1998 Georgia solid waste management annual report

1998 Georgia Solid Waste Management Annual Report
Georgia Department of Community Affairs
September 1999

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Georgia Department
of Community
Affairs

Table of Contents
Forward ................................................................................................................3 Acronyms Used in this Report .........................................................................4 Purpose of this Report ..................................................................................... 4 Solid Waste Planning..........................................................................................5 Waste Reduction Goal ...................................................................................... 7 Results of the Solid Waste Management Survey ...........................................8
Solid Waste Collection ..............................................................................9 Recycling and Waste Reduction.............................................................10 Yard Trimmings/Composting ...............................................................12
Solid Waste Disposal ....................................................................................13
MSW Handling Facilities ........................................................................14 Solid Waste Public Education................................................................15 Full Cost Report ......................................................................................16 SWM Grants and Loans ................................................................................. 18 SWM Technical Assistance ............................................................................ 19 Looking to the Future..................................................................................... 24 Appendix A: Governments Not in Compliance with the SWM Act ...... 26 Appendix B: Remaining Landfill Capacity................................................... 27 Appendix C: Grants and Loans to Local Governments ........................... 31 Glossary of Terms .......................................................................................... 34 For More Information .................................................................................... 35

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

Forward

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

T he 1998 fiscal year proved that Georgians still need to be concerned about solid waste management. As we prepare for the century's conclusion, the unprecedented growth in Georgia has forced local governments to reevaluate their commitment to providing solid waste services for their citizens and adjust their solid waste management practices to accommodate these changes.
Local governments and state agencies continue to strive toward the goal of having safer landfills that serve multiple jurisdictions. The number of unlined landfills decreased from 56 in FY97 to just 25 in FY98, while the amount of landfill remaining capacity increased from 220 million cubic yards to 278 million cubic yards. But, as landfill space continued to increase in FY98, so too did the opportunities for recycling.
Although the FY98 Solid Waste Management Survey and Full Cost Report did describe some encouraging news for the future, it also showed the state did not meet the 25% waste reduction goal as set forth in the 1990 Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act. After decreasing in FY97, the amount of waste disposed of per capita increased by nearly 5% last year, moving Georgians further away from our goal. In FY97 we reported that Georgians disposed of 7.35 pounds per person per day. Last year, that figure jumped to 7.70 pounds per person per day, the largest amount since we began tracking disposal figures in 1992.
A major factor in this increase, besides the major economic and building growths in the state, was a number of natural disasters that once again hit major population centers of Georgia. An April flood in Albany came quickly, but left a great deal of damage behind. Nearly 4,600 tons of waste resulting from the flood were disposed of in landfills. About 700 tons of debris were disposed of in a privatelyowned construction and demolition landfill after a tornado struck Gainesville and Hall County in March. Finally, tornadoes ripped through northern metro-Atlanta, damaging 4,000 homes, nine apartment complexes, and 250 businesses. More than four million cubic yards of waste - one-quarter of Georgia's normal waste stream - were produced in just minutes from these storms.
There are some encouraging trends, however, that may lead Georgia toward its waste reduction goal. Georgians have seen greater access to collection services, a large decrease in the number of green boxes and unmanned collection facilities, as well as greater private sector involvement. State agencies have also continued to implement strategies outlined in the Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan: 1997. The agencies encouraged waste reduction by local governments and businesses, integrated composting and recycling into solid waste management plans, and implemented new programs that focused on regionalization and the shift by many communities to the privatization of their solid waste management programs.
Solid waste management will remain a major issue in Georgia as we move into the 21st century, and local governments will continue to face many environmental challenges. There will be increased competition between the public and private sectors, but we also expect to see some consolidation and regionalization of services among local governments. We will have to continue our waste reduction committment despite relatively low disposal costs, while remembering the impact these practices can have on our environment. Under the leadership of the Governor and General Assembly, our agencies will continue to guard the health and quality of life of our citizens by seeking and supporting innovative and sound practices for managing the state's solid waste.

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

Georgia Department of Community Affairs
The Georgia Solid Waste Management Annual Report provides a yearly update
Purpose of this Report: on the status of solid waste management in Georgia to the Governor and General Assembly.

Acronyms Used in this Report

C&D DCA DNR DRI EPA EPD GEFA GHEP KAB LDF MRF MSW MSWL P2AD RDC
RMPF SWM UGA

Construction and Demolition Landfill
Georgia Department of Community Affairs
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Developments of Regional Impact
US Environmental Protection Agency
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (DNR)
Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority
Georgia Hospitality and Environmental Partnership
Keep America Beautiful, Inc.
Local Development Fund
Materials Recovery Facility
Municipal Solid Waste
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Georgia Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (DNR)
Regional Development Center
Recycled Materials Processing Facility
Solid Waste Management
University of Georgia

T he Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act of 1990 requires 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), to 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 the passage of the Act to encourage pollution prevention activities by business and industry, also contributed to this report.
As specified in the Act, the FY98 report, covering the period of July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998, contains information 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 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 through their completed 1998 Solid Waste Survey and Full Cost Report;
a statement of progress achieved in meeting the 25% waste reduction goal established in subsection (c) of Code Section 12-8-21;
any revisions in the state solid waste management plan deemed necessary; and
recommendations for improving the management of solid waste in the state.
*On all tables in this report, percentages may total more than 100 because some local governments answered in multiple categories.
*Some cities and counties that had not responded prior to publication of DCA's six previous reports complied with the reporting requirements at a later date. These late responses have been incorporated into DCA's database, sometimes leading to very slight discrepancies between historical figures shown in this report and numbers reported in previous years.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Solid Waste Planning:

The Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act requires local governments to have a solid waste management plan and include in that plan assurances of adequate disposal capacity and handling capability for a 10-year period.

Requirements of Solid Waste
Planning in Georgia
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.

Under the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act of 1990, all Georgia local governments were required to prepare or be included in a 10-year solid waste management plan by July 1, 1993. Of the state's 692 local governments, 686 had an approved plan by the end of fiscal year 1998. The majority (80%) of governments opted to prepare joint plans that include a county and one or more cities within that county, while only 6% developed plans that pertain solely to their jurisdictions.
Regional planning efforts, including two or more counties, were undertaken by 14% of Georgia's local governments. Only one county and six cities failed to submit a solid waste management plan to DCA for approval by the end of FY98. Local governments that do not have an approved solid waste management plan are listed in Appendix A.
Georgia's Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management require that solid waste management plans be updated every five years. Specifically, local governments must submit a short term work program update to DCA that covers the final five years of the 10-year planning period. The update reports on the status of a local government's progress toward implementing the programs originally identified in the plan. Also included are budgets, financing mechanisms, and timeframes for implementation.
The short term work program allows a local government the opportunity to reevaluate its current and future solid waste management and waste reduction programs. By June 30, 1998, 320 local governments were required to prepare short term work program updates. Only nine local governments failed to submit a short term work program update to DCA. These governments are listed in Appendix A.
DCA will continue to provide technical assistance to the 283 cities and counties that are required to prepare short term work programs in fiscal year 1999. The process requires that local governments submit short term work programs to their regional development centers (RDCs) for review and to DCA for approval or risk losing their eligibility to receive state authorized solid waste permits, grants, and loans.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Solid Waste Management
Assistance Available
Despite the best efforts of the State and all Georgians to reduce waste, it is anticipated that solid waste management facilities, particularly landfills, will always be needed in the state. In addition to Subtitle D landfills for MSW, Georgia has numerous C&D and inert waste landfills. Design, construction, and operating standards vary for these landfills based on their location, the types of materials they receive, and the potential environmental risks associated with their operations.
As part of its technical assistance responsibilities, DCA provides assistance to local governments on nonenvironmental matters relating to solid waste disposal, primarily in analyzing costs, fees, regionalization, and privatization options.
Since passage of the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act in 1990, DCA has assisted local governments in exploring disposal options through workshops, publications, and one-on-one consultation. DCA has also facilitated regional efforts and educated local government officials on the costs associated with operating Subtitle D landfills and on establishing enterprise funds.
As a result of more stringent design standards, landfills have decreased in number and increased in quality. EPD has the responsibility of permitting solid waste facilities in Georgia. EPD ensures that current siting criteria and design standards are uniformly applied to all new landfills and verifies that facility construction is in accord with approved design plans and permits. EPD also inspects all sites semi-annually and provides timely and appropriate enforcement actions to ensure compliance with permit conditions. Additionally, EPD confirms the adequacy of groundwater monitoring at no less than 10% of landfills annually.

GEORGIA PLANNING ACT REQUIREMENTS
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, 25 proposed solid waste disposal facilities have been reviewed as DRIs. Between July 1997 and June 1998, two new solid waste projects were proposed, including one Subtitle D landfill to be located in Forsyth County and one C&D landfill in Douglas County. In addition, Phase 3 of the existing Bartow County Emerson Municipal Solid Waste Landfill was proposed. As a result of the DRI process, all of the landfill projects proposed in FY98 were found to be in the best interest of the state.
The Georgia Planning Act also requires 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 using 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. 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.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

The Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act of 1990 established

Waste Reduction Goal:

a per capita goal of reducing the amount of MSW entering disposal facilities by 25 percent. The goal was set on a statewide basis, recognizing that local

governments vary in their ability to recycle and reduce their waste streams.

Tracking the Progress of the Waste Reduction Goal
Georgia, as with most other states, set a specific waste reduction goal and a specific date by which to reach the goal. July 1, 1996 was selected as the target date to meet the waste reduction goal of 25 percent, and 1992 was selected as the base year to which figures would be compared. Georgia has faced many obstacles in trying to reach this goal.
The amount of waste generated per person rose last year, in part, due to natural disasters that hit Georgia.
An April flood in Albany resulted in nearly 4,600 tons of waste being disposed of in landfills. About 700 tons of debris were disposed of in a privately-owned C&D landfill after a tornado struck Gainesville and Hall County in March. Finally, tornadoes ripped through northern metroAtlanta, damaging 4,000 homes, nine apartment complexes, and 250 businesses. More than four million cubic yards of waste - one-quarter of Georgia's normal waste stream - were produced from these storms.
In addition, several factors affect the ability to accurately compute this percentage:
most landfills operating in the state in 1992, the base year, did not have scales;
nearly half of the landfills closed between 1992 and 1996 and the waste was diverted to other facilities;
finally, many landfills had a hard time changing from manual record keeping to computerized systems.
Nevertheless, the State is working with landfill operators to improve reporting methods to ensure more accurate information is provided. To better determine waste reduction efforts in Georgia, DCA has revised its local government solid waste survey to obtain more accurate information.

