|
By
Scott Pasternak and Dave Yanke
Many
important changes have occurred in the solid waste industry
over the last 10 years. In this time, Subtitle D has
changed the way in which landfills are developed and
managed from a technical, political, and financial perspective.
In addition, there have been significant consolidations
in the solid waste industry as well as pressure for
cities to consider privatizing their solid waste services.
Such changes
in the solid waste industry raise a number of questions.
One central question involves the issue of how cities
have been affected by these changes. In an effort to
gain a better understanding of these solid waste issues,
Reed, Stowe & Yanke LLC (RS&Y) conducted a survey
of more than 550 cities in Texas regarding their solid
waste practices. RS&Y is an Austin, TX - based management
consulting firm that specializes in the solid waste,
water, and wastewater industries.
The survey,
an update to the 1993 survey administered by RS&Y
to cities in Texas, provided RS&Y with a unique
opportunity to evaluate how the management of solid
waste has changed in Texas over the previous decade.
For the original survey, 215 cities completed the questionnaire,
representing a response rate of 40%. The results of
the 1993 survey provided RS&Y with a baseline data
set that the firm could use to evaluate industry changes
over the last 10 years that have affected the operations
of solid waste utilities.
Methodology
and Response Rate
For the 2002
survey, written questionnaires were sent to almost all
of the same cities that received the original survey
in 1993. The 1993 survey was sent to 550 of the 1,200
cities in Texas, including the 400 largest cities and
150 smaller cities in Texas. In 1993, the 400 largest
cities accounted for approximately 90% of the Texas
population, with the 400th largest having
a population of 2,800. The other 150 cities were selected
randomly from the remaining 800 cities based on the
following population divisions:
- 50 questionnaires
to cities 1 to 1,000 in population
- 50 questionnaires
to cities 1,001 to 2,000 in population
- 50 questionnaires
to cities 2,001 to 2,800 in population
For the 2002
survey, minor additions were made to reflect changes
in population that resulted in some new cities being
among the 400 largest in Texas. The 2002 survey was
mailed to a total of 570 cities.
Questions
from the 1993 and 2002 surveys are practically identical;
some minor changes were made to allow for more precise
answers for the 2002 survey and to reflect changes in
the industry (such as whether changes have been made
from manual to more automated collection methods). The
four main topics covered in the questionnaire were the
following:
- Collection
of municipal solid waste
- Disposal
of municipal solid waste
- Recycling
- Composting
For the 1993
survey, the response rate totaled 40%. With 238 responses,
the 2002 survey generated a similar response rate of
42%. For the 2002 survey, cities responding to the questionnaire
represent 12.1 million of the 20.1 million people living
in Texas. Based on population, this survey reflects
how solid waste is being managed for 60% of the people
living in Texas. This percentage represents an increase
from 1993 when cities representing 5.7 million of the
18.0 million people (32%) living in the state responded
to the survey. Of the 25 cities in Texas with a population
greater than 100,000, 19 cities responded to the survey,
representing a 76% response rate. Based on this overall
response rate, RS&Y believes that this survey reflects
an accurate representation of how cities in Texas are
managing their solid waste.
Residential
Collection
There have
been a number of changes in the provision of residential
solid waste collection services over the last decade.
For example, these changes have included extensive consolidation
among private haulers as well as technology improvements
in collection methods. This section discusses the effect
these changes have had on residential collection services
in Texas cities.
Public
Vs. Private Collection
Whether cities
should rely on municipally or privately provided solid
waste collection services has been a question many Texas
cities have faced over the years. In 1993, cities that
responded to the survey reported that 42% relied on
city-operated solid waste collection services, while
58% used private haulers. Of all the cities in the 2002
survey, once again, 42% responded that the city was
the provider for residential customers, while 58% of
the cities relied on private companies to provide the
service.
Of the 100
largest cities that responded to the survey, 55% reported
having the city provide residential collection services.
A high percentage of the 30 largest cities in Texas
reported that they rely on city-operated collection
systems. In 2002, 26 of 30 (87%) of the largest cities
used city-operated collection. This result was similar
to 1993, when 24 of 30 (80%) of the largest cities used
city collection. These results indicate that larger
cities have greater capacities and resources than smaller
cities to provide residential solid waste collection
services.
