1997 Georgia solid waste management annual report

GEORGIA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
ANNUAL REPORT
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
AUGUST 1998

Georgia Department of Community Affairs
Georgia Department of Community Affairs

GEORGIA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS

60 Executive Park South, NE Atlanta, GA 30329-2231 (404) 679-4940
An Equal Opportunity Employer

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................3 Acronyms Used in This Report .......................................................................................................4 Purpose of this Report .................................................................................................................... 4 Local and Regional Solid Waste Management (SWM) Planning in Georgia ..................................... 5 Progress Toward the 25% Waste Reduction Goal ............................................................................ 7 Results of the Solid Waste Management Survey and Full Cost Report ............................................... 8 Solid Waste Collection .....................................................................................................................9 Recycling ......................................................................................................................................10 Yard Trimmings Management ........................................................................................................ 12 Solid Waste Disposal .....................................................................................................................13 Local Government Practices ..........................................................................................................13 Solid Waste Handling Facilities ......................................................................................................14 Remaining Permitted Capacity of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities .................................................. 15 Full Cost Report ............................................................................................................................16 Solid Waste Grants and Loans Made to Local Governments ........................................................... 18 SWM Education & Technical Assistance Strategies ........................................................................19 Looking to the Future .................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A: Governments Not in Compliance With the SWM Act.................................................... 28 Appendix B: Remaining Landfill Capacity....................................................................................... 29 Appendix C: Grants & Loans to Local Governments...................................................................... 33 Glossary of Terms ..........................................................................................................................39
For More Information ...................................................................................................................40

If you are disabled and would like to receive this publication in an alternative format, please contact the Georgia Department of Community Affairs at (404) 679-4915 or 1 (800) 736-1155 (TDD).
Printed on Recycled Paper

1

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report 2

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

FOREWORD

T he 1997 fiscal year brought changes and challenges to Georgia's system of solid waste management. We faced important milestones in the State's waste reduction strategy with the passing of the waste reduction goal deadline and the implementation of the long-awaited yard trimmings ban. We adjusted our strategies according to lessons learned during the last several years. As we approached the closure of many of the state's unlined landfills, we anticipated the complications those sites may bring in the future.
Though the state did not meet the 25% waste reduction goal by the July 1, 1996, deadline set forth in the 1990 Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, State agencies faced waste reduction issues with renewed determination. We continued to work toward the goal as if the deadline had not passed, and a mid-year opinion by Attorney General Thurbert Baker confirmed that the goal does indeed still exist.
For the first time in three years, Georgia's per capita waste disposal figure decreased. While we are pleased that its movement was toward our goal, the overall figures are still sobering. Last year, we reported that Georgians disposed of 7.43 pounds per capita per day, the largest amount since we began tracking disposal figures in 1992. This year, the figure is 7.35--lower, but by only 1%. Because no data gathering effort is perfect, we are aware that such a small change falls within the margin of error. Our excitement is further tempered by the realization that, because our waste disposal numbers have increased over the last several years, Georgia will now have to reduce waste by 27%--not just 25%--to reach our goal.
The implementation of the yard trimmings ban was an important factor in reducing, or at least maintaining, the amount of waste Georgians sent to landfills. The ban, which went into effect September 1, 1996, keeps grass clippings, leaves, and small wood debris out of most of the state's lined landfills. While it has helped curb disposal, the ban has also left local governments looking for alternative methods of handling yard trimmings for their residents. As usual, many of Georgia's local government officials came through with innovative, cost-effective solutions.
Also in FY97, State agencies took a second look at statewide planning completed in 1990. Drawing on the experience of the previous years, the agencies outlined a new set of strategies in the Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan: 1997. The new plan shifts the focus of State efforts to waste produced by private industry and to the new roles local governments play in delivering solid waste management services as private waste management companies take over more and more of these responsibilities.
State agencies and local governments alike spent much of FY97 planning for the closure of 15 vertically expanded, unlined landfills. As a result, we saw an increase in the problems closure can bring. Methane gas and groundwater contamination monitoring gave a hint of what local governments may be paying in the future to keep residents safe from the disposal practices of the past.
Solid waste management remains a major issue in Georgia. We have come a long way during the last several years, but our progress is helping us identify even more challenges. To continue successfully, we will need to emphasize the effects that solid waste has on other areas of our environment, and we will need support from State leadership to ensure adequate resources for carrying out our efforts.

JIM HIGDON COMMISSIONER GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
HAROLD REHEIS DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
G. ROBERT KERR DIRECTOR
POLLUTION PREVENTION ASSISTANCE DIVISION GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PAUL R. BURKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GEORGIA ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY

3

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

Acronyms Used in This Report
C&D Construction and Demolition Landfill
DCA Georgia Department of Community Affairs
DNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources
DRI Developments of Regional Impact
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
EPD Georgia Environmental Protection Division (DNR)
GEFA Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority
GHEP Georgia Hospitality Environmental Partnership (DCA)
KAB Keep America Beautiful, Inc. LDF Local Development Fund LEL Lower Explosive Limit LGEG Local Government
Efficiency Grant MRF Materials Recovery Facility MSW Municipal Solid Waste MSWL Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill P2AD Georgia Pollution Prevention
Assistance Division (DNR) RDC Regional Development
Center RMPF Recycled Materials
Processing Facility SWM Solid Waste Management
UGA University of Georgia

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT:
The Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act of 1990 requires that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), with the cooperation of the Department of Natural Resources' Environmental Protection Division (EPD) and the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA), provide an annual report on the status of solid waste management in Georgia to the Governor and General Assembly {O.C.G.A. 12-8-31 (d)}. The Department of Natural Resources' Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD), created after passage of the Act to encourage pollution prevention activities by business and industry, also contributes to this report.
As specified in the Act, the FY97 report, covering the period of July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997, contains informtion on: the status of local and regional solid waste management planning in Georgia; the number and types of solid waste handling facilities in Georgia; the remaining permitted capacity of each permitted solid waste handling facility; the number and types of solid waste grants and loans made to local governments; a compilation and analysis of solid waste management data provided by cities and counties in
their annual reports; a statement of progress achieved in meeting the 25% waste reduction goal established in
subsection (c) of Code Section 12-8-21; a statement of progress achieved in solid waste management education; any revisions in the state solid waste management plan deemed necessary; and recommendations for improving the management of solid waste in the state.

4

Georgia Department of Community Affairs
LOCAL AND REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (SWM) PLANNING IN GEORGIA
L ocal governments in Georgia have overwhelmingly opted against "going it alone" with respect to solid waste management planning. Since passage of the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act of 1990, which required that all local governments prepare or be included in a solid waste management plan by July 1, 1993, only 5% of the State's 692 cities and counties have developed plans that pertain solely to their jurisdictions. Thirty-six counties and 126 cities--about 23% of all local governments--have participated in regional planning efforts, while the remainder have developed joint county-city plans (i.e., plans that cover a county and one or more cities within that county). As of June 30, 1997, only one county and 15 cities had failed to submit a solid waste management plan to DCA for approval. Local governments that have not submitted plans are listed in Appendix A. The Solid Waste Management Act specifies that local government plans must provide assurance of adequate disposal capacity and handling capability for a 10-year period. Additionally, the Act requires governments to identify in their plans all local solid waste handling facilities; sites not suitable for solid waste facilities based on environmental and land use factors; and strategies for helping the State achieve a 25% per capita reduction in the amount of waste being received at disposal facilities. To ensure that local governments develop plans in accordance with the Act, DCA established Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management. All local solid waste management plans as well as major plan amendments and updates must be reviewed and approved by DCA in order for governments to be eligible to receive solid waste permits, grants, and loans. The Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management require local governments to make major amendments to their plans when changes occur that alter the basic tenets of the plans or affect another local government. At a minimum, major plan amendments include: changes that affect a local government's assurance of 10-year handling capability; changes that affect a local government's assurance of 10-year disposal capacity; changes that affect a local government's strategy toward achieving the 25% statewide waste
reduction goal; changes that affect the identification of land areas unsuitable for a solid waste
handling facility; or changes in any solid waste facilities, such as new facilities or major modifications of existing
facilities, requiring EPD permits.
5

v

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report
In FY97, major amendments were made to five solid waste management plans, covering 18 local governments, to identify changes in waste disposal strategies (e.g., closing a county landfill and contracting with a private disposal facility). About a dozen other plan amendments were made for the purpose of including recycling and waste reduction projects for which local governments intended to request State financial assistance. Most cities and counties will be required to prepare updates to the short term work programs of their solid waste management plans in FY98 and the first half of FY99. These work programs, which are to cover the final five years of a plan's original ten-year planning period, must contain information on planned solid waste facility and program operations; land, equipment, or other purchases; administrative arrangements; budgets; and time frames for implementation. Local governments must submit their short term work programs to their regional development centers for review and to DCA for approval or risk losing their eligibility to receive solid waste permits, grants, and loans. To assess potential impacts of new and expanding solid waste disposal facilities on surrounding jurisdictions, rules developed pursuant to the Georgia Planning Act require that such facilities be reviewed as Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs). In addition to ensuring that proposed projects are consistent with the comprehensive and solid waste management plans of all potentially affected jurisdictions, the DRI review process considers impacts on the region's natural resources, economy, and public infrastructure. Ideally, the DRI review process also identifies opportunities for cooperation and recommends the construction of facilities that will serve more than one local government where appropriate. Since 1991, 22 proposed solid waste disposal facilities have been reviewed as DRIs. Between July 1996 and June 1997, four new facilities were proposed, including one inert landfill and three new Subtitle D landfills. One of these facilities, in Effingham County, includes areas for recycling and composting in addition to disposal of solid waste and sludge. As a result of the DRI process, all of the landfills proposed in FY97 were found to be in the best interest of the state. The Act also requires regional development centers (RDCs) to develop regional comprehensive plans, which must include solid waste management where it is considered by the RDC board to be of regional significance. To begin this process, RDC staff members prepare an inventory and analysis based on the local comprehensive plans developed within their region. Based on this document, the RDC board determines an implementation strategy, which becomes the functioning plan. A total of 14 regional plans will be completed by fiscal year 2000 (two groups of two RDCs are developing plans together). To date, over half of the regional plans have been approved by DCA and adopted by the participating regions. Each of the plans addresses solid waste management issues, though the references may be minimal.
6

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

PROGRESS TOWARD THE 25% WASTE REDUCTION GOAL

T hough Georgia's 25% waste reduction goal was originally set in terms of a calendar date that has passed (July 1, 1996), the goal is still in effect. According to an opinion issued by State Attorney General Thurbert Baker in July 1997, the intent of the original legislation was "the requirement of active involvement in programs for reducing waste." Baker wrote that State and local efforts to meet the goal should continue.

For the first time in four years, Georgia can report that per capita solid waste disposal decreased from the previous year. In FY97, Georgians disposed of 9,863,766 tons of solid waste, or 7.35 pounds per capita per day.1 Though actual tons disposed of in FY96 was lower (9,775,315), the per capita figure that year was 7.43, or 1% higher than in FY97.

FY 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

(MILLIONS) State
Population** 6.63 6.77 6.90 7.06 7.21 7.35

(MILLIONS OF TONS)

Total

In

Out

Disposed State of State

8.60 NA

NA

8.25 8.15 0.10

8.58 8.45 0.14

9.54 9.38 0.16

9.78 9.61 0.16

9.86 9.69 0.17

Despite this slight progress, Georgians still disposed of 3% more waste per capita in FY97 than in FY92, the base year for calculations. The base year disposal figure is 8,604,115 tons or 7.11 pounds per capita per day. To meet the 25% reduction goal, the state will have to reduce waste disposed of to 5.33 pounds per person per day. To meet that goal, Georgians will need to reduce waste by 27% from the FY97 figure.

WASTE DISPOSED OF IN GEORGIA*

(POUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY)

In

Out

Total State of State

7.11

NA

NA

6.68 6.59 0.08

6.81 6.70 0.11

7.41 7.28 0.12

7.43 7.31 0.12

7.35 7.22 0.13

* Disposal figures compiled by EPD based on landfill reports.
** Population figures were provided by the US Census Bureau as of the beginning of the fiscal year period.

Out-of-state waste continues to have minimal impact on Georgia's disposal figures. While the amount of out-of-state waste coming into Georgia increased to 172,150 tons, or 6% greater than last year, it still accounts for less than 2% of the state's waste stream.
Of the waste disposed of during FY97, 82% was disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLs), and 18% was disposed of in construction and demolition landfills (C&Ds). While the amount of waste has increased, so has the percentage of waste being disposed of in safer facilities. Of the tons disposed of in MSWLs, 73% went to lined landfills. In FY96, 65% of MSW was disposed of in lined landfills.
1 An additional 111,810 tons were disposed of in the state's only waste-to-energy facility. This amount is not included in calculating progress toward the 25% waste reduction goal per a 1993 amendment to the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act.

