RURAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERIES:

A GUIDE TO

DECISION-MAKING

IN THE

PUBLIC SECTOR

Prepared by:

SWANA, The Solid Waste Association of North America 1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 700 P.O. Box 7219 Silver Spring, Maryland 20907-7219

and

NAD0 Research Foundation 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 630 Washington, DC 20001

Made possible with funding from the:

United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Administration Water and Waste Disposal Division Solid Waste Management Grant Program

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I1 . LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES ....................... 2

111 . THE IMPACT OF REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Federal Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 State Policies and Regulations ................................ 3 Local Policies and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

IV . FACTORS AFFECTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DECISION-MAKING 4

Political Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Public Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Economic and Fiscal Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Media Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Integrating the Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

V . INTEGRATED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Elements of Integrated MSW Management ........................ 9 Approaches to Integrated MSW Management ..................... 10 The Public-Private Partnership as an Approach to Integrated MSW Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Which Communities Need Public-Private Partnerships? . . . . . . . . . 11 Selecting the Appropriate Partner ........................ 14 Creating a Public-Private Partnership Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

VI . CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

APPENDIX A

List of US EPA Regional Ofices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

APPENDIX B

Organizations and Associations Resource List .................... 23

Series 1 - Assuring Capacity for the Future - Integrated Solid W&ste Management Systems

Series 2 - A Guide to Decision Making in the Public Sector

o Series 3 Managing Financial Resources ,

For ordering information on any of the Guidebooks available in this series contact SWANA, P.O. Box 7219, Silver Spring, Maryland 20907-7219.

These Guidebooks were developed by SWANA and NADORF with funding through the USDA, Rural Development Administration, Water and Waste Disposal Division - Solid Waste Management Grant Program and under the guidance of the following Review Team members:

Mike Goering Washington County Engineer Washington County Highway Department Salem, Indiana

David Grimes, Executive Director Southern Colorado Economic Dev. District Pueblo, Colorado

Gregory C. Jacob Solid Waste Manager Tuolumne County Sonora, California

Ron Mace Bluestem Solid Waste Agency Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Roger Mack, Executive Director First District Association of Governments Watertown, South Dakota

Patrick B. O’Connor Solid Waste Advisor Tennesee Valley Authority Chattanooga, Tennessee

Bill Parsons, Executive Director Lake Cumberland Area Dev. District Russell Springs, Kentucky

John 0. Smith, P.E. Environmental Resources Management, Inc. Exton, Pennsylvania

Kathy Thomas Thomas/Wright, Inc. Tigard, Oregon

Lee Tillman, Executive Director Eastern Plains Council of Governments Clovis, New Mexico

Vemon Martin, Executive Director Coastal Georgia Regional Dev. Center Brunswick, Georgia

I. INTRODUCTION

As Rural Municipal Solid Waste Managers (RMSWM) are faced with changing responsibilities due to escalating regulations and public interest with solid waste issues, credible decision-making skills have become increasingly vital. Planning, budgeting, and day-to-day operations involve more players in the decision-making process, including a critical public eye. The rural decision- maker must have the tools available to guide solid waste management policy down the most appropriate path. ~

Decisions reached in the public sector entail balancing differing interests and reaching a consensus. As Management Review states, "public sector decisions are the result of compromise, bargaining and politics. The process of making a decision is often more important than the decision itself. The result may not be the most cost-effective, but it is the result of a consensus developed to satisfy most of the constituents' interests." Conversely, "private sector decision- making is based on identifying the problem, constructing alternatives, and choosing the most cost effective outcome. Private sector decision makers are judged by the outcome of the decision."' Consequently, the RMSWM must be aware that balancing many different conflicting opinions and building a consensus is an essential part of the decision-making process in the public sector and that this fundamentally differs from private sector decision-making.

~

At the onset, the RMSWM should be aware that one model outlining a step-by-step approach for decision-making does not exist. Nevertheless, general steps to follow could include: 1) assessing the current waste stream and making projections for the future by following the guidelines found in the accompanying Guidebook Series 1 - Assuring Capacitv for the Future; 2) evaluating the waste problem in the community; and 3) establishing objectives to deal with the current waste stream and the problems which presently exist. In the context of these general steps, the RMSWM can make balanced and well-informed decisions by knowing the factors which affect decision-making and the MSW management options currently available. Thus, this Guidebook does not present a model to be used by all decision-makers, but rather discusses the factors which should be considered when trying to make multifaceted decisions. Because more and more rural communities have found partnerships between public and private sectors as an effective approach to managing municipal solid waste, this Guidebook provides a discussion on publidprivate partnerships.

1

1) Sections Id11 set the stage by identifying the types of decisions often faced by m a l MSW managers.

11. LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Municipal solid waste (MSW) management is an essential public service necessaty to protect human health, public safety and the environment. Accordingly, local government must assume responsibility for assuring and overseeing the provision of such services to the community.

