Solid waste & recycling collection 2006 solid waste management update [2006]

Solid Waste & Recycling Collection 2006 Solid Waste Management Update

Waste Collection

The level and type of solid waste, recycling and yard trimmings collection services provided throughout the state varies greatly

depending upon a community's size, density and demographic profile. The data contained in this report is obtained mainly from

the Annual Solid Waste Management Survey and Full Cost Report. This data is used to attempt to identify how local

governments collect and manage solid waste, yard trimmings and recyclables generated within their community. Before

applying any analysis to this data it should be noted that in FY 2004 there was a significant drop in the response rate (from 93%

in FY 2003 to 79% in FY 2004). It is believed that the switch to the online system is the primary reason for

Residential Waste and Recyclables

the significant drop in the response rate. However, for the FY 2005 reporting year, there was a reciprocal increase in the response rate over FY 2004 (91% in FY 2005 up from 79% in FY 2004). Consequently it is recommended that a minimum of two more years of survey data be collected before this information can be effectively used to establish any reliable benchmarks or trend lines. Until then the data should only be used to acquire an over-all "annual snapshot" of solid waste and recycling activities in the State.

Collection

FY 2003 - 2005

2003

No. of local governments responding 642 to Solid Waste Management Survey

Solid Waste Service Providers

Local governments

565

providing/arranging for residential

waste collection

Provided by public sector

362

Provided by private sector

379

2004
546
501
336 379

2005
631
593
335 356

In the table entitled Residential Waste & Recyclables Collection the changing role of local governments as solid waste collection service providers is highlighted. Many local governments have opted to "arrange for"

Types of Residential Programs
Curbside/backdoor City County

400

374

436

62

60

66

rather than "provide" solid waste collection services. Over the past decade, we have seen the solid waste collection role of the private sector increase. One potential trend appears to be the changing role in providing recycling services. While it is impossible to state with any certainty, it appears that the number of local governments providing recycling services has declined from 2003 to 2005. This change in the general trend could be due to the fluctuating response rate.
There are several tools local governments use to partner with the private sector to manage the waste generated within their communities, including: permits, ordinances, franchise agreements, and/or contracts.

Staffed Drop-off City County
Unstaffed Drop-off City County
Dumpsters (Green box) City County
Recycling Service Providers Local governments making residential recycling services available Provided by public sector Provided by private sector Provided by non-profit organization

37

44

42

87

95

80

43

17

40

29

25

43

22

27

23

20

49

25

444

390

395

392

266

264

188

67

77

109

57

N/A

The number of local governments reporting they use permits, ordinances, and/or franchise agreements appears to have

increased immensely from FY 2003 to FY 2005. This may be due in part to the change in the wording of the question as well as

the section of the survey in which the question was asked.

Permits and ordinances governing the collection of solid waste are typically the least restrictive tools local governments use to

manage solid waste collection in their community. Collection ordinances typically establish general standards by which a private

sector service provider must operate.

Franchise agreements, either exclusive or open, generally establish a minimum level of services that must be provided by all service providers and usually stipulate the specific operating standards. A contract between a local government and private waste service provider provides the greatest degree of management control over the waste

Private/Public Partnerships for Residential Waste Collection

FY 2003 - 2005

2003

2004

2005

City County City County City County

Private collection does not exist 164

23

158

55

178

59

Issue permit or license

11

13

48

31

56

34

Local ordinance

11

22

230

70

251

79

Franchise agreement

34

9

103

36

134

40

Governments contract

181

41

202

53

248

60

stream, with the local government

Open competition -- no local

33

66

139

66

167

72

setting forth specific performance

government oversight

C - 1

Solid Waste & Recycling Collection 2006 Update

measures and standards to be met by both parties.