Per Capita Solid Waste Disposal Increases
Georgians disposed of more pounds of solid waste per person last year than in any year since record keeping began in 1992. In FY98, Georgians disposed of 10,745,331.12 tons of solid waste, or 7.70 pounds per capita per day.1
The residents of Georgia disposed of 8% more waste per capita in FY98 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.
Although 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.
In order to meet the 25% solid waste 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 31% from the FY98 figure.
Although out-of-state waste continues to increase, its effect on Georgia's disposal figures is minimal. The amount of waste coming into Georgia increased again last year, as it has every year since 1992. In FY98, 193,819 tons of outof-state waste were disposed of in Georgia, an increase of 13% over the FY97 figure. Out-of-state waste accounts for less than 2% of the state's waste stream.
Of the waste disposed of during FY98, 84% was disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLs), and 16% was disposed of in construction and demolition landfills (C&Ds). While the amount of waste continues to increase, so has the amount of waste being disposed of in lined landfills. Of the tons disposed of in MSWLs, 81% (or 7.3 million tons) went to lined landfills. In FY97, 73% of MSW went to lined landfills, while only 65% went to lined landfill facilities in FY96.
1 An additional 112,546.66 tons were disposed 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.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IN GEORGIA*

Millions

Millions of Tons

FY Population** Disposed In-State Out-of-State

1992 6.63

8.60 NA NA

1993 6.77

8.25 8.15 0.10

1994 6.90

8.58 8.45 0.14

1995 7.06

9.54 9.38 0.16

1996 7.21

9.78 9.61 0.16

1997 7.35

9.86 9.69 0.17

1998 7.64

10.75 10.55 0.19

Pounds Per Person Per Day Total In-State Out-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 7.70 7.56 0.14

* Disposal figures were compiled by EPD based on landfill reports; numbers may not equal due to rounding. ** Population figures were provided by the US Census Bureau.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Under the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act of 1990,

Results of SWM Survey:

each local government must submit an update to DCA documenting the status of its solid waste services. DCA collects this information through the Solid

Waste Management Survey and Full Cost Report.

Solid Waste Management and the Citizens of Georgia
The information collected through the annual Solid Waste Management Survey and Full Cost Report forms the basis for this statewide annual report on solid waste. 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 effectively.
The conclusions reached in this annual report are based primarily on DCA's Solid Waste Management Survey and Full Cost Report. Information on disposal facilities and remaining permitted capacity figures were provided by EPD.
The Solid Waste Survey and Full Cost Report serves as the main source of information on Georgia's solid waste management system.

Local Governments Report Results
T he 1998 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, 1997, through June 30, 1998. The survey consisted of 53 questions, some with multiple parts, designed to measure the level of solid waste services provided and the cost of these services.
Each of the state's 159 counties responded to the 1998 survey. Of the 533 municipalities, 516 (96.8%) responded to the survey. Each of the 17 governments failing to submit a survey during the time period covered by this report has a population of 1,500 or less. Georgia's three consolidated governments (Athens-Clarke County, Augusta-Richmond County, and Columbus-Muscogee County) are treated as counties for the purpose of the survey.
Some cities and counties that had not responded prior to publication of DCA's six previous annual reports complied with the reporting requirements later. These late responses have been incorporated into DCA's database, sometimes leading to very 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, which requires permitted solid waste facilities to report tonnages disposed of and origins of waste on a quarterly basis.
Local Governments Not Responding to DCA's 1998 Solid Waste Survey and Full Cost Report

City of Andersonville City of Avalon City of Broxton City of Buena Vista City of Chauncey City of Coolidge City of Corinth City of Damascus City of Demorest City of Flowery Branch City of Luthersville City of Mineral Bluff City of Montrose City of Oconee City of Payne City City of Resaca City of Talmo

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Local governments use a variety of methods to arrange for collection of solid

Solid Waste Collection:

waste, including directly providing the service themselves, arranging for another local government or authority to provide the service, and working with private

vendors.

Tracking the Trend -

Local Governments Take Control of Collection Options

Green Box Usage Declining
For the first time since solid waste information has been collected for this annual report, the use of green boxes as a method of solid waste collection has dipped below 50% for Georgia counties offering residential collection services.
Green boxes, a common name for large, unmanned solid waste collection bins, were used by as many as 77 counties as recently as FY96. With just 46 counties reporting using green boxes during FY98, the percentage of counties that offer residential collection services by using green boxes is just 43%.
Since FY93, 53 counties and 20 municipalities have discontinued the use of green boxes. In general, local governments have ceased using green boxes because these unstaffed drop-off boxes can lead to unattractive and unhealthy collection sites along with rampant illegal dumping.

The majority of local governments in Georgia (82%) arrange for solid waste collection services in their jurisdictions. While almost all of these jurisdictions provided or arranged for residential collections, 45% of the counties and 60% of the cities also provided or arranged for collection of commercial solid waste. The number of local governments providing commercial collection decreased from 375 in FY97 to 314 in FY98.

Local governments use a variety of methods to arrange for collection of solid waste,

including directly providing the services themselves, arranging for another local

government or authority to provide the service, and working with private vendors.

A larger percentage of local governments reported arranging collection directly

(86%) rather than

arranging for collection

through a private vendor SOLID WASTE COLLECTION COUNTY CITY

(54%), reversing a two-

year trend. The number Arrange for Collection

112 439

of local governments providing solid waste

Arrange Collection Through

%

services through another

Own Government

85 87

government decreased this year from 16% to 10%, but the number of governments relying on

Another Government Authority Private Vendors

11 10 10 4 62 53

an authority to provide

Other

21

these services increased

from 3% to 5%.

Arrange for Residential Collection 106 440

Another deterrent to green boxes includes In FY98, the preferred

Collection Methods

%

the lack of accountability for waste method of residential

generation and disposal.

waste collection in

municipalities where this

Curbside/Backdoor Staffed Drop-off Centers

43 94 43 5

Minimizing the use of green boxes is an service was available was

important element in improving solid waste

curbside pickup (94%), which continues to

management in Georgia.

increase in popularity. In

counties with residential

Unstaffed Drop-off Centers 18 6

Green Boxes

43 11

Fees Charged for Residential Collection 40 348

collection services, green boxes - dumpsters scattered throughout the

Flat-Rate

% 88 96

Unit-Based Pricing/Pay-As-You-Throw

county - are no longer the most preferred method of

Unit-Based

23 4

Residential Programs in Georgia (FY98)

residential collection. On all tables in this report, percentages may total more than 100 Although use of green because some local governments answered in more than one category. boxes continues to

Athens-Clarke Co. City of Cleveland

decline, it is a method still used by 43% of the counties. Counties are changing

Coweta County

City of Douglasville

from the green boxes and unmanned drop-off centers to staffed drop-off centers, which increased from 37% to 43%, and curbside service, which increased from

Gilmer County

City of Duluth

27% to 43%.

Oconee County Pierce County Pike County Tift County

City of Jackson City of Marietta City of Morrow City of Moultrie

A significant decrease in the number of green boxes being used was recorded in FY98. In FY97, 9,525 boxes were in place throughout the state compared to just 1,946 in FY98. With 94 local governments reporting the use of green boxes, the average number of boxes dropped from 93 to 21 boxes per government.

Ware County White County City of Ailey City of Austell

City of Nelson City of Snellville City of Thomasville City of West Point

Of the governments arranging for residential collection, 38% of counties and 79% of municipalities charged a fee for the service, a decrease of ten local governments compared to FY97. Although a majority charged residents a flat fee, nine counties and 13 municipalities charged residents a fee based on the amount of waste disposed. These unit-based pricing systems encourage waste reduction by making each user financially responsible for their disposal habits.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Waste reduction refers to a reduction in the amount of waste generated or

Recycling & Waste Reduction:

in the amount of waste thrown away. One method of reducing the amount of waste disposed of is reusing the material at the point of generation. A

higher-profile method of reducing waste is recovering material for recycling.

Revamped Curbside Program Increases Local Participation
After struggling with low participation rates and eventually discontinuing its curbside recycling program, the consolidated government of Augusta-Richmond County once again is picking up items at the curb.
The City of Augusta began its curbside recycling program in 1992 by using the blue bag method in which residents placed all materials to be recycled in a blue plastic bag supplied by the City and left it at the curb for pickup. The bag would then be replaced with a new one.
The system began to unravel when the city and county governments merged in 1995. Residents had to pick up the bags instead of having them delivered and many residents thought the program had been discontinued. Participation rates dropped to less than 20% yet the program cost the consolidated government nearly $300,000 annually to operate.
The low participation rate led to the curbside program ultimately being dropped and replaced with five convenience centers. The centers were successful because they were located throughout the county, whereas the previous curbside program serviced only the Augusta "urban district."
Residents, however, continued their interest and asked the government to reinstate and expand a curbside recycling program. The consolidated government responded with a program that will use bins instead of bags and will be available to all residents in the area.

Recycling Services Increase DesRpeitseuMltasrkoeftSSWlipM Survey:
R ecycling puts materials that otherwise would be discarded to use as raw materials in the production of new products. In FY98, 90% of counties and 69% of municipalities reported that recycling services were available to their residents. By contrast, in FY92, the first year of the survey, 77% of all counties and just 54% of all cities had recycling services available. All cities with populations greater than 25,000 had recycling services available to their residents, while only half of the cities in Georgia with populations less than 1,000 had recycling available locally.

Businesses and indus-
tries had access to re- RECYCLING WASTE COLLECTION COUNTY CITY

cycling services in 74% of Georgia's Recycling Services Available for Residents 143 354

counties and 49% of cities in FY98. Both figures are fairly simi-

Arrange Services Through Own Local Government

% 75 39

lar to the figures Another Local Government

22 32

posted in FY97, but are still well under the totals of FY96 when 84% of counties and

Private Vendor(s) Not-for-Profit Organization Solid Waste Authority

8 26 48 40 12 16

65% of municipalities

- more than 106 local

Collect and Process Through

%

governments in all - Curbside Recycling

20 42

reported that recycling services were

Staffed Drop-off Facilities

55 29

available to businesses Unstaffed Drop-off Facilities 52 49

in their jurisdictions. Again, the smaller the municipality, the less likely it is providing this service.

