SWMP for Translation 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan: 60% Draft City of Baltimore

This webpage is a resource for individuals who need the 10 Year Solid Waste Management Plan translated a language other than English.

Click the flag of your desired language in the top right corner of this page.

Table of Contents:

10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan

City of Baltimore

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

INTRODUCTION

Statement of Purpose

Plan Organization

Plan Approval Process

1.     GOALS AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

1.1        Goals and Objectives

Goals Specific to the Planning Period: 2024 to 2033

Goals Guiding Overall Solid Waste Management Strategy

1.2        Structure of Baltimore City Government

Department of Public Works

Bureau of Solid Waste

Office of Administration

Office of Waste Diversion

Disposal Services Division

Property Management Division

Routine Services Division

Street Sweeping and Roll-off Division

Marine Operations Division

Special Services Division

1.3        Regulatory Framework

Federal Laws and Regulations

Maryland State Laws and Regulations

City Codes and Ordinances

Flexibility in Existing Regulations and Ordinances

2.     BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1        City Population

2.2        Federal Facilities in the City

2.3        Zoning Requirements

2.4        Comprehensive Planning and Land Use

3.     EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

3.1        Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System

3.2        Existing and Projected Waste Generation

3.3        Existing Waste Reduction and Diversion Programs

3.4        Existing Waste Collection System

3.5        Import and Export of Solid Waste

3.6        Existing Waste Transfer Facilities

3.7        Existing Waste Processing and Recycling Facilities

3.8        Existing Waste Disposal Facilities

4.     ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS AND CONSTRAINTS

4.1        Diversion Goals

4.2        Waste Reduction and Diversion Programs

4.3        Waste Collection

4.4        Waste Transfer

4.5        Waste Processing and Recycling

4.6        Waste Disposal

4.7        Plan to Return to Pre-Pandemic Services

4.8        Potential Limitations on Development

4.9        Asbestos Disposal Capacity

4.10     Emergency Response Procedures for Hazardous Leaks and Spills

4.11     Adequacy of Local Zoning and Master Plan

5.     PLAN OF ACTION

5.1        Planning Period

5.2        Diversion Goals

5.3        Waste Reduction and Diversion Programs

5.4        Waste Collection System

5.5        Waste Transfer System

5.6        Waste Processing and Recycling System

5.7        Waste Disposal System

 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Formal names for offices, agencies, institutions, and programs are capitalized; technical terms are in lower case.

ABS                      acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (e.g., Lego)

AD                        anaerobic digestion; anaerobic digestor

AVAC                   automated vacuum collection

BCAA                   Baltimore Clean Air Act

BCCF                    Baltimore City Compost Facility

BCPS                    Baltimore City Public Schools

BCRP                    Baltimore City Department of Recreation and Parks

BFWRS                 Baltimore Food Waste and Recovery Strategy

BPPF                    Baltimore Patapsco Pelletizer Facility

BOS                      Baltimore Office of Sustainability

BRC                      Baltimore Recycling Center

BRPF                    Back River Pelletech Facility

BRWWTP             Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant

BRESCO               Baltimore Refuse Energy Systems Co. (now Wheelabrator)

BSP                      Baltimore Sustainability Plan

BZWP                   Baltimore Zero Waste Plan

CAP                      Baltimore City Climate Action Plan

CAPEX                  capital expenditure; capital costs

CASP                    covered aerated static pile (composting)

CDL                      container deposit law; bottle bill

C&D                     construction and demolition

DBO                     design-build-operate (contract)

DBFO                   design-build-finance-operate (contract)

DHCD                   Baltimore City Department of Housing and Community Development

DP3                      Baltimore City Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project

DPW                    Baltimore City Department of Public Works

EPR                      extended producer responsibility

EPS                       expanded polystyrene, Styrofoam

FDA                      Food and Drug Administration

GHG                     greenhouse gas

HDPE                   high density polyethylene; no. 2 plastic

HFPA                    Healthy Food Priority Area

HHW                    household hazardous waste

ICI                        industrial, commercial, and institutional (sectors)

ILSR                      Institute for Local Self Reliance

LEED                    Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

LMO                     last mile organization

LWBB                   Less Waste, Better Baltimore (Plan)

L&J                       L&J Waste Recycling, LLC

MDE                     Maryland Department of the Environment

MDP                     maximum diversion potential

MES                     Maryland Environmental Service

MFD                     multi-family dwelling

MRA                    Maryland Recycling Act

MRC                     mandated recycled content

MRF                     materials recovery facility

MSW                    municipal solid waste

SWMP                  solid waste master plan

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Statement of Purpose

The intent of this Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan) is to provide an accurate description of the existing solid waste management system in Baltimore City and a ten-year outlook on planned solid waste and recycling activities, in compliance with Maryland regulations.  The current Plan is for the period from 2024-2033 and is a replacement of the previous Plan adopted by the Mayor and City Council in December 2015. This Plan has been prepared in accordance with current state planning regulations (Code of Maryland Regulations, Title 26, Subtitle 03, Chapter 03, or COMAR 26.03.03), which requires the Plan to address waste management and recycling for a period of at least 10 years.

In this Plan, the capitalized term “City” refers specifically to City Government (including departments and offices) while use of the lower-case term “city” or “Baltimore” or “Baltimore City” all refer to the city in general.

Key updates to this Plan include the prioritization of waste prevention and diversion (recycling), sustainable materials management,  and orienting solid waste disposal activities to serve the city’s best interests and meet its sustainability goals. This Plan provides the residents of Baltimore with information on the current and future solid waste management system in Baltimore and also outlines ways in which the City can continue to successfully manage and reduce waste by meeting solid waste management goals.

Plan Organization

This Plan is divided into five chapters, the content of which is dictated by COMAR 26.03.03.03:

Chapter 1:          “Goals and Regulatory Background” describes the legal and institutional framework for the City’s solid waste management system, including City goals and objectives;

Chapter 2:          “Background Information” describes relevant demographic and land use information in Baltimore;

Chapter 3:          “Existing Solid Waste Management System” includes waste generation data, estimates for waste generation and characterization, and information on current waste management facilities in the city;

Chapter 4:          “Assessment of Needs and Constraints” provides an evaluation of the current waste management system and its future potential; and

Chapter 5:          “Plan of Action,” establishes a plan for the City to achieve its solid waste management goals over the ensuing 10-year period.

Plan Approval Process

This Plan was prepared by Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) of Columbia, Maryland in coordination with the Bureau of Solid Waste, a unit of the Baltimore City Department of Public Works (DPW). Within DPW, the Bureau of Water and Wastewater was also asked to provide data and review the information contained in the Plan. Other entities contributing to the Plan were the Baltimore City Department of Planning, Office of Sustainability, Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, residents, and other local stakeholders.

A draft version of the Plan was submitted to Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) for preliminary review and comment prior to developing the final Plan, which was later submitted to the Baltimore City Council. A series of public meetings and hearings were held during preparation of the draft Plan, in addition to City Council review. Final review was completed after receiving comments during the approval process. After addressing the comments received, the Mayor and City Council adopted the final plan on TBD. The adopting City Council Resolution is included in Appendix A. MDE’s approval letter is included in Appendix B.

Professional Certification

I hereby certify that this document was prepared or approved by me, and that I am a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the State of Maryland, License No. 57689 and Expiration Date 06 June 2023.

 

1.      GOALS AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

As required by state regulations, Chapter 1 discusses the City’s goals regarding solid waste management, the City’s administrative structure as it relates to solid waste management, and state, federal, and local laws and regulations which affect the planning, establishment, and operation of solid waste disposal systems.

1.1       Goals and Objectives

Since 1872, Baltimore City has provided solid waste collection and disposal services for its residents. While waste that once was collected in horse-drawn carts is now collected in trash compacting motor vehicles, the original purpose of the solid waste management system remains the protection of public health and the environment. Effective collection and disposal of solid waste is critical to public health, especially in high-density urban areas. To provide effective sanitation services to its residents, the City must use its limited financial resources efficiently to achieve the primary goal of cost-effectively providing and facilitating safe and proper sanitation, including the collection and disposal of wastes generated within the city, while prioritizing reuse, recycling, and recovery of waste.

The City’s solid waste management system consists of a blend of public and private services.  The City primarily provides collection of waste and recyclables from single-family residences and condominiums under contract with the City, while private contractors provide collection services to most multi-family residences, non-contract condominiums, and commercial and industrial establishments.  The City believes it can collect and dispose of residential solid waste most effectively and efficiently through an integrated and comprehensive waste management system that prioritizes source reduction, reuse, and recycling while transitioning away from waste-to-energy processes and landfilling for waste disposal. To continue to provide efficient and effective solid waste services to the residents of Baltimore, the City has split its goals and objectives into two categories: goals specific to the planning period covered by this SWMP, and goals guiding overall solid waste management strategy.

Goals Specific to the Planning Period: 2024 to 2033

The City’s goals for the ensuing ten-year planning period were developed by assessing the immediate needs of the solid waste management system.  These goals are meant to achieve the City’s primary solid waste management goal (to cost-effectively provide and facilitate safe and proper sanitation to city residents) while also complying with all relevant state and federal requirements.  The City’s goals for the planning period of 2024-2033 are to:

1.           Change waste and recycling behaviors, increase recycling rates, and decrease contamination through education, outreach, and engagement;

2.           Promote legislation that supports waste diversion and source reduction goals;

3.           Explore opportunities to increase organics recycling in Baltimore and create local organics processing capacity;

4.           Implement waste reduction and diversion strategies as outlined in the Less Waste Better Baltimore Plan, the City’s long-term strategic master plan for improving solid waste management and recycling over the next 20-30 years;

5.           Provide waste reduction and diversion opportunities, waste and recycling collection services, and waste disposal capacity to city residents;

6.           Increase the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the City’s solid waste program; and

7.           Minimize improper waste disposal, illegal dumping, and littering.

Goals Guiding Overall Solid Waste Management Strategy

The City’s goals guiding overall solid waste management strategy are outlined in a number of planning documents produced by the City. While some of these planning documents are not focused solely on solid waste management, they all contain aspirations and goals related to public health and environmental sustainability in the solid waste sector. These goals provide long-term benchmarks to inspire ambitious solid waste strategy during the planning period. Many of these goals provide a roadmap to achieve zero-waste status in Baltimore by 2040. The City’s goals guiding overall solid waste management strategy are summarized in the subsections below according to the planning document in which they appear.

Baltimore Sustainability Plan

The Baltimore Sustainability Plan (BSP) was published in 2019 by the Baltimore Office of Sustainability.  The BSP outlines a zero-waste strategy for the City and presents three major goals, with associated action items:

1.           Increase the amount of trash that is diverted from Quarantine Road Landfill (QRL) and WIN Waste, a privately operated waste-to-energy (WTE) facility located in the southwest of the city, to recycling programs . The WIN Waste facility is commonly referred to as BRESCO, an acronym for the original operator Baltimore Refuse Energy Systems Company (BRESCO).  Specific action items include:

a.           Providing free recycling bins to all city residents;

b.           Launching an anti-litter, pro-recycling campaign;

c.           Creating and implementing a zero-waste plan.

2.           Expand the City’s Waste to Wealth Initiative (see below).  Specific action items include:

a.           Implementing the Baltimore Food Waste and Recovery Strategy (BFWRS, see below);

b.           Siting a local compost facility;

c.           Revising codes and creating ordinances to eliminate waste and encourage reuse of deconstructed building materials.

3.           Pursue legislative and policy changes to reduce the waste stream.  Specific action items include:

a.           Imposing a fee for single-use plastic bags;

b.           Creating a City Government Procurement Committee to incentivize source reduction;

c.           Developing a plan for a “Save as You Throw” program.

Since the BSP’s inception, the City has provided free recycling bins to all city residents and implemented a single-use plastic bag bill.

Less Waste, Better Baltimore Plan

In July 2020, the City issued the “Less Waste, Better Baltimore” (LWBB) Plan, a long-term solid waste management and recycling master plan that was informed by the goals of the BSP. The LWBB Plan was intended to:

1.           Outline a clear and achievable vision for improving the solid waste and recycling system in Baltimore over both the near- and long-term, with the goal of maximizing waste reduction, reuse/repair, recycling, and sustainable management of materials;

2.           Develop actionable strategies to achieve this goal; and

3.           Identify potential impacts on existing solid waste management systems, including programmatic and infrastructure needs, investment challenges, and associated policy or regulatory initiatives.

Based on recommendations outlined in the LWBB Plan, the City now provides free recycling carts to all households, designated food waste drop-off locations, is planning for the development of local compost processing facilities, and is considering constructing a materials recovery facility (MRF)to increase diversion and reuse of construction and demolition (C&D) waste.

Waste to Wealth Initiative

The Waste-To-Wealth Initiative was developed by the Baltimore Office of Sustainability to help grow the business sector in Baltimore while reducing overall waste generation. The initiative seeks ways to support local businesses that are using waste (secondary materials) to make products rather than primary (virgin) materials. The initiative acknowledges that while several businesses in Baltimore have already engaged in innovative reuse and repurposing strategies for a wide variety of secondary materials, they need support from the City.  By fostering businesses that seek to capture value from secondary materials before they enter the waste stream, it is hoped the City can stimulate job creation, combat urban blight, and encourage resident-led greening efforts to revitalize city neighborhoods. The initiative is designed to do this by targeting three high-value wastes that comprise a significant portion of waste generated in Baltimore:

1.           Food waste, which constitutes approximately 13% of the overall waste stream;

2.           C&D debris, which makes up over 40% of the overall waste stream; and

3.           Wood waste, which makes up only 6% of the overall waste stream but offers significant potential for high value reuse.

Baltimore Food Waste and Recovery Strategy

The Baltimore Food Waste and Recovery Strategy (BFWRS) was published in 2018 by the Baltimore Office of Sustainability. In addition to presenting the reasons to reuse edible food and compost non-edible food waste, the BFWRS highlights seven local case studies and sets goals and strategies for recovering food waste in the city. The ten major goals outlined in BFWRS are as follows, with a target date of 2040 in each case:

1.           Reduce commercial food waste by 50%;

2.           Eliminate all food waste from higher education institutions;

3.           Divert 90% of food and organic waste generated by City Government from landfill or incineration;

4.           Reduce household food waste by 80%;

5.           Ensure all city residents have access to organic waste collection at home or in their neighborhoods;

6.           Divert 80% of residential food and organic waste from landfill or incineration;

7.           Create composting and anaerobic digestion facilities capable of processing all the city’s organic waste;

8.           Support the food waste diversion market by ensuring an adequate supply of organic waste is being diverted to compost and anaerobic digestion facilities;

9.           Attain 90% food and recyclable waste diversion in public K-12 schools; and

10.         Create a supportive culture for food waste reduction and diversion in K-12 students, faculty, and staff.

To meet the above goals, BFWRS outlines over 60 short-, medium-, and long-term strategies to be implemented by the City, many of which will require significant funding to be approved by the Mayor and City Council.

Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Planning

To mitigate the severity of future impacts due to climate change, and to adapt to known risks facing a low-lying coastal region, the City is working to instill resilience into vulnerable systems and infrastructure.  In addition to a multitude of ongoing projects and initiatives, two plans have been created that focus on mitigation and adaption strategies:

1.           Climate Action Plan (CAP).  The CAP was developed by the Office of Sustainability in 2012 to reduce the city’s greenhouse gas emissions through a range of strategies targeted at reducing consumption of fossil fuels. An updated version of the CAP will be released in December 2023 outlining a roadmap to carbon neutrality, environmental justice-focused climate actions, and climate mitigation priorities.

2.           Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project (DP3).  The City takes a comprehensive approach to hazard mitigation planning, recognizing Baltimore’s vulnerability to the impacts of severe hazard events and the need to increase its resilience to disaster. The Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project (DP3) was first produced by the Department of Planning in 2013 to address both existing hazards and the predictions of the impacts of climate change on these natural hazards, including but not limited to heat waves, sea level rise, increased precipitation, and flooding. An update to the DP3 in 2018 addresses changes in priorities that have evolved since 2013 and incorporates the latest climate data. It also highlights the most recent climate-related disasters the city has faced and features many new strategies and actions to help Baltimore continue moving forward with hazard mitigation and community preparedness.  Public services such as solid waste management can mitigate challenges created by climate change, but can also be overwhelmed by fluctuating demands due to changing climate patterns.

 

Zero Waste Resolution

The Judiciary and Legislative Investigations Committee approved 17-022R, a resolution calling for City agencies and experts to meet and begin discussing “the development of a Zero Waste plan for Baltimore that will advance sustainability, public health, and job creation.”  The resolution was adopted June 2017.  A follow-up resolution 18-0086R was adopted in May 2018.  City Council resolutions are an expression of the Council’s desires for the city but cannot be enforced through the law.

In April 2019, an advocacy group led by United Workers, a nonprofit organization based in Baltimore, worked independently with certain Council Members to “assist the City of Baltimore to develop a zero-waste scenario for the city’s long-range recycling and solid waste management master plan.”  United Workers presented their Baltimore Zero Waste Plan (BZWP) to the City in April 2020. The BZWP aims to make zero waste a key priority in Baltimore to mitigate climate change, reduce climate emissions and other environmental and public health impacts, save money, support economic mobility, create good jobs and small businesses in all sectors of Baltimore, and sustain this work through culture change.

1.2       Structure of Baltimore City Government

Within City Government, the Department of Public Works (DPW) is the primary agency responsible for planning and implementing solid waste management programs.

Add a couple more sentences and maybe an org chart showing how DPW fits within City Government administration structure? Otherwise, its an abrupt jump from City Govt to DPW.

Department of Public Works

DPW is responsible for fulfilling the City’s solid waste management obligations. Figure 1-1 below shows the DPW organizational structure.

 Figure 1-1. Baltimore City DPW

Within DPW, the Bureau of Solid Waste (BSW) is the entity that plans and implements solid waste management programs. 

Bureau of Solid Waste

The Bureau of Solid Waste is comprised of eight divisions. Figure 1-2 below displays the organizational structure of BSW’s leadership team. Thereafter, a brief description of each division is provided in the remainder of Section 1.2.

 

Figure 1-2. Bureau of Solid Waste Management Organizational Structure

Office of Administration

The Office of Administration provides administrative support to perform data compilation for reports, analyzes operations to maximize efficiency, and works closely with internal and external stakeholders to create sustainable initiatives that correlate with disposal services, recycling, and zero waste education.  Figure 1-3 below shows the organizational structure of the Office of Administration.

 

Figure 1-3. Office of Administration Organizational Structure

Office of Waste Diversion

The Office of Waste Diversion plans and manages initiatives and studies designed to advance zero waste and sustainable materials management efforts across BSW operations.  They also provide administrative support for the City’s recycling services and act as a resource for residents to find information about recycling, composting, and solid waste services.

The Office of Waste Diversion's responsibilities include:

1.           Developing, implementing, and evaluating BSWs zero waste and waste diversion pilot programs;

2.           Annual reporting, including a report on the City’s efforts to remediate illegal dumping, Maryland Recycling Act compliance, and other reports;

3.           Updating the City’s 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan;

4.           Coordinating the Mayor’s community-focused annual Spring and Fall litter cleanup events;

5.           Providing administrative support for the City’s Recycling Program;

6.           Researching and pursuing industry best practices for advancing zero waste;

7.           Providing feedback on proposed legislation pertaining to BSW operations;

8.           Facilitating education and outreach initiatives with residents on waste diversion programs;

9.           Managing BSW grants; and

10.         Conducting research and extensive planning functions to develop and recommend capital improvements that prioritize sustainable materials management principles.

Figure 1-4 below shows the organizational structure of the Office of Waste Diversion.

 

Figure 1-4. Office of Waste Diversion Organizational Structure

Disposal Services Division

The Disposal Services Division manages mixed refuse and recycling materials at Quarantine Road Landfill (QRL) and the Northwest Transfer Station (NWTS).  The Disposal Services Division performs the following services:

1.           Operating QRL and NWTS;

2.           Managing the Small Hauler’s Program at QRL and NWTS;

3.           Maintaining all closed landfills owned by the City;

4.           Managing scrap tire diversion;

5.           Managing partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard to monitor landfill gas wells; and

6.           Managing partnerships offering mattress recycling and disposal.

Figure 1-5 below shows the organizational structure of the Disposal Services Division.

 

Figure 1-5. Disposal Services Division Organizational Structure

Property Management Division

The Property Management Division provides cleaning, waste removal, boarding, mowing, and rodent control services to vacant and unoccupied properties that are cited by the City’s Code Enforcement Inspectors. The structure of the property management division is shown in Figure 1-6.

 

Figure 1-6. Property Management Division Organizational Structure

Routine Services Division

The Routine Services Division provides residents with waste and recycling pickup from households and multi-family dwellings. Routine Services also provides recycling administration and funding for household hazardous waste disposal services. The organization of the Routine Services Division is shown in Figure 1-7 below.