As can be seen in the Residential Waste and Recyclables Collection table, the types of residential solid waste collection

services range from "green box" or Dumpster drop-off service to curbside or backdoor pick-up. One trend the Department of

Community Affairs has been tracking for several years is the use of Dumpsters. They are often placed in unsupervised areas,

usually in rural communities, for trash collection and frequently become dumping grounds for everything from household trash

to disabled vehicles, tires, and animal carcasses. They can become an eyesore in a community and attract waste from

neighboring jurisdictions. The number of local governments using green boxes for residential waste collection has dwindled in

recent years. In 1994, 74 cities and 99 counties reported using them for residential waste collection. In

Yard Trimmings Management

FY 2005, just 23 cities and 25 counties reported using

FY 2003 - 2005

green boxes. It appears that around half of the counties using a Green Box system in FY04 did not report using them in FY05.

Promote home

2003

City County

55

41

2004

City County

24

27

2005

City County

25

25

composting and

grasscycling

Yard Trimmings Collection

Provide for collection 355

93

365

57

258

33

and disposal

Collection Options

The number of local governments reporting that they

Staffed drop-off

17

41

14

16

19

28

provide for the collection and disposal of yard trimmings facilities

fell from 448 in FY 2003 to 291 in FY 2005. This

Unstaffed drop-off

10

6

9

3

9

3

decrease may be linked to the increase use of the

facilities

private sector to provide collection services. The private

Curbside collection Accepted at

276 35

16 50

220 3

5 15

294 21

22 32

sector is less likely to offer yard trimmings collection

landfill/transfer station

because of the additional cost associated with its

Other

13

10

13

3

16

6

collection and disposal. The decline may also be due to

the discrepancy in the response rate over the last two years. The type of collection service options ranged from accepting yard

trimmings at solid waste management facilities like a solid waste transfer station to curbside collection programs. The number

of communities reporting they provide collection services has decreased from 448 in FY 2003 to 291 in FY 2005. From the

information reported it appears that this decrease is occurring mainly in the curbside programs and transfer stations accepting

the material, however due to the low response rate it is impossible to present a conclusive finding.

Recyclables Collection

During FY 2005, 395 local governments reported

they provided or arranged for residential recycling

500

services in their communities. As can be seen in the Residential Recycling Services Providers graph, 450

the strong tradition of public, private, and non-profit 400

partnerships used to provide recycling services

throughout Georgia continues. However it appears

350

that the number of private vendors has increased

300

slightly while the non-profit organizations have

decreased; this could also be due to the fluctuating

250

response rate.

200

Residential Recycling Service Providers FY 2003 - 2005

The number of local governments whose residents

150

have access to recycling services appears to have slowly dwindled during the last three years however 100

this could be due to the fluctuating response rate.

50

Collection programs for glass, scrap metal,

aluminum, and newspaper had fallen dramatically

0

in FY 2004, however they have all risen significantly

in FY 2005; the increase in the number of

communities reporting aluminum, newspaper,

plastic containers, and electronics collection

programs appears to indicate a trend beyond just

the number or communities responding to the

survey.

2003

2004

2005

Governments with recycling services available to residents Provided by public sector Provided by private vendor Provided by non-profit organization