RMSwMs will face numerous challenges while trying to carry out their responsibilities. Regulations are becoming increasingly stringent. The federal government has outlined criteria for the design of landfills through RCRA Subtitle D, and states are now mandating recycling goals. Citizens are demanding the opportunity to become more involved. Due to economies of scale, rural communities are most likely confronted with having to consider options such as regionalization and privatization. Therefore, the RMSWM must fmd a MSW management system that not only meets federdstate regulations, but also includes multi-faceted political and financial considerations.

111. THE IMPACT OF REGULATIONS

Prior to deciding what needs to be done, a RMSWM needs to work within the boundaries of the federal, state and local regulations and policies. For example, the federal government has established numerous regulations outlining landfll design requirements. More often than not, state and local governments set more stringent mandates than federal government recommends. A clear understanding of the federal, state and local statutes and laws ensures the future success of MSWM programs.

-

2

Federal Regulations

Although Subtitle D of the Resource and Recovery Act (RCRA) remains the cornerstone of landfill management for all communities, several other federal regulations apply to rural communities as well.

Safe Dri&ing Water Act (SDWA)

Further details of each regulation can be obtained by writing to a USEPA regional office (see Appendix A).

State Policies and Regulations

State and local governments are having to take more leadership and initiative in MSW policy and regulatory decisions. Over the last five years, state regulatory programs have begun changing their focus and are now aiming MSW management strategies at source reduction, recycling, incineration and landfill management.

Nevertheless, states continue to have little regulatory control over MSW collection. Some states are now beginning to require county governments to provide a minimum level of service. For instance, Tennessee mandates convenience centers if 90 percent or more of unincorporated households do not have weekly collection services. Alabama attempted to mandate countywide collection by requiring all households in the county to have public or private pickup, but that law was ruled unconstitutional. Except for statutes relating to public utilities under which solid waste collection utilities would be covered, state governments have little regulatory involvement in public or private waste collection.

3

Local Policies and Regulations

Cities and counties often outline more stringent standards than federal and state requirements. Local governments must address undesirable impacts associated with solid waste operations not

and perceived harm to neighboring property values. covered by federal or state standards, such as noise, visual appearance, traffic, emergency closure, -

IV. FACTORS AFFECTING MSW DECISION-MAKING -

Given public sector service-oriented responsibilities, budget constraints, and the obligations imposed by federal, state and local policies, the R M S W M faces a unique decision-making climate. The Rh4SWM must walk a tight rope in order to craft a successful MSW system. In other words, each decision will be shaped by some combination of four sometimes clashing factors: political influence, public perception, economic/fiscal concerns, and media perception. Each factor must be understood for effective and balanced decision-making to occur.

1. Political Influence

Political pressures come from local politicians, citizen groups, business interests and the community at large. Each group has its own political agenda which will have to be weighed in the decision-making process.

An example dealing with disposal best illustrates these competing political influences. Presently, solid waste disposal facilities in rural communities are under financial pressures to build large, centralized facilities. By opting to host a mega-landfill, the rural community agrees to accept waste from a much larger region. Several advantages and disadvantages exist when such a decision is contemplated. The advantages include a reduction in the per capita costs of disposal because of greater economies of scale, and the creation of more jobs for the community. Due to the size and complexity of these facilities, private companies will most l ie ly operate them, thereby reducing local government liability. Despite the apparent advantages, local officials and citizen groups will emphasize several disadvantages to a mega-landfill in their backyard questions of jurisdiction and control of the waste, increased contaminants brought into the community, and the unknown long term affect on the community's environment, infrastructure, and property values. Thus, finding a balanced solution among competing political interests is a difficult task indeed.

4

2. Public Perception

Successful MSW management systems depend on the support of community which relies heavily on the perceived worth of the MSW program. Recycling goals will be impossible to meet if the community does not feel recycling makes a difference. Illegal dump sites will continue to plague the community if citizens do not comprehend the negative environmental impacts. Citizens will most likely band together and stop construction when they think a new facility will create a nuisance. The underlying solution to all of these problems is education.

Many barriers block community participation in the decision-making process. A strong industry presence will often intimidate the public. Industry officials are typically well organized and heavily financed, and possess the resources to effectively promote their interests while citizen groups often do not have the same level of organization or money.

Public hearings, which appear to offer citizens a chance to participate in the decision-making process, are often perceived as just an exercise for the local officials to defend the decision they have already made. Finally, the public often does not participate because they simply do not understand the process involved or do not have access to the information to support their

5

Concerns.* Again, keeping the public well informed and educated will help. When the public truly feels part of the process, the process will most likely work to benefit the community. One example is a community in Rhode Island which solved the negative public perception problem by actively inviting citizens to tour a landfill closure, at which time the citizens were educated on the need for a new landfill.