 

Figure 1-7. Routine Services Division Organizational Structure

Street Sweeping and Roll-off Division

The Street Sweeping and Roll-Off Division runs mechanical street sweeping operations. This division also oversees drop off centers and community pitch-in programs.  The organization of the Street Sweeping and Roll-off Division is shown in Figure 1-8 below.

 

Figure 1-8. Street Sweeping and Roll- Off Division Organizational Structure

Marine Operations Division

The Marine Operations Division oversees collection and disposal of marine debris collected from the inner harbor and surrounding waterways, as well as condominium and public housing refuse collection. The division ensures the cleanliness of business districts, provides trash and recycling services for special events and clears debris away from storm drains to protect water quality. The Marine Operations Chief is also responsible for special waste collection services in the Central District (i.e., the downtown area).

Figure 1-9 below shows the organizational structure of the Marine Operations Division.

 

Figure 1-9. Marine Operations Division Organizational Structure

Special Services Division

The Special Services Division maintains the cleanliness of public rights-of-way by providing services including graffiti removal, dirty street cleaning, dirty alley cleaning, and bulk trash collection.  The organization of the Special Services Division is shown in Figure 1-10 below.

 

Figure 1-10. Special Services Division Organizational Structure

1.3       Regulatory Framework

Solid waste planning is a local responsibility, governed by federal and state laws that regulate local practices to protect public health and welfare. The major federal, state, and city laws and regulations related to solid waste management are listed below. The implications of these laws and regulations are discussed throughout this Plan. These laws and regulations have been grouped by level of application (federal, state, and local) below.

Federal Laws and Regulations

The federal laws, initiatives, and policies relevant to this Plan include those focusing on municipal solid waste (MSW), special and hazardous waste, air emissions, and water pollution.  A summary of relevant federal legislation and guidance is provided below.

Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.)

In 1976, the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was passed to improve solid waste disposal methods. RCRA provides regulatory guidelines for solid waste collection, transport, separation, recovery, and disposal practices and systems.” RCRA is divided into nine subtitles, A through I. RCRA subtitles C, D, and F provide specific guidance related to hazardous and municipal waste.

Subtitle C of RCRA established the hazardous waste management system, including identifying and listing hazardous wastes, established standards for generators and transporters, and for the management of hazardous wastes for the owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.  The regulations require stringent administrative and record keeping practices by permitted facilities.

Under Subtitle D, municipal solid waste is regulated through technical standards for solid waste management facilities and a program under which states may develop and implement solid waste management plans. The federal regulations set forth minimum criteria for municipal solid waste landfills including location restrictions, operating requirements, design criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action protocols, closure and post-closure care requirements, and financial assurance requirements.

Subtitle F of RCRA requires the federal government to participate actively in procurement programs to promote the use of recycled materials. The role of the EPA in the Subtitle F program is to prepare guidelines for procurement of products made from recovered materials.

Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.)

In December 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as the “Superfund” Act. In contrast to RCRA, which generally regulates active waste handling and disposal, CERCLA focuses on both short-term and long-term remediation of past contamination.  The federal government can use the Superfund trust fund to clean up a property and then sue the responsible parties for reimbursement, or the government may order responsible parties to clean up the site.  Maryland has created a parallel State Superfund, the Hazardous Substance Control Fund. CERCLA identified in its National Priorities List (NPL) two sites in Baltimore as Superfund sites.  One site at the intersection of Kane and Lombard streets  used to contain nearly 1,200 drums of flammable solids, buthas been converted to a golf driving range. The other location at 2001 and 2103 Annapolis Road was removed from the NPL in  December 1982, and  is now used by MDE as an Emergency Response Field Office.

Code of Federal Regulations

(Title 40, Subchapter 1)

Brief summaries of the regulations pertaining to solid waste management in Title 40, Subchapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations are provide below:

•            Part 240: Guidelines for the Thermal Processing of Solid Wastes.  Establishes minimum performance levels for MSW incinerators.

•            Part 243: Guidelines for the Storage and Collection of Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Solid Waste.  Establishes minimum performance levels for solid waste collection operations, and addresses issues including storage safety, collection management and frequency, and equipment management.

•            Part 246: Source Separation for Materials Recovery Guidelines.  Establishes the minimum actions recommended to recover resources from solid waste.

•            Part 247: Guidelines for the Procurement of Products that Contain Recycled Materials.  Establishes recommendations for procedures and specifications for procurement of recycled material products.

•            Part 255: Identification of Regions and Agencies for Solid Waste Management.  Establishes procedures for identification of regional solid waste management planning districts.

•            Part 256: Guidelines for Development and Implementation of State Solid Waste Management Plans.  Established guidelines for development and implementation of state solid waste management plans.

•            Part 257: Criteria for the Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices.  Establishes criteria used to determine which solid waste facilities could adversely affect human health and the environment. Criteria under Part 257 do not cover municipal landfills, as these are covered under Part 258. Facilities found to violate Part 257 are considered “open dumps”.

•            Part 258: Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Subtitle D Regulations).  Establishes minimum national criteria for the design and operation of MSW landfills, including operating, closure/post-closure, corrective action, groundwater monitoring, financial assurance and design criteria, as well as location restrictions. Design standards under Part 258 apply only to new landfills and lateral expansions of existing facilities.

•            Part 260: Hazardous Waste Management System – General.  Establishes definitions and an overview of Parts 260 through 265.

•            Part 261: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste.  Provides identification of materials classified and regulated as hazardous wastes under Parts 270, 271, and 124.

•            Part 264: Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities.  Establishes minimum national standards for the management, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes.

•            Part 265: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facilities.  Establishes minimum national standards for management of hazardous wastes throughout periods of interim status, until the facility in question receives certification of post-closure or closure.

•            Part 266: Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites.  Establishes minimum national standards for recyclable materials used in a manner to constitute disposal, hazardous waste burned for energy recovery, used oil burned for energy recovery, recyclable material used for precious metal recovery, and spent lead-acid batteries being reclaimed.

•            Part 270: EPA Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit Program.  Establishes application requirements, standard permit conditions, monitoring, and reporting requirements for EPA permitting for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste.

•            Part 271: Requirements for Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Programs.  Identifies the requirements for state programs to fulfill interim and final authorization, and the EPA procedures to approve, revise, and withdraw approval of state hazardous waste management programs.

•            Part 272: Approved State Hazardous Waste Programs.  Establishes existing approved and applicable state hazardous waste management programs.

•            Part 273: Standards for Universal Waste Management.  Establishes requirements for the management of universal waste, including batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and lamps.

•            Part 503: Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge.  Establishes standards, including general requirements, pollutant limits, management practices, and operational standards for final use or disposal of sewage sludge generated during domestic sewage treatment.

Save Our Seas 2.0 Act

(Public Law 116-224)

In December 2020, the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act was signed into law.  The Act contains three titles that enhance the United States’ domestic programs to address marine debris, international engagement to combat marine debris, and domestic infrastructure to prevent marine debris.  Among other actions, the Act authorized the creation of the Marine Debris Foundation to support the marine debris activities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, established grant programs for studies of waste management and mitigation, and formalized U.S. policy on international cooperation with respect to marine debris.

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

(Public Law 117-58)

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, provides $275 million for Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grants. This is allocated as $55 million per year from Fiscal Years 2022 to 2026 to remain available until expended. The EPA was provided an additional $2.5 million in Fiscal Year 2022 funding to implement the program. The Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grant program is authorized by the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act.

The Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling program provides grants to implement recycling strategies to improve post-consumer materials management and infrastructure; support improvements to local post-consumer materials management and recycling programs; and assist local waste management authorities in making improvements to local waste management systems.

RECYCLE Act

(Public Law 117-58)

The Recycling Enhancements to Collection and Yield through Consumer Learning and Education (RECYCLE) Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and was signed into law as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in November 2021.  RECYCLE creates a program within the U.S. EPA to bolster recycling education and authorizes up to $15 million per year over five years in grants to states, tribes, nonprofits, public partnerships, and local governments to ramp up commercial and municipal recycling outreach and education.  Under the law, the EPA is directed to develop a model recycling toolkit to bolster recycling participation and decrease contamination rates.  Where appropriate, the act also tasks the EPA with updating guidelines for products containing recycled material more frequently, as well as recommending that federal agencies purchase those items.

Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative

On 9 April 2019, the U.S. EPA, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a federal interagency strategy for reducing food waste, as part of the “Winning on Food Waste” initiative. The strategy includes six priorities to work towards a national goal of reducing food loss and waste by 50% by 2030.  The priorities include improving interagency coordination; increasing education and outreach; improving guidance and collaboration with private industry; and encouraging food waste reduction within the federal government.

Federal Clean Air Act

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)

The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1970 passed by Congress established the current framework for federal and State enforcement of air pollution standards.  The Act authorizes the federal government, through the EPA, to set standards for the control of air pollution and directs the State toward achievement of these standards. Title I of the CAA relates to emissions from landfills and authorizes regulations on emission collection and control. Title V of the CAA addresses pollutants with potential to emit, and authorizes regulations related to permitting for polluters. Landfills are subject to Title I and must obtain a Title V permit, in addition to any other facility that is considered a “major source” of pollutants under the CAA. Federal New Source Performance standards under the CAA impose national emission standards for newly constructed or modified industrial facilities, by imposing limitations based on the pollution control technology available to each category of new sources. The EPA has published guidance for new source review  to ensure  that major new sources do not adversely affect states’ attempts to achieve compliance with the national ambient standards. This program was designed to ensure that air quality would not significantly deteriorate in areas where the ambient standards are being met, primarily controlling new sources of pollution.

Federal Clean Water Act

(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)

The Clean Water Act is the framework for federal and State enforcement of water pollution control laws.  The Clean Water Act’s objective is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.”  Section 402 of this act establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to address the discharge of wastewater and runoff from solid waste management facilities into surface waters. NPDES permits are now required for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity and discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems under 40 CFR 122.26.  Among those entities considered to be engaging in industrial activity are landfills that receive or have received any industrial wastes, and facilities involved in the recycling of materials. The construction of facilities that may impact any rivers, lakes, marshes, swamps, or wetlands of the United States is addressed by Section 404, administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. Section 405 addresses the disposal of wastewater treatment biosolids.

Safe Drinking Water Act

(42 U.S.C 300f et seq.)

The Safe Drinking Water Act established regulations to protect human health from contaminants in drinking water.  This Act established maximum contaminant levels for parameters included in groundwater monitoring programs.

EPA Actions to Address Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

The EPA has recently taken several steps to reduce PFAS contamination in the environment.  For example, in December 2022, EPA issued guidance for states and municipalities to use the most current sampling and analysis methods in their NPDES programs to identify known or suspected sources of PFAS and to take actions using their pretreatment and permitting authorities. EPA has also proposed to designate the most widely used PFAS substances under CERCLA.  Additional information can be found here.

Federal Emergency Management Act

The Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) prohibits landfill siting within 100-year floodplain areas. Subtitle D of this act provides exceptions for units not preventing or restricting flows on the 100-year floodplain, reducing the temporary or permanent storage capacity of the 100-year floodplain, or resulting in washout of solid waste. 

Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act

Encourages co-generators and small power producers, such as municipal solid waste combustors, to supplement their existing electrical utility capacity. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is responsible for implementing regulations and setting limits on the power output of these facilities.

Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act (Introduced)

U.S. Senator Jeff Merkely (D-OR) and U.S. Representative Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) introduced the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act in March 2021 to tackle the plastic waste crisis.  The full text of the bill can be found here. 

Despite having 128 co-sponsors in the House and 15 in the Senate, the legislation stalled in 2022 and has not moved forward as of January 2023.

Maryland State Laws and Regulations

The state laws, initiatives, and policies relevant to this Plan include those focusing on MSW, special and hazardous waste, air emissions, and water pollution.  The Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended, includes all state laws passed by the legislature.  Laws addressing solid waste management are included in the Environment Article, which contains many of the laws affecting the location, design, and operation of solid waste disposal facilities.  Under the authority of Title 9, Subtitle 5, MDE is the State’s principal regulatory agency with respect to solid waste management and serves as the State’s lead agency for implementation of RCRA.  State regulations are compiled into a document entitled Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR).  A summary of relevant state legislation and guidance is found below.

Maryland Solid Waste Management Regulations

(COMAR 26.04.07)

This chapter of COMAR includes permitting requirements, operating procedures, closure requirements, and post-closure monitoring requirements for sanitary, rubble, land clearing debris, and industrial landfills. This chapter also describes permitting and operating procedures for processing facilities, transfer stations, and incinerators. In addition, this chapter provides guidelines and requirements for construction plans, specifications, and operation procedures for waste acceptance facilities.

Development of County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plans

(COMAR 26.03.03 and Environment Article, Annotated Code of Maryland §§ 9-503)

These chapters require that each county adopts and submits to MDE a 10-year comprehensive Plan that deals with solid waste management.  After submission to MDE for review, public hearing, and adoption of any required changes, the Plan is revised as necessary and resubmitted to MDE for approval.  Approved Plans are required to be reviewed at least every three years and updated or amended as necessary.  Plans are required to undergo comprehensive revision at least every ten years.

Storage, Collection, Transferring, Hauling, Recycling, and Processing of Scrap Tires

(COMAR 26.04.08)

This section of COMAR establishes a regulatory system for proper management of scrap tires. MDE authorizes scrap tire facilities and haulers by issuing licenses and approvals for facilities. The regulations provide general technical and operational standards for scrap tire facilities including storage procedures, closure procedures, and financial assurances. The system is funded by a recycling fee of $0.80 for each new tire sold in the State.

Natural Wood Waste Recycling Facilities

(COMAR 26.04.09)

Management of natural wood waste recycling facilities is regulated under this part of COMAR. Permitting requirements for processing facilities are established and general operational requirements and procedures are prescribed.

Rubble Landfill Regulations

(COMAR 26.04.07.13-26.04.07.18)

These regulations require liners and leachate collection systems for any new rubble facilities or new cells at existing facilities. 

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Substances

(Environment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland §§ 7-101 through 7-516)

This part of the Environment Article defines controlled hazardous substances, establishes requirements for facility permits, imposes obligations on transporters, and provides for appropriate enforcement actions.

Maryland Used Oil Recycling

(Natural Resources Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland § 8-1401)

In this subtitle, the Maryland Legislature expressed its desire that used oil be collected and recycled to the maximum extent possible.  The Department of Natural Resources is required to develop a public education program and to designate used oil collection facilities.  The Act prohibits disposal of used oil into sewers, drainage systems, natural waters, by incineration, or as refuse.

Maryland Hazardous Waste Regulations

(COMAR 26.13)

These rules concern the disposal of Controlled Hazardous Substances. Included are definitions of what is hazardous waste; standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste; and standards for owners and operator of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.

Management of Special Medical Wastes

(COMAR 26.13.11 through 26.13.13)

The definition of special medical wastes is set forth and standards for generators are established including a manifest system to track the transportation of special medical wastes.  Standards for transport vehicles are established.  Special medical wastes include anatomical material and blood-soiled articles.

State Laws Governing the Construction and Operation of Solid Waste Acceptance Facilities

(Environment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland §9-101 through §9-229)

Subtitle 2, Part II of the Environment Article, establishes permit requirements to construct and operate refuse disposal systems (sanitary, rubble, and industrial landfills; transfer stations; solid waste acceptance facilities; solid waste processing facilities; and incinerators) as part of the State’s overall power to regulate water supply, sewerage facilities, and refuse disposal systems. It sets forth requirements for public hearings for waste disposal facilities; landfill permit provisions (issuance, denial, revocation, term); security requirements for landfills, incinerators, and transfer stations; prohibitions on locating and accepting waste; and financial assurance requirements for sanitary landfills.

Under § 9-228, scrap tires may not be stored longer than 90 days, and a Statewide scrap tire recycling system is established. The material from scrap tires is to be recovered and reused; or, if this is impractical, the tires may be incinerated. Scrap tires may not be disposed of in a landfill.

Under §§ 9-1701 and 9-1708, a system for wood waste recycling activities is established. Recycling of tree debris, grass clippings and other natural vegetative matter is regulated under COMAR 26.04.09.

State Laws Affecting Recycling and Composting

A summary of the state laws affecting recycling and composting that are of specific relevance to preparation of this Plan is as follows:

1.           Maryland Recycling Act (1988): The Maryland Recycling Act (MRA) established a requirement for Maryland counties, based on a population of less than or exceeding 150,000, to reduce the County’s waste stream by 15% or 20%, respectively;

2.           Sludge Application (1993):  Regulates land application of sludges to protect the public health;

3.           Electronic Waste Recycling (2005): Requires computer manufacturers to pay an annual fee to fund local computer recycling programs;

4.           Public School Recycling Plans (2010):  Requires Counties to revise their Plans to address collection, processing, marketing, and disposition of recyclable materials from public schools;

5.           Fluorescent and Compact Fluorescent Light Recycling (2011):  Requires Counties to revise their Plans to include a strategy for collection and recycling of fluorescent and compact fluorescent lights that contain mercury;

6.           Recycling – Apartment Buildings and Condominiums Act (2012):  Requires Counties to revise their Plans to address collection and recycling at apartment buildings and condominiums as well as a method for implementing a reporting requirement, and requires building owners, managers, and councils with ten or more dwelling units to provide for recycling for residents on or before 1 October 2014;

7.           Recycling Rates and Waste Diversion – Statewide Goal Act (2012):  A revision to the 1988 MRA, this act requires Counties to revise their Plans to achieve an increase in the countywide recycling rate to 20% (counties with populations below 150,000) or 35% (counties with populations above 150,000) of the county’s solid waste stream by 1 July 2014, with full implementation by 31 December 2015; and

8.           Recycling – Special Events Act (2014):  Requires Counties to revise their Plans to address collection and recycling by organizers of certain special events, with implementation required before 1 October 2015;

9.           Environment – Recycling – Office Buildings Act (2019): Requires Counties to revise their Plans to include an Office Building Recycling Program (OBRP) to address recycling from office buildings with 150,000 square feet of office space or greater;

10.         Organic Waste – Organics Recycling – Collection and Acceptance for Final Disposal (2019): Prohibits the owner or operator of a refuse disposal system from accepting loads of separately collected organic waste for final disposal unless the owner or operator provides organics recycling;

11.         Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Products Ban (2020): Imposes a ban on the sale and use of food service products composed of expanded polystyrene;

12.         Food Scraps Management (2021): House Bill 264 (HB264) requires large food waste generators to divert food waste from disposal if those generators are located within 30 miles of an organics recycling facility with capacity and willingness to enter into a contract.

State Ambient Air Quality Control Laws

(Environment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland §§ 2-101 through 2-614)

This title of the State Code authorizes the regulation for the construction, modification, operation, and use of sources and controls over emissions.  It authorizes the adoption of rules and regulations for air pollution control including testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.  It allows for the identification of air quality control areas and mandates that MDE set emission and ambient air quality standards for air quality control areas.  Training for municipal solid waste incinerator operators is required under these provisions of the law.

Control of Incinerators

(COMAR 26.11.08)

Air emissions and operation of incinerators, which thermally destruct municipal solid waste, industrial waste, special medical waste, and sewage sludge, are regulated by this section of COMAR.  The regulations require continuous monitoring of air emissions.  Incinerators must also comply with general emission standards in COMAR 26.11.06.01 – 12 and 40 CPR § 60.

Voluntary Cleanup Program

(Environment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland §§ 7-501 through 7-516)

One problem arising from CERCLA was the extreme difficulty involved with the redevelopment of “Brownfields”. Brownfields are abandoned or underutilized properties where redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.  Recognizing this problem, EPA devised the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative.  This program is designed to empower states to assess, safely cleanup, and vitally reuse brownfields.  From this initiative, the State of Maryland established its Voluntary Cleanup Program which provides a streamlined remediation approval process, changes the liability scheme for prospective developers, and clarifies liability for all participants in the program.

Maryland Water Pollution Control Regulations

(COMAR 26.08)

These regulations contain:

1.           Water quality standards that specify the maximum permissible concentrations of pollutants in water, the minimum permissible concentrations of dissolved oxygen and other desirable matter in the water, and the temperature range for the water;

2.           Effluent standards that specify the maximum loading or concentrations and the physical, thermal, chemical, biological, and radioactive properties of wastes that may be discharged into the waters of the State;

3.           Procedures for water pollution incidents or emergencies that constitute an acute danger to health or the environment; and

4.           Provisions for equipment and procedures for monitoring pollutants, collecting samples, and logging and reporting of monitoring results.

As part of this regulatory scheme, these regulations require a discharge permit for discharges of wastes, wastewater, and stormwater into the waters of the State.  Sanitary landfills and incinerators receive special attention to determine whether they contribute pollution to stormwater runoff.

Legislation Not Passed or Repealed

The State Legislature has previously considered, but not passed, bills related to recycling of solar photovoltaics; prohibiting restaurants from providing single-use plastic straws to customers; recycling/diversion of paint; and encouraging recycling of mattresses and box springs.  These are listed here as a reminder that they may remain in consideration in upcoming sessions.