WASTE DISPOSAL BY FACILITY TYPE
(MILLIONS OF TONS DISPOSED)

MSWLs (total)

8.11

Lined MSWLs

5.90

Unlined MSWLs

2.21

C&Ds

1.76

Total*

9.86

* Numbers do not equal total because of rounding.

7

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report
RESULTS OF THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SURVEY AND FULL COST REPORT
U nder the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, each local government must submit an annual report to DCA documenting the status of its solid waste services. DCA collects this information through the Solid Waste Management Survey and Full Cost Report. In addition to forming the basis of the statewide annual report, the survey provides useful information for planning, evaluation, and public education purposes. Within 30 days of submitting its annual survey to DCA, each local government must publish a public notice listing the full cost of providing solid waste services to constituents within its jurisdiction. By disclosing these costs, the full cost report is intended to educate citizens on the need to manage waste properly and efficiently. The 1997 Solid Waste Survey and Full Cost Report was disseminated to the state's 159 counties and 533 cities to cover the reporting period of July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997. The survey consisted of 42 questions designed to measure the level of solid waste services provided and the cost of those services. Each of the 159 counties responded to the 1997 survey. Of the 533 municipalities, 522 (98%) responded to the survey. Each of the governments failing to submit a survey during the time period covered by this report has a population of 1,500 or less. (These governments are listed in Appendix A). Georgia's three consolidated governments (Athens-Clarke County, Augusta-Richmond, and Columbus-Muscogee) are treated as counties for the purposes of the survey. Some cities and counties that did not respond prior to publication of the five previous annual reports complied with the reporting requirements later. These late responses have been incorporated into DCA's database, sometimes leading to slight discrepancies between historical figures shown in this report and numbers reported in previous years. Information from the survey has been divided into sections on Solid Waste Collection, Recycling, Yard Trimmings Management, Solid Waste Disposal, Solid Waste Education, and Full Cost of Solid Waste Management. The Solid Waste Disposal section has been supplemented with landfill data provided by EPD.
8

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

SOLID WASTE COLLECTION

SOLID WASTE COLLECTION

COUNTY CITY

The majority of Georgia's local governments (85%) arranged for solid waste collection services in their jurisdictions. While essentially all of these jurisdictions had residential collection, 55% of the counties and 67% of the municipalities also arranged for collection of commercial solid waste. The number of local governments providing collection for businesses decreased from 391, or by 16, since last year. In FY95, 372 local governments offered collection of commercial solid waste.

Arrange for Collection Arrange Collection Through Own Government Another Government Authority Private Vendors Other

125 456
% 74 55 20 15 72 94 59 2 <1

Local governments can use a variety of methods to arrange for Arrange for Commercial Collection collection of solid waste, including directly providing the service themselves, arranging for another local government or authority to Arrange for Residential Collection

69 306 125 447

provide the service, and working with private vendors. For the second Collection Methods:

%

year, a larger percentage of local governments reported arranging

Curbside

27 85

for collection through private vendors (66%) than providing it directly (59%). A significant number of local governments provided collection services through another local government (16%), while only a limited number provided collection through an authority (3%). The role of authorities is expected to increase during FY98, when the

Backdoor Staffed Drop-off Centers Unstaffed Drop-off Centers Green Boxes

9 28 37 3 20 8 51 9

Crisp County Solid Waste Management Authority's MSW composting facility begins accepting waste from more than 40 southwest Georgia

Charge Fees for Residential Collection

46 352

communities.

%

In FY97, the preferred method of residential waste collection in municipalities where this service was available was curbside pickup

Flat-Rate Unit-Based

80 98 20 3

(85%). In counties with residential collection services, waste was

most often collected using many large, unmanned collection bins, commonly called green boxes, NOTES FOR ALL TABLES:

scattered throughout the county (51%). Though used by 64 counties, green boxes served just Percentages may total more than 100

16% of the state's population and were generally used by counties with populations of 15,000 or because some local governments less. Last year, green boxes were used by 77 counties serving 22% of the state's population. answer in more than one category.

Since 1993, the first year local governments reported available solid waste collection options, 35 counties and 29 cities have discontinued the use of green boxes. Because these unstaffed drop-off boxes can lead to unattractive and unhealthy collection sites and a lack of accountability for waste generation and disposal, minimizing their use is an important element in improving solid waste

159 counties and 522 cities reported on their 1997 SWM practices. All statistics and tables are based on these reports unless otherwise noted.

management in the state.

For the first year, the survey asked respondents to list the number of green boxes, staffed drop-off centers, and unstaffed drop-off centers available to residents. The resulting numbers illustrate the efficiencies brought by the more centralized approach of drop-off centers with multiple collection containers for solid waste and recyclables. Sixty-one local governments reported staffing 214 drop-off centers, an average of 3.5 centers per government. Sixty-two local governments reported providing 378 unstaffed centers, an average of 6.1 centers per government. In contrast, 103 local governments reported providing 9,525 green boxes, an average of 92.5 boxes per government.

Of the local governments arranging for residential collection, 37% of counties and 79% of municipalities charged a fee for the service, an increase of 21 local governments over last year. Though the majority charged residents a flat fee, nine counties and 11 cities reported charging residents a fee based on the amount of waste they throw away. These unit-based pricing systems make each user financially responsible for his or her disposal habits, thus encouraging waste reduction.

9

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

RECYCLING

REGIONAL WASTE REDUCTION:

Recycling puts materials that otherwise would be discarded to BARNESVILLE

use as raw materials in the production of new products. In A primary challenge for small

FY97, 89% of counties and 67% of municipalities reported that recycling services were available to their residents. This is three more counties than last year, but 24 fewer cities. Though the

community recycling programs is to generate enough volume to attract markets for the sale of recyclables. The

number of cities and counties with recycling services available

is still more than double what it was when the first survey was

conducted in 1992, FY97

was the first time the total

RECYCLING EFFORTS

COUNTY CITY had fallen in the six years of

Recycling Services Available

the survey. Most of the cities 141 351 that no longer had residential

Recycling Services Available for Residents Arrange Services Through Own Local Government

138 351
% 74 42

recycling services were in the smallest population category (less than 500).

Another Local Government Private Vendor(s) Not-for-profit Organization

21 33 Businesses and industries

43

42

had access to recycling services in 70% of Georgia's

28 22 counties and 49% of cities in

Collect and Process Through

%

FY97. This is significantly

Curbside Recycling

14 36 lower than last year, when

Staffed Drop-Off Facilities Unstaffed Drop-Off Facilities Materials Recovery Facility Recovered Materials Processing Facility

61 27 84% of counties and 65% of

49

53 municipalities--106 more

7

5

local governments in all-- reported that recycling

9

3 services were available to

Reuse

21 10 businesses in their

Other

14

6 jurisdictions. Almost one-

City of Barnesville in Lamar County has surmounted this challenge by cooperating with neighboring counties in a comprehensive recycling program.
Two years ago Barnesville contracted with Monroe and Spalding counties and the City of McDonough to accept their recyclable materials for free. This arrangement allows Barnesville to generate the volume needed to make recycling cost effective while allowing its partners to divert material from their waste streams, thus decreasing their landfill costs.
The program operates with one 5,000 square foot facility. Recyclable materials are collected by the other counties in roll off containers and transported to Barnesville. There, the recyclables are processed by one prisoner, one part-time worker, and two full-time staff members.

third of those responding The facility collects PET and Recycling Services Available for Businesses 112 256 that the services were no HDPE plastics, paper, mag-

Arrange Services Through Own Local Government Another Local Government Private Vendor(s)

% 52 36 13 35 54 47

longer available were cities in the smallest population category.
Because the 1996 survey was

azines, newspaper, steel cans, aluminum cans, and corrugated cardboard. Polystyrene and plastic bags are accepted from Barnesville residents only.

Not-for-profit Organization Other Collect and Process Through Curbside Recycling Staffed Drop-Off Facilities Unstaffed Drop-Off Facilities Materials Recovery Facility Recovered Materials Processing Facility Reuse

28 21

4

2

% 21 34

62 29

39 49

7

7

8

4

11

6

the first to ask local governments whether recycling services were available to businesses, no trend analysis can be made. However, given anecdotal evidence on the high level of recycling activity in the state, increased support for business and

While the City of Barnesville, with a population of about 5,000, may not have been able to support a successful recycling program on its own, the participation of another city and two counties allows the program to divert about 26 tons of recyclable materials from Georgia landfills each month.

industrial recycling and

reduction efforts by P2AD, and an increase in the number of

Other

9

7 recycling companies in the state, it is likely that local governments

Purchase Recycled Products

misreported at least one of the two years. Efforts will be made to 120 299 clarify the survey question and instructions in the future.

10

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

ALTERNATIVE LABOR IN PROCESSING RECYCLABLES: GWINNETT COUNTY
Almost one-third of Georgia counties reported using inmates to process the recyclable materials they collected during 1997. Gwinnett County is one of the largest users of this type of alternative labor. The County credits Community Work Programs (CWPs) with saving between $400,000 and $500,000 each year.
Gwinnett has used CWPs since the 1980s, when inmates began working on roadside cleanups. A decade later, inmate work included processing recyclables at the County's recovered materials processing facility (RMPF).
Gwinnett CWP participants work with the public, unload vehicles, carry materials to the processing area, clean up around the site, and pick up litter. Workers handsort materials on conveyor belts and operate lifts, front-end loaders, and balers. Participants with strong mechanical and carpentry skills are also used for various tasks that require specific skills.
Gwinnett County CWPs are made up of two correctional officers and 30 to 50 inmates. In addition, a canine patrol is used every six weeks or any time drugs are suspected. Minor problems experienced by Gwinnett County include equipment abuse and alcohol consumption from bottles dropped off that are not completely empty. Most problems are handled by the correctional officers, who have the authority to deny inmates their work privileges.
Once an inmate works a certain number of hours on a specified detail and labor skills have been proven, a work certificate is issued. Inmates may use these certificates when searching for employment following parole.

Georgia residents are more likely to receive recycling services

directly from their own local government, while businesses

are more likely to receive them through a private vendor.

About 30% of local government jurisdictions rely on another

local government to provide services for residents and/or

businesses. Not-for-profit organizations
also play a major role in providing recycling MATERIALS RECYCLED

COUNTY CITY

services, with more than one-fifth of local governments that have services available Residential Recycling relying on them. As with solid waste Services Available

collection, local government authorities are Materials Recycled

expected to play a bigger role in providing Tires

recycling services in future years.
Most local government jurisdictions with residential recycling services offer

Batteries Aluminum Newspaper Magazines

collection of recyclables at drop-off Corrugated Cardboard

centers that are either unstaffed (52%) or Other Paper

staffed (37%). Though only 30% of Glass

local governments with residential PET and HDPE Plastics

recycling offer curbside collection, their Other Plastics

138 351
% 54 19 37 13 86 81 90 91 67 62 78 63 51 45 62 69 62 67 18 21

jurisdictions include 43% of the state's White Goods

83 37

population. Curbside collection is Christmas Trees

63 52

generally more costly for local Construction/Demolition Materials 23 7

governments, but it is more effective in garnering participation by residents. The practice of sorting commingled residential recyclables at recovered materials processing facilities (RMPFs) is still rare in Georgia, with only 24 local governments using this type of facility. Separating recyclables from solid waste at a materials recovery facility (MRF) is slightly more

Steel Cans

51 33

Aerosol Cans

12 5

Paper Board

29 17

Scrap Metal

75 32

Motor Oil

38 16

Phone Books

44 41

Agricultural Chemical Containers 12 3

Household Hazardous Waste

21

Other

74

common, with 26 local governments Business Recycling

recovering recyclables in this way.