In general, citizens who are powerless perceive themselves to be powerless and are vulnerable to outsiders who desire to exploit the community for financial gain. Empowering the community to organize and educate themselves in order to confront the unwanted interests of outsiders insures successful and balanced decision-making?

6

.-

3. Economic and Fiscal Concerns

Economics affect every MSW management decision made. There just is not enough money to go around, while, unfortunately the "economic factor" is often weighed the heaviest. Basing decisions solely on the financial return is not a well-informed and balanced solution, because the economic value of an alternative many times ignores the long term environmental impacts.

Economic concems creep into each aspect of the MSW management system. For example, in many cases, recycling is not an economically viable disposal option for rural communities because markets do not exist and collecting, processing and transporting recyclables remains expensive. Similarly, yard waste composting can he uneconomical because yard waste typically makes up a small percentage of the rural waste stream. Thirdly, Waste-to-Energy facilities are very capital intensive and require markets for the energy produced, thus making this disposal option extremely difficult for small communities. Finally, open land is typically inexpensive and abundant in rural America, providing little incentive for adopting waste reduction options when landfilling space is readily available. In the same regard, landfill siting and permitting is also a costly venture. All in all, managing MSW is expensive, with few corners to cut.

A good economic analysis factors in all the elements of a decision. Society often underestimates the true cost of MSW management by not accounting for all collection and disposal costs. This practice discourages communities from adopting new programs or technologies that are more costly than current practices but which have a greater package of benefits. These benefits, or intangible elements, are often not adequately considered. For example, people want to participate in source reduction and recycling programs, but quantifying community pride and satisfaction is inappropriate. Be careful to consider all practical aspects of an option before selecting it on a bottom-line cost basis alone.

As to financing alternatives, several options exist: tax financing, user fees, revenues from recovery programs, capital financing, and issuing and marketing bonds. For more details, refer to the companion Guidebook: Series 3 - Managing Financial Resources.

4. Media Perceptions

Besides education, another effective way to communicate with the public is through the media. A successful RMSWM must cultivate a working relationship with the press. One of the best ways to cultivate a working relationship with the media is to regularly supply them with information.

Suggestions for supplying the media with information include:

. Targeting local newspapershewsletters; . . Asking local newspaper for press-release guidelines; Developing and distributing newsletters and press releases highlighting success

Tieing into PTA notices, service organization bulletins and journals.

-.

stories; and . Press releases are an important link to the media. Reporters are more likely to cover issues which are supported through well-written and well-constructed press releases. Contact the local press to understand the preferred format for press releases.

Successful MSW managers are prepared for the press and ready for an interview at any time. Every press contact is an opportunity to inform the public. Following are some points to effectively seize each of these opportunities:

Be prepared and plan the points to be made; Be newsworthy; use language everyone understands; Always assume the interview is on the record; Never say "no comment" - it invites speculation; If a question contains inappropriate words, they should not be repeated in an answer, even to refute them; Do not argue or loose composure; Do not try to answer hypothetical or "what if' questions; Be available for follow-up questions after the interview is over; and Above all, be honest.

A healthy working relationship does not guarantee constantly favorable press coverage. Understand that reporters cannot possibly know the subject as well as professionals in the field. Getting angry about press coverage is a waste of time, and feuds with the press is an assured loss. Concems about a headline should be addressed to the editor. If there has been a serious emor in a story, contact the reporter. The media and the press need information from MSW managers. By working together in a professional supportive relationship, both can achieve their goals, ultimately resulting in an informed public:

Integrating the Factors Affecting Decision-Making

All four factors should be integrated into the decision-making process concurrently to solve problems. Political influences should be addressed by being educated and by educating others, positive public perception should be fostered by educating the community, positive media attitudes should be nurtured by providing the media with information freely and openly, and economic concems should be taken seriously yet should not become the sole factor in decision- making. Now that the RMSWM has an understanding of the four factors affecting MSW

~

__

8

decision-making, and how those factors might be faced using constructive techniques, the next step is to address the types of decisions commonly found in modem MSW management systems, and what operational approaches are available.

V. INTEGRATED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Before elaborating on the approaches available in MSW management systems which includes an in-depth look at public-private partnerships, the different elements or components of an Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management (IMSWM) system must first be discussed.

Elements of LMSWM5

JMSWM involves using a combination of techniques and programs to manage the MSW stream. Although each community will choose a mix of alternatives that most efficiently meets its needs, the following hierarchy, defined by the USEPA, is a useful tool for goal setting and planning. The elements of the hierarchy are interrelated and can be designed to complement each other. Details for each element outlined here can be found in the companion Guidebook Series 1 - Assuring Cauacitv For The Future - Integrated Solid Waste Managemeastems.

1) Source Reduction is at the top of the hierarchy. Source Reduction programs are designed to reduce both the toxic constituents in products and quantities of waste generated. Source reduction is a front-end waste management approach that may occur through the design and manufacture of products and packaging with minimum volume and toxic content and with longer useful life. It may also be practiced at the corporate or household level through selective buying habits and the reuse of products and materials.

