NEW IPO Logo - by Charles Larry Home Search Browse About IPO Staff Links

Where will all the garbage go?
Progress on county solid waste programs

By SUZANNE M. KILNER and DANIELLE MILLER

Where does all of the garbage go? Until recently, it was most likely buried in a landfill somewhere. Now garbage falls into separate components — recyclables, landscape or yard wastes, household hazardous wastes, white goods, tires, batteries and the remainder of mixed wastes. And different disposal methods are used because the landfills are filling up and closing down. The new lexicon of garbage disposal terms includes recycling bins, yard waste bags or stickers, household hazardous waste drop-off sites and return to vendor.

Illinois' modern-day garbage policy aims at reducing waste. First established was a waste management hierarchy via the Illinois Solid Waste Management Act (Illinois Revised Statutes 1986, Supp., ch. 111 1/2, sec. 7051 et seq.):

1. volume reduction at the source
2. recycling and reuse
3. combustion with energy recovery
4. combustion for volume reduction
5. disposal in landfill

Two years later came the Illinois Solid Planning and Recycling Act (Ill Rev. Stat. ch. 85, sec. 5951 et seq.). It requires counties to "develop comprehensive waste management plans that place substantial emphasis on recycling and other alternatives to landfills, to encourage municipal recycling and source reduction, and to promote composting of yard waste." Counties with populations of 100,000 or more and municipalities with one million or more had to adopt plans by March 1991. The other counties have until March 1, 1995.

Illinois county officials are now required to prepare 20-year plans for handling their solid wastes. The challenge for counties is to coordinate the efforts of their many municipalities and private enterprises that have traditionally been responsible for solid wastes. Almost all Illinois counties have begun to work on their plans, and according to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), 19 counties and three Chicago-area agencies have solid waste management plans approved by the state.

These 22 counties and agencies are considering the construction of some 28 waste disposal or recycling facilities over the next several years. But designing, locating a suitable site, obtaining permits and constructing facilities is a multi-year endeavor. Most accomplishments achieved so far under these approved plans are in recycling and public education programs, according to a telephone survey conducted by Becker Associates of Deerfield in June and July 1992 with solid waste directors in the counties now implementing their approved plans.

The survey found goals common in the solid waste management plans addressing waste reduction, recycling, landscape waste composting, handling of special wastes, and constructing new disposal facilities. Recycling goals set by county plans often exceed the legislative requirements of 15 percent of the municipal waste by the third year of plan implementation and 25 percent by the fifth year. Waste reduction goals are generally smaller; many counties did not set numerical goals because of the difficulty of measuring waste reduction.

22/December 1992/ Illinois Issues


• Recycling programs in the plans usually begin with municipal curbside and/or "drop-off sites for residential recyclables. Households sort their recyclable materials from the general garbage and either set them out at the curb in a designated recycling container for curbside collection or take them to a centrally located "drop off' bin. Plans also encourage commercial and industrial recycling. These usually call for private sector collection and processing or reuse of discarded materials.

• Some counties intend to construct recycling processing facilities known as Intermediate Processing Facilities (IPFs) or Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs). Others intend to build landscape waste composting facilities.

• Public education programs encourage waste reduction and recycling at all levels — the household, institutional and commercial/manufacturing. Education programs aimed at households urge choosing reusable items over throwaway items and beginning backyard composting. The counties have very little influence at the manufacturing or commercial level except through public education or joining together to create legislative incentives at the state or national level.

• Goals for waste disposal often include construction of new facilities or expansion of existing ones, including landfills, balefills (disposal area where compressed packages of waste are stored), incinerators (often called waste to energy facilities) and transfer stations (place where garbage is collected and compacted before being hauled to a landfill). Some plans indicate a preference for alternative disposal technologies such as municipal waste composting and recommend feasibility studies in several years in the hope that the technology will have improved. Costs to construct these disposal facilities range from tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars.

• Plans require separating special wastes such as white goods (stoves, refrigerators, appliances, etc.), tires, sewage sludge and household hazardous wastes from the mixed waste stream before it moves to a landfill or incinerator. Depending upon the item, alternative disposal includes recycling, reuse or disposal in a hazardous waste landfill.

There is progress in reducing wastes. Lake County, the first to adopt a waste management plan, in October 1989, has focused its efforts to date on municipal recycling programs to collect residential wastes. Also reporting progress in residential recycling is the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County. It reports that every single-family home within its service area has "curbside pickup" (that is, curbside collection of household recyclables in addition to the regular garbage collection) and that the agency has already surpassed the 25 percent recycling goal. Most of DuPage County's single-family homes have curbside pickup, as do nine of the eleven municipalities in Whiteside County. St. Clair County reports achieving a 21 percent recycling rate in 1991, with 50 percent of its communities offering some type of recycling programs. McHenry and Champaign counties were early leaders in recycling and developed drop-off sites as well as curbside recycling programs.

Most of the other counties have curbside pickup of recyclables in some of their municipalities and have plans to start up next year additional curbside programs in their larger municipalities and drop-off stations for the smaller ones. To date, no counties are reporting results from organized efforts to promote commercial or industrial recycling.

