TIES
TIED:
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
James E. Malia
Janice Morrissey
-------
James E. Malia, Ph D is a rural sociologist. Most recently he directed the
Tennessee Valley Authority's Center for Rural Waste Management until
the program was discontinued in the fall of 1994. Janice Morrissey is
completing her doctoral research in sociology at the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville. She has worked for ten years in the areas of social impact
assessment and environmental policy.
-------
RURAL COMMUNITIES AND SUBTITLE D
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
James E, Malia
Janice Morrissey
DECEMBER 1994
Tennessee Valley Authority, Center for Rural Waste Management j
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments 1
Executive Summary. 3
Introduction 7
Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management Authority, North Carolina 23
Atkinson County, Georgia 33
Coffee County, Alabama 43
Floyd County, Virginia 51
Jefferson County, Tennessee 63
New River Resource Authority, Virginia 73
lift County, Georgia 83
Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority, North Carolina 91
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Acknowledgments
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this project was provided by the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV office. Additional support was provided by the Tennessee Valley
Authority through its Center for Rural Waste Management.
An advisory committee provided help at critical times. The committee members
critiqued the ideas discussed in this study, helped identify the case study
communities, and provided comments on our initial draft of the material.
Their input was invaluable and much appreciated. Thank you to:
• Mark Davis, EPA, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia
• Chris Garkovich, University of Tennessee, Community Technical Assistance
Service, Knoxville, Tennessee
• Larry Kehrer, ECOS, Inc., Chapel Hill, North Carolina
• Martha Mclnnis, EnviroSouth, Montgomery, Alabama
• Scott Mouw, North Carolina Office of Waste Reduction, Raleigh, North
Carolina
• Pat Therrien, Appalachian Regional Recycling Consortium, Radford, Virginia
• Helen Wanning, Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center, Brunswick,
Georgia
A very special thanks needs to be given to the many people who provided
information for this publication. Their willingness to tell us about their
programs and comment on our initial draft made this study possible. We
appreciate 'all their help and the many considerations they gave us. We
want to thank: Randy Arno, Anne Blindt, Hayward Cribb, Lynn Croy, Howard
Dickerson, Marie Hayes, Fred Milliard, Gary Holiway, Paul Jordon, Joe
Klein, Karen Moore, Mae Morris, Barbara Nugent, Tom O'Brien, Jerry Parks,
Wilson Paulk, Mark Pool, Don Potts, Mark Pugh, Juan Ruiz, Bill Sheehan,
Paul Steele, Clark Tanner, Hunter Walker, and Wayne Walker.
We recognize that there are many others we could have talked with to
gain a deeper understanding of the solid waste programs described in this
study. We did not intend, however, that this would be an exhaustive study
of these programs. Nor was the sample of communities we selected intended
to be representative of all the rural communities successfully complying
with Subtitle D. Our purpose was to describe a few successful programs
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Acknowledgments
so that other rural communities would know some of the alternatives they
have for developing Subtitle D compliant programs. Names and phone
numbers are included with each case study to contact for more detailed
information. We do, however, want to recognize that there were other
people whose input was crucial to the success of the programs described
in this document. We apologize that we were not able to talk directly with
you.
In describing the programs, we have tried to be as accurate as possible.
Material for this project, however, was collected before September, 1994.
Thus, any changes in the programs after this date are not included in the
publication.
Finally, we want to acknowledge the effort that many rural communities
are making to successfully manage their solid waste in ways that are
environmentally responsible, cost efficient, and in concert with community
values and interests. Your solutions are an apt demonstration that rural
communities have alternatives for managing their solid waste, and that by
using creativity and a combination of local and outside resources, rural
communities can forge quality programs. Many other communities can
learn from your experiences.
James E. Malia
Janice Morrissey
October 14, 1994
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On October 9, 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued
regulations for municipal solid waste landfills under Subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. These regulations contain location restrictions,
facility design and operations criteria, ground-water monitoring requirements,
corrective action measures, conditions for closing and performing post-
closure care, and assurance for financial responsibility. Initially, landfill
owners/operators had until October 9, 1993 to comply with most of the
provisions of Subtitle D. Later, however, the effective date for many owner/
operators was extended to April 9, 1994.
The Subtitle D regulations were promulgated to make the disposal of solid
waste materials safer for the environment and for human health. As a
result of these regulations, however, constructing and managing a landfill
now requires considerable engineering and management expertise, the
use of new technologies, and ample financial resources. Because many
rural communities lack these resources they are at a disadvantage when
required to construct and manage Subtitle D landfills.
Community officials need to find additional funds to build and manage new
landfills as well as close old landfills that cannot be made to comply with
the Subtitle D criteria. To raise funds locally requires allocating less funds
elsewhere and, in most instances, raising fees or taxes. Thus, costs are
the most significant issue that must be resolved if rural communities are
to successfully build and manage Subtitle D compliant landfills.
If local funding options are not possible, cooperating with other areas to
build a regional landfill is a viable option to obtain economies of scale.
Regional landfills are not always politically acceptable, however. And local
officials do not always have the political skills and experience to build
regional associations and make them survive over time. Thus, control of
waste management issues within their jurisdiction and cooperating with
other communities are two additional issues that local officials may have
to address if they are to implement successful solid waste disposal programs.
This publication describes the experiences of eight communities in the
Southeast that are successfully managing one or more of the issues of
costs, control, and cooperation to implement successful solid waste disposal
Thus costs are the
most significant
issue that must be
resolved if rural
communities are to
successfully build
and manage
Subtitle D
compliant landfills.
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Executive Summary
programs. The study highlights the successes achieved by these communities,
the special challenges they face, and the creative ways they have found
to comply with Subtitle D. The solutions and experiences of these eight
programs offer valuable lessons for other rural communities. A sample of
what can be learned from these programs is presented below.
Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management Authority, North Carolina
By sharing employees and infrastructure already in place, waste
management officials can reduce costs and build on cooperative
arrangements already in place.
Smart negotiating with private waste management companies can
result in contracts that avoid put-or-pay arrangements, achieve price
stability, and maintain ownership of transfer stations and other key
components of a waste management system.
The solutions and
experiences of these
eight programs offer
valuable lessons for
other rural
communities.
Atkinson County, Georgia
• The right combination of sound economic planning, availability of
low-interest credit, and proactive citizen involvement can enable a
small rural county to maintain autonomy and control over its waste
stream.
• A well thought out citizen participation program can lead to the selection
of a politically acceptable site for a landfill.
Coffee County, Alabama
Public entities can build and manage a Subtitle D landfill that can
successfully compete with any private facility on price and quality of
service.
By building a landfill where the environment is right, rather than engineer
the environment to make the landfill fit, and by using public employees
and equipment to construct the landfill, costs can be kept to a minimum.
Floyd County, Virginia
• A transfer station is a viable option for a small rural county. One can
be built for a low cost and adapted for future expansion or converted
for use as a recycling facility. By negotiating short-term renewable
contracts, a county can buy time to consider long-term options.
An active group of local citizens can be effective in distributing solid
waste management information to the public and force a careful scrutiny
of all alternatives.
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Executive Summary
Jefferson County, Tennessee
Changing regulations and deadlines can create a great deal of expense
and work for counties that have developed a Subtitle D landfill in a
timely fashion and may include costly permit revisions in mid-stream.
A Subtitle D landfill can be built and managed successfully by a single
rural county, particularly if it takes advantage of locally available resources.
New River Resource Authority, Virginia
• When siting a new landfill, nearby citizens' concerns may be reduced
by agreeing to an independent groundwater monitoring and testing
procedure along with a complaint procedure that guarantees responsive
action and replacement of water supplies if contamination of drinking
waste occurs.
A volunteer citizens committee, when given adequate financial support,
can be highly effective in researching and screening alternative waste
management options.
Tift County, Georgia
• Extending landfill life is the best way to avoid future costs, a factor
that may outweigh current cost-per-ton disposal costs.
A volume-based system, such as pre-purchased bags, is an effective
way to pay for landfill development, while reducing the amount of
garbage that has to be buried.
Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority, North Carolina
• In developing cooperative work relations, perceptions of equality of
benefits and effort are important. If participants believe that arrangements
are equitable, they will be satisfied.
Building a successful cooperative arrangement to solve waste management
problems can lead to successful cooperative ventures in other areas
as well.
Rural
communities are
not locked into a
single
alternative...
they have the
freedom and the
resourcefulness to
craft unique
solutions that meet
their particular
needs.
Most importantly, the experiences of these communities demonstrate that
rural communities do have alternatives when it comes to developing solid
waste disposal programs. Rural communities are not locked into a single
alternative, nor do they need to feel pressured into agreements that may
not be in the best long-term interests of the community. Rural communities
have the freedom and the resourcefulness to craft unique solutions that
meet their particular needs.. Hopefully this publication will stimulate thinking
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Executive Summary
about these alternatives and provide the motivation rural public officials
and citizens need to adopt solutions that best serve the long-term well-
being of their communities.
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle 0: Introduction
INTRODUCTION
Solid waste has always been with us. In the past, population densities
were low and technology was minimal. As a result, the impacts of discarding
waste materials were insignificant. In time, however, population numbers
increased, social and economic conditions concentrated populations, and
technology became more complex. The amounts and toxicity of solid
waste now had the potential to harm human and animal health. As a result,
more elaborate measures had to be taken for disposing of waste materials.
But change came slowly. In most urban settings, backyard burning or the
town dump were the most common ways to dispose of solid waste materials.
Because of an abundance of land, rural areas had even more options -
private fields and forests, roadways, or streams.
Because improper waste disposal threatened the environment and presented
a risk to human health, local, state, and federal laws were passed to regulate
the disposal of solid waste materials. The impact of these early laws was
felt primarily in urban areas. In rural areas, disposing of solid waste remained
a private matter with little outside intervention to direct individual choices.
Today, the laissez faire practices of waste management are gone. Uroan
and rural areas alike are now bound by strict state and federal mandates.
New laws dictate how waste materials are to be handled and how landfills
and other disposal facilities must be constructed and managed to protect
water sources, to not pollute the air, and to be aesthetically acceptable.
The most recent standards for municipal solid waste landfills are specified
in the Subtitle D regulations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. These new regulations were issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in October, 1991 to be effective in October, 1993. The deadline
was later changed to April, 1994.
These new regulations demand much of any community in terms of financial
and managerial resources. Because rural areas have less money, less
managerial expertise, limited access to technology, insufficient information
about solid-waste management options, and less decision-making influence
at the policy level than do urban areas, they are particularly challenged
by the Subtitle D legislation. Rural public officials must secure substantial
funds through new taxes or user fees, hire outside experts, or enter into
regional associations that are uncomfortable or unfamiliar. New solid waste
New laws dictate
how waste materials
are to be handled
and how landfills
and other disposal
facilities must be
constructed and
managed.
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Introduction
management regulations have forced rural public officials and rural citizens
to confront a host of issues that are new to them and for which they have
little experience to draw on in deciding how to resolve. The alternatives
are expensive and the wrong decisions can have disastrous results for
rural communities. Despite the odds, however, many rural public officials
are meeting the challenges imposed by Subtitle D and implementing successful
solid waste disposal programs.
This publication describes the experiences of eight rural Southeastern communities
that are successfully implementing Subtitle D compliant solid waste disposal
programs. It begins with a brief overview of the new regulations and a
discussion of rural issues and problems. Then it continues with a discussion
of rural waste management issues and the successes experienced by the
communities in this study. The study concludes with a description of the
solid waste program in each of the eight communities.
SUBTITLE D
In 1976, the United States Congress passed the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA was amended in 1984 and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) was directed to develop new regulations for the
disposal of non-hazardous solid waste. Because the new regulations are
described in Subtitle D of RCRA, they are generically referred to as "Subtitle
D.* The regulations were promulgated in October of 1991 to be effective
on October 9,1993. The date was later changed for smaller landfills, however,
to April 9, 1994. The extension applied to most rural areas.
These most recent amendments to the Subtitle D legislation have brought
about dramatic changes in how both public and private entities construct
and manage landfills. States are required to take the lead in implementing
the regulations, including permitting and enforcement. The federal government
will provide only technical assistance to the states and will enforce Subtitle
D only in those states that do not implement the new rule. In developing
their permitting and enforcement regulations, states can exceed the federal
requirements. As a result, most states have initiated new state solid waste
management laws and planning requirements. In general, the states have
passed on the responsibility for developing and implementing solid waste
plans to counties or regional entities comprised of one or more counties.
8
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Introduction
New regulations
The new regulations specify criteria for the location, operation, design and
monitoring of new landfills. In addition, the regulations describe closure
and post-closure care and require that landfill owners demonstrate the
ability to pay costs for these, as well as costs related to any needed corrective
actions. These regulations apply to all landfills, new or old, that receive
waste after the effective date.
Location restrictions: New landfills and lateral expansions of landfills
are restricted in or near airports, floodplains, wetlands, fault areas, seismic
impact zones, and unstable areas. Landfills located within 10,000 feet of
any runway used by jet or turbojet aircraft or within 5000 feet of a runway
used by piston-type aircraft must demonstrate that the facility does not
pose a bird hazard to aircraft. Landfills cannot restrict the flow of a 100-
year flood or reduce the water storage capacity of the floodplain. New
landfills cannot be constructed in wetlands. The design of new facilities
must consider the stability of the area in terms of soil conditions, geologic,
geomorphologic, and man-made features.
Operating criteria: Landfill owners must exclude disposal of hazardous
waste, PCBs, and most liquid waste. Owners must implement a program
that includes random inspection, operator training, and record keeping to
ensure that these materials are excluded from the landfill. Six inches of
cover are required at the end of each day, and operators must eliminate
open burning, control disease-carrying insects and animals, and control
public access. Surface water run-on and runoff controls must be installed
to handle a 25-year storm. And operators must implement a program to
monitor and control the build up of methane gas.
Design criteria: New and existing landfills must provide groundwater protection
by ensuring that the level of contaminants do not exceed the limits established
by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. In states with EPA-approved programs,
the design can be site-specific as long as it meets performance standards
and is approved by the state. In states without an approved EPA-program,
landfill owners must design and build the landfill according to a design
developed by EPA. The EPA design requires a composite liner, which
includes a synthetic material over a 2-foot layer of clay, and a leachate
collection system.
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle 0: Introduction
Groundwater monitoring: All landfills must have monitoring wells to establish
background groundwater quality levels. These wells must be sampled
every six months. If a release occurs, assessment monitoring must begin
immediately to characterize the nature and extent of the release. After
the nature and extent of a release is known, corrective action must begin.
Closure and post-closure: The new regulations require that all landfill
owners must develop a closure plan and install a final cover that minimizes
both erosion and infiltration of liquids into the landfill.
Financial assurance: Landfill owners must demonstrate the financial ability
to cover the costs of closure, post-closure care, and corrective action in
the event of an accidental release.
Changing regulations and effective dates
The EPA received information from a number of states and communities
describing problems they were experiencing in meeting the original Subtitle
D implementation date of October 9,1993. These problems included: uncertainty
regarding the timing of approval of state landfill programs, changing requirements,
delays in gaining access to new waste management facilities, and overall
financial and operational difficulties. After considering the concerns, EPA
extended the deadline to comply with many of the criteria. EPA's intention
was not to lessen the requirements but only to provide additional time to
prepare for implementing the regulations. The effective dates were changed
as follows.
The financial assurance requirement was extended from April 9, 1994 to
April 9,1995. Compliance with the landfill design and monitoring criteria
was extended from October 9,1993 to April 9,1994 for small landfills that
receive less than 100 tons/day of material, are not a Superfund site, and
are in a state that has submitted an application to EPA for approval of its
permit program by October 9,1993. In addition, some states allowed the
continuing use of a current landfill as long as no lateral expansion was
involved.
There were also changes in the regulations, particularly in the requirements
for liners. Changing regulations, when combined with the extended deadlines,
hurt the communities and private companies who had made early decisions
and were already well underway with permitted construction plans. Particularly
- 10 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Introduction
hard hit were those landfills that were counting on receiving waste from
other nearby communities. Because Subtitle D landfill tipping fees were
higher relative to noncompliant landfills, the landfills with lower tipping
fees continued to receive waste. As a result, the Subtitle D landfills experienced
a significant loss of revenue - revenue that was needed to pay for the
construction and operation of the facility. While many communities undoubtedly
appreciated and benefited from the extended deadlines, for many other
communities, it was a disservice that harmed them financially and reinforced
their cynicism about federal and state regulations.
RURAL AREA CHARACTERISTICS
A number of factors help define what it is to be rural: low population density,
a prevalence of resource-dependent industries, and open country side that
Is some distance from an urban center and that may have an abundance
of physical features - lakes, forests, and mountains - to attract urban visitors.
These characteristics, which are the essence of ruralness, also create
barriers to effective solid waste management practices.
Population density
The low population and housing densities of rural areas make waste management
more complicated and costly in the same way it makes delivery of other
public service, such as electricity, water, and sewers, more expensive. It
takes more money on a per unit basis to service fewer people, a problem
intrinsic to the rural way of life. Whether the solid waste management
problem is how to collect the garbage, how to run a recycling program, or
how to generate taxes to pay for a new landfill, a dispersed population
makes the solution more difficult and more expensive than in areas with
a large, concentrated population base.
A number of factors
help define what it
is to be rural: low
population density,
a prevalence of
resource-dependent
industries, and
open country side
that is some
distance from an
urban center.
Resource-dependent economies
The economics of rural areas most often are based on resource-dependent
occupations like agriculture, mining, forestry, or tourism. These industries
create special waste management problems. Either they generate large
amounts of waste materials, or they generate inconsistent amounts of waste
that demand a high level of service at one point in time and a low level
of service at other times. Resource-dependent economies also are strongly
associated with low incomes and poverty, conditions that significantly complicate
waste management planning and services. Increased rural industrialization
11
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Introduction
puts added pressure on the waste management system by generating increased
amounts of waste materials, materials that many times rural landfill managers
have limited experience in handling.
Rural residents generally have lower incomes than nonrural residents, and
poverty is more common. Currently a higher percent of nonmetropolitan
residents live in poverty than do metropolitan residents, 17% compared to
12% in the 1990 census. When there are few citizens, and when these
citizens have little money, it is difficult for both public and private agencies
to generate the taxes or revenues they need to develop quality waste management
services. As a result, it is difficult to hire the management and technical
expertise needed for modem waste management programs, to purchase
new waste management technologies, and to generate the funds needed
to support waste collection and disposal programs. Limited financial resources
present significant problems for rural areas and often leave them with few
options.
Open space
Rural areas are also freestanding, i.e., they are located some distance
from a metropolitan statistical area. Because they are some distance from
major metropolitan areas, and because they have low population and housing
densities, rural areas have become an ideal target for depositing out-of-
area wastes. Land is relatively cheap, and the waste materials will be far
removed from the concerns of a concentrated population that prefers to
just be rid of its trash. As well, waste companies have learned that community
opposition is likely to be less vocal, less interested, and less organized
in a sparsely populated area. Poor and minority communities have become
particularly vulnerable to large waste flows in recent years. Thus, many
rural areas must contend with managing their own waste materials as well
as managing waste materials imported from other areas.
Lack of power
The needs and requirements of rural communities are frequently discounted
by urban-based decision-makers. Because the locus of political and financial
power is in cities, state and federal officials pass legislation and implement
programs and policies designed primarily to serve the needs of metropolitan
centers. Decision makers seem to assume that what works for the cities
will work for the countryside as well. As a result, rural public officials are
left with having to implement programs and policies that are more sophisticated
12
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Introduction
than needed for rural areas or are completely inappropriate. In addition,
the considerable knowledge and capabilities that rural people have acquired
over generations to solve local problems is frequently dismissed when
state and national initiatives are being formulated.
