HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg Solid Waste Mgmt Study 1�
y
�
�
O
N
d
0
y
0
d
REGIONAL SOLII) WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY
FOR TIM
CO(JNTIES OF CARROOLL, FREDERICK, HOWARD, AND WASHINGTON
Northeast
Maryland
Waste
Disposal
Authority
in Association with
Cershraao, Brickner & Brattcn
Piper & Marbury
Public Resources Advisory Grocp
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE . . . . . . . .
vi
I-1
II. EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS . . . . . . .
II -1
A.
GOVERNMENT ROLES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
II -1
1. Local Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II -1
2. State Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II -1
B.
CARROLL COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II -3
1. Administration . . . . . . . . . . . .
II -4
2. Collection Methods . . . . .
II -6
3. Processing and Disposal Facilities . . . .
11-9
4. Funding Methods . . . . .
II -12
5. Recycling Activities and Quantities . . .
II -13
C.
FREDERICK COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II -14
1. Administration . . . . . . . . . . . .
II -15
2. Collection Methods . . . . .
II -17
3. Processing and Disposal Facilities . . . .
II -17
4. Funding Methods . . . . .
1I-20
5. Recycling Activities and Quantities . . .
II -21
D.
HOWARD COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II -21
1. Administration . . . . . . . . . . . .
II -22
2. Collection Methods . . . . . .
II -22
3. Processing and Disposal Facilities . . . .
II -24
4. Funding Methods . . . . . .
II -26
5. Recycling Activities and Quantities . . .
II -26
E.
WASHINGTON COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1I-28
1. Administration . . . . . . . . . . . .
II -28
2. Collection Methods . . . . .
II -30
3. Processing and Disposal Facilities . . . .
II -30
4. Funding Methods . . . .
1I-33
5. Recycling Activities and Quantities . . .
II -34
F.
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I I - 3 4
III. WASTE GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -1
A.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -1
B.
HISTORIC WASTE QUANTITIES . . . . . . . . . . .
III -3
1. Carroll County . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1II-3
2. Frederick County . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11I-3
3. Howard County . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -6
4. Washington County . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -7
C.
PROJECTED WASTE QUANTITIES . . . . . .
III -9
1. Residential Sector Waste Generation . . .
III -9
2. Commercial Sector Waste Generation . . . .
III -11
3. Overall Waste Generation . . . . . . . . .
II1-14
4. Generation Rate Projections . . . . . . .
III -14
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
D. MONTHLY VARIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III -25
E. WASTE COMPOSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III -26
F. HEATING VALUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III -30
A. LIST OF REFERENCES
B. FOUR -COUNTY POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
C. LANDFILL RECORD
ii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
TITLE
PAGE
II-i
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BY MUNICIPALITIES
INFOUR -COUNTY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II -7
III -1
FREDERICK COUNTY WASTE QUANTITIES DISPOSED,'
1986-1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -4
I1I-2
POPULATION AND WASTE QUANTITIES
FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND . . . . . . . . . .
III -5
III -3
HOWARD COUNTY WASTE QUANTITIES DISPOSED' . . .
III -6
111-4
POPULATION AND WASTE QUANTITIES
HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -8
III -5
WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTE QUANTITIES DISPOSED . .
III -9
III -6
POPULATION AND WASTE QUANTITIES
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND . . . . . . . . . .
III -10
III -7
RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION RATES OF SELECTED
JURISDICTIONS
(Estimated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -11
III -8
SIC CODE GROUPINGS' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -12
III -9
COMMERCIAL WASTE GENERATION RATES
FOR SELECTED COMMUNITIES' . . . . . . . . . . .
III -13
III -10
TOTAL ESTIMATED CALENDAR YEAR 1989 WASTE
GENERATION' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -14
III -11
CARROLL COUNTY POPULATION AND TOTAL NON -BULKY
MSW PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -17
III -12
FREDERICK COUNTY POPULATION AND TOTAL NON -BULKY
MSW PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -18
III -13
HOWARD COUNTY POPULATION AND TOTAL NON -BULKY
MSW PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -20
III -14
WASHINGTON COUNTY POPULATION AND TOTAL
NON -BULKY MSW PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . .
III -21
I1I-15
TOTAL FOUR -COUNTY POPULATION AND TOTAL
NON -BULKY MSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -22
iii
LIST OF TABLES
(CONTINUED)
TABLE
TITLE
PAGE
II -16
NON -BULKY WASTE PROJECTIONS
(1995 and 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -23
III -17
FOUR -COUNTY REGION
BULKY MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PROJECTION . . . .