In December 2014, MDE published a guidance document titled “Zero Waste Maryland: Maryland’s Plan to Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle Nearly All Waste Generated in Maryland by 2040,” which set an overall 80% recycling goal and 85% waste diversion goal by 2040.  Although the Zero Waste Plan was subsequently repealed in 2017, it may be reissued in the future.

City Codes and Ordinances

The City has enacted several ordinances and codes pertaining to solid waste management, recycling, air quality, and water quality. 

Septage Management

Article 25 of the Baltimore City Code provides the mechanism for the City’s Waste Hauler/Scavenger Program.  Under the program, any company wishing to dispose of septage to the City wastewater system must first apply for and obtain a Scavenger Vehicle Permit Tag for each vehicle and pay an annual permit and tag fee.

Health Code of Baltimore City, Title 7

Title 7 of the Health Code deals directly with the handling and transportation of solid waste by private enterprises that choose to do so in the City of Baltimore. Synopses of the more pertinent subtitles in this article are listed below.

•            Subtitle 2: Solid Waste Collection - Requires the Commissioner of Health to issue permits for private parties engaged in the collection and disposal of solid waste. City collection activities are exempt. These sections also regulate collection methods and times and provide for inspection of vehicles.

•            Subtitle 4: Landfills - Requires private landfill operators to obtain an operating permit, obtain City approval of engineering plans, and post security against hazardous or unsafe operation. However, the City zoning laws do not permit anyone to operate a sanitary landfill except City government.

•            Subtitle 7: Littering- Provides a penalty for the disposal of trash in other than a proper receptacle or a manner approved by the City. It provides for the issuance of citations by police or an enforcement officer.

Mayor, City Council, and Municipal Agencies, Article 1, Baltimore City Code, Subtitle 40

Subtitle 40 establishes an Environmental Control Board to adjudicate civil citations issued for violations of City Code provisions pertaining to sanitation.

Baltimore Clean Air Act

The Baltimore Clean Air Act (BCAA), introduced as Council Bill 18-0306, was approved by the City Council on 11 February 2019 and signed by then Mayor Pugh on 7 March 2019.  The BCAA requires commercial solid waste incinerators in Baltimore to conduct continuous monitoring of multiple pollutants, including dioxins, furans, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxides (SOx), particulate matter, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and several heavy metals.  It also establishes significantly stricter emission limits for mercury, NOx, SOx, and dioxins/furans than are required under Maryland regulations. Because the State of Maryland does not allow jurisdictions within the state to enforce more stringent requirements than the state itself, the BCAA has been deemed unenforceable since its enactment in 2019.

Expanded Polystyrene Foam Ban

Baltimore City Council passed ordinance 18-0125 in April 2018 banning expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam food containers.  The law prohibits the use of EPS (or Styrofoam) as disposable food serviceware or packaging.  Items such as foam cups, clamshells, bowls, and plates will thus no longer be allowed in Baltimore.  The ban went into effect on 19 October 2019 and applies to all food service facilities, including restaurants, grocery stores, hospital cafeterias, mobile food carts, bars/taverns, market stalls, public and private schools, caterers, special event food vendors, summer camps, bakeries, and congregation kitchens.

Single-Use Plastic Bag Bill

The City Council passed ordinance 19-0401 on 18 November 2019 (signed 13 January 2020) to ban the distribution of single use plastic bags at the point of sale, and place a fee of a nickel for any other type of single use bag, including paper and compostable bags.  The program went into effect on 1 October 2021.

John F. Chalmers Sr. Act

The John F. Chalmers Dr. Act requires certain holders of permits issued by the Department of Housing and Community Development to submit a disposal plan with the permit application, requires permit holders to submit proof of disposal to the Department within a certain period of time after the permit work has concluded, and establishes citation amounts.

Net Zero Operations Bill

Mayor Brandon Scott signed the Net Zero Operations Bill into law on The City Council passed Ordinance 22-131 on 22 April 2022, which requires City operations to achieve net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2045.

Flexibility in Existing Regulations and Ordinances

This section will discuss what (if any) flexibility exists in state law and city zoning to have a “blanket” approval for a new composting facility in a designated location, so the City doesn’t have to reopen the SWMP every time a new facility is proposed.

2.      BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Population and land use practices are key influences of solid waste planning. Population trends are indicative of growth rates in consumption and waste generation. Likewise, land use practices and conditions affect waste streams and waste facilities. Chapter 2 of this Plan provides estimates of Baltimore City’s present and projected population, identifies federal facilities in Baltimore City, and discusses zoning codes and the City’s comprehensive land use plan as they pertain to solid waste management.

2.1       City Population

Table 2-1 below summarizes actual and projected population and household estimates in Baltimore City from 2020 – 2045, based on Maryland Department of Planning and U.S. Census Bureau data.

Table 2-1. Baltimore City Population Projections

Year

Population

(ppl)

Number of Households

(hh)

2020*

585,708

236,600

2025

594,530

240,300

2030

596,390

245,175

2035

596,920

248,775

2040

599,220

251,725

2045

603,440

253,475

AVERAGE ANNUALIZED GROWTH

0.12%

0.28%

*Actual data.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Baltimore’s population was 585,708 in 2020.  The Maryland Department of Planning projects that the city’s total population will increase by 0.3% between 2020 and 2025, by 0.06% from 2025 to 2030, and by 0.02% from 2030 to 2035.  The overall average annualized growth rate from 2020 through 2045 is projected to be 0.12% .

The Maryland Department of Planning also developed household projections over the period covered by this Plan . The number of households for 2020 was 236,600 while the projected number of households for 2035 is estimated to be 248,775.

2.2       Federal Facilities in the City

There are eight major federal facilities located in Baltimore City, the largest and only incorporated municipality in Maryland that is also a designated subdivision.. These facilities are shown on the map in Figure 2-1.

 

Figure 2-1. Major Federal Facilities in Baltimore City

As indicated in Figure 2-1, the major federal facilities located within the city are:

1.           G.H. Fallon Federal Building

2.           Garmatz Federal Courthouse

3.           Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

4.           U.S. Veterans Medical Center

5.           U.S. Post Office: Baltimore City Main

6.           U.S. Customs & Border Protection

7.           U.S. Coast Guard Yard

8.           Fort McHenry National Park

Other federal agencies with facilities in Baltimore include the Department of Treasury, the Department of Labor, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Veterans Administration, the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal District Court, the Bankruptcy Court, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Commerce- International Trade Administration.

Private contractors collect solid waste generated at all federal facilities in Baltimore City.

2.3       Zoning Requirements

This plan shall not be used to create or enforce local land use and zoning requirements. Baltimore City zoning regulations dictate the permitted location of solid waste management facilities, including composting facilities, materials recovery facilities, transfer stations, incinerators, and landfills. Typically, solid waste facilities are confined to industrial and commercial districts and designated as a conditional use. Each proposed facility site must be considered individually either by the City’s Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals or City Council. The zoning code referenced for the sake of this plan was last enacted & corrected in June 2017 and last amended in 2022.

A summary of the zoning for solid waste facilities, recycling facilities, and organics management facilities under the current zoning code can be found in Table 2-2. As indicated in Table 2-2, commercial or municipal incinerators are prohibited in all zoning districts. Baltimore City zoning code prohibits construction of any new sanitary landfills or incinerators, but allows landfills and incinerators constructed prior to 5th June 2017 to be classified as “lawful nonconforming structures”. As lawful nonconforming structures, existing landfills can pursue expansions of no more than 35% in additional land area if expanding onto property that is no more than 750 feet from the landfill’s property line, and onto the portion of that property closest to the existing use. Prior to June 5th, 2017, a City ordinance was required for approval of a new commercial or municipal incinerator.

Table 2-2: Summary of Zoning for Solid Waste Facilities

Solid Waste, Recycling, & Organics Management Facilities

Permitted Zones

Code

Condition

Incinerators (Commercial or Municipal)

Prohibited in all zoning districts

1-209

“Lawful nonconforming” if constructed before 5 June 2017; SWMP; Applicable Permits; Zoning Board Approval

Sanitary Landfill (Accepting Mixed Refuse)

Prohibited in all zoning districts

18-310

“Lawful nonconforming” if constructed before 5 June 2017; SWMP; Applicable Permits; Zoning Board Approval

Landfill: Industrial

I-2

14-318

SWMP, Applicable Permits, Zoning Board Approval

Recycling Collection Station

All Zones

15-515

Zoning Board Approval

Materials Recovery Facility

I-2

14-324

Applicable Permits

Recyclable Materials Recovery Facility

I-1, I-2

14-333

Applicable Permits

Recycling and Refuse Collection Facility

IMU-2, I-1, I-2

I-312

None

Resource Recovery Facility

I-2

14-335

Applicable Permits

Commercial Composting Facility

IMU-2, I-1, I-2

14-305

Applicable Permits

 

To operate in Baltimore, solid waste facilities must:

• Obtain zoning approval;

• Obtain a relevant permit from MDE; and

• Be amended into the Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan via legislation passed by the Baltimore City Council.

Industrial landfills must follow the above rules for solid waste facilities and may not accept residential or municipal solid waste, or rubble or land-clearing debris. Industrial landfills are allowed in I-2 industrial districts.

Recycling collection stations are conditionally allowed in all zones throughout the City, with Zoning Board Approval. Stations are defined as portable receptacles, usually trailers or roll-offs, for the collection of paper, cans, aluminum scrap, other non-ferrous metal scrap, glass bottles, and plastics. Larger processing centers are conditionally allowed in industrial areas to facilitate recycling.

Materials recovery facilities are conditionally allowed in the I-2 industrial district with all applicable permits. All loading and unloading at a materials recovery facility must be screened from public view, and all other operations must be performed within an enclosed building.

Recycling and refuse collection facilities are facilities whose primary purpose is the collection, storage, and transference of solid waste, yard waste, or recyclables. Recycling and refuse collection facilities do not include incinerators, junk, scrap, or storage yards, sewage treatment sites, landfills, or vehicle dismantling facilities.

Resource recovery facilities are defined as facilities that process solid waste to produce valuable resources, such as steam, electricity, or refuse-derived fuel, and achieve a volume reduction of at least 50% of the waste that is being processed. Resource recovery facilities do not include any facilities that process hazardous materials, any facility that is licensed by the State or City as a junk dealer, scrap metal processor, or scrap metal dealer, or any junk or scrap storage yard.

Commercial composting facilities performing indoor methods of composting (such as in-vessel methods) are conditionally allowed in the Waterfront Industrial Area outside the buffer. All commercial composting facilities must be operated and maintained in a manner that protects adjacent properties from nuisance odors and the attraction of rodents or other pests.

Composting is allowed on areas permitted under open-space farm and urban agricultural districts as long as the compost piles are located at least three feet away from any lot line, adjacent properties are protected from odors and the attraction of pests, and the resulting organic product is not sold. Bin composting is allowed within residential rear-yards, if kept at least three feet from lot lines.

The City’s Critical Area is defined as a 1,000-foot-wide strip measured adjacent to the mean high tide around the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. No solid waste facilities, including recycling facilities, are permitted in the Critical Area. In Baltimore City, the Patapsco River, Gwynns Falls, Jones Falls, and Colgate Creek tributaries contribute to the Critical Area.

The City’s comprehensive zoning regulations also accommodate facilities for managing special categories of solid waste. For example:

•            Management, discharge, and disposal of radioactive and hazardous waste is conditionally allowed, with Zoning Board approval, in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, and regulations that generally govern such waste. Composting of sewage sludge or yard waste is also an industrial use. These facilities require MDE and City Council approval.

•            Dismantling, processing, and storing of scrap metal and discarded automobiles are conditionally allowed, with a pollution prevention plan approved by the City and MDE. These uses are distinguished from materials recovery facilities because they require outdoor storage of large quantities of materials.

A summary of the City’s zoning regulations is included in Appendix C.

2.4       Comprehensive Planning and Land Use

Because Baltimore is Maryland’s premier metropolitan area and presents unique land use challenges, the City, in its entirety, is designated as a Priority Funding Area by the State. The revitalization of the City’s neighborhoods and preservation of their unique community character are major policies of the City, as articulated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Implemented in 1976 and most recently revised on September 9, 2009, the City’s Comprehensive Plan provides the policy basis for guiding redevelopment and revitalization of the City’s developed neighborhoods. Many other programs and urban renewal plans have been adopted and are de facto components of the plan. The City is currently in the process of creating a new Comprehensive City Plan (“Our Baltimore”). As the “Our Baltimore” Plan is still under development, this SWMP does not reference it.

 

3.      EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

This chapter analyzes the solid waste generation, import and export of waste, source reduction, diversion, collection, and disposal systems for the City of Baltimore. Existing facilities and methods for solid waste reduction, diversion, collection, and disposal in Baltimore are presented, and regional facilities are discussed. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on existing solid waste management systems are also presented. 

3.1       Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System

The key characteristics of the existing solid waste management system in Baltimore City are its mixed public/private system and its regional scope. Through DPW, the City primarily provides collection of waste and recyclables from single-family residences and condominiums under contract with the City as well as waste disposal, while private contractors provide collection services to most multi-family residences, non-contract condominiums, and commercial and industrial establishments.  A summary of the existing solid waste stream in the City is depicted graphically in Figure 3-1 overleaf, separated into residential waste and commercial waste.

Solid Waste Management System Provided by the City

The City utilizes both public and private facilities for transfer/disposal of waste and recyclables collected by DPW. A summary of the disposal, transfer, and drop-off facilities operated or used by DPW, and the recycling contracts held by DPW for the handling, recycling, and disposal of waste and recyclables, are presented below.

WIN Waste

DPW contracts with WIN Waste, a privately operated waste-to-energy (WTE) facility located in the southwest of the city, for disposal of mixed refuse. Under the current contract with WIN WASTE, which runs through 2031, DPW disposes of most of its acceptable waste (generally mixed refuse, excluding hazardous waste and non-burnable waste) at WIN WASTE, who delivers end-of-pipe ash materials to the Quarantine Road Landfill.  WIN WASTE recycles back-end scrap metal collected after incineration of waste.

Quarantine Road Landfill (QRL)

Mixed refuse collected by DPW but not sent to WIN WASTE is sent to QRL for disposal. QRL also accepts waste from other City agencies, commercial waste from licensed large haulers, mixed refuse and C&D waste from small haulers registered with the City’s Small Hauler Program, grit screenings from the City’s wastewater treatment plants, and WTE ash from WIN WASTE. Soil, including repurposed soil accepted for disposal, is used for daily and intermediate cover at QRL. A residents’ drop-off facility is also sited at QRL, which provides free disposal and recycling services to Baltimore City residents.

Northwest Transfer Station (NWTS)

DPW operates NWTS for transfer of mixed refuse and single-stream recycling.  Mixed refuse is sent to WIN WASTE or QRL while recycling is sent to the Waste Management Recycle America (WMRA) recycling MRF in Elkridge, Maryland.  NWTS also serves disposal facility for licensed small haulers and as a residents’ drop-off location, which provides free disposal and recycling services to Baltimore City residents.

Residents’ Drop-off Facilities

DPW operates a total of five residents’ drop-off facilities throughout the City where residents may dispose of various materials, including MSW, bulk trash, single-stream recycling, rigid plastics, scrap metal, scrap tires, household appliances, waste oil and antifreeze, household hazardous waste (HHW), electronics, and oyster shells.

.

 

 

 

Figure 3-1. Baltimore City Waste Stream Flow Diagram (Reproduced from the LWBB Report)

Notes for flow diagram on previous page:

1.           See Section 3.2 of this report for a description of MRA and non-MRA waste.

2.           Non-MRA Commercial waste tonnage is derived from 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report (non-MRA recyclables) and 2020 WIN WASTE tonnage report (commercial waste).

3.           MRA Commercial waste tonnage is derived from 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report (MRA recyclables) and 2020 MDE MRA Report (total MRA waste).

4.           MRA Residential waste tonnage is derived from 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report (MRA recyclables) and 2020 tonnage reports for NWTS, WIN WASTE, and QRL (mixed and residential waste).

5.           Non-MRA Residential waste tonnage is derived from 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report (non-MRA recyclables) and includes soil, asphalt, waste oil, and millings.

6.           Residential waste includes residential waste and waste from government buildings.

7.           Commercial waste includes commercial, industrial, and institutional waste.

8.           Waste flow to residents’ drop-off locations is calculated as the difference in total MRA waste (2020 MDE MRA report) and all other residential waste streams (see also Notes 9-12).

9.           Residential waste flow to WIN WASTE is calculated as the difference in total residential waste sent to WIN WASTE (2020 WIN WASTE tonnage report) and waste sent from NWTS to WIN WASTE (2020 NWTS tonnage report).

10.         Residential waste flow to NWTS is calculated as the total waste flow to NWTS (2020 NWTS tonnage report) minus the total waste hauled by small haulers in 2020 (see also Note 13).

11.         Residential waste flow to QRL is calculated as the sum of soil sent to QRL (presumably as daily and intermediate cover) and MSW sent to QRL (2020 QRL tonnage report) minus MSW sent from NWTS to QRL (2020 NWTS tonnage report, Note 23).

12.         Residential organics tonnage includes recycled leaves as reported in 2017 Baltimore City MRA Report.

13.         Commercial waste flow to NWTS is calculated from small hauler data (2020 Small Hauler Report).  The small hauler program began in April 2020, so tonnages for January-March 2020 are back-calculated estimates.

14.         The quantity of commercial recyclables is derived from the 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report (non-MRA recyclables, MRA recyclables) and includes all recyclables (MRA and non-MRA) not included in the organics waste stream (i.e. yard waste food waste, other organics, and treatment plant sludge).  See also Note 18.

15.         Commercial waste flow to WIN WASTE is derived from the 2020 WIN WASTE tonnage report.

16.         Commercial waste flow to QRL is derived from the 2020 QRL tonnage report and includes Back River and Patapsco grit screenings.

17.         Most commercial waste is hauled by private haulers and the City has no way to track this waste.  It is assumed that many of these haulers take waste to private facilities not included in this diagram (e.g. rubble landfills outside the City).

18.         Commercial organics tonnage is derived from the 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report and includes treatment sludge, yard waste, food waste, and other organics (e.g. wood waste).

19.         The quantity of recyclables from residents’ drop-offs is back calculated from the total recyclables included in the 2020 MDE MRA Report (557,600 tons with compostables and treatment sludge removed) and all other recyclable waste streams (see also Notes 14, 21, and 22).

20.         Waste outflows from residents’ drop-offs are unknown.  It is assumed that DPW sends little if any of this waste to WIN WASTE.

21.         Material outflows from NWTS to recyclables, WIN WASTE, and QRL are derived from the 2017 NWTS tonnage report.

22.         The quantity of recyclables recovered at WIN WASTE is back calculated from total metals reported in 2017 MDE MRA Report and other metals reported in Baltimore City MRA Report.  This value represents back-end scrap recovered from incineration of waste generated within the City.

23.         The quantity of WTE ash and soil landfilled at QRL is from the 2020 QRL tonnage report.

24.         Recycled C&D tonnage is from the 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report.

25.         Recycled soil tonnage is from the 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report (commercial soil only, which does not include soil used as daily and intermediate cover at QRL).

26.         Recycled metals tonnage is from the 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report (scrap metal and automobiles) and 2020 MDE MRA Report (all other metals, including back-end scrap from WIN WASTE)

27.         Recycled paper/cardboard, plastic, and glass tonnages are from the 2020 MDE MRA Report.

28.         Other recyclables include non-MRA recyclables (waste oil, antifreeze, oil filters, etc.) and MRA recyclables (tires, batteries, furniture, etc.) that do not fall in other recyclable categories.

29.         Tonnages for MSW components are derived from the Task 0 Winter 2019 waste sort conducted by Geosyntec and the total MSW tonnage reported for QRL (2017 QRL tonnage report).

30.         Treatment sludge tonnage is from the non-MRA recyclables category in the 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report.

31.         Yard waste tonnage is from the compostables (yard) category in the 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report.

32.         Food waste tonnage is from the 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report, and includes compostable food waste, food waste (non-mulch/compost), and food donations.

33.         Other organics tonnage is from 2020 Baltimore City MRA Report and includes wood materials and other compostables.

 

Mixed Recyclables

DPW contracts with private companies for processing of single stream recyclables, hard plastic, and mixed recyclables collected curbside by DPW and at residents’ drop-offs.  A full list of the vendors with whom the City contracts for recycling is included in Appendix D.

Other Recyclables

The following targeted recyclables collected as part of the bulk collection program and at residents’ drop-off locations are sent to private companies for processing: scrap metal, scrap tires, electronics, waste oil, HHW, and oyster shells.  Appendix D contains a full list of vendors that provide recycling services for the City.

Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge

Sewage treatment plant sludge (biosolids) from wastewater and drinking water treatment facilities in the City are sent to the Baltimore City Composting Facility (BCCF) in Hawkins Point, the Baltimore Patapsco Pelletizer (BPP), and the Back River Pelletech Facility (BRPF) for processing. 

