SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT:

ALTERNATIVES FOR ALAMANCE COUNTY

David A. Schwartz 1 2 / 4 / 8 7

Eackground

In 1584 Alamance County officials were informed that the

county landfill was running out of space and that the site had about

two years of use remaining. During the summer and fall of 1585,

testing was done on a proposed landfill site which was later rejected.

In early 1586, with time running out, the County Commissioners turned

their attention to a 400-acre site bordering the Haw River, about one

mile south of the existing landfill and in May they voted to begin

condemnation proceedings on the property.

To their surprise, the Commissioners encountered a great deal

of public opposition to the proposed Haw River site. In addition to

the landowners whose property was to be condemned, the site was

opposed by the Haw River Assembly, a citizens' group founded "to

restore and preserve the health and beauty of the Haw and to support

conservation and wise use of the land along the river." The Assembly

claimed that the proposed landfill would pollute the river.

Testing was done on the site and in October a site application

was sent to the state Department of Human Resources for approval.

This initial application was found to be deficient and further tests

were conducted during the spring of 1987. Soil borings found that the

water table below the site was unusually high and that the soil was

very pervious, conditions creating a high risk of ground water

contamination. In May the second site application was completed and

sent to Raleigh. DHR decided that in order to protect groundwater,

only half of the proposed site could be used and that liners would be

required for the landfill. As a result of this decision and continued

citizen opposition, the County Commissioners voted to drop the Haw

River site from further consideration. On July 10, the existing

Alamance county landfill ran out of space.

Reasons For Attention

Beyond the immediate necessity of providing a means of

disposal for the 2 5 0 + tons of solid waste generated daily in Alamance

[-+ - ,~unty, the Alamance County solid waste crisis deserves attention

because throughout the Unitsd States communities are facing sirniiiar

landfill space shortages. In North Carolina itself, twelve county

landfills have less than two years capacity remaining (Garbage piling

up at N.C. landfills, Raleigh News and Observer, 6 / 1 2 / 8 7 ) . At the

Same time, local officials are experiencing greater difficulties in

siting new landfills. This is due to several factors, including: 1)

improved scientific understanding of the processes of groundwater

contamination, resulting in fewer suitable sites and an increase in

the cost of landfill siting, construction and operation, and 2 )

greater public awareness of environmental concerns and involvement in

the decision process. As a result of these political and economic

pressures, local officials have been reluctant to address the issue of

solid waste disposal. However, as the experience of Alamance County

illustrates, waiting until the last minute may lead to poor siting

decisions on the part of county officials acting under pressure.

This, in turn, engenders strong, justified public opposition and

results in a waste of county resources. An analysis of long-term

solid waste management alternatives for Alamance county could provide

guidance for other areas in developing their own waste management

plans and help prevent future waste crises.

Targets of Corrective Action

In light of the shortage of landfill space and the

difficulties officials face in siting new facilities, waste reduction

?

wil-1 p l a y an important r o l e in any long-term s o l i d wsste managenext

p l a n . Manufacturing and packaging p r a c t i c e s are r e s p o n s i b l e f , I r m u c h

of the solid waste generated in this country. However, there is

little that Alamance County, itself, can do to affect change in this

regard. The reduction of solid waste resulting from packaging will

have to be addressed at the state or national level.

In Alamance County waste sources consist of residential and

commercial generators (see Appendix). Commercial sources generate

more than twice as much waste by weight than residential sources. In

addition, commercial waste, in general, is of more uniform

c-omposition, thus lending itself more easily to recycling.

Beneficiaries

All residents and businesses of Alamance County generate waste

and pay taxes. Therefore, they all have a vested interest in the

development of a cost effective, environmentally safe long-term solid

waste disposal plan. The particular method of disposal chosen will

benefit one or another sector of the waste management industry. For

example, the waste-to-energy industry is conducting a “hard sell“

campaign to promote incineration as an alternative to landfilling and

recycling companies advocate waste reduction programs.

Existing Policies

In the wake of public opposition to the Alamance County

Commission’s proposal to site a new sanitary landfill along the Haw

River there was a great deal of activity concerning the future of

solid waste disposal in Alamance County. The county’s efforts to

address the problem are influenced by solid waste policies at the

federal and state level.