III -25
III -18
PERCENT MONTHLY VARIATION OF WASTE GENERATION .
III -26
III -19
RESULTS OF REPRESENTATIVE SOLID WASTE
COMPOSITION STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111-29
III -20
NATIONWIDE PROJECTIONS OF WASTE COMPOSITION . .
III -30
III -21
FOUR -COUNTY MARYLAND WASTE COMPOSITION AND
HEATING VALUE: EXISTING WASTE COMPOSITION VS.
RECYCLING SCENARIOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III -33
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
TITLE
PAGE
1
MARYLAND 4 -COUNTY LOCATION MAP . . . . . . . .
. viii
II -1
SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION - CARROLL COUNTY . .
II -5
II -2
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES - CARROLL COUNTY MAP . .
II -10
II -3
SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION - FREDERICK COUNTY .
II -16
II -4
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES - FREDERICK COUNTY . . .
II -19
II -5
SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION - HOWARD COUNTY . .
II -23
II -6
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES - HOWARD COUNTY . . . .
II -25
II -7
SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION - WASHINGTON COUNTY
II -29
II -8
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES -- WASHINGTON COUNTY . .
II -31
III -1
FOUR COUNTY STUDY
TASK 1: WASTE ASSESSMENT
MONTHLY WASTE VARIATION - COMBINED COUNTIES . .
III -27
11I-2
MARYLAND FOUR -COUNTY STUDY
WASTE COMPOSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II1-31
Tu
Li
PREFACE
The counties of Carroll, Frederick, Howard, and Washington,
located in the western portion of Maryland, have experienced rapid
escalation of waste quantities requiring disposal within their
jurisdictions. The four counties are contiguous to each other
and encompass the area north and west of the Washington, D.C. -
Baltimore Metropolitan areas. Figure 1 portrays the location of
the study area within the State of Maryland.
Each of the four counties provides disposal facilities for
waste generated within the county. Marked increases in waste
quantities requiring disposal are depleting the counties' landfill
capacity at rapid rates. As a result, each of the four counties
is in various stages of planning for the expansion of existing
facilities or development of new disposal units. In the near
future, Washington County plans to develop a rubblefill and a
three -cell expansion of the existing landfill. Frederick County
is in the early stages of exploring options and costs to develop
a new landfill. Carroll County is looking into constructing new
cells at both of its landfills.
The counties recognize that a highly desirable strategy for
dealing with the challenges of solid waste management is to develop
and implement processing and disposal facilities, as well as
comprehensive recycling systems, that will minimize reliance upon
landfill capacity. In addition, significant savings are possible
if various processing and technology options are implemented on a
multi -county basis. As a result, in June 1989, the counties
jointly entered into a contract with the Northeast Maryland Waste
Disposal Authority (Authority) to conduct a feasibility study of
disposal/processing options that would examine opportunities for
regional cooperation.
The Authority contracted with three advisory firms to provide
specialized expertise in this study; the solid waste management
consulting firm of Gershman, Brickner and Bratton, Inc.; the
financial advisory firm of Public Resources Advisory Group, Inc.;
and the law firm of Piper & Marbury. The scope of the project
includes developing summary reports for each of seven major steps
in this study, commonly known as tasks. The seven tasks are:
1. Waste Stream Assessment and Existing Systems Review;
2. Energy and Materials Markets Survey;
3. Project Opportunities and Technology Considerations;
4. Legal and Financial Review;
5. Environmental Requirements;
6. Economic and Institutional Analysis; and
7. Recommended Implementation Plan.
A summary report that includes highlights of the findings and
the recommendations is published for each of the above tasks. Each
summary task report provides direction regarding the analysis to
vi
be accomplished in one or more of the succeeding tasks.
This first summary report entitled "Waste Stream Assessment and
Existing Systems Review" presents the existing solid waste
management systems for each of the four counties in the study, as
well as data analyses and conclusions regarding waste stream
quantities and composition.
I
vii
O
cti
u
O
� c
w
o `
ft
c
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
An accurate assessment of solid waste quantities and
characteristics is essential for effective solid waste management
planning. Moreover, an understanding of the existing means and
administrative mechanisms for collecting, processing, and disposing
of solid waste is required to assess options that could be
implemented. Consequently, primary objectives of this report are
to:
■ review the existing solid waste management systems in each
county;
■ assess the existing waste stream in each county; and
■ make projections of each county's future waste generation.