Recycling, including Reuse and Composting, is the second step of the hierarchy. These options can reduce the depletion of landfill space, save energy and natural resources, provide useful products, and prove economically beneficial.

Incineration reduces the bulk of municipal waste and can provide the added benefit of energy production. State of the art technologies developed in recent years have greatly reduced the adverse environmental impacts associated with incineration in the past and, although incineration is not risk-free, many communities are relying on this waste management alternative.

Landfilling is necessary to manage non-recyclable and non-combustible wastes, and is the only actual "disposal" method. Modem landfills are more secure and have more elaborate pollution control and monitoring devices than in the past. Environmental concerns at properly managed landfills are greatly reduced:

2)

3)

4)

9

-

Approaches to Integrated MSW Management

A number of arrangements exist to implement an JMSWM system. Each case should be weighed according to what is best both financially and politically for the community. The following are examples of the various arrangements:

Unrestricted. Local government takes no responsibility, I I provides no protection of public interests, exercises no control over issues related to municipal solid waste management, and/or provides no oversight. All services are totally dependent upon the ability of the unrestricted competitive process.

Licensing. provide MSW services within their jurisdiction.

Contract and Franchising. Local govemment takes an active role in defining the degree of service, determines how the private sector will deliver the services and at what costs, and oversees the delivery of the service authority.

Local Government Owned. Local govemment owns the facilities and contracts for the operation of municipal solid waste collection, transfer, resource recovery and disposal services/operations.

Local Government Owned and Operated. Local government owns and is responsible for the operation of municipal solid waste management services, operations, policies and facilities.

AuthoritiedSpecial Purpose Districts. An institutional arrangement which has state or local government (political) oversight and allows the institution to be self- reliant for revenues. The institution has the power to utilize the business approach of the private sector.

Highly Organized Local Government Involvement. Local government is strong and is involved in land use planning, zoning, and strict enforcement of licensing regulations. It allows efficient participation by the private sector in providing the necessary services.

Public-Private Partnerships. A contractual relationship between local government and a private firm that commits to providing an environmental service.

Local government licenses organizations to conduct business to

-

10

Although all of these options are used by RMSWMs, the public-private partnership is an option that has become more common. The remainder of this Guidebook will focus on the public- private partnership.

The Public-Private Partnership as an Approach to Integrated MSW Management

Public-Private partnerships potentially provide an effective way of cutting costs, creating more dynamic relationships with the business community, and building consensus on all levels. Further advantages when considering a public-private partnership include:

. . A private f m has access to more sophisticated technology; A private f m can design, construct and/or operate a facilityhervice more cost-

Financing is more flexible and might include the use of private capital; In some instances, responsibility and risk is delegated to the private f m ; and The cost of the facility/service is fixed.

effectively; . . . Several disadvantages are also inherent in public-private partnerships. First, the municipality must relinquish at least some degree of control of the quality of service rendered. Secondly, the apparent cost advantages must be balanced against some increased costs to a local government that delivers a service through contracting. These include the costs of preparing specifications and other contract documents, the time and expense of negotiating contracts, and most importantly, the cost of monitoring contract performance, which can amount to 5 to 10 percent of total contract costs.?

Despite the relative cost disadvantages, a public-private partnership can be an effective tool for some rural communities. To understanding the public-private partnership, several questions must be answered

. . Which communities need public-private partnerships? Who is the appropriate partner? What legally binding agreements are necessary to create a public-private . partnership?

Which Communities need Public-Private Parmerships?

A common approach suggests conducting a three-step analysis:

1. 2. 3.

List all local solid waste activities; Determine the level or quality of service expected in each activity; and Identify the costs associated with each existing activity and the estimated costs for potential activities.

11

S t e ~ One - Listing Solid Waste Activities

Begin by simply listing all existing and potential solid waste activities. An example of such a list is outlined below.

Planning and Organizing . Conducting studies and analyses . Conducting public information and education programs, -

Agreeing on amounts and conditions of waste to be transported among

. Establishing intergovernmental organizations

. jurisdictions,

Transporting . Residential collection . Commercial and industrial collection . Transporting between processing and disposal sites

Operating collection stations for recyclable materials drop-off Recovering recyclable items at the tipping floor Processing recyclable items for shipment

Conducting a complete recycling program

Providing services to a composting operation

Conducting a complete composting program

Recycling . . . . Marketing recycled materials . Composting . . Shredding waste materials . Marketing compost . Landfilling . Preparing a landfill site . Operating a landfill site . Providing services to a landfill operation: equipment maintenance,

. Closing a landfill site supplying cover material, leachate testing

. Monitoring the site area after closure

12

Once such a list is developed, a description may be drafted for each existing or proposed activity. The description might include:

. A brief description of the activity (e.g., "operate and provide the materials, supplies, tools and other goods for operation of the county landfill");

annually until 19-'I); -

Indicators of the level of service (e.g. "waste covered with six inches of fill at end

Personnel and equipment used to conduct the activity;

Budgeted and/or actual expenditures for recent fiscal years; and

Citation of state and/or local laws and regulations that apply to the activity?