FEDERAL

Subtitle D of the 1976 Res~urce Conservation and Recij.;el->' P.,=t

( R C R A ) prohibited open dumps and established siting, operation, and

performance standards for the sanitary landfills which were to replace

them. At the time RCRA was passed, the landfill regulations contained

in it were thought to be sufficient to protect human and ecological

health. In the succeeding years, however, EPA, benefitting from

improved science and technology, determined that these original

landfill guidelines were not effectively protecting the environment,

particularly in regards to the contamination of ground water by land

disposal. 1984 amendments to RCRA required EPA to revise the Subtitle

D criteria for landfills by March 31, 1988. At a minimum, the

revisions were to require ground water monitering to detect

contamination, establish location standards for new or existing

facilities based upon improved knowledge of subsurface hydrogeological

and geotechnical conditions, and provide for corrective action. A

draft of the proposed revisions indicates that the new regulations

will call for: state programs that spell out performance standards to

be met by leachate control systems and synthetic landfill liners;

requirements for landfill operators to protect ground water from the

same list of hazardous constituents contained in Subtitle C

(hazardous) landfill regulations; and additional new enforcement

authority for the federal government to ensure compliance with the

regulations ( World Wastes Sept. 1987, p. 2 4 ) .

The major impact on Alamance County of the Subtitle D

revisions will be the increased cost of and time needed to site,

design, and construct new landfills, thus encouraging the

consideration of alternative solid waste management and disposal

st rategies .

STATE AND LOCAL

In anticipation of the upcoming Subtitle D revisions, the

Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch of the North Carolina Department of

Human Resources is preparing new solid waste management rules in order

to comply with the new regulations, such as requiring all new

landfills to install liners and leachate collection systems in order

to protect ground water. The need for such protection has been

validated by a Division of Environmental Management study which found

the leachate from 50% of the lanndfills sampled to acutely toxic.

A June 4 , 1987 agreement between the Dept. of Human Resources

(DHR) and the Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development set

a goal of reducing the volume and toxicity of the state’s landfill

waste by 90% over the next 18 years. A solid waste study committee

has been appointed to develop a statewide mangement plan for

accomplishing this goal, but it has not yet met.

Other state level activity has been more closely related to

the events in Alamance County. When the County Commisioners announced

the plan to site a new sanitary landfill along the Haw River, the

Representative Joe Hackney introduced a bill into the State

Legislature that would require at least a 2500 foot buffer between any

new landfill and a major river or tributary. In the past the state

has encouraged the siting of landfills near rivers or streams so that

any pollutants leaching from the landfill would be likely to flow into

the stream instead of contaminating nearby ground water. It was

believed that the surface waters would dilute the pollutants and

render them non-toxic. However, a UNC-CH study of the community of

Bynum found that the town has developed a cancer rate more than twice

the national average since it began using the Haw River as a source of

I

d l - i n k i n g water i . r i 1947, although a causal. l i n k has not y e t b e e n

proven. (Raleigh N e w s and Observer, March 13, 1987). The 2500 f o o t

buffer r u l e would have interfered with the proposed Alamance C o u n t y

site, but it was not passed. As stated above, DHR approved the site

with some conditions, but when one of the five County Commisioners

withdrew his support for it following public opposition, the Haw River

site was dropped from consideration.

DHR approved a small lateral extension of the existing

Alamance County landfill as a means of "buying time" for the county to

develop a long-term solid waste management plan. According to the

Solid Waste Management Branch of DHR, the policy of the state at this

time is to authorize such "interim landfills" while awaiting the

release of the new Subtitle D criteria.

In Alamance County a task force was set up to study the solid

waste disposal issue. The task force, in turn, hired the Raleigh

engineering firm of Hazen and Sawyer to conduct a waste stream

analysis. In the firm's analysis they reported that 50% of the

Alamance County waste stream was composed of paper. In addition, they

proposed seven sites to be considered for interim (5-10 years)

landfills. The Solid Waste Management Branch approved these seven

sites and, as stated above, allowed an expansion of the existing

landfill onto adjacent land for a maximum of 5 years.

After receiving the engineering firm's analysis, the task

force presented a final report to the County Commissioners on November

2 , 1987. In their report the task force recommended:

1) That the life of the current landfill be extended as long

as possible by mounding and small extensions.

2) That a recycling program be immediately implemented,

including the hiring of a full-time recycling co-ordinator.

3) That the County begin creating the infrastructure for

future waste-to-energy incinerators.