Food Waste

In July 2021, Baltimore City staff launched a pilot food waste drop-off program for residential food scrap collection at the five residents’ drop-off centers. The pilot was funded by a grant agreement between the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Baltimore City as part of the Food Matters regional initiative.

Wood Waste and Brush

Wood waste and brush collected from City parks and street right of ways are sent to the Camp Small facility for sale and reuse.  The facility is operated by the Baltimore City Department of Recreation and Parks (BCRP).

Solid Waste Management System Provided by Others

Private haulers can dispose of waste generated in the city at any permitted disposal facility. This is one element of the regional solid waste management system. A second element allows private haulers to dispose of wastes generated outside the city at waste acceptance facilities located within the city limits, such as WIN WASTE and QRL. The constraints for importing solid waste into the city (as for exporting wastes out of the city) are the capacities of acceptance facilities and market considerations, including tipping fees and hauling costs. Since WIN WASTE is privately owned and operated, as are most of the other waste acceptance facilities in and around the city, they are free to compete in the marketplace to provide waste disposal services in response to demand from their customers.

The private component of the solid waste management system operates regionally and independently of City government. Private companies perform the same basic waste collection and management functions as the government without conflict.

The fact that so much solid waste management is independently and privately handled has implications for the City’s solid waste planning. The ability to quantify or precisely describe this privately managed solid waste and to determine how all of the solid waste within the City’s boundaries is generated, is limited to available data. Nonetheless, in an effort to comply with state regulations on comprehensive solid waste planning, this Plan has attempted to include regional considerations for privately collected waste generated within the City’s boundaries and solid waste from outside its boundaries disposed of at solid waste facilities within the City.

Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated already-steep competition for solid waste workers, particularly CDL drivers and machine operators. It also led to temporary staffing shortages as infected or exposed personnel quarantined for ten to fourteen days during the pandemic. Staffing challenges continue to impact the Bureau, two years after the start of the pandemic. This increased scarcity forced Baltimore City to focus on trash pickup and temporarily suspend curbside recycling collection. When curbside recycling returned in 2021, the Bureau reduced single-stream recycling collection service levels from weekly to once every two weeks.  The City also suspended street and sidewalk sweeping services in 2020 due to staffing shortages, and returned to quadrant sweeping first in 2022 and regular sweeping late in 2022. The City plans to return to pre-pandemic levels of collection service as soon as possible. 

Worker safety is paramount to DPW, and the measures implemented during the height of the pandemic continue to model the procedures that will be used moving forward. Testing locations were set up exclusively for solid waste workers, vaccines were required and encouraged, and leadership was able to prioritize services to complete the most critical tasks. Crews were required to wear appropriate PPE to prevent COVID transmission. The Bureau was held accountable by City Council, which initiated quarterly legislative oversight hearings and monthly reports addressing the return to weekly recycling pickup. These steps towards transparency and preparedness planning will make DPW more resilient to future challenges.

3.2       Existing and Projected Waste Generation

COMAR 26.03.03.03 (D) requires that Chapter 3 contain a table that shows existing and projected annual generation of specified categories of waste within the city. Further, the basis for the data presented in the table must be discussed. COMAR 26.03.03.04 (B) states that projections shall be given for the succeeding ten-year period at intervals of not more than five years.

The last year from which complete waste generation data were available is 2020. As such, 2020 is used as the baseline for this analysis. In compliance with the requirements of COMAR, waste generation projections in Baltimore City for 2023, 2029, and 2033 are presented in Table 3-1 on page XX.

Waste Classification in Maryland

Under Maryland law, solid waste generated in Baltimore is broken down into different categories by type based on classification under the Maryland Recycling Act. The Maryland Recycling Act (MRA) requires each jurisdiction in Maryland to develop and implement recycling programs.  Since December 2015, Baltimore City, and all counties with a population greater than 150,000, are required to attain a 35% recycling rate, which is calculated by dividing the tons of material recycled by the tons of materials generated, which in turn is defined as the tons of material recycled plus the tons of material disposed. 

To allow fair comparison between different jurisdictions, only certain materials can be included when calculating a county’s MRA recycling rate, which must be reported to MDE each year.   These include paper, plastic, glass, metal, compostables, and a broad category of miscellaneous materials (in 2021, the miscellaneous materials reported by the City as part of its recycling rate included vehicle tires, textiles, wood and pallets, and batteries).  Specific materials that are excluded from the calculation of the recycling rate include antifreeze, asphalt, concrete, coal ash, C&D debris, land clearing debris, scrap automobiles, scrap metal, sewage sludge, soils, waste oil, and a host of other materials.  Although the tons of these materials recycled are not counted when calculating the county’s MRA recycling rate, they are still reported to MDE each year.  This division of waste and recyclables into MRA and non-MRA materials is important in the context of understanding the reported recycling and waste diversion rates in this Plan and in comparing rates between different counties in Maryland.

The MRA also allows counties to take up to a 5% recycling credit for recovering energy from waste (considered resource recovery) if the county “achieves a reduction of at least 5% in the volume of its waste through the utilization of one or more resource recovery facilities in operation as of January 1, 1988.” In addition to the MRA recycling rate, the City reports a waste diversion rate to MDE on an annual basis. The waste diversion rate includes the calculated MRA recycling rate plus up to 5% credit for specific source reduction activities (the City’s source reduction activities are discussed in Section 3.3).

Non-MRA waste and recyclables include all categories of waste disposed in Baltimore that do not classify as MRA waste or recyclables as defined above.  

Sources of Solid Waste

The primary sources of solid waste generation in Baltimore are detailed below. In each category, it is indicated whether this waste is handled primarily by DPW or the private system.  Tonnages presented for each waste category are generally sourced from DPW or MDE.  The most recent calendar year for which complete records are available is 2020.

Residential Waste

Residential waste includes household trash, recyclables, and compostables generated by Baltimore residents.  In Baltimore, DPW collects residential waste alongside waste generated at City-owned or City-leased properties and condominiums under contract with DPW. As such, residential waste is sometimes reported as “mixed waste”, or MSW, by the City.  The total amount of residential waste generated in the City in 2020 was approximately 306,528. tons. This value includes recycled residential material as well as mixed or residential material disposed at QRL and WIN WASTE, less any tonnages deposited through the Small Hauler program at NWTS and QRL. Residential waste in Baltimore City is managed by DPW.

Commercial Waste

Commercial waste includes all recyclables, compostables, and trash generated by the private sector in Baltimore. This waste is almost exclusively collected by private haulers rather than DPW, so precise information on tonnages generated are not available.  However, information on the total amount of waste generated in Baltimore City and the total amount of commercial waste disposed at WIN WASTE is available.  Based on available data, an estimated total of 678,575 tons of commercial material was generated in the city in 2020. However, as commercial waste is part of the private system and is not directly tracked by the City, it should be noted that this value is a “best guess” estimate and may not represent the true amount of commercial waste generated in the City.

Industrial (Non-Hazardous) Waste

Industrial (non-hazardous) wastes are solids, liquids, and sludge generated by manufacturing or industrial processes that are not regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. In general, the City does not collect information on the character and quantity of this waste from the generators. Several industries dispose industrial non-hazardous waste in Baltimore. In 2020, 34,366 tons of industrial, non-hazardous waste was disposed within the city.

Institutional Waste

Institutional waste includes all waste generated by institutions (e.g., schools, hospitals, and government buildings) in Baltimore.  Most of this waste is collected by private haulers in the City (except for waste generated at government buildings, which is collected by DPW alongside residential waste).  As such, exact tonnages are not well quantified. For this plan, institutional waste tonnages are included in commercial waste tonnage projections.

Construction and Demolition Debris

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is refuse generated from demolishing buildings, streets, and other improvements and clearing of sites to prepare them for new construction, rehabilitation, street improvements, or utility installation. This refuse is primarily inorganic, consisting of concrete, brick, bituminous paving material, lumber, drywall, plaster, roofing material, and insulation. The estimate for C&D debris shown in Table 3-1 on page XX was calculated by summing Small Hauler program tonnages and recycled C&D tonnages.

Large private C&D contractors find it more economical to use private rubble landfill facilities to dispose of such debris, given the typically higher tipping fee per ton at QRL and other MSW landfills. However, no permitted rubble landfill existing within the city limits, and no information is available to the City on the amount of debris handled by the private sector and disposed of outside the city.

Land Clearing Debris

Land clearing debris is refuse generated from clearing of sites to prepare them for new construction, rehabilitation, street improvements, or utility installation, as well as debris from natural disasters. This category of waste is generally small enough to be included in C&D tonnages and is assumed to be zero for the period covered by this Plan.

Controlled Hazardous Substances

Controlled hazardous substances are those wastes whose disposal is regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA (see Section 1.3). Local governments in Maryland have not been granted authority to enforce federal or State regulations on the disposal of hazardous wastes. MDE, however, compiles information on the generators and the amounts of hazardous wastes being handled within Baltimore City limits and reports this information to EPA.

Each generator/facility is responsible for proper handling and disposal of its hazardous waste. These firms are required to use out-of-state processing plants or emplacement facilities. Though there are several closed hazardous waste landfill cells within Baltimore City, there is no landfill currently accepting hazardous waste within the city limits.

Dead Animals

Since Baltimore City is fully urbanized, most animal carcasses requiring disposal in the City are those of stray or unwanted cats and dogs. The division of Animal Control under Baltimore City’s Department of Health is responsible for removing animal carcasses from public property and for removing live animals that are defined as strays under the law. Animal carcasses are currently collected for disposal by private companies under contract with the City (see Section 3.2.5). In 2022, it is estimated that the City collected and sent to incineration approximately 38 tons of animal carcasses.

Animal carcasses collected by Animal Control are transported to Greenlawn Cemetery where they are incinerated. The contract allows for a flat fee per pound of animal carcasses.

Bulk or Special Waste

Bulk or special wastes as cited in the state regulations are automobiles, large furniture, and large appliances. It is estimated that city residents generated 7,616 tons of scrapped vehicles in 2020. The tonnage of white goods is taken from the City’s MRA Report and is based on the number that is accepted by the Bureau of Solid Waste or deposited at one of the City’s drop-off centers. In 2020, 9,943 tons were processed in the city. The tonnages for scrapped automobiles, white goods, appliances, and furniture are combined to equal a total bulk tonnage of approximately 17,563 tons in 2020.

Vehicle Tires

There were 930 tons of tire waste generated in the city in 2020. This number is largely representative of tires that have been recovered by City forces at drop-off locations and collected by City forces at illegal dumping locations. Tires collected by the City are currently sent to a facility in Harford County for processing and recycling. It is assumed that this tonnage will fluctuate from year to year, but not change significantly over the next ten years.

Treatment Plant Sludge

Treatment plant sludge is the solids remaining after wastewater and raw drinking water treatment.  Two treatment plants are located in the city as described below. Both accept sanitary wastewater from surrounding counties as well as the city.

In 2020, the Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant (BRWWTP) generated approximately 40,000 wet tons of sludge (or approximately 12,000 dry tons).  Through City contracts, private firms utilize the majority of the sludge for horticultural compost, a pelletized product for fertilizer, and as soil amendment. Any remaining sludge is sent to QRL for disposal.  As of 2022, the BRWWTP is conducting a set of digestor cleanout projects which has resulted in the production of higher than normal sludge volumes (roughly 25,000 dry tons produced in 2022).  This has resulted in approximately 12 loads of sludge per day being sent to QRL for disposal.  These elevated tonnages are expected to continue through 2026 before reducing back to normal levels (approximately 12,000 dry tons per year).

The number of wet tons of sludge generated at the Patapsco Wastewater Treatment Plant (PWWTP) increases each year as the population it serves grows.  In 2011, the average daily flow was about 62.8 million gallons per day (MGD) and the plant wet sludge generation grew to about 19.25 wet tons per day (3.06% solids content).  The wet sludge is then heat dried for stabilization.

The City operates three water treatment plants: Montebello I, Montebello II, and Ashburton. In 2011, the facilities generated approximately 2,200 tons of sludge. Sludge production at the three water filtration plants is not expected to increase appreciably.

Wood

Wood tonnages are considered recyclable MRA materials. Per Baltimore City MRA reports, 424 tons of wood materials were recycled in 2020, 100% of which were from the private system.  Additionally, 1,100 tons of logs and 900 tons of woodchips were processed at Camp Small.

Asbestos

Materials containing asbestos are not permitted to be disposed of at QRL. Any debris containing  asbestos that is generated in the city must be exported for disposal, since there are no waste acceptance facilities in the city at this time that accepts this material.

Soil

In 2020, 55,921 tons of soil were used as daily cover at the QRL. The 2020 MRA report included an additional 19,000 tons of recycled soil from residential sources and 65,630 tons of recycled soil from commercial sources. Altogether, 140,630 tons of soil were generated in Baltimore City in 2020.

Special Medical Waste

Special medical waste generated within Baltimore City is disposed of via incineration.  Approximately 26,063 tons of medical waste was disposed in 2020.

Asphalt

In 2020, the QRL did not dispose of any asphalt from residential sources. However, 48,000 tons of asphalt from commercial sources were recycled through private facilities.

Concrete/Brick

In 2020, no concrete/brick tonnages were recorded for the City.

Septage

Septage is only accepted at the BRWWTP. The septage discharge becomes part of the plant flows and is subject to the same treatment processes. The solids also become part of the overall sludge production and are subject to the same solids processing and disposal.

Any company wishing to dispose of septage into the city wastewater system must obtain a waste hauler permit, vehicle permit tag for each vehicle, and pay annual permit and vehicle tag fees. The program is regional in scope, recognizing programs developed cooperatively with the City program in Baltimore, Howard, and Anne Arundel Counties. The program dictates the types of wastes to be accepted, allows for city sampling of the septage, and reserves the city’s right to refuse acceptance of any load. Any violation of the program conditions can result in fines, revocation of permits, and/or prosecution of the permit holder.

Projected Waste Generation

The projections for 2023, 2028, and 2033 in Table 3-1 were derived from 2020 waste collection data recorded by the City and waste growth projections derived from the population data detailed in Section 2.  Specifically, an average annual growth rate of 0.12%, the same as the expected population growth rate between 2020 and 2045, was used to estimate waste generation for 2023, 2028, and 2033.

 

 

Table 3-1. Annual Waste Generation in Baltimore City 2020 – 2033

Annual Generation (Tons)

Waste Category

2020

2023

2028

2033

Residential (MSW)

308,652

309,765

311,628

313,502

Commercial (MSW)

656,597

658,964

662,927

666,914

Industrial (Solids, liquid, etc.)

34,366

34,490

34,697

34,906

Institutional (schools, hospitals etc.)

0

0

0

0

Demolition Debris (C&D)

87,394

87,709

88,236

88,767

Land Clearing

0

0

0

0

Controlled Hazardous Substance (CHS)

0

0

0

0

Dead Animals(1)

38

38

38

38

Bulk or Special Waste

17,563

17,627

17,733

17,839

Vehicle Tires

930

934

939

945

Treatment Plant Sludge

12,031

25,000

15,000

15,272

Wood

2,424

2,432

2,447

2,462

Asbestos

100

100

101

102

Soil

140,630

141,137

141,986

142,840

Special Medical Waste

26,063

26,157

26,314

26,473

Asphalt

58,000

58,209

58,559

58,911

Concrete/Brick

0

0

0

0

Septage

0

0

0

0

Total Waste Generation

1,344,788

1,362,561

1,360,606

1,368,971

Total MRA Waste Generation

723,959

726,568

730,938

735,334

Total MRA Recyclables

79,904

145,314

204,663

257,367

MRA Recycling Rate

15%

20%

28%

35%

1. Dead Animals number for 2020 uses 2022 actual due to a lack of 2020 information.

Disposed Waste Composition

Table 3-2 below displays Baltimore City’s waste stream in percentages by material type and source. The data in Table 3-2 was sourced from the 2019 Baltimore City Waste Characterization Study performed as part of the LWBB project.

 

Table 3-2. Summary of Disposed Waste Composition in Baltimore

Category

Sub-Category

Residential Waste

Commercial Waste

% of Total Generated

 

 

Organics

Food Waste

20.5%

8.9%

13.4%

 

 

Yard Waste

11.3%

3.1%

6.3%

 

 

Mixed Organics

<0.1%

0.5%

0.3%

 

 

Traditional Recyclables

Cardboard

7.7%

6.5%

7.0%

 

 

Mixed Paper

5.8%

3.5%

4.4%

 

 

HDPE/PET

4.0%

1.5%

2.5%

 

 

Mixed Plastic

17.3%

6.0%

10.4%

 

 

Aluminum Cans

1.3%

0.5%

0.8%

 

 

Steel Cans

2.4%

1.8%

2.0%

 

 

Mixed Metals

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

 

 

Glass

2.9%

1.9%

2.3%

 

 

C&D

Lumber

0.7%

4.4%

3.0%

 

 

Clay Bricks

<0.1%

1.3%

0.8%

 

 

Concrete

0.6%

40.1%

24.7%

 

 

Asphalt Concrete

<0.1%

8.1%

4.9%

 

 

Asphalt Shingles

<0.1%

1.4%

0.9%

 

 

Soil

0.1%

<0.1%

<0.1%

 

 

Drywall

0.3%

1.6%

1.1%

 

 

Non-Traditional Recyclables

Bulk Waste

0.8%

0.5%

0.6%

 

 

Textiles/Carpet

0.1%

<0.1%

0.1%

 

 

Other

<0.1 %

<0.1%

<0.1%

 

 

Unclassified

-

24.1%

8.2%

14.4%

 

 
   

TOTAL

 

 100%

100% 

100%

   

 

 

MRA and Non-MRA Waste and Recyclables

As indicated previously, solid waste generated in Baltimore is broken down into different categories by type based on classification under the Maryland Recycling Act. Figure 3-2 overleaf contains a summary of the City’s MRA and Non-MRA waste generation and composition in 2020.

MRA Waste

MRA waste includes MSW and industrial waste from non-private, industrial waste landfills.  It does not include recycled or disposed MSW ash or backend scrap metal recovered at WIN WASTE.  A total of approximately 803,863 tons of MRA waste was generated in Baltimore in 2020.  Of this, approximately 79,904 tons of material was recovered (see discussion on MRA recyclables below) while 723,959 tons were sent for disposal.

MRA Recyclables

MRA recyclables include compostables (yard waste and other organics), paper, plastic, metal, glass, and other materials recovered or diverted from the waste stream prior to disposal.  MRA categories are summarized below.

Paper and Cardboard

Recycled paper includes corrugated cardboard, newspaper, mixed paper, magazines, and office/computer paper diverted from the waste stream. 

Plastic

Recycled plastic includes Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET/PETE) and High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) bottles and containers, film plastics, and other mixed plastics diverted from the waste stream.  Note that PET/PETE and HDPE are classified as No. 1 and 2 plastics, respectively, in many recycling programs. 

Metal and Glass

Recycled metal includes aluminum cans, tin/steel cans, and metal household appliances (e.g., washers, dryers, refrigerators, etc.)  diverted from the waste stream.  Recycled glass includes mixed glass and fluorescent light tubes diverted from the waste stream. Fluorescent lights are not recycled through the City’s curbside recycling collection.

Yard Waste and Other Organics

Yard waste includes brush, branches, grass, and leaves diverted from the waste stream and composted.  Other organics diverted from the waste stream mainly include food waste, wood materials, and donated food.  This material may be composted, donated, or recycled by other means (e.g. anaerobic digestion, mulching, etc.). 

Other

This is a broad category of materials that count towards MRA recycling, including animal proteins/fats, electronics, textiles, tires, toner cartridges, batteries, and furniture.

 

Figure 3-2. Total MRA and Non-MRA Waste Generated in Baltimore City in 2020

MRA Recycling Rate

The City’s historic MRA recycling rate as well as the composition of MRA recyclables from 2011 through 2020 is shown in Figure 3-3.  As noted previously, the MRA allows counties to take up to a 5% recycling credit for recovering energy from waste (considered resource recovery) if the county “achieves a reduction of at least 5% in the volume of its waste through the utilization of one or more resource recovery facilities in operation as of January 1, 1988.”  Baltimore City recovers energy from waste and thus takes this credit.

 

Figure 3-3. Baltimore City Historic Trends in MRA Recycling (2011 – 2020)

As indicated above, the City’s MRA recycling rate was 15% in 2020. In addition to the MRA recycling rate, the City reports a waste diversion rate to MDE on an annual basis.  The waste diversion rate includes the calculated MRA recycling rate plus up to 5% credit for specific source reduction activities (the City’s source reduction activities are discussed in Section 3.3).  In 2020, the City earned a 5% credit in recognition of its source reduction efforts. As such, the City’s waste diversion rate for 2020 was reported to be 20%.  Both the City’s MRA recycling rate and its waste diversion rate are below the MRA required 35% recycling rate and the statewide average MRA recycling rate of 38% and waste diversion rate of 42%.