Taking action
In response to strict new solid waste management laws, rural areas, like
the rest of the country, are being forced to rethink and redo how they manage
their solid waste. Local officials and citizens in many rural areas, however,
already must struggle with myriad social and economic problems that impede
their efforts to forge an acceptable quality of life for their area. To comply
now with new solid waste mandates, for which they have limited funds and
expertise, is one more burden. Rural areas have few choices in these
matters, however. As a result, they are implementing solutions to their
solid waste problems that comply with current laws, that fit their available
resources, and that allow them to maintain their unique sense of place
and community.
SUBTITLE D ISSUES IN RURAL AREAS
Cost, control, and cooperation are the prime issues confronted by rural
areas as they seek to comply with the Subtitle D criteria. How rural decision
makers resolve these issues in large part determines whether their community
will successfully manage its solid waste problem, or whether solid waste
for them will remain a problem in search of a solution.
Cost
The burden of the cost issue
Cost is the critical variable in Subtitle 0 compliance. In trying to manage
costs, rural public officials may be forced to reduce expenses in other
areas, raise taxes or fees, or enter into unwanted contractual arrangements.
Poor management of costs can result in decisions and actions that are
detrimental to the financial and environmental well-being of the community.
Building and operating a landfill under Subtitle D regulations is expensive.
There are many variables that affect total costs, but estimates from $600,000
to $800,000 or more per acre, or $30-$70 or more per ton are common for
constructing, operating, and closing a Subtitle D landfill. Individual rural
communities generally do not have this kind of money. Public officials
can exert some control over costs by using local labor and equipment for
Cost, control, and
cooperation are the
prime issues con-
fronted by rural
areas as they seek
to comply with the
Subtitle D criteria.
13
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Introduction
landfill construction and maintenance, by selecting sites with an abundance
of clay and sand, and by selecting sites that do not require extra engineering
to make them suitable for the purposes of Subtitle D. Officials can also
address cost issues by raising taxes or user fees, contracting with a private
waste management company, or by joining a regional waste association
or authority to achieve economies of scale.
Raising taxes or fees can be politically risky - a risk that many politicians
are not willing to take. Committed leadership and good public education
can bring about public acceptance for paying more for garbage service,
but it is no guarantee. Many local politicians have lost their offices over
waste management issues. Those who see their peers lose an election
must consider the political cost of taking an unpopular position without the
support of the voters. Many elected officials believe that adopting a go-
slow approach and bringing people along on the waste management issue
may be more effective in the long run. If they lose to someone who vows
not to spend money, the problem may not get solved anyway or be solved
in a way that is detrimental to the area.
Public officials must find ways to collect money to pay for waste management
services. In many rural areas this may be difficult. Isolation and a strong
sense of independence are an inducement for many rural citizens not to
pay mandated waste management fees or taxes. Rural officials are challenged
by having to collect the levies as well as having to manage other consequences
of the fees, such as illegal dumping.
Rural communities usually have to depend on outside experts to provide
them with the financial information they need to make good waste manage-
ment decisions. Their dependent status makes them vulnerable. As a
result, they must always be certain that the information they receive serves
the best interests of the community and not the best interest of the
outside expert. In addition, the experience of outside experts is mainly
with larger urban areas and private waste companies. As a result, their
recommendations and solutions may be inappropriate for rural communities.
Many rural communities have difficulty in obtaining reliable cost estimates
for landfill construction and operation or of learning the financial impact
of alternative waste management programs. Decision makers need to
know the tonnage that is needed to cover near-term fixed costs and still
keep tipping fees competitive and user fees reasonable. For example,
- 14 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Introduction
does it make better economic sense to emphasize long-term life expectancy
of the landfill over costs per ton? Should effective reduction and recycling
programs be sacrificed to keep waste volumes high enough? Or, can future
disposal costs be avoided through an aggressive resource recovery program
now?
The Subtitle D regulations have not come with federal funds to implement
them. A few states do provide financial assistance for some aspects of
a community's solid waste management program, but states have limited
funds and a number of other priorities. As a result, the financial burden
of Subtitle D primarily falls on the local communities. Many rural officials
believe that waste management, including compliance with Subtitle D regulations,
requires a grossly disproportionate share of the local budget. Some have
had to cut back on other public services when funds cannot be raised
through increased taxes or user fees.
Key cost issues relating to Subtitle 0 and rural areas:
How can rural areas finance necessary solid waste disposal systems?
Must new funds be raised or can expenses be reduced? What financial
assistance is available from state or federal sources?
• Are rural communities and the engineering firms they hire overlooking
creative, less expensive ways of building compliant landfills?
• What are the implications for other services within rural communities
if a large portion of the budget is spent on landfill costs?
How can rural communities build smaller landfills cost effectively and
still comply with the Subtitle D regulations?
What is the trade-off between cost-per-ton and long-term cost avoidance
through extended landfill life? How should decision makers decide
which alternative to maximize?
The financial bur-
den of Subtitle D
primarily falls on
the local communi-
ties.
Solutions to the cost issues
Successful programs have adopted innovative ways to keep costs low.
Some of the cost-saving measures adopted by the communities in this
study include:
Taking a long-term planning approach that emphasizes cost avoidance
and extension of landfill life (Atkinson County, Jefferson County, NRRA,
Tift County);
Involving the public in selecting among disposal alternatives and in
finding a landfill site (Atkinson County, Tift County, NRRA);
Selecting a site that requires little environmental engineering (Coffee
- 15 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Introduction
County, Jefferson County);
• Using county equipment and personnel (Coffee County, Jefferson
County);
• Applying for grant and loan assistance available to rural communities
(Atkinson County, Tri-County);
• Cooperating with existing local organizations to use available resources
(Albemarle);
• Building a regional association to share expenses (Albemarle, Tri-
County, NRRA, lift County);
• Using incentives to implement waste reduction and recycling programs
(lift County);
Negotiating cost saving contracts that protect community interests
(Albemarle);
• Transferring material out of the area on a temporary basis while considering
permanent solutions (Floyd County).
There is one source of federal assistance for waste management activities
that rural communities might consider. It is the Rural Development Association
program administered by the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) in the
United States Department of Agriculture. Details of this program and how
it was used to the advantage of Atkinson County, Georgia are discussed
on page 42.
Control
The burden of the control issue
The ability to control what happens within their area, including what happens
relative to solid waste, is a strong value for rural public officials and citizens.
The complexity and expense involved with constructing and managing a
Subtitle D landfill, however, can provide an incentive for local officials to
contract with private waste management companies. The result may be
decreased local control of costs and of the kind of waste materials that
are brought into the area.
Privatizing all or part of a waste management system can have a strong
appeal for some local officials, particularly if they lack the knowledge or
financial base to adequately address solid waste issues. Private companies
have more experience in waste management than do public officials, and
they have greater familiarity with the rules and regulations and what must
be done to meet them. In addition, private companies may offer initial
16
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Introduction
terms that are very attractive to a small rural community that is looking for
ways to save money on waste management. Finally, when the siting of
a private waste facility includes the promise of new jobs and other economic
benefits, it may be percieved as an attractive economic development program
for financially strapped rural areas.
Larger waste management companies have sufficient capital reserve to
absorb a loss for a period of time, or they can make up for a loss at one
facility with profits from another. Thus companies can offer low initial rates
that are attractive to communities that take a short-term approach to solving
their waste disposal problem. Then when rates increase, the community
is committed and cannot get out of its contract.
Giving responsibility for waste disposal over to the private sector can
also compromise the public sector's control of what kinds of waste materials
are brought into the area and how much material is being imported. Private
companies are in the landfill business to make money. Thus, the more
materials they can deposit in their landfills the more money they can make.
If adequate amounts are not available locally, additional material can be
transported in from other areas. Local rural areas can then unknowingly
become the repository of others' waste materials, which may not be something
they want to do. (Currently, because solid waste qualifies as commerce
protected by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, states
and localities cannot legally restrict waste imports. Federal legislation
that was designed to give states and local governments more control over
waste imports failed in the 1994 congress.)
The need to maintain adequate volumes of materials for disposal can compromise
a community's control of its waste reduction and recycling programs. If
materials are diverted from the landfill through waste reduction programs,
the owner of the landfill will have decreased revenues. To keep profits at
an acceptable level, landfill owners often will enter into a "put or pay" agreement
that requires the contracting entity to pay for a certain amount of materials
whether delivered to the landfill or not. This arrangement creates a disincentive
for local communities to support waste reduction programs, which may be
in direct conflict with state waste reduction goals or mandates.
Many contracts between a local government and private company have a
provision that allows the contractor to sell or assign the contract to another
company. As a result, local authorities may suddenly find themselves tied
17
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle O: Introduction
to a company that is unfamiliar to them and that they may prefer not to
work with. At that point, however, they would have little choice. Their
contract ties them to the company, and their financial investment is too
great to consider other options.
Local officials need
to weigh how much
control they are
willing to give up in
exchange for what
benefits.
Key control issues related to Subtitle D and rural areas:
• What alternatives are there for resolving the dilemma between the
need for high volume and the need for waste reduction?
How can the public interest be maintained in waste management
decision making when the decision is to privatize all or a portion of
the waste management system?
• How can rural public officials increase their information and skills to
effectively evaluate alternative technologies, to deal effectively with
the private sector, to resolve conflicts, and to successfully solve problems?
How can rural communities maintain control of the waste management
process (including flow control) and develop long-term solutions in
the public interest when private waste companies offer enticing, short-
term, inexpensive solutions and can relieve them of the difficulties
involved in finding a long-term solution?
• What factors determine whether or not contracting with a private waste
management company is a good, sustainable waste management
solution for a community?
• What are the key factors in contracting with a private waste management
company that must be addressed to adequately protect the local community?
Solutions to the control issues
Control of costs and waste flows within their jurisdictions are critical issues
for rural communities. Local officials need to weigh how much control
they are willing to give up in exchange for what benefits. The case studies
presented here provide a variety of examples of officials developing systems
and negotiating contracts that allow the communities to maintain control
of those waste management factors they consider important while relinquishing
control of those affairs they believed could best be handled by others.
Some of the means used by the communities include:
• Maintaining control over part of the waste disposal system, e.g.
transportation and collection (Albemarle, Tri-County);
Pursuing other long-term options while transferring waste out of the
area in the short-term (Floyd County);
• Building small public landfills to keep all waste management decisions
18
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Introduction
Building trust with other public officials in other localities to form a
regional association (Albemarle, NRRA, Tift County, Tri-County);
Hire engineering and economic consultants who understand community
values and who work closely with local citizens (Atkinson County).
Contracting with a private company is a particular challenge for a rural
community. The goal is to create an arrangement that allows a local government
to dispose of the community's waste in the safest, most economic manner
possible. In negotiating a contract, public officials need to be informed,
ask questions, and get satisfactory answers to those questions. On page
28 are a number of suggestions officials can use when considering a contract
with a private waste management company.
Cooperation
The burden of the cooperation issue
To achieve economies of scale in building and managing new landfills and
to pool available resources, rural communities are feeling pressured to
enter into regional associations with neighboring counties or municipalities.
The regional associations can be beneficial, or they may force relationships
that are uncomfortable and unwanted by many rural areas, particularly in
those areas where there has been no prior history of cooperative efforts.
Traditionally, rural governments are somewhat territorial with respect to
their neighbors, and they have had few opportunities in the past to work
together. Now they are being forced by circumstances to cooperate with
other communities, even when there is no history of cooperative relations.
As a result, the forming of regional associations to solve the cost problems
resulting from Subtitle D is proceeding with great difficulty in many areas.
If there is not a history of cooperation and sharing of resources, there
needs to be considerable work up front to build trust and to develop the
interpersonal relations required for cooperative work arrangements. The
deadlines for complying with Subtitle D have not provided sufficient time
for this to happen.
Key cooperation issues relating to Subtitle D and rural areas:
• Who makes the decisions to form regional associations? How do
public officials build political and public support for those decisions?
How do public officials overcome historical suspicion between communities
and build cooperative relationships?
19
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Introduction
• How do members of a regional association equally share the risks
and benefits of membership in the association?
How do members of a regional association resolve conflicts and negotiate
solutions to common problems?
How do members of a regional association maintain an acceptable
level of local control and still make decisions that benefit all members
of the association? Or, how do members maintain local control and
yet give up some of that control for the benefit of the whole?
Solutions to the cooperation issues
Building cooperative arrangements, either within a county or between counties,
can be an effective means for rural communities to solve their solid waste
management problems. Effective cooperative arrangements can increase
the likelihood of success for public waste disposal programs, which increase
local control and maximizes communities* ability to control costs, the flow
of materials, and to implement reduction and recycling programs. The
communities studied in this project approached cooperation in a variety of
ways, including:
• Building on a strong cooperative structure that was already present
(Albemarle, Tift County);
• Developing an informal cooperative arrangement from scratch (Tri-
County);
Building a cooperative structure based on price and service (Coffee
County);
Building an internal cooperative structure between the county,
municipalities, and local industries (Atkinson County, Tift County);
• Involving local citizens in the decision-making process to build internal
cooperation (Atkinson County, Tift County, NRRA).
Contracting with residents near a proposed landfill to reduce impacts
and protect public safety (NRRA).
A cooperative effort needs strong leadership to articulate a larger vision
of the community's place in the region and how it might interact with other
nearby communities to solve its problems. The rugged individualism that
enabled many rural communities to survive in the past was discarded for
a new work mode based on shared responsibility and authority. The leaders
directing the cooperative efforts discussed in this study possessed new
skills and an understanding that cooperation now forms the basis for getting
programs implemented.
20
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Introduction
Working cooperatively to address solid waste management problems is
not a total answer, however. Based on the experience of these communities,
the key would seem to lie in identifying program areas where cooperation
can mutually benefit a number of communities while also identifying areas
where individual members should retain control for the benefit of their local
jurisdiction. These communities then implemented mechanisms that protected
their individual interests without compromising their common good. See
page 98 for more discussion about cooperative efforts.
CONCLUSION
New Subtitle D regulations were passed to ensure that solid waste materials
are disposed of in ways that protect the environment and human health.
Because many rural communities lack the technical expertise, management
ability, and financial resources needed to build and manage modern,
technologically sophisticated landfills, they have difficulty in finding ways
to comply with the Subtitle D requirements. But rural communities are
resourceful. This study provides examples of rural communities in the
South and Appalachia that are finding creative ways to successfully implement
solid waste disposal programs that meet Subtitle D requirements.
The experience and decisions of each of these communities is unique and
cannot be replicated in total by other communities. The information can,
however, provide ideas and possible directions that individual communities
can adopt or rework for their own unique situations. Detailed information
about the waste management program for each of the eight communities
studied in this publication follows. The names of contacts are included
with each case study for those who would like additional information about
a particular program.
21
-------
22
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management
ALBEMARLE REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
Belvidere, North Carolina
Overview of the Case
By themselves, individual rural counties generally do not have the financial
and other resources needed to address the really big problems, says Jerry
Parks, Executive Director of the Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management
Authority. He goes on to say that it is for this reason that the counties in
the Albemarle region of Eastern North Carolina historically have cooperated
with one another and shared resources to solve the problems they all share.
This area's response to the Subtitle D requirements is further evidence of
these counties ability to work together.
Cooperation extends to relationships with the private sector as well. Instead
of trying to build and manage a new landfill on their own, the Authority
contracted with East Carolina Environmental, Inc., a private waste management
company owned by Addington Environmental, Inc. The agreement has
worked to the advantage of both parties. The Authority is able to dispose
of their waste, retain control over key aspects of the operation, and support
reduction and recycling programs. Addington is able to make a profit and
provide a needed service in Eastern North Carolina.
Members of the Authority include the Counties of Chowan, Currituck, Dare,
Gates, Hyde, Perquimans, and Tyrrell. Today the Authority transports and
disposes of some 93,000 tons of waste materials annually from these seven
counties and the 10 municipalities within the region. It is an effective
system and a fitting testimony of what local units of government can achieve
through cooperation.
"We have a long
history of
cooperation and of
sharing resources in
this area. Managing
solid waste is just
one more example
of how we work
together. *
Jerry L Parks,
Executive Director,
Albemarle Regional
Solid Waste
Management Authority
23
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management
Geographic and demographic Information
The Albemarle region is located along the Eastern North Carolina seaboard.
It is a flat coastal plain with numerous rivers, bays, and islands. Because
the area is broken up by many waterways, travel from one point to another
is often circuitous and costly for transporting solid waste.
There are 81,000 people in the seven county area, with substantially more
during the height of the tourist season. For example, Dare County escalates
from approximately 24,000 people during most of the year to 135,000 during
the height of the tourist season. Farming, light industry, tourism, and retirement
checks are the main income producers for the area.
A history of cooperation
Historically there has been a high degree of collaboration in the area. Among
other activities, the area's counties have developed regional water and
health care systems, a regional jail, a dog pound, and an area drug prevention
task force. Because there has been a history of cooperation on a variety
of issues and initiatives, addressing solid waste as a joint effort was a
natural for the counties. Even though cooperation is a norm, Albemarle
area counties also want to have the flexibility and power to participate in
any joint venture on their terms, at least to the extent that it does not
jeopardize the efforts of the whole. To carve out a cooperative agreement
that would both manage solid waste for the region and that would be flexible
enough to allow each county to manage solid waste affairs within its own
boundaries would be the next big challenge for the area.
Prior to Subtitle D, solid waste in the Albemarle region was managed primarily
by the individual counties. Three of the counties were already cooperating
through the Perquimans-Chowan-Gates Solid Waste Management Authority.
Jerry Parks was Executive Director of this Authority. With the advent of
Subtitle D, seven additional counties joined with Perquimans, Chowan,
and Gates to consider forming a 10 county authority. Before negotiations
could be complete, three counties dropped out for various reasons, leaving
seven counties to form a general solid waste authority under the statutes
of North Carolina.
Consistent with the tradition of cooperation and resource sharing, Jerry
Parks was asked to serve as director of the seven county authority as well
as retain his current position as director of the three county authority. This
24
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management
arrangement has been ongoing now for nearly two years and is working
well. The arrangement allows the Authority to utilize Parks' expertise and
familiarity with the area and avoid having to create another bureaucracy
to manage its affairs.
The Authority is governed by a 17 member board of directors made up of
elected and appointed officials from the seven member counties.
The Authority is financed through a combination of County appropriations,
grant funds, and a one dollar per ton fee paid by Addington for all waste
entering the regional facility from a community that signed a less than
twenty year agreement with Addington.
Forming a public private partnership
Initially the Authority considered constructing and operating its own Subtitle
D landfill. The Authority had identified a potential site, but then it ran into
considerable local opposition from residents who did not want a landfill
sited near them. The opposition effectively killed the project. So the Authority
was left with having to decide how it would dispose of the area's solid
waste.
At the same time, Addington Environmental was exploring the feasibility
of constructing and managing a Subtitle D facility in the Eastern North
Carolina area. In their search for potential customers, Addington came to
the Authority to see if it would be interested in using the proposed landfill.
For the project to be financially viable, Addington needed a commitment
from area counties to use the facility for 20 years. The Authority weighed
the cost differences and liability of a private facility versus a public facility
and determined that neither option contained major advantages or
disadvantages. The Authority was leaning toward the private option, however.
The Authority and Addington thus began a prolonged period of intense
negotiation to determine if an agreement could be reached that would mutually
benefit both parties. The negotiations were a good faith effort on both
sides and were marked by honest and frank discussions. The Authority
was willing to work with Addington, but at the same time, it had agreements
it wanted in a contract, and it was not shy about asking for them. Addington
for its part was genuinely committed to concluding an agreement that would
truly be best for all concerned. After much discussion an agreement was
completed in July, 1993.
25
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle 0: Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management
Addington agreed to build and operate a Subtitle D facility in Bertie County,
near Windsor, North Carolina. (The regional facility is currently serving a
15 county area in Eastern North Carolina. As the host county, Bertie receives
many benefits, including a per ton payment and a sliding reduced disposal
fee.) The Authority agreed to build and operate three transfer stations in
their seven county area. By retaining ownership of the transfer stations,
the Authority would have control over part of the waste management system,
and it would have a collection and transfer capability already in place should
something happen to the agreement with Addington. The transfer stations
are located in Currituck, Dare, and Perquimans Counties.