The Commissioners were very favorable toward the recycling

program and agreed to hire a co-ordinator. Federal Waste Paper, a

Burlington recycling company, agreed to accept paper from the County.

The engineering firm believed that Alamance County was too small to

undertake a waste-to-energy project alons. They recommended pursuing

a regional plan in conjunction with neighboring counti.es. In sum, the

splid waste disposal crisis has been averted, but not solved. The

challenge now is to develop a comprehensive, long-term solid waste

management plan.

Alternatives

The goal of a long-term solid-waste management plan is to

provide a cost-effective method for disposing of solid waste in a

manner that minimizes adverse impacts upon human and ecological

health. The following solid waste management alternatives are not

mutually exclusive. A preferred plan f o r Alamance County may

incorporate elements from several of the options.

Landfilling

Landfilling, the burial of solid waste, has been a relatively

inexpensive method of disposal in North Carolina. However, it is

estimated that the requirements of the forthcoming Subtitle D

revisions, such as the installation of synthetic liners and leachate

collection systems, will increase the cost of landfilling in North

Carolina from $4/ton to $25-30/ton. Nevertheless, even with the

increased costs, in a rural area such as Alamance County, landfilling

may still work out to be a less expensive method of disposal than any

r e source r ecove ry facility.

Continuing to rely on landfilling for the disposal of solid

waste has several advantages. As the no-action alternative, it

requires no major changes in the methods of solid waste collection,

transfer, or disposal that are currently used in the county. In

addition, seven proposed sites for future county landfills have been

identified and have been approved by the North Carolina Solid and

Hazardous Waste Branch, as well as by a citizen task force.

Certain changes in current disposal practice aould extend the

Jife of the present and future landfills, further reducing the cost of

the landfill alternative. According to the report presented to the

County Commissioners, removing demolition debris from the waste stream

can achieve seven percent reduction in waste materials going into the

landfill. Placing such materials on a site adjacent to the landfill

would not create environmental problems for surface or groundwaters,

and liners would not be rerquired for a demolition landfill.

In regards to environmental impact, it is still uncertain how

effective liners will be in preventing the contamination of surface

and groundwaters. Because the technologies are relatively new, there

is insufficient data to indicate how well the liners will work over

time. If a liner is torn either during or after the disposal process,

it would, obviously, be less able to prevent the migration of toxic

leachate. A s more landfill studies are carried out and new

technologies are developed, EPA may, again, revise the Subtitle D

regulations. New requirements could increase the cost of landfilling

to the point where resource recovery facilities become more attractive

disposal options. However, regardless of which disposal option

Alamance County pursues, a certain percentage of the waste stream,

t h a t pa1-t which is non-recyclable, non-combustible, 02-

non-compostable, will have to be landfilled. T h u s , landfilling will

be a necessary element in any long-term solid waste management plan

and, future uncertainties notwithstanding, landfilling is and will t

R.ecycling

Landfill space is ultimately finite. Future population growth

and development in the county will increase the amount of waste

generated and reduce the amount of land available for landfill siting.

In addition, as mentioned above, landfill space will be expensive.

Implementation of a recycling program could extend landfill life and

prevent the use of costly landfill space for the disposal of reusable

materials.

The waste stream analysis conducted by the firm of Hazen and

Sawyer indicates that recycling can significantly reduce the volume of

solid waste going to the landfill. The analysis found that corrugated ~

boxboard constituted 30% of the total volume of waste coming to the

landfill during the two-day study period. The vast majority of this

boxboard waste was generated by business and industry. Based upon

these findings, it is estimated that a ten percent reduction in total

waste volume is feasible simply by remeoving industrial cardboard from

the waste stream.

i

In the first phase of a recycling program, commercial

generators of recyclable materials, particularly paper, would haul

their waste directly to a recycling plant. By this method recyclable

materials are recovered before they enter the general waste stream

and, thus, do not have to be separated later. In addition, this

4

method p r o v i d e s 3. clean source of materials for the recycling company

and removes large portions of the total volume of waste with minimal

disruption to the general public. Revenue from the sale of materials

to the recycling companies will compensate business and industry for

the cost of transporting the waste.

The total volume a f waste can further ts reduced by

implementing a household recycling program. In the state of New

Jersey, residents are required by law to separate glass, aluminum, and

newspaper waste from the rest of their garbage. The recyclable and

npn-recyclable materials are collected separately. Palo Alto,

California and several other cities also have successful door-to-door

recycling programs.