Over the planning period, the MRA recycling rate is projected to increase over the planning period as the City is committed to meeting the state mandated 35% recycling goal.

Non-MRA Waste

Non-MRA waste includes MSW collected from commercial sources as well as C&D debris, soil, and a wide range of other materials that are ultimately diverted for recycling.

The vast majority of non-MRA waste in Baltimore is collected by private haulers.  As such, limited information is available for generation of this material.  The quantities of non-MRA waste listed below include recycled non-MRA waste reported in the 2020 MRA report for the city (including non-MRA recyclables as well as soil disposed at QRL) as well as other non-MRA waste generated in the city (e.g., C&D waste).  A total of 541,000 tons of non-MRA material was generated in Baltimore in 2020, of which about 240,000 tons was sent for disposal at WIN WASTE or QRL.

Non-MRA Recyclables

Approximately 301,500 tons of the 541,000 tons of non-MRA materials generated in the city in 2020 were reported to be recycled.  The predominant categories of non-MRA recyclables include C&D debris, soil, sewage sludge, and scrap metal.

Construction and Demolition Debris

This category of materials includes asphalt, concrete, bricks, drywall plaster, siding, wood pieces, and roofing, as well as general land clearing debris generated in Baltimore. 

Soil

Recycled soil includes soil that has been put to beneficial reuse by DPW (i.e., as fill material in City projects). However, soil used as daily and intermediate cover material at QRL is not included in this category in this Plan.

Scrap Metal

Recycled scrap metal includes materials left over from product manufacturing and consumption such as vehicle parts, building supplies, and surplus metals. DPW provides scrap metal recycling at five of the residents’ drop off facilities. 

Sewage Sludge

Sewage sludge is the semi-liquid waste obtained from the processing of municipal wastewater sewage.  In Baltimore, this material is composted or converted into a pelletized soil amendment or fertilizer by private companies. 

Other

Other types of recycled non-MRA waste in Baltimore include antifreeze, waste oil, oil filters, industrial fluids, millings, and a host of miscellaneous materials. 

3.3       Existing Waste Reduction and Diversion Programs

Waste reduction and diversion efforts in Baltimore exist in both the system operated by DPW and the private system.  This section describes both public and private source reduction, reuse, and diversion programs in the city.

Single Stream Recyclables

The City has undertaken many recycling programs to improve participation in curbside recycling programs, comply with state law (e.g., by monitoring recycling efforts in office and apartment buildings), and educate constituents on the importance of recycling.

Curbside Recycling Program

DPW provides curbside SSR collection once every two weeks, Tuesday through Friday, to each single-family residence located in Baltimore.  There is no maximum amount of recyclable material that can be collected from each residence.  Materials accepted in the SSR collection program include aluminum and steel/tin cans, cardboard, glass containers, mixed paper, and plastic bottles and jars.  A full listing of acceptable and unacceptable materials is available here.  The City is currently trying to return to once weekly SSR collection as soon as is feasible. DPW drivers do not currently have capacity to provide once-weekly collection due to staffing shortages.

Public Education and Outreach

The City provides information about waste disposal and recycling programs, what materials can be recycled, locations of Residents’ Drop-off facilities, disposal of household hazardous waste, and source reduction initiatives on the City’s website (www.baltimorecity.gov) and on DPW’s social media outlets (Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, NextDoor, and Twitter).  Waste reduction and reuse is promoted at City-organized spring and summer festivals and at special events throughout the year.  DPW also places recycling memos and information in a monthly newsletter provided with the water bill sent to all residents.  More information on specific education and outreach programs is provided below.

Source Reduction Programs

According to the 2020 Source Reduction Report published by MDE, Baltimore participated in the following source reduction initiatives::

1.           Conducting an ongoing, multi-faceted public education program promoting grass-cycling and/or home composting of yard trimmings;

2.           Distributing publications exclusively promoting and describing how to utilize grass-cycling and/or home composting of yard trimmings to at least 30% of single family households within the last three years;

3.           Conducting an ongoing multi-faceted, public education program promoting food donation and food composting;

4.           Hosting a source reduction event for the general public;

5.           Incorporating source reduction information into a county website;

6.           Promoting source reduction in schools on an ongoing basis;

7.           Including a source reduction curriculum or ongoing activity in schools;

8.           Integrating source reduction into ongoing county employee training and education programs;

9.           Distributing source reduction materials to at least 30% of residents within the last three years;

10.         Distributing source reduction materials to at least 30% of businesses within the last three years;

11.         Developing or updating a solid waste reuse directory within the last three years;

12.         Conducting a focus group or a survey of residents about source reduction within the last three years;

13.         Developing or maintaining a system for referring people to a materials exchange program;

14.         Working with a targeted sector of the business community to achieve source reduction;

15.         Conducting a source reduction training session, workshop, or presentation at a business, institutional or community event;

16.         Conducting workshops demonstrating proper food composting techniques;

17.         Developing or maintaining permanent food composting demonstration sites;

18.         Operating a program to promote pallet reuse;

19.         Establishing or maintaining a City procurement policy advancing the purchase of materials that result in reduced waste generation;

20.         Incorporating green building codes/requirements in City construction, remodeling, and maintenance bid specs and contracts; and

21.         Holding team meetings, at least quarterly, that included representatives from major City departments, in which source reduction was discussed as a formal part of the agenda.

Recycle Right and Social Media

The Office of Waste Diversion is investigating using and improving digital technologies to help educate the public about solid waste management and recycling in Baltimore. In addition to utilizing DPW’s social media accounts to promote source reduction, the Office of Waste Diversion developed a “Recycle Right” webpage that gives guidance on recycling and promotes source reduction. Waste diversion and recycling messaging and materials are created and managed in coordination with the City’s Communications Office.

Polystyrene Ban

Under Ordinance 18-125, food service facilities in Baltimore are prohibited from using disposable food service ware made from polystyrene (Styrofoam). The ban is intended to force businesses in the City to replace polystyrene containers with recyclable or compostable alternatives.  The City works with a coalition of environmental non-profits to provide educational material to local businesses and residents about alternatives to polystyrene and the best way to dispose of carry-out containers.

Plastic Bag Ban

On July 9, 2021, the Comprehensive Bag Reduction Act, also known as the Plastic Bag Ban, went into effect. The Act prohibits grocers and other retailers from supplying customers with plastic bags at point of sale, pickup, or delivery. It specifically applies to plastic “check out” bags that have a thickness of less than 4 mm. Paper bags and compostable plastic bags are permitted. However, compostable plastic bags must be recognized as meeting ASTM D6400 standards, as well as capable of biological decomposition. The use of any accepted single use bags is accompanied by a fee of at least five cents charged to the customer. Of these five cents, one cent is paid to the city of Baltimore, with the rest retained by the business. The City has also distributed free reusable bags to residents.

Plastic bags are not accepted in curbside recycling due to the damages these materials cause to MRF machinery. Plastic bags and bagged materials are the largest contributors to contamination in single stream recycling. The comprehensive bag reduction act assists with the removal of plastic bags from the recycling stream, as well as decreasing plastic pollution in our streets, parks, and waterways.

Electronic Timekeeping System

In 2020, the city implemented an electronic timecard system, called Workday. This citywide system eliminated the need for paper time sheets, overtime slips, and leave slips. It has reduced vast quantities of timekeeping paperwork.

Electronic Invoice Processing System

DPW, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of General Services, which are the three largest City agencies that work with consultants and contractors, are using an electronic, paperless invoice review and approval process.

Municipal Can Program

In 2016, the City provided every household subject to trash collection by DPW with a 65-gal. wheeled trash can specifically for mixed refuse.  By providing all households with a trash can with a tight-fitting lid, the City aimed to reduce wind-blown litter, prevent rodents and other animals from foraging in trash cans, and standardize trash collection in the city to reduce the strain on trash collection workers.  The program was also launched with the intent of reducing total trash generation in the city by providing all residents with a standardized bin size that is considerably smaller than the maximum collection volume of 96 gallons mandated under the One PLUS ONE program.

Recycling Can Program

In September 2021, the City launched delivery of nearly 200,000 65-gallon curbside recycling carts to city residents.  This initiative was conducted in coordination with the Recycling Partnership, the American Beverage Association’s Every Bottle Back Initiative, Closed Loop Partnership, Dow, the Baltimore Civic Fund, and Rehrig Pacific.  The goal of this initiative was to increase access to curbside recycling and improve recycling participation. Delivery of recycling carts was completed in February 2022, and DPW is monitoring the impacts of the rollout through reporting required through the agreements with the program’s lending partners.

Recycling Partnership Grant for City-Recycling Campaign

Baltimore City received a cash grant of $250,000 from the Recycling Partnership in May of 2020 to support resident engagement in curbside recycling and improved quality of materials. In addition, the Recycling Partnership provides access to campaign materials, staff time, and other in-kind services with a total estimated value of $125,000.

Residents are often confused about which materials are recyclable and how to properly prepare recyclables for collection. In response, the City seeks to provide targeted, specific outreach to residents to encourage recycling, provide guidance about what can be recycled, and implement other programmatic elements with the goal of decreasing the contamination rate of curbside recycling.

Campaign elements included an informational card mailed to all households in Baltimore in order to make sure each household receives current, accurate information about the recycling program. Supportive messaging and campaign materials were placed throughout communities on various structures. In addition to providing outreach directly to households and in public spaces, City staff hand out informational items and discuss the proper way to recycle at various community events. Social media advertisements are also used to help increase reach and to engage with residents. Outreach materials promote the city’s “Recycle Right” webpage. Targeted recycling routes with high levels of contamination receive extra outreach. Recycling crews place “oops” tags on recycling that is contaminated or set out in a plastic bag.  This helps remind residents of the opportunity to recycle right. 

Recycling Initiatives in City Schools

DPW participates in multiple school initiatives to encourage and promote recycling.  These include:

1.           The Eco Warriors Challenge, a competition among city schools for students and families in which students earn badges and service learning hours.  The top three elementary, middle, and high schools with the most badges win a cash reward.

2.           Conducting recycling presentations in schools that discuss waste reduction and reuse, what is and is not recyclable, and recycling at home;

3.           Providing schools that recycle properly and consistently with 65-gallon recycle bins (this program is planned and has not yet been implemented); and

4.           Designing school specific recycling posters.

Additional information on the Baltimore public school recycling program can be found in Appendix E.

Apartment Building and Condominium Recycling Program

Per Maryland Code, Environment Article 9-1711, each property owner or manager of an apartment building or a council of unit owners of a condominium that contain 10 or more dwelling units shall provide recycling collection and removal for the residents of the dwelling units.  The apartment building and condominium recycling plan is provided in Appendix F1, and a list of all eligible apartment buildings and condominiums is provided in Appendix F2. 

Baltimore City provides recycling roll-off container collection for condominiums with 50 tenants or more, but recycling collection is provided at the discretion of the condominium owners. Recycling roll-off container collection is also provided for apartment buildings, regardless of tenant size, at the discretion of the property owner or apartment manager. 

Special Events Recycling Program

Per Maryland Code, Environment Article 9-1712, all special event organizers are required to provide recycling at special events that meet the following criteria:

•            Includes temporary or periodic use of a public street, publicly owned site or facility, or public park;

•            Serves food or drink; and

•            Is expected to have 200 or more persons in attendance.

In addition, special event organizers are required to provide all labor or equipment necessary to facilitate recycling; place recycling bins adjacent to each trash can; ensure recycling bins are easily distinguishable from trash receptacles; ensure recyclable materials are collected and processed for recycling; and pay any costs associated with recycling at the event. The Special Events Recycling Plan is provided in Appendix G1, the special events location list is provided in Appendix G2, and the special events recycling flyer is in Appendix G3.

The City provides recycling receptacles and collection for eligible special events if the special event organizer requests them. Otherwise, special event organizers hire private haulers to provide recycling services.

Office Building Recycling Program

During the December 2019 legislative session, the Maryland General Assembly passed Senate Bill 370, Environment – Recycling – Office Buildings which requires the County Recycling Plan to address the collection and recycling of recyclable materials from buildings that have 150,000 square feet or greater of office space. Owners of office buildings that meet the criteria are required to provide recycling receptacles for the collection of recyclable materials. The office building recycling plan is provided in Appendix H.

Owners of buildings that have 150,000 square feet or greater of office space are responsible for providing all containers, labor, and equipment necessary to fulfill recycling requirements, either directly or through contracting with a private sector company. The office building owners and tenants shall recycle corrugated cardboard, mixed paper, acceptable plastic bottles and jugs, and tin/aluminum beverage containers.

Monitoring of the recyclable material collection in office buildings will be conducted by the owner, corporate management company, or tenants of each applicable office building. The city requests office building owners to submit an annual Maryland Recycling Act (MRA) report detailing the recycling tonnages removed from the office building(s), but there is currently no enforcement mechanism in place to require reporting.

Cigarette Butt Recycling

In 2016, fifteen cigarette butt recycling receptacles were installed near bars, restaurants, movie theaters, and coffee shops in the Harbor East neighborhood of the City.  A reported 55,000 cigarette butts were collected within the first six months of the initiative. The cigarette butts were processed into compost and shipping pallets. Although the City received a grant in 2018 through BMore Beautiful, the City’s peer-to-peer beautification program, to install 90 new urns and provide marketing outreach on cigarette recycling, the cigarette butt recycling program has since ended.

In addition to the cigarette butt recycling program, the City of Baltimore and Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott filed a joint lawsuit in November 2022 to hold cigarette manufacturers accountable for cleanup costs associated with tobacco product litter.

Paper Shredding

To promote paper recycling with residents and businesses in the City, DPW holds shredding events three to four times per year.  During these and all other DPW events, educational materials on recycling and source reduction are provided to participants.  In 2022, Shred Events collected over 19.5 tons of recyclable paper, and averaged more than 200 cars per event.

Organics

Currently, there is no centralized large-scale organics diversion program in Baltimore.  Organics diversion (mostly composting) is available through local community collectives, small-scale farm-based initiatives, small-scale privately contracted collection, or personal backyard compost systems.  In a 2018 survey of stakeholders reported in the LWBB Plan, 7% of respondents stated they perform some form of backyard composting while 8% participate in a community composting initiative.  However, these rates are unlikely to represent citywide averages as survey takers were self-selected and thus more likely to be interested/involved in waste reduction initiatives.

City Initiatives to Combat Food Waste

In September 2018, the City began working with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Rockefeller Foundation to implement strategies laid out in the BFWRS by establishing the Food Matters pilot food waste management project in which local establishments are awarded grants of up to $10,000 to support the City’s goals of reducing food wastage.  Through 2022, eleven applicants have been awarded grants. In addition to the $10,000 grants, the Food Matters program resulted in the creation of a support network of community composting sites, allowed providers to explore different types of in-vessel systems, allowed for the creation of additional educational materials targeting source reduction, and created awareness of the connection between compost and local food provision systems.

The Food Matters program also included implementing the “Save The Food Campaign” in Baltimore City. The “Save The Food Campaign” is a large-scale consumer campaign targeted at food waste prevention at the household level. The campaign was launched with an event series consisting of five events focused on food waste issues, including a movie screening about food waste reduction. Ten food waste reduction community sessions were held across the city to connect with key community stakeholders, in order to promote in-home composting. These community gatherings were integral to raising awareness of food waste challenges. In addition to these events, the campaign has a video and website. The website includes tips on how to store food to preserve it longer, recipes for utilizing parts of produce that is often discarded, information on the harm of food waste, and more. The project is also working with institutions on food waste prevention and compost, supporting enhanced community composting, educating the public about food waste prevention, and is supporting the Maryland Food Bank in food rescue options.

Additionally, in June 2019 the NRDC issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a food waste financing and funding assessment in Baltimore to evaluate opportunities to leverage financing and/or funding strategies to support the food waste reduction strategies laid out in BFWRS.

The City has implemented a free food scrap drop-off program for residents. Collection bins are placed at DPW’s five residential convenience centers, the downtown farmer’s market and bazaar, and the Waverly farmer’s market. Food scraps collected at the two farmer’s markets is donated to local farmers, who use it for compost and animal feed. At the two farmer’s market locations, the program makes a consistent effort to educate the public on strategies relating to food waste reduction and broader environmental stewardship. Each person is invited to weigh their scraps and offered the opportunity to provide information about their housing type and location, as well as participate in a short survey.

Donation and Food Rescue Organizations in Baltimore

The largest and most established food rescue/donation organization in Baltimore is the Maryland Food Bank.  Other, smaller organizations include Food Rescue Baltimore, the Food Recovery Network, Helping Up Mission, Paul’s Place, the Franciscan Center, Bmore Community Food, Our Daily Bread, Community Fridge, Hidden Harvest, and Hungry Harvest.  As a result of these food rescue/donation efforts, it is estimated that 5,750 tons of food was distributed to food insecure Baltimore residents in 2018 (NRDC 2019). 

In addition to major food rescue organizations, there are some other establishments offering possible synergies regarding food waste work in the Baltimore region.  These include:

1.           Center for Eco Technology:  A national non-profit supporting food waste prevention and diversion at the local and state level.  They support the development of a wasted food diversion marketplace.

2.           Food Rescue US/EAT Management:  Operated by a former chef/restaurateur turned food waste consultant. Currently supporting the advancement of the Food Rescue US platform designed to increase food rescue efforts with volunteer support.

Grass-cycling

The City provides comprehensive information that encourage residents to practice Grass-cycling and on-site composting of yard trim materials. Educational efforts to promote Grass-cycling and composting include:

•            Grass-cycling presentations provided during community association meetings;

•            Distribution of informational flyers and pamphlets during free city-wide festivals, like the African American heritage festival, Artscape, Book Festival, and Ecofest;

•            Inclusion of grass-cycling tips in the DPW calendar, which is mailed to all city residents; and

•            Distribution of educational materials on DPW social media accounts.

Community Composting Programs

Small-scale community composting programs also operate within Baltimore. Whitelock Community Farm allows residents to bring food scraps for composting, while the Baltimore Compost Collective provides weekly food scrap collection from homes in South Baltimore and composts the material at the Filbert St. Community Garden in Curtis Bay.  The Village of Violetville currently collects compostable materials from the neighborhood in a local side alley and contract with Compost Crew to collect and compost these materials.  Compost Cab provide a home pickup service for compostables in the Baltimore/Washington area.  Mundea, a small private company, offers all-in-one waste management solutions for compost, recyclables, and residual waste.  Other haulers who take compost materials include Veteran’s Compost, Waste Neutral, and Compost Crew. These providers are currently engaging with Baltimore area restaurants to help reduce their waste stream through composting and recycling.

Construction and Demolition Debris

The City currently does not offer any formal C&D recycling opportunities.  However, several reuse and repurposing facilities in the city provide residents and businesses with opportunities to reduce the amount of C&D material sent into the solid waste system. 

Second Chance

Second Chance, Inc. is a non-profit deconstruction and building material reuse center in Baltimore that employs displaced or unemployed members of the community and trains them in deconstruction methods.  Second Chance focuses on deconstructing and salvaging valuable building materials from homes and other structures that are to be demolished.  These materials are then sold for reuse or repurposing.  The center also accepts donations of building materials and household fixtures and appliances.  Second Chances reports having diverted over 2.2 million lbs. of waste from landfill disposal since the non-profit’s beginning.

The Loading Dock

The Loading Dock, Inc., a non-profit building materials reuse center, reports to have diverted approximately 12,000 truckloads of materials from landfill disposal since 1984.  The center accepts paint, lumber, plumbing fixtures, appliances, doors, cabinets, windows, caulks, moldings, and other reusable materials from the home building industry.  Donated materials can be dropped off at the center.

Habitat for Humanity of the Chesapeake

Habitat for Humanity of the Chesapeake (HHC) is a non-profit organization focused on bringing investment to underserved communities in the Baltimore area through the construction and renovation of homes.  In addition to constructing/renovating homes, HHC also operates six ReStores which sell new and gently used furniture, building materials, and appliances at discount prices.  ReStore locations accept donations of furniture, appliances, cabinets, building materials, houseware, hardware, lighting/electrical, flooring, plumbing, doors, and windows.

Bulk Waste

Durable Medical Equipment (e.g., wheelchairs, walkers, scooters, etc.) is collected at the residents’ drop-off centers at NWTS and QRL through a partnership with the Maryland Department of Aging.  These materials are refurbished and reused.  Appliances are collected curbside via 311 or at residents’ drop-off centers and recycled as scrap metal.

Other Waste Reduction and Diversion Programs

Reuse and Repurposing of Clothing and Textiles

Goodwill, St. Vicente de Paul of Baltimore, the Sew Lab, Helpsy, Planet Aid, and the Salvation Army operate multiple locations within Baltimore for the donation and resale of clothing, shoes, and household items. Additionally, Donation Town, an online resource, will help to connect Baltimore residents with local charities that will pick up donations from residents’ homes.  Sharp Dressed Man accepts donations of men’s formal business attire and provides it to residents engaged in workforce and career development programs.