Materials Recovery Facility RMPF Accepted at Landfill Reuse Programs

9

6

8

2

42 12

28 13

Other In an interesting

8

4

change of events reflecting the struggle

Recycling Services Available for Businesses

117

251

of many involved in

Arrange Services Through

%

the recycling industry during FY98, the number of local gov-

Own Local Government Another Local Government

62 34 20 32

ernments using private vendors to provide recycling services for residents dropped remarkably, while resi-

Private Vendor(s) Not-for-Profit Organization Solid Waste Authority Other

62 48

38 21

8 17

5

2

dential services pro-

vided by not-for-

Collect and Process Through

%

profit groups in- Curbside Recycling

21 43

creased. Only 8% of counties relied on pri-

Staffed Drop-off Facilities

49 31

vate vendors in FY98, Unstaffed Drop-off Facilities 42 46

compared to 43% of Materials Recovery Facility

9

6

counties in FY97. Conversely, the use of not-for-profit organizations for residential

RMPF Accepted at Landfill Reuse Programs

11 4 37 10 15 4

recycling services in- Other creased from 28% to

11 6

48% of the counties

in FY98.

Purchased Recycled Products

130 322

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Government Struggles with Curbside Recycling Program
Low participation rates have put the City of Macon's recycling program on the ropes, and it struggles in one last attempt to make it work.
Macon residents received collection bins from the City's Public Works Department and were asked to fill the containers and place them on the curb with their garbage. Residents were less than enthusiastic, posting a skimpy 20% participation rate. Residents are not charged specifically for the recycling service, although they are charged a $5 per month fee for their entire solid waste disposal service, including recycling.
The program initially distributed a great deal of publicity to the public, but that ended shortly after the program was introduced. As participation rates plummetted and costs increased, City officials have been forced to look at the feasibility of the program. The City, however, does not want to give up on recycling.
Prior to the introduction of the curbside program, Macon provided unmanned recycling drop-off sites for the residents. If the curbside program is eliminated, the city will more than likely revert back to some sort of drop-off center.
Public Works officials, however, hope for something more developed than just an unmanned facility. If they have to revert back to a collection facility, it is hoped that a buy-back center can be established that would pay residents for their recyclables to really encourage people to recycle.

Curbside collection is generally more costly for local governments, but it is more

effective in garnering resident participation. Of the local governments in Geor-

gia, 36% rely on curbside collection to provide recycling services. Drop-off

centers, however, are still the most popular means of collecting recyclables. Half

of the local governments in Georgia of- RECYCLING COLLECTION

COUNTY CITY

fered unstaffed recycling centers in FY98, while

Recycling Services Available for Residents

143 354

37% offered staffed

Materials Recycled

%

drop-off centers. The practice of sorting commingled residential recyclables at recovered materials processing fa-

Aluminum Newspaper Magazines Corrugated Cardboard

83 80 87 94 69 61 85 62

cilities (RMPFs) is still Other Paper

58 44

rare in Georgia, with only 19 local governments using this type of facility. Separating recyclables from solid waste at a materials recovery facility (MRF) is

Glass PET and HDPE Plastics Other Plastics White Goods Christmas Trees Construction/Demolition

65 68 61 64 21 21 78 42 62 52 22 8

slightly more common, Steel Cans

48 34

with 33 local governments recovering recyclables in this way.

Aerosol Cans Paper Board Scrap Metal

10 9 33 22 77 32

Newspaper remains the Motor Oil

39 16

most commonly accepted item for residential recycling. Aluminum, magazines, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, white goods, scrap

Phone Books

52 45

Agricultural Chemical Containers 13 3

Antifreeze

10 3

Oil Filters

63

Paint

53

metal, Christmas trees, Cleaning Products

32

and phone books are all recycled in more than half of the residential programs offered by lo-

Pesticides Household Hazardous Waste Other

11 11 54

cal governments. News-

paper is also the most Recycling Services Available for Businesses 117 251

popular item recycled in commercial programs, followed by cardboard

Materials Recycled Tires

% 49 20

and aluminum.

Batteries

34 18

Larger items that are more difficult to collect in curbside programs are more likely to be re-

Aluminum Newspaper Magazines Corrugated Cardboard

83 77 87 88 70 62 86 78

cycled in counties than White Paper

63 55

in cities. These items are easily separated at transfer stations and landfills, which are more often managed by counties. For example, 78% of all

Green Bar Computer Paper Other Paper Glass Plastic Phone Books

53 49 50 45 57 65 55 62 54 52

counties with recycling Pallets

30 13

services make white goods recycling available while only 42% of cities offer it.

Scrap Metal Motor Oil Wood Waste

74 39 34 18 21 12

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Under the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, effective September

Yard Trimmings/Composting:

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.

Prison Programs Advance Composting and Recycling
The Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) has set up recycling and composting operations at six Georgia prisons to remove both recyclable materials and kitchen food waste from the waste stream, not only benefiting the environment but also saving transportation and disposal costs.
The composting operations process prison kitchen food waste with yard trimmings from nearby communities. The program began at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson during the fall of 1993 and has saved participating facilities about 63% of their waste disposal fees.
The program was initiated when some local landfills near GDC facilities banned prison kitchen food wastes. Other GDC facilites were in violation of EPD waste water treatment regulations. In addition, there was a continued threat to GDC of surcharges by local governments in reaction to increased overloading of their sewage treatment facilities with food waste from nearby prisons.
Combined, the six sites divert more than 8,500 tons of waste from landfills and save GDC and local communities more than $250,000 annually. The amount of money raised from selling the recyclables partially offsets the cost of operating the program. In addition, the program produces compost with an estimated value of $100,000.

Yard Trimmings Diversion Remains Steady

Since the inception of the ban on yard trimmings entering landfills went into effect in 1996, cities and counties have required separation of grass

clippings and yard trimmings from municipal solid waste and C&D waste.

According to survey results for FY98, 80% of Georgia's local governments

have met this requirement. Of this group, 64% of counties and 76% of cities

provided, or arranged

for, the collection and an alternative use or

YARD TRIMMINGS MANAGEMENT

COUNTY CITY

disposal of yard Require Separation of Yard Trimmings 134 404

trimmings within their

jurisdictions.

Promote Home Composting

and Grasscycling

40 56

Cities, which have a smaller land area and Provide for Collection and higher population Disposal of Yard Trimmings

86 307

density than most counties, are in a much better position to

Collection Options Staffed Drop-off Facilities

% 47 6

provide curbside Unstaffed Drop-off Facilities 12 5

collection of yard Curbside Collection

19 94

trimmings. In FY98, Accepted at Landfill

57 13

94% of the cities provided for yard

Other

12 3

trimmings collection at the curb, while just 19% of counties offered the same

Processing Methods Composting Solid Waste Landfill

% 23 25 1 11

service. Counties, on Inert Landfill

51 34

the other hand, tend to Grind/Chip into Mulch

63 63

have collection points Burning

08

or drop-off facilities for residents.

Other

12

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 25% composted the materials. More than a third of the local governments handling yard trimmings simply diverted the waste from a solid waste landfill to an inert landfill after collection. Just one county and 35 cities reported disposing of their yard trimmings in a solid waste landfill.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Local governments are encouraged to optimize their disposal options and

Solid Waste Disposal:

minimize costs by coordinating their solid waste efforts through multi-county or authority landfill agreements. In FY98, 11% of counties and 9% of

municipalities reported being involved in these agreements.

Convenience Centers Offer Local
Governments Control
As noted earlier, more and more local governments have abandoned the practice of using green boxes, or unmanned collection centers, as the primary means of collecting solid waste in their jurisdictions. The green boxes were normally located on major thoroughfares in the area so they would be convenient to the majority of citizens. Many of them were eyesores and were constant sources of litter.
For many of the governments that wanted to eliminate green boxes but did not find the idea of curbside collection economically feasible, a change to staffed convenience centers provided a sound solution to the problem.
Convenience centers are typically installed at fewer locations than the old green box sites, thus requiring some residents to travel further distances to dispose of their waste. One of the chief advantages, however, is that they are easier for local governments to manage.
The centers are usually fenced in to keep out scavengers and minimize the unsightliness associated with open dumpsters. Separate containers for recyclable materials can be set up and monitored, thus allowing for more successful recycling programs. Convenience centers can be easily staffed and operate regular hours. They can realize a cost savings over the old green box sites because there are fewer locations for collection vehicles to service and less maintenance required.
An important aspect to keep in mind, however, is that some sort of educational program must be put into place to ensure that local residents understand the change. Also, no matter how easy the local government makes the new system, some people will still be unhappy with the transition, and illegal dumping and littering may be a problem during the change-over stage. Local governments must be prepared to enforce ordinances that address such problems.

Local Government Disposal Practices

Although the majority of Georgia's landfills are publicly-owned and operated, only 39% of municipal solid waste goes to publicly-owned landfills

while 61% of municipal solid waste goes to privately-owned facilities. The

percentage of local governments delivering solid waste to public landfills has

continued to decline, although 54% of cities and 59% of counties still use

public landfills as the primary delivery point for waste. 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 (89%). From FY97 to

FY98, local governments continued the trend of moving away from the use of

public disposal facilities to private ones. In FY97, 415 local governments

disposed of waste in

public landfills, and LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

195 local governments OPERATING WASTE FACILITIES reported using private

COUNTY CITY

landfills. In FY98, 371 local governments disposed of waste in public landfills, and 225 local governments

Transfer Stations Materials Recovery Facilities Inert Waste Landfills C&D Landfills

47 16 10 4 56 53 21 5

reported using private

MSW Landfills

54 8

landfills. Since FY96,

Incinerators

22

107 local governments

have stopped using

public 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.)

Only a few local 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.

The number of local governments owning MSWLs in FY98 decreased from 62 in FY97 to 54. This follows a downward trend since the question was first asked in the FY93 survey. In FY93, 166 local governments owned MSWLs. 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.

There are six types of waste facilities currently in operation by local governments in Georgia: transfer stations, materials recovery facilities, inert waste landfills, C&D landfills, MSW landfills, and incinerators. The table above shows the number of local governments operating different types of solid waste facilities. Although Georgia has only one MSW waste-to-energy facility, several local governments reported operating incinerators. These were air curtain destructors, generally used to dispose of wood wastes, or biomedical incinerators.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

The number of unlined landfills continues to decrease dramatically because

MSW Handling Facilities:

of the 1993 statute that required vertically expanded, unlined landfills to cease accepting waste by July 1, 1998. With regulations in place requiring liners for

landfills, fewer new landfills are opening, but capacity continues to increase.