Services Available

112 256

Many local governments turn to alternative Materials Recycled labor resources to process recyclables Tires

% 41 21

more cost effectively. Inmate labor is used Batteries

30 18

by 33% of counties and 12% of cities Aluminum

78 75

with residential recycling services. Community service workers are used by 28% of counties and 11% of cities. Disabled persons assist 16% of counties and 6% of cities.
As with residential collection of recyclables, collection of recyclables generated by businesses is most often performed through unstaffed (46%) or staffed (39%) dropoff facilities. Again, as with residential collection, only (30%) of local jurisdictions have curbside collection of recyclables available for businesses, but curbside

Newspaper

81 88

Magazines

60 62

Corrugated Cardboard

85 79

White Paper

59 59

Green Bar Computer Paper

45 52

Other Paper

46 49

Glass

54 64

Plastic

53 64

Phone Books

38 45

Construction/Demolition Materials 21 7

Scrap Paper

62 34

Motor Oil

32 18

Other

64

11

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report
collection is most prominent in more populous jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions that use MRFs or RMPFs to process residential recyclables also use them to process recyclables collected from businesses.
Newspaper is the most commonly accepted item for recycling for both residents (in 91% of local jurisdictions) and businesses (in 86% of local jurisdictions). For residents, aluminum is the second most commonly accepted material, with outlets in 83% of local jurisdictions. Magazines, corrugated cardboard, glass, PET and HDPE plastics, white goods, and Christmas trees are all recycled in more than half of Georgia's local government jurisdictions. Larger items that are more difficult to collect in curbside programs are more likely to be recycled in counties than in cities. These items are typically easily separated at transfer stations and landfills, which are more often managed by counties. For example, 83% of counties with recycling services responded that recycling of white goods (appliances) was available, while only 37% of cities did. Recycling of scrap metal and tires is also more common in counties.
For businesses, corrugated cardboard recycling is more likely to be available than any type of recycling other than newspaper. Recycling of aluminum, magazines, white paper, glass, and plastic is also available to businesses in more than half of Georgia's local government jurisdictions.
The table on page 11 lists selected recyclable materials and the percentage of local governments with recycling services collecting those items.

YARD TRIMMINGS MANAGEMENT
Promote Home Composting & Grasscycling
Require Separation of Yard Trimmings
Provide for Collection & Disposal of Yard Trimmings
Collection Options Staffed Drop-off Facilities Unstaffed Drop-off Facilities Curbside Collection Other
Processing Methods Composting Solid Waste Landfill Inert Landfill Grind/Chip into Mulch Other

COUNTY CITY
46 91
125 411 86 301
% 65 5 12 5 17 92 92
% 20 26 2 12 47 34 70 61 35

YARD TRIMMINGS MANAGEMENT
As of September 1, 1996, each city, county, and solid waste management authority must require separation of yard trimmings from solid waste before collection and keep those yard trimmings out of MSWLs with vertical expansions or with liners and leachate collection systems. According to survey responses, 79% of Georgia's local governments met the requirement. Of this group, 69% of counties and 73% of cities provided for collection and an alternative use or disposal of the yard trimmings in their jurisdictions.
More than 90% of the cities providing for yard trimmings collection picked them up at the curb. Among counties, the majority picked up yard trimmings through staffed drop-off facilities, but a significant portion used curbside collection. Most of these local governments processed their collected yard trimmings using the preferred methods listed in the legislation--63% chipped yard trimmings into mulch, and 24% composted the materials. More than a third of local governments simply diverted the yard trimmings from a solid waste landfill to an inert landfill after collection. Two counties and 35 cities reported disposing of their yard trimmings in a solid waste landfill.

12

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRACTICES

Overwhelmingly, Georgia cities (63%) and counties (60%) sent their municipal solid waste to publicly-owned landfills. Counties were more likely to own the landfill themselves (59%), while cities were more likely to send waste to a facility owned by another government (88%). From FY96 to FY97, local governments continued the trend of moving away from the use of public disposal facilities to private ones. Last year, 478 local governments used public landfills and 186 local governments used private landfills. This year, only 415 local governments disposed of waste in public landfills, and 195 local governments reported using private landfills. (Many local governments have traditionally reported using more than one type of disposal facility, accounting for the significant reduction in the use of public landfills without a corresponding increase in other areas.) A few governments used a waste-to-energy facility for MSW; employed air curtain destructors or biomedical waste incinerators for special wastes; or shipped their waste out of state.

Nine fewer governments reported owning MSWLs in FY97, following the downward trend since the

question was first asked on the survey in 1993. Many local governments now rely on transfer

stations, which allow individuals and small haulers to bring their waste to a centrally located facility

before it is transferred to a landfill, often in a different county. In FY97, 48 counties

(30%) and 16 cities (3%) operated transfer stations. Though the number of local governments operating transfer stations has almost doubled since 1993, only one county has been added since last year. Unexpectedly, three fewer cities reported operating transfer stations this year than in FY96.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OPERATING WASTE FACILITIES

COUNTY CITY

The accompanying table shows the number of local governments owning different types Transfer Stations of solid waste facilities. Though Georgia has only one MSW waste-to-energy facility, Materials Recovery Facilities
several local governments reported operating incinerators. These were air curtain Inert Waste Landfills

48 16 12 7 59 46

destructors, generally used to dispose of wood wastes, or biomedical waste incinerators. C&D Landfills

20 4

All counties and all but two cities operating MSWLs charged haulers, individuals, or MSW Landfills

59 11

other local governments for disposing of materials at their facilities. The average per ton Incinerators

22

charge, commonly called a tipping fee, was $25.70 at county-owned facilities and $27.49 at city-owned facilities. Local governments were less likely to charge disposal fees at

(Air Curtain Destructors or Biomedical Waste Incinerators)

transfer stations. Of the 16 cities operating transfer stations, only 3 (19%) reported

collecting a fee, at an average charge of $39.67 per ton. Forty of 48 counties (83%)

operating transfer stations charged fees, averaging $35.84 per ton. Since FY96, average tipping

fees increased by up to $5 in all categories except county landfills, which decreased by about $2.

13

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

SOLID WASTE HANDLING FACILITIES

While the number of Subtitle D landfills in Georgia has increased since 1996, the number of

facilities overall has decreased. This is consistent with the State's goal of closing unsafe landfills.

Because the newer landfills are more expensive to construct and
SOLID WASTE HANDLING FACILITIES* 1996 1997 difficult to site, they are generally built with greater capacity than

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLs) 101

Subtitle D and Lined**

35

Unlined

66

the old unlined landfills were. As a result, fewer landfills will be 95 required to meet the state's needs in the future. Of the MSWLs 39 operating in FY97, 80 were owned by local governments, and 15 56 were owned by private firms. Of the C&D landfills, 21 were

Construction & Demolition Landfills (C&Ds) 35 35 publicly owned, and 14 were owned by private firms.

Landfills That Ceased Receiving Waste

13

Industrial Solid Waste Handling Facilities: 75

Industrial Waste Landfills

59

12 The number of unlined MSWLs will decrease dramatically in FY98 because of a 1993 statute that required vertically expanded,
76 unlined landfills to cease accepting waste by July 1, 1998. Fifteen
57 of the 56 unlined MSWLs (or 27%) will be affected.

Industrial Waste Incinerators Other

5

6 Inert landfills, which are permit-by-rule facilities, accounted for

11 13 357 new facilities in FY97. These are often very small landfills at

Permit-by-Rule Facilities: Inert Landfills Transfer Stations

2,210 2,646 1,633 1,990
106 127

construction sites and are used only for the duration of a construction project. The types of waste that may be disposed of in inert landfills are limited to earth and earthlike products, concrete, cured asphalt, rocks, bricks, yard trimmings, and land

Collection Operations

352 398 clearing debris such as stumps, limbs, and leaves. Users of this

Other

119 131 type of disposal method are simply required to notify EPD; they

Waste-to-Energy Facility
Additional Facilities Materials Recovery Facilities MSW Composting Facilities

1

1 do not go through a full permitting process.

4

5 The significant increase in number of inert landfills was expected

2

3

because of the implementation of an open burning ban in May 1996. This ban prevents open burning of land-clearing debris in

2

2 the metro Atlanta area during the summer months. Increased

* Data provided by EPD.
** Subtitle D landfills are built to current Environmental Protection Agency requirements. Some lined landfills were built before the Subtitle D landfill regulations were completed and may not meet all of the requirements. In FY97, 26 of Georgia's landfills met Subtitle D requirements, compared with 22 in FY96.

development and/or an increase in reporting by developers could also have contributed to the growing number of facilities. The actual number of inert landfills may be lower than reported here because EPD may not always be notified of closure of these facilities.
Growth in the number of inert landfills is expected to slow in

FY98 because of a new EPD rule that limits the number of inert

landfills in new developments by requiring a 100-foot buffer zone between buried waste and enclosed

structures. The new rule became effective in August 1997.

The table above compares the number of different types of solid waste disposal facilities operating in Georgia as of June 30, 1996 and June 30, 1997.

14

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

REMAINING PERMITTED CAPACITY OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
FY97 growth in remaining capacity of Georgia's MSWLs and C&Ds slowed dramatically from the previous year. Last year, EPD reported a 42% increase in capacity over FY95. Growth from FY96 to FY97, however, was only 3%. In FY96, 85% of the state's landfills reported a total remaining capacity of 214,322,055 cubic yards. In FY97, 89% of the state's landfills reported a total of 220,424,639 cubic yards of remaining capacity. More than half of the increase can be attributed to the increased reporting rate. The remainder was generated by newly constructed and opened facilities.
The majority of the remaining capacity, 200,325,087 cubic yards, was in MSWLs. Of this amount, 189,047,290 cubic yards, or 94%, was in lined landfills.
The rate-of-fill grew more at a faster pace than capacity during the fiscal year. From FY96 to FY97, the rate-of-fill increased by 7%, from 51,133 to 54,631 cubic yards per day. During the previous fiscal year, the rate-of-fill grew by only 2%. Based on current data, the average Georgia landfill will fill in about 13 years.
Even with the required closure of 15 unlined MSWLs by July 1, 1998, the remaining capacity of Georgia's landfills will not be significantly affected. The combined remaining capacity of those 15 landfills is only 2,831,910 cubic yards, or 1% of MSWL remaining capacity. Furthermore, new landfills scheduled to open within the next year will more than offset the losses. As of June 30, 1997, 11 MSWLs and one C&D were under construction with a total capacity of 25,961,469 cubic yards, about 12% of current capacity. Though in the past much of the growth in landfill capacity has been attributed to private companies, it is interesting to note that local governments own all 12 facilities under construction at the end of FY97.
Appendix B shows the FY97 remaining permitted capacity and estimated fill dates of reporting sites.

REMAINING CAPACITY*
(MILLIONS YDS.3)

MSWLs (total) Lined MSWLs
C&Ds

200.33 189.05 20.10

Total**

220.42

* Information provided by EPD. ** Numbers do not equal total
because of rounding.

SOLID WASTE PUBLIC EDUCATION
In 1997, 53% of counties and 25% of municipalities reported having public education programs, 40 fewer governments than reported having programs last year. Of these programs, 66% of counties and 71% of cities reported being affiliates of Keep America Beautiful, Inc. (KAB). These affiliates are also supported by DCA's Keep Georgia Beautiful program, the state KAB affiliate. Most counties (93%) and cities (62%) with education programs contributed financial resources to educational efforts.

PUBLIC EDUCATION: ALBANY-DOUGHERTY COUNTY YARD TRIMMINGS PROGRAM
Keep Albany-Dougherty Beautiful (KADB), formerly the Albany-Dougherty Clean Community Commission, faced a monumental challenge in August of 1996--to educate their citizens in one month about a change in State law prohibiting the disposal of yard trimmings in most MSWLs. Previously, Albany residents had disposed of some of their yard trimmings with their household garbage. Now they needed to be informed that they could no longer commingle their yard trimmings with their household garbage. Nor could they place yard trimmings in plastic 90-gallon cans or plastic bags, but were required to pile their trimmings neatly by the curb for pickup.
In order to meet this challenge KADB developed a comprehensive educational

campaign. The campaign had several components, including public service announcements for local television and radio stations and notices in the local newspaper. KADB also generated informative door hangers and magnets that were distributed by the City Public Works Department to every customer. KADB staff made appearances on local television shows and spoke before civic organizations. Notices appeared in 37,000 utility bills and in the newsletters of many local companies.
With funding from the City of Albany's Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, KADB spent $23,109 on the materials for the campaign. The City spent an additional $36,374 in in-kind costs, such as staffing and equipment. All of the planning, time, and expense paid off in the end. The program has enjoyed a 90% participation rate since its beginning.

15

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SOLID WASTE EXPENDITURES

County

Population Group
100,000 and Above 50,000 - 99,999 25,000 - 49,999 15,000 - 24,999 10,000 - 14999 Less Than 10,000
All

City

50,000 and Above

25,000 - 49,999

10,000 - 24,999

5,000 - 9,999

2,500 - 4,999

1,000 - 2,499

500 - 999

499 or less

All

FULL COST REPORT

The Solid Waste Management Act requires each local government to calculate and publish its full cost of providing solid waste management services for the most recent fiscal period. When calculated correctly, full cost includes not only the solid waste budget, but also an allowance for postclosure care (if the government owns a landfill) and expenses for items that often are not charged directly to solid waste services in the budget, such as personnel administration or fleet management. Reported costs do not always include all of these elements.

Georgia's local governments reported a full cost of $363 million for solid waste services in 1997, up from $340 million in 1996. On a per capita basis, the full cost of solid waste management equaled $24.90 for counties and $74.52 for cities.

