up Area (Heavily Developed Areas) Three Mile Distance from a National Historic Site Proximity to Airports Jurisdictional Boundaries Access
Education and Public Involvement Element
* Assessment and analysis of existing and potential educational programs
and public involvement alternatives, including, but not limited to: Local Government Programs Solid Waste Advisory Committee Clean and Beautiful Program School System Programs Litter Control Programs Regional RDC programs Other including: civic, environmental and church groups
12

Implementation and Financing Element
* Inventory, analysis and forecast ofpast, present and future financing
options, including putting in place a full-cost accounting system. Some of the items that should be considered include:
Required Capital and Operational Costs Costing and Fee Setting Enterprise Funds Revenue Financing Cost Allocation Other

Section III

STATE, REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
GOALS

Statewide Goals

The following two Statewide Goals are required by the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act.

Goal: To insure that the amount of solid waste being received at disposal facilities during fiscal year 1992 will be reduced by 25 percent by July 1, 1996.

Goal:

To insure that community solid waste management systems will be adequate to meet the ten-year handling capability and capacity needs identified in a local, multi-jurisdictional, or regional solid waste management plan.

13

Local and Regional Goals

The following local and regional goals are tied to the planning elements previously described. These goals provide overall guidance in preparation of local or regional (multi-jurisdictional) solid waste management plans. They are also intended to provide localities the flexibility to determine the "hows" and "wheres" of their own plan, so that it addresses their specific, individual, and local or regional needs.

Amount of Waste Element

Goal:

To determine the amount and composition of the solid waste generated and/or disposed of within each community, multi-jurisdictional area, or region in order to have a sound information base year upon which to base solid waste management decisions, and to determine if statewide and local goals have been met.

This element is basically data collection and analysis. Once the sources, composition and volume of waste collected within a community or region are determined, this information can be used in reaching decisions on how best to collect, reduce, reuse, recycle, compost, process , treat and then dispose of the waste. The knowledge obtained from this step will allow a community or region to effectively understand and make decisions regarding its solid waste needs, in terms of reduction, collection, reuse, recycling, disposal and education.

Collection Element

Goal: To insure the efficient and effective collection for the subsequent ten year plan period of solid waste and recyclable and compostable materials within each community or region.

While the types of facilities and overall solid waste management programs a community or region proposes to implement will drive the collection methods, the actual methods chosen need to be ones that will effectively and efficiently provide for the collection of solid waste. Further, the methods chosen need to be ones that the community can afford and that the citizenry will support and use. For instance, in some areas, it may be cost effective to pick up recyclables placed in separate

14

containers curbside along with other solid waste material. However, in other areas it may be preferable to separate recyclable materials from other solid waste at the disposal site or materials recovery facility at designated drop-off points or a central recovered materials processing facility.

Waste Reduction Element

Goal:

To insure, at a minimum, a 25 percent reduction by 1996 in the amount of solid waste being received at disposal facilities, by promotion of source reduction, reuse, composting, recycling and other waste reduction programs today and for at least the subsequent 10 year period, thereby maintaining and enhancing the quality oflife of the citizens of the area.

Each community and region will need to determine what mix of programs and facilities will best meet its existing and projected solid waste management needs in order to (at a minimum) meet the 25 percent reduction goal by 1996. The data obtained from the inventory as to the types and amount of waste currently being brought to disposal facilities can be combined with anticipated costs for the various programs and a determination made as to what options are viable in a community. For instance, many communities will need to develop alternative methods for reuse of yard waste rather than simply placing such in a landfill. In many communities yard waste constitutes as much as 20 percent of the waste being brought to the landfill. Thus alternatives to keep yard waste out of disposal sites will produce a substantial reduction in the amount of waste received at disposal sites. However, moving yard waste to inert landfills or burning it will not contribute towards the 25 percent reduction goal. Communities may find that they will need to join with neighboring communities to cooperate in marketing recovered materials.

