Solid Waste Infrastructure Assessment in Four Major Markets
Michael Carleton
Arredondo, Zepeda & Brunz LLC
Introduction
Michael Carleton ENV-SP
• Authored several solid waste management plans, including Houston, NCTCOG Regional 20 Years Solid Waste Plan and several other local plans
• Project Manager for landfill site selections in Corpus, BVSWMA, TASWA, Lubbock, NW Ark
• Project Manger for Landfill and Transfer station Permits – Laredo, BVSWMA, Lubbock, Garland, Amarillo, Arlington, NTMWD, Corpus Christi
• Waste-to-Energy Experience – Procurement 1700 tpdfacility, Acceptance Testing, Feasibility Analysis
Arredondo, Zepeda & Brunz LLC• Civil, Environmental, Surveying
• Dallas, Fort Worth, Laredo, San
Antonio
• Specializing in Landfills,
Transportation, Water, Transit,
Environmental Assessments
• 35 Years serving Texas communities
Purpose
• Evaluate Solid Waste Infrastructure in Houston, DFW, Austin and San Antonio
• Identify factors that affect available landfill capacity
• Benchmark key solid waste indicators on a regional basis
• Establish a method for examining investment priorities
• Assess the current status of landfill capacity in four major metro regions – current and proposed facilities
• Provide recommendations on how to promote greater long-term landfill capacity
Infrastructure Investments
$1.75
$4.00
$130.00
BILLIONS FOR transportation
BILLIONS FOR STATES WATER
MILLIONS FOR SOLID WASTE
Why is it important?
• Continued population & economic growth = more waste
• Difficulty securing new capacity – 10 to 15 year horizon on new sites
• Minimal state investment in solid waste infrastructure
• Shrinking city budgets
• In spite of major recycling efforts, landfill disposal will continue to be a critical part of waste management
DRAFT
Why These Regions
Houston, DFW, Austin & San Antonio Areas
• 67% of the state’s overall population;
• 76% of the state’s gross domestic product (GDP); and
• 70% of the total waste disposed statewide.
DRAFT
Region 2015
Million Tons
Disposed
2016 Million
Tons
Disposed
(Preliminary)
NCTCOG 9.6 10.5
HGAC 8.9 8.6
AACOG 3.0 2.8
CAPCOG 2.2 2.2
Total 23.7 24.1
Continued population & economic growth
Historically – populations in the four regions have experienced between 2 and 3 percent annual increase between 2005 – 2015. On
the high side, TDC projects similar growth through 2030.
Region 2005
Population
Million
2015
Population
Million
2030
Population
Million
HGAC 5.39 6.79 9.46
NCTCOG 5.69 7.23 10.11
AACOG 2.01 2.49 3.32
CAPCOG 1.56 2.11 3.19
Total 14.65 18.62 26.08
DRAFT
Projected Waste Disposal Quantities
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Projected Waste Quantities (tons)
NCTCOG HGAC AACOG CAPCOG
Regional Capacity – 2016 Outlook
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
NCTCOG HGAC AACOG CAPCOG
Forecasted Regional Capacity in Years
2015 2025 2030
18
16
13
12
12
11
6
5
5
3
33
NCTCOG 2015
Five with less than 20 years capacity
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
121 Regional Disposal Facility
City of Arlington Landfill
Camelot Landfill
City of Cleburne Landfill
City of Corsicana Landfill
City of Denton Landfill
City of Fort Worth South East Landfill
City of Grand Prairie Landfill
Charles M Hinton Jr Regional Landfill
Hunter Ferrell Landfill
City of Dallas McCommas Bluff Landfill
CSC Disposal and Landfill
DFW Recycling and Disposal Facility
Ellis County Landfill
IESI Weatherford Landfill
Republic Maloy Landfill
Waste Management Skyline Landfill
IESI Turkey Creek Landfill
Region
Years Remaining Capacity
NCTCOG 2025
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
121 Regional Disposal Facility
City of Arlington Landfill
Camelot Landfill
City of Cleburne Landfill
City of Corsicana Landfill
City of Denton Landfill
City of Fort Worth South East Landfill
City of Grand Prairie Landfill
Charles M Hinton Jr Regional Landfill
Hunter Ferrell Landfill
City of Dallas McCommas Bluff Landfill
CSC Disposal and Landfill
DFW Recycling and Disposal Facility
Ellis County Landfill
IESI Weatherford Landfill
Republic Maloy Landfill
Waste Management Skyline Landfill
IESI Turkey Creek Landfill
Region
Years Remaining Capacity
NCTCOG - 2030
5 landfills reach capacity – impacts remaining landfills
8 landfills with less than 20 years