Georgia's 17 largest local governments accounted for 40% of total solid waste management expenditures and 45% of revenues. Fifty-seven counties with populations of 25,000 or more accounted for 78% of county expenditures and 80% of county revenues. Ninety-six cities with populations of 5,000 or more accounted for 84% of municipal expenditures and 87% of municipal revenues.

While the table below summarizes per capita costs for counties and municipalities of various sizes,

exact cost comparisons among governments are not possible for three primary reasons. First,

some counties may provide solid waste services to a limited population within their jurisdiction--

Average Number Expenditures $ Per Reporting ($ Millions) Capita

perhaps just the unincorporated areas and a few cities. However, when calculating per capita cost, total county population (rather than that of the limited service area) is used, deflating the per

11

7.01

23.09

capita cost. Second, governments provide

23

1.48

21.04

varying levels of solid waste services. Costs from

23

1.03

30.07

governments providing only minimal collection services are combined and compared with those

38

0.60

30.69

from governments providing more convenient

24

0.37

30.08

and frequent collection. Generally, munici-

40

0.23

35.02

palities offer more comprehensive collection

159

1.14

24.90

services than counties, driving up their

expenditures. Finally, survey respondents apply

6

10.12

72.60

varying methods to calculate the full cost of providing solid waste services. Though DCA

8

2.85

85.87

offers full cost accounting tools for local

34

1.29

83.47

governments, it is evident from the responses

48

0.53

75.89

that some simply list their solid waste budgets.

69

0.23

68.46

Their per capita costs will appear to be lower

94

0.08

57.17

than those for governments considering the true

81

0.02

38.70

full cost of providing services.

119

0.01

51.89

Counties and cities spent their solid waste dollars

459

0.35

74.52

somewhat differently in FY97. At 67% of total costs, collection services comprised the majority

of solid waste expenditures for municipalities.

Counties spent the largest portion of their solid waste dollars on disposal (61%). For all local

governments combined, collection was the costliest item at 51% of total costs, followed by disposal

(43%); recycling, composting and mulching (5%); and public education (1%). Though

municipalities serve only about 34% of the state's population, their total costs comprised 50% of

the state's full costs for solid waste management.

16

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Many local governments charge collection and tipping fees for their solid waste management services. (Refer to the Solid Waste Collection and Solid Waste Disposal sections of this report.) However, revenues did not cover all solid waste management expenditures. According to their full cost reports, cities recovered 91% of their operating costs through these fees, while counties recovered 74% of their costs through fees. Cities did a better job of covering their costs in 1997; in 1996, they recovered only 85% of their costs through fees. Counties recovered 78% of their costs last year.

Generally, the state's larger local governments recovered more of their costs than smaller

governments. Georgia's 11 largest counties recovered 74% of their costs through fees, the same as

the average for all counties. However, the 40 counties with populations of less than 10,000 recovered

only 34% of their solid waste expenditures through fees, relying heavily on general funds, special

taxes, and grants to cover costs. The six largest cities took in 11% more than their reported

costs through operating revenues, the first time a group has reported more operating revenues EXPENDITURES

than costs. Cities with populations of 5,000 or less recovered 80% of their reported costs BY SERVICE PROVIDED

through operating revenues.

(% OF TOTAL FULL COST) COUNTY CITY

For the first year, the survey asked local governments to report "other dedicated revenues" in Collection addition to operating fees. These revenue sources include ad valorem taxes, local option sales

35 67

taxes, and grants. By including the other dedicated revenues, cities recovered 97% of their Recycling

36

reported costs, and counties recovered 94%. The information shows that counties relied Disposal much more heavily on this type of funding source than cities. Other dedicated revenues contributed 21% of the total revenues for counties and only 6% of total revenues for cities. Public Ed.

61 26 11

The largest portion of county solid waste revenues came from disposal fees (59%), with collection fees also making up a significant portion (39%). For cities, where collection services are generally more comprehensive, collection fees contributed 83% of total solid waste revenues, with only 13% of revenues generated through disposal fees.

REVENUES BY SOURCE

(% OF TOTAL REVENUES) COUNTY CITY

Collection

39 83

Local governments have often cited cost as the primary obstacle to recycling and waste reduction Recycling

24

efforts. Though only a small percentage of solid waste expenditures goes toward recycling, an Disposal even smaller amount is recovered in revenues. In FY97, local governments reported spending $17.5 million on recycling, composting, and mulching--only slightly more than they Public Ed.

59 13 <1 <1

reported spending last year. They received $10.5 million in revenues from their efforts,

or 60% of their waste reduction expenditures. In FY96, local governments spent $17.2 million on

waste reduction activities and received about $6.5 million in recycling revenues, only 38% of their

waste reduction expenditures.

17

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

SOLID WASTE GRANTS AND LOANS MADE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT ASSISTANCE: DOOLY COUNTY PESTICIDE PROGRAM
In 1991, Dooly County became one of the first participants in the Department of Agriculture's pesticide container recycling program. The purpose of the program is to collect empty pesticide containers from local farmers and agribusinesses and then chip the plastic into recyclable pellets.
From the beginning, Dooly County has had the largest pesticide container recycling program in the state. According to The Final Rinse, a newsletter published by the Department of Agriculture, the County collects 25,000 containers a season.
As Dooly County's program has grown, it has sought assistance from several State sources. In 1996, the County received a grant from DNR to construct and equip a 6,000 square-foot storage shed to hold the pesticide containers prior to chipping. In 1997, Dooly County received a $76,500 GEFA grant that helped to expand the program. The grant paid for a knuckle-boom loader truck which allows the County to pick up the empty containers from local farmers, making the program more convenient. The GEFA grant also helped to construct a 106-inch thick concrete floor for the storage shed, which helps to prevent the pesticide containers from contaminating the ground.
All of these measures helped the program to increase its efficiency and capacity, build on its success, and remain a model for the rest of the state.

The State of Georgia assists local governments through grant and loan programs administered by several agencies. These agencies share information on project proposals submitted by local governments to ensure that State support is consistent with statewide solid waste priorities. Project proposals are also reviewed for consistency with local solid waste management plans.

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

Local Development

The LDF provides funding for a wide variety of local government

Fund (LDF)

initiatives. In fiscal year 1997, one LDF grant of $8,123 funded a

solid waste management activity.

Local Government Efficiency Grants (LGEG)

The LGEG program was established in 1993 by the Georgia General Assembly to encourage consolidation of local governments and/or local government services. Though 16 of these grants have supported solid waste management projects over the past three years, none of the FY97 awards addressed solid waste issues. LGEG will not continue in FY98.

GEORGIA ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY

Recycling and Waste

This grant program assisted 57 local governments

Reduction Grant Program with recycling and solid waste reduction in FY97. The awards

totaled $4,027,600, funding projects such as recycling facili-

ties; recycling and composting public information programs;

recycling collection and processing equipment; and establish-

ment of variable rate collection programs. Using monies trans-

ferred from the Solid Waste Trust Fund, the FY97 program dis-

tributed to local governments more waste reduction assistance

dollars than ever before.

Low Interest Loans

GEFA makes low interest loans available to cities, counties, and local government authorities to fund environmental infrastructure needs. These loans help communities position themselves to attract economic development and help relieve the financial burden required to meet stringent State and federal environmental standards. In FY97, GEFA loaned $1,068,000 to two local governments for landfill construction and consolidation of recycling facility debt.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

Scrap Tire

This grant program helps communities develop scrap tire en-

Management Grants

forcement programs and related education efforts such as scrap

tire recycling, prevention of scrap tire piles, and cleanup of scrap

tire piles. Grants are funded through a $1 fee assessed on new

tires sold within the state. Participating governments provide a

25% cash match. In FY97, 88 local governments received

$2,396,750 for scrap tire pile cleanups and recycling events. An

additional $710,500 was distributed to 22 local governments for

scrap tire enforcement and education.

For a complete list of solid waste grant and loan recipients, see Appendix C.

18

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

SWM EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE STRATEGIES

Public education is a key component of the State's solid waste reduction effort. The Act states 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" {O.C.G.A. 12-8-21(b)}. In FY97, Georgia's State agencies continued several strategies for educating citizens, local governments, and businesses on proper solid waste management:

INVOLVE GEORGIA

The seventh annual "Bring One for the Chipper" Christmas Tree Recycling Program, held in 123 cities and counties in January

CITIZENS IN PROPER 1997, collected 334,841 Christmas trees at 285 sites. Participation

SOLID WASTE

increased despite the greater availability of curbside collection of

MANAGEMENT

yard trimmings brought by the ban on yard trimmings at most

ACTIVITIES THROUGH Georgia landfills. Working with private sponsors, DCA's Keep

SPECIAL EVENTS.

Georgia Beautiful program (formerly Georgia Clean and Beautiful)

coordinated the event and provided publicity tools and tree

seedlings to participating communities.

Governor Zell Miller declared the week of April 20-26, 1997, "Let's Keep Georgia Peachy Clean Week." The second annual statewide cleanup attracted the involvement of 350 communities and groups, nearly triple the involvement of the 1996 effort. The 7,586 volunteers cleaned 1,140 roadside miles, 30 acres of vacant lots, and 43 illegal dumps. They contributed more than 21,000 hours to the effort. The Georgia Peachy Clean Team--composed of the Georgia Departments of Community Affairs, Natural Resources, Public Safety, and Transportation, the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority, and the state's local KAB affiliates--coordinated the event and provided supplies.

REACH RESIDENTS BY SUPPORTING THE STATE'S 55 LOCAL KAB AFFILIATES.

DCA's Keep Geogia Beautiful program provided ongoing support to local KAB systems through two executive directors' conferences. A September 1996 conference provided up-to-date environmental information for 45 attendees, as well as a new coordinator training session taught by staff of Keep America Beautiful, Inc. A February 1997 meeting, attended by 27 executive directors, provided professional development training.

A third conference, held in May 1997, offered training in board development, volunteer management, and fundraising for more than a hundred KAB executive directors and local board chairpersons and members. The program included presentations by the national KAB president, president-elect, and chairman of the national KAB communications committee.
Keep Georgia Beautiful and P2AD participated in the Metro Atlanta KAB Partnership, which was formed to provide a unified voice for solid waste public education in the metro Atlanta area. The City of Atlanta, the Atlanta Regional Commission, and various corporations also support the Partnership, which spent FY97 organizing and planning activities for the upcoming year.

Fayette County and Valdosta/Lowndes County joined the KAB system by completing pre-certification training in February 1997.

In March 1997, at an awards luncheon funded entirely by corporate sponsors, Keep Georgia Beautiful recognized 52 organizations and five individuals for outstanding recycling, composting, and environmental improvement efforts. For the first time, the annual awards program featured a $1,000 scholarship from the Keep Georgia Beautiful Foundation for the Student of the Year.

THE CHIPPER
COLLECTED MORE THAN
300,000 CHRISTMAS TREES
IN 1997.

19

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

RAISE AWARENESS OF PROPER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AMONG GEORGIA RESIDENTS THROUGH MASS MEDIA CAMPAIGNS.

Georgia's Peachy Clean Team continued its "Let's Keep Georgia Peachy Clean" campaign, in which three public service announcements focused on changing behaviors and attitudes about littering. The first spot, filmed in an urban setting, encouraged residents to show pride in the state by not littering. The second, featuring Georgia media personality LeRoy Powell, reminded viewers they probably would not litter "if their Mama was watchin'." The third spot featured heavyweight boxing champion Evander Holyfield at "Camp Evander," teaching children not to litter. The spots aired on cable stations throughout Georgia in purchased and contributed time slots. Additionally, the Georgia Association of Broadcasters selected the campaign to receive donated airtime on its network of 217 radio stations and 25 television stations in Georgia. The donated ads were supplemented with paid time slots. Corresponding posters and print advertisements reinforced the Peachy Clean message.
For the second year, many of Georgia's mayors and county commissioners recorded public service announcements with litter and waste reduction messages for their local radio stations. The messages encouraged people not to litter, reminding them of the yard trimmings ban, and promoting waste reduction and buying recycled products. DCA provided a recording technician and scripts at meetings of the municipal and county associations. Portions recorded by participating local officials were then combined with portions recorded by a professional announcer. The resulting localized PSAs were distributed to appropriate media outlets.

OFFER TRAINING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND INFORMATION TO ASSIST LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS THEY IMPLEMENT WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAMS.