Efforts to promote waste reduction at the source are in the development stage. Most plans recommend a combination of public education and financial incentives such as variable rate structures for garbage collection. With variable rate structures, household rates are tied to the amount of garbage put out, providing financial incentives to separate the recyclables as well as to reduce the overall amount of waste discarded. Among those with established education programs, Macon County has developed two formalized ones for kindergarten through grade 12. McHenry and Madison counties have school recycling programs. Peoria County has a model community program encouraging reducing and recycling waste, and it began a waste audit program for businesses this year.


Most of DuPage County's
single-family homes
have curbside
pickup, as do nine
of the eleven
municipalities in
Whiteside County

Several counties are further developing their public education effort. Champaign County has a full-time staff person whose primary role is public education. Peoria County expects to have a large scale environmental education program in place by 1993.

As collection of recyclable materials increases, however, additional processing facilities are required. Some counties recommend public ownership of such facilities while others elect to rely on the private sector to build them. DuPage County has the state's largest Intermediate Processing Facility (IPF) for recyclables. La-Salle County has a private IPF, and Will County has "sited" a private Municipal Recycling Facility. Several private and nonprofit processing facilities serve the greater Chicago area. Lake County and Peoria County intend to site facilities in the near future.

When the Illinois legislature banned landscape wastes such as grass clippings, leaves and brush from landfills in Illinois as of July 1990 (III Rev. Stat. ch. Ill 1/2, sec. 1022.22), many private and public landscape waste management programs and compost sites were opened. DuPage and Lake counties are among those which expect to site additional landscape waste compost facilities in the next few years.

December 1992/ Illinois Issues/23


No new sites or facilities for waste disposal recommended in the plans are operational, but the telephone survey in June found eight counties intending to build (or investigate the possibility of building) landfills, four counties intending to add incinerators, two counties planning recycling facilities, two counties considering landscape waste composting facilities, five intending to have transfer stations and three considering household hazardous waste collection facilities. Not all of these facilities are recommended in the adopted plans, but the solid waste management plans are guidelines to be updated every five years according to statute. As plans are implemented, circumstances may change. For example, public consensus may build around a certain program or facility, or new technologies may become available.

Implementation of countywide waste management is not easy. Since most of a county's waste is managed at the municipal level and often through contracts with the private sector, considerable cooperation is required among municipalities, haulers and waste disposal companies. Such cooperation is voluntary, and a program or facility can fail if communities will not join in the regional effort to sort out solutions to costs and opposition. This lack of cooperation contributed to major turmoil in the Champaign County Intergovernmental Solid Waste Disposal Association (see the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, April 12, 1992). Efforts requiring public/private sector cooperation are a challenge. Often public sector solutions do not provide the speed or flexibility the private sector requires. On the other hand, the private sector is generally reluctant to provide the 20-year guarantees or contracts needed for public financing.


. . . the telephone survey in
June found eight counties
intending to build (or
investigate the possibility of
building) landfills, four
counties intending to add
incinerators....

Nuts 'n' bolts of waste management plans

Generally, counties that have adopted plans have either placed solid waste management under a county government department or have formed a separate solid waste agency. So far, four new agencies have been formed and have spawned a new series of agency acronyms with "SW" for solid waste and "A" for agency: SWALCO, SWANCC, WCCSWA and ISWDA for Lake, Northern Cook, Western Cook and Champaign counties, respectively.

Current annual budgets for implementing the solid waste plans range from $14,000 to $5.8 million with most county budgets outside the Chicago metropolitan area in the $100,000 to $300,000 range. Chicago area budgets are in the $500,000 to $2 million range with additional construction funds in the millions of dollars.

In 10 counties these budgets support a full-time solid waste director with support staff. Five counties give the responsibility to a single full-or part-time staff person. The others have staffed the program under a director who carries additional responsibilities for the county. Other common staff positions include recycling coordinator (13 counties), education coordinator (four counties), clerical (11 counties) and technicians. Consultants supplement staff in starting up new programs and facilities.

Many counties are financing their operational budgets through landfill surcharge fees. A tipping fee ranging from $10 to $40 per ton is charged each truckload that dumps at the landfill or transfer station. Additional surcharge fees range from an equivalent of 32 cents per ton to $127 per ton. These specific fees may go to a separate fund specifically to finance the county solid waste management efforts. In counties without landfills, programs are frequently financed through general revenues (taxes). Construction costs for solid waste facilities are being financed through more traditional means such as revenue bonds.

Collection costs are generally paid by the municipality with general revenue funds or by the individual household directly to the hauler. As the separate collection of recyclables, landscape wastes and white goods increases collection costs, user fee systems are becoming more attractive. As documented in "Volume-based garbage collection fees:

an analysis of 10 Illinois programs" by Jeanne Becker and Marilyn Browning (Resource Recycling, March 1991), variable rate structures that charge by the bag or sticker are being adopted by Illinois communities. The paper bags commonly used for landscape waste collection are one example, but some communities also charge by the bag or sticker for garbage collection. Variable rate structures are often favored over flat user fees because they also provide a financial incentive for waste reduction. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) is starting a progam next year to encourage larger communities to study the feasibility of variable rate structures.