Change
in Provider of Collection Service
In the 2002
survey, 16% of cities reported that they had changed
from having the city provide residential solid waste
collection services to using a private company since
1993. The vast majority of cities changing from city
to privately operated collection services were small
communities. Of the 37 cities that changed, five had
populations between 25,000 and 65,000. The remaining
32 cities had populations of less than 15,000. No city
with a population greater than 65,000 changed from city
to privately operated collection services. This indicates
that smaller cities are much more likely to switch to
private companies for residential solid waste collection
services.
Collection
Frequency
The survey
results indicate that there is a trend for Texas cities
to change from twice-per-week to once-per-week collection.
In 1993, almost 70% of the cities responding to the
survey provided their residents with twice-per-week
garbage collection services. In 2002, only 55% of the
cities surveyed still were providing collection services
twice per week. In the past, cities were very reluctant
to change their garbage collection frequency due to
factors such as public perception about the level of
service and public health concerns. One reason why communities
might have changed their collection frequency is the
increased use of semiautomated and fully automated collection
services. In 2002, 18% of all surveyed cities used semiautomated
collection, while 24% used fully automated systems.
In total, 42% of cities surveyed reported using some
form of automated collection system.
Cost
of Service
As might
be expected, the cost of providing residential solid
waste collection services has increased. In 1993, 64%
of responding cities charged monthly fees in the range
of $5.01 - $10.00. In 2002, this percentage decreased
to 32%. In 2002, 54% of cities reported that their residents
pay in the range of $10.01 - $15.00 per month. Figure
1 provides further detail regarding residential fees.
While these cost increases are partially due to inflation,
there is also a significant likelihood that impacts
from Subtitle D have increased costs.
Disposal
of MSW
Landfills
Since the
implementation of Subtitle D in the early 1990s, there
has been a national trend in the consolidation of landfills.
In Texas, the number of landfills has decreased 48%,
from 351 in 1993 to 183 in 2001. This survey addressed
the extent to which cities rely on publicly or privately
owned and operated landfills.
Approximately
19% of the cities reported that they dispose of solid
waste in their own landfill. Most cities - 64% - reported
disposing of solid waste in privately owned landfills.
The remaining 17% of cities reported disposing of solid
waste in landfills owned by other governmental entities.
Results from this survey confirm the national trend
created as a result of Subtitle D; a number of smaller
landfills have closed and remaining landfills have become
more regionally focused. In 1993, 26% of the cities
reported owning their own landfill, 53% reported using
a privately owned landfill, and 21% reported using a
regional landfill owned by another governmental entity.
Since 1993,
most cities reported that there has not been any change
in the ownership or operation of their landfills. Of
the changes that have occurred, a small percentage of
cities stated that they either have sold their landfill
to a private company or have contracted with a private
company to operate it. In addition, several cities responded
that they have replaced a landfill since 1993.
Transfer
Stations
The use of
transfer stations has increased since 1993 when 12%
of cities surveyed reported using a transfer station.
By 2002, this amount had increased to 20%. Most of these
transfer stations - 60% - are owned by cities. Only
45% of the cities operate their transfer station, however,
which means that a number of cities have contracted
with a private company for the operation of their city-owned
transfer station. Of the 100 largest cities, 26% reported
using a transfer station.
These results
indicate that the use of transfer stations is reflective
of scenarios in which the distance or amount of time
required to travel to a landfill is significant. In
rural areas, transfer stations have increased in popularity
due to the closing of landfills and increased distance
to travel to the next closest disposal facility. In
larger cities, transfer stations are being utilized
as increased traffic volumes make it difficult for collection
vehicles to travel efficiently to landfills that often
are located significant distances from where collection
vehicles pick up garbage.
Cost
of Disposal
In
2002, the average tipping fee of landfills in Texas
was $24.68/ton. Compared to other parts of the United
States, this rate is relatively inexpensive. In 2000,
the average landfill tipping fee was $32.19/ton on a
national basis according to NSWMA's 2000 Tipping Fee
Survey. Nevertheless, there have been significant increases
in tipping fees in Texas since 1993. Figure 2 details
how landfill tipping fees have changed in Texas from
1993 to 2002. In 1993, only 19% of Texas cities reported
paying a tipping fee greater than $20/ton. In 2002,
64% of reporting cities were paying more than $20/ton.
Recycling
Since 1993,
cities in Texas have experienced numerous challenges
related to the development of successful recycling programs.
Virtually all cities have faced volatile, often decreasing,
revenue from the sale of collected recycling material.