As an incentive to commit to the 20-year agreement and as a reward for
doing so, Addington agreed to pay the Authority a $1.00/ton royalty fee for
each ton of waste deposited in the landfill from a North Carolina source
that did not commit to a 20 year agreement or who signed with Addington
after the landfill was operational. To date this royalty has generated a
significant amount of money for the benefit of the Authority. Addington
has benefited from the royalty payments because without the 20
year commitment from the Authority, it would not have been able to obtain
the financing it needed to build the landfill.
The agreement has
a built in incentive
to implement
reduction and
recycling programs.
The agreement is a flexible document that very much supports the financial
and control interests of the Authority. An important feature for the Authority
is that it pays for only the amount of waste that it actually deposits in the
landfill. Hence, the agreement has a built in incentive to implement reduction
and recycling programs. The Authority is obligated for a minimum payment
each month, but the amount is low enough that it should consistently be
less than the amount owed for the actual tonnage of waste deposited in
the landfill. Each year the minimum payment is renegotiated based on the
prior year's experience. If during the year there is a substantial reduction
in the amount of waste being deposited as a result of implementing waste
reduction programs or new regulations, a new minimum monthly fee can
be negotiated for the balance of the year. The intention of the agreement
is that the Authority does not have to pay in any month for more solid
waste than it actually delivers.
In April of 1994, the agreement was renegotiated to address what would
happen if a technological advance in waste management should substantially
reduce Addington's costs for operating the landfill. The parties agreed
that if such a technology were developed and adopted by Addington, the
26
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management
tipping fee would be renegotiated to reflect the cost reductions resulting
from the adoption of the new technology.
Members of the Authority were concerned about the equity of transportation
costs. Counties closer to the landfill did not want to subsidize the transportation
costs of those further from the landfill. To address these concerns, the
agreement establishes three regions within the seven county area and
assigns a transportation cost for each region. Currently the base tipping
fee is $30/ton. Counties in Region One pay an additional $10.64/ton charge
for transportation from the transfer station to the landfill. Counties in Region
Two pay $13.88/ton for transportation, and counties in Region Three pay
$14.91/ton. Fees are paid to the Authority by the member counties. The
Authority then pays Addington and the transportation company their charges
for the month.
In concluding the agreement, the goal was to complete one document.
Legal entanglements and a need for financial assurance made it necessary
to conclude a number of agreements. The final contract thus included
agreements between Addington and the Authority and with each separate
county, agreements between counties, and agreements about collection.
To date all parties are very satisfied with the agreement, and Parks believes
Addington is working very hard to be a good neighbor to the host county
and to the other counties in the area.
Collection and management of the system
The local collection of waste is the responsibility of individual counties.
The charter of the Authority and the agreement with Addington left intact
existing collection and processing systems. And the system in each county
is different. Counties use a combination of convenience centers, door-to-
door collection, and public and private haulers. The collection of waste
materials and transportation to the transfer station is a local issue. The
Authority is built on top of that system and has responsibility for solid waste
from the transfer stations to the landfill.
How each county finances its solid waste costs is also a local issue and
different for each county. Local finance is outside the responsibility of the
Authority. In general, counties subsidize household fees but not fees for
industry. The belief is that business and industry can pass increased solid
waste disposal costs on to their customers.
- 27 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle O: Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management
Contracting with Private Waste Management Companies
The following tips are offered by legal experts to help public officials
negotiate solid waste management contracts with private companies.
• The waste management company should have a proven track
record as well as the financial resources needed to complete
and manage the project through the post closure period, even
if the company should go out of business.
Make the company responsible for leakages and other discharges
as well as failures to comply with regulations during operation
and afterward.
• The company should be wholly responsible for spills, leaks, regulatory
claims and fines, and all suits arising from the operation of the
landfill.
• Know how the company defines self-insurance. Know your
guarantees and how the local government is protected.
• Tie future increases in tipping fees to something that accurately
reflects an increase in the company's operating costs at this
landfill. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is not necessarily an
accurate predictor of these costs.
• If the same company is also providing transportation, separate
landfill operations costs from the transportation costs.
• Include a contract provision that allows for waste reduction and
recycling activities.
Retain the right to review the cost of operations at the landfill
and the right to know the company's profits relating to your operation.
If the contract can be assigned to another company, retain your
right to disapprove of the transfer if you are uncertain that the
public will be protected.
• As a host community, obtain as many rewards as possible for
being the host community.
• Retain the right to review all subsequent contracts let by the
company to ensure that later contracts do not offer better terms.
I
28
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management
Recycling is also a local responsibility. Programs are managed at the
local level and counties reap the benefits by reduced fees owed the Authority
because less waste is hauled from the county. Thus, individual counties
have an incentive, beyond the state mandate, to implement recycling programs.
Even though recycling is a local issue, individual counties can benefit from
outside assistance. When the Authority was presented with an opportunity
to obtain assistance for recycling programs, it moved on it. A local environmental
group, the Albemarle Environmental Association (AEA) saw a hole in the
Authority's plans and suggested that there was an opportunity to pursue
waste reduction and recycling activities. As part of a public-private partnership,
AEA offered to cooperate in writing a grant to fund a position for a Recycling
Coordinator to investigate recycling markets. The $25,000 grant was funded
by the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation to cover the initial year of the program.
In succeeding years, the position will be funded from the royalty money
received from Addington. The Recycling Coordinator is now assisting member
counties to develop their recycling programs by providing education, and
searching out markets for recycled materials.
A guiding principle of the program is to provide service as simply and as
inexpensively as possible. For example, the Authority moves volumes of
waste and money with the goal of not having unnecessary amounts of
either stay long at any site. On the financial side, this practice allows the
counties to maintain funds in their own interest bearing accounts until the
last possible minute.
A guiding principle
of the program is to
provide service as
simply and as
inexpensively as
possible.
Sharing resources
The PPCC District Health Department that serves four of the counties in
the Albemarle area had developed a regional computer network system to
track its daily business. When asked, the Director of the Health Department
readily agreed that the Waste Management Authority could use this system
to administer its solid waste program. Through a memorandum of agreement
with the Department, the Authority shares the services of a Personnel Director,
Data Processor and Accounting Clerk to manage data and finances and
to meet its reporting requirements. The agreement provides the Authority
with access to a mainframe computer and a level of technology that it
could not afford on its own. The computer software was developed specifically
for the Authority by an area software developer. In addition, this arrangement
allows the Authority to offer its employees group health insurance, retirement,
workman compensation and other benefits at the lowest possible cost.
29
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management
The solid waste management project is a deliberate attempt to keep the
bureaucracy as small as possible. It was not the desire of the member
counties to provide another layer of government that would burden the
taxpayer. By sharing employees and infrastructure already in place, maximum
service is provided at a minimum price.
Lessons from the Albemarle Solid Waste Authority
The development and implementation of the Albemarle Solid Waste Authority
provides several insights that other rural areas can use when planning
their own solid waste programs.
• A Solid Waste Authority may be able to form agreements with local
institutions for access to computer network systems, shared
administrative services, and use of infrastructure already in place.
• A large bureaucracy is not needed to manage a solid waste authority
- keep it simple. Share employees and infrastructure already in place.
• The right contract with a private waste management company can
be a viable solution for a rural area. The key is to bargain from a
position of strength by having more than one option and by maintaining
control over costs and waste volumes.
In a contractual arrangement, keep control of some key parts of the
system so that the local government is not totally dependent on the
contractor.
• Manage only that part of a multi-county system that makes sense to
manage at a regional level. Allow smaller units of government to
manage more localized operations, e.g. collection.
• An equitable system can be worked out in a regional agreement so
that financial and transportation burdens are shared equally by all
parties.
Non-profit organizations can be valuable allies in establishing and
implementing solid waste management programs.
30
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management
Contacts For Further Information
Jerry Parks, Director
Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management Authority
Route 1 - Box 152C
Belvidere, North Carolina 27919
919/297-2157
Anne Blindt, Recycling Coordinator
Albemarle Environmental Association
Box 5346
Hertford, North Carolina 27944
919/297-2157
31
-------
32 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Atkinson County
ATKINSON COUNTY, GEORGIA
Pearson, Georgia
Overview of the Case
In the summer of 1991, the citizens and officials of Atkinson County, Georgia
were faced with dwindling landfill space and no prospects for a new landfill.
Three years later, the county has received a permit to build its own Subtitle
D landfill on a site that was selected by local citizens under the guidance
of a progressive Atlanta consultant. A low-interest loan and grant from
the Farmers Home Administration made the landfill affordable. Landfill
construction is scheduled to begin in October 1994. The county is presently
transferring its waste to Waycross, Georgia until the landfill can be built.
Members of the Atkinson County Solid Waste Citizens Committee, a group
of volunteer local residents, have participated in every phase of the solid
waste solution, from problem definition through site selection and decision
implementation. Several original Committee members, along with officials
of the county and municipalities, now sit on the Solid Waste Authority.
Citizens and officials of this small county have been steadfast in their determination
to have their own public landfill, despite pressures at the State level to
regionalize. By having a landfill of their own, they believe they can control
what goes in it and extend its useful life far into the future. Through the
use of long-term planning and low-interest financing from FmHA, the Authority
and its consultant believe Atkinson County can build and run a landfill
cost-effectively. The Authority remains open to forming a region with neighboring
counties at a later date if this option appears to be in the county's best
interest.
'The biggest
problem being
faced by local
government is very
short term planning
- not looking
beyond the next
election. The key
to dealing with solid
waste is long-term
planning."
Juan Ruiz, E & C
Consulting, Snallville,
Georgia
33
-------
Juan Ruiz, a
consultant, firmly
believes that full
citizen participation is
the key to an effective
solution to a public
policy problem.
Rural Communities and Subtitle P: Atkinson County
One of the biggest challenges at this point is educating the public and
enforcing the $10.75 household collection and disposal fee, a first-time
cost for the residents of this low-income county. Another challenge is
working through the rules and regulations with the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division in developing the landfill.
Geographic and demographic information
Atkinson County is located in rural southern Georgia between Tifton and
Waycross, about 200 miles south of Atlanta and 30 miles north of the Florida
border. The County has a population of approximately 6,200 persons, or
2,210 households. Covering an area of 344 square miles, the County's
population density is only 18 persons per square mile. There are two
municipalities in the County: Pearson, the county seat, and Willacoochee.
Atkinson County's median household income of $17,685 ranks near the
bottom of Georgia counties, and 26 percent of the population was below
the poverty level in 1989. The economic base is characterized primarily
by farming, timbering and lumber production (including pulp and wood chips),
mobile home manufacturing, plastic bag manufacturing, and small cut and
sew factories. The largest employers are the county school system, Fleetwood
Mobile Homes, Cady-Bag Plastics, and Georgia Pacific.
Citizens choose an alternative
The three Atkinson County Commissioners began searching for a new landfill
site several years ago when they realized the present landfill was running
out of space. They were considering a site near the Sunnyside community,
the location of both the existing landfill and an old closed landfill. Nearby
residents opposed the idea and began holding meetings in the Sunnyside
church social hall. As told by one resident, the Commissioners basically
said, "If you think you can do better than us, go ahead."
In July 1991, the County entered into a contract with Juan Ruiz, an Atlanta-
based consultant with a background in engineering and economics and
practical experience as former Assistant Manager for the City of Macon.
Ruiz is not the type of engineer who relies on mainstream approaches and
assumptions in solving a problem. He firmly believes that full citizen participation
is the key to an effective solution to a public policy problem. Working
closely with the community in planning for the long term is critical in resolving
the solid waste issue. He ran advertisements in the local paper and held
34
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Atkinson County
county-wide public meetings. Ruiz made a commitment to meet with any
citizen of the County at any time. At all times, the general public was
invited to offer suggestions.
Ruiz formed the volunteer Citizens Committee from the 340 public meeting
attendees. At least 50 Committee meetings were held over a period of a
year and a half. The Committee involved about 40-50 active members
initially. According to one member, "eight or nine of us hung on for dear
life" through the remainder of the process. Committee members participated
in weekly public meetings. With no experience in the area of solid waste,
the Committee members researched the problem, characterized the waste
stream, decided among a range of alternatives, and selected a site for a
new Subtitle D landfill for Atkinson County. The County Commissioners
agreed to go along with whatever decision the Committee made.
With guidance and data provided by Ruiz, the Committee began by considering
all the possible solutions:
1. Incineration;
2. Hauling and disposal of all the solid waste in a private landfill in
another county;
3. Have a recycling facility, process as much as possible, and dispose
the remainder in a private landfill in another county; or
4. Build and operate a public landfill for Atkinson County, and implement
an aggressive recycling and composting program.
Regional solutions have been discussed briefly, but only as an option that
can be dealt with at a later time after the permit is received. Several
counties in the nearby area are in need of landfill space and are relying
on temporary measures, and they are likely to look to Atkinson for permanent
disposal solutions.
The Committee quickly concluded that Option 1, incineration, was neither
economically or politically feasible.
Option 2 would cost the County about $800,000 per year, including both
tipping fees and hauling costs to transfer the waste to the nearest private
landfill in Valdosta, 70 miles away. Furthermore, the County would be
dependent on someone else to take care of its problem with no long-term
guarantees, and it could be subject to arbitrary price increases that would
make this option very expensive over time.
35
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Atkinson County
The Committee members conducted their own waste characterization study
by analyzing the garbage going into the landfill. Based on this, they determined
they could recycle up to 60 percent of the industrial waste, which is mainly
from the mobile home industry, and 25 percent of household garbage. Composting
was determined to be a simple and affordable operation, but it would only
divert 10 percent of the waste stream.
Under Option 3, a bailer, building and conveyor system would be needed
at a cost of $650,000, in addition to the costs of operations and trucks.
Tipping fees and hauling costs would still be involved in using the Valdosta
landfill, and dependency on someone else would still be a factor.
Option 4, a county landfill with recycling and composting operations, was
found to be possible under certain financing conditions. A 10-acre municipal
solid waste landfill and a 10-acre debris landfill would cost $3.7 to $4.5
million, including land acquisition, construction, bailers, trucks, equipment,
operations, maintenance, closure, and post-closure. Landfill operations
would use prison labor from the state prison at Waycross in addition to 7
or 8 salaried employees. The total capital investment of this option would
be between $425,000 to $520,000. Ruiz calculated that a low-interest
loan of 5 to 7 percent would make the investment feasible. He was aware
of the potential availability of such loans and possible grant moneys through
programs administered by the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA).
The Committee voted to pursue Option 4. In comparing the investments
required in each option, Committee members concluded that it would not
make sense to pay $400,000 or more and have nothing to show for it and
contribute to another community's problem. They believed that if private
industry takes over the landfill business, counties will be at their mercy.
By having their own landfill, they can control what goes in it, control prices,
and provide a long-term solution to their waste problem.
A landfill sited by citizens
The next challenge was to locate a site for the landfill. Ruiz asked citizens
to submit plats of possible sites. The initial slate of 27 sites was narrowed
to 17, representing eight sections of the County. Subgroups of citizens
were formed to evaluate each section.
36
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Atkinson County
Ruiz performed feasibility studies on these 17 sites. Sites qualified as
candidates if they were 100 acres or larger, had clay available on site, and
a relatively low water table. Other considerations included proximity of
residents, convenience for truck access, soil conditions, and the availability
of a buffer. The range of sites was narrowed to three, which were subjected
to more detailed analysis.
Committee members met with property owners individually and asked whether
they were willing to sell. In the words of one Committee member, "Here
in Atkinson County, we have what folks call the 'old home place'.... We
were simply not going to take anybody's property."
In the summer of 1992, a vote was taken by having each member of the
Citizens Committee rank the sites in order of their preference. There was
a high degree of consensus on the preferred site and the alternate sites.
After some negotiation between the site property owners and Committee
members, the owners finally agreed to sell the 465 acre tract to the County
at a fair price. The site selected by the Citizens Committee was given
official approval by the Georgia Environmntal Protection Division on December
8, 1992. In the words of one Committee member, This is the first time
in the United States of America that ordinary citizens have sited a landfill.
If you can make it work in Atkinson County, you can make it work anywhere."
In spite of a conscious effort to select a landfill site in a fair, open process,
not everyone affected by the decision was happy with the outcome. Even
though Ruiz and Committee members visited the residents living near the
site and explained the landfill plans, some residents apparently do not
feel they were adequately considered in the process. There are 17 residences
within a 1.5 mile radius of the proposed landfill, including two within a half
mile. An elderly couple who lives about 500 yards away said they were
"over-ruled." Explaining why there had been little vocal opposition from
residents near the proposed site, the wife said that "it's hard to get people
to go in together." It is difficult to say whether some additional understanding
or mitigation might have reduced these residents' apprehension about the
landfill.
The County Solid Waste Authority was set up according to law to implement
and oversee the solid waste management program. It included the two
city mayors, the three County Commissioners, and six private citizens.
This is the first
time in the United
States of America
that ordinary
citizens have sited
a landfill."
37 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Atkinson County
Initially, only one original member of the Citizens Committee was appointed
to the Solid Waste Authority. Later, Authority members came to recognize
the contribution Committee members were able to provide and named several
original Committee members to the Authority. Now, about half of the Authority
is made up of original Committee members. The Authority hired Hayward
Cribb, a local resident with experience in engineering and construction,
as the landfill director.
A major challenge in the decision-making process has been the difficulty
for the two city governments, the county government, and private citizens
to work together. Because solid waste has historically been dealt with
independently, it was difficult to give up control over waste collection, finance,
and transportation. The county commissioners, the city councils, and the
mayors worked hard in many meetings to cooperate toward finding a common
solution. Ruiz says these differences were resolved on an individual basis
and by having a lot of meetings.
Paying for the landfill, with help from FmHA
With a plan that had the endorsement of the majority of citizens, even with
a suitable landfill site, the County was ready to approach the Farmers
Home Administration (FmHA) for a low-income loan and grant to finance
the project. Atkinson County qualified for FmHA's loan program at the
intermediate level interest rate and for grant assistance based on Georgia's
non-metropolitan standard for household income. (See page 42 for details
on FMHA)
In June, 1992, FmHA notified Ruiz that it would give a grant to Atkinson
County for $825,000 and a loan for approximately $3.4 million to build the
proposed landfill. The loan would extend over 20 years at five percent
interest. The County's yearly debt payment for the loan is approximately
$272,000, including principal and interest. Without the low-interest loan
and grant, says Ruiz, the landfill would not be possible.
An important factor in being able to take advantage of FmHA assistance
is that plans need to be solidly in place. Without the community's up-front
support for the landfill, investing the time and money required for the application
process is risky. In Atkinson County's case, the voluntary participation of
the entire community and the openness and flexibility of the planning process
facilitated the County's ability to work with FmHA. In fact, FmHA's guarantee
38
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Atkinson County
of the loan and grant was in place well before the Georgia EPD completed
its review and finalized the landfill permit.
Bids went out for trucks and equipment in May 1994. The County plans
to begin construction in October and begin accepting waste in early 1995.
The tipping fee at the landfill is being set at $28.90 per ton for FY 1994-
95. Contracts have been established with the cities of Willacoochee and
Pearson to use the county landfill. Local industry representatives have
participated on the Solid Waste Authority, and most local industries are
expected to use the landfill. In fact, the need to keep existing industries
was a major consideration in deciding to have a county landfill. In light
of unpredictable increases in disposal costs at a private facility and the
added costs of transportation to a distant landfill, many people worried
that the lack of a locally available landfill would be an inducement for industries
to leave the county. The predictability and control allowed by a county
landfill were important to local industry representatives.
As of August, 1994, all county residents are being charged $10.75 per
month for household collection services in a first-time bill, effective June
1. House to house pick-up will begin soon. Currently, the billing process
is experiencing problems outside the city limits due to errors in the taxing
digest that are being worked out. Ruiz does not anticipate billing problems
in the cities. It remains to be seen how receptive county residents, many
of whom are low-income, will be toward paying this fee. Approximately 80
to 100 residents attended a public meeting that the Authority held in July
to discuss the billing.