Disposal Element

Goal:

To insure that solid waste treatment and disposal facilities serving local governments and regions meet regulatory requirements and are in place when needed to support and facilitate effective solid waste handling programs today and for the subsequent ten year plan period, thereby maintaining and enhancing the quality oflife of the citizens of the area.

15

Each community and region will need to determine what mix of facilities and programs will best meet their existing and projected solid waste disposal needs. The data from the composition and amount of waste, waste reduction and financing elements will determine what options are viable for a community. For instance, a small jurisdiction, with a sparse population, if planning for solid waste management on its own, would find that the cost-effectiveness of purchasing and operating an incinerator or state-of-the-art landfill would eliminate this option. Many communities will find that they need to join with neighboring communities in a multi-jurisdictional or regional plan to best meet their solid waste management needs in a cost-effective manner.
Land Limitation Element

Goal:

To insure that proposed solid waste handling facilities are sites in areas suitable for such developments, are compatible with surrounding uses, and are not considered for location in areas which have been identified by the community or region as having environmental or other development or land use limitations.

The Solid Waste Management Act directs communities to identify environmentally sensitive areas within their boundaries upon which it would be detrimental to place a site for a solid waste handling facility, and to identify sites which are not acceptable due to regulations prohibiting such development. This process will also allow communities to identify other areas which are not appropriate for a solid waste management facility based upon land use, zoning or other development considerations Such a process will identify those areas which should not be considered by those wishing to locate such a facility within a community or region.

Education and Public Involvement Element

Goal:

To help the residents of a community or region achieve an understanding and awareness of the social and environmental issues, problems, concerns and needs associated with solid waste management, especially in terms of littering, waste reduction, recycling, disposal of household hazardous waste, recycling, composting, processing, energy recovery, and to increase support for effective solid waste management.

16

The education program or programs chosen and implemented should support effective solid waste management. The focus of education programs should be issues such as individual responsibility for reducing generation of solid waste, for not littering, and for supporting and implementing the community's solid waste management program. Other focuses may be the true costs of solid waste disposal and other ongoing waste management needs. All education programs should have source reduction (generating less waste) as one component. Coordination should occur during planning with all organizations in the community or region that can provide educational programs related to solid waste, thus ensuring that these organizations will be supportive of the facilities, programs, collection methods and recycling programs selected in the plan.
Implementation and Financing Element
Goal: To achieve a balanced, affordable solid waste management plan implementation strategy, while also meeting the goals and requirements of the Solid Waste Management Act.
The financing element of a solid waste management plan is an opportunity for the community to determine the costs of the various options for facilities and programs to meet its solid waste needs, both at the present and in the future. A community determines what their present and projected solid waste needs are and then examines various programs and facilities to meet those needs. One of the major factors each community should weigh when looking at various programs and facilities is how much will they cost. The community or region must look at the cost of building, developing and maintaining a facility, and, then determine the best financing sources and options. While some monies may come from user fees and from general revenue, these funds may not be sufficient or appropriate to support the facilities and programs chosen by a community. There are various financial options available to communities for both facilities and programs and each of the options should be considered within the planning process.
17

Section IV
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS
The planning process outlined in the previous sections asks communities to inventory their current solid waste management systems and capacity; undertake a self-assessment; think about where they want to be in the future; and decide how to get there. The implementation options presented here are designed to help local governments start thinking about and identifying the various options available to them as they implement their solid waste management plans. The Solid Waste Management Planning Process Matrix lists options available under each element of the solid waste planning process. It should be noted here that the options listed provide a starting place and that the list is by no means complete as to the implementation options available to communities and regions.
Amount of Waste Element
Once a local government or groups oflocal governments have determined the sources, amounts and types of solid waste currently being generated, deposited at disposal facilities (and in some instances, the amount of waste being recycled), it should consider the best way to monitor future waste quantities. This will help insure compliance with the various reduction and monitoring requirements of the Solid Waste Management Act.
Collection Element
Once the community has determined the effectiveness and efficiency ofits current collection system(s), it should consider how well this system will meet the needs of the various management facilities and reduction programs it wishes to establish.
Reduction Element
The options available to a community or region for reduction of solid waste are limited only by its imagination. Communities may well find it necessary to combine numerous individual programs to limit the waste being placed in their disposal
18