Tracking the Trend - Landfill Tipping Fees
Local governments recover a portion or all of the costs associated with operating a solid waste landfill by charging a tipping fee, or a charge per ton for waste disposed at their facility.
Counties
Between FY95 (the first year DCA began collecting tipping fee data) and FY98, the average tipping fee charged by Georgia counties increased by $1.88, from a low of $25.70 in FY97 to a high of $27.58 in FY96.

FY98 FY97 FY96 FY95

$26.77 $25.70
$27.58 $25.76

$24.00 $25.00 $26.00 $27.00 $28.00

Cities
Between FY95 and FY98, the average tipping fee charged by Georgia cities increased by $13.18, from a low of $23.93 in FY96 to a high of $37.11 in FY98.

FY98 FY97 FY96 FY95

$37.11 $27.49 $23.93 $24.94

$0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00

REMAINING CAPACITY*
(MILLIONS OF CUBIC YARDS)

MSWLs (total) Lined MSWLs
C&Ds Total

259.38 248.27
18.90 278.28

* Data provided by EPD.

Disposal Facilities and Remaining Capacity

Remaining consistent with the State's goal of closing unlined landfills, the number of solid waste landfills has decreased since 1996, even though

the number of Subtitle D landfills in Georgia has increased. Because the newer

Subtitle D landfills are more expensive to construct and difficult to site, they

are generally built with greater capacity than the old unlined landfills. As

numerous unlined landfills close, there are only a few lined landfills opened to

meet current disposal capacity needs. Of the MSWLs operating in FY98, 60

were owned by local governments and 16 were owned by private firms. Of the

C&D landfills, 22 were

publicly owned and 12 SOLID WASTE HANDLING FACILITIES* 1997 1998

were owned by private

firms.

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

95 76

Inert landfills, which are permit-by-rule

Subtitle D and Lined** Unlined

39 51 56 25

facilities, continue their Construction & Demolition Landfills 35 34

rapid growth, increasing by more Landfills That Ceased Receiving Waste 12 29

than 100 in FY98 and Industrial Solid Waste Facilities

by nearly 500 since FY96. These are often

Industrial Waste Landfills

very small landfills at Industrial Waste Incinerators

construction sites and Other

76 72 57 55 65 13 12

are used only for the duration of the

Permit-by-Rule Facilities

construction project. Inert Landfills

2,646 2,842 1,990 2,101

Inert landfills accept Transfer Stations

127 139

wastes that are limited to earth and earthlike products, concrete,

Collection Operations Other

398 469 131 133

cured asphalt, rocks, Waste-to-Energy Facility

1 1

bricks, yard trimmings, and land clearing Additional Facilities

5 5

debris. Users of this method simply notify EP D i nstead of

Materials Recovery Facilities MSW Composting Facilities

33 22

completing the full * Data provided by EPD.

permitting process. ** Subtitle D landfills are built to current Environmental Protection

Many of these may be

Agency requirements. Some lined landfills were built before the

closed, however,

Subtitle D landfill regulations were completed and may not meet

because owners do not

all of the requirements. In FY98, 35 Georgia landfills met

always notify EPD

Subtitle D requirements compared to 26 in FY97.

about the inert landfill's

closure.

FY98 growth in remaining capacity of Georgia's MSWLs and C&Ds increased last year by 26% after a growth of just 3% in FY97. As of June 30, 1998, 92% of Georgia landfills reported a total remaining capacity of 278,285,726 cubic yards. The majority of the remaining capacity, 259,383,011 cubic yards, was in MSWLs. From FY97 to FY98, the rate of fill increased by 4% from 54,631 to 56,942 cubic yards per day. As of June 30, 1998, Georgia has an estimated 18 years of remaining landfill capacity. The construction of eight new MSWL facilities and one C&D facility will provide an additional 25 million cubic yards of permitted capacity.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs
Public education is an important component of a successful solid waste
Solid Waste Public Education: management program. Innovative lessons have been put in place in many parts of the state to teach all age groups about the need for proper waste handling methods.
Solid Waste Education Efforts Increase
In FY98, 53% of Georgia counties and 28% of municipalities reported having solid waste/environmental public education programs. This is a slight increase over the figures reported by local governments in FY97. In FY98, 227 local governments had some sort of education program for their residents. Since FY96 however, 31 local governments have stopped offering solid waste management educational programs.
Of the local governments with educational programs in place, 71% of the counties and 70% of the 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 (96%) and cities (67%) with education programs contributed financial resources to education efforts.

Enforcement Education Highlights State's Efforts

Taking a proactive stance toward litter violations. Halting the smaller and other environmental issues, many offenses prevents other crimes that

communities in Georgia have hosted could easily lead to the degradation conferences targeting "crimes against of a community.

the environment" to highlight the need for the enforcement of environmental laws.
Through lectures, discussion and case examples, the conferences have provided attendees with proper information in attacking environmental offenses. Speakers from DNR, EPD, and numerous local law enforcement offices have strongly urged the enforcement of the State's very powerful litter laws.
"Litter laws have been overlooked by local law enforcement," said Sergeant Howard Hensley of DNR. "When you call them crimes against the environment instead, well that draws some attention."

Hensley explained that the Georgia Litter Control Law and the Georgia Waste Control Law are the easiest and best-written laws in the state. Officials, from officers up to judges, are simply not educated on the subject. Hensley advises any law enforcement official willing to tackle environmental crimes to meet with other officials up the ladder to ensure proper enforcement of the law.
"This is a really simple law, but you need to meet with the local district attorney, meet with judges and discuss this with them," Hensley said. "Let them know what is going on and let them know that you will be enforcing this law."

The seriousness of these offenses is being addressed and emphasis has been placed on the need to enforce the smallest of crimes - even tossing trash out of a car window - to prevent future and larger illegal dumping

"As we go toward the 21st century, we have more responsibility to handle the issue of crimes against the environment," he stressed. "If we get more help in this arena, we can make a difference."

Full Cost Report:

Georgia Department of Community Affairs
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. Full cost includes the solid waste budget, an allowance for landfill post-closure care, and other expenses, including administrative costs.

Local Governments Report Full Cost Up Slightly

Georgia's local governments reported a full cost of $370.9 million for solid waste services in FY98, up slightly from $362.5 million in FY97. The 2% increase between FY97 and FY98 pales in comparison to the 6.5% increase between FY96 and FY97. On a per capita basis, the full cost of solid waste management equaled $23.36 per person for counties and $76.68 per person for cities.

While the table below summarizes per capita costs for counties and municipali-

ties of various sizes, exact cost comparisons among governments are not pos-

sible for three primary reasons. First, some counties may provide solid waste

services to a limited population within their jurisdiction - perhaps just the unin-

corporated areas and a few cities.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SOLID WASTE EXPENDITURES

However, when calculating per capita costs, total county population (rather

than that of the limited service area)

Number

Average

is used, deflating the per capita cost.

Population

Providing Expenditures $ Per Second, governments provide vary-

Group County 100,000 and Above
50,000 - 99,999

SW Services 6 8

($ Millions) 6.95 1.35

Capita 20.98 16.77

ing levels of solid waste services. Costs from governments providing only minimal collection services are combined and compared with those

25,000 - 49,999

18

1.22

34.48 from governments providing more

15,000 - 24,999

29

0.65

31.61 convenient and frequent collection.

10,000 - 14,999

17

0.41

31.85 Generally, municipalities offer more

Less Than 10,000

34

0.21

29.22 comprehensive collection services

than counties, driving up their expen-

All

112

1.15

23.36 ditures. Finally, survey respondents

apply varying methods to calculate

City 50,000 and Above

6

10.96

78.61 the full cost of providing solid waste

25,000 - 49,999

7

3.01

90.87 services. Although DCA offers full

10,000 - 24,999 5,000 - 9,999

34 46

1.38 0.57

86.88 78.87

cost accounting tools for local governments, it is evident from responses that some simply list their

2,500 - 4,999

69

0.25

65.06 solid waste budgets. Their per capita

1,000 - 2,499

92

0.09

53.1 costs will appear to be lower than

500 - 999

82

0.03

32.66 those for governments considering

499 or less

103

0.02

30.47 the true full cost of providing ser-

vices.

All

439

0.47

76.68

Many local governments charge col-

lection and tipping fees for their solid

waste management services. (Please 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 86% of their operating costs through these fees in FY98. Coun-

ties were able to recover 76% of their operating costs through collection and

tipping charges in FY98.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Recovering Costs - Large Governments vs. Small
In general, the state's larger counties recovered more of their solid waste management costs than smaller-sized counties. Georgia's six largest counties recovered 88% of their costs for providing solid waste services through fees, a huge increase over the 74% recovered in FY97.
However, the 34 counties with the smallest populations, under 10,000 residents, recovered just 56% of their solid waste expenditures through fees in FY98. That percentage has increased, however, from the 34% recovered through fees in FY97.
The average percentage of costs recovered through operating revenues for all Georgia counties in FY98 was 88%. For all local governments, the percentage of costs related to solid waste management activities not recovered by fees was recovered through special taxes, grants or the local government's general fund.
The six largest municipalities fared better than the largest counties by recovering, on average, more than 100% of their solid waste expenditures through fees. On average, these cities took in 12% more than their reported costs. The 346 cities with populations of 5,000 or less recovered, on average, 87% of their reported costs through operating revenues. The average percentage of costs recovered through operating revenues for all Georgia cities in FY98 was 103%, or 3% more than operating costs.

Counties and cities spent their solid waste dollars for various purposes. At 61% of total costs, collection services comprised the majority of solid waste expenditures for municipalities. Counties, however, spent the largest portion of their solid waste dollars on disposal (59%). For all local governments combined, 50% of total costs was spent on collection, followed by 44% spent on disposal, 5% spent on recycling, and 1% spent on solid waste education. Even though municipalities serve only about 35% of the state's population, their total costs comprised 53% of the state's full costs for solid waste management.

The survey asked local governments to report "other dedicated revenues" in

addition to operating fees. These revenue sources include ad valorem taxes,

local option sales taxes, and grants. By including the other dedicated revenues,

cities recovered 91% of their reported costs while counties recov- EXPENDITURES

ered 88%. The information shows BY SERVICES PROVIDED

that counties relied more heavily on this type of funding source than cit-

(% OF TOTAL FULL COST)

COUNTY

CITY

ies. Other dedicated revenues con- Collection

37 61

tributed 13% of the total revenues Recycling

4

7

for counties and only 5% of total Disposal

59 30

revenues for cities.