One of the biggest challenges for the Authority is educating the public to
help residents understand the reasons for proper disposal, billing, and
methods for recycling. The traditional view that each household should
be able to handle its own garbage as it sees fit is still alive and well in
Atkinson County. The Authority has hired Mae Morris, a resident of nearby
Douglas, to implement an educational program over the next three months.
Morris, who has been an active participant in the Citizens Committee, plans
to go door to door to talk with as many people as possible about sorting,
recycling, and disposal.
Ruiz estimates that the landfill will generate $2.8 million in revenue the
first seven years. The Authority expects to receive an average of $525,000
39
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Atkinson County
Long-term
economic planning
is the key to
dealing with
problems such as
solid waste. All too
often, the planning
frame in local
government covers
only the current
term of electoral
office.
per year in tipping fees. Costs will average $271,000 in principal and
interest payments and $180,000 in operation and maintenance costs. The
remaining $75,000 will be placed in a sinking fund, allocated for closure
and post-closure, emergencies, and capital allocation for the future landfill.
Having worked in local government himself, Ruiz is convinced that this
type of long-term economic planning is the key to dealing with problems
such as solid waste. All too often, the planning frame in local government
covers only the current term of electoral office.
Atkinson County is moving forward on an ambitious solid waste program.
The new landfill director Hayward Cribb says they are confident of being
able to pay for the landfill, even though it will be a big payment. Authority
members are keeping open the option of bringing in a neighboring county.
There are counties all around Atkinson that need landfills and are employing
temporary measures to dispose of their trash. Cribb believes those counties
will look to Atkinson County as a more permanent solution. If another
county is brought in, the Authority will be selective about who it is. But
first they want to try to make a go of it as a single-county Authority. "Right
now," says Wayne Walker, Chair of the Authority, "we're a small, proud
little bunch that's going to build our own little landfill."
Lessons from Atkinson County
Atkinson County is a model for other counties because of the full participation
of citizens, the ability to secure financial assistance from FmHA, and the
resolve to maintain autonomy and control in its solid waste management.
• Effective solutions can be found by involving citizens in every phase
of the decision-making process - problem definition, needs
assessment, identifying and selecting alternatives, site selection,
and implementation.
Local authorities need to take a long-term approach to economic
planning instead of a 5-10 year approach.
The right combination of sound economic planning, availability of
low-interest credit, and proactive citizen involvement can enable
a small rural county to maintain autonomy and control over its waste
stream.
• The U.S. Farmers Home Administration is a source of financing
for rural solid waste programs that should be explored.
40
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Atkinson County
Taking advantage of the FmHA loan/grant program is most effective
when solid waste plans are solidly in place, with citizen buy-in,
early in the schedule.
Having a locally available public landfill can provide a means of
retaining local industry, particularly if the community is relatively
isolated from disposal markets.
A rural community can benefit considerably from an experienced
engineering and economic consultant who will work closely with
local citizens and be flexible in working toward solutions.
Depending upon the situation of surrounding counties, a county
can proceed with a single-county landfill permit while reserving a
regional solution as an option to fall back on.
• Even when a landfill site selection process is open and fair, residents
near the site may not feel they have been treated fairly.
Contacts for further information
Juan G. Ruiz, President
E & C Consulting Engineers, Inc.
2175 Highpoint Rd.
Building B, Suite 203
Snellville, GA 30278
(404) 985-8205
Hayward C. Cribb
Landfill Director
P. O. Box 518
Pearson, GA 31642
(912) 422-7258
Barbara Nugent
Atkinson County Solid Waste Authority
Route 1, Box 11
Pearson, GA 31642
(912) 422-3780 after 6:00 pm
41
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Atkinson County
Assistance from FmHA
Loans and grants for solid waste projects are available to rural counties nation-
wide through a program of the Rural Development Association, which is administered
by the U.S. Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). Rural counties are eligible
for loans to finance water, sewage, and solid waste disposal projects up to
a maximum of 75 percent of project cost. Grants are used to subsidize loans
when needed. Certain regulations determine how much FmHA can offer.
To be eligible, a county's population cannot exceed 10,000 in any municipality.
To secure a loan, counties must pledge solid waste disposal revenues; tipping
fees usually are not enough, so a taxing authority is required. The FmHA is
a "lender of first opportunity," because funds cannot be available from other
sources. Counties seeking assistance must certify that credit is not available
from other lenders at reasonable rates and at terms they can afford. Many
rural counties qualify under these conditions. FmHA will carry loans for up
to 40 years, whereas conventional lenders may loan for only 20 years, giving
a significant advantage to FmHA.
To qualify for intermediate or poverty level interest rates on loans, as well as
for grant assistance, the median household income in the county cannot be
above the non-metropolitan standard for the state in which it is located. Above
that level, a county can qualify only for FmHA's market rate, which is reviewed
on a quarterly basis, and it is not eligible for a grant. To qualify for poverty
level rates, median household income must fall below a certain level and
there must be some health-related hazard involved. A mandate to close a
non-compliant landfill by a certain time might qualify as a health-related hazard.
Before requesting assistance under the FmHA loan/grant program, a county
needs to have planning finalized, including community buy-in. Unless an
acceptable plan is clearly in place, the county risks losing valuable time, effort,
and money if the plan goes awry. The FmHA requires a preliminary engineering
report as part of its pre-application package. If the project passes the first
eligibility test, it is subjected to an environmental review process (a Class 2
Environmental Assessment), which includes approximately 90 days of public
notification and public comment periods. The length of the entire application
and approval process may take six months to a year. An engineer must be
involved up front and typically steers the county through the process. An
attorney may be involved as well, especially if the landfill is a regional endeavor,
which will require formation of a legal entity to borrow funds.
Source: Jerry Thomas, Chief, Community and Business Programs, District
Office, Farmers Home Administration, Athens, Georgia.
42
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Coffee County
COFFEE COUNTY, ALABAMA
New Brockton, Alabama
Overview of the Case
Mark Pool, County Engineer for Coffee County, Alabama, believes that
counties have three alternatives when it comes to managing solid waste;
panic, put-off and delay, and planned management. As a strong advocate
of the third alternative, he has been the motivating and organizing force
behind Coffee County's effort to permit, site, build, and manage a Subtitle
D landfill. The facility opened on October 4,1993 at a cost of approximately
$1.8M. Currently it is receiving some 500 tons/day of material from Coffee
County and a surrounding 10 county area that has agreed to use the Coffee
County landfill.
A strong desire on the part of Coffee County's public officials and citizens
to control their solid waste destiny along with a good dose of entrepreneurial
spirit provided the incentive Coffee County needed to get into the landfill
business. The challenge now is to manage their facility so that it will adequately
protect the environment, be cost efficient, and generate revenue for the
county. Using the latest technology, providing stringent controls and oversight,
maintaining regular cost and use records, and tying staff salaries to performance
based measures all help to ensure that the facility maximizes available
storage space in the most cost efficient manner possible.
Geographic and demographic information
Coffee County, which is 679 square miles, is located in lower southeast
Alabama, 15 miles north of Florida and 40 miles west of Georgia. The
land is rolling hills, forests, and many small farms, mostly peanuts. The
"It is relatively
simple to build a
landfill. The real
challenge is to
manage it properly."
Mark Pool, Coffee
County Engineer
43
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Coffee County
The increased fee
would generate
these additional
funds, and give the
commissioners the
freedom and
flexibility they
needed to make
their solid waste
disposal decisions
in the best interests
of the county.
County is home to 40,240 residents giving a population density of 59 people/
sq. mile. Enterprise is the largest community, 20,300 people. Farming,
some light manufacturing, and the United States Army base at Fort Rucker
are the prime economic forces in the County.
A landfill for Coffee County
Coffee County has a history of progressive thinking and of providing quality
public services to its citizens. Their response to the requirements imposed
by the Subtitle D legislation would be consistent with this same tradition.
In considering their response, the County Commissioners wanted to keep
the County's solid waste costs low, maintain control of these costs, and
maintain control of any materials that would be dumped in the county.
In 1989, Coffee County recognized that it would have to do something
about garbage disposal in their county. EPA was developing new Subtitle
D regulations and there were strong indications that there would be significant
changes in how waste materials could be landfilled in the future. The
County Commissioners were quite certain that their current landfill, which
received waste materials only from Coffee County, would be inadequate
for the future. They knew also that it would take time and money to formulate
and implement a new solid waste disposal program for their County. These
insights prompted the County Commissioners to make two decisions.
One, Coffee County began the process of obtaining a landfill permit. The
County was not certain it actually wanted to build a new landfill, but it
wanted the option to do so if that proved to be the best alternative. On
the other hand, if the County decided that it would not be in their best
interests to build a landfill, it would still have the permit. The County then
could use the permit as a bargaining tool to negotiate favorable waste
disposal terms for itself.
Two, the County raised the tipping fee at its landfill. The Commissioners
knew they would need additional funds to implement whatever solid waste
disposal decision they wanted to make. The increased fee would generate
these additional funds, and give the Commissioners the freedom and flexibility
they needed to make their solid waste disposal decisions in the best interests
of the County.
To assist with the permitting process, the County hired the consulting engineering
firm of Carter, Darnell and Grubbs Engineers, Inc. The County put considerable
44 .
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Coffee County
effort into the selection process. It conducted an extensive search and
interviewed a number of firms before deciding on Carter, Darnell and Grubbs.
The County charged the engineering firm to find the best site possible for
a landfill in Coffee County. And in selecting a site, they were to consider
primarily environmental factors. In other words, the County wanted a site
that environmentally made sense. It did not want to have to engineer the
site to meet environmental standards. Additional criteria were that the
site be at least 200 acres, 500 acres was the goal, and that it have an
abundance of clay and sand on the site. Some 19 locations across the
County were considered. A 450 acre site with an abundance of sand and
clay was finally identified and an option to buy was completed. The availability
of sand and clay was critical. Since these materials would not have to be
bought elsewhere and transported to the site, construction costs would be
significantly reduced. The engineering and geological work along with the
permitting process then began in earnest.
The selected site met all necessary requirements and the permitting process
was completed in February, 1993, approximately three years after it began.
At that time, Coffee County made the decision to build and manage its
own landfill. The County believed it could manage the costs. And most
importantly, the County wanted to control the flow of waste materials into
the County, and it wanted to control disposal costs. Coffee County had
the option of contracting with a private waste management firm. This option,
however, did not provide the County with the degree of control that the
Commissioners and Pool believed was necessary to effectively manage
solid waste within Coffee County. Hence, their decision to build a landfill
for Coffee County.
Environmental and economic factors favored building a landfill at the selected
site. Nonetheless, because of an abundance of misinformation, a segment
of the population was opposed to Coffee County getting into the landfill
business. To counter the misinformation and to build public support for
their program, county officials conducted an extensive public education
campaign. Their efforts were helped by the local press who became involved
with the issue and were very supportive of the County's decisions. After
about six months of the campaign, the local paper conducted a poll to
learn what the community thought about the landfill issue. The option
receiving the largest support, over 90%, was to construct a regional landfill
that would make money. The involvement of the media and the public
education campaign worked to generate the public's support for the County's
- 45 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Coffee County
solid waste management plan. Coffee County's elected and appointed
officials continue to want the local people to know and understand what
the County is doing at the landfill. As a result, there is an open door
visitation policy. Coffee County residents are welcome to visit the landfill
to satisfy their curiosity and to have questions answered.
Because there was a local election part-way through the permitting process,
four new Commissioners had to be educated about the solid waste issues
facing the County, and the alternatives that were being considered. By
the time critical decisions had to be made, however, both new and incumbent
Commissioners were in support of the project.
As part of its permitting application, Coffee County identified a 10 county
area from which it would be willing to accept waste materials. During the
permitting process, tentative agreements to use the Coffee County landfill,
if it was built, were completed with several of the counties and municipalities
within this area. These tentative agreements assured the County that it
would have a large enough waste steam to pay for the construction and
operation of a new landfill that the Commissioners were comfortable in
going ahead with the project.
Construction began on June 15,1993. The goal was to have the first cell
ready to receive garbage by October 9,1993, the deadline for all landfills
receiving garbage to be in compliance with the Subtitle D regulations. To
keep costs to a minimum, County Engineer Pool used county workers and
equipment for most of the construction. Other work, including laying the
liner, was contracted out. The construction crews worked six days a week,
12 hours a days to complete the construction on time. When the liner was
laid, crews worked 24 hours a day for five consecutive days.
A private waste management company was constructing a landfill nearby
at the same time Coffee County was building theirs. Coffee County believed
it was in direct competition with the private landfill and was afraid it might
be sued if it made any mistakes. As a result, all work at the Coffee County
landfill was completed with zero tolerance for error. Every effort was made
to anticipate and resolve objections, questions or concerns that could be
raised by regulatory agencies or citizens. The Coffee County landfill was
completed and ready to receive materials on October 4, 1993.
46
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Coffee County
The total cost of construction was $1.4 million, with an additional $400,000
paid for the land and the permitting process. Pool estimates that construction
costs on the second cell will be only $750,000 because he intends to use
all county labor and equipment, except for the laying of the liner. The land,
the engineering study, and the permit costs were paid for from the increased
tipping fee imposed in 1989. Municipal bonds paid for the construction of
the landfill.
As of August 1994, the current tipping fee is $17/ton for those cities and
counties who initially signed on with Coffee County. It is $22/ton for those
who signed on later.
Coffee County did not meet its initial revenue projections. When EPA extended
the deadline for Subtitle D compliance until April 9, 1994, many of the
surrounding counties continued to use their old landfills, and Coffee County
was not able to meet its waste flow projections. As a result, the County
lost revenue. Daily tonnage did increase, however, as the April date came
closer. Through the last three months of 1993, average tons per day received
at the landfill were 220. Currently the landfill is receiving approximately
500 tons of waste materials per day.
Coffee County was hurt by the deadline extension. County officials feel
very strongly that deadlines should be adhered to. They made their decisions
and got ready on time. Other counties should be held to the same standards.
Managing the landfill
Any benefits to be gained from a Subtitle D landfill can only be realized
through proper management. Building the landfill is in many ways the
easier task. Managing a modern, high tech landfill to maximize its storage
capacity as profitably as possible is the key to making the landfill successful.
Pool is taking several steps to maximize storage space. By using a heavier
compactor and compacting in shallower layers, he is increasing his compaction
rates from 800 Ibs/cy to over a 1100 Ibs/cy. He also is requesting approval
to use an alternative cover for his daily cover to minimize the amount of
space taken up by dirt. He estimates that each step should add another
10 years to the life of the landfill. Also, he is trying to obtain approval to
increase the side slope on the landfill from 4:1 to 3:1 ratio. This results
in a 69% increase in the volume that a cell can hold. Finally, by connecting
adjoining cells as they are completed, additional space will be created
County officials feel
very strongly that
deadlines should be
adhered to. They
made their
decisions and got
ready on time.
Other counties
should be held to
the same
standards.
47
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Coffee County
Having accurate
information about
materials entering
the landfill and how
quickly volume is
being used up are
important items to
know for making
management
decisions.
that can also receive garbage. All of these measures together can extend
the life of the landfill to 84 years. His ultimate goal is to extend the life
of the landfill to 100 years.
Having accurate information about materials entering the landfill and how
quickly volume is being used up are important items to know for making
management decisions. First, Coffee County is very selective in what it
will accept at the landfill. It will not take just anything. Only standard
municipal solid waste materials are accepted. The County is not willing
to accept materials that might be contaminated. If any material is questionable,
the matter is referred to the County Landfill Committee for a final decision.
The Landfill Committee is an oversight/advisory committee composed of
four of Coffee County's seven Commissioners. Trucks bringing in materials
are weighed in and weighed out. A computer program identifies the general
type of waste, where it came from, the company hauling, how much was
brought in, and the billing charge. Data are aggregated for billing purposes
and to monitor activity at the landfill. Collection throughout the region is
maintained by a variety of public and private arrangements. Contracts
with haulers specify that they must dump in the Coffee County landfill.
Each month Pool uses a computer survey tool to obtain the current dimensions
of the cell. He uses this information, along with the amount of tonnage
that has been deposited during the month, to calculate the compaction
rate, the volume of the cell used and the volume remaining. The computer
then draws a three-dimensional graphic of the used space and the remaining
space in the cell.
Solid waste management is more than just building and managing a landfill.
One important aspect is to control unmanaged waste. Alabama has a
mandatory collection law that can be implemented at an individual county's
discretion. Coffee County adopted the law, but it had no good way to
enforce it. The County Commissioners then took some of the landfill revenues
and gave it to the County Health Department to hire an enforcement officer
to enforce the County's mandatory collection requirement. The program
now is being very effective at reducing unmanaged waste.
Recycling and waste reduction is another important aspect of solid waste
management. Coffee County currently does not have a well organized
recycling effort. It does take white goods, and it has developed a program
to take herbicide containers. Other efforts, however, are pretty much on
48
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Coffee County
an ad hoc basis. Right now county officials believe that the economics
are not favorable for recycling. The avoided disposal costs are too low
and the cost and effort to implement a full recycling program are too great.
Another aspect of good management is to use available assets to maximize
profits. Coffee County is applying this principle to the landfill site. Much
of the 450 acre site will not be used for a number of years. Consequently,
the County is using this land to grow pine trees that will be ready for harvest
when the land is needed as a landfill. The pine trees control erosion and
add to the aesthetic quality of the landfill now. In the future, when the
pines are harvested, they will generate additional revenue for the County.
The Coffee County landfill is a de facto regional facility without the encumbering
agreements that many rural counties are reluctant to embrace. Area counties
use the facility because the price and service are better than the alternatives.
If a better opportunity presents itself, Coffee County is well aware that the
regional association will quickly break down. Thus, it needs to remain
competitive, in terms of cost and service, if the landfill is to survive. The
County recognizes this and is committed to maintaining the viability of the
landfill and in providing a needed service to neighboring counties. Cost
and competition shape behavior in the public sector as much as they do
in the private sector. Coffee County has positioned itself to compete in
the waste disposal business, and so far they are being very successful at
it. At the same time, the County is not seeking to expand their service
area. They are content with the current number of counties using the
facility, and they have no plans to expand that number.
Cost and
competition shape
behavior in the
public sector as
much as they do in
the private sector.
Lessons from the Coffee County landfill
The planning, construction, and management of the Coffee County landfill
provide several insights that other counties can use when planning their
own solid waste programs.
Public entities can build and manage a Subtitle D landfill that is
the equal of any private facility and maintain control over costs
and waste flows.
Multi-county cooperation can enable public entities to gain leverage
over private landfill companies and exercise control over waste
flows in the region.
A landfill should be built where it is environmentally right as opposed
to engineering the environment for the landfill.
49
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Coffee County
A landfill can generate revenue for the county if decisions are based
on profit criteria and if the landfill assets are used in creative ways.
Costs can be kept to a minimum by using as many locally available
resources as possible.
• It is important to hire a consulting firm that, in addition to having
experience designing and constructing landfills, understands the
needs of the county and can work with county officials to meet
those needs.
• Using the best technology that can be cost justified will help to
maximize landfill storage space, to minimize costs, and to maintain
accurate records.
Public entities should take advantage of opportunities they have
to reduce costs. For example, they do not have to pay sales tax,
and they are able to purchase equipment and supplies at larger
discounts.
Implementation of successful solid waste programs requires strong
leadership from both appointed and elected officials who are willing
to step out, to take risks, and to make decisions and take responsibility
for those decisions.
Contacts for further information
Mark Pool, Coffee County Engineer
Coffee County Office Complex
Highway 84-E
New Brockton, Alabama 36351
205/894-6112
Mark Pugh, Project Engineer
Carter, Darnell and Grubbs Engineers, Inc.
Post Office Box 278
Andalusia, Alabama 36420
205/222-9431
50
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Floyd County
FLOYD COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Floyd, Virginia
Overview of the Case
The main challenge for Floyd County has been determining what is the
best thing tor a community of its smalt size to do with its garbage. Conflicting
views emerged over three alternatives considered for dealing with the County's
waste stream of 25 tons per day:
(1) Build a single-county landfill,
(2) Transfer the waste out of county to a private facility, or
(3) Join a regional public authority.