In Alamance County, a pilot household recycling program

accompanied by public education and awareness efforts would be

implemented to "test the waters" and build public acceptance for

recycling. The prominent coverage of the recent landfill crisis in

the local media should be helpful in this regard. If successful,

household recycling can be extended to other areas of the county.

The county may also choose to start charging a tipping fee at

the landfill site. Supporters of the fee argue that this will act as

an incentive for conservation and recycling efforts, while opponents

feel that a tipping fee will encourage illegal dumping.

The greatest hindrance to successful recycling programs in the

past has been the lack of markets for recovered materials. Markets

must, therefore, be identified before embarking upon a recycling

program. Federal Waste Paper, a recycling company located in

Burlington has agreed to accept paper from the county. Markets for

glass and ferrous metal have not yet been identified. Legislation

requiring manufacturers to purchase recovered materials which t h e y use

in their manufacturing process is needed to support the development of

markets for recycled materials.

Eob Dissiori of Hazen and Sawyer believes that Alamance County

can achieve a 30% reduction in total waste volume through recycling,

and, as stated above, on the recommendation of the Solid Waste Task

Force, the County Commissioners have agreed to hire a full-time

recycling coordinator to develop a recycling program for the county.

The amount of solid waste going to the landfill can be further reduced

by pursuing waste incineration or composting in conjunction with a

recycling program.

Incineration

Several communities and regions have responded to the shortage

of landfill space by constructing waste-to-energy incinerators. The

various incinerator designs can be grouped into two categories:

combustion with pre-processing to produce refuse derived fuel and

combustion of unprocessed waste. Of the two, unprocessed combustion

or “mass-burn’’ currently seems to be the more cost-effective. In an

incinerator, solid waste is burned to produce steam. This steam can

be sold directly to a neighboring industry or used to produce

electricity for sale to a utility. Incineration achieves, on average,

an 70-85% reduction in waste volume. The residue ash must be

landfilled. Toxic air emissions can be controlled by the use of dry

scrubbers.

There is currently only one operational incinerator in North

Carolina, located in New Elanover County. According to Bob Dissiori,

Alamance County could only pursue the incineration alternative on a

regional basis, in conjuction with Guilford County. Gordon Layton of

I I

of 102,000 generating a n estimated 250-300 tons of solid waste/day,

Alamance could support its own facility. In either case the study

phase would be very expensive, as would be construction, operation

and maintenence. Mecklenburg County is constructing a 235 ton/day

the New Hanover incinerator are $ 4 . 5 million. The funds to cover

these costs would come from county taxes, revenue from the sale of

steam and/or electricity, and tipping fees. Ideally, the incinerator

should be located next to the industry purchasing the recovered

energy.

There are several disadvantages to pursuing incineration as a

long-term disposal option. First, as stated above, incineration is

expensive. According to figures obtained from Paul Gallimore of the

Longbranch Environmental Education Center, waste-to-energy facilities

cost (3 $150,000 per installed ton of disposal capacity and operation

and maintenace costs of $40,000 per ton/year. In addition, the I r

incineration process produces residue ash which contains high

concentrations of cadmium and other heavy metals. Recent EPA studies

indicate that the residue ash from incinerators is sufficiently toxic

I ~

I

to warrant being classified as hazardous. Improvements in emission

control technology will result in higher concentrations of heavy I

metals and, thus, increased ash toxicity. If this reclassification ! !

occurs, as is likely, the ash would have to be transported to a

hazardous waste landfill for disposal, thus increasing the cost of the ;

waste-to-energy alternative. (It should be noted that, currently,

there is no hazardous waste landfill in North Carolina.) Finally, if

the county or region decided to pursue the incineration option, it

wou1.d h a v e to enact, waste f l o w c o n t r o l o r d i n a n c e s to assu re the supply

of waste to the i n c i n e r a t o r . This commitment t o an expensive,

inflexible waste management system would hinder or prevent the f u t u r e

adoption of better disposal methods that may be developed as

technology improves.

Composting

Composting is the biological treatment of organic waste t o

produce a nutrient-rich soil conditioner. While still in the

experimental stages in this country, co-cornposting of solid waste and

sewage sludge is well established in Europe and may be a viable

alternative to incineration as a method of reducing the volume of

waste going to the landfill. According to Ronald Albrecht of Recovery

Associates, "In a cost analysis, composting will come out to be the

cheapest processing method because there is less capital investment."