-

. Indicators of the size or volume of activity (e.g., "accept - tons of waste

. of each day");

.

.

. Step Two - Performance Standards

The most important part of this analysis is identifying the quality of service expected from each activity. Performance standards should be stated so that they are objectively measurable and, to the greatest possible extent, they should measure outputs or end results rather than inputs. For example:

Recycling Operations

. Pick up materials placed at the curbside on the scheduled day of collection

Collect recyclables from at least (number of) commercial establishments

Submit monthly reports reporting tonnages of materials recovered and sold,

for recyclables.

. by (date).

. by material, and household participation rates.

Step Three - Cost Information

As a final step in the analysis, the RMSWM should identify the costs associated with each existing activity and the estimated costs for potential activities.

Costs for existing activities may be based on actual budgets or expenditure reports. The analysis should include not only the direct costs likely to appear in those documents but also indirect (overhead) costs.

13

In addition, the costs of physical facilities such as landfills should be calculated on a life cycle basis, taking into account projected maintenance and replacement expenditures as well as current operating costs. For some activities, it is possible to calculate unit costs (costs per ton, per mile of haul, per residential unit, etc.). Unit cost information allows for in-house budgeting and management, and provides a basis for evaluating the cost of contracted services. -

The cost of solid waste activities not previously conducted by an agency can be estimated by soliciting informal quotations from potential contractors. The activity descriptions compiled as suggested above can provide a good basis for making preliminary contractor inquiries. Any request for quotations should make clear the informal nature of the inquiry, so that there will be no misunderstandings when the decision is made either to conduct the activity in-house or to call for bids.'

~

Selecting the Appropriate Partner

Most public-private contracts in the solid waste field appear to be developed using the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Some state public contracting laws establish specific requirements for the use of RFPs. For instance, California law (Public Resources Code, Section 40059) allows jurisdictions to determine the extent of services needed and provide for those services either with or without competitive bidding. Be sure to check with the state in advance.

The following guidance has been extracted from the USEPA's document entitled Solid Waste Contract Negotiation Handbook."

1) Project Team. The RFF' process generally requires creation of a project team early in the process. Due to the high level of judgment and discretion required to prepare the RFP and evaluate the substantive aspects of the proposals received makes it desirable to involve both technical and policy-level agency personnel, as well as legal and financial staff, throughout the process.

Drafting the RFP. The first and most important step in developing an RFP is to determine the "scope of work." State clearly and completely what the agency hopes to accomplish under the contract. The description of the work itself obviously need not be as detailed with respect to specific outputs and inputs, and indeed one of your major purposes may be to elicit ideas from responders as to alternative work elements.

2)

The contract price IS one of the items to be negotiated, but the RFP may appropriately state a target amount, or perhaps a range. Prospective offerors will find it hard to develop their proposals without some general guidance as to the amount the agency expects to spend.

An essential part of the RFP is the description of factors that will be used to evaluate the responses. Some kind of point system is customarily used for this

~

14

purpose. A statement should be included to the effect that the RFP is not an "offer" (in the legal sense) and that the final contract will be negotiated with the contractor to whom the award is made.

.- Other portions of the RFP include various contract terms and conditions such as submission instructions, a person to contact for further information, etc. It also includes similar disclaimers, such as the right to reject all proposals and the right to negotiate with more than one proposer. If the agency plans to interview several responders prior to making an award, that fact should be stated in the RFP.

Receive Offers. Offerors are required to submit proposals by a stated closing date. The proposals will usually consist of a technical proposal containing the offeror's approach to the work and a description of the technology, resumes of key personnel, qualifications based on previous experience in the area, and a businesdcost proposal containing the offeror's prices and organizational structure.

Evaluate Offers. After initial offers are received, review the proposals and rank them in accordance with the stated evaluations criteria. Many govemments develop an evaluation checklist and score proposals on how well they address certain key issues.

Negotiate with Offerors. Once proposals are evaluated, and the competitive range established, negotiations are conducted with one or more offerors within the competitive range, and a date is set for the submission of best and final offers.

Award Contract. Contract award need not be made to the lowest priced bid. Instead it is made to the offeror who submits the best overall proposal as measured by the evaluation criteria.

~

Creating a Public-Private Partnership Agreement

Three cross-cutting issues of special concem in solid waste contracting are:

1) Structuring contracts to assure implementation of federal, state, and local government solid waste policies and compliance with solid waste regulations;

Providing for flexibility in compensation to accommodate the long-term cost recoveIy and regulatory and market uncertainties associated with some solid waste contracts; and

Allocating both tort and contract liability andlor financial responsibility among public agencies and private contractors to match the distribution of exposures in different kinds of solid waste contracts.