Other Reuse Facilities

In addition to those listed above, multiple other reuse organizations exist within Baltimore.  For example, the Lions Club in Baltimore will accept donations of old eyeglasses for distribution to others in the city.  Vehicles may be donated at Vehicles for Veterans or St. Vincent de Paul in Baltimore.  Other facilities exist for donation of books, furniture, electronics, musical instruments, sports equipment, and other items.

Community Programs

DPW supports three notable community programs aimed at improving waste collection and reducing litter in the city.  The Community Pitch-In Program empowers residents to tackle the trash problems in their neighborhoods.  Community associations can request up to four roll-off dumpsters yearly to aid in such cleanup efforts.  The Mayor’s Annual Spring and Fall Cleanups are multi-agency, citywide events that encourage residents to clean up their communities.  DPW offers bags, roll-off dumpsters, and same-day bag collection to participating community organizations and business organizations.

The BMORE Beautiful Program, introduced as the Clean Corps program in 2015, is a collaboration between the Mayor’s Office, Office of Sustainability, DPW, Department of Housing and Community Development, the Environmental Control Board, and non-profit partners including Baltimore Green Works and the Waterfront Partnership.  It utilizes the core principles of community-based social marketing and peer-to-peer networking to engage, educate, and motivate residents, businesses, schools, and neighborhood associations to change their behavior toward litter, trash, and proper waste disposal. The goal of the program is not only to change behaviors and attitudes toward the beautification of the city, but also to encourage residents, businesses, and organizations to become directly involved in activities and projects that will keep their neighborhoods clean. To meet this goal, the City works closely with neighborhoods on their unique beautification projects and cleanliness challenges, and provides educational literature, outreach materials and other resources.  A resident in each piloted neighborhood volunteers to be the block captain, following the role model of engagement. They are responsible for recruiting neighbors to sign the pledge and participate in the program, organizing ongoing beautification and cleaning activities, leading others to change their negative behaviors regarding neighborhood cleanliness, and educating their neighbors on how to comply with City Code requirements and how they can keep their neighborhoods beautiful through simple, easy-to-follow behaviors.

Additionally, BMORE Beautiful supports community beautification goals by offering small and innovative grant programs that address an array of neighborhood beautification and engagement needs. Current grant opportunities include Love Your Block, Say YES! (Youth Environment Stewardship) Program, and Care-A-Lot Grant.

The Baltimore Clean Corps Initiative, a partnership between the City and local nonprofit and community based organizations, provides grants to hire unemployed or underemployed residents to clean and care for community-selected sites.  Cleaning activities may include maintaining vacant lots, cleaning alleys, and maintaining trash receptacles in specific neighborhoods.  Clean Corps grantees will support the City to provide services in thirty three eligible neighborhoods that have been hit particularly hard by the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic crisis until January 2025.

Smart Cans

Solar powered trash compactors fitted with sensors and communications devices that let DPW know when they need to be emptied have been deployed in the City and have been in service in the Inner Harbor for several years.  In 2018, 64 Smart Cans were deployed in South Baltimore in conjunction with attached recycling cans. Smart cans help reduce litter in the city by avoiding instances where litter cans are full and excess material gets piled upon or around the can, where it is more susceptible to being spread by wind and vermin.

 

3.4       Existing Waste Collection System

This section includes a description of existing solid waste collection systems, including service areas. The description is presented below, with more detail provided on the services provided by DPW than on private collection services.

Under Article 23 of the Baltimore City Code, the City is responsible for collecting all “mixed refuse” from dwelling houses, apartment houses, tenant houses, boarding houses, hotels, restaurants, hospitals, and other places where such refuse is accumulated. Residential waste collection services are offered to over 210,000 homes in Baltimore.  These services include curbside collection as well as access to five residents’ drop-off centers.

Property owners whose accumulated solid waste is not collected by the City are served by private waste haulers who contract individually with property owners to provide collection services (and who also may contract with waste acceptance facilities). However, a small amount of commercial recycling in the City is handled by DPW. As the City is largely uninvolved in the management of waste collected by private haulers, its discussion is limited in scope in this Plan.

The City’s solid waste and recycling collection services are managed geographically using the quadrant system, which is divided into Northeast, Southeast, Northwest, and Southwest (see Figure 3-3).  Routine Services, Special Services, and Property Management services are included within each quadrant division.  Routine services provide mixed refuse and single-stream recyclables collection from city residences and small businesses.  Special Services provide dirty alley and street cleaning, graffiti removal, and bulk pick up.  Property Management handles vacant properties, providing boarding, cleaning, and removal of high grass and weeds.  In addition, Property Management provides rat abatement services on rights-of-ways and on private properties with the property owner’s permission. 

 

Figure 3-3. Map of DPW’s Collection Quadrants

Quadrant Division Chiefs report directly to the Head of the BSW.  The downtown area (Central District) is not in one of the four quadrants and is managed separately by the Chief of Marine Operations and maintained in collaboration with the Downtown Partnership. Collection services run seven days a week, excluding holidays, and residential collections occur Tuesday through Friday.

While the BSW is primarily responsible for trash collection in the city, agencies such as the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Department of Education collect waste from their respective facilities.

Mixed Refuse

Residential mixed refuse collection is provided by BSW’s Environmental and Routine Services Division to over 210,000 homes. Since July 2009, regular mixed refuse collection services are provided once a week by the City to each location served, Tuesday through Friday with Saturday being a make-up day for missed holiday collections. The maximum waste volume limit of mixed refuse per household per week is 96 gallons.

The City’s Routine Services Division collects all mixed refuse generated at City parks, single-family residences, and City litter baskets.

The Special Services Division provides mixed refuse collection services for those multi-family residences (generally condominiums) that the City is obligated to service. The Special Services Division also provides regularly scheduled cleaning of business districts, streets and alleys, and some City-owned lots and parks. These operations are coordinated by the same borough supervisors responsible for the residential mixed refuse operation.

The amount of residential mixed refuse collected by City crews varies by season. Generally, collected waste tonnage is higher in spring and summer compared to the winter season, with the largest amounts collected in May and July.

DPW will only collect waste from addresses that generate less than 96-gal. weekly.  As a result, commercial mixed refuse is predominantly collected via the private system, with individual waste haulers contracting directly with businesses and institutions in the city.

DPW and MDE have few means of determining the exact types, quantities, and disposal fate of all mixed refuse collected in the private system.  However, it is estimated that roughly half of commercial mixed refuse collected in the City is disposed at WIN WASTE.

Single-Stream Recycling

The City’s curbside recycling program was described in Section 3.3.

Most commercial recycling occurs through the private system, however, DPW provides curbside recycling to some Baltimore businesses.  Most participating businesses set out recyclables for once-a-week pickup.  As of 2022, about 800 recycling containers are on the recycling business collection route serviced by the City.  However, the exact number of businesses that participate in the City’s recycling program is unknown as many businesses set out more than one container per address, have different levels of collection frequency per container, or simply place their recycling container out with residential recycling carts for curbside pickup.

Bulk Waste

Collection of bulk items in Baltimore is coordinated via the quadrant system and occurs once per month at residential locations that have scheduled for bulk waste pickup.  To arrange for bulk waste collection, residents must make a service request to 311 two to three months prior to their desired collection date, although pickup can happen faster depending on availability. Pickup may not be available on the requested date depending on the backlog of pickup requests. Materials accepted for bulk collection include furniture, appliances, and tires (without rims).  Bulk waste is either recycled (e.g., appliances are drained and recycled as scrap metal) or disposed (e.g., furniture).  C&D debris (e.g., drywall concrete, siding, wood pieces, and roofing) is not eligible for bulk trash collection.

Yard Waste and Leaves

Residential yard waste is collected by load packers along with mixed refuse on trash collection days throughout the City.  Residents may place as many as five bags of leaves per household for curbside collection each week.  Additionally, from October through January, residents may make a service request to 311 for special Monday pickups of as many as 20 bags of yard waste. Yard waste is disposed at WIN WASTE.   Leaves on City streets and other lots are collected using mechanical sweepers and load packers (although the sweepers are not specifically designed for this purpose) and disposed of at WIN WASTE or QRL.

Residents’ Drop-off Centers

City residents may drop off waste and recycling for free at the Residents’ Drop-off Centers located at QRL or NWTS as well as three other full-service convenience centers – Western Sanitation Yard (Reedbird Ave), Eastern Sanitation Yard (Bowleys Lane), and NW Citizens Convenience Center (Sisson St).  These facilities provide additional disposal capabilities to city residents and accept bulk trash, commingled recycling, rigid plastics, scrap metal, scrap tires, appliances, waste oil and antifreeze, electronics, and oyster shells on a year-round basis.  In addition, DGS operates three convenience centers that only accept commingled recyclables – York Road Substation, Calverton Road Substation, and Lewin Substation.  A listing of acceptable materials at each drop-off facility is available here.  Figure 3-4 shows the locations of the residents’ drop-off centers.

Baltimore City Residents can dispose of their Household Hazardous waste on designated collection dates (about 14 per year) at the Northwest Residential Drop-Off Center on 2849 Sisson Street. Accepted materials include automotive fluids, batteries, glycols (e.g. Antifreeze), household cleaning products, insecticides/pesticides, thermometers, florescent light bulbs, solvents, fire extinguishers, oil-based pain, varnishes and stains.  A private company exports Baltimore City HHW for proper processing and disposal.

 

Figure 3-4. Map of Residents’ Drop-off Centers

Rodent Eradication

DPW has operated the Rat Rubout Program in Baltimore since 2010.  The goal of the program is to reduce the rat population in the City to prevent property damage and to limit the spread of disease.  Under the program, City pest control workers inspect and bait active rat burrows at residential properties as a result of either a citizen complaint (via a service request to 311) or as a proactive blitz.  In 2022, the City performed approximately 135,943 proactive inspections and 5,488 inspections as a result of citizen complaints.  In addition to inspecting and baiting active rat burrows, City pest control workers in the program educate residents on how to keep their properties free of the trash and debris that attract rats.

Christmas Trees

In December and January, the City collects trees in curbside collection of mixed refuse. Trees collected curbside are sent to QRL or WIN WASTE for disposal. During this period, the City also allows residents to drop off Christmas trees at multiple locations throughout the City where they are given the option to mulch their trees and collect the mulch.  Any mulch not taken by residents is disposed at QRL or WIN WASTE. 

Waste from City Parks

DPW services the trash cans from 262 parks and 43 recreation centers on a weekly basis.  Parks and recreation centers are also able to schedule bulk trash pickup by request.  Waste from the parks and recreation centers is included in the residential waste stream.

Animal Manure and Carcasses

The main producer of animal manure is the Maryland Zoo in Baltimore.  The City collects manure from the zoo multiple times each week.  Approximately 850 tons of manure is removed from the zoo annually and sent to QRL for disposal.  Most animal carcasses collected in the City are those of stray cats and dogs.  The Health Department collects animal carcasses for incineration.

Cleanup of Illegal Dumping

Illegally dumped waste remains a persistent issue in Baltimore with an estimated 10,000 tons of waste illegally dumped annually.  DPW responds to 311 service requests to investigate and clean up illegal dumping.  However, dedicated alley and lot cleaning crews have recently been able to address illegal dumping “hot spots” without relying solely on 311 complaints.  According to the December 2022 Illegal Dumping Remediation report published by DPW, the City’s ’s cyclical response to illegal dumping incurred costs of over $26.7 million in FY 2022 on right-of-way cleaning services, which includes street and alley cleaning, mechanical street sweeping, marine operations, and cleaning of business districts.  DPW’s Office of Communications and Community Affairs is actively engaged in educational outreach to engage residents in preventing and reporting illegal dumping. DPW tracks and reports illegal dumping across the city and uses targeted marketing strategies to deter unwanted behaviors in high-incidence areas.

Marine Debris

The City provides cleaning services for the inner harbor and surrounding waterways via DPW’s Marine Operations Unit, which operates seven days a week.  The Marine Operations Unit uses multiple skimmer and bass boats to remove debris from harborways. Skimmer boats are designed to skim the waterways for debris and store the debris on-board while bass boats are smaller boats that are used by operators to remove debris using a net.  Baltimore was the first city in the nation to use skimmer boats for debris removal.

The City also receives assistance from Waterfront Partnership and their trash wheels (e.g., “Mr. Trash Wheel”) to collect marine debris.  Trash wheels are solar-powered watercraft that intercept trash at the end of a river, stream, or other outfall.  There are trash wheels installed at several key waterway locations that have historically funneled trash into the harbor. 

Street and Sidewalk Sweeping

The City operates a fleet of mechanical street sweepers in addition to human sidewalk sweepers to collect litter and dirt from the main streets and sidewalks in Baltimore.  Mechanical sweepers operate 74 routes on a weekly basis while sidewalk sweepers and all terrain ride on vacuum sweepers operate daily primarily within the business district and gateway areas.  A total of over 7,000 tons of dirt and debris is collected by street and sidewalk sweepers annually.

Cleanup and Trash Removal at Encampments

While residents remain at a homeless encampment, DPW will remove trash from the site until the Department of Health can provide residents with temporary housing.  DPW also provides cleanup services to areas used as homeless encampments after residents have been provided alternative housing.

Small Hauler Program

In April 2017, the City extended the successful Small Hauler Program at QRL to allow small haulers to also use NWTS.  Small commercial waste haulers include those who contract with others for collection, transportation, or disposal of solid waste; or engage in the collection, transportation, or disposal of solid waste.  The program was designed to encourage small haulers to apply for a City permit, reduce instances of illegal dumping, and allow for more efficient disposal of commercial waste.  Small haulers may dispose of their loads at NWTS and QRL for a disposal fee of $20 per load up to 7,000 pounds and $3.38 per 100 pounds above 7,000 pounds.  In 2020, approximately 31,500 tons of waste was delivered to NWTS and QRL under the small hauler program.

3.5       Import and Export of Solid Waste

The types and quantities of solid waste imported into the city for disposal that are known to be significant are discussed below. These wastes include residential mixed refuse, commercial/institutional mixed refuse, scrapped automobiles, special hospital waste, and wastewater treatment plant sludge. Wastes believed to be exported are also listed; however, the City has very little information concerning exported waste amounts.

Types and Quantities of Waste Imported

Mixed Refuse

In addition to Baltimore City, WIN WASTE accepts waste from Baltimore, Harford, Howard, Anne Arundel, Montgomery, and Prince George’s Counties. In 2020, WIN WASTE accepted XXX tons of commercial and residential refuse. A majority of this waste, XXX tons, is mixed MSW from Baltimore City. All of the ash produced by processing the waste at WIN WASTE is delivered to QRL. In 2020, WIN WASTE generated approximately 125,000 tons of ash, which was disposed at QRL. Approximately 40% of the net weight of material disposed at QRL was WIN WASTE-produced ash.

Scrap Automobiles

Scrapped automobiles from wrecking yards throughout the metropolitan area are imported to the multiple licensed automobile scrap processors and recyclers located in the city. Although metal from these automobiles is ultimately reused inside or outside the city, processing also generates 0.3 tons per automobile of non-recycling material (fluff) that requires disposal. Fluff is no longer accepted at QRL.

Scrap Tires

Emanuel, the major tire recycler in the city , has the capacity to process six million scrapped tires annually. Approximately half of the scrap tires that Emanuel processes are non-Maryland scrap tires.

Special Medical Waste

Special medical waste and mixed refuse from area medical facilities is imported to the City’s medical waste facility for incineration. The ash residue remaining after incineration is exported for disposal.

Household Hazardous Waste

Household hazardous waste collected across the region is imported to a City vendor for proper processing and disposal. The treatment facility accepts a variety of industrial wastewater and acts as a transfer station for other industrial waste including flammables, oxidizers, poisons, and reactive agents.

Types and Quantities of Waste Exported

Residential Mixed Refuse

Most of the City’s exported waste is collected and hauled by private waste collectors. This is based on the limited number of disposal facilities available within the city and the amount of waste collected by private haulers.

Residential Recyclables

All residential recyclables collected by the City are exported to a WMRA, a private MRF in Howard County. In 2020, the City collected and exported 18,200 tons of recyclables. Recyclables collected by private haulers within the city are also exported.

Scrap Tires

Scrap tires collected by the City are exported to a company in Harford County for recycling and disposal.

Electronics

Electronics collected at resident’s drop-off centers are exported for recycling. 

Controlled Hazardous Substances

Controlled hazardous substances generated within the city are exported for processing or disposal.  

Animal Carcasses

Animal carcasses collected by the City are exported for incineration.

Special Medical Waste

Some special medical waste is exported for processing or disposal.

3.6       Existing Waste Transfer Facilities

Figure 3-5 contains a map showing the location of all permitted solid waste transfer stations in the city.

 

 

Figure 3-5. Permitted Waste Transfer Stations in Baltimore City

 

Northwest Transfer Station (NWTS)

(N 549,500; E 890,000)

The 6.595-acre NWTS at 5030 Reisterstown Road is owned and operated by the City. The station’s design capacity is 600 tons of mixed refuse per day. In 2010, the City renewed the facility permit for the NWTS with a capacity of 150,000 tons per year. In 2020, the facility accepted and transferred 59,858 tons of material.  The current permit for this facility expires in 2026.

To assure the long-term vitality of this solid waste institution, improvements to NWTS were completed in 2020. This project was primarily focused on the exterior walls of the facility and the roof. The facility has an anticipated service life of more than 20 years.

Triumvirate Environmental Medical Waste Transfer Station

(N ; E )

This environmental and medical waste acceptance facility, located at 2300 Sun Street in Curtis Bay, accepted and transported 12 tons of waste in 2020.  The facility is located on 20 acres and its permit expires in 2025.

Stericycle, Inc.

(N 500,000; E 921,500)

This autoclave facility is located on a 2.4-acre site at 5901 Chemical Road. The facility has an annual capacity of 22,800 tons . The site accepts chemotherapeutic, pharmaceutical, and pathological waste, however that waste is then shipped to its facility in Haw River, North Carolina where it is incinerated.  The facility accepted 20,856 tons of waste in 2020. The facility has an anticipated remaining service life of over 20 years.

Daniels Sharpsmart

(Latitude/Longitude 39.2701/-76.5305)

The facility is located at 6611 Chandlery Street. In 2020 this 0.939 acre site accepted 2,073 tons of medical waste. The facility’s current permit expires in 2024 and its anticipated remaining service life is at least twenty years.

3.7       Existing Waste Processing and Recycling Facilities

Figure 3-6 contains a map showing the location of permitted solid waste processing and recycling facilities in the city.

 

Figure 3-6. Permitted Waste Processing and Recycling Facilities in the City

BFI Baltimore Processing and Transfer Center

(N 500,000; E 920,500)

The facility is located at 5800 Chemical Road.  The processing center is both a materials recovery center and a waste transfer station located on 15.6 acres. The facility accepted 147,723 tons of waste in 2020.  The facility’s current permit expires in 2024 and its expected service life is unknown.

World Recycling Company

(N 39.273194; E -76.658422)

The facility is located at 2740 Wilmarco Avenue and accepts recyclables for processing.  The City contracts with this facility to accept mixed recyclables and hard plastic.  However, the facility often does not have capacity to accept loads from the City.

L&J Processing Facility

(Latitude 39.17.27, Longitude 76.39.38)

The facility is located at 222 North Calverton Road, on a 0.932-acre site. The facility accepts and process demolition&D waste for reuse. The facility started accepting waste in October 2011, and in 2020 it accepted 31,586 tons of waste.  The facility’s current permit expires in 2022.

Baltimore Recycling Center, LLC

(N 535,000; E 920,000)

The facility is located at 1030 Edison Highway. This 12.5-acre site, accepts only construction and demolition debris. The facility’s current permit expires in 2024 it and accepted 162,037 tons of waste in 2020. The anticipated remaining service life of the facility is over 20 years.

Camp Small

(N 39.348247; E-76.647837)

Camp Small is a natural wood waste collection yard run by the Baltimore City Department of Recreation and Parks (DRP). The 5-acre site is located in the Jones Falls Valley just north of Cold Spring Lane. All logs, branches, wood chips, leaves, and brush collected from City parks and street right of ways are brought to Camp Small for processing.  Approximately 2,000 tons of wood waste was processed at Camp Small in 2020.

In early 2016, the DRP Forestry Division, in collaboration with the Baltimore Office of Sustainability, began the Camp Small Zero Waste initiative in an effort to sort and distribute the variety of wood products at the site. Under the Camp Small Zero Waste Initiative, prime logs, wood chips, and brush are sorted and made available for purchase by city residents and businesses. 