Public Education 1

2

The largest portion of county solid waste revenues came from collection REVENUES BY SOURCE

fees (49%), which is a drastic change (% OF TOTAL REVENUES)

COUNTY

CITY

from FY97 when only 39% of solid waste revenue was derived from col- Collection

49 83

lection fees. In 1997, the largest por- Recycling

3

4

tion of solid waste revenues was gen- Disposal

47 13

erated through disposal fees. In Public Education

1

<1

FY98, 47% of revenues were gener-

ated by disposal fees, down from 59% in FY97. 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 dis-

posal fees. Both totals changed very little from the previous year.

Local governments have often cited cost as the primary obstacle to recycling and waste reduction efforts. Though only a small percentage of solid waste expenditures goes toward recycling, an even smaller amount is recovered in revenues. In FY98, local governments reported spending $19.9 million on recycling, composting, and mulching activities - only slightly more than they reported spending in FY97. In return, they received $11.7 million in revenues from their efforts, or 58% of their waste reduction expenditures. In comparison, local governments spent $17.5 million on waste reduction activities and received $10.5 million in recycling revenues, or about 60% of their waste reduction expenditures, in FY97.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

The State of Georgia assists local governments through grant and loan

SWM Grants & Loans:

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.

Grants, Loans Assist Local Governments

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

Local Development Fund (LDF)

The LDF provides funding for a wide variety of local government initiatives. In fiscal year 1998, three LDF grants totaling $24,077 funded solid waste management activities.

GEORGIA ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY

Recycling and Waste Reduction Grant Program

This grant program assisted 41 local governments with recycling and solid waste reduction in FY98. The grant awards totaled $1 million, funding projects such as recycling facilities; recycling and composting public education programs; recycling collection and processing equipment; and establishment of variable rate collection programs. Funding for GEFA's Recycling and Waste Reduction Grant Program was provided by the Solid Waste Trust Fund.

Solid Waste Facility Loan Program

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 FY98, GEFA loaned $6,922,055 to six local governments for landfill expansion and construction.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

Scrap Tire Management Grants

This grant program helps communities develop scrap tire enforcement 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 FY98, 40 local governments received $631,273 for scrap tire pile cleanups and recycling events. An additional $1,312,894 was distributed to 20 local governments for scrap tire enforcement and education.

A complete list of Solid Waste Management Loan and Grant recipients appears in Appendix C.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

SWM Technical Assistance:

Public education and technical assistance is a key component of the State's solid waste reduction effort. It is the State's policy to educate and encourage generators and handlers of solid waste to reduce and minimize to the greatest extent possible the amount of waste requiring collection, treatment, or disposal.

Strategies and Events Lead Local Government Assistance
T he agencies of the State of Georgia continued several strategies for educating citizens, local governments, and businesses on proper solid waste management:
The eighth annual "Bring One for the Chipper" Christmas Tree Recycling Program, held in 124 cities and counties in January 1998, collected 268,535 Christmas trees at 339 sites. Participation decreased slightly from the previous year due perhaps to the greater availability of curbside collection of yard trimmings brought by the ban on yard trimmings at most Georgia landfills. Working with private sponsors, DCA's Keep Georgia Beautiful program coordinated the event and provided publicity tools and tree seedlings to participating communities.
DCA's waste management staff provided on-going 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.
Two publications were written to help local government officials handle specific waste management issues. "Dealing with Yard Trimmings" and "Pay as You Throw Collection Systems" were both published and distributed to city and county officials. These documents can also be found at DCA's website, www.dca.state.ga.us.
The Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan 1997 was published in December. The new plan, the first update of the original plan published in 1990, will guide the State's solid waste effort over the next five years.
DCA continued to publish its quarterly 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 individuals of the solid waste management practices, programs, and opportunities offered by the State.
Keep Georgia Beautiful and P2AD participated in the Metro KAB Partnership, which was formed to provide a unified voice for solid waste public education in the metroAtlanta area. The City of Atlanta, the Atlanta Regional Commission, and various corporations also support the Partnership, which spent FY98 organizing and planning activities for the upcoming year.
In one of the largest recycled products shows in the Southeast, purchasing agents and recycling coordinators from both the public and private sectors crowded the Inforum in Atlanta to get a first-hand look at quality recycled products. Informational programs featured speakers that showed purchasers how to enhance their recycled product procurement programs. DCA helped sponsor the event.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Iron Eyes Cody Back By Popular Neglect
Ask just about anyone what their favorite public service advertisement is, and many will respond, "That one with the crying Indian for Keep America Beautiful." Entertainment Weekly magazine thought so, too, naming the famous advertisement featuring Iron Eyes Cody crying over a blighted landscape one of the top 50 advertisements of all time. It ranked 38th overall, just below the California raisins and Mikey ("he likes it!"), but ahead of Jerry Seinfeld pitching American Express and Marilyn Monroe posthumously touting Chanel No. 5.
Keep Georgia Beautiful, along with Keep America Beautiful, celebrated the unforgettable image of the "crying Indian" with the release of a new, national advertisement featuring a very compelling re-use of that famous image. "Back by popular neglect" is the theme of the new public service announcement.
The action unfolds at a bus shelter, where people are shown littering the area with food and trash while waiting for their bus to arrive. After focusing on the litter, the camera moves to the image of a saddened Iron Eyes Cody, looming from a poster hung on the shelter wall. A tear falling from his eye and rolling down his face leads to the on-screen message "back by popular neglect."
The advertisement sends a powerful message to a new generation of viewers. Many in today's audience are unaware of the original advertisement, which garnered more than $750,000,000 in free airtime and achieved several billion viewer impressions during its run from 1971 into the 1980s.

DCA staff organized the first Georgia Recycles Day in conjunction with the first annual America Recycles Day in November 1997. More than 200 organizations in Georgia participated in the statewide event, and 10,200 individuals pledged to recycle. Nationwide, the event was held to encourage people to pledge to recycle more and increase their purchases of recycled products.

The second annual Recycling Program Development Training was held in June 1998 to offer basic information to communities starting recycling programs. The training combined lectures, interactive exercises, and case studies of successful programs.

DCA updated its directory of local government recycling coordinators, which includes contacts at colleges, universities, military bases, and individual local governments.

For the third 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, reminded them of the yard trimmings ban, and promoted 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.

The Georgia Recycling Coalition signed a contract with DCA to organize and plan Georgia Recycles Day for 1998. DCA will continue to sponsor and oversee the logistics of the program. A GRC consultant will handle the administration and planning of the event.



2
DCA and P AD participated in a composting workshop to aid experienced

composters with their established programs. Hosted by the University of

Georgia's Bioconversion Research Center, the training included two days

of lectures, discussions, laboratory demonstrations, and hands-on practice.

Topics covered included the microbiology of composting, compost

marketing, feedstock characterization, equipment and siting considerations,

and regulatory concerns.

The Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) recommended new recycled product purchasing language for the Official Code of Georgia Annotated in order to update the state purchasing guidelines with current market trends. Senate Bill 255, passed and signed into law by Governor Zell Miller, renewed Georgia's commitment to the use of recycled paper. All state agency print jobs, such as publications, annual reports, and brochures are now printed on recycled paper that meets or exceeds federal guidelines.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Several Bills Lead Legislative Action on Solid Waste Issues
Three key recycling and solid waste issues were considered in 1998 by the Georgia General Assembly.
A bill was introduced in the Senate addressing the recycled content paper purchases by State agencies. The bill directed State agencies, authorities, and commissions to spend at least 95% of their printing and writing paper expenditures on paper that meets or exceeds EPA guidelines for minimum recycled content, currently 20%. The bill passed and was signed into law.
Conflicting bills were introduced pertaining to the scrap tire management fee and to the Solid Waste Trust Fund. One bill rescinded the $1 fee collected on every new tire sold in the state prior to its then sunset date of June 30, 2000. The other bill extended the sunset date beyond 2000. No decision was made on this issue until the General Assembly met in 1999. The General Assembly agreed to extend the sunset date to June 30, 2005 and Governor Roy E. Barnes signed the bill into law April 28, 1999, making it effective July 1, 1999.
None of the bills, however, caused as much furor as the highly publicized "Bottle Bill." If passed, it would have required a 10-cent deposit on most beverage containers in an effort to increase recycling and reduce litter. The bill, however, failed to get out of a Senate subcommittee.
First introduced in the 1997 legislative session, the bottle bill was assigned to the Solid Waste Subcommittee of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. The subcommittee, which did not formally consider the issue until 1998, scheduled a hearing, allotting time for both supporters and opponents to speak about the issue. After the discussion, a motion not to send the bill to the full committee passed by a 40 vote.

With the assistance of EPD, DOAS developed a statewide contract for fluorescent lamp and ballast recycling service. DOAS also updated an agency contract to a statewide contract that allowed all state agencies to take advantage of energy-efficient lamps and ballasts.
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 more than 5,000 persons. Recipients include manufacturing industry representatives, government officials, businesses, and citizens.
As a sponsor of KAB's Waste in Place and Waste: A Hidden Resource curricula, DCA's Keep Georgia Beautiful program schedules, publicizes, coordinates, and funds teacher training workshops throughout the state. During the 1998 fiscal year, DCA provided training and curriculum guides to 180 classroom teachers, educational specialists, and administrators who impacted 17,000 students. Keep Georgia Beautiful also hosted eight Waste in the Workplace workshops to businesses, reaching 150 participants.
DCA staff worked with government officials and landfill operators to help them completely understand the annual Solid Waste Survey and Full Cost Report and to assist them in completing the forms accurately. A total of five workshops were held for 72 participants.
DCA staff participated as instructors on recycling and solid waste planning and explained DCA's role in solid waste management at the Solid Waste Association of North America's (SWANA) Landfill Operators Certification Training at Southern Polytechnic State University.
The Georgia Hospitality and Environmental Partnership worked with numerous hotels to begin implementation of a hotel-recycling program. This included the formation of a "Green Team" which focused on solid waste issues throughout the hotel industry in an attempt to increase recycling and diversion rates.
DCA hosted the annual EPA Region 4 State Solid Waste Managers meeting in April 1998. State representatives from throughout the southeast met to discuss solid waste management issues and activities.
Along with responding to numerous requests for information from local governments, individuals, organizations and media outlets, DCA responded to two national magazine studies an annual recycling survey for BioCycle magazine and a recycling survey for Waste Age's Recycling Times.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

UGA Bioconversion Center Eliminates Waste Problems
Bioconversion is a big word for a simple idea. In short, it is all about composting materials, and researchers and scientists at the University of Georgia are using it to eliminate waste problems. Simply put, bioconversion is the process of turning waste materials into safe, value-added products.
At the UGA Bioconversion Research and Demonstration Facility in Athens, researchers study how to handle waste by taking various waste products - including animal bedding, industrial by-products and yard trimmings - and composting them. The composted material is then put back into the University landscape as mulch and soil amendments.
The bioconversion research focuses on trimming waste volume, creating alternative products, preventing groundwater pollution, developing soil amendments, using hard-to-convert compounds, and minimizing odors. The seven-acre facility has four acres of windrow composting, complete with viewing areas to study the layers of compost, and enzyme digestion tanks. The four windrows on the site measure eight feet high, 10 feet wide and 140 feet long. Each stack reaches about 140 degrees inside and has to be turned once each month to incorporate all of the material.
Twice each year, the UGA scientists offer training in solid waste management and composting for local government site managers, landfill compost operators, and workers from private operations.