2)

3)

15

AU of these issues influence long-term contracts for major solid waste facilities such as landfills. Contracts for other solid waste activities may involve only one or two of these issues.

Sample contract provisions address the issues mentioned above and may be used to address a variety of local needs and circumstances. .-

An outline of these key concepts is provided here.

1) Regulatory Compliance: Regulations that originate at the federal, state and local level all may need to be addressed through contract provisions. In addition to identifying the regulations to be observed, compliance depends in part on some system of monitoring. This may be the contracting local government but also might be left to the state. The local government’s liability risk is among the considerations evaluated in determining the scope and nature of the compliance monitoring system.

Thus, the contract must make reference to: a) Allocating Responsibility for Implementation and Compliance . Contractor Has General Responsibility . Contractor Has General Responsibility With Partial

Contractor is Responsible Only for Specific Laws and

Contractor is Responsible Only for Existing Laws

Enumeration

Future Amendments . .

b) Compliance Monitoring: State versus Local Responsibility

c) Escape Hatch for Contracts

2) Compensation: Compensation in money or in some other form is an essential legal element of a contract, and fair compensation for services or facilities provided under the contract is essential to satisfactory contract performance.

Therefore, the contract should include:

a) Compensation as Essential Element of Contract

b) Money mows from Agency to Contractor

c) Money Flows form Contractor to Agency

d) Adjusting Provisions for Compensation . Automatic Adjustment . Negotiated Adjustment

16

3) Liability: Contracts should attempt to fix liability andor financial responsibility in proportion to relative contract responsibilities of the local government and contractor. The appropriate mix of contract provisions calling for regulatory compliance, a compensation system, and a sharing of liability risk depends upon decisions unique to each contract proposal."

Consequently, the following should be evaluated:

a) Contract Liability . Performance Bond Requirement . Retainage . Withholding Payments . Alternative Provisions

b) Tort Liability . General Indemnification of Public Agency . Reciprocal Indemnity Provisions . Required Insurance Coverage

In sum, contracts must be structured to assure implementation of federal, state, and local government solid waste policies and compliance with solid waste regulations; contracts must provide for flexibility in compensation to accommodate the long-term cost recovery, regulatory and market uncertainties associated with some solid waste contracts; and contracts must allocate both tort and contract liability andor financial responsibility among public agencies and private contractors to match the distribution of exposures in different kinds of solid waste contracts. These measures lead to successful implementation of a public-private partnership contract, if that is what the municipality determines to be the most appropriate path to resolve local solid waste management issues.

VI. CONCLUSION

The purpose of this Guidebook was to provide the RMSWM with an understanding of local government responsibilities, applicable regulations, factors affecting decision-making, what integrated MSW management approaches can be used in the decision-making process and the role of public-private partnerships. One model outlining a step-by-step approach for decision-making does not exist. Even so, general steps to follow might include: 1) assessing the current waste stream and make projections for future capacity by following the guidelines found in the companion Guidebook Series 1 - Assuring Capacity for the Future - Intevrated Solid Waste Management Systems; 2) evaluating the waste problem in the community; and 3) establishing objectives to deal with the current waste stream and the problems which presently exist. The R M S W M can then make balanced and well-informed decisions by knowing the factors which

17

affect decision-making and the options available in an increasingly complex world. Most importantly, the RMSWM can navigate through the complex decision-making process by continually educating himherself, the community’s elected officials, businesses, schools, the community at-large, and through the media. If this can be accomplished, then the R M S W M will be able to guide the community’s MSW management practices down the most advantageous path.

18

REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Management Review. May, 1988. .

Waste Management Problems in Rural Areas: Limits to Citizen Participation in Decision- -. 1993.

Waste Management Problems in Rural Areas: Limits to Citizen Participation in Decision- making. 1993.

Planning and Managing Integrated MSW Svstems Training Course Manual, Solid Waste Association of North America. 1993.

Decision-Makers Guide to Solid Waste Management. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OS-305). EPM53O-SW-89- 072. November, 1989.

Public Private Partnershius for Environmental Facilities. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Administration and Resource Management (H3304). 20M- 2003. May 1990.

Public Private Partnerships for Environmental Facilities. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Administration and Resource Management (H3304). May, 1990. 2OM-2003.

Public Private. Partnerships for Environmental Facilities. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Administration and Resource Management (H3304). 20M- 2003. May, 1990.

Public Private Partnerships for Environmental Facilities. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Administration and Resource Management (H3304). 20M- 2003. May, 1990.

Solid Waste Contract Negotiation Handbook. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Administration and Resource Management. 220-B-92-004. May, 1992.

Solid Waste Contract Negotiation Handbook. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Administration and Resource Management. 220-B-92-004. May, 1992.