Baltimore City Compost Facility

(N 501,000; E 928,000)

This facility is located at 5800 Quarantine Road on seven and a half acres of the 157-acre QRL site. The composting facility is privately owned and permitted to receive sewage sludge generated at the City’s Back River and Patapsco Wastewater Treatment plants. The plant has a design capacity of 200 wet tons per day. The sludge is mixed with wood chips and aerated to produce 75,000 cubic yards/year of biosolids compost that is marketed in the Mid-Atlantic region to landscapers, nurserymen, contractors, topsoil manufactures, golf courses, and commercial growers.  In 2011 the facility accepted 28,038 wet tons of bio-solids and generated 33,968 cubic yards of compost to market. The facility could potentially provide twenty-plus years of additional service.

Back River Pelletech Facility

(39.297010; -76.496377 )

The Back River Pelletech Facility (BRPF) is located at the BRWWTP for processing sewage treatment sludge generated at BRWWTP. BRPF is a heat drying and palletization facility that processes liquid and semi-liquid treatment sludge into a pelletized product that is marketed as a fertilizer and soil conditioner. BRPF processes roughly 70% of the treatment sludge generated at BRWWTP on a dry weight basis.

Baltimore Patapsco Pelletizer

(N 39.232380; -76.566838)

The Baltimore Patapsco Pelletizer (BPP) facility is located at the Patapsco Wastewater Treatment Plant (PWWTP) for processing sewage treatment sludge generated at PWWTP.  BPP is a heat drying and pelletization facility that processes liquid and semi-liquid treatment sludge into a pelletized product that is marketed as a fertilizer and soil conditioner. BPP processes all of the treatment sludge generated at PWWTP on a wet and dry weight basis.

Other Recycling Companies and Facilities

MDE does not require recycling facilities in Maryland to be permitted as waste acceptance facilities. As such, it is difficult to determine exactly how many recycling facilities exist in Baltimore City. A list of city-based recycling facilities and programs is included in Appendix I.

3.8       Existing Waste Disposal Facilities

Figure 3-7 contains a map showing the locations of all permitted waste disposal facilities in the city.

 

Figure 3-7. Permitted Waste Disposal Facilities

 

Quarantine Road Landfill (QRL)

(N 500,000; E 925,000)

QRL is located at 6100 Quarantine Road on a 153-acre site in Hawkins Point, 126 acres of which is utilized as a landfill. It is owned by the City and operated by the BSW.

The first cell of the landfill was constructed and began accepting waste in August 1985. Originally, the landfill was designed as six cells surrounding a central core that was to remain in place. The design capacity was approximately 11.2 million cubic yards with an expected 9.1 million cubic yards or approximately 5.4 million tons allocated for waste. The remaining volume was allocated for cover material.

In August 1994, the City performed a series of life expectancy studies which determined that the industry standard of 1.67 cubic yards/ton should not be applied at QRL due to the high percentage of ash accepted at the facility (ash is considerably denser than MSW).  Actual operations indicated that 1 ton of QRL debris was occupying 1.12 cubic yards of volume and in 2010, an aerial life-expectancy study was performed that indicated that 1.18 tons of debris was occupying one cubic yard of volume.  According to the tonnage report produced for the landfill in 2021, the landfill is currently expected to reach its permitted capacity in 2028.

A lateral expansion of QRL onto the adjacent Millennium Landfill is currently planned, with submission of the Phase III permit application report to MDE occurring in October 2022.  Based on the Phase III report, the lateral expansion will increase the landfill’s total capacity by 5.7 million cubic yards and extend its service life through 2035. 

In 2020, QRL accepted approximately 255,441 tons of waste.  This included 130,180 tons of mixed MSW and 125,261 tons of MSW ash from WIN WASTE.

Table 3.9-X below summarizes the types of customers that can deposit waste at the QRL, current fees paid, and the locations they can utilize.

Table 3.9 - X. QRL Waste Acceptance Criteria and Tipping Fee Schedule (2022)

Customer Type

Yearly Permit Fee

Tipping Fee

Fee Per Load

Drop-Off Center?

Working

Face?

Restrictions

Resident

None

None

None

Yes

No

Valid ID;

Max. 1,500 lbs./load

Max. 2 loads/day

Max. 5 loads/week

Small Hauler

$35

None up to 7,000 lbs.

$20

No

Yes

Small Hauler Permit;

Additional $3.38 charged per 100 lbs. over 7,000 lbs.

Large Hauler

$100

$67.50 per ton

None

No

Yes

 Large Hauler Permit

 

QRL currently does not assess or advertise fines for residential or commercial clients caught illegally dumping or misplacing materials at the DOC or working face. However, QRL does enforce bans on residents or permit holders who are caught violating posted guidelines.

 

WIN WASTE

(N 523,500; E 905,000)

The WIN WASTE plant is located at 1801 Annapolis Road on 15 acres of City-owned land. The plant was previously owned and operated by the private company Wheelabrator Technologies, a subsidiary of Energy Capital Partners, but is now owned and managed by the private company WIN Waste. It was constructed in 1984 and became fully operational in 1985. In 2022, WIN WASTE began upgrading its emissions technology to reduce air pollution.  The upgrades are expected to be completed in late 2023. The anticipated remaining service life of the plant is over 20 years.

The WIN WASTE plant is structured around three mass-burning, water wall furnaces. These furnaces can burn up to 2,250 tons of refuse per day at temperatures between 2,400- and 2,800-degrees Fahrenheit. This combustion process generates heat that is used to convert water into steam. Operating at full capacity, WIN WASTE can produce as much as 500,000 pounds of steam per hour. The steam is used to drive turbines and generate up to 64 MW of electricity. Residual steam is sold to the district heating and cooling system in downtown Baltimore.

During optimal operating conditions, approximately 10 percent of the raw incoming waste by volume and 27 percent by weight remains in the form of ash residue after combustion, from which ferrous and non-ferrous materials are recovered and sold to a scrap metal dealer.

Currently, the City disposes most of its solid waste at WIN WASTE pursuant to a contract with the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority. The WIN WASTE facility has contracted with the City to dispose of their ash residue at QRL.  In 2020, WIN WASTE accepted 661,516 tons of total waste, including 189,336 tons of residential Baltimore City waste collected by DPW and XX tons of commercial Baltimore City waste collected by private haulers.  The facility generated 125,261 tons of ash in 2020. 

Fort Armistead Road – Lot 15 Landfill

(N 39.205738; E -76.546252)

The Fort Armistead Road – Lot 15 Landfill is a private 32-acre permitted industrial waste landfill located on a 65-acre site that currently accepts coal ash and other residues from the Brandon Shores, H.A. Wagner, and C.O. Crane coal power plants.  In 2020, Lot 15 accepted 21,862 tons of material.  The facility’s current permit expires in 2023 and its total permitted capacity is 6.3 million cubic yards.  The expected service life of the facility is greater than 20 years.

Hawkins Point Plant Landfill

(N 39.207930; E -76.557268)

The Hawkins Point Plant Landfill is a private industrial waste site consisting of two parcels.  The first parcel contains a 28-acre industrial waste landfill which accepted 240 tons of material in 2016.  No waste has been accepted since 2016.  The second parcel is permitted for industrial waste, but no landfill has yet been constructed.  Constellation Energy has plans to develop 29 acres of this undeveloped parcel for use as a landfill for coal combustion residuals (ash) from its Brandon Shores, H.A. Wagner, and C.O. Crane coal power plants.

W.R. Grace and Co. – Davison Chemical Division Landfill

(N 39.214249; E -76.570290)

The W.R. Grace and Co. landfill is a private 10.7-acre industrial waste landfill located on a 157-acre site which solely accepts waste generated at the W.R. Grace and Co. manufacturing facility located on the same property.  W.R. Grace is a major chemical manufacturer of silica-based absorbents, hydro-processing catalysts, polyolefin catalysts used in plastics and packaging, and fluid catalysts used in petroleum refining.  In 2020, the facility accepted 12,504 tons of material.  The facility is expected to run out of permitted capacity in 2029.

Curtis Bay Energy Facility

(N 39.202550; E -76.555261)

Curtis Bay Energy is also known as Curtis Bay Medical Waste Services (and used to be called Baltimore Regional Medical Waste Facility). Curtis Bay Energy is a 4-acre privately-owned medical waste incinerator with energy recovery (the nation’s largest) located in Hawkins Point.  The facility has a capacity of 62,050 tons of waste per year and accepted approximately 26,063 tons of material in 2020.  Ash generated at Curtis Bay is shipped to North Carolina for landfill disposal.

 

 

4.      ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS AND CONSTRAINTS

Chapter 4 assesses Baltimore City’s need to alter, modify, or add to existing solid waste disposal systems throughout the planning period.  Specifically, the following components of the City’s solid waste disposal systems are assessed:

1.           Source reduction and reuse programs;

2.           Waste diversion and recycling programs;

3.           Waste collection systems;

4.           Waste transfer facilities;

5.           Waste processing and recycling facilities; and

6.           Waste disposal facilities.

The assessment of each component of the solid waste management system contains two parts: a self-assessment by DPW (driven predominantly by data collected and recorded by the City), and a public assessment driven predominantly by comments collected at public meetings and hearings conducted as part of the development of this Plan.

4.1       Diversion Goals

This section provides an assessment of the City’s progress toward meeting its short and long-term diversion goals. Specifically, this section focuses on the City’s interim plan to achieve an MRA recycling rate of 35% in the short term and the City’s zero waste goals (as laid out in the BSP, the BFWRS, the LWBB Plan, and other City planning documents) in the long term.

MRA Recycling Rate

This section will contain an assessment of the City’s current MRA recycling rate, barriers to achieving the state mandated 35% MRA rate, and opportunities to improve its MRA recycling rate.

Barriers to Implementing the Interim Plan

 

Opportunities for Improvement

 

Progress Toward Achieving Long-Term Solid Waste Management Goals

This section will contain an assessment of the City’s recycling rate in terms of the long-term goals summarized in Section 1.1, including barriers to achieving those goals.

Barriers to Achieving Long-Term Solid Waste Management Goals

 

Opportunities for Improvement

 

4.2       Waste Reduction and Diversion Programs

Waste reduction and diversion programs coordinated by the City are described in Section 3.3 and evaluated below.

Single Stream Recyclables

SSR includes paper, cardboard, many types of plastic, metal cans, and glass bottles.  Based on a waste sort performed for the LWBB Plan, it is estimated that SSR constitutes approximately 29 percent of the City’s disposed waste stream.  Waste diversion data from 2020 indicates that approximately XX tons, or YY% of SSR generated in the City, is currently recycled.  Single stream recyclables are targeted by many existing reduction and diversion programs in the City (described in Section 3.3).

Barriers to SSR Diversion

The assessment of the City’s single stream recycling programs identified the following primary barriers to improved reduction and diversion of SSR:

1.           Lack of Incentive: Many single use materials are extremely cheap to produce.  As such, there is little incentive for businesses and consumers in the City to stop using them.

2.           Equity Issues: Some City residents may not have easy access to re-useable bottles or bags.

3.           Healthy Food Priority Areas (HFPAs): A map showing the City’s HFPAs is found in Figure 4.1 below.  HFPAs are defined as areas where the average healthy food availability index for all food stores is low, the median household income is at or below 185% of the federal poverty level, over 30% of households have no vehicle available, and the distance to a supermarket is more than a quarter mile.  The approximately 146,000 City residents living within HFPAs are highly dependent on fast food and convenience stores, which provides a large amount of packaged food and contributes to waste generation.

 

Figure 4-1. Healthy Food Priority Areas in Baltimore (from the City’s 2018 Food Environment Report)

4.           Lack of Education and Communication around Recycling: Education and communication around recycling is difficult because the materials accepted at City-contracted MRFs change with time.  Further, many materials which contain recycling symbols, or which contain wording like “fully recyclable” on the packaging are not accepted by City-contracted MRFs.  As such, it can be confusing for people to determine which materials are recyclable and which are not acceptable.  Due to this confusion, some City residents choose not to recycle at all and others place non-recyclable items into their recycling carts, contributing to contamination.

5.           Social and cultural barriers to recycling: In some City neighborhoods, recycling is seen as something that “other people” do.  As such, some City residents are not interested in participating in the City’s SSR programs.

6.           Lack of Trust in the Recycling Process:  When the recycling markets collapsed in 2017 due to China’s National Sword Policy, news reports showing truckloads of SSR being dumped at landfills or waste to energy facilities caused many City residents to lose faith in the recycling system.  A similar phenomenon occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, when supply chain issues and equipment shortages caused many MRFs to stop accepting recyclables.  While recyclables collected in the City were never sent to QRL or WIN WASTE, some City residents lost faith that SSR would be properly recycled and stopped participating in City recycling programs.

7.           Contamination:  Since the City stopped collecting trash twice per week and provided free recycling bins to City residents, some residents have begun using their recycling bin as a second trash bin (i.e., they do not separate recyclables from trash).  This has led to a serious contamination issue in City collected SSR.

8.           Lack of Weekly Recycling Collection: When the City had to reduce recycling collection to once every two weeks during the pandemic due to staffing shortages, residents ran out of space in their recycling bins and started placing recyclables in the trash (which is still collected once per week).

Opportunities for Improvement

The LWBB Plan details several opportunities to improve SSR diversion in the City.  These include:

  1. Revise bin size and allocation: By reducing the size of the trash bin from 96 gallons to 35 gallons, the City could encourage people to reduce the amount of waste they generate and improve their recycling habits.  The City already offers free 65-gallon trash bins to all single family households (which was also recommended in the LWBB plan). [Downside is potential for overflowing trash bins leading to additional litter.]
  2. Revise collection frequency:  By increasing the frequency of residential curbside SSR collection , the City could improve participation in the curbside recycling program.
  3. Implement dual or multi-stream recycling: Switching from single stream to dual or multi-stream recycling has the potential to reduce contamination levels in collected recyclable streams and will reduce the amount of processing required at a downstream MRF (e.g., WMRA).  However, switching to multi-stream recycling may actually decrease recyclable diversion as some City residents may be unwilling to sort their recyclables into multiple bins.
  4. Implement Save as You Throw (SAYT) program:  A SAYT program would involve assessing a monthly charge to residents for their trash bin, with higher charges associated with bigger bins.  As such, a SAYT program could encourage residents to reduce the amount of trash they generate by increasing participation in SSR recycling programs.  However, SAYT programs have been associated with increased contamination in the recycling stream, so the City may have to consider increasing educational outreach as well as enforcement/citations for residents who do not properly recycle.
  5. Improved education and outreach: By improving education and outreach, the City could encourage additional residents to participate in SSR reduction and recycling programs and also reduce contamination levels in the SSR stream.  Education and outreach programs could be designed to teach residents what is and is not recyclable, encourage people to overcome social and cultural barriers to recycling, and teach residents about the economic, environmental, and social benefits of recycling.
  6. Providing cash or rewards for recycling: The City could participate in national recycling rewards programs, such as verde or recyclebank, to reward residents and businesses that participate in curbside SSR collection programs or complete education and outreach programs.
  7. Payment for goods or services using recyclables: The City could implement discount programs for public transportation tickets to residents that provide recyclables at the time of purchase.  The City could also consider providing reverse vending machines that provide residents with cash or vouchers when they deposit recyclable materials, such as cans or bottles.

 

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its existing SSR diversion programs is found below.

Barriers

  • Lack of incentive to reduce waste
  • Access to re-useable alternatives
  • Healthy Food Priority Areas contributing to single-use packaging
  • Lack of education and communication
  • Social barriers to recycling
  • Lack of trust in the recycling process
  • Contamination
  • Lack of weekly recycling collection

Opportunities

Administrative:

  • Improve education and outreach initiatives

Programmatic:

  • Revise bin size and allocation
  • Revise collection frequency
  • Implement dual or multi-stream recycling
  • Implement SAYT Program
  • Provide cash or rewards for recycling
  • Payment for goods or services using recyclables

Organics

The assessment of the City’s organics programs identified the following primary barriers to improved food waste reduction and diversion of organics from the landfill:

  • Lack of awareness of Food Waste Reduction and Donation Programs: Much of the food waste produced in the City is the result of poor planning.  Many residents simply purchase too much food and are unaware of the many food waste donation facilities in the City (detailed in Section 3.3).  For these residents, unused food is often discarded.
  • Healthy Food Priority Areas: A potential reason for the large amount of food wastage in Baltimore is a lack of healthy food options.  Approximately 146,000 people in Baltimore live in Healthy Food Priority Areas, or HFPAs (see Figure 4.1), defined as areas where the average healthy food availability index for all food stores is low, the median household income is at or below 185% of the federal poverty level, over 30% of households have no vehicle available, and the distance to a supermarket is more than a quarter mile.  Residents living within HFPAs are highly dependent on fast food and convenience stores, which may contribute to more food waste if they are not able to control their own food preparation or portion sizes.
  • Lack of Organics Recycling Infrastructure: There are currently no operational large-scale composting or anaerobic digestion facilities that accept yard waste, food scraps, or compostable paper in the City.  This lack of infrastructure inhibits City residents and businesses (including those targeted by HB264) from diverting their organic waste (even when legally required).
  • Lack of Centralized Organics Collection Programs: There are currently no large-scale, centralized organics collection programs in the City. While curbside organics collection is offered by private companies and community collectives, the monthly charges for participation in these programs are fairly expensive (greater than $20 per month). 
  • Lack of Marketing for Existing Organics Programs: Many residents are unaware that food scrap collection is offered at Residents’ Drop-off Centers and farmers markets.  As such, participation in these programs tends to be low. Further, the food scrap collection bins offered by the City at Residents’ Drop-off Locations are not easily accessible by walking, biking, or bus. 
  • Lack of Education and Outreach Regarding Organics Diversion Programs: Most City residents have limited experience managing and separating organics from their waste stream.  Further, many residents harbor misconceptions regarding the odor and vector impacts of large organics management facilities (like composting and anaerobic digestion facilities) and organics collection programs. 
  • Lack of Education about Which Organic Materials are Divertible: Specific materials can and cannot be composted or digested depending on the vendor providing organics collection and operating the organics processing facility.  While the City does not offer a public option for organics diversion, this is still a barrier to implementing a successful organics diversion program in the City. 
  • Difficulty Identifying Businesses Targeted by HB264: HB264 requires large food waste generators (currently defined as those generating more than two tons of food waste per week, reducing to those that generate one ton of food waste per week beginning 1 January 2024) to divert all of their food waste providing they are located within 30 miles of an organics recycling facility with capacity and willingness to accept the generator’s food waste.  However, there is no easy way for the City to identify the food waste generators targeted by this law.  As such, enforcement of this law will be difficult for the City.

Opportunities for Improvement

Improved food waste reduction and diversion can be achieved through a combination of food rescue and donation (e.g. via food banks), true source reduction (e.g. educating consumers to purchase only the amount of food they need and hence generate less food waste), and investment in organics collection and diversion infrastructure.  This will require a coordinated effort between the City, local food generators (businesses, universities, and residents), and local food rescue/donation organizations.  The NRDC recently commissioned a report titled “Food Rescue in Baltimore: Assessing Current Landscape and Potential Growth” (26 March 2019) from Full Plate Venture LLC and the Maryland Food Bank assessing the current landscape for food rescue in Baltimore and the potential for future growth (referred to herein as the NRDC report).  Recommendations from this document as well as those provided in the BFWRS and LWBB are summarized below. 