The County went through the decision-maKing process twice, with different
conclusions each time. The change of decision was a result of new constraints
imposed by the final Subtitle D requirements for a composite liner and a
closer examination of costs for each option. Leachate treatment and handling
turned out to be less feasible than initially thought. Floyd County decided
to build a transfer station and is sending its trash to a private landfill out
of state. In the meantime, the County is moving ahead to complete its
permit for the remaining five acres of its existing landfill, which provides
the option of an additional seven to eight years of landfill life. The transfer
station is working well, even better than some anticipated.
Local citizens who were active in the issue favored the option of having
a small county landfill. They believed this would increase local control of
the waste stream and avoid contributing to another community's problem.
However, the County Administrator and members of the Board of Supervisors
believed that the costs of the landfill option would be dramatically more
"The whole situation
of Subtitle D has
been very unfair.
I've been in local
government for 20
years, and I've
never seen anything
like this."
Randy Arno, Floyd
County Administrator
51
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Floyd County
expensive than the transfer option. This and the uncertainty of unknown
future landfill costs prompted the County Administrator and the Board of
Supervisors to endorse the transfer option. An important consideration
was raising revenues, since farmers and small landowners bear the brunt
of taxation.
There was an intense public debate surrounding the accuracy, reliability,
and assumptions of the consultant's cost projections and how these should
be interpreted. There was no prior experience with which to evaluate the
information that was guiding the decision between different alternatives.
Even procuring technical and legal information was a challenge. Changing
solid waste regulations and Virginia's legal requirements for procurement
of professional services intensified the expense and complexity of the
problem.
Geographic and demographic information
Floyd County lies in the southwestern portion of Virginia. The town of
Floyd, the county seat, is situated about 40 miles southwest of Roanoke
on U.S. 221 and about 80 miles north of Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
It is about 20 miles from Interstate 81. Floyd County had a population
in 1990 of 12,005 covering an area of 383 square miles. The town of
Floyd is the only significant population center with a 1990 population of
400. Many parts of the County are remote. There are over 600 miles of
roads, many of which are dirt and gravel.
Nestled in the Blue Ridge Mountains and containing 17 miles of the Blue
Ridge Parkway, Floyd County is rich in natural scenic beauty. It has become
a choice location for newcomer residents seeking a quiet rural life. They
boast the absence of smokestacks, railroads, and toxic-producing industries.
These "transplanted" residents comprise about 10 to 12 percent of the
county population. At the same time, Floyd County is home to many
people whose families have lived in the area for generations. Some residents
perceive a certain amount of incongruence in the environmental and economic
values held by native residents and newcomers. Newcomers are more
likely than natives to participate in activism aimed at preserving the present
quality of the environment.
Royd County has relatively low household income and high unemployment.
As described by one resident, Floyd is a "nice place to live but a hard
52
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Floyd County
place to make a living." Cut-and-sew apparel factories provide the main
employment base in the County. Another important economic force is
agriculture and forestry. Floyd County is one of the largest suppliers of
white pine Christmas trees in the United States.
Weighing the options
Regulations required that Floyd County stop using its existing landfill by
October 8, 1993. Floyd County generates only 20 to 25 tons of garbage
per day. Randy Arno, Floyd County Administrator, describes the process
of finding a solution to the County's solid waste problem as a "three and
a half year nightmare."
The County evaluated three options:
(1) Building a landfill for Floyd County and implementing an
aggressive recycling program;
(2) Joining a regional public authority;
(3) Transferring the waste to a private facility outside the County.
The question of accepting another county's waste in Floyd County first
became an issue in the spring of 1988 when the New River Resource
Authority (NRRA, also featured in this document) requested Floyd County
to consider accepting the region's waste on an interim basis while permitting
and construction were completed on its long-term site. The previous County
Administrator had supported the idea. The Board of Supervisors decided
not to join NRRA and not to accept NRRA waste on an interim basis. This
decision did not require a vote since it did not involve a change in policy.
Besides concerns about out-of-county garbage, the Board of Supervisors
expressed concern over using the landfill's remaining capacity. The money
they were being paid by NRRA to serve as the interim site did not seem
to justify filling up the landfill.
Two years later, NRRA renewed its request for Floyd County to take waste
on an interim basis. A local grassroots group called Floyd Environmental
Action Team (FEAT) with assistance from the Citizens Clearinghouse for
Hazardous Waste organized public opposition to the proposal. However,
NRRA withdrew the request after successfully suing the state to develop
its interim site.
Public resistance to joining the NRRA developed because of concerns
that Floyd County would be asked to take its turn in hosting the regional
- 53 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Floyd County
Citizens did not
want to add to the
waste problems of
another community.
site sometime in the future. Since other counties have hospitals and industries
that Floyd County does not have, FEAT members feared that waste from
those sources would be more toxic than waste produced in Floyd County.
From the viewpoint of county officials, the total cost of joining the NRRA
seemed too high. Because of NRRA's low membership and its difficulty
in attracting new members, tipping fees would have been $50 a ton plus
trucking charges. Floyd's small waste stream would not significantly bring
down the costs. A particular drawback of joining the NRRA was that it
involved a "put or pay" arrangement that did not allow the county a short-
term stipulation. Once in, it would be hard to get out, and the County
wanted to keep its options open. Randy Arno says that, under more acceptable
conditions, his personal preference would have been a regional public alternative
because of the ability to control revenues and waste streams. "I'm in favor
of public regional authorities for daily public services, but until they reach
a point where it is economically feasible, it's not in our interest to participate,"
he says.
Shipping the County's waste to a private landfill was equally objectionable
from FEATs point of view. Citizens did not want to add to the waste problems
of another community. In addition, when Amo and members of the Board
of Supervisors were discussing transfer options with large private companies
such as Chambers, BFI, and Waste Management, FEAT presented board
members with a report detailing their concerns about the management
and past record of these companies. These included environmental violations,
financial problems, and questionable tactics of dealing with community
groups. National publicity surrounding a Virginia company called Chemstan
intensified local concerns about the private waste industry. That company
illegally operated a landfill until it was finally shut down by the State, then
it declared bankruptcy and fled, leaving the State with the clean-up bill.
FEAT was active in focusing public attention on the County's solid waste
ordinance during its revision in 1992. Floyd County now has the strictest
waste management ordinance in Virginia, which is a flat prohibition against
private waste processing companies in the county. The County Engineering
consultant identified other uncertainties with the transfer option-future rises
in fuel cost, the risk of automatic escalators in the contract, continued
liability, and potential restrictions on interstate waste transport.
54
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Floyd County
There was a considerable amount of public sentiment favoring the alternative
of having a landfill for Floyd County. FEAT members saw this alternative
as a way of maintaining independence and control over the County's waste
stream. By having its own landfill and relying on local resources as much
as possible, they believed the County could control its costs. They also
proposed innovative leachate treatment systems, which the engineering
consultant considered and discussed with the Board.
A controversial decision process
The County hired an engineering consulting firm from a neighboring county
to generate projections and estimates that would aid the County in weighing
its alternatives. In 1991, the County Board of Supervisors voted in favor
of having a Subtitle D landfill for Floyd County. This option would involve,
first, permitting the remaining five acres of the landfill. Second, it would
mean increasing the existing landfill's useful life by instigating a
comprehensive recycling and reduction program and by increasing the
slopes of the landfill. In addition, the County began condemnation proceedings
to acquire part of an adjoining 400-acre tract of land to build a new landfill
that would serve the County for another 50 to 75 years. The County had
negotiated with the property owner for two years, but they were unable to
reach a settlement. The County later dropped the condemnation process,
but it is still involved in legal discussions with the property owner and his
lawyers.
In mid-year 1992, with a newly elected Board of Supervisors, a decision
was made to revisit the landfill decision. The final draft of the Subtitle D
requirements required a composite liner (i.e. synthetic over clay) rather
than the synthetic liner anticipated in Virginia's solid waste regulations.
Among other problems, clay would have to be either hauled in or manufactured
on site, very expensive either way. A 30-year monitoring period would be
required for a landfill extension.
Decision-making this time around was more focused on how to pay for
each alternative in light of the regulations. The consultant's figures showed
that the transfer alternative would be much less expensive than building
a landfill. And the leachate treatment was found to be much more expensive
than earlier anticipated. Previous assumptions that the local sewage treatment
plant could handle the leachate were wrong. The firm estimated the known
operating costs of the landfill at approximately $900,000 per year, compared
to $300,000 per year for the transfer option.
- 55 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Floyd County
FEAT produced
their own report of
cost comparisons,
factoring in the use
of local resources
and cost-avoidance
through a
comprehensive
recycling and
reduction program.
The difference in cost could not be ignored in view of the impact it would
have on the tax base. County Supervisor Howard Dickerson explained
that one of the biggest challenges the County has faced has been raising
the revenue to support the solid waste program. In a rural county such
as Floyd, which has a very small retail base, farmers and other small landowners
bear the brunt of property tax increases. Farmers have resorted to selling
and subdividing their land. The subdivisions do not pay for themselves,
causing a larger impact on remaining farmers. Educating residents about
tax hikes is difficult since few people come to meetings, and the small-
town local newspaper does not adequately cover local government issues.
A number of local citizens believed, however, that the consultant's projections
were skewed. They questioned whether or not the firm's estimates fairly
represented the cost comparisons. They said the firm had not adequately
factored in recycling, which could cut the waste stream dramatically and
extend the landfill's life. The consultant said that the recycling issue was
addressed, but that the higher cost per ton caused by having less trash
and the expense of implementing a recycling program worked against recycling.
Some cost estimates appeared to be out of line with reality, such as $60,000
for a 200-foot roadway inside the landfill. FEAT members challenged the
accuracy of the study and produced their own report of cost comparisons,
factoring in the use of local resources and cost-avoidance through a
comprehensive recycling and reduction program.
In February 1993, the five members of the Board of Supervisors voted
three to two to transfer the waste out of county on a short-term basis.
"Short-term" was not defined. In the view of county officials, the reason
the second vote differed from the first was that the Supervisors took a
closer look at the evidence the second time around and considered the
unknown as well as the known costs. In the view of FEAT members, the
Supervisors were persuaded to take the easy, short-term route rather than
take the risks necessary to invest in the long-term.
Arno favored the transfer option because of the higher costs of building
and operating a landfill. Being a small waste generator makes it cost-
ineffective for the County to take care of its own waste, he believes. The
only reasonable option appeared to be transferring the waste out on a
short-term basis. He said in a recent interview with Virginia Business, "A
short-term contract with a private hauler gives us flexibility to opt for a
regional public program when the economies of scale warrant it."Arno says
56
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Floyd County
that it was the unknown costs that bothered him most, such as the leachate
treatment and handling. Dickerson now agrees. As Arno puts it, "If the
known costs had been all of the costs, and if constituents had been willing
to pay, staying at home would have seemed more reasonable."
Buying time with the transfer option
County Supervisor Dickerson voted against transferring the County's waste
to a private facility. In hindsight, he believes that he would vote differently.
He had no idea the transfer station would work out as well as it has. Management
of the transfer station is much less intensive than the landfill would have
been. Operations are simpler, less expensive, and much safer for workers.
In contrast to a landfill, a transfer station requires very little in the way of
closure. Dickerson also recognizes that operating the landfill would have
taken so much county time, there would not be enough time to meet the
County's other obligations, which have grown tremendously.
Royd County is transferring its waste to a landfill operated by Waste Management,
Inc. in Kernersville, North Carolina. The present contract is effective for
two years and is renewable in increments of two to ten years at what Arno
considers to be a favorable rate. Now that they have scales to determine
tonnage, they know that the County generates only 22 tons of waste per
day instead of the 35 tons per day initially projected by the engineering
consultant. Thus, transferring is less expensive than first thought.
They built and equipped a transfer station at a construction cost of approximately
$350,000, which was less than what the engineering firm had projected.
They bought two new pieces of equipment, one for pushing material into
the truck and one for retrieving material. They used a lease/purchase
option to try out the equipment, then bought it as used. The contractor
ran into some minor problems in constructing the transfer station and had
to build a temporary concrete pad to handle the waste in the interim. The
temporary pad will be used in the recycling center.
All county residents must take their trash to green boxes, which have increased
in number from 48 to 172. They pay $6.00 per month for access to the
collection centers. Recycling drop-off is available at four of the sites.
Amo admits that the transfer option does not offer a good long-term solution.
He is troubled about crossing the state line given the uncertainties of future
legislation that may affect interstate waste trade. Prices are almost sure
- 57 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Floyd County
There is a lack of
definitive, experience
based information on
costs that rural
counties can use as
a basis for weighing
their alternatives for
solid waste
management.
to increase as supply and demand stabilize. He sees the transfer option
as a way to buy two years of time to consider other options. Through the
transfer station, the County can consolidate its waste stream and increase
the efficiency of its transportation system.
To ensure that an option is available later on, Floyd County is going ahead
with completing the permitting for its five-acre landfill cell at the existing
site. The permitting was 90 percent complete when the decision was made
to transfer the waste. If the five-acre cell is developed, it will serve the
County at least seven to eight years. The transfer station purposely was
built close enough to the recycling center to be integrated with recycling.
Even if not used for disposal, it could be used to load large volumes of
recyclables into trucks. The station was made to be expanded if needed.
The controversy has quieted. FEAT members hope to develop a new approach
that emphasizes local control in solid waste options. They believe an opportunity
still exists to have a county landfill when the two-year contract with Waste
Management runs out. Royd County, they believe, has the resources needed
to implement creative waste management alternatives.
Dealing with regulators, lawyers, and engineers
Some county officials feel considerable frustration toward the amount of
time and money absorbed by the solid waste problem, the inflexibility on
the part of the State, and the role of engineers and lawyers in the process.
The requirements in Virginia have changed several times, and counties
have been expected to comply regardless. Officials say that the State
has offered no guidance or leadership to help local areas work through
their solid waste problems.
Both Arno and Dickerson believe that the County has had to divert a
disproportionate amount of governance effort to trash. Dickerson says
Floyd County has lost a lot of money and time doing tests and trying to
meet regulations without good guidance or information. Because of Subtitle
D, he says, "Local governments have been thrown to the sharks, and the
sharks are engineers and lawyers."
Floyd County has been confronted with a problem facing local governments
generally with regard to Subtitle D compliance. That is, there is a lack of
definitive, experience based information on costs that rural counties can
use to weigh their alternatives for solid waste management. Local governments
- 58
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Floyd County
must rely upon expert information and advice available from engineering
consulting firms and state regulatory personnel. And cost estimates must
be based on conceptual ideas, because final designs are not yet available.
There were times that the consultants did not know what the State Division
of Waste Management was expecting, who in turn did not know what EPA
was expecting. People in the County were the last to get information,
which became dated quickly. The data generated by FEAT to counter the
consultant's estimates appeared to be plausible, and there was no basis
for evaluating what was the right choice.
Floyd County repeatedly had to make quick, expensive decisions, with
little information to know whether or not it is the right decision. Virginia's
procurement laws cause local governments additional frustration and expense.
When a public entity needs a professional consultant's service, such as
engineering or technical assistance, they put out a request for proposal.
They must select a firm to negotiate with on the basis of their qualifications
without asking for price quotes. Then negotiations must be conducted with
one firm at a time. A firm can sue if the buyer decides to contract with
a previous firm. This law places limits on free market. The County's engineering
consultant did try to work with the County to provide price quotes and to
allow the County to terminate their contract at any time after initial services
were completed.
Recycling challenges in a rural county
Even though Floyd County residents pay a flat charge for disposal regardless
of volume, the transfer option has forced many people to realize the economies
of reducing the volume of trash, since the County must pay for what is
hauled away. If the County had a landfill of its own, Arno believes that
recycling would adversely affect disposal by increasing the cost of each
ton not put into the landfill. In addition, he says, there would not have
been a lot of money left to go into recycling with the landfill option.
On the other hand, recycling in Floyd County in the past has not really
been a function of money. Rather, Arno explains, it has been a function
of leadership and having a plan. Joe Klein, Floyd County's recycling coordinator,
is an example of the leadership needed to develop an effective program.
He is building upon the early efforts of a few individuals before him who
started the recycling program with little more than creative ideas and energy.
59
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Floyd County
Floyd has a progressive recycling program for such a small rural county.
The recycling program consists of a recycling center, located at the transfer
station, and four other unstaffed drop-off points around the County for residential
use. Klein handles much of the transportation himself. The recycling program
is paid for as part of the $6.00 accessibility fee for residents. About 50
percent of solid waste produced in Floyd County is from commercial and
industrial sources. Because most of the industrial component is cardboard
and textile scrap, it is highly recoverable through recycling and reuse. Several
of Floyd's largest industries are actively pursuing source reduction, reuse
and recycling.
Although participation is good, Klein believes that the sheer convenience
of green boxes keeps many people from recycling. The biggest challenge
for the recycling program, he says, is how to make recyclable drop-off
more convenient for people. But it is difficult to increase the recycling
rate without greatly increasing the amount of money spent on equipment.
Klein believes that there \$ not yet a full commitment in Floyd County to
the reality of recycling, and there is an unmet need for new county positions
toward the effort. Klein and Dickerson are looking at recycling programs
in other areas to evaluate whether they might work in Floyd County. They
also are evaluating composting operations, which are effective for smaller
operations.
Lessons from the Floyd County experience
The transfer station option adopted by Floyd County can be a viable option
for many rural communities. At the same time, Floyd County is continuing
to pursue other options. The decision making process the County went
through and the participation of a local citizens group in this process can
provide useful lessons for other rural communities.
Rural counties have little basis for judging whether or not the information
they receive from technical consultants and regulatory personnel
is accurate and realistic for their situations.
Transferring waste out on a two-year renewable contract can offer
a county the opportunity to buy time to consider other options.
Operating a transfer station may be simpler, less expensive, and
safer for workers than a landfill.
Because transferring waste out is not likely to offer a good long-
term option, counties should take advantage of ways to keep other
options open in the interim.
60
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Floyd County
A transfer station for a small rural county can be built and equipped
at relatively low cost, and it can be constructed to be adaptable for
future needs.
An active group of local citizens can help to get information out to
the public and force careful scrutiny of all alternatives.
Raising revenue in a rural county where there is a low retail and
industrial base is difficult because small landowners and farmers
must bear the brunt of taxes, and it is difficult to communicate the
reasons to the general public.
The development of a good recycling program is not necessarily
affected by the choice of a disposal option. Instead, it may be a
function of leadership and having a plan.
Contacts for further information
Randy Arno
Floyd County Administrator
P. O. Box 218
Floyd, VA 24091
(703) 745-9300
Howard Dickerson
Floyd County Board of Supervisors
Rt. 2, Box 248
Willis, VA 24380
(703) 789-7231
Joe Klein
Floyd County Recycling Coordinator
Rt. 1, Box 816
Floyd, VA 24091
(703) 745-9371
Lynn Croy
Project Manager
Draper Aden Associates
2206 South Main Street
Blacksburg, VA 24060
(703) 552-0444
61
-------
- 62
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Jefferson County
JEFFERSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE
Dandridge, Tennessee
Overview of the Case
When Jefferson County built its new landfill in 1992, it was among the first
landfills in Tennessee to be built in accordance with Subtitle D and state
solid waste regulations. "I'm glad it's behind us," says Jefferson County
Executive Gary Holiway. The main challenge now is to maintain day-to-
day operations at the landfill while keeping costs as low as possible.
Subtitle D has brought about conflicting objectives in Jefferson County's
waste management program. There is pressure to keep the volume of
waste up to generate sufficient revenue to pay fixed capital costs at the
landfill. This provides a disincentive to reduce the waste stream. At the
same time, the County is working to develop a recycling program (the cities
already have recycling programs), which will reduce the waste flow into
the landfill. Among county officials, there is a strong desire to conserve
landfill space and extend its useful life, but this must be balanced with the
need to maintain adequate waste volumes at the landfill.