19

REFERENCES

.- Other sources include:

French, William. Strategic PlanninK. Pacific Mountain Review: A Rural Development Journal. Winter 1992.

Park, William. An Overview of Solid Waste Management Issues Facing Rural Communities, University of Tennessee, 1992

Peters, Dean. Private Sector Seeks MSW - Can Cities Afford It?, MSW Management, MarcWApril, 1991.

SWANA, The Role of the Public Sector in the Management of MSW (T-91, SWANA Technical Policy Manual, 1990.

20

APPENDIX A

List of United States Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices

EPA Region 1 JFK Federal Building Boston, MA 02203 (617) 565-3420

EPA Region 2 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278 (212) 264-2657

EPA Region 3 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 597-9800

EPA Region 4 345 Courtland Street NE Atlanta, GA 30365 (404) 347-4727

EPA Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-2000

EPA Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75202-2733 (214) 655-6444

EPA Region 7 726 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 (913) 551-7000

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont

New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

21

EPA Region 8 One Denver Place 999 18th Street Denver, CO 80202-1603 (303) 293-1603

EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 744-1305

EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 442-1200

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, -

American Samoa, Guam, Trust Temtories San of the Pacific

Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska

22

APPENDIX B

Associations and Organizations

Air and Waste Management Association P.O. Box 2861 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 (412) 232-3444 (412) 232-3450 FAX (technical information exchange of air, waste and water management)

Aluminum Association 900 19th St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 862-5100 (202) 862-5164 FAX (educational, public and technical information on aluminum)

American Forest and Paper Association 11 11 19th St., NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-2700 (202) 463-2785 FAX (serves the forest industries and provides information on paper and wood products and paper recycling)

American Iron and Steel Institute 1101 17th St., NW, Suite 1300 Washington, D.C. 20036-4700 (202) 452-7100 (202) 463-6573 FAX

American Plastics Council 1275 K St. NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 371-5319 or (800) 243-5790

(serves public and private sectors- informational on disposal and recycling of plastics)

(202) 371-5679 FAX

Aseptic Packaging Council 1225 I St., NW, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 333-5900 or (800) 277-8088

(information on recycling aseptic boxes)

Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators 147 Wyndham St. N, Suite 405 Guelph, ON NlH 4E9

(information on waste reduction, recycling, composting, household hazardous waste and public education)

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 444 N. Capitol St. NW, Suite 388 Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 333-5987 FAX

(519) 823-1990

(202) 624-5828 (202) 624-7875 FAX (represents state solid waste officials)

Battery Council International 401 Noah Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60611-4267 (312) 644-6610 (312) 644-6869 FAX (information on battery disposal)

Center for Plastics Recycling Research Rutgers University-Building 4109 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (908) 445-3683 or (908) 445-4402

(plastics recycling) (908) 445-5636

23

Center for Waste Reduction Technologies 345 East 47th St. New York City, NY 10017-2395 (212) 705-7462 (212) 838-8274 FAX (information on waste reduction, recycling and other alternative solid waste options)

Composting Council 114 S. Pitt St. Alexandria, VA 22314-3112 (703) 739-2401 (703) 739-2407 FAX (composting information provided for public and government)

Council on Packaging in the Environment(C0PE) 1255 23rd Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, D.C. 20037-1174 (202) 331-0099 (202) 833-3636 FAX (technical and public information on packaging and related issues)

Council for Textile Recycling 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1212 Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 718-0671 (301) 656-1079 FAX (pre-consumer, post-consumer and producer textiles information, educational materials)

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse (EREC) US Department of Energy P.O. Box 3408 Merrifield, VA 22116 (800) 428-2525 (703) 893-0400 FAX (information on waste-to-energy and waste reduction)

Environmental Defense Fund Recycling Campaign Coordinator 257 Park Ave. South New York City, NY 10010 (212) 505-2100 or (800) 225-5333

(solid waste management, recycling and educational/public information)

Environmental Education Association, Inc. 1211 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 812 Washington, D.C. 20036

(212) 505-2375 FAX

(202) 296-4572 (202) 452-9370 FAX (recycling and waste altematives)

Fibre Box Association 2850 Golf Rd. Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 (708) 364-9600 (708) 364-9639 FAX (serves mainly corrugated industries-provides technical and public information on paperboard and cardboard recycling)

Flexible Packaging Association 1090 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 (800) 331-5652 (202) 842-3841 FAX (serves manufacturerdsuppliers of flexible packaging-bags, pouches, labels and wraps, such as paper, plastic film and aluminum foil-provides public information)

Glass Packaging Institute 1627 K St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 887-4850 (202) 785-5377 FAX (serves glass industries and provides public information on glass recycling, technical advances and legislation)

24

Environmental Technology Council 915 15th St. NW 5th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 783-0870 (202) 737-2038 FAX (serves hazardous waste treatment facilities and assists the state level on hazardous waste issues)