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
121 Regional Disposal Facility
City of Arlington Landfill
Camelot Landfill
City of Cleburne Landfill
City of Corsicana Landfill
City of Denton Landfill
City of Fort Worth South East Landfill
City of Grand Prairie Landfill
Charles M Hinton Jr Regional Landfill
Hunter Ferrell Landfill
City of Dallas McCommas Bluff Landfill
CSC Disposal and Landfill
DFW Recycling and Disposal Facility
Ellis County Landfill
IESI Weatherford Landfill
Republic Maloy Landfill
Waste Management Skyline Landfill
IESI Turkey Creek Landfill
Region
Years Remaining Capacity
HGAC MSW 2015
Years of Remaining Capacity
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Altair Disposal Services Landfill
Baytown Landfill
Chambers County Landfill
Atascocita Recycling and Disposal Facility
Blue Ridge Landfill
Coastal Plains Recycling and Disposal Facility
Fort Bend Regional Landfill
Galveston County Landfill
McCarty Road Landfill
Seabreeze Environmental Landfill
Security Recycling and Disposal Facility
Whispering Pines Landfill
Region
2 with less than 20 years capacity
HGAC 2025
Years of Remaining Capacity
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Altair Disposal Services Landfill
Baytown Landfill
Chambers County Landfill
Atascocita Recycling and Disposal Facility
Blue Ridge Landfill
Coastal Plains Recycling and Disposal Facility
Fort Bend Regional Landfill
Galveston County Landfill
McCarty Road Landfill
Seabreeze Environmental Landfill
Security Recycling and Disposal Facility
Whispering Pines Landfill
Region
HGAC - 2030
Years of Remaining Capacity
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Altair Disposal Services Landfill
Baytown Landfill
Chambers County Landfill
Atascocita Recycling and Disposal Facility
Blue Ridge Landfill
Coastal Plains Recycling and Disposal Facility
Fort Bend Regional Landfill
Galveston County Landfill
McCarty Road Landfill
Seabreeze Environmental Landfill
Security Recycling and Disposal Facility
Whispering Pines Landfill
Region
1 – out of capacity – 7 with less than 20 years capacity
HGAC Type IV - 2015
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Dixie Farm Road Landfill
Sprint Fort Bend County Landfill
North County Landfill
Addicks Fairbanks Ladnfill
Casco Hauling and Excavation Landfill
Greenshadows Landfill
Fairbanks Landfill
WCT Greenbelt Landfill
Greenhouse Road Landfill
Cougar Landfill
Hawthorn Park Landfill
Ralston Road Landfill
Tall Pines Landfill
Lone Star Recycling and Disposal Facility
Region
AACOG 2015
Years of Remaining Capacity
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
City of Fredericksburg Landfill
City of Kerrville Landfill
McMullen Landfill
BFI Waste Tessman Road Landfill
Covel Gardens Landfill
Mesquite Creek Landfill
Region
AACOG 2025
Years of Remaining Capacity
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
City of Fredericksburg Landfill
City of Kerrville Landfill
McMullen Landfill
BFI Waste Tessman Road Landfill
Covel Gardens Landfill
Mesquite Creek Landfill
Region
AACOG - 2030
Years of Remaining Capacity
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
City of Fredericksburg Landfill
City of Kerrville Landfill
McMullen Landfill
BFI Waste Tessman Road Landfill
Covel Gardens Landfill
Mesquite Creek Landfill
Region
What isn’t shown here is the fact that a Type IV reaches capacity
CAPCOG 2015
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Austin Community Recycling & Disposal Facility
BFI Sunset Farms Landfill
Texas Disposal Systems Landfill
Williamson County Recycling and Disposal Facility
Region
Years of Remaining Capacity
As of 2016 – BFI is no longer accepting waste
CAPCOG - 2025
Years of Remaining Capacity
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Austin Community Recycling & Disposal Facility
BFI Sunset Farms Landfill
Texas Disposal Systems Landfill
Williamson County Recycling and Disposal Facility
Region
CAPCOG 2030
Years of Remaining Capacity
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Austin Community Recycling & Disposal Facility
BFI Sunset Farms Landfill
Texas Disposal Systems Landfill
Williamson County Recycling and Disposal Facility
Region
Only 1 landfill with more than 20 years remaining capacity
Type I Market Share (disposal)
