To increase public participation in updating the state solid waste management plan a survey was mailed to individuals, organizations, local government leaders, and consultants. The survey was also available on the Solid Waste Section's Web page.

Six open ended questions were asked. Responses reflected both successes and frustrations in programs and addressed policies and resources for achieving waste reduction goals. The comments are those of individuals and organizations, consequently they may not necessarily represent the views of the Department.

The open ended questions permitted various responses which made analysis of the survey cumbersome but fulfilled the goal of public participation in developing a state-wide strategy for solid waste management.

The comments have been paraphrased to allow subject grouping. The responses are grouped into major areas believed to be the most pertinent solid waste management issues in the state. Ideas are repetitive in some subsections to not lose the full impact of the point raised or the integrity of the respondent's intent when a comment appeared in more than one context.

The survey questions were:

1. List the most important accomplishments concerning the management of solid waste in North Carolina since 1989.
2. List the most important shortcomings or failures concerning the management of solid waste in North Carolina since 1989.
3. What do you suggest are the most important issues facing North Carolina concerning the management of solid waste over the next 10 years?
4. What direction should solid waste management take, or what goals should solid waste management have for the next 10 years?
5. Do you think appropriate levels of resources are devoted to the issue of solid waste management? If not, how would you suggest the shortfall be addressed?
6. Additional comments.

Economics of SWM

• Significant improvements in access to records and developing accounting procedures for waste volume/costs.
• Full cost accounting became a requirement for local governments plans and reports.
• State provided grants/funds and local governments support to implement waste reduction programs.
• Scrap tire tax and white goods disposal fees were implemented.
• Funding was created for managing special waste.
• Markets for additional recyclable materials were developed.

• A requirement for training and certification of facility managers and landfill operators, was introduced resulting in a greater knowledge of solid waste practices and more professional management of facilities.
• Guidelines, regulations and laws on disposal activities were developed.
• Comprehensive operational and reporting requirements led to more efficient facilities since solid waste programs and activities became accountable with local plans.
• Reduction goal as opposed to a recycling goal led to landfill bans for some materials.

• Unstaffed green box sites became staffed collection facilities.
• Special wastes were identified and diverted from landfills.
• Illegal tire sites/dumps were cleaned up.

• Federal Subtitle D landfill regulations lead to increased landfill siting requirements, enhanced construction standards & groundwater protection, closure of unlined landfills and non compliant facilities, an improved quality of landfills and state oversight of landfills.
• Landfill scales and tipping fees were instituted.
• Methane gas monitoring and capture was addressed.
• Transfer stations became prominent with the advent of Subtitle D regulations.

• Recycling has been incorporated into the mainstream as an alternative method of management for some components in the waste stream
• Increase in collection programs, identification of special wastes, waste separation and placement of recycling centers in each county.
• Counties have established reduction goals with some making significant progress.
• Tire sites have been cleaned up.

Economics of SWM

• Local governments failed to correctly price or implement full cost accounting for solid waste services and account for waste volumes.
• Inadequate funding by state, regional organizations and local governments for waste reduction efforts, monitoring/inspection and enforcement of programs/regulations.
• Reduction goals were established without funds to achieve the goals.
• Distribution of funds from the tire advance disposal fees was not proportionate to needs (higher disposal costs to some small counties).
• Surplus funds from programs such as white goods were not diverted to help sustain recycling programs.
• Small counties that shifted to transfer stations (as a result of unlined landfill closures) could not establish enterprise funds to manage solid waste programs.
• Poorly developed recycling markets for some materials decreased cost efficiency for recycling resulting in the use of less costly landfill disposal.
• The cost of initiating recycling programs was high. The effort has thus far yielded little or no significant effect on waste disposal patterns.

• There was no cooperative effort with industries to create viable recycling markets.
• Subtitle D landfills were mandated without adequate understanding of the full cost of owning and operating them.
• Attention not given to financial and technical pressures faced by many counties. Solid waste has to compete with sewer or water issues.

• Little assistance was extended to existing solid waste management facilities that were involved in expansion.
• Meeting the various regulations necessary for the protection of the groundwater resulted in high fees passed on to consumers.
• The cost of waste management escalated because of the forced closure of landfills, and consequently increased transportation distance and cost.