At the same time, cities have needed to respond to public
interest for recycling services.
Cities
That Are Recycling
Approximately
67% of cities in Texas reported having some type of
recycling program in place in 2002. This percentage
has increased since 1993 when 60% of cities reported
having a recycling program. While there has been a slight
increase in the number of cities that offer a recycling
program, cities have developed more extensive collection
programs. In 1993, 31% of responding cities stated that
they operated a curbside recycling collection program.
By 2002, this number has increased to 38% of cities.
In addition, another 8% of cities stated that they were
considering the development of a curbside recycling
collection program. The remaining cities offered recycling
options for their residents with a series of drop-off
stations or a centralized collection site.
Texas cities
also have been active in operating recycling programs
for multifamily and commercial customers. Approximately
37% of cities surveyed responded that they offer a multifamily
recycling program, and 30% offer recycling services
to commercial customers.
Materials
Recycled
The 2002
survey results indicated that there is a core set of
materials that are collected most frequently for recycling
by cities in Texas. These materials include newspaper,
aluminum, plastics, steel/tin cans, cardboard, office
paper, and glass.
The percentages
represented in Table 1 indicate that cities have been
able to increase the types of commodities collected
for recycling. The primary exception to this is glass.
The percentage of cities that accept glass as a part
of their recycling program has decreased from 49% to
41%. This decrease is the result of several factors,
such as lower market prices, high transportation costs
due to weight, and contamination of other commodities
due to breakage.
Challenges
in Recycling
The survey
included a question designed to obtain information regarding
challenges that cities face in implementing a successful
recycling program. As shown in Table 2, the most difficult
issue for developing a successful recycling program
is maintaining a stable market for recycling materials.
Based on RS&Y's experience working with a number
of communities in Texas regarding recycling issues,
selling material is often a problematic issue due to
high processing and transportation costs and relatively
low market prices.
Household
Hazardous Waste
Perhaps one
of the most significant increases since the 1993 survey
involves how cities are managing household hazardous
waste (HHW). In 1993, only 6% of cities surveyed responded
that they had an HHW program. In 2002, this response
increased to 24% of the responding cities. In addition,
46% of the 100 largest cities reported having an HHW
program.
Nevertheless,
it is still the case that three of every four cities
surveyed do not have an HHW program. This is frequently
an issue for communities in rural parts of Texas, where
long distances to processing facilities further increase
transportation costs for the management of HHW.
Composting
In the 1993
survey, 20% of responding cities reported having a composting
program. For the 2002 survey, 24% of the cities reported
having a composting program in place. Among the 100
largest cities that responded to the 2002 survey, 38%
reported having a composting program. While there was
a slight increase from 1993 to 2002 in the number of
cities offering a composting program, this increase
should not be considered very significant. On one hand,
this is somewhat surprising because many Texas cities
have developed successful composting programs that divert
substantial amounts of brush waste and yardwaste from
the wastestream. On the other hand, there might be a
number of cities in the state that are in more arid
areas that do not generate significant amounts of greenwaste.
How Texas
cities manage their greenwaste in the future will continue
to be a key issue. While conducting several operations
reviews and waste management plans over the last several
years, RS&Y has found that issues related to brush
waste and yardwaste collection are among the most sensitive
from an operational and financial perspective. Many
Texas communities will need to continue making decisions
about the manner in which these services will be provided.
For the 2002 survey, the majority of reporting cities
provide composting services through either drop-off
sites or curbside collection programs. A total of 55%
of reporting cities offered curbside collection, while
33% operated drop-off sites.
Conclusion
During the
last 10 years, cities in Texas have experienced significant
changes in how solid waste is managed in their communities.
Significant cost increases due to such factors as Subtitle
D are among the most important changes cities have faced.
These cost increases have occurred through escalating
tipping fees and residential collection service fees.
A number of cities have sought to minimize potential
cost increases through the development of transfer stations
and more efficient collection methods (such as fully
automated collection). These are issues that cities
will need to continue addressing in the next decade.
In addition, RS&Y would expect that cities will
face a number of other important policy issues related
to recycling and brush and bulky collection. For example,
will communities be able to offer a high level of recycling
services if markets continue to remain volatile? Also,
many cities will need to evaluate how to provide brush
and bulky collection services in a convenient yet efficient
manner.
Scott
Pasternak and David Yanke are with Reed, Stowe &
Yanke LLC in Austin, TX.
MSW
- May/June 2003
|