The County has experienced short-term problems with volume because
industries have turned elsewhere for less expensive disposal. Because
the County has complied with Subtitle D, it is difficult to compete with the
lower disposal costs at other non-compliant landfills. Tipping fees are
presently set at $35 for household solid waste and $25 for demolition waste.
These fees do not cover all costs but are set to be competitive.
"Nobody objects to
protecting the envi-
ronment. But the
lack of realism by
the people writing
and enforcing the
laws is causing
local governments
unnecessary work
and expense.*
Gary Holiway,
Jefferson County
Executive
63
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Jefferson County
Jefferson County has been able to save on some costs by doing construction
with in-house crews and using existing equipment. However, it has had
to deal with a number of unanticipated expenses, many of which are the
result of permit revisions required by state or federal requirements. These
include additional state requirements for groundwater monitoring and a
redundant leachate treatment process. Due to changes in Subtitle D
requirements, the landfill cell currently under construction must have a
synthetic liner in addition to a clay liner. Other costs have been a factor
also, including engineering, geological and legal fees paid by the County
to defend itself in court, and the discovery of large boulders that must be
removed from the landfill cell.
One of the biggest challenges for Jefferson County was opposition over
the location of the proposed landfill site. The County was sued by the
City of Dandridge, the county seat, over potential contamination of the
City's drinking water wells. The County won in court. Relations between
the City and County jurisdictions have been repaired, and the controversy
has subsided.
Geographic and demographic information
Jefferson County is located in East Tennessee in the Appalachian highlands.
The topography of the County is influenced by the French Broad River
and the Holston River. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has constructed
impoundments on both rivers - Douglas Lake on the French Broad and
Cherokee Lake on the Holston River.
In addition to Jefferson County, the political jurisdictions include the Town
of Jefferson City, the City of Dandridge, and the Town of White Pine. The
County population in 1993 was 33,456. Population in the municipalities
is expected to decline in the next two decades due to limited new construction
and declining household size. In 1993, 83.2 percent of the County was
considered rural.
The County is large geographically, with 274 square miles and 800 road
miles. Interstate 40 passes east to west through Jefferson County, which
intersects with north-south Interstate 81 inside the county. Other major
connecting highways in the county are U.S. Highways 11-E, 25, 70, 411,
and 92.
64
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Jefferson County
Major economic influences in the County are farming, manufacturing, wholesale
and retail trade, food processing, education, and zinc mining. Major employers
are Magnavox, which makes TV cabinets; Bush Brothers vegetable processing
and canning; Carson Newman College; boat manufacturers; and DMS
Refining, which extracts silver from film.
In search of a disposal alternative
In early 1988, Jefferson County officials determined that the county landfill,
developed in the early 1970s by the TVA, would be completely exhausted
by 1991. They immediately began the process of finding another alternative
for their solid waste disposal.
The alternatives they considered included:
(1) A single-county landfill;
(2) A regional landfill;
(3) Incineration, and
(4) Transferring the waste to a private landfill in another county.
Jefferson County worked with neighboring Hamblen, Cocke, and Sevier
counties for two years in an effort to develop a regional solution. Ultimately,
none of the counties wanted to accept the other counties' garbage. Jefferson
County also considered using an incinerator being planned by the City of
Knoxville but decided it would be too expensive. (The Knoxville incinerator
project eventually was killed by political opposition.) Transporting the garbage
to Anderson County or some other county was considered too costly given
the hauling distance and tipping fees, and politics might intervene. Therefore,
the best solution would be a landfill for Jefferson County.
The County's biggest challenge was locating a landfill site. In the fall of
1988, the County hired an outside consultant to identify potential landfill
sites inside the County. Ten potential sites were listed as a result of the
consultant's work. The County established a policy to consider only those
sites where the owner indicated a willingness to sell. Most of the owners
of the ten sites denied access.
The preliminary selection of a site known as the Patterson Farm, located
2.75 miles north of Dandridge, generated much public opposition. The
City of Dandridge strongly objected to the use of the Patterson site because
of concerns about the potential contamination of wells used for the public
water supply.
- 65 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Jefferson County
The Highway Commission then advertised for other properties in the County.
This yielded two potential sites, the Godfrey Property and the Chandler
Property. A site adjacent to the existing landfill also was identified but
later rejected by the Tennessee Department of Health and Environment
as geologically unsuitable. The owner of the Chandler Property removed
his property from consideration. The Godfrey Property and the Patterson
Farm were the subjects of more detailed investigations.
In a 1989 feasibility study, an engineering consulting firm recommended
that the County proceed with the permitting process for the Patterson Farm.
The firm concluded that the Godfrey site had a higher probability of groundwater
contamination and would be less workable than the Patterson site.
After the number of potential landfill sites was narrowed to three, the Highway
Commission established a Citizens Advisory Committee to further public
input into the process. The committee included representation from
the City of Dandridge and the communities surrounding each of the
three preliminary sites. When the Chandler site was removed from
consideration, that representative did not become active on the committee.
The first citizens committee meeting was held on February 23,1989. Committee
members made site visits to both the Patterson and Godfrey sites. The
Committee members perceived the site selection process as politically
motivated and disbanded shortly after its formation.
The City of Oandridge sued Jefferson County based on the potential for
contamination of the city's drinking water wells. The case went through
three courts. The County spent an estimated $150,000 on legal, engineering
and geological services related to the court cases, and the City spent a
considerable sum on legal fees. The County won all three cases, but was
ordered to move a 10-acre portion away from the wells. The State also
added a requirement for secondary leachate treatment as an added precaution
against contamination. After the leachate is treated at the on-site leachate
treatment plant, the water is pumped out and trucked to the County high
school for treatment before it is released to a stream. The added cost
for the leachate treatment was $180,000. Also, the State required the
County to install 11 monitoring wells rather than the 5 initially planned,
which doubled the cost of monitoring.
The controversy has subsided, and relations between the County and the
City of Dandridge are good. This is due, in large part, to the fact that
- 66
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Jefferson County
there is a new city administration. Only one member of the previous City
Council is still in office. The mayor and five of the six aldermen took
office in June 1992, after all decisions and rulings about the landfill had
been made. The current City Council appears satisfied with the stricter
regulations that govern the landfill and their ability to protect the City's
water supply.
A new Subtitle D landfill
Jefferson County was issued a permit to build and operate a new 150-
acre landfill on the Patterson site in 1991. To pay for the landfill development,
the County sold bonds in the amount of $2 million, which must be paid
back over a 20-year period.
The facility includes a Class I landfill for municipal solid waste, which
includes a modern liner and leachate collection system in accordance
with Tennessee requirements and Subtitle D, and a Class IV demolition
landfill that accepts only wood and construction waste. The facility does
not presently include a Class II landfill for special (industrial) waste nor
a Class III landfill for yard waste.
The facility began operations in 1992, and it is projected to serve the
county for 40 years. The landfill only accepts waste from Jefferson County,
which amounts to about 80-100 tons per day. The permit does allow outside
garbage. Hamblen County agreed to temporarily accept Jefferson County's
waste for a year after the existing landfill was exhausted. In return, Jefferson
County has committed to helping Hamblen County with their waste disposal
when and if they need it.
A long landfill life is important to the solid waste board, mainly to avoid
the problems of siting a new landfill again in the near future. There is
considerable sentiment against taking waste from outside the County. For
example, Johnson City, located in northeastern Tennessee, offered Jefferson
County $10,000 per month to take its waste for an eight month period.
Although this revenue would have allowed the County to pay its debts
and buy new equipment, Jefferson County officials decided not to take
the offer in order to conserve landfill space and to avoid public opposition.
Tipping fees are $35 per ton in the Class I landfill and $25 per ton in the
Class IV demolition landfill. These tipping fees do not cover the complete
- 67 -
There is
considerable
sentiment against
taking waste from
outside the county.
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Jefferson County
bond indebtedness; instead, they are set to be competitive. If all costs
were included, tipping fees would need to be closer to $60 per ton. Ensuring
the costs of closure and post-closure is still something of an uncertainty.
The revenue from the landfill tipping fees will be put into a reserve account,
which the County hopes will generate sufficient funds for these costs.
The Solid Waste Board is discussing a proposal to increase tipping fees
from $35 to $38. Landfill Director Don Potts describes this as a real dilemma.
The County Commission is leaning toward raising the fee to meet the budget,
although some members of the Board worry that the increase will turn
away customers and reduce volume, which could produce an even bigger
financial loss.
All of the landfill construction work was done by county crews. A private
contractor constructed the building on the site, which is large enough to
accommodate equipment for repairs and service. The County was able
to use its existing equipment at the new landfill and bought three additional
pieces of used equipment. If the Board decides to raise tipping fees, this
will help buy some new equipment. Three additional personnel were hired
for operations, for a total of eight employees. One of these is a full-time
"spotter* who makes sure no illegal waste is put into the demolition landfill.
The County advertised for bids from engineering and geological consultants
for the various phases of the landfill development. One company conducted
the preliminary geological screening of sites, another did seismological
work and test borings, and another designed the facility and guided the
county through the permitting process. Potts says they were pleased with
the consultants they hired - they tried to find ways to save the County
money.
The County is responsible for paying the landfill tipping fees for the entire
County, including the four cities. The cities have door-to-door trash collection,
and they are responsible only for their transportation costs and for tipping
fees for commercial waste that the city disposes at the landfill. Therefore,
the municipalities have no incentive to shop for less expensive disposal.
However, industries in the County have sought less expensive disposal
alternatives. Because Jefferson County is far ahead of neighboring counties
in building a Subtitle D landfill, its tipping fees are higher. Several nearby
counties are still trying to fill up their existing landfills and are starting
68 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Jefferson County
from scratch in determining how to comply with Subtitle D. As more counties
develop long-term solutions, variations in disposal costs are expected to
decrease.
In 1992 and 1993, several industries began transferring their waste to other,
less expensive landfills. For example, Magnavox sent its waste to a private
demolition landfill in Hamblen County for a period of time, amounting to
$16,000 in lost tipping fees in a single month. The drop in volume hurt
the County, and officials and board members worried that they might not
generate the $135,000 needed to make the first bond payment. However,
several industries have recently returned to the Jefferson County landfill,
enabling the volume to pick up so that the county was able to make the
payment. The Jefferson County 10-Year Plan, completed in July of 1994
as required by the State, specifies that any solid waste generated in the
county must be disposed in the County, although the Board members recognize
this may not be enforceable.
There are eight convenience centers in the County. Based on the County's
population, the State requires only one manned convenience center with
a restroom, telephone, and running water. However, because the County
is so spread out geographically, travel distance makes it impractical to
have only one convenience center. The County upgraded and staffed all
of its convenience centers in the early 1980s due to public pressure to
eliminate the problems they created. Now, the eight convenience centers
are kept fenced, graveled, locked, and clean, and there is a building for
the attendant.
The new laws are
hampered by
overkill, and
regulators have not
exercised common
sense or realism in
enforcing them.
The challenge of the new regulations
Aside from the challenge of finding an acceptable landfill site, the biggest
challenge has been what local authorities see as unreasonable and unpredictable
solid waste regulations. In Holiway's view, the new laws are hampered by
overkill, and regulators have not exercised common sense or realism in
enforcing them.
The landfill was constructed in 1991 according to State regulations that
were written in anticipation of Subtitle D, which required a clay-based liner
but no synthetic liner. The Subtitle D regulations that became effective in
1994 contained requirements for clay-based and synthetic liners and a
modern leachate collection system. The County then had to revise its
permit accordingly. The currently active cell has a clay-based liner, although
69
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Jefferson County
The need to keep
waste volumes at a
certain level to pay
for fixed costs
actually serves as a
disincentive to
reduce or recycle.
the next cell under construction must have both a clay-based and synthetic
liner. This revision created a need for additional stone, pipes, liner, and
contract work. This totaled approximately $275,000 more than the original
design. The County was able to avoid a disruption or delay in operations.
There is no way of knowing, says Potts, whether future changes in regulations
may require other costly revisions.
Jefferson County had to close 20 acres, or about one half, of its old landfill
under the new State regulations. The other half was grandfathered in
under the old regulations. Closure costs for the 20 acres totaled $650,000.
The County has been faced with a number of unexpected costs that force
an increase in the fees that have to be charged to customers. For example,
the requirement for 11 monitoring wells instead of five, increased sampling,
and the additional leachate treatment requirement imposed by the State
significantly increased the costs of operations. The tipping fee had to be
raised accordingly. Other unexpected costs have emerged that are not
necessarily related to regulations. For example, extensive geological studies
did not reveal the presence of several huge boulders that were encountered
during construction of the second landfill cell. The County had to hire a
contractor with special equipment to break and remove the boulders, at a
cost of $30,000.
Impacts on recycling
Both Holiway and Potts point out that the need to keep waste volumes at
a certain level to pay for fixed costs actually serves as a disincentive to
reduce or recycle. If the volume drops, the tipping fee would have to be
raised, which might cause users to find other alternatives. However, there
is considerable public demand in the County for recycling, and the County
Commission is strongly supportive of a recycling program once markets
are established. Recycling marketing opportunities are not particularly
good in the area.
The County will be experimenting with a recycling program at one convenience
center in the near future. If it is successful it will be expanded to the other
eight convenience centers. They have an agreement with someone in the
County to take white goods and metals, including responsibility for removal
of freon. Tires are shredded using the State's mobile tire shredder, and
Potts is looking for a re-use for the shredded material. The County is
70 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Jefferson County
considering a composting program. It is waiting, however, to see how
these operations work in other counties. Of particular interest, is a digester
system that has been implemented in nearby Sevier County, Tennessee.
Although Jefferson County has not yet implemented a comprehensive recycling
program, the cities of Dandridge and Jefferson City have achieved good
results in their curbside recycling programs. Dandridge is experiencing
about 70 percent participation in its program. There is also a private recycling
operation, Lakeway Recycling in Jefferson City, which takes recyclables
directly from consumers.
The County has met the State's 25 percent reduction goal by diverting its
demolition waste to the Class IV landfill and by not accepting special waste
or yard waste. In addition, increased disposal costs have caused businesses
and industries to reduce their waste streams. For example, DMS used to
deposit four tons of chopped X-ray film in the landfill each day, but now
they have contracted with Tennessee Eastman to take back the film for re-
use. Magnavox and Bush Brothers are still very significant users of the
landfill.
Lessons from the Jefferson County Landfill
Jefferson County, Tennessee has successfully built a publicly owned and
operated landfill that complies with Subtitle D requirements. Because the
County has experience in many issues involved in siting, building, and
operating a landfill, it can be a valuable resource for other rural counties.
• A single rural county can manage its own waste collection and disposal
effectively.
• Changing regulations create a great deal of expense and work for
counties that have developed a Subtitle D landfill in a timely fashion,
and may cause costly permit revisions in mid-stream.
Counties that build Subtitle D landfills ahead of compliance deadlines
have to compete with the lower costs of other landfills not yet in
compliance.
Pressures to keep waste volume up to pay for fixed costs can act
as a disincentive to recycling and reduction.
• Counties must be prepared for significant unanticipated costs, some
of which may be a result of changing requirements or imposed by
the state in response to public demands.
• Costs can be managed by using available county personnel and
equipment as much as possible.
- 71 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Jefferson County
Giving county government the responsibility for all disposal in the
county eliminates incentives for municipalities to shop elsewhere
for less expensive disposal.
Contacts for further information
Don Potts, Director
Jefferson County Sanitation Department
P. O. Box 247
Dandridge, TN 37725
(615) 397-3544
Gary Holiway
Jefferson County Executive
P. O. Box 710
Dandridge, TN 37725
(615) 397-3800
72
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: New River Resource Authority
NEW RIVER RESOURCE AUTHORITY
Radford, Virginia
Overview of the Case
The New River Resource Authority (NRRA) is a regional waste management
service authority that was designed to handle the waste disposal and recycling
needs for a five-county region in southwest Virginia. Currently, the City
of Radford, the Towns of Dublin and Pulaski, and the County of Pulaski
are members. Two other counties are considering joining. The NRRA
has sold bonds to extend its existing landfill as an interim Subtitle D site
and to develop a long-term regional landfill.
The NRRA's greatest challenge has been changing regulations and deadlines
at the state and federal level, which have forced costly revisions to plans
and permitting and have caused difficulties in gaining new members. The
NRRA wants to avoid transferring the waste out, due to a lack of control
over liability and costs.
Another challenge for the NRRA has been selection of a site. Once a site
was finally determined, the NRRA entered into a formal Groundwater Policy
and Citizens' Complaint Procedure with the affected community. This alleviated
some of citizens' concerns about potential contamination of drinking water.
The Citizens Resource Recovery Committee has been an innovative feature
of the NRRA program. Committee members have researched alternatives
for resource recovery and have been actively involved in an experimental
composting program in cooperation with Virginia Tech.
"We believe in
using a sound ap-
proach that will
extend the landfill
life and reduce
costs."
Fred Milliard, NRRA
Program Director
73
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: New River Resource Authority
Geographic and Demographic Information
The New River Valley area of southwestern Virginia is comprised of Pulaski,
Montgomery, Giles, and Floyd Counties. Interstate 81 travels north and
south through Pulaski County. In 1990, the population in the NRRA's jurisdiction
was 50,436 persons and is projected to increase to about 54,000 by the
year 2020.
The New River Valley is surrounded by the Blue Ridge mountains, which
offer natural beauty that attracts residents from other parts of the country.
Other important geographic features are the New River and Claytor Lake.
Several institutions of higher education in the New River area contribute
to a well-educated community and a focus on research. These include
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Radford
University, and New River Community College. Also, Virginia Tech operates
a Corporate Research Center.
Manufacturing is the largest employment sector, and retail trade and the
service sector are growing. Major employers, in addition to the educational
institutions, include Appalachian Power Company, a Burlington Industries
terminal, several textile factories, Volvo-GM truck assembly, AT&T, and
Pulaski Regional Hospital.
A regional approach to disposal
The New River Resource Authority in Radford, Virginia is a regional waste
management service authority formed in 1986. It was originally designed
to handle the waste disposal and recycling needs for a five-county region.
Currently, only the City of Radford, the Towns of Dublin and Pulaski, and
the County of Pulaski are members. Together, they generate approximately
120 tons of solid waste per day. The waste stream is about 23 percent
commercial and 71 percent residential. Two nearby counties are considering
joining, which would reduce the financial and liability burden for NRRA
members.
In June, 1994, NRRA received a Subtitle D permit for a new, long-term
regional landfill. This site is located in Pulaski County, and it is projected
to come on-line in 1996. In addition, NRRA developed an interim site to
comply with Subtitle D, which included two permitted extensions to the
existing Ingles Mountain landfill. The interim site began operations in 1989.
74
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: New River Resource Authority
The NRRA sold revenue bonds to finance development of both the existing
and long-term sites. The debt service and operational cost will be paid
for by tipping fees and users.
State and federal regulations: A moving target
NRRA's biggest challenge has been the changing solid waste regulations
at the State and Federal levels, including the repeated postponement of
the implementation dates. Fred Milliard, Program Director for the NRRA,
describes the regulatory requirements as a "moving target." Regulations
changed in 1988,1990 and 1993, including new liner requirements,
groundwater monitoring parameters, and implementation deadlines.
No exceptions were made for new landfills already in the Subtitle D permitting
process. The State of Virginia has not been helpful in this situation from
the perspective of the NRRA members - in fact, it has been seen as a
hindrance.
The permitting process for the long-term regional site, which began in 1986,
was delayed several times by various regulatory changes. NRRA was
forced to revise its permit and change construction plans in mid-stream.
They went through three Part A and two Part B applications as a result of
changing regulations. The State would not allow NRRA any exemptions
or variances based on work already done. Therefore, the long-term permit
was not ready when NRRA needed to begin construction.
The NRRA needed extra landfill space to serve its disposal needs in the
interim. The NRRA board evaluated the option of transferring their waste
to one of three private landfills. The uncertainty of liability prompted the
board to reject this option. Neighboring counties with existing public landfills
would not agree to provide interim disposal space for the NRRA.