facilities. Some communities may find that banning yard waste from their landfill. facility may well go far to meet the required minimum 25 percent reduction. However, local governments need to be sensitive to the fact that banning yard waste from landfills without providing an acceptable alternative may be detrimental. Others may want to combine a variety of programs to limit the waste being placed in their disposal facilities. The 25 percent reduction goal is a minimum and communities may want to implement additional programs to help reduce future higher disposal costs.
Communities should coordinate reduction management activities with any existing programs currently in place in the community that may be operated by schools, civic clubs, churches or others.
Disposal Element
The implications of the disposal element are tied to both reducing incoming waste by 25 percent by July 1, 1996 and to ensuring that the disposal facilities available meet current regulatory and environmental considerations and will meet projected needs for ten years into the future. The options for disposal facilities will be tied to the types and amount of waste being produced within the community or region and to the cost of the various options. It may be more cost-effective for several communities to band together and look at cooperating on a regional basis to increase economies of scale in purchase and use of disposal facilities, such as waste-to-energy or inert landfills, or other options.
Land Limitation Element
As a community or region determines those areas which have environmental or land use limitations that would limit the location of solid waste facilities, these areas should be identified on a land limitations map. Communities may also consider adoption ofland development regulations which require all solid waste facility developers to demonstrate that the proposed facility will not have significant negative impacts on the site or area surrounding the site, particularly in terms of increased traffic, noise or other considerations relating to the quality oflife of adjacent and nearby land uses.
19

Education and Public Involvement Element
Each community or region will need to assess the need for and type of educational programs aimed at the general public, the business community and the school systems. Several programs are being conducted at the state level and options listed here do not preclude those, but are options that can be strengthened at the local level. Further, several education and public involvement programs are available from the state and other organizations which could contribute to a positive local effort. However, communities should not limit themselves to these existing programs, but should use appropriate programs as the starting point for locally oriented education and public involvement efforts.
Implementation and Financing Element
The implementation strategy and program that a community or region wishes to implement within its solid waste management plan must be considered in light of its ability to finance the necessary facility and program costs for such a program. While some communities may well have the resources to prepare and implement a solid waste management plan, there is not sufficient funding available to the numerous communities or regions, which are unable to raise sufficient local funding, for either solid waste management plan development or implementation. The requirement that communities identify and publicly disclose the total cost for providing solid waste management services was designed to enlighten local government officials and the public about the expensive nature and the full extent of the costs of providing this service.
20

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS - Page 1 of 5

BASIC QUESTIONS

BASIC ELEMENTS

INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT

STATEMENT OF NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION

AND GOALS

STRATEGY

OFA SOLID WASTE PLAN

What do you have In your community?

What do you need to meet required reductions and projected solid waste needs?

How are you going to get there?

Amount of Waste

Source Breakdown: Residential,

Commercial, and Industrial

Composition

1...\.).

Amount by Weight

YardWaste

Trees
Construction and Demolition Waste

Special Target Wastes (large amounts from single source)

Imported/Exported
Waste Collection Vehicles(# & type)

Green box system

Convenience centers Serviceareas

Private vs public Collection

Transfer stations Existing multi-juris-

dictional agreements

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS - Page 2 of 5

BASIC QUESTIONS

BASIC

INVENTORY AND STATEMENT OF NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION

ELEMENTS OFA
SOLID WASTE PLAN

ASSESSMENT What do you have in your community?

AND GOALS What do you need to meet required reductions and projected solid waste needs?

STRATEGY I

How are you going

I

to get there?