The third annual "Let's Keep Georgia Peachy Clean" statewide cleanup week was held April 18-25, 1998, and attracted the involvement of 14,213 volunteers. The volunteers were part of the 237 different groups that participated in the event and contributed 22,178 hours of their time to clean 1,600 miles of roadway throughout the state and eliminate 60 illegal dumpsites. The Georgia Peachy Clean Team coordinated the statewide event and provided supplies. Its members include the Georgia Departments of Community Affairs, Public Safety, Natural Resources and Transportation, the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority, and Georgia's local KAB affiliates.
In August 1997, Keep Georgia Beautiful hosted the South/Southeast Keep America Beautiful Regional Forum in Savannah. The regional convention, the largest-ever gathering of Keep America Beautiful affiliates, brought together 315 guests from 12 states to discuss the issues of preserving the natural beauty and environment of communities and improving waste handling practices and trends.
After 20 years of being known as Georgia Clean and Beautiful, the first state affiliate of Keep America Beautiful changed its name to Keep Georgia Beautiful in April 1998. KAB President Ray Empson urged all state and local affiliates to change their names to the Keep _____ Beautiful format to more closely align themselves with the national program.
In February 1998, Keep Georgia Beautiful organized and hosted the inaugural KAB Institute in Athens. The Institute, which will ultimately consist of three levels of training, was offered to local KAB executive directors throughout the country. Seventeen executive directors from Georgia and 13 state affiliate leaders, along with national KAB representatives, attended the training. The training focused on interpersonal skills, group processes, leadership skills, and community action processes. The Institute offers participants a way to refine their skills and expertise so they can interact with a cross-section of the public.
Another conference, held in May 1998 offered training in board development, volunteer management and fundraising, for more than 100 KAB executive directors and local board chairmen and members.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

P2AD Honors Pollution Prevention Partners
The Pollution Prevention Assistance Division, the Environmental Protection Division, and the Governor's Environmental Advisory Council sponsored a Governor's Pollution Prevention and Environmental Conference in October 1997.
The conference featured a series of break-out sessions on the latest information about environmental issues in Georgia. The conference also included a town hall meeting for all participants to ask government officials and legislators questions about the environmental issues facing the state.
At the closing luncheon, P2AD recognized companies certified in the Pollution Prevention Partners program and presented the first annual Governor's Awards for Pollution Prevention to companies, non-profit groups, academic institutions, local governments and individuals. Each winning project had to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of pollution prevention, as "the use of materials, processes, and practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants or wastes at the source."
Some examples included inventory management, revision of purchasing procedures and policies, source reduction, process modifications, housekeeping/good operating practices, material substitution, redesign of product, pollution prevention education/outreach, and in-process recycling.

In an effort to provide local governments with easy-to-use, reliable resources on household hazardous waste, P2AD developed and distributed 1,500 copies of the Guide to Best Management Practices for Household Hazardous Waste and Radon. The book is designed to assist local governments in answering citizens' inquiries about household hazardous waste. The publication was distributed to county extension agents, health departments, recycling coordinators, KAB affiliates, and fire departments. Every county in Georgia has at least two copies of the publication.
DCA's Keep Georgia Beautiful program provided ongoing support to local KAB systems through two executive directors' conferences. A September 1997 conference provided up-to-date environmental information as well as a new coordinator training session taught by staff of Keep America Beautiful, Inc.
On Earth Day in April 1998, Keep Georgia Beautiful and KAB combined to release a new public service announcement featuring Iron Eyes Cody, the crying Indian made famous by the 1971 PSA.
Keep Georgia Beautiful hosted pre-certification training for Keep Dade Beautiful and Keep Habersham Beautiful.
In March 1998, Keep Georgia Beautiful hosted its annual awards luncheon funded entirely by corporate sponsors. The luncheon honored 39 organizations and five individuals for outstanding recycling, composting, and environmental improvement efforts. The program also featured a $1,000 scholarship from the Keep Georgia Beautiful Foundation for the Student of the Year. More than 500 people attended the event.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Looking to the Future:

Several important issues are expected to affect Georgia's system of solid waste management in the coming years. These issues fall under the categories of regionalization and consolidation, education and citizen awareness, and planning and research.

Regionalization and Consolidation
With the closure and elimination of vertically expanded, unlined landfills in Georgia, many communities were faced with multiple questions about how their solid waste would be disposed. Some have opened new lined landfill facilities, while others have contracted with the private sector to manage their solid waste. Others, however, have realized that trying to handle this issue all alone does not make environmental or financial sense for their community. Many have entered into regional agreements to handle solid waste. If successful, these regional agreements could become commonplace in the next century.
MIDDLE GEORGIA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
Ground was broken in 1998 on a new C&D landfill that will be built in Macon County and service Macon, Dooly, and Peach counties. The three counties formed the Middle Georgia Solid Waste Management Authority in 1993, pursuant to the Solid Waste Management Authority Act. The landfill is jointly owned by all three counties and is operated by the Authority. The middle-Georgia counties were able to meet the financial, technical, and public opinion challenges of siting a landfill by pooling their resources. The landfill provides them with an effective waste disposal option that they would not have had otherwise. The three counties paid for the project on a per capita basis, and about half of their contributions came from a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST). The remaining funding was received from a series of four GEFA grants for a total of $130,000 over five years to help with the landfill's construction. The formation of the Authority helped answer the questions of how to manage solid waste disposal in an efficient manner and decrease any future costs associated with solid waste management. The Authority hopes to market the facility and take in C&D materials from other areas. The site is also permitted for use as a Subtitle D landfill, which may be developed in the future.
THE RECYCLING BANK OF GWINNETT
Communities are not just looking at regionalization and consolidation to handle their garbage, but also to properly and more effectively handle items that can be recycled. The Recycling Bank of Gwinnett, for example, is a regional recycling facility now in its eleventh year of operation. Over the years, based on the need to reduce the waste stream, provide materials to end users, and provide a cost-effective program, the Recycling Bank of Gwinnett has expanded from a 2,000 square foot drop-off/buy-back center to a 15,000 square foot, 75 tons per day intermediate processing center. In June 1998, it completed a $250,000 expansion to add a 5,000 square foot paper sorting facility and 15,000 square foot work yard. The center currently handles three million pounds of recyclables per month for both the general public and private sector waste haulers operating throughout the metro Atlanta area.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs
Education and Citizen Awareness
Keep Georgia Beautiful and DCA have been charged with educating the public and offering technical assistance to local governments. Additional education is planned, including some programs that may take some waste reduction issues back to their roots. Many new waste reduction programs are being started everyday throughout the state, and many individuals are becoming involved and interested in the daily operation of these programs, including elected officials. Although DCA offers an annual workshop for recycling coordinators, basic recycling information, such as the economics of recycling, needs to be conveyed to elected officials and other local government staff in order to encourage more interaction and promotion of local programs.
More resource guides are planned, including an in-depth look at the way each city and county in the state manages solid waste. Included with this will be a series of case studies - programs and ideas that have been successfully implemented and can be used as a model for others to follow. An evaluation of existing documents will also be undertaken to measure their effectiveness. Many documents produced by DCA, like the Recycling Markets Directory, have changes that take place on an almost daily basis, yet are only updated in a printed format on an annual basis. In fact, each agency - DCA, EPD, P2AD, and GEFA - has a comprehensive web page that offers updated information on solid waste issues and funding. With the increasing availability of the Internet, these agencies will be able to reach Georgians in a manner more timely than ever.
Planning and Research
Many local governments are in the process of revisiting their solid waste management plans and updating their short-term work programs. By doing this, 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.
Additional planning will be fueled by research expected to be complete during FY99. P2AD is conducting a characterization of five significant non-residential solid waste streams: wood waste, construction and demolition waste, food processing waste, textile fibrous waste, and municipal biosolids. These waste streams were identified during a 1996 survey of landfill operators. The full reports will discuss generation trends, current management options, impediments to recycling/reduction, and market availability. This information will be used to assess areas where markets do not exist or need expanding and to identify technology voids for certain materials.
An additional 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 UGA's Centers for Bioconversion and By-Product Utilization. These centers seek to develop valueadded products from wastes that can be used as industrial feedstocks or soil amendments.
Other Related Solid Waste Management Factors
While the State is making progress in the areas of planning, research, education, and technical assistance, future efforts could be hindered if funding sources are not sustained or created to finance current and future solid waste management efforts.
Further, the growing realization that all aspects of environmental management are intertwined suggests that State policy makers and agencies should widen their focus. Consider, for example, the impact landfills have on both groundwater and air quality. 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.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Appendix A: Governments Not in Compliance With the Solid
Waste Management Act

The local governments listed in Appendix A became ineligible for State solid waste permits, grants, and loans during FY98 for failing to comply with the Solid Waste Management Act.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT SUBMITTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS
City of Cumming City of Jasper City of Lithia Springs City of Nelson City of Pine Lake City of Talking Rock Pickens County
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT HAVING APPROVED SHORT TERM WORK PROGRAMS
City of Bowersville City of Chickamauga City of LaFayette City of Lookout Mountain City of Pembroke City of Rossville City of Sharon Taliaferro County Walker County
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT RESPONDING TO 1998 SOLID WASTE SURVEY AND FULL COST REPORT
City of Andersonville City of Avalon City of Broxton City of Buena Vista City of Chauncey City of Coolidge City of Corinth City of Damascus City of Demorest City of Flowery Branch City of Luthersville City of Mineral Bluff City of Montrose City of Oconee City of Payne City City of Resaca City of Talmo