DCA's waste management staff provided ongoing technical assistance to Georgia's local governments during FY97. Focal areas included local and regional recycling and education programs, yard trimmings management, and variable rate collection systems.
A January Pay-As-You-Throw Workshop, held in Athens, was organized by the International City/County Managers Association and the US Environmental Protection Agency. The workshop offered 130 participants--about 85 from Georgia--lessons in setting up and maintaining a variable rate solid waste collection program. DCA assisted with workshop promotion and planning.
DCA prepared a list of Georgia communities with pay-as-you-throw programs as well as a short case study on each. The list was regularly provided to communities interested in implementing similar programs. DCA staff also assisted communities already in the process of implementing pay-as-you-throw programs. For example, in assisting Montgomery County with a weight-based rate program, staff met with county officials; provided information; facilitated a conference call with a national expert and a Georgia recycling coordinator with a similar program; and prepared a press release to announce program implementation.
DCA staff also visited with solid waste management staff and local elected officials in the City of Hartwell and the City of Covington/Newton County to provide general recycling and pay-as-youthrow assistance.
To encourage regional recycling, DCA staff facilitated communication and provided information for Clayton, Spalding, and Monroe counties.
Two Recycling Program Development Training workshops in May and June were attended by 80 recycling coordinators from local governments, military bases, colleges and universities, and private companies. Each workshop offered training for both beginning and experienced coordinators. DCA and the Georgia Recycling Coalition served as primary sponsors. (See the case study on page 21.)
Prior to the September 1996 ban on yard trimmings from most MSW landfills, DCA prepared an informational packet, including a summary of the law's requirements and a sample local ordinance. After the packet was distributed to all local governments, DCA responded by phone, fax, or mail to more than 200 local government requests for yard trimmings management assistance. DCA also prepared and distributed a Tools for More Effective Local Government publication on managing yard trimmings.

20

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

DCA staff and representatives of the University of Georgia's Cooperative Extension Service consulted with Fort Benning on yard trimmings management issues including proper site selection and preparation for composting of yard trimmings. As a result, Fort Benning began an innovative program of composting paper that no longer had a recycling market along with the base's yard trimmings.
In the fall of 1996, DCA published the first issue of its quarterly waste reduction newsletter, The Waste Stream Journal. The newsletter supplies news and ideas on waste reduction, waste minimization, and litter abatement. It informs more than 2,000 local government officials, recycling coordinators, and businesses and individuals of the solid waste management programs and training opportunities offered by the State.

PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR GENERAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES FACED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

DCA's waste management staff also provided ongoing technical assistance to local governments in their overall solid waste management efforts, including full-cost accounting, solid waste related ordinances and contracts, and disposal options.
DCA staff assisted with ordinance preparation for two local governments during FY97, including a yard trimmings disposal ordinance for the City of Covington and revision of an existing ordinance on litter, illegal dumping, and trash

collection for White County.

DCA staff worked with several local governments as they explored new solid waste disposal

options. In White County, information was provided to local officials who were considering

allowing a private company to operate a newly constructed, county-owned transfer station. In Worth County, officials had decided not to build a new landfill upon closure of the existing landfill. Staff provided information on other disposal options. DCA also assisted Atkinson

County, where the local government was experiencing financial difficulties due to its costly

Subtitle D landfill operations. Staff prepared budgets, developed a procurement system, and explored new ways of collecting accounts payable to help the County.

In June 1997, DCA began a series of workshops to help local governments and RDCs begin

preparing updates to the short term work programs of their solid waste plans. The first

workshop, held in Valdosta, reached RDC planning directors and staff from the southern half

of the state.

As a sponsor of KAB's Waste in Place and Waste: A Hidden

TRAIN AND OFFER

Resource curricula, DCA's Keep Georgia Beautiful program

SUPPORT TO GEORGIA'S schedules, publicizes, coordinates, and funds teacher training

TEACHERS AS THEY

workshops throughout the state. During the 1997 fiscal year,

EDUCATE THE STATE'S YOUTH ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

DCA provided training and curriculum guides to 176 classroom teachers, educational specialists, and administrators who have in turn taught an estimated 7,040 students.
DCA began publishing a semi-annual newsletter for teachers

who had successfully completed training in either KAB

curriculum. The newsletter offers resources and ideas for

teaching about the environment, particularly waste reduction

and litter issues. It also provides notices of Keep Georgia

Beautiful programs and a calendar of events related to solid

waste management. About 400 teachers receive the

educational updates.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: RECYCLING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TRAINING
In its role as a technical assistance provider to local governments, DCA sponsored two recycling program development training workshops in 1997. About 80 recycling coordinators and local government representatives attended sessions in Tifton and Athens during May and June of last year.
Each session offered two tracks, one for participants seeking to begin a program and one for participants with established programs. The beginning track offered seminar topics on setting objectives, targeting materials, setting up collection systems, and finding markets for recovered materials. The more advanced participants received information on challenges to existing programs, processing, writing contracts and ordinances, and other topics of interest.
The two groups came together to hear presentations on topics of general interest, including public education and environmental regulation. This allowed individuals who were just setting up programs to network and learn from experienced recycling coordinators.
In addition to the information presented in the workshops, participants received training manuals with extensive information on each subject covered and other topics not discussed in the training. Participants also received copies of the Recycling Markets Directory and the Recycling Coordinators Directory for the state.

21

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

SUPPORT RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT BY ENCOURAGING BUSINESSES AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS MADE FROM RECYCLED MATERIALS AND BY PROMOTING INVESTMENT IN GEORGIA RECYCLING COMPANIES.
MINIMIZE THE GROWING WASTE STREAM GENERATED BY GEORGIA'S THRIVING ECONOMY WITH PROGRAMS AIMED AT BUSINESSES AND INDUSTRIES.

After producing a successful Buy Recycled Conference and Exposition in FY96, representatives from State and federal agencies, the Georgia Recycling Coalition, and several private companies continued seeking ways to promote recycled product procurement in Georgia. The Buy Recycled Committee includes: DCA, EPD, P2AD, GEFA, the Georgia Building Authority (GBA), the Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS), the US General Services Administration, US Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA), the Georgia Recycling Coalition, The CocaCola Company, Rock-Tenn Company, and the Southern Company.
With the nonprofit Georgia Recycling Coalition as the lead applicant, the State agency members of the Buy Recycled Committee applied for and received a $50,000 grant from EPA to host a Buy Recycled Conference and Exposition in Georgia. While most of the planning occurred during FY97, the conference was held in the first quarter of FY98.
The Buy Recycled Committee also supported a one-day Buy Recycled Workshop sponsored by the US Conference of Mayors and EPA during November 1997.
DCA promoted the Southeast Recycling Investment Forum held in Charleston, S.C., in February 1997. Three Georgia companies attended the forum to present their business plans to potential investors. The Forum provided the companies training and investment contacts for expanding their operations. It also educated investors from the region about money-making opportunities in the recycling industry.
P2AD provides waste reduction technical assistance to Georgia businesses, industry, and institutions. Staff engineers and technical experts respond to requests with information from the division's library or from other outside sources, including the World Wide Web. Where more extensive help is desired by the business, a staff engineer or a team of engineers assesses a company's waste streams and identifies costs and benefits of various waste reduction and recycling options. In FY97, P2AD responded to 567 requests for technical assistance, with the majority coming from businesses and industry (45%), consultants (19%), and government (18%).
P2AD sponsored pollution prevention workshops during the year for printers, metal finishers, wood furniture manufacturers, and the carpet industry. P2AD also gave general pollution prevention and waste reduction education to businesses and governments by providing speakers for 66 different events and workshops.
DCA and P2AD worked with local representatives to conduct a Waste in the Workplace workshop in Rome in January 1997. The morning-long seminar focused on waste reduction and buy recycled activities. Company representatives learned to conduct waste audits at their businesses and were introduced to recycling resources in their community.
During FY97, P2AD and several partners were awarded an EPA Jobs Through Recycling (JTR) grant to conduct an 18-month demonstration project to establish a sustainable industrial recycling network within the City of Atlanta. This project will serve as a model for establishing similar networks throughout the state. The project will match up available industrial by-products with industrial feedstock needs. JTR partners are P2AD; DCA; the Georgia Department of Industry, Trade, and Tourism; Georgia Tech's Economic Development Institute (EDI); and the University of Georgia's Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department.
During FY97, P2AD and EDI initiated a series of regional environmental networks around the state. These networks are geographically based from 12 EDI field offices and meet several times a year to discuss environmental issues of interest to the businesses in that area. These networks will eventually be used to set up regional recycling and reuse opportunities in cooperation with State and local governments, local businesses, the manufacturing industry, and Department of Defense facilities.

22

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

In its quarterly newsletter From the Source, P2AD publishes program announcements, case studies, pollution prevention informational articles, and a list of upcoming events. The newsletter is circulated to over 5,300 persons. Recipients include manufacturing industry representatives, government officials, businesses, and citizens.

While Georgia hosted the world for the Centennial Olympic Games, the Georgia Hospitality

Environmental Partnership (GHEP) assisted the hospitality industry in minimizing the solid

waste generated by the influx of visitors. GHEP, DCA's resource management program for Georgia's

hospitality and travel industry, continued to work with its pilot waste reduction program at the

Westin Peachtree Plaza in downtown Atlanta. The program generated a $1,300 monthly benefit

to the hotel while consistently diverting up to 20% of the hotel's waste from landfills. During

FY97, GHEP assisted 11 hotel properties in metro Atlanta, one on St. Simon's Island, one on

Jekyll Island, and one in Augusta-Richmond County. Additionally, GHEP staff gave presentations

to two Atlanta hospitality groups, the American Hotel & Motel Association annual conference,

and an EPA Region 4 Indian Nations solid waste workshop. GHEP partners include EPA, Region

4; UGA Cooperative Extension Service; Georgia Hospitality & Travel Association; DCA; Keep

Georgia Beautiful; EPD; P2AD; Department Of Industry, Trade And Tourism; GEFA; Atlanta

Convention and Visitors Bureau; Metro Atlanta Chamber Of Commerce; and the City Of Atlanta,

. Solid Waste Services.

The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act requires State

LEAD BY EXAMPLE

agencies to set up recycling programs in State-owned buildings

IN RECYCLING AND

{O.C.G.A. 12-8-36}. The program illustrates State government's

RECYCLED PRODUCT commitment to recycling and serves as an example for other levels

PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS.

of government and private companies. GBA, coordinator of the effort, reported recycling 4,384 tons of recyclables in the 1997 fiscal year. The program recycles four grades of paper (99% of

materials recycled) and aluminum cans. Recyclables are collected

from State agencies in 120 facilities within a 30-mile radius of the

State Capitol, as well as from selected facilities in Athens, Augusta,

Carrollton, Dahlonega, Macon, and Milledgeville.

DOAS reports that State government spent $8,864,208 on recycled content products in FY97. Although the dollars spent on DOAS contracts for recycled office paper fell from the previous fiscal year, agencies increased their purchases of recycled tissue paper, retreaded tires, compost and mulch, and plastic lumber products. The agency hopes that recent updates to the recycled paper mandate will boost the recycled paper purchases once again.

State law in 1997 required that all state agencies purchase an annual aggregate of 50% recycled fibers in all printing and writing papers. That means that agencies were able to buy printing and writing papers with varying recycled fiber contents, but at the end of the fiscal year, 50% of the paper fibers had to be recycled fiber. Although this was a challenging goal, 18 agencies met the 50% requirement. DOAS recognized those agencies by mailing certificates to the purchasing offices and by listing the agencies in statewide publications.

DOAS reported several advances in the procurement of recycled and environmentally-preferable products by State agencies during FY97. DOAS' Surplus and Supply improved the number and quality of remanufactured toner cartridges they make available to State agencies. State Purchasing developed model contract terms and conditions for agencies to use in securing fluorescent lamp and ballast recycling services. State Purchasing also distributed its Georgia Vendor Manual to all of the State's registered vendors via the Internet and 25,000 remanufactured diskettes. DOAS staff educated State agency purchasers on the purchase of recycled products at two presentations during FY97. Regular editions of Recycled Product Purchasing Quarterly, which cites general and technical information about resource efficient products, were sent to State procurement offices. DOAS also included articles about State agency recycled product purchasing efforts in Info-line, a publication sent to all State agency heads.

P2AD TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: CORNERSTONE MFG.
Reducing the waste they generate is a primary way that companies can decrease their expenses and help the environment at the same time. With help from P2AD, Cornerstone Manufacturing of Sycamore did just that.
Cornerstone produces fireplace fronts, hearths, and wood mantles for the manufactured home industry. The finishing process for the mantles includes an application of a wood sealer. The sealer was being purchased in five-gallon pails, from which the mantles were spray coated. Daily sealer usage averaged 32.5 gallons per day, representing 6.5 supply changes. This operation generated 1,625 five-gallon empty steel pails annually. The empty pails were sent to a landfill with other solid waste.
Cornerstone purchased and installed equipment to mix and spray the sealer from 55 gallon drums. Purchasing the sealer in bulk reduced the price by 30 cents per gallon, and the supplier agreed to take back the drums for reuse at no cost. Installation of the new equipment cost $1,800. This change will reduce the company's solid waste stream annually by 40.23 cubic yards and will save the company approximately $5,088 per year in waste management fees, material costs, and labor.