Waste Reduction

I

Recycling

Drop-off Centers

Buy-back Centers

Residential Curbside

Multi-Family Unit

Composting

~

Home Composting

Municipal System

Central Yard Waste

Compost & Chipping

In-vessel Composting

Co-Composting:

sewage sludge with food

and/or yard waste

Source Reduction &

Reuse

Regulation to Limit or

Ban Certain Products

Tax Incentives/

Disincentives

Waste exchange

Processing/Recovery

Centers

Facility Mix

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS - Page 3 of 6

BASIC QUESTIONS

BASIC ELEMENTS
OFA SOLID WASTE PLAN
Waste Reduction Con't. Commercial Waste
Office Paper Corrugated Container Glass and Cans

INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
What do you have In your community?

STATEMENT OF NEEDS AND GOALS
What do you need to meet required reductions and projected solid waste needs?

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
How are you going to get there?

Disposal

~

Landfill Options Volume Reduction

Baling

Shredding

Compacting

Owner/Operator Options

Contract Private

Single Jurisdiction

Intra-County Landfill

Multi-jurisdiction

Intergovernmental

Contract

Regional Authority

Incineration

Waste-to-Energy

Mass-Burning

Refuse-Derived Fuel

Fluidized Bed

Pyrolysis

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS - Page 4 of 5

BASIC QUESTIONS

BASIC ELEMENTS

INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT

STATEMENT OF NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION

AND GOALS

STRATEGY

I

OFA SOLID WASTE PLAN

What do you have In your community?

What do you need to meet required reductions and projected solid waste needs?

I

How are you going

I

to get there?
I

Land Limitations

Slope

Ground water

Soils- Permeability Animal & Plant

Habitats

~

Environmental Concerns

Adoption of development

regulations

Education Solid Waste Citizens
Advisory Committee School System Program Clean and Beautiful
Program Litter Control Program Media Relations
Public Service Announcements
Press conferences Paid ads News articles Interviews

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS - Page 5 of 5

BASIC QUESTIONS

BASIC

INVENTORY AND STATEMENT OF NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION

ELEMENTS

ASSESSMENT

AND GOALS

STRATEGY

OFA SOLID WASTE PLAN

What do you have In your community?

What do you need to meet required reductions and projected solid waste needs?

How are you going to get there?

Education Con't.

Special Promotions:

Christmas Tree

Chipping

Recycling Contests

Local Recycling

~

Awards

Exhibits, Display

Boards, Information

Booths

Develop Strong Local

Volunteer Base

Public Education I Advisory Committee

Community Resource

Survey

Financing Costing & Fee Setting Enterprise Funds Revenue Financing Cost Allocation Required Capital
Costs

Section V
MINIMUM PROCEDURAL STANDARDS FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
The following procedures are to be used in the preparation, submission, adoption, update and amendment of solid waste plans. The Procedural Standards reflect two options that local governments and multi-jurisdictional systems have. The first option is to prepare a solid waste plan separate from the local comprehensive plan process as required by the Georgia Planning Act of 1989. The second option is to prepare a solid waste plan as part of the Community Facilities Element of the local comprehensive planning process (the Georgia Planning Act). It will probably be necessary for those communities whose local comprehensive plan is due after the January 1, 1992 completion date for solid waste plans to prepare a separate solid waste plan.
The actual procedures for preparation and adoption of a solid waste plan are similar to those required for a local comprehensive plan under the Georgia Planning Act. These procedures are outlined below. The review of solid waste plans prepared before the passage of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, the annual "status of solid waste" report required of all local governments, and updates and amendments are then discussed.
The requirements for public involvement in the solid waste management planning process are minimal (one public hearing at the outset of the planning process and one public hearing prior to submittal of the draft plan to the regional development center). Communities and regions are urged to expand on these two hearings and provide for public involvement and input throughout the planning process. Public involvement and input are very important in any planning process and with the enormity of the solid waste reduction and disposal issues, it is essential that members of the community be involved in the development of their solid waste management plan. In order to insure that on-site industrial waste disposal does not become a future problem , local governments should make every effort to notify industries of the solid waste planning process. Further, if the community as a
26