The project team examined several existing data sources
provided by each county. A list of the references used for
this report is shown at the end of the report (Appendix A).
References include county solid waste management plans, population
projections and demographics, economic development reports,
landfill records, and waste composition data.
Waste sources, transportation patterns, municipal collection
• programs, disposal preferences, and estimates of waste quantities
coming from extraordinary or out -of -county sources were examined
as part of the first objective for this report. Existing recycling
programs were also surveyed. The organizational structure of each
county's solid waste administration is discussed. Methods of
revenue generation and changes in the system, including expansion
or implementation of new disposal facilities, are also addressed.
However, neither current nor projected capital and operating
budgets for solid waste are addressed in this report. Budget
information will be presented in the Task Four Report.
An analysis of the quantity and characteristics of the
municipal solid waste stream and other types of solid waste that
are being disposed in the existing disposal facilities is presented
in the second part of this report (Section III). Knowledge of the
quantities and characteristics of waste now generated and projected
to be generated in each of the counties is essential for
determining future disposal needs and recycling and processing
potential.
II. EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
This section presents an overview of current administration,
facilities, and programs for solid waste management in Carroll,
Frederick, Howard, and Washington counties, Maryland. This
overview is not intended to be a detailed analysis of each county's
approach to waste management, but a general description of ongoing
as well as proposed activities. Familiarity with existing
conditions is necessary to further explore realistic options for
integrated, regional waste management in the Four -County study
area.
First, a brief discussion of local and state roles in waste
management in Maryland is given (State agencies with responsibility
in this area are described). This is followed by four subsections,
one each for the four counties, describing waste management system
in terms of:
■ administration;
■ collection methods;
■ processing and disposal facilities;
■ funding methods; and
■ recycling activities and quantities.
• Conclusions regarding current solid waste management within each
of the counties appear in the last subsection. They offer several
paths the counties may wish to pursue as they consider and plan
for future waste management systems.
A. GOVERNMENT ROLES IN SOLID WASTE
Local Role
Solid waste disposal in Maryland has traditionally been
the responsibility of county and municipal governments. Each
county in Maryland is required by law to prepare and adopt a ten-
year solid waste plan detailing the management and facilities it
will dedicate to solid waste disposal. The plan must be approved
by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and must be
updated every two years. Counties with large or rapidly growing
populations may be required to prepare annual updates to their
Solid Waste Plans. As a result of 1988 legislation (the Maryland
Recycling Act), every county must also prepare a Recycling Plan,
which must be submitted to MDE for approval by July 1, 1990, and
implemented countywide by 1994.
2. State Role
The role of federal and state governments traditionally
has been one of regulation and enforcement. Maryland has also
played an active advisory role and, at times, provides financial
assistance through grants, access to tax-exempt financing for solid
described in detail in the Task Four, Legal and Financial Summary
Report. Carroll County was once rural in nature and still contains
large tracts of farmland. However, the County is now experiencing
a steady increase in residential development centered primarily
near the Howard County border. Carroll County currently has an
estimated 126,000 residents, a 13 percent increase in the past five
years. By the Year 2010, the County population is predicted to
reach 169,000.1
1. Administration
Carroll County recently was given broad legal authority
by the Maryland General Assembly regarding solid waste management
(Public Local Laws of Maryland, Art. 7, Secs. 15A-1 through
15A-10). Through this law, Carroll County officials gained the
authority to control the waste stream throughout the jurisdiction;
procure and finance through revenue bonds future solid waste
disposal facilities; and enter into public/private joint ventures
to construct and operate waste disposal facilities. This
legislation gives Carroll County greater flexibility in solid waste
management decisions and allows a variety of financing approaches
for future solid waste facility development.
The Carroll County Public Works Department is responsible for
administering solid waste disposal facilities and programs. Day-
to-day management is allocated to the Bureau of Solid Waste, which
consists of a Bureau Chief, a Recycling Coordinator (to be hired),
a Secretary, and 19 personnel responsible for landfill operations.
The Bureau of Engineering is responsible for facility siting and
design review. Both Bureaus are under the supervision of the
Director and Assistant Director of the Public Works Department.
Figure II -1 portrays the administrative organization currently in
place for solid waste management in Carroll County. Carroll
County, at present, provides no waste hauling services to county
residents beyond roadside and storm cleanup.