23

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
Several important issues are expected to affect Georgia's system of solid waste management in the coming years. They fall under the categories of planning, research, public education, funding, and environmental regulations.
PLANNING
The Board of Community Affairs and the Board of Natural Resources adopted a new Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan in the fall of 1997. The new plan, which was the first revision of the 1990 plan, reflects lessons learned during the previous seven years as it guides SWM efforts over the next five years. Three major shifts in direction form its basis: the evolving role of local governments in the SWM field and the resultant changing need for State assistance; the State's expanding ability to work with the commercial and industrial sectors on waste reduction; and improved methods for monitoring, reporting, and tracking waste reduction progress. Just as the State revisited its plan, local governments will be taking a second look at their plans in FY98 and FY99. As they update their short term work programs, they will reevaluate their priorities based on accomplishments to date; changes in solid waste facility ownership and location; the economic aspects of solid waste management; and shifts in local policies. As part of the renewed emphasis on planning, DCA initiated an annual award to recognize exemplary local government solid waste planning and plan implementation. The first award was presented in March 1998 to Hall County and the cities of Clermont, Gainesville, Gillsville, Oakwood, and Flowery Branch. DCA hopes the award will encourage excellence in maintaining and executing local government solid waste management plans in the future.
RESEARCH
Additional planning will be fueled by research expected to be complete during FY99. P2AD used a 1996 survey of landfill operators to identify five significant non-residential solid waste streams: wood waste, construction and demolition waste, food processing waste, textile fibrous waste, and municipal biosolids. With assistance from the University of Georgia (UGA), P2AD is conducting a characterization of each of the waste streams, except for municipal biosolids, which will be initiated during FY99. The full reports will identify generation trends, current management options, impediments to recycling/reduction, and market availability. P2AD will use the information to assess areas where markets do not exist or need expanding and to identify technology voids for certain materials. The first report will address wood waste and will be issued in the fall of 1998. Another area of research will seek to increase agricultural utilization of municipal, industrial, and agricultural by-products. P2AD's recycling market development efforts and solid waste pollution prevention efforts will be closely coordinated with the activities of the UGA's Centers for Bioconversion and By-Product Utilization. These centers seek to develop value-added products from wastes that can be used as industrial feedstocks or soil amendments.
24

Georgia Department of Community Affairs
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Georgia's state affiliate of Keep America Beautiful, Inc., Georgia Clean and Beautiful, changed its name to Keep Georgia Beautiful during FY98. The 1990 Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act gave DCA responsibility for educating the public on solid waste issues. As a program of DCA, Keep Georgia Beautiful is the primary vehicle for fulfilling that requirement. Along with the name change came a new mission statement:
It is the mission of Keep Georgia Beautiful to build and sustain community environmental activities and behaviors that will result in a more beautiful Georgia. Keep Georgia Beautiful also unveiled a new logo and during the remainder of 1998 will celebrate its 20th year.
Two new DCA-sponsored initiatives to educate the general public will also appear in future reports of State solid waste management efforts. The first Georgia Recycles Day was held in conjunction with America Recycles Day on November 15, 1997. Citizens from around the state participated in locally organized Recycles Day events, resulting in more than 10,200 pledges to recycle more and increase purchases of recycled products. About 240 local governments, communities, and civic organizations participated in the first event. Georgia Recycles Day will be celebrated annually on November 15. DCA has contracted with the Georgia Recycling Coalition to coordinate the 1998 event.
The second new initiative is a mass media campaign promoting waste reduction among Georgia residents. Expected to get underway during FY99, the campaign will be funded by the State's Solid Waste Trust Fund. It will be DCA's largest attempt to reach Georgia residents directly since the Department was given responsibility for public education.
FUNDING FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Most of the State's solid waste management efforts are funded by the Solid Waste Trust Fund. Managed by EPD, this fund is financed by a $1 fee paid at the time of purchase of any new tire bought in Georgia. It generates approximately $6 million annually.
During the 1997 session of the General Assembly, conflicting bills were introduced, one to end prematurely the dollar fee and the other to extend collection of the fee past its current sunset date of June 30, 2000. The need for the fee was debated because EPD has largely completed the task of cleaning up large scrap tire piles in the state, one of the primary purposes for establishing the Fund.
In 1998, the House of Representatives passed a resolution to give direction until a conclusion is reached. The resolution directed EPD and P2AD to research topics such as economically feasible ways of recycling high volumes of tires and economic incentives for reusing or recycling tires. As a result, EPD and P2AD contracted with Georgia State University to write a report on options for recycling and reusing tires, as well as ways of controlling and funding scrap tire recycling and disposal. According to the House Resolution, conclusions of this study will be used to determine, before the scheduled sunset date, whether or not the fee should continue and, if so, how it should be used.
In the absence of this funding source for solid waste management grants and activities, other sources will have to be identified to continue current levels of service provided by the agencies.
25

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

DEALING WITH LANDFILL CLOSURE AND CONTAMINATION: ATHENSCLARKE COUNTY
Many local governments are learning that closing a landfill can be as expensive as constructing and operating one because it often involves solving groundwater contamination and methane gas problems. For example, in 1997, Athens-Clarke County (ACC) faced closing a landfill with a plume of contaminated groundwater spreading to residential areas--and a community of angry citizens to go along with it.
After the contamination problem was identified, ACC attempted to increase the buffer zone and purchase the affected land. Property owners resisted, though, despite offers well above fair market value. Residents felt the problem could be solved by installing a water-resistant cap (problems were most severe after heavy rainfall) and increasing groundwater and sub-soil monitoring.
DCA funded the services of a facilitator to assist citizens in articulating their concerns and to mediate during the negotiation process. A technical advisor was also hired to provide the affected citizens with a better understanding of the situation and to submit a report to EPD regarding possible contamination risks, independent of a report filed on behalf of ACC.
The citizens' advisor suggested that ACC monitor the plume on an ongoing basis and acquire properties only if a clearly defined health risk arose. The citizens' advisor and ACC's advisor agreed that there was no current health risk. With approval from EPD, however, ACC went ahead with the property acquisition to curtail potential health risks and the associated liability.
ACC acquired 10 parcels of land and began corrective measures include intrinsic remediation and bioremediation for plume management, clay capping, and installation of a gas collection and treatment system. The estimated cost for ACC's closure and corrective measures is in excess of $10 million.

REPERCUSSIONS OF LANDFILL REGULATIONS
Four regulatory issues may greatly impact the number of landfills in the state and the cost to owners of both operational and closed landfills:
The number of unlined MSWLs will decrease dramatically in FY98 because of a 1993 statute that requires vertically expanded, unlined landfills to cease accepting waste by July 1, 1998. Fifteen of the 56 unlined landfills (or 27%) will be affected. Though the closures will have limited impact on overall capacity, they may leave some local governments scrambling for resources to haul their waste further.
Growth in the number of inert landfills is expected to slow in FY98 because of a new EPD rule that limits the number of inert landfills in new developments by requiring a 100-foot buffer zone between buried waste and any property line or enclosed structures. The new rule went into effect in August 1997.
The methane gas produced by landfills as wastes slowly decompose within them is a problem that does not disappear when a landfill closes. The gas can build up within landfills and migrate through the soil. Landfill gas migration can lead to explosive concentrations of gas in basements, sewer manholes, and other buried structures, and it can contribute to groundwater contamination.
EPD rules require landfill operators to monitor levels of methane gas. If the level of gas exceeds 5% by volume (the lower explosive limit [LEL] for methane) in soils at the facility property boundary, the facility is considered to be out of compliance. In those cases, the owners must demonstrate that methane is not migrating beyond the property boundary. If such a demonstration cannot be made, the owners must remediate the gas migration by purchasing the affected land and containing the plume; intercepting the migration with a low permeability trench; drilling vents in the landfill to allow escape of the gas into the atmosphere; or installing extraction wells to actively remove gas from the landfill. All of these options are expensive, particularly for owners of closed landfills, which no longer have a revenue source. Remedial measures must also be conducted if methane exceeds 5% of the LEL in facility structures.
In 1997, 78 landfills reported methane exceedances at compliance boundaries and/or structures, and actions to lower methane levels were underway at 54 of the contaminated sites.

26

Georgia Department of Community Affairs
Georgia MSWL operators must provide and maintain systems to monitor levels of chemicals released into the groundwater. Though the costs vary greatly depending on the size of the landfill, owners incur costs ranging from $6,000 to $40,000 per year to analyze groundwater samples and report the resulting data. This is in addition to the initial installation cost, which can range from $50,000 to $150,000. If the groundwater has been impacted by the landfill, the landfill owner must cover costs to determine the nature and extent of contamination; determine the appropriate corrective measures; select a remedy; and implement the remedy. As of July 1997, no municipal landfills in Georgia had cleaned up contaminated groundwater under State rules (some problems regulated under the federal Superfund have been addressed). EPD estimates that returning MSWLs to compliance status will cost $250,000 to $1 million per site. This includes the cost of groundwater cleanup, provision of potable water supply, and continued monitoring. An issue paper prepared for EPD in 1997 summarizes the resulting problems for many of Georgia's local governments: Counties and cities across the State of Georgia operated landfills for many years as a service to the residents in their jurisdictions. The landfills seldom provided enough revenue to cover the expense of operating a site with today's environmental monitoring and financial responsibility requirements. The counties and cities that have operated the landfills now face closure of the unlined facilities, and therefore a reduction in revenue will follow. Many of the owners across the State of Georgia now must finance expensive groundwater investigation and cleanup activities. Although the [Hazardous Site Response Act] program of the EPD has delegated dollars for assisting with the expenses incurred addressing contaminated groundwater, the available money will not be sufficient to relieve the financial hardships created by the landfills. At the end of 1997, 206 landfills had approved groundwater monitoring systems (this includes active and closed facilities). Of these, 91 landfills had found contamination and were performing groundwater assessments.
W hile the State is making progress in the areas of planning, public education, and environmental regulations, future efforts could be hindered if funding sources are not sustained or created to finance current and future efforts. Further, the growing realization that all aspects of environmental management are intertwined (consider the impact landfills have on both groundwater and air quality, for example) suggests that State policy makers and agencies should widen their focus. Rather than treating seemingly separate environmental problems as isolated areas, their interdependence should be recognized. Efforts in all areas of environmental management, regulation and education must work together to minimize the impact of human activities on the environment.
27

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report
APPENDIX A: GOVERNMENTS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SWM ACT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT SUBMITTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS
City of Cumming City of Georgetown City of Grantville City of Greenville City of Haralson City of Jasper City of Lithia Springs City of Lone Oak City of Moreland City of Nelson City of Offerman City of Pine Lake City of Sharpsburg City of Talking Rock City of Turin Pickens County
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT RESPONDING TO 1997 SOLID WASTE SURVEY AND FULL COST REPORT
City of Buena Vista City of Concord City of Corinth City of Damascus City of Enigma City of Ludowici City of Nelson City of Pavo City of Rest Haven City of Summertown City of Toomsboro
28

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

APPENDIX B: REMAINING LANDFILL CAPACITY

Facility
Appling Co-Roaring Creek PH 1&2 (SL) Atkinson Co-SR 50 (MSWL) Central State Hospital-Freeman Bldg (L) Baldwin Co-Union Hill Ch Rd, PH 3 (MSWL) Chambers R&B Landfill, Inc. (SL) Republic Waste-Oak Grove (MSWL) SR324 Bartow Co-SR 294 Emerson (SL) PH 1 (C&D) Bartow Co-SR 294 Emerson (MSWL) PH 2 Fitzgerald, Kiochee Church Rd, PH 2 (SL) Macon-Walker Rd PH 2 (SL) Swift Creek Landfill (L) Swift Creek MSW Landfill (SL) Statesboro-Lakeview Rd (SL) Burke Co-Clarke Rd (SL) Butts Co-Brownlee Rd (SL) Butts Co-Pine Ridge Recycling (MSWL) Camden Co-SR 110 (MSWL) Candler Co-SR 121 Phase 2 (C&D) Candler Co-SR 121 Phase 2 (MSWL) Carrollton-SR 166 (SL) Catoosa Co-SR 151 W Exp (SL) Charlton Co-Chesser Island Rd (SL) Superior Sanitation, Little Neck Rd, PH 2 (MSWL) Savannah-Dean Forest Rd (SL) Clifton Equipment Rental Company, Inc. (L) Chatham Co-Thomas Ave (L) Chatham Co-Sharon Park (L) Chatham Co-Chevis Rd (L) Ft. Benning - 1st Division Rd. (SL) Cherokee Co-Sanifill/Pine Bluff Landfill, Inc. (SL) Cherokee Co-Swims-SR 92 PH 4 (L) Clarke Co-Dunlap Rd (SL) PH 2,3, & 4 Clarke Co-Dunlap Rd (SL), PH 1 Clayton Co-SR 3 Lovejoy Site # 3 (SL) Chambers-Oakdale Rd/I-285 (L) Cobb Co-County Farm Rd #2 Phs 1-2-3 (L) Cobb Co-Cheatham Rd PH 2 (SL) Coffee Co-CR 129/17 Mile River (SL) Columbia Co-Baker Place Rd (SL), PH 2 Cook Co-Taylor Rd Adel PH 1 (SL) Cook Co-Taylor Rd Adel (L)