C - 2

Solid Waste & Recycling Collection 2006 Update
Collection programs appear to have been trimmed mainly from small, rural communities. Some of the decrease may be attributed to the low survey response rate. On a more positive note, more jurisdictions reported collecting problem wastes such as electronic items.
As shown in the Number of Jurisdictions Collecting Materials for Recycling tables on page C-4, there was an increase in the number of local governments making residential recycling services available in their jurisdictions.
Nationally and regionally, market prices for recycled materials have varied widely. Virtually any recyclable commodity price, when tracked over time, varies greatly. This affects which materials some local governments choose to recycle, given their budget restraints and shifting priorities.
This report does not address the scale of the individual local recycling operations, which would be difficult to quantify. Rather, it focuses upon the level of recycling services being offered throughout the state. Since 1992, newspaper has been reported as the residential recyclable material most widely collected in Georgia, followed by aluminum cans. The most popular commodities recycled from residences were newspaper (509 jurisdictions reporting collection); aluminum (452); magazines (378); corrugated cardboard (368); and #1 plastic (360.) round-off the top five most recycled materials category during FY 2005. After trending drastically down in FY 2004 glass has rebounded sharply in FY 2005 this fluctuation could be attributed to the response rate. Although some recyclers have dropped glass from their programs, saying prices have fallen to the point that dealing with the material (which can be a contaminant for other recyclables if not handled properly) is no longer worth the trouble. Glass proponents claim that markets for the material have strengthened in the last two year, and that with care and proper equipment maintenance, glass should not be a problem for a recycling operation. The tables on page C-4 tally the number of local governments collecting commercial and residential materials for recycling.
Recyclables Processing
In FY 2005 176 local governments reported processing residential recyclables as source separated materials, or reported that they collect source-separated materials from their customers. Source-separated means the materials are separated before being collected, typically by the consumer. For example, a homeowner may have to place glass, plastic and metal in separate containers before collection. Commingled collection means the consumer places all the material in one container and the material is sorted after collection, often by paid staff, inmates or probationers

Processing of Residential Recyclables

FY 2003 - 2005

2003

2004

2005

City County City County City County

Source-separated

142

75

75

97

79

97

Commingled

41

12

32

12

46

14

Both

32

35

8

10

6

9

Unknown

94

11

52

34

32

21

C - 3

Solid Waste & Recycling Collection 2006 Update

Number of Jurisdictions Collecting

Residential Materials for Recycling by Type

FY 2001 - 2005

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Number of Jurisdictions Collecting

Commercial Materials for Recycling by Type

FY 2001 - 2005

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Automobile components

tires

98

89

88

62

54

auto batteries

74

70

71

44

38

motor oil

82

71

75

50

36

Automobile components tires auto batteries antifreeze motor oil oil filters Metals aluminum steel cans

141

137

136

117

142

88

93

91

89

100

15

22

24

18

21

109

101

93

66

95

22

17

23

18

28

375

362

334

292

452

173

165

157

118

226

Metals aluminum scrap metal Paper newspaper magazines corrugated cardboard white paper phone books other paper Misc. plastic glass

249

249

238

248

196

175

170

168

106

94

270

258

257

293

254

218

202

198

189

84

268

257

253

202

177

184

190

177

98

66

181

176

168

163

71

154

153

148

92

50

353

353

326

214

181

193

176

177

139

57

scrap metal aerosol cans Paper newspaper magazines corrugated cardboard phone books paper board other paper Misc. #1 plastic #2 plastic other plastic

223

212

214

124

208

38

41

40

16

39

406

380

365

344

509

315

298

280

269

378

332

314

287

280

368

250

241

234

202

322

126

129

132

111

72

238

234

206

172

236

276

268

256

247

360

259

244

255

208

311

85

85

76

52

69

glass

293

266

251

180

303

white goods

263

250

239

246

225

Christmas trees

262

245

244

253

262

C&D materials

66

60

65

51

48

Transfer Stations

agricultural chemical

23

22

23

15

10

containers

With fewer, more regional-sized landfills in the state and a

electronics

20

27

40

12

76

wide array of solid waste collection programs, solid waste

Household

transfer stations continue to be a popular method of streamlining solid waste collection services. Transfer stations are especially effective when collection routes are farther than 50 miles from a landfill. Combining several

Hazardous

Waste

paint

19

21

24

42

29

cleaning products

6

8

10

0

2

pesticides

4

3

7

4

4

conventional rear-loader garbage truck loads into a single

other

12

25

21

19

12

tractor-trailer for the trip to the landfill saves fuel costs, vehicle wear and tear, and means fewer trucks can service more customers. Only 20 cities reported that they or their

n/a: Question not asked on that year's survey *Prior to the 2000 survey, DCA did not separate #1 and #2 plastics in its survey.

contractors used transfer stations for the collection or

disposal of residential waste in FY 1995. By FY 2005, 157

cities or their contractors were using transfer stations to manage residential waste.