NCTCOG MSW Disposal Market Concentration - 18 Landfills
HGAC MSW Disposal Market Concentration - 12 Landfills
AACOG MSW Disposal Market Concentration – 6
Landfills
If a landfill closes – an average of 500,000 tons has to find a new home – equal to about
180,000 households
CAPCOG MSW Disposal Market Concentration - 4
Landfills
Public – Private Disposal Market Share
*three are publicly owned, but privately operated
76%
24%
2015 NCTCOGRemaining Capacity – Public /
Private
Public Private
7%
93%
2015 HGAC Market Concentration Remaining Capacity – Public / Private
Public Private
Local Options for Assuring Disposal Capacity
• Reduce the amounts of waste generated or disposed• Reduction / Recycling Programs
• Composting
• C&D Processing or Disposal
• Improve landfill operations
• New Capacity
• New Technology
2015 Disposal Rate Comparison –
Region Type I
PCD
Type IV
PCD
Total
PCD
MSW
PCD
C&D
PCD
NCTCOG 6.82 0.47 7.29 5.81 1.48
HGAC 5.65 1.50 7.15 5.06 2.09
AACOG 5.89 0.71 6.60 5.30 1.30
CAPCOG 5.21 0.58 5.79 4.55 1.24
PCD – pounds per capita per day
HGAC has 21% of total waste going to Type IV Landfills – CAPCOG only has 10% going to Type IV Landfills
If CAPCOG had NCTCOG Disposal Rate – it would generate 11 million tons more waste between 2016 –
2030
Waste imports does impact these disposal rates – waste is flowing across all borders – could be
approximately 10% of total
Historic State Disposal Rates
Source: TCEQ Annual MSW Report
NCTCOG HGAC AACOG CAPCOG
2005 8.54 7.11 7.70 7.35
2010 6.72 6.49 6.06 5.95
2013 6.89 7.00 6.35 5.58
2014 7.14 7.22 6.65 5.73
2015 7.30 7.15 6.60 5.79
2016 7.86 6.75 6.10 5.98
Tons have gone up – Rates have generally gone down
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
NCTCOG HGAC AACOG CAPCOG
IND
EX 2
005 =
100
Comparing 2005 - 2015 Disposal Rates
Pounds/Emp-Day Pounds/GDP-Day Pounds/Capita/Day Total Waste Disposal
Construction & Demolition Management
In the four regions – estimated total C&D Generation = 5.6 million tons – approximately 23% of total waste disposal
Region Type I C&D
Disposal Tons
(% of Total C&D
Waste)
(000)
Type IV C&D
Disposal Tons
(% of Total C&D
Waste)
(000)
Total C&D
(000)
# / capita
/ day of
C&D
disposal
Tons /
$million
Construction
GDP
H-GAC 500 (19%) 2,095 (81%) 2,595 2.09 101
NCTCOG 1,344 (69%) 613 (31%) 1,957 1.48 100
AACOG 281 (47%) 312 (53%) 593 1.30 110
CAPCOG 256 (53%) 222 (47%) 479 1.24 93
Total 2,383 (43%) 3,243 (57%) 5,627
Composting and Brush Management
• In 2015 – 500,000 tons processed at seven compost permitted compost facilities
• Does not include the number of non-permitted brush management facilities
Landfill efficiencies have gotten better in most regions – larger facilities = greater efficiency
Region 2005
Weighted
PPCY
2015
Weighted
PPCY
% Improvement
2015/2005
NCTCOG 1294 1504 16%
HGAC 1662 1658 0
AACOG 1609 1737 8%
CAPCOG 1344 1410 5%
PPCY – pounds per cubic yard weighted average
Operational Efficiency Changes 2005 – 2015 Type I Facilities
Landfill Size & Efficiency
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000
Report
ed P
PC
Y
Tons Accepted Per Year
TYPE I LANDFILL EFFICIENCY & WASTE QUANTITIES DISPOSED
Landfill Efficiency Quotient
By increasing density rate in HGAC region to 1737 – save 384,000 cubic yards / year,
equivalent to a 318,000 ton per year recycling program
Region PopulationDisposal Rate
(pcd)
Disposal
Efficiency
(ppcy)
Annual Tons Landfill CY CY/Capita
HGAC 500,000 5.65 1,658 515,563 621,909 1.24
NCTCOG 500,000 6.82 1,504 622,325 827,560 1.66
AACOG 500,000 5.89 1,737 537,463 618,840 1.24
CAPCOG 500,000 5.48 1,410 500,050 709,291 1.42
Best Case 500,000 5.48 1737 500,050 575,763 1.15
Worst Case 500,000 6.85 1410 625,063 886,613 1.77
Securing new capacity … Heavy public opposition
• In 2016 – only 3 Type IV (c&d) and 1 Type I (msw) permit amendments approved in 4 regions
• 6 new permits or permit amendments known to be in process – all 4 Type I’s facing heavy public opposition
• The success in legislatively affecting landfill site
• County land use ordinances
In addition to public opposition - land use more difficult
• Harder to find land with minimal development
• Oil & gas development is now significant land use
• Transportation issues & Access
Greenfield Capacity – Long-term project