The NRRA applied for and received a permit for an extension of the existing
landfill as an interim disposal site. The permit included the full extension
in addition to an earthen berm that was needed to build the extension.
Both were to be built according to Subtitle D requirements. Although the
berm was included in the permit, subsequent changes in federal regulations
declared that a landfill could not be within 350 feet of residential property.
The state Division of Waste Management said the permitted berm was too
close to residents. The NRRA then sued DWM. The court ruled in NRRA's
favor and allowed the berm to be built. DWM officials do not consider the
berm to be a part of the permitted landfill and refer to it as the "court's
NRRA's biggest
challenge has been
the changing solid
waste regulations at
the State and
Federal levels,
including the
repeated
postponement of the
implementation
dates.
landfill.11
75
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: New River Resource Authority
NRRA filled out the berm and finished construction for the extension of
the Ingles Mountain landfill. The cost of construction and engineering for
the two parts of the interim landfill totaled 2.7 million, in addition to legal
costs. The interim landfill will serve the NRRA's disposal needs only until
the new regional landfill begins operations in January 1997.
The long-term regional facility in Pulaski County is a 937-acre site, including
the disposal area, the borrow area, and the conservation area. It is designed
to accept 34,000 tons per year for 50 to 60 years. The landfill's life expectancy
will increase as waste reduction efforts are improved.
Because the NRRA has gone forward with bringing its landfill into compliance,
its disposal costs are significantly higher than surrounding localities that
are not yet in compliance - some localities in the region still do not have
tipping fees. This has compounded the difficulty in acquiring new members,
which would reduce the tipping fee. Currently, NRRA is estimating a tipping
fee of $57.50. If Montgomery and Giles counties join, this will drop to
about $30.00 per ton.
However, Billiard says the NRRA's current plans will not be diverted if
new members do not join. The option of transferring the waste to a private
landfill in Kernersville or in Roanoke has been considered and rejected.
Milliard is strongly in favor of a publicly owned and operated landfill. First,
control over liability in a private landfill is a major concern for the NRRA.
If not for the question of liability, Milliard says, they probably would transfer
the waste to an outside facility. Second, if no new members are acquired,
the NRRA will have extra landfill capacity that will be valuable in the future.
Third, Milliard believes private companies do not offer a good long-term
solution because there is no control over the escalation of costs.
Addressing resistance to a landfill site
An additional challenge for NRRA has been the selection of a new regional
landfill site. The NRRA began the site selection process in 1987, which
initially included plans to build a waste-to-energy incinerator. Although
the incinerator plans were later abandoned, some sites initially considered
for landfilling of incinerator ash were later considered for the regional landfill.
The NRRA formed the Citizens' Landfill Siting Committee to help the Board
choose a long-term landfill site. The Committee presented a report to the
76
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle O: New River Resource Authority
Board in October 1987 that recommended a list of 25 preliminary sites.
The state's final regulations became effective in January 1988, prompting
the board to reevaluate several sites, including some that were not among
those recommended by the committee. Following an evaluation of four
sites, the NRRA Board ultimately selected a site known as the Dan Bar
farms in Pulaski County, which was not recommended by the Siting Committee.
An organized group called the Backcreek Watershed Association raised
questions and concerns about several aspects of the site selection process,
including the site's geological suitability for a landfill and adequacy of NRRA's
procedures for notifying and consulting affected property owners. Members
of the group had organized around previous landfill issues. Of particular
concern to citizens was the possibility that escalating costs might cause
NRRA to expand the present service area to multiple jurisdictions and/or
privatize the landfill in the future.
According to Milliard, citizen opposition was particularly intense around
1989. However, it has subsided since agreements were established that
allow neighboring residents some measure of control over landfill operations.
Residents' greatest concern is the potential for contamination of drinking
water supplies and the availability of potable water sources should
contamination occur. Thus, the NRRA and a Citizens Advisory Committee,
appointed by the Pulaski County Board of Supervisors, formally agreed to
a Groundwater and Citizen Complaint Procedure. The contract allows residents
to file a complaint and requires NRRA to respond according to certain
procedures for off-site groundwater testing. If contamination has occurred,
NRRA is required to provide replacement sources of drinking water at its
own expense. The contract also allows the Citizens Advisory Committee
certain rights and responsibilities for independent review and tests.
The Citizens Action Committee negotiated the possibility of guaranteed
property value protection near the landfill site. However, these discussions
were not pursued due to concerns about possible infringement on owners'
property rights.
In addition to the groundwater policy and complaint procedure, Hilliard
believes the 20-acre buffer strip that surrounds the landfill will reduce the
potential impacts on nearby residents.
Citizen opposition
has subsided since
agreements were
established that
allow neighboring
residents some
measure of control
over landfill
operations.
77
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: New River Resource Authority
Citizens research ways to reduce the waste stream
A particularly innovative feature of the NRRA's solid waste management
program is the effort by the Citizens Resource Recovery Committee to
find ways to reduce the waste stream. Made up of volunteer citizens of
the community, the committee has researched a range of available options
and technologies to reduce the area's waste stream, evaluated their practical
value for the community, and made recommendations to the NRRA. The
NRRA provided funds for the Resource Recovery Committee to visit sites
around the Country and evaluate other approaches.
Paul Steele, Chair of the Citizens' Resource Recovery Committee, explained
that the Committee began as a sort of advocacy group but evolved into a
technical advisory group. The members began to see how various alternatives
affect one another. Steele says that no one on the Committee knew a
thing about resource recovery in the beginning. Furthermore, he says,
"We found out that nobody else in the Country really knew anything; everyone
is groping for solutions."
The NRRA and the Committee initially considered a materials recovery
facility, and they even put out a request for bids. After observing other
MRF operations, they determined the costs of operation were very high
with little in return. It would cost $5 million to recycle 10 percent of the
waste stream.
As a result of its research, the Committee has concluded that it would be
relatively inexpensive to separate the waste stream into compostable and
non-compostable materials and successfully compost 30-50 percent of the
waste stream.
The NRRA, based on recommendations by the Resource Recovery Com-
mittee, has initiated a yard waste composting program and an experimen-
tal mixed municipal solid waste composting program in cooperation with
Virginia Polytechnic Institute. The experimental composting operation will
begin in September of 1994 at the Ingles Mountain landfill.
Following a study of yard waste and chipped brush composting, the second
phase in the experimental study will be to compost food scraps from the
VPI dining hall, restaurants, and fast-food hamburger places. The third
phase will be composting of mixed household waste. NRRA is considering
78
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: New River Resource Authority
using "blue bag" pick-up, in which residents will separate compostables in
colored bags that can be picked out of the trash compactor trucks. They
are planning to use a windrow turner, located at the landfill, for the composting
operations. A windrow composting operation is feasible where there is
room to spread the compost and avoid impacts from odor on neighborhoods.
Steele says they are looking for a good buy on a used tractor and turner
attachment from local sources.
If the experimental project is successful and economically feasible to operate,
it will reduce a significant proportion of the municipal solid waste stream
and generate a viable product. Compost markets are very good in this
farming area. The compost can be used for soil enhancement or as a
layer for planting grass seed. Even if the compost is used only for landfill
cover, the need for clean dirt to use as fill will be completely eliminated,
which will reduce NRRA's operating cost and extend the landfill life.
Steele explained that members have visited and consulted with the University
of North Carolina Extension Service near Asheville, NC, which is a leader
in researching composting operations and is presently composting municipal
waste in an experimental program. UNC also is experimenting with various
types of compost to evaluate their effects on tree and plant growth. Steele
believes that more experimental composting programs are needed to help
rural communities find answers without taking large financial risks themselves.
For example, it is not clear what size composting facility is needed, or
which methods of collection and separation work best.
The NRRA and the Citizens Resource Recovery Committee have discovered
that reaching reduction goals through conventional methods is difficult in
a rural area. For one thing, there are fewer industries, where the largest
reductions can often be made. NRRA's recycling efforts have achieved
15 percent reduction. They developed full service recycling centers in
cooperation with several large food stores as a public service and to increase
public awareness and participation in recycling.
In spite of good participation, the drop centers account for only one percent
reduction of the waste stream. The yard waste mulching operation, which
uses a large tub grinder to mulch clean wood, brush, and pallets, recovers
approximately three percent of the waste stream. A metal drop box program,
which takes old white goods and scrap metal, diverts another three percent
of the waste stream. Efforts by local industries to reduce their costs have
79
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: New River Resource Authority
The basis of a
sound waste
management
approach is first to
remove anything
that is profitable
from the waste
stream and then to
bury only those
things that are not
profitable.
resulted in a reduction of eight percent. Milliard explains that part of a
sound waste management approach is first to remove anything that is profitable
from the waste stream and then to bury only those things that are not
profitable. At the same time, the manager needs to know the costs of
various alternatives. For example, when all costs are considered, NRRA
can send plastic to North Carolina for $140 per ton or bury it in the landfill
for $57.50 per ton. Since plastic does not leak toxins in a landfill, he
believes it is sensible to bury it. The plastics industry is encouraging people
to recycle because it makes their product more attractive to consumers.
In May 1994, a mobile tire shredding program was kicked off by the Appalachian
Regional Recycling Consortium in cooperation with the New River Valley
Planning District Commission. The NRRA members are among the 16
jurisdictions participating in the initial phase; the service will eventually
be available to more than 30 jurisdictions throughout Southwest Virginia.
Lessons from the NRRA regional approach
NRRA has overcome many hurdles to develop its regional system. What
those involved with the process have learned along the way can be useful
to other communities considering a regional solution to managing their
solid waste.
Changing regulations and deadlines have created problems for localities
already developing landfills in compliance with Subtitle D. States
may offer them little leeway or assistance in their predicaments.
The conservation of landfill capacity can be viewed as offsetting
the short-term increase in disposal costs if a regional authority has
trouble gaining members.
The uncertainty of liability for users of a private landfill may justify
paying more to have a public landfill.
A locality can exercise better control over the waste stream and
operating costs through a public authority than by using a private
landfill.
The concerns of residents living near the landfill may be reduced
by a formal agreement that establishes a ground water policy and
complaint procedure, guarantees responsive action and
replacement water supplies if contamination of drinking water
is suspected, and allows independent monitoring and testing.
The availability of an ample buffer around the landfill site will help
to minimize impacts on residents' safety and quality of life.
80 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: New River Resource Authority
A volunteer citizens committee can be highly effective in
researching and screening alternatives for resource recovery, particularly
if funds are available for citizens to make site visits.
Good economic data on the relative costs and benefits of recycling
specific commodities is needed to develop a recycling program,
and to integrate this program into an overall waste management
program.
Composting can be a relatively inexpensive and efficient approach
to resource recovery in rural areas, but communities adopting this
option need to have good economic and technical information if
risky investments are to be minimized.
Cooperative experimental efforts with universities, community colleges,
and agricultural research facilities can be beneficial to rural solid
waste solutions.
Contacts for further information
Fred Milliard, Program Director
New River Resource Authority
P. O. Box 3637
Radford, VA 24143
(703) 639-5743
Paul Steele, Chair
Citizens Resource Recovery Committee
P.O. Box 3485
Radford, VA 24143
(703) 639-6383
81
-------
- 82
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tift County
TIFT COUNTY, GEORGIA
Tifton, Georgia
Overview of the Case
Tift County and the City of Tifton have built upon their previous waste
management experience, their cooperative relations, and the volunteerism
of local citizens to develop an innovative waste management system that
effectively reduces disposal costs and saves valuable landfill space. Their
disposal and recycling programs have become models for other cities and
counties in Georgia.
Tift County implemented a variable rate waste management program in
1992, based on a curbside variable rate program implemented by the City
of Tifton in 1991 with considerable success. A group of local citizens was
the driving force behind the new program, which met with considerable
resistance at first. The "pay-as-you-go" system has resulted in at least a
33 percent reduction in residential waste that has to be buried, measur-
able savings in landfill space, and reduced taxes for local residents. The
County has emphasized public dialogue and a strong education program,
in addition to anti-dumping enforcement practices, to counter initial public
resistance to the new variable rate concept.
The volume-based disposal program could significantly increase the life
of the existing city-county landfill. A Subtitle D horizontal extension is
being planned, which should serve the community at least 14 more years.
The City and County are weighing the option of joining a multi-county regional
solid waste authority, which would use the Tift County landfill extension as
its interim site. Whether they go with a single-county or multi-county disposal
"Communities don't
need high-priced
consultants to solve
all of their waste
problems. All it
takes is common
sense and a will to
succeed."
Bill Sheehan. formerly
of Recycle Tifton
83
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tift County
system, county leaders are determined to maintain a publicly owned and
operated landfill to control costs and waste flows.
Geographic and Demographic Information
Tift County is located along Interstate 75 in the central portion of southern
Georgia about 180 miles south of Atlanta and 60 miles north of the Florida
line. The total population of Tift County in 1990 was approximately 35,000,
comprising just over 12,000 households. Tifton is the largest municipality
and the county seat, with a population of 14,215. There are two other
very small municipalities, Omega and Ty Ty. Approximately 51 percent of
Tift County is classified as rural according to the 1990 census. Median
household income was $22,421 in 1989. The percent of persons below
poverty level was 21.2 percent.
Shared City-County Waste Management Services
Because the County is small geographically, city and county services are
easily shared. Hunter Walker serves as both the City Manager for Tifton
and the County Administrator for Tift County. There is a history of cooperation
between the jurisdictions, as well as volunteerism among citizens.
Both the County and the City have considerable experience in recycling.
Since 1978, the County has operated a recycling center. Funded by a
state grant, the County started collecting and processing cardboard in 1979,
and later accepted newspapers and other items. In the early 1980s, Tifton
volunteers organized a program to educate school children on waste reduction.
The City of Tifton organized some of Georgia's first neighborhood recycling
drop-off points. This experience has helped Tifton-Tift County to overcome
the obstacles of finding buyers for recyclables and educating the public
on its new volume-based system.
The City and the County share a landfill and a central recycling center.
The present landfill is jointly owned by the City and the County, and it is
operated by the City. The County operates the Tifton-Tift County Recycling
Center, located in the Industrial Park. The Recycling Center has been
expanded at a cost of $400,000. This investment should be recouped
through avoided landfill construction costs.
84
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tift County
Walker says that one of the County's primary objectives is to conserve
landfill capacity through aggressive recycling and reduction. Tift County
has implemented a county-wide variable rate disposal program (described
below) rather than pass the increased cost of landfill development on to
property owners through ad valorem taxes. Already, the residential waste
stream has been reduced by 33 percent as a result of the volume-based
system, saving at least 1/4 acre of landfill space in a year. Walker says
that the County has been able to exercise cost avoidance and nearly break
even through its variable rate program. The recycling center costs about
$110,000 per year to operate, not counting collection costs in the City or
County, but it generates $90,000 in sales of recyclables. The City and the
County split the shortfall.
The City and County are currently using the unlined portion of the landfill,
which is scheduled to close in December 1995. They have received a
Subtitle D permit for a 7-acre horizontal extension of the existing landfill,
projected to cost from $1.2 million to $1.5 million. Assuming continuation
of present usage, at approximately 100 tons of waste per day, the expansion
will extend the landfill's life for another 14 years. The City and County are
considering joining a 10-county regional solid waste authority. Preliminary
discussions among the counties suggest that the Tift County landfill extension
would serve the region as a short-term site, and Benhill County would
serve as a long-term site. Such a regional agreement would significantly
shorten the life of the landfill extension. However, Walker believes a regional
approach could reduce costs for Tift County, provide long-term disposal,
and help the County avoid the entire liability burden.
Whether or not Tifton-Tift County maintains single-county disposal or moves
to a regional concept, the community is determined to stay in the landfill
business. Walker believes the biggest challenge of Subtitle D has been
the major policy shift that has generated incredible pressure on local governments
to do business with for-profit concerns. "I'm not sure that is the best public
policy decision that could have been made," says Walker. The Subtitle D
policy process failed to engage local governments and favored the most
powerful lobbyists. In his view, it is a misconception that private companies
can operate a landfill better than a publicly owned authority. Landfill operation
is not labor-intensive enough to make private operation more efficient. In
addition, he notes that public entities have some economic advantages in
The residential
waste stream has
been reduced by 33
percent as a result
of the volume-
based system,
saving at least 1/4
acre of landfill
space in a year.
85
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tift County
It is a misconception
that private
companies can
operate a landfill
better than a
publicly owned
authority. The
industry is surprised
when you know you
may be able to do it
cheaper.
terms of tax exemptions and reduced financing costs. The industry is
surprised when you know you may be able to do it cheaper," Walker says.
In addition, a public landfill can exercise better environmental controls
due to the absence of profit-driven pressures.
Citizens Propose A New Idea for Tifton
The City of Tifton's curbside variable-can system went into operation in
January 1991. The program was the initiative of Recycle Tifton, a group
of local citizens who researched recycling alternatives and methods of
source separation and recommended a system that would charge customers
according to the volume of garbage they send to the landfill. The citizens'
concept of an incentive-based program was based on one already operating
in Seattle, Washington on a much larger scale. They adapted the Seattle
concept to the particular needs of a small city in rural south Georgia. The
group, led by Bill Sheehan, finally convinced the City Commissioners to
consider their idea for a variable rate system that has built-in incentives
to reduce and recycle.
It was almost a missed chance. The City had committed $300,000 to purchase
90-gallon roll-out carts for everyone in Tifton. Members of Recycle Tifton
believed that the huge roll-outs are fundamentally incompatible with serious
waste reduction and, in particular, with source separation and variable
rate systems. They objected to the City's commitment to a garbage collection
system without first having a clear plan for household recycling. Purely
voluntary recycling programs do not usually achieve significant waste reduction
and often amount to "good will" recycling. The citizens believed a successful
incentive-based system could significantly lower waste management costs
in the long term.
Based upon the citizens' recommendation for a variable rate system, the
Tifton City Commissioners decided to rescind their earlier decision to purchase
roll-out carts. This action met considerable resistance initially from the
two people who would be primarily responsible for implementing the system
- Hunter Walker, the City Manager and the County Administrator, and
Laura Tucker, the Executive Director of the Tifton-Tift County Clean Community
Commission. Now, however, both Walker and Tucker are strong advocates
of the variable rate system.
86
-------
Rural Co mmunities and Subt i 11 e D: lift C ounty
According to Walker, the City's curbside variable rate system has saved
money by extending the life of the landfill. The amount of city residential
garbage going into the landfill was reduced from an average of 60 tons a
week under the old system to 35-40 tons per week after implementation
of the variable can system, (n the first six months, the savings to taxpayers
was more than $85,000.
A Pay-As-You-Go System for lift County
There are variable rate curbside programs in large cities and small towns
around the country. However, variable rate programs in rural, unincorporated
areas, especially in the South, are quite unusual. Tift County's variable
rate system was the first in rural Georgia and perhaps the first in the Southeast.
After studying the advantages and disadvantages of various methods of
paying the increased costs of solid waste disposal, the Tift County Board
of Commissioners decided to implement a rural counterpart to Tifton's "pay
as you go" system, rather than taxation or a monthly garbage bill. A study
committee researched several alternative fee systems for the County
Commission, including both volume based and non-volume based alternatives.
The Commissioners concluded that a primary advantage of all volume-
based methods over non-volume based methods is that they contain built-
in financial incentives to have less garbage.
Tift County's variable rate "bag system" became effective on October 15,
1992. County residents are required to purchase a special "Tift County"
garbage bag for disposing of their garbage. The only thing allowed in the
green boxes now is a Tift County bag. The color-coded bags are available
at all grocery stores. A 38-gallon red bag costs $1.50, a 16-gaHon yellow
bag costs 75 cents, and an 8-gallon beige bag costs 45 cents. The stores
make a profit of 10 cents per bag. Walker says that $60,000 to $70,000
worth of sales is generated on the bags, but the cost of the program itself
is about double that amount. Landfill tipping fees help to cover the shortfall.