County
Appling Atkinson Baldwin Baldwin
Banks Barrow Bartow Bartow Ben Hill
Bibb Bibb Bibb Bulloch Burke Butts Butts Camden Candler Candler Carroll Catoosa Charlton Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chatham Chattahoochee Cherokee Cherokee Clarke Clarke Clayton Cobb Cobb Cobb Coffee Columbia Cook Cook

FY97
Tons
12,901 6,462
326 27,590 79,736 376,837 11,814 98,764 28,152 94,052 67,876 75,658 91,963 17,762 10,739 24,149 60,049 21,002 8,479
91 118,956 30,104 352,644 74,613 69,597 15,361
6,207 4,810 19,433 278,333 75,919 58,126 42,608 89,134 111,839 36,467 4,920 58,472 62,610 20,675*

Remaining Capacity (Yds3)
73,832 NR
55,384 3,189,000
27,925 3,883,407
252,000 408,000 791,334 2,250,000 784,861 3,973,055
0 68,174
0 NR 3,224,223 12,334 580,577
0 358,156 122,017 7,926,465 1,175,065 234,655 23,400
4,050 4,500 12,000 41,364,400 58,000 2,362,572
0 4,563,994
179,060 137,154
8,639 11,750 940,739 150,000 197,762

Estimated
Closure Date
8/1/99 NR
8/21/58 12/30/56 11/1/97
1/1/03 1/1/07 4/1/00 3/1/12 6/20/07 10/15/02 4/26/20 In-closure 7/1/99 In-closure
NR 5/1/21 9/30/97 4/9/28 In-closure 6/30/98 4/1/99 1/1/14 10/20/04 7/1/98 7/1/98 4/1/98 4/1/98 10/31/97 5/1/56 7/1/98 12/31/07 In-closure 1/29/23 12/1/97 5/17/99 6/30/98 7/1/98 2/10/05 7/1/98 1/1/58

29

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report
Facility
Cordele-US 41 S PH 2 (SL) Dawson Co-Shoal Hole Rd (SL) Decatur Co-SR 309 Bainbridge PH 2 (SL) APAC/GA-Donzi Ln PH 5a & 5b (L) Land Reclamation-Rogers Lake Rd (C&D) DeKalb Co-Seminole Rd PH 2 (SL) WMI-Live Oak #2 (SL) BFI-Hickory Ridge (MSWL) DeKalb Co-East DeKalb Scales Rd (C&D) Phillips-Scales Rd C&D (L) Dodge Co-CR 274 (Dodge Ave) Eastman (SL) Dooly Co-CR 101 (SL) Dougherty Co-Fleming/Gaissert Rd (SL) Maple Hill Landfill, Inc. (L) Douglas Co-Cedar Mt/Worthan Rd PH 1 (SL) Effingham Co-SR 17 Guyton (SL) Elbert Co.- Hull Chapel Rd PH 1 (SL) Emanuel Co-SR 297 Swainsboro (SL) Evans Co-Sikes Branch Claxton (L) Fayette Co-1st Manassas Mile Rd Nside (L) Floyd Co-Berry Hill Rd (SL) Forsyth Co-Hightower Rd PH 4 (MSWL) Franklin Co-Harrison Bridge Rd PH 1 (SL) Atlanta-Key Rd (SL) Atlanta-Confederate Ave (L) Atlanta-Cascade Rd (SL) Chambers-Bolton Rd (SL) Atlanta-Gun Club Rd (SL) Chadwick Rd Landfill, Inc. (L) Eller-Whitlock Ave (L) Glynn Co-Cate Rd (L) Glynn Co-Cate Rd (SL) Gordon Co-Redbone Ridges Rd (SL) Cairo-6th Ave (SL) WMI-B J Landfill PH 3 &4 (SL) Button Gwinnett-Arnold Rd PH 3 (SL) Uwl Inc-Richland Creek Rd (SL) Habersham Co- SR134 (MSWL) Hall Co-Allen Creek PH A (SL) Reliable Tire Service, Monroe Dr. (C&D) Haralson Co-US 78 Bremen PH 2 (SL) Houston Co - SR 247 Klondike (SL) Jasper Co-SR 212 Monticello (SL) Jeff Davis Co-CR 20 (L)

County
Crisp Dawson Decatur DeKalb DeKalb DeKalb DeKalb DeKalb DeKalb DeKalb Dodge
Dooly Dougherty Dougherty
Douglas Effingham
Elbert Emanuel
Evans Fayette
Floyd Forsyth Franklin Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton
Glynn Glynn Glynn Gordon Grady Gwinnett Gwinnett Gwinnett Habersham
Hall Hall Haralson Houston Jasper Jeff Davis

FY97
Tons
118,448 9,290 24,750
509,934 99,976 137,777 1,228,424 392,522 69,064 122,466 11,726 8,504 164,541 53,299 39,275 10,282 16,169 16,096 3,495 28,901 115,575 18,313 15,132
127 78 58 222,687 157 230,012 20,740 4,824 22,191 55,495 14,984 30,504 3,842 625,509 23,189 57,228 115,683 44,561 128,620 4,974 3,539

Remaining Capacity (Yds3)
119,407 123,918 431,612 2,972,900 1,080,607 562,218 5,919,250 5,139,240 4,125,373 80,687 38,961 110,062 228,750 140,718
NR 51,290 90,057 9,047 93,260 36,932 752,640
0 343,883 289,231 13,862 12,681 251,699 33,750 4,481,863 11,386 92,252 262,925 10,284,129 286,650 85,827 171,273 13,863,096 1,198,320 21,375 2,990,050 72,556 6,397,200 50,075 66,581

Estimated
Closure Date
2/12/98 5/1/03 3/1/06 10/1/03 1/1/05 7/1/03 10/1/00 8/1/05 7/1/40 7/1/02 7/1/98 7/1/98 7/1/98 2/1/99
NR 7/1/98 6/1/00 7/1/98 11/1/10 10/14/97 7/1/98 In-closure 1/17/10 8/29/99 9/8/39 4/3/17 3/1/98 1/11/38 3/1/03 3/1/98 10/1/97 10/1/97 6/30/79 5/1/06 2/15/99 6/1/19 2/1/11 1/1/32 9/7/97 9/1/16 12/1/98 7/21/25 11/1/01 8/1/09

30

Facility
Jeff Davis Co-CR 20 (SL) Jefferson Co-US 1 (Avera Rd) (SL) Jenkins Co-Cr54 Phase 2 MSWL & C&D Site (SL) Jenkins Co-CR 54 (SL) Lamar Co-Grve St Ext (Old Mlnr Rd) (SL) Laurens Co-Old Macon Road (MSWL) US Army-Ft Stewart Main Cantonment (L) Liberty Co-Limerick Rd (L) US Army-Ft Stewart Main Cantonment (SL) Valdosta-Wetherington Lane (SL) Pecan Row Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWL) Lumpkin Co-Barlow Homes Rd PH 2 (SL) Macon Co-SR 49 N #3 (SL) McIntosh Co-King Rd (SL) Meriwether Co-CR 98 Durand (SL) Mitchell Co-SR 3a (SL) Monroe Co-Strickland Loop Rd (SL) Murray Co-US 411 Westside (SL) Columbus-Schatulga Rd W Fill PH 2 (SL) Newton Co-Forest Tower/Lwr Rvr Rds (SL) Oglethorpe Co-US 78 C/D Landfill (SL) Paulding Co-Gulledge Rd N Tract 1 (SL) Polk Co-Grady Rd (SL) Putnam Co-CR 29 (L) & (SL) US Army-Ft Gordon Gibson Rd PH 1-3 (SL) Richmond Co-Deans Bridge Rd PH 2c (SL) Spalding Co-Griffin/Shoal Creek Rd PH2 (C&D) Stephens Co-SR 145 PH 2&3 (SL) Southern States-SR 90/SR 137 Charing (SL) Telfair Co-S 2316 (SL) Thomas Co-Thomasville/Sunset Dr PH 2 (MSWL) Tifton-Omega/Eldorado Rd PH 1&3 (SL) Toombs Co-S 1898 PH 2 Vert. Expansion (SL) LaGrange-I 85/SR 109 (SL) Troup Co-SR 109 Mountville PH 2 (SL) Twiggs Co-US 80 (SL) Lafayette-Coffman Springs Rd (L) Walker Co-Marble Top Rd Areas 1-5 (SL) Ware Co-US 82 Waresboro (SL) Washington Co-Kaolin Rd S #3 (SL) Wayne Co-SR23, Broadhurst (SL) Treutlen & Wheeler Counties-SR 46 PH 2&3 (SL) White Co-Dukes Creek (SL)

County
Jeff Davis Jefferson
Jenkins Jenkins Lamar Laurens Liberty Liberty Liberty Lowndes Lowndes Lumpkin Macon McIntosh Meriwether Mitchell Monroe Murray Muscogee Newton Oglethorpe Paulding
Polk Putnam Richmond Richmond Spalding Stephens Taylor Telfair Thomas
Tift Toombs
Troup Troup Twiggs Walker Walker Ware Washington Wayne Wheeler White

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

FY97
Tons
6,585 16,735 8,176 3,067 82,082 41,341 4,189 8,674 23,558 29,892 248,788 8,126 16,486 8,754 18,545 12,504 18,602 31,456 61,846 42,895 31,024 26,469
32 33,208 6,324 172,431 12,659 2,555 761,936 9,138 102,020 32,540 36,265 61,154 4,525 9,611 1,427 68,022 36,680 13,990 86,820 9,554 7,074

Remaining Capacity (Yds3)
14,850 15,926 1,148,396
0 294,593 335,363 18,750
7,955 1,050,515
117,291 2,943,276
7,364 0
988,667 20,100
0 2,464,674
17,740 202,500 231,965 165,858
9,375 0
377,042 NR
1,399,596 280,080 52,210
38,422,168 240,225 566,426 767,069 64,687 109,300 236,525
4,902,526 74,009 0 0
1,597,910 6,958,254
181,338 0

Estimated
Closure Date
7/1/98 4/1/98 7/1/73 In-closure 7/1/98 10/16/03 5/1/99 7/1/98 1/1/18 7/1/98 4/5/06 1/1/98 In-closure 1/1/63 1/15/98 In-closure 6/1/63 10/1/97 10/10/98 8/1/07 1/1/04 8/15/97 In-closure 2/1/03
NR 8/11/01 7/1/08 9/1/05 3/15/26 7/1/98 7/1/98 11/1/07 7/1/98 12/30/97 5/1/29 4/1/68 7/1/42 In-closure In-closure 4/1/52 10/15/53 7/1/98 In-closure

31

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

Facility
Whitfield Co-Dalton, Old Dixie Hwy, PH 6 (SL) Whitfield Co-Dalton, Old Dixie Hwy PH 5 (SL) Whitfield Co-Dalton, Old Dixie Hwy PH 2 (SL) Dalton-Rocky Face W PH 2 (SL) Wilkes Co-CR 40 (SL) Worth Co-SR 112 Sylvester PH 1 (SL)

County
Whitfield Whitfield Whitfield Whitfield
Wilkes Worth

FY97 Tons 124,532*
26,143 15,170 11,947

Remaining Capacity (Yds3)
11,212,822 80,000 293,950 78,390 28,401 0

Estimated Closure Date
1/1/34 9/29/97 9/1/01 3/1/99 2/23/98 In-closure

Notes: The parenthetical designations show the type of landfill as permitted by EPD. Both (C&D) and (L) designations indicate construction and demolition landfills, while (MSWL) and (SL) designations indicate municipal solid waste landfills.
* Tonnage is the combined disposal figure for all phases of a site.
NR Site did not report in time for inclusion in the report.