whole is not involved in the process and does not feel any ownership as to the proposed management programs, they may not be willing to support the proposed programs and solid waste management plan.
There are various ways to encourage public participation and involvement in the planning process, including citizen advisory committees and informational meetings held throughout the process. The Georgia Department of Community Affairs has produced a guidebook on "How to Organize for Local Planning" for communities participating in the local planning process. This guidebook provides examples of how to encourage active citizen involvement and will be sent to local governments that request it.
Minimum Procedural Standards
Step 1 - Option 1 Solid Waste Management Plan Separate from Local Plan
While attention to solid waste disposal is part of the Community Facilities Element of the local planning process as required by the Georgia Planning Act of 1989, the timeline requirements of a full scale solid waste management plan (per the Solid Waste Act) and the local comprehensive plan (per the Georgia Planning Act) are different and many communities will need to prepare a solid waste management plan outside of the local comprehensive plan development process.
The steps required of the local government or governments for preparation of a separate solid waste management plan are the same as for preparing and adopting a local comprehensive plan.
As an element in the solid waste plan, local governments or multijurisdictional arrangements will be asked to include a statement of how they involved the public in preparation and distribution of the plan.
As a part of this strategy, governments will be required to hold two public hearings prior to submission of the plan to the regional development center. For multi-jurisdictional or regional plans, two
27

centrally held public hearings will suffice to meet this requirement, as long as the participating governments have followed their own public hearing notice procedures, and representatives from each jurisdiction are present at the hearings.
The notice for the first public hearing should contain wording to alert industries of the solid waste management planning process. The notice should indicate that if an industry in the area is currently utilizing onsite waste disposal facilities and is planning, within the next ten years, to utilize a local disposal facility for either part or all of its waste disposal, it should contact the city or county announcing the public hearing. Local officials should encourage these industries to become involved in the planning process so that future needs can be addressed in the area solid waste management plan.
* One (1) hearing would be scheduled prior to the development of the
solid waste plan and would be designed to inform the public on the process and to elicit input from the public on community or regional solid waste goals, needs and issues.
* One (1) hearing would occur prior to submittal of the "draft" solid
waste management plan for regional development center review. At this hearing, citizens would be briefed on the contents of the solid waste plan and provided an opportunity to make suggestions, additions and revisions.
The local government(s) would be required to take action, by resolution, authorizing staffto transmit the "draft" solid waste plan to the regional development center for review, comment and recommendation. Each local government involved within any one plan will need to adopt a resolution prior to submittal of the draft multi-jurisdictional or regional solid waste management plan. A copy of the comments made at the two required public hearings should be included with the submittal of the solid waste management plan to the RDC.
28

Step 1 Option 2 Solid Waste Plan as a Component of a Local Plan

Solid waste planning is one part of the Community Facilities Element of a local comprehensive plan; therefore, it is logical that the solid waste plan be included as this item of a local comprehensive plan if the solid waste plan has been prepared and adopted prior to preparation and adoption of the local comprehensive plan. However, the solid waste plan may well be more detailed than other items in the local comprehensive plan, because the solid waste plan must also meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Management Act. No other community facilities item is required to meet such detailed standards.

The steps required to incorporate the solid waste plan as part of the Community Facilities Element are no different than those described under Step 1- Option 1.
Step2 Regional Development Center Review

The Solid Waste Management Act requires that the regional development center confirm that the local, multi-jurisdictional or regional solid waste plan is consistent with the State Solid Waste Management Plan. The procedures for review of the submitted solid waste plan are essentially the same as the review procedures for a local comprehensive plan. However, in the case of solid waste plans, the regional development center must determine if the submitted solid waste plan is in conformance with the State Solid Waste Plan and that the plan has followed the required minimum planning standards and procedures as follows:

Upon receipt of the solid waste plan, the RDC will insure that the "draft"

I

solid waste plan has been "approved for submission" by the local government body(s) involved in the development of the plan and meets

I

the minimum public hearing requirements.