The incorporated municipalities in Carroll County are
responsible for administering their own waste collection and any
additional disposal services, with varying degrees of expenditure
in terms of dedicated personnel and equipment. The City of
Westminster is the largest municipality and the County seat.
The City has its own public works department that administers
an annual contract with a private hauler to provide curbside
collection service twice a week to city residents. Businesses
contract privately for commercial waste collection. Westminster
also owns two dump trucks that are dedicated for curbside bulk
trash pick-up once a week as a city -run service.
The majority of the smaller municipalities in Carroll County
contract with private haulers for waste collection and disposal in
the County landfills. The towns generally contract for collection
'Source: State of Maryland, Planning Data Office, 1987.
1I-4
C)
O
..
@
C
oem
\
/
f C
2
>
c
k%�2
-
R
O
0
c
..
�
(
/
E
k
)
/
O
5
.
m R
n
U
/
3
2
'
<
<
.
. .
@.0
}
/
\
o ®
)
°
2
O
D
_
//
m
.
�E
..
0
k
U
\k %
= D
from both residences and businesses within the city limits. The
towns, however, do not serve as contracting agents for the
unincorporated areas immediately contiguous to their municipal
boundaries. Most towns also provide bulk service pick-up using
city personnel and equipment. Bulky item collection services
vary widely in terms of frequency of pick-up, ranging from once -
a -year "spring cleaning" service to once -a -week collection.
The combination of private contractor collection and bulky
item municipal waste disposal service is found in Manchester
(1,000 households); Hampstead (970 households); New Windsor
(210 households); Mt. Airy (1,400 households); and Union Bridge
(450 households). Union Bridge, however, has no equipment for
trash removal and contracts annually for full -service waste
collection, including bulky item pick-up three times a year.
There are two municipalities that do not serve as contracting
agents: Taneytown (1,330 households) and Sykesville (1,000
households). Taneytown residents and businesses privately contract
with individual haulers, with the City only providing once -a -
year bulky item pick-up. Sykesville, in contrast, budgets and
administers its own personnel and equipment for waste collection
twice a week for all households and 59 commercial dumpsters. On -
call bulky trash pick-up is also provided, and the town is actively
preparing a recycling program for its taxpayers. Table II -1
shows current municipal waste management services and costs for
municipalities in Carroll County having over 1,000 households.
Citizens and businesses located in the unincorporated areas
of the County contract individually with private haulers. An
undetermined number may also self haul to the two County landfills.
Currently, there is no administration for drop-off areas in the
unincorporated sections of the County, nor is there a system for
providing bulky trash pick-up service to these areas.
In summary, administration of solid waste programs and
facilities in Carroll County is decentralized and divided between
County -level waste disposal and city -level waste collection.
Unincorporated areas, which are also the most rapidly growing
sections of the County, depend on individual contracts with private
haulers and, therefore, have no administrative structure available
to manage unincorporated area solid waste.
2. Collection Methods
Three methods of collection are found in Carroll County:
1) municipal collection, 2) private collection, and 3) self haul.
Only the Town of Sykesville uses municipal equipment and personnel
for refuse collection. The other seven towns and cities in Carroll
County contract with private haulers for weekly collection of
municipal solid waste. All the municipalities, except Union
Bridge, provide their own bulky waste collection as a service to
residents and businesses.
II -6
dSJC
E
C
L
_
C
D
A
C
A O
L
r
T
L C
C 'a
C
.+
N— L
o
y
•• 0W
L U d
0.
C,CI
u
—
OI A .+
C
C 'a
C— u
—
u C
o
0)'a
U
— J d
N
A
OS.. U
_Y _A
iI A d
d
C Y.
O
U C
C
d
C
- C
1.0 •
d •
a
d— O
6 I L
L N N
A
A
J I
N L
d
N a
.+
L
^ a d
CD'
d
C0.0)
O O.
C
x A L
CO
O. O
CO
C
01. A
O
I— J
O
O. O L
— L
O
z o L
z
01 u
U
N
a .� 4
0.0.
-
Y
Jf
C
A C
C
J C
CO
C
J
C
—0
W— O
'
m T
— 0=0
00
A
A
A
T
C.Y
a.+
— a.+
0)+a
a...'
N Y
O)+,
U
QIU
^ U
Y U L
U
d U
.+
U
L
U C) d
C u^
A
^
A^ A
U^
d^
A^
A
0)
_U
UJ
O\
0.00
C J O
i-0-.
OOCO
L
O\
S U •••I
VI S LJ
O S o
a o •••I
So' —'o
6
o
C
N
'at
N^
N
N
O ^
O_
O_
O—
o.