32

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

APPENDIX C: GRANTS & LOANS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS (DCA)

Recipient

Amount ($) Purpose

City of Hahira

8,123 Purchase chipping equipment

SOLID WASTE LOAN PROGRAM (GEFA)

Recipient

Amount ($)

Northeast Georgia Regional SWM Authority

368,000

City of Tifton

700,000

Purpose
Consolidate paper recycling plant property and debt
Construct Subtitle D landfill

SCRAP TIRE MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT/EDUCATION GRANTS (EPD)

Recipient

Amount ($) Purpose

Athens-Clarke County

25,000 Scrap Tire Education

Banks County

27,137 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Bartow County

22,522 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Bulloch County

19,963 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Candler County

25,000

(Keep Southeast Georgia Beautiful)

Scrap Tire Education

City of Atlanta

75,000 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

City of East Point

55,120 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

City of Glennville

13,945 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

City of Dalton-Whitfield County

37,010 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Dougherty County

25,000 Scrap Tire Education

Douglas County

9,581 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Elbert County

37,679 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Forsyth County

13,489 Scrap Tire Education

Gordon County

35,625 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Johnson County

26,885 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Lincoln County

38,567 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Madison County

24,210 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Monroe County

45,439 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Montgomery County

44,514 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Newton County

67,125 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Polk County

5,500 Scrap Tire Education

Walton County

36,189 Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

Total

710,500

33

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING GRANTS (GEFA)

Recipient

Amount ($) Purpose

Alamo

$20,000 Purchase tub grinder for mulching yard trimmings and organic material

Aragon

25,000 Purchase baler for processing recyclables and tow motor to handle loads

Ashburn Baldwin County Barnesville Bartow County

20,000 36,000 12,395 157,000

Purchase leaf vacuum, wood chipper for composting program
Implement food and wood waste composting (Central State Hospital & Prison) Purchase equipment to crush glass and cans
Add storage area to existing recycling center; construct two additional collection centers for recyclables; purchase shredder; initiate industrial waste reduction program

Brooklet

11,495 Purchase wood chipper to prepare yard trimmings for composting

Brooks County

27,750 Purchase five trailers for pesticide container recycling program

Camden County

7,900

Complete yard trimmings management facility, shade house, nursery pads, waste oil storage area

Candler County

125,000

Consolidate green boxes; construct convenience centers/recycling drop-off centers around county (Metter, Pulaski)

Canton

100,000 Develop recycling, public information, and education program

Dade County

62,082

Construct stationary and portable recycling collection bins in county; establish Keep America Beautiful program; purchase recycling collection equipment; initiate waste oil recovery /storage program (Trenton)

Dooly County

76,500

Construct concrete tipping floor; purchase loader truck and containers for pesticide container recycling program (Adjoining Counties)

Dougherty County

30,950 Conduct home composting education program

Douglas

200,000 Implement biosolids/yard trimmings/agricultural waste composting program

Duluth

9,000

Provide additional compost bins to residents; produce brochure on composting

Edison

20,000 Purchase wood chipper to process storm debris and yard trimmings

Elbert County

200,000

Develop multiple staffed convenience centers with recycling; eliminate green boxes in county (Bowman)

Floyd County

150,000

Implement regional school central source separation recycling project (Bartow County, Cartersville and Rome)

Forsyth County

80,000 Construct additional staffed recycling drop-off centers

Gay

30,000 Construct community drop-off recycling center and purchase vehicle

Gordon County

70,000

Implement volume-based rate system for MSW/recycling at six compactor sites as incentive for recycling by residents

Gwinnett County

50,000

Expand Recycling Bank of Gwinnett; add sorting line conveyor and baler, 10,000 sq. ft. paper handling facility, sorting conveyor and forklift

Hall County

200,000

Develop model comprehensive commercial and industrial waste reduction initiative, including a reuse center and composting program (Clermont, Gainesville, Gillsville, Oakwood, and Flowery Branch)

Hart County

100,000

Replace green boxes with 24 roll-off recycling boxes at eight convenience centers around county

Hartwell

52,000

Conduct feasibility study/phase-in for recycling program, waste stream analysis, equipment, materials, and training

34

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING GRANTS (CONT'D)

Recipient Hazelhurst

Amount ($) 70,000

Purpose Expand recycling center; purchase processing equipment

Houston County
Jesup/Wayne Co. LaGrange Lookout Mountain McRae/Helena Montgomery County

64,700
126,328 100,000 20,000 70,000 200,000

Implement countywide curbside recycling program; purchase recycling bins; conduct recycling public education Expand and equip recycling center to handle biweekly recyclables pickup
Establish five drop-off recycling centers across city Purchase leaf vacuum to handle the large volume of yard trimmings
Purchase equipment for composting operation Initiate a comprehensive incentive-based solid waste and recycling program with recovered materials processing center

North Georgia Waste Management Authority
Nahunta

100,000 20,000

Expand recycling activities to three additional counties; provide infrastructure to participants (Lumpkin, Towns & Union; will add three more)
Purchase wood chipper to handle yard trimmings

Newton County Oglethorpe County

150,000 21,500

Construct a Recyclable Material Collection and Distribution Facility (Covington, Oxford, Porterdale, Mansfield, and Newborn)
Purchase two recycling separation trailers and truck for towing trailers

Paulding County Perry

98,150 15,000

Develop recycling public information and education; construct recycling center (Dallas, Hiram)
Enhance recycling center; purchase trailer and containers

Pike County Pine Mountain Polk County Portal

45,000 20,000 75,000 10,000

Purchase wood chipper; develop composting program Purchase wood chipper; develop composting program Eliminate green boxes; develop six convenience centers Purchase baler, platform and chipper

Preston/ Webster County Rabun County

50,000 100,000

Construct staffed recycling facility; purchase processing equipment Construct staffed recycling drop-off center

Roberta Roswell

75,000 200,000

Expand recycling center; construct new building; accept recyclables from surrounding jurisdictions (Crawford County )
Expand existing recycling center; construct new building to house operations

Screven County Statesboro

100,000 100,000

Construct recycling and waste drop-off centers; eliminate green boxes (Sylvania, Oliver, Newington, Rocky Ford, Hiltonia & Cooperville)
Construct recycling processing center (Bulloch County)

Sumter County Troup County Tybee Island Vidalia

30,000 50,000 35,000 50,000

Construct waste and recycling education center (Americus) Develop convenience centers with recycling operations Purchase tub grinder for shared use with other jurisdictions Purchase bobcat loader and horizontal baler to expand recycling center

Villa Rica White County

25,000 18,850

Conduct solid waste reduction study; assess options for recycling program Purchase wood chipper to handle storm debris and yard trimmings

Wilkinson County Zebulon

100,000 15,000

Develop additional convenience center; develop recycling public information (Twiggs County, Allentown, Danville, Gordon, Irwinton, Ivey, Jeffersonville, McIntyre, and Toomsboro)
Purchase recycling bins for local residents

TOTAL:

$4,027,600

35

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

SCRAP TIRE CLEANUP GRANTS

Recipient

Amount ($)

Appling County

21,240

Athens-Clarke County

25,500

Augusta-Richmond

35,972

Augusta-Richmond

54,028

Baker County

23,940

Baker County

9,500

Banks County

29,452

Barrow County

17,337

Ben Hill County

15,735

Berrien County

12,238

Bibb County

2,944

Bleckley County

11,515

Brantley County

20,823

Brooks County

13,113

City of Brunswick

10,343

Bulloch County

27,753

Camden County

19,000

Candler County

172,300

(Keep Southeast Georgia Beautiful)

Charlton County

25,812

Clay County

8,033

Clayton County

59,902

Clinch County

29,503

Coffee County

42,020

Colquitt County

72,561

Cook County

11,364

Crisp County

10,680

Decatur County

17,900

Dodge County

23,982

Dooly County

10,728

Dougherty County

21,927

Douglas County

51,779

Early County

13,425

Echols County

2,622

Elbert County

7,700

Franklin County

83,485

City of Gainesville

5,727

Grady County

13,693

Purpose Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event
Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event

36

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

SCRAP TIRE CLEANUP GRANTS (CONT'D)

Recipient

Amount ($)

Habersham County

8,241

Irwin County

6,993

Jackson County

11,040

Jeff Davis County

11,234

Johnson County

11,436

Lanier County

4,371

Lanier County

32,361

Laurens County

21,912

Lee County

20,955

Lee County

2,375

Lowndes County

28,500

Lumpkin County

69,595

Macon County

8,900

Madison County

7,200

Marion County

5,340

Miller County

9,000

Mitchell County

15,585

Newton County

18,000

Oconee County

7,200

Oglethorpe County

63,325

Oglethorpe County

5,838

Pierce County

20,518

City of Pooler

9,103

Pulaski County

6,864

Rabun County

9,500

Rockdale County

318,860

City of Rome

27,747

City of Savannah

36,800

Schley County

4,458

Seminole County

28,667

Spalding County

15,000

Sumter County

18,067

Taylor County

7,120

Telfair County

17,282

Terrell County

31,448

Thomas County

14,250

Tift County

17,484

Turner County

7,868

City of Union City

4,000

Purpose Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup

37

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

SCRAP TIRE CLEANUP GRANTS (CONT'D)

Recipient

Amount ($)

Walton County Wayne County

7,340 20,906

Webster County

18,085

Whitfield County

5,793

Whitfield County

1,670

Wilcox County

6,540

City of Winder

8,000

Worth County

18,563

Worth County

13,100

Total

2,396,750

Purpose
Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event

38

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Definitions derived Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act from the: (O.C.G.A. 12-8-20 et seq.).

Closure 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.

Commercial solid waste all types of solid waste generated by stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, and other nonmanufacturing activities, excluding residential and industrial wastes.

Composting the controlled biological decomposition of organic matter into a stable, odor-free humus.

Disposal facility 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.

Drop-off centers staffed or unstaffed facilities with large collection bins for household solid waste and, usually, recyclables

Generator any person in Georgia or in any other state who creates solid waste.

Green boxes common name for large, unmanned solid waste collection bins

Industrial solid waste

solid waste generated by manufacturing or industrial processes or operations that is not a hazardous waste regulated under the Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act. Such waste includes, but is not limited to, waste resulting from the following manufacturing processes: Electric power generation; fertilizer and agricultural chemicals; food and related products and by-products; inorganic chemicals; iron and steel products; leather and leather products; nonferrous metal and foundry products; organic chemicals; plastics and resins; pulp and paper; rubber and miscellaneous plastic products; stone, glass, clay, and concrete products; textiles; transportation equipment; and water treatment. This term does not include mining waste or oil and gas waste.

Landfill 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.

Leachate collection system a system at a landfill for collection of the leachate which may percolate through the waste and into the soils surrounding the landfill.

Materials recovery facility 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.

Municipal solid waste

any solid waste derived from households, including garbage, trash, and sanitary waste in septic tanks and solid waste from single-family and multifamily residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day use recreation areas. The term includes yard trimmings and commercial solid waste but does not include solid waste from mining, agricultural, or silvicultural operations or industrial processes or operations.

Municipal solid waste disposal facility

any facility or location where the final deposition of any amount of municipal solid waste occurs, whether or not mixed with or including commercial or industrial solid waste, and includes, but is not limited to, municipal solid waste landfills and municipal solid waste thermal treatment technology facilities.

39

1997 Solid Waste Management Annual Report

Municipal solid waste landfill a disposal facility where any amount of municipal solid waste, whether or not mixed with or including commercial waste, industrial waste, nonhazardous sludges, or small quantity generator hazardous waste, is disposed of by of placing an approved cover thereon.

Operator 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.

Permit-by-rule facility a solid waste operation that requires notification of EPD within 30 days of commencing activities and compliance with criteria established in DNR rules for that category of operation.

Postclosure 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.

Recovered materials 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 a facility engaged solely in the storage, processing, and resale or reuse of recovered materials. processing facility 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 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.

Solid waste handling the storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing, or disposal of solid waste or any combination of such activities.

Solid waste any facility the primary purpose of which is the storage, collection, transportation, treatment, handling facility utilization, processing, or disposal, or any combination thereof, of solid waste.

Waste-to-energy facility a solid waste handling facility that provides for the extraction and utilization of energy from municipal solid waste through a process of combustion.

Yard trimmings leaves, brush, grass clippings, shrub and tree prunings, discarded Christmas trees, nursery and greenhouse vegetative residuals, and vegetative matter resulting from landscaping development and maintenance other than mining, agricultural, and silvicultural operations.

For More Information:

Georgia Department of Community Affairs
Office of Waste Management 60 Executive Park South, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30329 Phone: (404) 679-4940 Fax: (404) 679-0572 www.dca.state.ga.us

Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority
100 Peachtree Street 20th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Phone: (404) 656-0938 Fax: (404) 656-6416 www.gefa.org

Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Land Protection Branch 4244 International Parkway Suite 104 Atlanta, Georgia 30354 Phone: (404) 362-2537 Fax: (404) 362-2654 www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ
Pollution Prevention Assistance Division 7 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Suite 450 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Phone: (404) 651-5120 Fax: (404) 651-5130 www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/p2ad

40

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
60 Executive Park South, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2231 Document Number: 0299
Printed on Recycled Paper