Use of Solid Waste

Transfer Stations

FY 2001 - 2005

City

County

2001

142

63

2002

143

67

2003

146

70

2004

153

70

2005

157

72

C - 4

Solid Waste & Recycling Collection 2006 Update

Georgia banned yard trimmings from lined

Yard Trimmings Management

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills in 1996, as part of an effort to extend landfill disposal capacity. Effective Sept. 1, 1996, each city, county and solid waste management authority was required to impose restrictions on yard

Promote Home Composting and Beneficial Reuse

FY 2003 - 2005

2003

City

County

2004

City

County

55

41

24

27

2005

City

County

25

25

trimmings generated in or disposed within their

jurisdiction. The restrictions required that yard

Provide for collection and disposal

355

93

365

57

258

33

trimmings:

Not be placed in or mixed with municipal solid waste;

Not available

Collection

133

61

137

86

178

96

Be sorted and stored for collection to facilitate composting or other handling;

Your government Another government Solid Waste Authority

253

67

308

54

242

76

18

16

18

12

17

22

11

7

7

6

8

11

To the maximum extent feasible be

Private vendor via individual

7

20

8

20

11

24

sorted, stockpiled or chipped for composting subscription

or used as a mulch or for other beneficial

Private vendor via government contract

30

10

19

12

35

11

purposes;

Collection Options

Be banned from disposal at MSW

Staffed drop-off facilities

17

41

16

23

16

32

disposal facilities having liners and leachate

Unstaffed drop-off facilities Curbside collection

10 276

6 16

9 220

6 15

10 240

8 16

collection systems;

Accepted at landfill/transfer

35

50

19

39

21

44

Annually, DCA surveys local governments to determine how they collect, process and use

station Other

13

10

8

6

8

6

yard trimmings generated within their

Processing Methods

communities. During FY 2005, 25 cities and 25 counties reported actively promoting waste minimization practices such as home composting or beneficial reuse of yard

Composting Solid waste landfill Inert landfill

46

11

46

12

48

18

40

8

35

8

22

8

91

46

177

94

154

92

trimmings. During FY 2005, 258 cities and 33 Grind/chip into mulch

173

55

177

55

183

76

counties reported collecting yard trimmings

Own a chipper/shredder

132

23

146

20

143

29

for diversion from MSW landfills. While the total number of local governments

Contract out chipping/shredding Use another local

39

28

35

33

31

33

19

5

17

9

18

9

responding to the survey is about the same in FY03 and FY05, the number of local

government's chipper/shredder Burning

30

3

24

0

24

4

governments reporting they collect materials is significantly lower in FY05. Those that did report that the service was available

Other Beneficial Use

23

8

0

0

23

6

indicated that they provided the collection

Give away

171

49

180

56

178

68

services with just a few indicating they

Sell

contracted with a private vendor to collect

8

9

8

7

8

8

yard trimmings. In many areas, especially

Used by local government

92

29

112

26

97

41

urban and suburban communities, the visible

Becomes property of private contractor

result of the yard trimmings ban has been the

12

8

39

13

39

15

presence of large paper bags of leaves and grass at curbsides. Collection of yard trimmings in paper bags enables

them to be ground into a mulch or feedstock for composting. The majority of local governments who reported collecting

yard trimmings, either ground or shredded the collected material for use as mulch, however 246 local governments

reported disposing the collected materials into an inert landfill. Composting and burning were also reported as common

processing methods Yard trimmings, when processed properly, have numerous beneficial uses in a community. The

use of compost and mulch is extremely beneficial for slowing storm-water runoff and retaining moisture around plants.

Many local governments use processed yard trimmings as mulch for their landscaping and civil engineering applications

or report offering the processed yard trimmings to their citizens for residential landscaping.

C - 5