• Education on long term environmental planning was lacking.
• Elected officials are not well informed about benefits of long-term planning in solid waste management. Thus, newly elected officials fail to carry through well-designed long-term plans of their predecessors. Local politicians don't appear to be committed to environmental issues.
• There appears to be an inconsistent regulatory processes, tolerance for environmental crimes, inability to establish a statewide environmental court system, and lack of political will to enforce regulations/bans or obtain compliance.
• Difficult to get adequate political support locally for state's solid waste management hierarchy.
• The public did not actively participate during the 10-year comprehensive solid waste management planning process. This resulted in a poorly finished product.
• The permitting process is inflexible, cumbersome and slow regardless of continuing rapid growth. Regulatory enforcement and assessment tools for reporting are not consistent.
• The policy of allowing the local governments to take the lead in solid waste management is having an adverse impact on obtaining state goals.

• Regional planning, cooperation and facilities were not encouraged.
• Waste-to-energy as an alternative waste management option should be further investigated.
• Detailed technical information regarding processes and procedures for waste separation, volume reduction and waste management was lacking.

• The pressure on local governments to privatize landfills and the promotion of commercial and regional landfills might make the state a target for out-of-state waste. A detrimental effect of this might be inadequate capacity.
• Private regional landfills should be encouraged as an alternative to publicly owned facilities.
• The impact of interstate commerce laws on imported/exported waste has not received adequate attention. No state policy has been developed for inspecting domestic or out-of-state trash trucks.
• Waste is exported to other states instead of communities learning to manage it locally.

• Assistance not extended to other states trying to gain control of imported waste.
• Assumption that Subtitle D design is secure and protects the environment. Hurricane Floyd seemed to have made a point as to the insecurity of waste entombment.

• Large and small counties were not treated alike in meeting the same closure date deadlines.
• Political processes interfered with the technical merits of proposed landfill development and implementation of collection program. Rules were modified creating an atmosphere of mistrust and lack of sincerity between private industry, local government, and state government.
• No enforcement criteria for closure of unlined landfills or not attaining reduction goals.
• The initial unlined landfill closure deadline was not adhered to. Extensions generated confusion and eliminated any serious attention to rules.

• No statewide ban on cardboard
• Used motor oil advance disposal fee has not been achieved and used oil collection centers in every county have not been established.
• Continued illegal dumping exists because local governments failed to properly manage municipal, land clearing and inert debris and construction & demolition waste.
• Recycling goals for FY 91-92 base year were erroneous because it was the first year landfill scales and tip fees were introduced in many counties. Some of the baseline data was estimated and scale weights might not have been accurate. Adjustments in baseline accounting were not made when construction & demolition (C & D) debris was added.
• Recycling mandate was modified to a reduction goal. This further eroded to "good faith effort" for local governments thus weakening the drive towards achieving significant waste reduction.

• Stringent recycling requirements were not implemented. Goals and rules were not enforced to encourage recycling. There was a general lack of commitment to recycling or reduction goals. Reliance on the private industry to collect recyclables was shortsighted because they are profit driven.
• Commercial, industrial and C&D waste recycling has not been pursued and manufacturers are not accountable nor liable for their products and by-products. Policies and incentives for commercial or industrial waste reduction are weak or non-existent. Too much focus has been placed on residential recycling (that seems to be stretched to it's practical limits).
• The '3 R's (reduce, reuse, and recycle) program failed which lead to the non-achievement of the state's unrealistic reduction goal.

Economics of SWM

• Establish profitable program cost management while guaranteeing program effectiveness and customer satisfaction.
• Implement full cost analysis of solid waste management and introduce a pay as you throw system (PAYT).
• Resolve unfair competitive financial practices between private and public facilities.

• Provide financial assistance, funding or tax incentives for new or existing programs, especially in small rural counties, while directing counties with a weak financial base to implement waste reduction programs.