A
t;
t;
uE
d L V
d =
d
U
Lee
d
t EO
.00) E
EEE
C dE
EEE
=tC
C EO
w
O
O
N
o
o
E
0
.Ob O
O
O
mu
0
0
0
v=
v u
CU
m
o
r-..
In
d d d a
N N N N
n
a
o
It
N
Y
—
C,.) N
-
a—
In
Sn
C
N
C
N
O
O
• L C
O
_
a -
N
O
00.0
O
O
L C
_•
C
-
oE�
N
m
N
—
M
C\ J
N
M
—
—
a O
— C
L
L
L
1-
4-V
-w
d
Y C)
Y d
U—
U—
—
U—
U —
A J
CO
J
CO
A J
S
— A
L A
LA
—
-_
— Y—
A
Y
..+
C
C
CC C)
O d
OW
C.0)C C
` VUCI
OW
O d
U M
V Y
O
104-
O
u
A
A
T
' L A
A
A
N-
N
C J L
O C
M
—I.
— L
=00)
_H
o 6
U 6
S W C.
— La. C.
CJ C.
U 6
a
U
— N
!I
L C
C)
C
C
5.
—
a
s u d
Y
.O-
-
C
d
U
~
- J
^
L
o
E+
C
.
c
CNr
0)
u
n
ICl
N
• C O
.[
C
C
C
s
s u
A
1p
A
U
.••
'a
x
x
11-7
W
H
H
W
=1I
a
O ^
.r7y
M
a
4 M
0
RS
.
o
EV..
CJ
o
^o
O
C-'
N
a
U
a d
N
C
a
E
C
1-
a)
01-
0.
^ A
ma
a
a
2 _
a
a
a
a
C..-.
C
C
0
C
C
O
O
O
Z
O
Z
Z
Z
I-
>,
T
—
L L
C
— C
u
4-0
O
Y
^
a
L
S..-
0)
— -
'J
a
E
p
m
1-U
N
U
m
m C
C
A^
_ _
m 0
N
a
—O0
O
^ O
O
o—
C
A
a^
toy—
A
a.-'
o
a ++ L
J
0.'C
o
Oa
a
A u L
'^ U
L
T u
u .
o
u
u
U a A
U a
A
..
A a C
U
In
A
^ a
'^ ^
a
Ca
>' o
A
—
a'->
CIO^>
C—>
J—
E
a
C
CL.
A
a o
= o-
o
L O
L
>
J a
L 0
E _J u n
roe
1-30
a u—
C
z
z
u u
a u
N
N
M
In
0_
O .-
0' N
O C
O r
O
O C
t
u
uw
mum
yE t
L
U
L O
a L
In
L r
In
=
EE
EE
Z
E
t p
t
y
L v
C O^
.C
0
m u
u
N
U N
u a
O
A
N
In
O A
O
O^ V
O
^ N
N C
NI C
O— N
A a
A a
y
—
Y
a
Y
a
Y
a
Y
a
z
z
0)
0)
N
N
>
3
c
3
6
C
O
C
C
b =
C
>
C
> a
b
0
C
O
O
O
O
O
C
oo—
Ol
O
O
O
O O 00>,
Ol
O
O
O
O
O
S
CO
N
C
-
oIn
G O
"It-
^
b
Of
0O
O,
p
O O
O O N
yL
N
M
—
—
O
—
h @3 U
O,
•01 -
to
a
L
L
L
NT
a
. a
. a
^
u —
u —
u —
u
10
10
to
40
1 -to
1 -to
1 -to
1 -to
—4-'—
-=
-=
-=
-
-
A
C a
C
C
C
O a
0
C
O a
am
C
O a
O a
u �+
L ^
—
E C
1-14-)
V
A
�.`
00.0
A
A
A
a G
N
T>
T>
T>
T
v a
— L
— L
— L
L
S
W a
1-30.
1-1 0.
00.
I.J
LaO.
Y
E
N
S
T
y
V
i
> a
O
N
Y
Y
—
Y
O
{. In
C
O
3
u
U
u
a
in
o+
+
T
C
N
m
E
t
.
L
i
L
W
@1
E
0)
10
p�
C
v
orn
^=7
a
40
—
Wa
O
—
O
i
O ^
C
Vi
'
C
L
A
L
O
O O
N
C
A
LL
L.
-
S
m
—
u Vf
S
i
2
II -B
C