I

The RDC will review the plan for compliance with the State Solid Waste Management Plan.

I

I

29

Within ten (10) days after receipt of the solid waste plan, the RDC will. notify the following of the name of the local government(s) submitting the solid waste plan, the date of submission, and the general nature of the solid waste plan:
* cities and counties within its region which may be affected;
* any local government contiguous to or operating within the area of
the submitting local government; and
* affected state agencies.
Within fifteen (15) days after notifying local governments in the region of the submittal of a solid waste plan, any affected local government or any local government which received a notice may present its views on the solid waste plan at a public hearing to be held pursuant to the rules adopted by the RDC and approved by DCA.
In addition to determining compliance with the State Solid Waste Plan, the RDC will, in consultation with the other affected local governments, determine whether the adoption or implementation of the submitted local or regional solid waste plan would present any conflict with solid waste plans or policies of other governmental units.
If the local solid waste plan is in conformance with the State Plan, the RDC may then recommend approval to DCA of the local solid waste plan as submitted.
If the local solid waste plan is inconsistent with the State Plan, the RDC is to recommend to the local government specific actions needed to bring the plan into compliance. These recommendations are also to be forwarded to DCA.
If the solid waste plan is in compliance with the State Plan, but the RDC identifies conflicts with solid waste plans of other local governments, the RDC is to recommend approval of the plan and modifications to the solid waste plan to eliminate or alleviate the identified conflict(s).
The RDC's determination must be in writing, made public, and be forwarded to the submitting local government(s) within fifteen (15) days after the review public hearing.
30

The local government may request reconsideration of any recommendation made by the RDC within ten (10) days after the RDC's recommendations are made public. A hearing must be held within fifteen (15) days after the request for reconsideration.
Within ten (10) days after this "reconsideration" hearing, the RDC shall either continue or modify the recommendations and make its final recommendation public.
Any official action/recommendations made by the RDC on a submitted local government solid waste plan must be provided to the RDC's Executive Committee.
A request for mediation can be initiated by an affected local government, the regional development center or the Department of Community Affairs, if a conflict remains after the RDC has completed its review. It should be noted that the mediation process established by the Solid Waste Management Act is the same as the mediation process established by the Georgia Planning Act of 1989 and all requests for mediation on solid waste plans will follow that process as established.
The RDC is to notify the Department of Community Affairs within ten (10) days of its notification that a local government or governments have "officially" adopted the solid waste management plan.
Step3 Local Government or Regional Action
Once the RDC has completed its review of the submitted "draft" solid waste plan, the submitting local government, multi-jurisdictional or regional group has several options.
Adopt the solid waste plan as submitted if it has been found in compliance with the State Solid Waste Plan by the RDC and the RDC has not made any recommendations for change.
31

Adopt the solid waste plan incorporating any or all of the recommended changes proposed by the RDC, when the RDC has determined that the plan is in compliance with the State Solid Waste Plan.
Request a reconsideration hearing or mediation on the recommendations of the RDC.
A local government may revise the solid waste management plan, based upon the comments and recommendations made by the RDC to bring the plan in compliance with the State Solid Waste Plan and submit the proposed revisions to the RDC for review and recommendations.
A local government may officially adopt a submitted solid waste management plan that was found not to be in compliance with the State Solid Waste Plan, however the local government will not be eligible to receive solid waste permits, grants or loans.
Local governments may not take any official action to adopt their solid waste management plan or put into effect any plan until sixty (60) days after the date of submittal or ninety (90) days if a reconsideration hearing is requested.
All local governments must notify the regional development center within ten (10) days of the "official" adoption of the solid waste plan, regardless as to whether the governments are part of a multi-jurisdiction plan or not.
Step4 Department of Community Mfairs Action
The RDC is to forward a copy of its recommendation on a solid waste management plan to the Department of Community Affairs. If the RDC has found that the submitted plan is in conformance with the State Solid Waste Plan, the RDC is to notify the Department of Community Affairs when the involved local government or governments have "officially" adopted the solid waste plan found to be in compliance. Upon receipt of such notice from the RDC, the Department of Community Affairs will issue a letter stating that the local governments or governments involved in the solid waste management plan have been found in
32