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Appendix B: Remaining Landfill Capacity

Facility

County

Appling Co. - Roaring Creek PH 1 & 2 (SL)

Appling

Atkinson Co. - SR 50 (MSWL)

Atkinson

Central State Hospital - Freeman Bldg. (L)

Baldwin

Baldwin Co. - Union Hill Ch. Rd., PH 3 (MSWL) Baldwin

Chambers R & B Landfill Site #2 (MSWL)

Banks

Chambers R & B Landfill Inc. (MSWL)

Banks

Republic Waste - Oak Grove MSWL SR324 (SL) Barrow

Bartow Co. - SR294 Emerson (SL) PH 1 (C&D) Bartow

Bartow Co. - SR294 Emerson (MSWL) PH 2

Bartow

Fitzgerald - Kiochee Church Road, PH 2 (SL)

Ben Hill

Macon - Walker Road PH 2 (SL)

Bibb

Swift Creek Landfill (L)

Bibb

Swift Creek MSW Landfill (SL)

Bibb

Butts Co. - Pine Ridge Recycling (MSWL)

Butts

Camden Co. - SR110 (MSWL)

Camden

Candler Co. - SR 121 Phase 2 (MSWL)

Candler

Candler Co. - SR 121 Phase 2 (CD)

Candler

Catoosa Co. - SR 151 W Exp (SL)

Catoosa

Charlton Co. - Chesser Island Road (SL)

Charlton

Chatham Co. - Chevis Road (L)

Chatham

Chatham Co. - Sharon Park (L)

Chatham

Chatham Co. - Thomas Avenue (L)

Chatham

Chatham Co. - Savannah - Dean Forest Road (SL) Chatham

Superior Sanitation, Little Neck Road, PH 2 (MSWL) Chatham

Clifton Equipment Rental Company, Inc. (L)

Chatham

Cherokee Co. - Pine Bluff Landfill (SL)

Cherokee

Cherokee Co. - SWIMS - SR 92 PH 4 (L)

Cherokee

Clarke Co. - Dunlap Road PH 2, 3, 4 (SL)

Clarke

Clayton Co. - SR 3 Lovejoy Site #3 (SL)

Clayton

Cobb Co. - County Farm Road #2 PHS 1, 2, 3 (L) Cobb

Cobb Co. - Cheatham Road PH 2 (SL)

Cobb

Chambers - Oakdale Road/I-285 (L)

Cobb

Coffee Co. - CR 129/17 Mile River (SL)

Coffee

Columbia Co. - Baker Place Road, PH 2 (SL)

Columbia

Columbia Co. - Sample & Son (C&D)

Columbia

Cook Co. - Taylor Road Adel, PH 1 (SL)

Cook

Cook Co. - Taylor Road Adel (L)

Cook

FY98 Tons

Remaining Estimated Capacity (Yds3) Closure Date

13,534.04 18,702.61
326.25 29,365.90 72,873.44 47,278.35 409,449.64 15,765.36 105,793.04 22,015.53 91,473.07 52,354.59 180,267.22 277,531.90 79,718.98 8,515.37 4,640.00 118,314.45 47,920.48 4,844.16 14,048.34 19,483.95 79,476.69 258,353.50 83,070.68 424,149.00 85,416.00 80,602.45 92,298.01 30,086.52
40.00 76,024.00 65,313.56 72,828.00 1,339.00 19,760.42
0.00

28,454 323,632 54,919 3,162,300 20,685,210
0 4,427,446
250,000 315,000 658,566 3,338,082 791,998 4,115,955 11,465,552 3,081,648 564,372
0 NR 711,833 150 250 2,625 1,107,326 7,582,120
0 36,537,274
28,000 2,259,366 4,377,996
15,600 0 0
240,000 761,779
NR 0
194,990

8/1/99 6/1/28 1/31/71 12/31/50 8/1/42 In closure 1/1/06 1/1/06 7/1/00 8/1/13 10/1/17 4/7/08 6/19/14 12/31/22 10/1/18 7/1/28 In closure NR 7/1/01 10/31/98 9/25/98 10/31/98 1/1/10 6/1/21 In closure 8/30/29 3/1/99 11/24/14 1/31/23 12/10/98 In closure In closure 11/01/06 5/31/05 NR In closure 1/1/51

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Facility
Cordele - US 41 S PH 2 (SL) Crisp Co. - US 41S Site 2 PH 4 (MSWL) Dawson Co. - Shoal Hole Road (SL) Decatur Co. - SR 309 Bainbridge PH 2 (SL) DeKalb Co. - Seminole Road PH 2 (SL) Land Reclamation - Rogers Lake Road (C&D) (L) APAC/GA - Donzi Ln. PH 5B (L) Phillips-Scales Road C&D (L) WMI - Live Oak #2 (SL) BFI - Hickory Ridge (MSWL) BFI - East DeKalb Landfill, Inc. (C&D) DeKalb Co. - Seminole Road PH 2A, 3 & 4 (SL) Dodge Co. - CR 274 (Dodge Ave.) Eastman (SL) Dooly Co. - CR 101 (SL) Dougherty Co. - Fleming/Gaissert Road (SL) Oxford Solid Waste Landfill - Turner Field Road (L) Douglas Co. - Cedar Mtn/Worthan Rd. PH 1 (SL) Effingham Co. - SR 17 Guyton (SL) Elbert Co. - Hull Chapel Road PH 1 (SL) Emanuel Co. - SR 297 Swainsboro (SL) Evans Co. - Sikes Branch Claxton (L) Fayette Co. - 1st Manassas Mile Road Nside (L) Floyd Co. - Berry Hill Road (SL) Rome Walker Mountain Road, Site 2 (MSWL) Hightower Road, Phase 4 (MSWL) Franklin Co. - Harrison Bridge Road PH 1 (SL) Chadwick Road Landfill, Inc. (L) Chambers - Bolton Road (SL) Atlanta - Gun Club Road (SL) Atlanta - Cascade Road (SL) Atlanta - Key Road (SL) Atlanta - Confederate Avenue (SL) Eller - Whitlock Avenue (L) Glynn Co. - Cate Road (SL) Glynn Co. - Cate Road (L) Gordon Co. - Redbone Ridges Road (SL)

County
Crisp Crisp Dawson Decatur DeKalb DeKalb DeKalb DeKalb DeKalb DeKalb DeKalb DeKalb Dodge Dooly Dougherty Dougherty Douglas Effingham Elbert Emanuel Evans Fayette Floyd Floyd Forsyth Franklin Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton Glynn Glynn Glynn Gordon

FY98 Tons
97,330.60 29,896.64 15,441.90 27,870.87 60,149.00 102,506.74 403,904.29 172,367.91 1,278,987.88 519,343.47 107,126.14 248,709.00 11,895.48 13,762.21 144,467.58 78,617.77 32,589.74 12,559.49 15,648.01 16,254.00 3,686.12 2,838.88 106,675.00 8,778.52 9,577.84 11,341.98 290,290.00 133,289.00
11.00 11.00 20.25 6.00 21,297.00 10,345.69 108.94 58,727.08

Remaining Capacity (Yds3)
0 1,362,876
47,472 477,400 479,981 648,365 2,577,888 592,813 4,525,573 4,445,113 3,954,594 11,745,650
0 0 1,365,000 8,500 30,073 0 71,657 0 61,559 0 0 0 0 335,381 4,539,835 41,852 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,363,489

Estimated Closure Date
In closure 10/01/07 8/31/99 1/31/07 7/1/03 1/1/03 5/1/04 7/1/99 2/15/01 6/1/04 5/1/32 11/1/18 In closure In closure 2/1/05 2/28/99 7/30/99 In closure 6/1/00 In closure 1/31/03 In closure In closure In closure In closure 10/28/15 4/1/06 11/15/98 In closure In closure In closure In closure 7/31/98 In closure In closure 6/1/03

Facility
Cairo - 6th Ave (SL) WMI - B J Landfill PH 3 & 4 (SL) Button Gwinnett-Arnold Road PH 3 (SL) UWL Inc. - Richland Creek Road (SL) Habersham Co. - SR13 (MSWL) Hall Co. - Candler Road (SR 60) (MSWL) Hall Co. - Allen Creek PH A (SL) Reliable Tire Service, Monroe Drive (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) Jeff Davis Co. - CR 20 (SL) Jefferson Co. - US 1 (Avera Road) (SL) Jenkins Co. - CR54 Phase 2 MSWL & C&D Lamar Co. - Regional Solid Waste Authority (MSWL) Lamar Co. - Grve St. Ext. (Old Mlnr Rd.) (SL) Laurens Co. - Old Macon Road (MSWL) Liberty Co. - Limerick Road (L) US Army - Ft. Stewart Main Cantonment (SL) US Army - Ft. Stewart Main Cantonment (L) Valdosta - Wetherington Lane (SL) Pecan Row Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWL) Lumpkin Co. - Barlow Homes Road PH 2 (SL) McIntosh Co. - King Road (SL) Monroe Co. - Strickland Loop Road (SL) Murray Co. - US 411 Westside Site 2 (MSWL) Murray Co. - US 411 Westside (SL) Columbus - Schatulga Rd. W Fill PH 2 (SL) Columbus - Pine Grove (MSWL) Newton Co. - Lower River Rd. Site 2 (MSWL) Newton Co. - Forest Tower/Lwr Rvr (SL) Oglethorpe Co. - US 78 C/D Landfill (SL) Paulding Co. - Gulledge Road N. Tract 1 (SL) Polk Co. - Grady Road (SL) Putnam Co. - CR 29 (L) & (SL) Richmond Co. - Deans Bridge Rd. PH 2C (SL) US Army - Fort Gibson Rd. PH 1-3 (SL)

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

County
Grady Gwinnett Gwinnett Gwinnett Habersham Hall Hall Hall Haralson Houston Jasper Jeff Davis Jeff Davis Jefferson Jenkins Lamar Lamar Laurens Liberty Liberty Liberty Lowndes Lowndes Lumpkin McIntosh Monroe Murray Murray Muscogee Muscogee Newton Newton Oglethorpe Paulding Polk Putnam Richmond Richmond