• Site Selection & Procurement – 3 to 5 years
• Permitting – 3 – 5 years
• Construction – 2 – 4 years
Known permit amendments and new facilities add 176 million cy Type I and 50 million cy Type IV
Region Landfill Type Additional Capacity
(MM CY)
Notes
NCTCOG Camelot Landfill I 37.7 Recent agreement with local government
following state legislation requiring local
approval in this specific case
NCTCOG IESI Fort Worth C&D
Landfill
IV 18.4 Approved by ED in December 2016
NCTCOG City of Denton Landfill I 34.5 In review
H-GAC Pintail Landfill I Unknown On July 6, 2016 Pintail Landfill initiated a new
landfill permitting process
H-GAC Ralston Road Landfill IV 1.0 Application Process
H-GAC Tall Pines Landfill IV 15.1 Application Process
H-GAC Fairbanks Landfill IV 26.2 Approved in 2016
H-GAC Galveston County
Landfill
I 22.4 Approved in 2016
AACOG Post Oak Landfill I 87.0 Public hearing completed – awaiting
Commission’s decision
CAPCOG 130 Environmental
Park (Caldwell County)
I 33.0 Administrative review and Technical reviews
have been completed. Public hearing is
ongoing, with no scheduled agenda date
(TCEQ Web Site November 23, 2016)
CAPCOG IESI Travis Co. Landfill IV 6.9 Approved by TCEQ in 2016
Source: TCEQ Web Site: Municipal Solid Waste Applications Posted on the Internet, December 2016
Thoughts & Recommendations…
Increasing / High Waste Generation Rates
State
• Continuing to support public information programs to encourage source reduction and recycling, including composting organics.
• Mandatory bans on the disposal of certain materials, thereby reducing quantities of waste placed in landfills. Yeah right in Texas
• Providing financial incentives through the State Fund 5000 to promote much greater recycling than is being achieved under the current program where only a small percentage of funds are allocated each year. (ditto for a few years)
Thoughts and Recommendations…
Local Governments
• Continue to support public information programs to encourage source reduction and recycling, including composting of organics.
• Focusing greater attention on the commercial sector’s waste generation. While it appears that the waste generation rate per GDP has dropped, this sector still accounts for between 66 and 75 percent of a community’s waste stream. Major waste generation reductions cannot be achieved only by enhanced residential recycling efforts.
• Communities may want to limit the types of materials accepted at landfills. A challenge in Texas
Thoughts and Recommendations…
Decreasing Available Disposal Capacity
State
• Continue to monitor landfill capacity throughout the state. Continue to make these reports available to the community. Evaluate the data-gathering methodology to assure data on capacity and disposal rates are accurate and consistent in methodology.
• Establish a permitting protocol that both protects local residents and allows for future new facilities and expansions. Avoid the adoption of regulations which institute further restrictions on the location of facilities. Rely on local governments to adopt reasonable land use and zoning ordinances.
• Provide funding through subsidized loans or other means to encourage investments in better landfill equipment to improve operational efficiency. Place greater emphasis on landfill operating efficiency as part of training program for landfill operator licenses.
• Evaluate the results of landfill methods such as enhanced leachate recirculation
Thoughts and Recommendations…
Local Governments
• Undertake a current assessment of solid waste disposal capacity.
• Evaluate contracts for disposal and determine if modifications are necessary to assure long term availability of capacity.
• Evaluate contracts and procurement documents for future capacity. Consider whether landfills are operating efficiently, their long-term capacity situation and whether they are planning expansions.
• Encourage the development of more Type IV landfills for C&D waste so that valuable Type I landfill capacity is not used for this specific waste stream.
• Cities should begin examining the potential need for transfer stations as a means of reducing future haul cost increases if landfills reach capacity and longer haul distances are required.