• More assistance to counties creating household hazardous waste programs is needed.
• Develop markets to drive programs such as recycling, reuse, and waste exchanges.
• Economic boom currently being experienced will continue. Housing start increases and other economic indicators will increase waste generation.
• Increase tax incentives for waste reduction and waste disposal.
• Provide disincentives through landfill disposal cost and competitive pricing.

• Develop an effective, comprehensive education component on solid waste management programs, (especially recycling and source/waste reduction), for schools, communities, businesses and the legislature.
• More research on alternative methods of waste disposal should be encouraged.
• Increase access to information or continue dissemination of data on waste generation and state performance on waste reduction to the public while retaining the public and legislators' attention on solid waste issues.
• Improve collection efficiencies for all programs and characterize state’s waste stream.
• Capturing data and minimizing commercial/industrial waste will boost overall state performance in waste reduction.
• Develop a sustainable integrated state solid waste plan that addresses realistic goals. The state and local governments should be committed to the plan while sensitive to the concerns of the public on matters such as environmental justice.

• Manage the "urban" and "rural" setting in different ways since costs, volumes, and success rates vary.
• Assist local governments in adopting proven programs without wasting money on "black box" solutions (i.e., VEDCO, Delta Waste) and continuing to regionalize solid waste management facilities (MRF's and landfills).
• Clarify the policy on management/recycling of C&D and LCID wastes and disposal capacity.
• Enforce existing laws and regulations on waste management.
• Special attention should be given to disposal policies related to littering and the importing and exporting of waste.
• Redefine the goals and objectives of solid waste plans and introduce sustainability in programs.

• Leadership from the state, and commitment to plans and goals by the local governments.
• Strategic regional planning on waste management is a way of achieving sustainability of programs.

• Decrease dependence on landfills and establish a competitive tipping fee or tax disincentive for landfilling.
• Prevent and remediate closed, open, and future facilities to protect the groundwater and surface waters from leachate and flooding.

• Provide for adequate disposal capacity considering the increased difficulty to zone or site future landfills.
• State becoming a major waste exporter.
• Develop alternative disposal or waste treatment technologies.

• Ensure that unlined landfill facilities are properly monitored and mitigated when necessary.

• Review and relax air quality requirements.
• Develop disposal policy to include intra and inter flow control of waste between the counties in the state and other states.

• Develop mandatory programs for source reduction, recycling, composting and waste-to-energy while providing funds, infrastructure, legislation and sustainable markets that will significantly reduce waste by a technically feasible percentage.
• Increase recycling and waste minimization in the construction industry and for special wastes.
• Promote buying recycled products

Economics of SWM

• Provide more funds/grants and tax incentives/disincentives than currently in place. Funds can be used to support or subsidize recycling/reduction/composting efforts, and to assist rural local governments in their programs.

• Introduce a statewide tipping fee.
• Obtain the true cost of waste management in the state by implementing mandatory full cost accounting for local governments.
• Increase source reduction and recycling by utilizing pay as you throw (PAYT) programs coupled with stiff monetary penalties for littering and illegal dumping. Advance disposal fees should be charged on non-degradable materials that are the most expensive to dispose of or most harmful to the environment.

• Ban all recyclable and compostable materials while developing municipal composting/bio-reactors.
• Incorporate a comprehensive house hold hazardous waste program.
• Initiate C&D recycling/recovery programs.
• Establish a non-fluctuating market to sustain recycling or material recovery facilities (MRF's) that are supported by subsidies during recycling market down-turns.
• Provide corporate tax benefits to companies certified as 14001 compliant and penalize businesses for a lack of effort in integrating source reduction and recycling in business operations. Monitor businesses that generate high volumes of recyclable.
• Develop a multi-media waste reduction education program to increase public participation.
• Initiate regional recycling centers, material recovery facilities (MRF's), and regional landfills.

• Initiate flow control policies for the export/import of waste and provide for the enforcement of the policies.
• Support the viability of existing facilities while developing new technological alternatives to landfilling.
• Assist and review each local government's procedures and processes for volume reduction, litter control and other waste management issues. Provide technical support and detailed recommendations for improvement when appropriate.
• Develop a method of estimating waste reduction to be adopted by all counties.