compliance with the State Solid Waste Management Plan and are eligible to apply. for solid waste management permits, loans and grants.
Procedures for Solid Waste Plans Prepared Prior to the Solid Waste Management Act
The procedures for reviewing solid waste plans prepared prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act will follow the same procedures that have been developed for pre-existing local plans or those local plans prepared prior to the implementation of the Georgia Planning Act of 1989 (which is October 1, 1990). Pre-existing solid waste plans must meet the intent of the Solid Waste Management Act; that is, they must address the 25 percent reduction and the Tenyear handling capacity goals. Pre-existing plans will be evaluated on their ability to address the solid waste management needs of the community or region for which they were prepared and on whether they meet the intent of the State Solid Waste Management Plan.
Annual "Solid Waste Status" Reports
The Solid Waste Management Act requires that each city and county report annually to the Department of Community Affairs on the status of solid waste management in their jurisdiction. Such reports may be individual or collective, depending upon if the government is or is not included in a multi-jurisdictional or regional solid waste plan. The annual report is to include the following items:
The amount of solid waste generated, collected, processed and disposed of at each facility in the area;
The progress on the reduction in solid waste disposal in the planning area since the previous reporting period and total cumulative progress made toward the 25 percent reduction goal;
The remaining permitted capacity of disposal facilities;
Source reduction, reuse, and recycling and composting activities in existence in the planning area;
33

Public information and education activities during the reporting period; and
Any other pertinent information as may be required, e.g. programs to promote the sale and use of products made from recycled materials, establishing local markets for recyclable waste, etc.
Updates and Amendments to Solid Waste Management Plans
Updates
All local governments shall prepare and submit updates to the approved solid waste management plan at least once every ten years although updates every five years are recommended. If any significant solid waste facility or program changes take place within a plan's jurisdiction, an update to the solid waste plan should be initiated to encompass the resultant actions that a major change in facilities or programs will create. The review procedures for such updates are as described above for initial solid waste plan submittals. The following public input procedures should be followed by local governments when updating solid waste plans:
A notice of intent to update the plan shall be announced and one public hearing conducted to brief the community of the process to be used and to elicit community input.
A second hearing will be held prior to submitting the plan update to the RDC for review and comment. The purpose of this hearing is to brief the community on the contents of the plan update, provide opportunity for residents to make suggestions, additions, or revisions, and notify the community of the expected date the update will be submitted to the RDC.
Local governments should follow the notification procedure normally used by the city or county in announcing and conducting such hearings.
34

For multi-jurisdictional or regional plans, one centrally held public hearing will suffice to meet each of these requirements, as long as the individual governments have followed their public hearing notice procedures and representatives from each jurisdiction are present at the hearing.
Amendments
For plan amendments, one public hearing shall also be held to inform the public of the intent to amend the plan and to receive suggestions and comments on the proposed amendment. It is not intended that each minor amendment to an approved solid waste management plan being considered by a local government be submitted for review to the RDC. Proposed amendments, which are strictly local in nature and would not be considered to affect another local government, outside the plan's jurisdiction, need not be submitted to the RDC for review. A summary of such minor amendments shall be submitted annually to the RDC with a statement by the local governments or governments that the individual and cumulative effects of the minor amendments do not significantly alter the basic tenets of the approved plan.
A notice of intent to amend the plan shall be announced and one public hearing conducted to brief the community of the process to be used and to elicit community input.
Local governments should follow the notification procedure normally used by the city or county in announcing and conducting amendment hearings.
For multi-jurisdictional or regional plans, one centrally held public hearing will suffice to meet this requirement, as long as the individual governments have followed their individual public hearing notice procedures and representatives from each jurisdiction are present at the hearing.
35