The process of developing goals and programs for a county's solid waste management plan requires extensive public input and review. Management options are examined, alternatives are developed and an overall system for managing solid waste is finally recommended. The recommended systems are then evaluated for their environmental impact, financial feasibility, likelihood of locating an appropriate and publicly acceptable site and adherence to the waste management hierarchy required by state law. A public hearing is required on the recommended system, and once approved by the county, the final plans are then reviewed by the IEPA to ensure compliance with the legislation and subsequent regulations.

Suzanne M. Kilner and Danielle Miller

24/ December 1992/ Illinois Issues


The construction of new recycling or disposal facilities can also be delayed or abandoned because of poorly conducted siting studies. If the public is not given opportunity to comment until the recommended site(s) has been selected, rather than being involved from the start in developing site selection criteria, heated localized opposition to the site can bring the project to a halt. Once a site is selected, permits must be obtained, which can require additional studies and public hearings. A sale must be negotiated and legal agreements developed with the host municipality. Sometimes so much time elapses that the elected officials change and parts of the process have to be redone.

Solid waste agencies in other states recommend strategies such as locating sites and building less controversial facilities first to establish a successful track record. Agencies in other states have used a strategy whereby sites are simultaneously selected for all the needed facilities to make each community aware that everyone must contribute to waste management in some way. With the large number of solid waste facilities proposed by Illinois' first 22 plans, there will be considerable opportunities to try out these and other strategies.

An emerging frustration in both recycling and waste reduction programs is the lack of a reliable method for measuring the waste diverted. The Illinois Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Act requires achieving a 15 percent level of municipal waste recycling by the third year of plan implementation and 25 percent by the fifth year. Tabulating diversion from multiple municipal recycling programs, individual industrial and commercial recycling efforts and numerous private enterprises is a time-consuming task. The complexity increases by the many materials that can be recycled. One complication may be remedied through efforts of the Illinois Recycling Association, a forum to exchange ideas, sponsor legislation and disseminate information. It is working to standardize reporting forms for recycling and waste reduction.

Recycling needs expansion, both in the materials to be recycled and in markets to re-use the materials, or the state's recyling goals cannot be met. Some plans leave this expansion entirely to the private sector, while others propose measures such as flow control and publicly constructed processing facilities to ensure markets in their areas for recycled materials.

The state provides grants to assist local waste management efforts. The Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources has provided more than $8 million in matching recycling and composting grants since 1987. It has programs and educational materials to encourage recycling and energy recovery facilities. In addition, solid waste planning and implementation grants are administered by the IEPA's Solid Waste Management Section, which also monitors their progress.

Counties have sought expertise in solid waste planning and implementation from a number of Illinois planning and engineering consulting firms. Consultants can be of particular help in starting programs, identifying proven methods or programs and siting new facilities.

In 1991 in Illinois 85 percent of the state's over 14 million tons of waste was buried in landfills, down from 93 percent in the previous year, according to the IEPA's annual report, "Available Disposal Capacity for Solid Waste in Illinois" (October 1991). In 1991 11 percent of waste was recycled, 2 percent was composted and 2 percent was burned.

The IEPA report warns that the state only has 8-10 years of (nonhazardous) landfill capacity left, with southern Illinois and the Chicago metropolitan area facing shortages first. In 1981, Illinois had 550 landfills; only 66 are expected to remain operational by next year. In 1991, 35 counties were without a landfill as compared to 29 counties in 1990. In three years, 52 counties will be without landfills if no new facilities are built. The IEPA predicts that localized landfill shortages are a more likely outcome than a statewide disposal crisis.

The limited disposal capacity is not new information, but each year that passes makes waste reduction more critical. The number of active solid waste landfills has declined in each of the last five years from 146 in 1987 to 110 in 1991. Forty-nine active landfills can be expected to reach capacity in three years. The Illinois Pollution Control Board's solid waste landfill regulations of 1990 required nonhazardous landfill owners and operators to notify the IEPA of when they intend to shut down operations. Over half reported earlier closing dates than their remaining capacity would indicate.


Solid waste agencies in
other states recommend
strategies such as locating
sites and building less
controversial facilities first
to establish a
successful track record

Where will all the garbage go in the future? If new waste disposal facilities are to be accepted by the public, the key may be measurable progress in achieving significant waste reduction and recycling. Of course, citizens at every level can contribute to waste reduction — at home, at work and in the cooperative efforts in each county to either form a waste management plan or to implement one.

Suzanne M. Kilner, ACIP, is a senior associate and Danielle Miller was an intern with Becker Associates Inc., a solid waste planning consulting firm in Deerfield.

December 1992/Illinois Issues/25


|Home| |Search| |Back to Periodicals Available| |Table of Contents||Back to Illinois Issues 1992|
Illinois Periodicals Online (IPO) is a digital imaging project at the Northern Illinois University Libraries funded by the Illinois State Library