• Set a goal to ban the disposal of biodegradable materials by 2020 along with materials that have an established collection, processing and marketing infrastructure.
• Maximize landfill operation efficiencies to reduce cost.
• Encourage the location of MRF's, C&D recycling and yard waste composting facilities at landfill sites.
• Limit landfill sizes while assuring an in-state disposal capacity and encouraging the development of additional regional landfills.

• Encourage commercial and industrial participation in recycling and develop reduction goals for them. Assisting them in identifying the most prevalent materials in their waste stream and programs that can be applied to minimize disposal.
• Initiate a national product packaging modification that will reduce packaging impact on the waste stream.
• Introduce mandatory source reduction and recycling regulations including bottle bills and advance disposal fees on used motor oil.
• Promote products with recycled content.

Economics of SWM

• Funding inadequacy is the major limiting factor to programs.
• Research and development on planning is lacking and resources are not adequate. Do not increase taxes as a means to increase funding.
• Change the method of resource allocation and increase funding to local government's for successful program expansion and implementation.
• Introduce a surcharge on landfill tonnage and dedicate funds to solid waste management programs at the state and local level.
• Eliminating enterprise funds might help small counties implement programs. State wide tipping fees will also help.

• Increase statewide education in schools and communities on recycling, waste reduction and environmental sustainability.
• Lack of enforcement on local government plans and "good faith" goals makes planning worthless.
• Increase technology transfer to solid waste planners
• Develop statewide community service roadside cleanup program.
• Be more responsive on permit issuance and provide more assistance in the process to expedite issuance.
• Educate government officials that the reason programs failed or are inefficient is a result of inadequate funding, lack of enforcement regulation, and low monitory penalties.

• More resources devoted to and stringent regulations imposed on industrial and commercial businesses since they create the most MSW and special wastes.
• Solid waste management doesn't get the same attention as commerce and education issues.

• Introduce landfill fees and advance disposal fees.
• Monitor waste trucks and waste manifests and make data available to the public.
• Landfills have successfully removed wastes from the public sight so there is a lack of interest in solid waste management.

• More resources, information, regulations and incentives or disincentives are required for waste separation, disposal and waste management.
• Mandate government to purchase recycled products.
• Develop innovative recycling technologies, drop-off centers and a recycling shopping center/warehouse concept for businesses and industries.

Economics of SWM

• Companies should be surcharged for over-packaging.
• Use inmate labor. A $1.00 a day was the major reason recycling programs in some counties were successful.
• The cost of solid waste management makes it difficult to keep the services affordable to the public in some counties.
• Competitive pricing in landfill disposal cost caused the drop in tipping fees making it difficult for small recycling businesses to survive.

• New regulations should be carefully thought out in terms of long-term cost and benefits.
• Technical merits of facilities and programs are often not given consideration despite the need. Program development is subjective rather than technical leading to sloppy services and program failures.
• Proper education and understanding of facility design, operation and environmental safeguards are required for successful development of new facilities.
• The political process has eroded the effectiveness of solid waste rule establishment and enforcement within North Carolina.
• Cooperation among state agencies involved in permitting processes should be encouraged.
• Adopt goals that allow for timely review and issuance of permits and technical guidance.
• More visits to local areas by state officials to become acquainted with local needs.

• Adopt programs that were successful in other states.
• The process of updating the state plan is a perfect time to take a hard look at where we are and where we need to be. This opportunity should not be missed to bring renewed attention and commitment to these important issues. Life-cycle models should be considered for adoption in state waste management.
• Poor performance in waste reduction might be related to both population and industrial growth.
• Develop policies that can effectively combat litter and illegal dumps.

• There are concerns on how landfill gas migration, ground water contamination and site maintenance should be handled. Costs for new programs and remediation alternatives are also of a concern.
• New options should be considered for landfill daily cover.

• Economic growth and waste reduction can not work against each other if plans are properly developed and implemented. Counties growing in population also have increases in C&D and residential waste.
• Recycling markets are depressed and aggressive promotion of recycling is required to prevent further declines in the waste reduction effort.

 

 
 

If you have any questions or comments please contact PaulCrissman or Cheryl Hannah at (919)733-0692.