FY98 Tons
17,026.26 28,679.90 94,532.00 701,369.90 24,786.84 57,183.43 3,254.57 90,899.10 32,999.52 142,822.23 5,521.59 1,004.03 1,474.00 13,492.00 8,699.06
00.00 95,607.68 44,650.26 8,035.00 22,814.00 3,888.00 29,663.19 244,420.24 1,240.00 5,412.00 11,866.63 26,486.61 8,130.97 58,913.38 6,985.93 23,601.49 20,446.99 32,970.71 15,249.31
30.27 37,753.79 194,237.45 10,854.85

Remaining Estimated Capacity (Yds3) Closure Date

261,000 55,000 157,928 12,888,880 1,186,566 6,832,685 15,272 3,217,916 35,963 6,162,683 27,090 88,575
0 4,856 891,782 1,068,000
0 268,295
545 994,825
8,750 21,273 4,206,482
0 914,884 2,259,448 2,078,152
0 312,000 6,118,500 1,919,287 195,854 169,724
4,437 3,958 203,336 900,000 219,949

3/1/06 4/15/00 9/15/99 3/1/15 1/1/31 8/3/54 11/24/07 10/15/12 1/1/99 2/2/26 1/1/01 5/31/20 In closure 7/30/98 11/1/49 3/1/06 In closure 7/1/02 2/4/99 1/1/20 7/1/99 3/31/99 9/23/10 12/31/98 5/1/57 6/1/58 2/1/30 In closure 12/31/98 2/28/35 10/1/25 5/1/06 1/31/03 7/1/09 1/1/52 4/1/01 7/1/01 10/1/15

Facility
Spalding Co. - Griffin/Shoal Creek Rd. PH 2 (C&D) Stephens Co. - SR 145 PH 2 & 3 (SL) Southern States - SR 90 / SR 137 Charing (SL) Telfair Co. - S 2316 (SL) Thomasville - Sunset Dr. Phase 4 MSWL HE (SL) Tifton-Omega/Eldorado Road PH 3 (SL) Toombs Co. - S 1898 PH 2 Vert. Expansion (SL) LaGrange - I85 / SR 109 (SL) Troup Co. - SR 109 Mountville PH 2 (SL) Twiggs Co. - US 80 (SL) Walker Co. - Marble Top Road Areas 1-5 (SL) Lafayette - Coffman Springs Road (L) Washington Co. - Kaolin Road S #3 (SL) Wayne Co. - SR23, Broadhurst (SL) Treutlen & Wheeler Counties - SR 46 PH 2&3 (SL) Whitfield Co. - Dalton, Old Dixie Hwy, PH 6 (SL) Dalton - Old Dixie Hwy PH 2 (SL) Dalton - Rocky Face (WS) PH 2 (SL) Dalton - Old Dixie Hwy PH 5 (SL) Wilkes Co. - CR 40 (SL) Worth Co. - SR 112 Sylvester PH 1 (SL)

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

County
Spalding Stephens Taylor Telfair Thomas Tift Toombs Troup Troup Twiggs Walker Walker Washington Wayne Wheeler Whitfield Whitfield Whitfield Whitfield Wilkes Worth

FY98 Tons
19,681.88 1,605.21 750,840.00 15,652.45 115,446.18 33,220.24 39,690.00 63,889.90 3,149.06 9,840.54 72,951.92
0.00 14,899.02 211,354.88 9,268.42
0.00 122,570.55 39,778.96
0.00 15,957.18 2,539.44

Remaining

Estimated

Capacity (Yds3) Closure Date

261,628 43,133 36,697,026
0 4,000,000
710,000 0
2,775,000 231,802
3,676,895 0
70,920 1,389,307 7,655,731
0 11,052,261
239,000 30,940
0 0 0

12/30/04 1/1/06 12/25/28 In closure 4/1/18 12/31/08 In closure 10/1/13 9/1/34 7/1/67 In closure 7/1/41 2/1/45 7/25/21 In closure 7/1/28 1/1/01 3/1/99 In closure In closure In closure

Notes: All information pertaining to annual tonnage, remaining landfill capacity and estimated closure dates was supplied by EPD.
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.
NR Site did not report in time for inclusion in the report.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Appendix C: Grants and Loans to Local Governments

SOLID WASTE LOAN PROGRAM (GEFA)

Recipient

Amount ($)

City of Albany

912,500

Bartow County

2,000,000

Fitzgerald-Ben Hill SWMA

774,555

Lamar County Regional SW Authority 2,000,000

Middle Georgia Regional SWM Authority 235,000

Polk County

1,000,000

Total

$6,922,055

Purpose Acquisition of existing operating C&D landfill Expansion of the existing Subtitle D landfill, Phase 3 Construction of a C & D landfill Construction of a Subtitle D Landfill Construction of a C & D landfill Expansion of a Subtitle D landfill

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS (DCA)

Recipient

Amount ($)

Banks County City of Comer City of Rincon

10,000 4,485 9,592

Total

$24,077

Purpose
Establishment of a recycling and processing center Purchase of equipment for recycling center Purchase of a wood chipper

SCRAP TIRE MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT/EDUCATION GRANTS (EPD)

Recipient

Amount ($) Purpose

City of Albany

100,000

Athens-Clarke County

25,000

Augusta-Richmond County

83,800

Barrow County

89,547

Columbia County

82,119

Greene County

60,252

Hall County

89,000

Hart County

74,037

McDuffie County

60,125

Monroe County

36,060

Morgan County

68,294

North GA Waste Management Authority 12,514

Oglethorpe County

53,300

Paulding County

94,395

Rabun County

63,798

Stephens County

55,850

Upson County

49,000

White County

76,830

City of Union City

73,500

City of Valdosta

65,473

Total

$1,312,894

Scrap Tire Enforcement Scrap Tire Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Education Scrap Tire Enforcement Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education Scrap Tire Enforcement and Education

SCRAP TIRE CLEANUP GRANTS (EPD)

Recipient

Amount ($)

Baldwin County Banks County Burke County Butts County Chattahoochee County Clay County Clinch County Crawford County Dawson County Forsyth County Franklin County Greene County Hall County Harris County Hart County Heard County Houston County Houston County Jasper County Jones County Lumpkin County McIntosh County Monroe County Morgan County Pike County Quitman County Randolph County Randolph County Stephens County Stewart County Talbot County Towns County Twiggs County Union County Upson County White County City of Richland City of Union City City of Valdosta City of Villa Rica
Total

20,133 18,810 21,620 14,400 15,000 48,095 14,997 12,851 14,250 27,573 20,000 8,400 27,573 25,000 21,000 17,102 8,366 25,785 8,400 15,960 19,000 1,649 13,605 8,400 9,689 10,000 14,100 7,520 25,000 11,280 14,100 10,000 10,680 18,990 22,017 15,326 2,293 4,342 19,500 8,467
$631,273

Georgia Department of Community Affairs
Purpose
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 Pile Cleanup 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 Pile Cleanup 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 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 Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup Scrap Tire Recycling Event Scrap Tire Pile Cleanup

Georgia Department of Community Affairs

WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING GRANTS (GEFA)

Recipient City of Alpharetta Athens-Clarke County City of Atlanta Department of Parks Baldwin County Barrow County Butts County City of Camilla Carroll County City of Centralhatchee Chattooga County City of Conyers Dade County Dalton-Whitfield County Dodge County Douglas County Floyd County City of Folkston Forsyth County Haralson County Harris County Heard County Jackson County Jones County City of Lincolnton Lowndes County Madison County McDuffie County Monroe County Morgan County City of Mount Vernon City of Nahunta City of Nicholls Oconee County Oglethorpe County City of Royston City of Senoia City of Soperton Spalding County Troup County City of Valdosta Walton County

Amount ($) 25,000 25,000 14,990 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 25,000 5,325 50,000 21,000 13,979 25,000 40,000 25,000 24,463 25,000 25,000 3,280 25,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 10,000 20,000 9,300 4,663 25,000 20,000 7,500 5,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Purpose Implement a pay-as-you-throw program Establish additional recycling drop-off collection sites Develop inventory system for cultural recycling program Expand recycling program Develop home composting program - tire recycling included Develop county-wide convenient/recycling center Purchase specialized equipment for recycling program Construct a recycling convenience center Construct a recycling convenience center Establish recycling locations and purchase equipment Develop commercial recycling program; containers for cardboard Erect fenced facilities for household garbage & recycling bins Purchase baler for cardboard products and carpet scraps Purchase five, 5-bin recycling trailers Promote backyard composting to local residents Buy roll-off containers, 18-foot trailers and 14-foot trailers Develop multi-activity waste reduction program Purchase recycling containers; improvements to recycling center Construct new convenience center, fenced and landscaped Purchase containers and glass crusher; build two drop-off centers Build a convenience center Purchase a wood chipper for composting program Complete two recycling convenience centers Expand recycling facility Purchase two recycling igloos for aluminum cans and plastics Purchase recycling trailers, forklift, dump trailer Make 1/2-mile track from recycled tire and rubber products Construct a recovered materials processing facility Equip five materials collection centers with roll-off containers Purchase 5-bin recycling trailer and truck Install fiberglass containers for recycling Purchase a brush chipper for composting program Purchase 7-yard dumpster containers for seven schools Build three waste & recycling collection sites - staffed and fenced Initiate curbside collection of recyclables and carts at residences Education and advertising to promote new recycling program Purchase chipper for organic material and recycling container Convert unmanned sites into manned collection centers Build manned convenience center; provide recycling containers Enclose and add space to current facility Purchase recycling containers for proposed convenience sites

Total

$1,000,000

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 EPD which provides for the cessation of waste receipt at a solid waste disposal site and for the securing of the site in preparation of 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 facilities.

Drop-off centers staffed or unstaffed facilities with 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 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; non-ferrous 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 a system at a landfill for collection of the leachate which may percolate through the waste and system into the soils surrounding the landfill.

Materials recovery a solid waste handling facility that provides for the extraction from solid waste of recoverable
facility 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.

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

Operator the person stationed on the site who is in charge of and has direct supervision of daily field operations of a municipal solid waste 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 EPD 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 processing facility

a facility engaged solely in the storage, processing, and resale or reuse of recovered materials. Such term shall not include a solid waste handling facility; provided, however, any solid waste generated by such a 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 handling any facility, the primary purpose of which is the storage, collection, transportation, treatment, 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 Environmental Management 60 Executive Park South, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30329 Phone: (404) 679-4940 Fax: (404) 679-0646 www.dca.state.ga.us
x
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

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
60 Exec utive Par k Sout h, NE Atlant a, Geor gi a 30 32 9- 223 1
Doc umen t Num be r: 02 92
Printed on Recycled Paper