(Biocyce , Aug. '86, p. 2 4 ) According to Fau l Gallimore, the capital

cost of cornposting facilities is @ $35,000 per installed ton of

disposal capacity; a little over one fifth the cost of incinerators.

The disposal costs of composting are $25-35/ton, assuming no market

value for the finished compost. Revenue from the sale of the compost

would decrease disposal costs, perhaps as low as $15/ton.

Aside from odor, which can be controlled, composting produces

no adverse environmental impacts. Outdoor composting is done on

concrete or asphalt beds, enabling the easy collection of leachate and

preventing contamination of groundwaters. In addition, the composting

process binds many heavy metals, thus preventing leaching.

A s with recycling, composting is only feasible if there is a

market for the compost. In Alamance County the compost could he sold

to farmers for enrichment of agricultural lands, to landscping firms,

and to greenhouses. In addition, the N.C. Dept. of Transportation i

! could purchase compost for use along the highways. In order to I

! produce .3 high quaiity c t m p o t t , gias;; and metal nged to be remclveli

from the organic waste . Composting should, therefore, be accompanied,

when possible, by a source separation. A small scale composting

project conducted at the University of Wisconson-Stevens Point

a-chieved a 68% reduction in total solid waste volume, and Paul

Gallimore stated that an 85% reduction could be accomplished through a

I !

I I I

combined composting and recycling program.

This paper does not attempt a full-scale analysis of thge

various solid waste disposal alternatives, but, rather, it provides a

summary of currently available disposal options. A fuller analysis

could include:

-a more detailed and sophisiticated discussion of the

aforementioned alternatives, giving attention, also, to any new

technologies that may arise.

-an analysis of the relative cost effectiveness a.nd

feasibility of altertnative recycling programs, such as whether to

implement household source separation of recyclables or conventional

collection with mechanical separation at a large central facility.

-the availability of markets for recyclables, compost, and

steam.

-a waste stream analysis that takes into account projected

future waste generation in the county.

-a discussic~n of the advantages and disadvantages 12f p u r s x i n g ,

a regional versus a county waste management strategy.

-proposals for federal and state legislation and/or regulation

that would support waste reduction efforts.

-changes in manufacturing and packaging practices that could

reduce the volume of waste generated.

-societal or attitudinal aspects of the solid waste issue.

-an analysis of alternative public finance options for the

construction of resource recovery facilities.

Recommendations

A s is the case with many environmental issues, solid waste

management presents the analyst with many uncertainties. Changing

regulations and technological innovation can alter the preference

structure of the various existing waste management alternatives and

introduce previously unavailable options for consideration. As Bob

Dissiori put it, "Trying to develop a long-term solid waste management

plan is like shooting' at a moving target." Given this uncertainty and

the need f o r further study, it is proposed that Alamance County adopt

the following recommendations:

-The county should carry out the recommendations of the

Alamance County Solid Waste Task Force. Specifically, these include:

1 ) The immediate implementation of a pilot recycling program

which, if successful, should be expanded with the goal of

accomplishing a 30% reduction of the total volume of solid waste going

to the landfill.

2) A 5-year extension clT the life of the current landfill by

lateral expansion as approved by DHR.

3) The creation of a small site adjacent to the current

landfill f a r the d i sposa l of demolition debris.

4) Working with surrounding counties to develop a regional

solution to the solid waste problem.

-Because of the high capital and operating costs of a I

1 waste-to-energy facility and the generation of hazardous residue ash, !

i.ncineration should not be considered as a long-term solid waste

disposal option.

1

-The county should contract a composting feasibility study.

It may be possible to obtain grant money to implement a small (8-10

tbns/week) experimental composting program similiar to the University

of Wisconson project.

-County officials should assess the political feasibility of

purchasing any or all of the seven approved landfill sites. At least

one site should be purchased and a new sanitary landfill be

constructed within the next five years.

-Due to the above stated regulatory, scientific, and

technological uncertainties, the county should not make a committment,

financial or otherwise, to any resource recovery facility at this

time. The five-year interim period should be used for further study

and consideration of existing options as well as any new disposal

technologies that may be developed.

-County officials should provide for and encourage public

participation in solid waste management decisions.

$"-

& f

4 . 4

I 3

. . .

a

s

. . .

93 c 7"

. ..

'E

c

I s

€.I 1 E . .

s

t

8

m

. ....