The County's 23 dumpster sites were centralized and reduced to seven
manned collection centers for trash collection and recycling. Independent
contractors were hired to operate the collection sites. Each site has lights,
an office building, fencing, and landscaping. The hours vary from site to
site - some are open 60 hours per week, one is open 30 hours per week,
and the central location is open 80 hours per week. Walker stresses that
Variable rate
programs in rural,
unincorporated
areas, especially in
the South, are quite
unusual.
87
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle O: Tift County
When they buy the
bag, they are also
buying a service
that includes
operating the drop-
off sites,
transporting the
garbage to the
landfill, and the
tipping fee at the
landfill.
the hours of operation need to be tailored to the customers, not the employees.
Each manned collection site has a recycling trailer where site operators
separate recyclables into compartments. Items accepted for recycling at
each site include aluminum and all other metal cans, glass, plastic, cardboard,
and newspaper. There is no charge for recyclables, which can be brought
to any collection site in any kind of container. Thus, the more a family
recycles, the less it needs to spend on Tift County bags.
The trailer, filled with recyclables, is transported to the Tifton-Tift County
Recycling Center. Prison labor is used at the plant to bale these items
and to ship them to markets. Laura Tucker reports that they have had
good success in locating markets for recyclables. She says, "If you have
good, clean recyclables, there are markets for them." While profits are
low on most items, the buyer usually absorbs the cost of transportation.
Walker says the program was an easier sell in the city than in the rural
areas of the County. Many rural residents expressed dissatisfaction. People
were hit hard by the sudden change from "free" disposal to paying per
bag. A main disadvantage of the bag system is the public's perception
of an expensive garbage bag. At first, county residents did not understand
that the cost of the bag is designed to reflect true landfill disposal costs.
In other words, when they buy the bag, they are also buying a service that
includes operating the drop-off sites, transporting the garbage to the landfill,
and the tipping fee at the landfill.
As expected, illegal dumping increased after the bag system was implemented.
The County quickly brought this practice under control through strict monitoring
and enforcement measures, in addition to increasing public dialogue to
help residents understand and accept the system. Early in the program,
"starter kits" were distributed to each person visiting a collection center.
The kits included information about the bag system, site locations and
hours, recycling, and two sample bags. At least a month was spent on
intensive educational efforts. Also, the Clean Community Commission
has added a 24-hour hot line for residents to call if they have questions.
A citizens' solid waste advisory committee was appointed in December
1992, with representation from each district, to make recommendations
on how to improve the garbage system. Bill Sheehan believes that, in
hindsight, the program might have benefited from stronger educational
efforts and more citizen involvement prior to unveiling the program.
88
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tift County
Tifton-Tift County's waste management program has worked so well that
it serves as a model for other programs in the state. More than 100 city
and county officials from across Georgia have visited Tifton and Tift County
to see first-hand how the incentive-based system works. Several other
cities and counties have modeled their solid waste programs after Tifton-
Tift County's.
Lessons from Tift County
Tift County is a model for solid waste collection and disposal systems
because of its emphasis on cost avoidance, conservation of landfill space,
and built-in incentives for recycling and reduction. The following lessons
can be learned from Tift County:
Local citizens often are the driving force behind waste management
innovations.
A community should first have a clear plan for recycling and reduction
before deciding on a garbage collection system.
Cost avoidance can be achieved by reducing the waste that has
to be buried and by extending the useful life of the landfill.
• A volume-based system, such as pre-purchased bags, can be a
more effective way to pay for landfill costs than taxation or a monthly
garbage bill.
Creative incentives for reduction and recycling are key components
of an effective waste management program.
Past experience and cooperative city-county relations are beneficial
to establishing effective collection, recycling, and disposal systems.
• Implementing a volume-based system requires a strong public education
and involvement program, both before and after the program is
initiated.
Local governments can operate a landfill as well as private companies
in many cases, and doing so allows them more control over costs
and wastes.
Waste collection and recycling sites should be operated on the
basis of users' needs, not the employees'.
89
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tift County
Contacts for further information
Hunter Walker
Tifton City Manager,
Tift County Administrator
P.O. Box 229
Tifton, Georgia 31793
(912) 382-6231
Laura Tucker, Executive Director
Tifton-Tift County Clean Community Commission
P. O. Box 229
Tifton, Georgia 31793
(912) 382-6231
Bill Sheehan, formerly with Recycle Tifton
Solid Waste Issue Leader
Georgia Sierra Club
268 Janice Drive
Athens, GA 30606
(706) 208-1416
90
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority
TRI-COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
Murphy, North Carolina
Overview of the Case
The County Commissioners in each of the Western North Carolina Counties
of Cherokee, Clay, and Graham wanted to do something about recycling.
The Southwestern North Carolina Planning and Economic Development
Commission, located in Bryson City, North Carolina, urged them to work
together and develop a regional recycling program. In response, the
Commissioners formed the Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority.
This was April of 1991. Soon, however, after passage of the Subtitle D
legislation, members of the Authority quickly recognized that out of necessity
landfills would have to be their primary consideration. The landfills in Clay
and Graham Counties would need to close. And Cherokee County's landfill,
which had just completed expensive upgrades, would need to close in a
few years.
The Authority moved quickly to develop and implement a region wide agreement
that enabled them to address their current waste disposal needs and plan
for the future. Because the landfills in the other two Counties had to close,
Cherokee County agreed to make their landfill available as a regional facility
for as long as it could continue to stay open. To address the longer term
need, the Authority agreed to begin the process for siting a new, Subtitle
D compliant landfill that all three Counties could use once the Cherokee
landfill was no longer available. A possible site has been identified in
Cherokee County and an option taken on the land. An engineering study
was completed at the end of July, 1994. The results of the study were
favorable, and the Authority is now completing the permitting process. Since
"Counties all have
the same problems.
They need to work
out their differences
and find ways to
solve their problems
together."
Paul Jordon,
Executive Director, Tri-
County Solid Waste
Management Authority
91
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority
its inception, the Authority has functioned as an informal, unincorporated
organization. Now, however, because it will be taking on major fiscal and
liability responsibilities, it is taking steps to formally incorporate.
The Commissioners' "working together experiment" to solve their solid waste
problems has been successful. As a result, they have been motivated to
adopt cooperative arrangements to mutually solve other problems that are
common to each of their Counties.
Geographic and demographic information
Cherokee, Clay, and Graham Counties are situated in Southwestern North
Carolina. The area is primarily mountains, forests, and river valleys. Physical
beauty, natural resources, and tourism characterize the area. The rugged
terrain, remoteness and lack of major highways, and the seasonal recreational
economy, however, all present particular challenges for solid waste
management. Combined, the three Counties are home to 35,500 people.
During the tourist season, population can increase several fold. There is
a total of 962 square miles in the three county area resulting in a population
density of 37 people/square mile. Federal lands, including National Forests
and Tennessee Valley Authority property, make up a significant portion of
the land area, which tends to concentrate the population and to reduce
tax revenues for addressing solid waste and other problems facing these
Counties.
Finding new ways to work together
The Authority was first organized in April of 1991. Representatives to the
Authority are appointed from each County by their respective County
Commissioners. Clay and Graham Counties each have two representatives.
Cherokee County, because of its larger population, has three representatives.
There are no term limits for the representatives to the Authority. Members
serve until their County Commissioner replaces them with a new member.
The Authority is not a formally incorporated organization. The strength
and viability of the organization reside in the Commissioners' and the members'
belief and commitment to the idea that working together through the Authority
is the best means for successfully solving their solid waste problems, specifically
the landfill issue.
92
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority
Initially, members of the Authority were appointed from a wide range of
community organizations. Recently, however, as the Commissioners have
become more involved in solid waste issues, they have appointed more
elected and appointed county officials. The three Counties' Commissioners
realize that the elected officials ultimately have responsibility for deciding
and implementing solid waste decisions, and that they need to be knowledgeable
about what they are deciding. Being a member of the solid waste authority
is a way for elected and appointed officials to gain the information and
perspective they need to make good solid waste management decisions.
Current representatives to the Authority are:
Cherokee County: County Manager, two private citizens;
Clay County: Two County Commissioners;
Graham County: County Commissioner, County Manager;
Paul Jordon serves as Executive Director and manages the day-to-day
affairs of the Authority. Paul is also a Clay County Commissioner. His
extensive experience in county government serves him well in educating
other public officials about what needs to be done in solid waste and coordinating
their efforts to achieve a common end.
Industrial Opportunities, Inc., a non-profit organization that provides work
opportunities for the physically and mentally challenged in the Tri-County
region, acts as the fiscal agent for the Authority. As the fiscal agent, it
receives grant funds and other moneys, pays bills, completes tax forms,
and handles other fiscal matters for the Authority. Industrial Opportunities
provides this service at no cost to the Authority. It receives payment through
increased cooperation for some of its projects, and the opportunity to gain
public relations and networking benefits.
The member Counties fund the Authority on a prorated basis based on
population. Each County currently pays according to the following schedule:
Cherokee 58%
Clay 21%
Graham 21%
The Commissioners agree that the payment system is fair and equitable.
Current operating expenses for the Authority are $16,000, which is a reduction
from prior years as the Executive Director is now part-time. Expenses will
increase substantially once construction begins on the new landfill.
The three Counties'
Commissioners
realize that the
elected officials
ultimately have
responsibility for
deciding and
implementing solid
waste decisions,
and that they need
to be
knowledgeable
about what they are
deciding.
93
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority
When the Solid Waste Authority began, it faced three waste management
challenges: 1) to help the Counties develop recycling programs, 2) to develop
and implement a short term solution for disposing of their solid waste materials,
and 3) to develop a long range, more permanent solution for disposing of
their waste materials. How the Authority met these challenges is discussed
below.
Managing solid waste - recycling
Recycling began in 1991 with each County being responsible for its own
recycling and collection centers. There was little money to support any
of their activities, however. So they did it on their own. Citizens groups
formed to support recycling, and the Counties relied on local experience
rather than hiring an outsider to provide technical assistance. Materials
were sent to Webster Enterprise in Jackson County for final processing
and marketing. It was a heavily subsidized operation. Grant assistance
was obtained from the Tennessee Valley Authority and other sources to
buy balers and loaders, which helped make the systems more efficient.
At the same time, the Counties were doing all they could to minimize costs,
for example Clay County stripped out an old school bus and used it for
collections. To save funds, convenience centers were opened without being
staffed, although they are now staffed. Counties constantly look for grants
and other forms of financial assistance to help their programs. And the
programs are trying to collect more higher profit materials.
Currently, recycling is a cost to all Counties. Other than avoided landfill
costs, there are few economic incentives in this area to recycle. It is difficult
to collect materials, and markets are hard to find. Recycling is currently
being heavily subsidized by county funds.
Managing solid waste • current landfill practices
In response to the Subtitle D regulations, Clay and Graham Counties had
to close their landfills. The agreement among the three Counties called
for the Cherokee County landfill to serve as a regional facility for the area.
Their landfill, with the addition of groundwater monitoring wells, had been
permitted by the State to remain open until October, 1996. As part of the
extension approval, however, the State required the Solid Waste Authority
to pursue a more permanent solid waste disposal solution, which is described
in the next section.
94 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority
For the interim period, tipping fees were set as follows:
Cherokee - $36/ton for private haulers;
Clay - $36/ton + $14 hauling fee if Cherokee County hauls
their material;
Graham - $36/ton They haul their own material.
Private haulers are charged $36/ton.
Materials collection differs in each County. Graham County picks up from
some 40 scattered greenboxes. This is very time consuming and expensive.
Clay County has a convenience center, which concentrates pickup, and it
has private haulers that pick up from the places not serviced by the
convenience center. Cherokee County has two convenience centers, which
makes their pick up more efficient. Cherokee County's convenience centers
are also available to residents of other counties. Anyone who buys a pass
can use the facility to dispose of their waste.
Each County has its own mechanism to raise revenues to finance the collection
and disposal of waste materials. Cherokee County collects $35 per year
from each household as part of their property tax assessment. This amount
covers their costs. Graham County collects $48 each year per household
along with the property tax. This amount probably does not cover all their
costs. Clay County sells passes to dispose of material at convenience
centers. A pass costs $36/year/household, and allows a family to dispose
of four 30 gallon bags per trip. Or County residents can buy tags @ $1.00
to deposit one 30 gal. bag. These revenues do not cover all their costs.
In October of 1993, the tipping fees increased from approximately $12/ton
to a maximum of $36/ton. Initially citizens across the region were upset
with the increase. In response, the Authority held a number of public meetings
and wrote newspaper articles to explain the problem and to answer questions.
Once people understood why there had to be an increase, they were more
accepting of the change and willing to support it.
Once people
understood why
there had to be an
increase, they were
more accepting of
the change and
willing to support it.
Managing solid waste - the future
To meet its long term disposal needs, the Authority considered contracting
with a private waste management company to manage the system, and it
considered transferring material out of the area. The Authority contacted
a number of waste management companies about building and managing
a new landfill. Each company had a clause in their contract that the company
had the right to sell the contract to a subsidiary company or to another
- 95 -
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Trl-County Solid Waste Management Authority
company of their choice. The Counties were uneasy about this provision.
In rural areas, personal relationships are important as the basis for doing
business. Thus, it was important for the Counties to know who they would
be contracting with. They did not want to establish a relationship with one
company and then have that relationship change without their knowledge
or involvement. Also, the Counties wanted greater control of waste flows
and solid waste costs in their area than the private companies would allow.
As a result, because the Counties were not certain about what company
they would work with, and because they did not believe they could control
solid waste affairs to the extent they wanted, they rejected contracting
with a private company.
The Authority also considered transferring materials to a regional landfill
in Georgia. However, the Commissioners were concerned that new regulations
or restrictions on inter-state transfer of waste might be enacted that would
prevent transporting waste across state lines or that would significantly
increase costs. As a result of these concerns, the Counties rejected transferring
materials out of state, and there were no other nearby landfills that could
accept waste from the Tri-County area.
Because an
acceptable private
alternative could not
be found, the
Authority and its
member Counties
agreed to develop
their own waste
management
system.
Because an acceptable private alternative could not be found, the Authority
and its member counties agreed to develop their own waste management
system. By building a regional facility to serve the Tri-County region, the
member counties would control the collection, processing, and disposal of
waste materials within their area. In this way, they would be able to retain
control of the costs for managing these materials. Most importantly, the
Counties believed that they would be able to control their own fortunes
rather than have to rely on the dictates of a private company.
The Authority is in the process now of siting the new facility near the current
landfill in Cherokee County. Preliminary studies indicate that the site will
be acceptable. An initial engineering study was completed at the end of
July, 1994. The full permitting process must be completed by March, 1995.
Construction of the landfill would begin in the fall of 1995 with opening
scheduled for September, 1996.
The Authority will have responsibility for constructing and managing the
landfill. The member counties will provide funding to construct the facility.
Operating costs will be supported by tipping fees.
96
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Trl-County Solid Waste Management Authority
To date, there has been a minimum of public education and public involvement
in the decisions to site the new landfill. The public has generally been
supportive in the past, or at least has not voiced opposition, and the Authority
members expect that this will continue. Once it is certain that the proposed
site is acceptable, they will begin a public education campaign and hold
public hearings to inform the public about the decisions already made and
future actions that need to be taken. There may be some opposition to
the new siting, but the Authority is confident that once all the information
is available, the vast majority of the public will be supportive.
An election can result in new decision makers and the opportunity to change
decisions that already have been made. A solid waste program, or any
new, developing program for that matter, can be radically changed with
the election of new public officials. Several new Commissioners in the
Tri-County area will be elected in the 1994 elections. Paul Jordon is working
to educate the potential new Commissioners about the solid waste issues
confronting the area, the decisions that have been made to date, and the
future decisions that will need to be made. Jordon is confident that even
though there will be new Commissioners, there will not be a great change
in the direction of the program. The program is working, and people are
generally supportive. He believes that there will be little support to fix
something that is not broken.
Working together
The cooperative effort to solve the solid waste problem crossed political
and county lines, and this is the first experience the Counties have had
of working together on something. It is hard to pinpoint exactly why they
are being successful. The Commissioners recognized that something had
to be done, and when the Planning Commission suggested a joint effort,
the Commissioners realized they had nothing to lose and perhaps much
to gain by a cooperative effort. It was a new venture for them, and they
were willing to take the risk. The Commissioners and the members of the
Authority were willing to work together - the right people came together at
the right time. And they have had good leadership, which has been crucial.
Perhaps most importantly, however, they have been willing to acknowledge
their differences, and then work to resolve them in mutually beneficial ways.
There has not always been unanimity, but they have been able to work
things out.
Perhaps most
importantly,
however, they have
been willing to
acknowledge their
differences, and
then work to resolve
them in mutually
beneficial ways.
97
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority
This has been the first effort of this kind for the Authority members, and
it has been the impetus for other joint efforts. Most recently, the County
Commissioners have developed a regional jobs program and a regional
transportation system for their Counties. The area's solid waste problems
and their resolution through the Authority has been a positive force for
getting the Commissioners and the Counties to work together.
One of the factors that helps to make a cooperative system work is that
each local unit retains control and authority for those actions that primarily
are carried out at the local level. For those activities that have wider impact
and that can benefit from economies of scale, responsibility is conceded
to a larger coordinating or governing body. For example, in the Tri-County
Authority, each individual county retains responsibility for collecting and
processing waste within their respective county. To dispose of it, however,
they cooperate with one another through the Authority to dispose of it in
as cost efficient and environmentally sound a manner as possible. The
Authority provides the coordination mechanism and a way for the
Commissioners to communicate with one another.
The Commissioners and the members of the Authority have come to realize
that everyone has the same problems. And they have learned that by
keeping focused on the issues and on the successes they have, they can
work together to mutually solve their common problems.
Building Cooperative Relationships
The following factors can help communities build good working relationships.
A prior history of cooperation.
A recognition that each partner can benefit.
A willingness on the part of an individual or a community to step
forward and take the risks inherent in a cooperative effort.
The collaborators' ability to keep focused on what needs to be done.
• A continual effort to build and improve the relationship between
the members.
• An ability to separate common interests from individual interests.
Implement mechanisms that support individual interests and protect |
local concerns.
Build public support by educating the public to support new working ]
relationships.
98
-------
Rural Communities and Subtitle D: Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority
Lessons from the Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority
The development and implementation of the Tri-County Solid Waste Management
Authority provides several insights that other rural areas can use when
planning their own solid waste programs.
• Counties can maintain control of waste management services and
avoid escalating costs and interstate transportation regulations by
developing their own public disposal programs.
• Regional agreements can allow local units of government to maintain
considerable autonomy in a multi-county cooperative system
so that each member can retain as much control as possible.
• Local resources and solutions can be valuable inputs for solving
a range of local problems. For example, locally available experience,
non-profit resources, and equipment can provide a better alternative
than hiring expensive outside help.
In a cooperative effort, perceptions of equality of benefits and effort
are important. Participants need to perceive arrangements as equitable.
• An initial successful cooperative effort among local units of government
can facilitate future solutions to common problems.
Grant assistance is often available to public authorities who are
willing to invest the time and effort to search and apply for them.
• An aggressive approach to public education can minimize public
concern and misunderstanding about solid waste problems and
proposed solutions.
Contacts for futher information
Paul Jordon, Executive Director
Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority
115 Peachtree Street, Suite 103
Murphy, North Carolina 28906
704/837-5842
Tom O'Brien, Executive Director
Industrial Opportunities, Inc.
Post Office Box 39
Marble, North Carolina 28905
704/837-9066
99
-------
James Malia completed the case studies for:
• Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Authority, North Carolina
• Coffee County, Alabama
• Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority, North Carolina
Janice Morrissey completed the case studies for:
• Atkinson County, Georgia
• Floyd County, Virginia
• Jefferson County, Tennessee
• New River Resource Authority, Virginia
• Tift County, Georgia
Additional copies of this publication may be requested from:
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION IV
OFFICE of RCRA and FEDERAL FACILITIES
345 COURTLAND STREET, N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
404-347-2091
------- |