Institute for Local Self-Reliance 2425 18th St. NW Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 232-4108 (202) 332-0463 FAX (helps cities and community developers make new products from recycled materials)

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries 1325 G St., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 737-1770 (202) 626-0900 FAX (public information on scrap recycling-metal, rubber, glass and textiles)

Integrated Waste Services Association 1133 21st St. NW, Suite 205 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 467-6240 (202) 467-6225 FAX (provides information on all aspects of solid waste management-serves mainly waste-to-energy industries)

Keep America Beautiful Mill River Plaza 9 West Broad St. Stamford, CT 06092 (203) 323-8987 (203) 325-9199 FAX (litter and recycling information)

Mid-Continent Recycling Association 1200 Missouri Ave. Bismarck, ND 58506 (701) 328-5150 (701) 328-5200 FAX (recycling information)

Municipal Waste Management Association 1620 I St. NW 4th moor Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-7330 (202) 429-0422 FAX (serves solid waste municipal level in all areas)

National Association for Plastic Container Recovery(NAPC0R) 100 N. Tryon, Suite 3770 Charlotte, NC 28202 (704) 358-8882 (704) 358-8769 FAX (trade association for PET plastic recyclers- provides public and technical assistance on PET plastics and recycling programs)

National Container Recycling Institute 1400 16th St., NW, Suite 250 Washington, D.C. 20036-2217 (202) 797-6839 (202) 797-541 1 FAX (recycling information and programs)

National Oil Recyclers Association 330 Madison Ave. New York City, NY 10017 (212) 292-3700 (212) 972-6569 FAX (serves oil recyclers and facilities)

25

National Recycling Coalition 1101 30th St. NW, Suite 305 Washington, D.C. 20007 (202) 625-6406 (202) 625-6409 FAX (public and educational materials on recycling-plas tics)

National Restaurant Association 1200 17th St. NW 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 331-5900 (202) 331-2429 FAX (technical information on solid waste disposal for food service facilities- publications also available)

National Solid Waste Institute 11 1 E. Bulard Parkway, Suite 204 Temple Terrace, FL 33617 (813) 985-3208 (813) 985-4192 FAX

Environmental Industries Association(E1A) National Solid Waste Management Association 4301 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20008 (202) 659-4613 (202) 775-5917 FAX (serves only private sector-publications also available)

Paper Board Packaging Council 888 17th St., NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 289-4100 (202) 289-4243 FAX (information on paper board recycling and generation)

Plastic Bag Association 355 Lexington Ave. New York City, NY 10017 (212) 661-4261 (212) 370-9047 FAX (plastic bag recycling)

Plastics Recycling Foundation P.O. Box 189 Kennet Square, PA 19348

(plastics recycling information and technologies)

Polystyrene Packaging Council, Inc. 1275 K St., NW, Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005

(215) 444-0659

(202) 822-6424 (202) 371-1284 FAX (polystyrene recycling and packaging information)

Renew America 1400 16th St. NW, Suite 710 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-2252 (202) 232-2617 FAX (public/educational information on recycling, composting, landfills, waste-to energy and source reduction)

Scrap Tire Management Council 1400 K St. NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 408-7781 (202) 682-4854 FAX (information on tire management and recycling-publications available)

26

Source Separated Composting and Organics Recycling Association(SC0R) 4218 Southwest Donovan Seattle, WA 98136 (206) 932-4621 (206) 932-0427 FAX (municipal and backyard composting)

Steel Recycling Institute Foster Plaza-Bldg. 10 680 Anderson Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15220-2700 (412) 922-2772 or (800) 876-7274 (412) 922-3213 (800) 876-7274 (technical and public information on steel recycling)

Solid Waste Association of Noah America (SWANA) P.O. Box 7219 Silver Spring, MD 20907-7219 (301) 585-2898 or (800) 677-9424 (technical library)

(municipal solid waste issues-policies, technical assistance and public information)

Technical Association of Pulp and Paper Industries(TAPP1) 15 Technology Parkway (Norcross) P.O. Box 105113 Atlanta, GA 30348

(301) 589-7068 FAX

(404) 446-1400 (404) 446-6947 FAX (serves pulp and paper industries-resource center provides information and publications on pulp and paper technologies, generation and recycling)

Waste Management Institute Come11 University Resource Center 8 Business and Technology Park Ithaca,NY 14850 (607) 255- 1187 (607) 255-8207 FAX (provides technical and educational information on all aspects of waste management)

Hotlines and Information Services

EPA Small Business Ombudsman

(small businesses and waste issues)

Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse(PP1C)

1-800-368-5888

(202) 260-1023

RCRA Superfund Hotline

(publications and information of hazardous and solid waste regulations)

Solid Waste Assistance Program (SWAP)

(technical assistance and information on solid waste management and disposal- operated by SWANA with funding from US

(800) 424-9346

(800) 677-9424

DOE-NFSL)

27