Opportunities to Reduce Food Wastage:

  1. Conducting a needs assessment for the City’s food recovery system;
  2. Creating a “best practices” guide for businesses and institutions that wish to donate edible food in the City;
  3. Creating a resource guide for individuals and businesses wishing to use produce “seconds” (i.e. ugly fruit and vegetables);
  4. Supporting state legislation that extends liability protection for entities selling recovered food and donors that donate past-date foods;
  5. Working with the Maryland Department of Agriculture to include food recovery at the Maryland Buyer-Grower Expo;
  6. Creating a public awareness/marketing campaign for businesses around reducing food waste;
  7. Supporting local and state legislation that calls for a phased-in food waste and organics landfill ban;
  8. Creating and staffing a City government position tasked exclusively with managing food recovery and food waste reduction initiatives;
  9. Creating incentive programs for food donation, or businesses sourcing recovered food;
  10. Ensuring there are enough community partners to handle the volume of all donated food, and ensuring that these partners are adequately resourced (refrigeration, hauling, etc.);
  11. Creating/supporting a waste audit program for commercial food waste producers;
  12. Supporting existing business models that sell “seconds” produce and if gaps exist, supporting the creation of a “Vendors Market” for unsold produce from wholesale distributors; and
  13. Creating/adapting an entity to coordinate and promote all food recovery activities citywide.
  14. Supporting the development of a Food Recovery Network chapter in every higher education institution in the city;
  15. Supporting the completion of waste audits at every higher education institution in the city;
  16. Creating a public awareness/marketing campaign around food recovery for colleges and universities;
  17. Working with colleges, universities, and institutional food providers to change the culture of campus cafeterias from one of required abundance to “it’s ok to run out;”
  18. Creating/supporting a public awareness and education campaign around household food waste;
  19. Supporting community-based culinary education programs, with emphasis on food waste reduction;
  20. Creating and implementing a voluntary household waste audit program, including incentives for participation;
  21. Developing and implementing a system for tracking household food waste;
  22. Distributing “smart” trash cans to all city residents capable of tracking waste weight, creating a positive feedback loop by sending waste data to residents via water bill or other means.
  23. Convene meetings of stakeholders in the food rescue system, including the City, food donors, food rescue organizations, last mile organizations (LMOs; these refer to any entities such as shelters, soup kitchens, or food pantries that distribute donated food to food insecure individuals), and clients, on a regular basis to support relationship building and strategic planning;
  24. Track food donations received from local sources each year at food rescue organizations to support progress tracking under the BFWRS;
  25. Develop, in coordination with other stakeholders, a three to five-year strategic plan for expanding food donations and strengthening the food rescue system;
  26. Hire a “sourcer” to cultivate relationships between prospective food donors and food rescue organizations;
  27. Develop and distribute food safety guidance for licensed food facilities from the City’s Health Department;
  28. Develop policies and programs that incentivize food donation;
  29. Distribute educational materials on liability protections and tax incentives to food donors;
  30. Develop a citywide strategy to recruit the next generation of food rescue volunteers to support the effective training, management, and retention of volunteers in the food rescue system;
  31. Develop a coordinated strategy to engage the local philanthropic and business communities to mobilize support for food rescue infrastructure, staffing, and other needs;
  32. Identify organizational development resources to strengthen food rescue capacity for fundraising, management, and communications;
  33. Evaluate strategies for making donated food more geographically accessible to clients;
  34. Evaluate the need for potential technology solutions to connect clients and LMOs;
  35. Elevate the voices of food assistance clients by including them in advocacy activities, volunteer opportunities, and community outreach;
  36. Work with LMOs to gather input and feedback from clients on an ongoing basis;
  37. Conduct a detailed study of the specific food security-related needs of people living with disabilities; and
  38. Expand outreach to clients on ways to access food assistance.
  39. Encourage the use of online food waste reduction tools:  The U.S. EPA provides a food waste management cost calculator to estimate the cost competitiveness of alternatives to food waste disposal for food waste generators, including source reduction, donation, composting, and recycling of yellow grease.
  40. Encourage food waste tracking:  A private company GOODR provides a secure ledger that tracks an organization’s surplus food waste from pickup to donation.  The company aims to improve an organization’s bottom line through charitable donations, reduce GHG emissions, and route edible surplus food to local communities in need.  Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport currently uses this vendor to help meet its zero-waste target.
  41. Encourage the use of mobile apps:  There are a number of smartphone applications meant to connect food rescue agencies with consumers.  For example, Food Rescue’s ChowMatch matches food donations with food assistance organizations while organizing volunteers to transport the food to those organizations.  Another example is the Food for All app available in Boston and New York that allows customers to buy leftovers from restaurants at a discount.
  42. Conduct educational campaigns: Education and outreach is critical to changing behaviors.  Specific educational programs recommended in LWBB to reduce food wasage include educating students about composting, educating residents on the difference between “Sell By,” “Use By,” and “Best By” dates, and educating residents about purchasing food more sustainably.

Opportunities to Improve Organics Diversion:

  1. Expand Use of Existing Processing Capacity: The BFWRS lays out a series of recommendations to expand existing capacity in Baltimore including improving access to backyard compost bins to residents, establishing school gardens at public schools to encourage on-site gardening and composting, supporting/incentivizing the creation of community composting locations in Baltimore neighborhoods.  Other strategies included in LWBB include expanding the use of City-partnered organics processing facilities (e.g., BCCF, BRPF, BPPF, and Camp Small), encouraging on-farm composting (perhaps by expanding the Food Matters Program), encouraging backyard and community composting (e.g., by providing residents with subsidized backyard composting units and initiating education and outreach programs), and encouraging the use of in-sink disposal units to process food waste.
  2. Provide and Encourage Curbside Collection of Organics: Recommendations from the BFWRS for the City to implement and encourage a source separated organics (SSO) collection program including conducting a residential curbside collection pilot program, expanding curbside collection throughout the city (long-term), conducting a feasibility study for pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) and other incentive-based residential waste collection strategies, and implementing a residential food waste ban.  Other recommendations from LWBB include expanding City collection services to include collection of SSO, contracting SSO collection from residents to a third party, providing drop-off centers for food and yard waste, implementing a save-as-you-throw (SAYT) program, implementing a food waste disposal ban, and reducing the frequency of trash pickup.
  3. Implement a ban on commercial organics disposal in the City: Recommendations from LWBB include a phased approach to encourage organics diversion, beginning with a subsidy for organics diversion and surcharge pricing for organics disposal and moving toward a blanket ban on organics disposal from commercial entities in the City.
  4. Revise collection frequency of trash pickup: By reducing the frequency of trash pickup in the City, residents may be encouraged to participate in existing or future organics diversion programs to reduce their trash volume.  While this is unlikely to be implemented in the City in the near future, it could be discussed as a long-term option after an organics diversion program is implemented and trash volumes decrease.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its existing organics reduction and diversion programs is found below.

Barriers

              •            Lack of education and outreach for food waste reduction and donation programs

•            Healthy food priority areas contributing to food wastage

•            Lack of organics recycling infrastructure

•            Lack of centralized organics collection programs

•            Lack of marketing for existing organics programs

•            Lack of education and outreach regarding organics diversion programs

•            Difficulty identifying businesses targeted by HB264

Opportunities

              Legislative:

  • Support state legislation that extends liability protection for entities selling recovered food and donors that donate past-date foods
  • Support local and state legislation that calls for a phased-in food waste and organics landfill ban
  • Create incentive programs for food donation, or businesses sourcing recovered food
  • Develop policies and programs that incentivize food donation
  • Implement a ban on commercial organics disposal in the City

Administrative:

  • Improve education and outreach campaigns around food waste reduction and diversion for City residents, institutions, and businesses
  • Help match food waste generators with food waste donation organizations and processing facilities (through technology, best practice guides, stakeholder meetings, etc.)
  • Perform food waste audits for City businesses, institutions, and residents
  • Improve tracking of food waste donation and diversion

Programmatic:

  • Expand use of existing processing capacity
  • Provide and Encourage Curbside Collection of Organics
  • Revise collection frequency of trash pickup
  • Developing a system to track food waste generation (including distributing “smart” trash cans to all city residents)
  • Improving enforcement of food waste reduction and diversion initiatives

 

Construction and Demolition Debris

C&D waste includes lumber, concrete, drywall, asphalt, and other materials generated from the construction or demolition of structures.  Based on a waste sort performed for the LWBB Plan, it is estimated that C&D waste constitutes approximately 35 percent of the City’s disposed waste stream.  Waste diversion data from 2020 indicates that approximately XX tons, or YY% of C&D waste generated in the City, is currently recycled.  C&D waste is predominantly produced and recycled by the private sector (details are provided in Section 3.3).

Barriers to C&D Reduction and Diversion

The assessment of the City’s C&D programs identified the following primary barriers to improved reduction and diversion of C&D waste:

1.           Lack of City-Led Deconstruction Program: The City has previously partnered with a local nonprofit-established deconstruction firm to assist the City with demolition of City-owned buildings.  This deconstruction firm developed a business selling material salvaged from deconstruction activities.  However, the City has since stopped partnering with this deconstruction firm.  The City could improve deconstruction by partnering with a similar deconstruction firm for future demolition projects.

2.           Lack of Clean Wood Recycling Infrastructure: There is limited infrastructure in the City to salvage clean, untreated structural lumber and pallets from construction and demolition projects.  This clean wood may be repurposed for other construction projects or ground for mulch.

3.           Lack of Drywall Repurposing and Recycling: Landfilled drywall can contribute significantly to odor issues.  As such, it is imperative to reduce waste drywall generation and divert drywall from disposal at the landfill.

Opportunities for Improvement

The LWBB Plan details multiple policy options and strategies exist to encourage C&D waste reuse.  These are detailed below.

1.           City-Mandated Deconstruction of Existing Structures: Legislation that mandates all construction projects to “deconstruct” rather than “demolish” existing structures would reduce C&D waste generation and encourage separation and reuse.  Capacity for deconstruction and reuse of salvaged building materials already exists in Baltimore, which is home to multiple deconstruction companies and building materials reuse centers (Second Chance, the Loading Dock, Habitat for Humanity of the Chesapeake, Brick + Board, as well as the Baltimore Wood Project).

2.           Establishing an Architectural Salvage Program: An architectural salvage program may be implemented in coordination with mandated deconstruction of existing structures to encourage reuse of building materials.  An architectural salvage program could be implemented as an online database to match potential buyers with companies offering salvaged building materials. City facilities and/or existing resale companies could hold the material while it is advertised.

3.           Encouraging Green Construction: A green construction policy would require new construction or major remodeling of existing buildings meet certain environmental and sustainability standards.  The best-known example is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building certification program, developed by the nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council and used worldwide as an objective measure of achievement.  A green construction policy in Baltimore could also promote facilities certified as TRUE Zero Waste and encourage others to be certified.

4.           Mandatory diversion ordinance: The City could improve diversion by passing an ordinance that requires construction and demolition projects to divert a certain percentage of their waste from disposal.

5.           Deposits as part of permitting: The City could require deposits during the permitting process for new construction and demolition projects that would be returned to the contractors if and when they provide documentation that the project has met a designated diversion threshold.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its existing C&D reduction and diversion programs is found below.

Barriers

              •            Lack of City-led deconstruction program

•            Lack of clean wood recycling infrastructure

•            Lack of drywall repurposing and recycling

Opportunities

              Legislative:

•            City-mandated deconstruction of existing structures

•            Encouraging green construction

•            Mandatory diversion ordinance

Administrative:

•            Establishing an architectural salvage program

•            Deposits as part of permitting

 

Bulk Waste

Bulk waste includes furniture, homewares, appliances, electronics, and other large waste.  Based on a waste sort performed for the LWBB Plan, it is estimated that bulk waste constitutes less than one percent of the City’s disposed waste stream.  Waste diversion data from 2020 indicates that approximately XX tons, or YY% of bulk waste generated in the City, is currently recycled.  While bulk waste does not constitute a large fraction of the City’s waste stream, it is difficult to dispose and is therefore a priority area for reduction and diversion.  Bulk waste diversion programs are described in Section 3.3.

Barriers to Reduction and Diversion of Bulk Waste

The assessment of the City’s bulk waste programs identified the following primary barriers to improved reduction and diversion of bulk waste:

1.           Lack of Donation Space: While private companies and nonprofits in the City will accept some bulk waste for donation, they are typically only willing to accept high value material with the highest likelihood for resale to avoid potential disposal fees if the bulk waste cannot be reused or sold.  This lack of centralized and consistent donation programs reduces ability of residents to donate or divert bulk waste.

2.           Difficulty of Repair: When bulk objects like appliances and electronics break, it is often very difficult or cost prohibitive for residents to repair them (or find low-cost companies or contractors capable of repairing them).  As such, appliances and electronics are often disposed even if they have only minor or easily repaired damage.

3.           Vehicles available to move bulk items:  If a resident does not have access to a vehicle large enough to move their bulk item to a donation location, it will likely end up on the street for pickup as trash.

Opportunities for Improvement

The LWBB Plan outlines four options and strategies to encourage repair, donation, and reuse of bulk waste:

1.           Investing in Programs that Turn Waste into Art:  The City could donate abandoned buildings and bulk waste material to artists, sculptors, and recycling innovators to organize shows and contests that encourage the reuse of bulk waste materials.

2.           Funding Fix-It/Repair Clinics: The City could help to fund clinics where residents can learn how to repair broken electronics, homewares, appliances, bikes, etc. rather than throwing them away.  Fix-It Clinics are currently used as a way to reduce bulk trash in many cities across the country, including Austin, TX, Flagstaff, AZ, Minneapolis, MN, and San Diego, CA.  The Baltimore Tool Library also holds fix it fairs a few times a year.  These clinics are usually staffed by volunteers with skills to share, gained either professionally or through hobbies, and are free of charge for attendees, although donations may be encouraged.  Fix-It Clinics may be hosted by the City, local nonprofits, local businesses, or some combination of private and public entities.  In Baltimore, clinics could be offered in coordination with, or in a similar manner to GROW centers, which offer tips and materials for greening and landscaping.

3.           Holding Reuse and Swap Events: Reuse events allow residents to get rid of or obtain gently used materials (e.g., furniture, clothes, and toys) in a convenient and structured way in a formal or semi-formal setting.  These managed events avoid contributing to uncleanliness or litter in the way that informal garage or yard sales may do, and also reduce the incentive for residents to simply dump used items on the street.  Reuse events could include curbside giveaway events in common areas of multi-residential buildings, block parties for single-family neighborhoods, and swap events such as jewelry or clothing exchanges.  Many counties and municipalities promote once or twice yearly curbside events, generally held in the spring or fall as people adjust and update their homes and closets.

4.           Right to Repair Bill: Right to repair bills, typically focused on electronic devices and small appliances, refer to government legislation that is intended to allow consumers the ability to repair and modify their own consumer products, rather than being obligated by the manufacturer of such devices to use their (often expensive) repair or replacement services.  Right to repair legislation has been introduced in 17 states.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its existing bulk waste reduction and diversion programs is found below.

Barriers

              •            Lack of donation space or repair facilities

•            Difficulty of repair

•            Long wait times for bulk waste collection

•            Lack of accessibility

Opportunities

              Legislative:

•            Supporting right to repair bills at the State level

Administrative:

•            Investing in programs that turn waste into art

•            Funding fix-it/repair clinics

Programmatic:

•            Holding reuse and swap events

 

Other Diversion Programs

Other waste includes generally hard to recycle materials such as carpet, mattresses, textiles, paint, non-compostable organics, medical waste, composite materials, etc.  Based on a waste sort performed for the LWBB Plan, it is estimated that other waste constitutes approximately 14.5 percent of the City’s disposed waste stream.  Waste diversion data from 2020 indicates that approximately XX tons, or YY% of other waste generated in the City, is currently recycled.

Barriers to Reduction and Diversion of Other Waste

The assessment of the City’s other waste programs identified the following primary barriers to improved reduction and diversion of other waste:

1.           Lack of Durable Medical Equipment Reuse Opportunities: The Maryland Department of Aging has a program in place to collect durable medical equipment (including wheelchairs, walkers, scooters, etc.) for refurbishment.  Currently, containers are located at the Residents’ Drop-off Centers at NWTS and QRL.  However, this service is not offered at any other locations in the City.

2.           Lack of Mattress Recycling Opportunities: Mattresses are very difficult to dispose (WIN WASTE currently does not accept mattresses and the City has considered banning them at QRL as well) and the City currently does not offer mattress recycling to residents.  As such, mattresses are often illegally dumped in the City.

3.           Lack of Textile and Clothing Donation Opportunities: While several nonprofits in the City offer reuse opportunities for clothing in good condition (see Section 3.3), recycling opportunities for damaged textiles and clothing are limited.

4.           Lack of Paint Recycling Opportunities: Oil-based paint is currently accepted as HHW at the Sisson Street Residents’ Drop-off location and latex paint can be dried out and collected with residential trash.  However, no true reuse or recycling opportunities are offered in the City for paint.

5.           Lack of Visibility and Marketing for Existing Recycling Programs: Many residents are unaware of the recycling programs currently offered at Residents’ Drop-off Centers (e.g., electronics recycling, bulk waste recycling, oyster shell recycling, durable medical equipment recycling, etc.).

6.           Lack of Carpet and Carpet Padding Programs: Carpet and carpet padding are some of the hardest materials to recycle and very few opportunities currently exist in the City to recycle these materials.

7.           Lack of Donation Opportunities: Many hard to recycle materials, like bicycles and electronics, are disposed even when they are still operational (or in need of light repair).   If more donation opportunities were offered for these materials, they could be reused rather than disposed.

Opportunities for Improvement

Other waste reduction and reuse opportunities detailed in LWBB include:

1.           Libraries and lending organizations: Opportunities for sharing items that are used infrequently are becoming more prevalent in many communities.  The City could support organizations (e.g., non-profit organizations or public libraries) or develop partnerships with existing organizations to provide opportunities for the public to borrow items such as bikes, appliances, or tools.  Items can be donated to the libraries or organizations can purchase and cover expenses through user fees.

2.           Bans or restrictions on specific materials: Results from the survey of stakeholders conducted for the LWBB Plan indicated clear support for policies aimed at eliminating specific “bad actor” materials from the waste and recycling streams.  For example, 86% of responders supported a ban on single-use plastics such as food containers, plastic bags, and straws.  As an alternative to outright bans, however, some responders suggested taxing the use of single-use materials or introducing laws to incentivize reuse.

3.           Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): EPR is a government mandate for product stewardship that requires a manufacturer’s responsibility for its product to extend to post-consumer management of that product and its packaging and/or upstream redesign/reduction.  EPR policies therefore shift some financial and management responsibility for waste management upstream to the manufacturer and away from the public sector, while incentivizing manufacturers to incorporate environmental considerations into the design of their products and packaging.  Applied effectively, EPR can be valuable in helping communities manage and fund the reduction/recycling/diversion of difficult materials.

4.           Product Take-Back Programs: Similar to EPR programs, product take-back programs are a form of product stewardship for hard-to-recycle items and packaging.  These initiatives are typically organized by a manufacturer or retailer to collect used products or materials from consumers and reintroduce them to the original processing and manufacturing cycle.  A company may implement this program in collaboration with end-of-life logistics and material processing firms.  For manufacturers and retailers, there are multiple benefits for implementing a take-back program, including stronger customer relationships, lower cost of goods sold due to secondary material supply, providing an alternative supply of critical raw minerals, mitigating risks associated with hazardous materials handling, and reduced environmental impacts.  These benefits often result in no cost or discounts to consumers when they participate. Companies can estimate the success of their take-back programs by measuring the total mass of products sold against those collected each year.

5.           Targeted recycling programs: The City could consider implementing recycling programs for mattresses, box springs, carpets and rugs, textiles, porcelain and ceramics, batteries, and other difficult to recycle materials.  These programs would improve recycling while also keeping many of these nuisance materials out of the landfill.

6.           Chemical recycling: Chemical recycling involves breaking down hard to recycle materials into their chemical constituents and converting them into useful products.  The City could partner with a chemical recycling company to improve waste diversion.  However, it is important to verify that byproducts and emissions are being properly managed and disclosed transparently before entering into an agreement with a technology vendor.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its existing waste reduction and diversion programs for other waste is found below.

Component       Assessment

Barriers

              •            Lack of durable medical equipment reuse opportunities

•            Lack of mattress recycling opportunities

•            Lack of textile and clothing donation opportunities

•            Lack of paint recycling opportunities

•            Lack of visibility and marketing for existing recycling programs

•            Lack of carpet and carpet padding recycling programs

•            Lack of donation opportunities

Opportunities

              Legislative:

•            Bans or restrictions on specific materials

•            Extended producer responsibility

•            Product take-back programs

Administrative:

•            Libraries and lending organizations

Programmatic:

•            Targeted recycling programs

•            Chemical recycling

 

4.3       Waste Collection

The City’s waste collection system is described in Section 3.5.  Since 2000, the City has used CitiStat, a database-driven performance measurement tool, to monitor and assess public service delivery and operation.  Solid waste management performance is evaluated in a branch of CitiStat called CleanStat, which assists DPW in deciding how to provide more efficient service.  Continued use of CleanStat, and continued feedback from citizens and employees is essential in developing a proper assessment of the City’s solid waste management needs now and, in the period covered by this Plan.

Mixed Refuse Collection

Mixed refuse collection is provided by the Routine Services Division and is described in Section 3.4.

Barriers to Mixed Refuse Collection

The assessment of the City’s mixed refuse collection program identified the following primary barriers to effective mixed refuse collection service:

1.           Staffing Shortages: Hiring and retention of personnel, and particularly CDL drivers, has been extremely difficult.  While the City offers many long-term benefits over private companies (e.g., job stability, benefits, etc.), private trucking companies offer a significantly higher starting pay than the City.  As such, the City often has difficulty hiring new drivers and retaining existing drivers.

2.           Inconsistent Collection: Regularly scheduled trash collection dates are sometimes not honored (mostly due to staffing issues).  There is currently no back-up plan when this happens, and residents have to wait until the next week for their trash to be collected.

3.           Limited Refueling Locations: There is currently only one location where City trash trucks can refuel (at the central yard).  This makes refueling inefficient, particularly when there is traffic in the City.

4.           Aging Collection Fleet: Many of the trash collection vehicles are near or exceeding their service life, leading to high equipment down time, and will require replacement over the next two years.

5.           Trash can color: The municipal trash cans provided to residents by DPW are green.  This leads to some confusion with residents who associate green bins with organics collection.

6.           Landlords do not Provide Trash Bins to all Tenants: While landlords are legally required to provide trash bins to all tenants, some landlords do not comply with the law.  As such, many residents have to supply their own trash bins or share with neighbors.

7.           Lack of Enforcement: The state generally delegates enforcement of solid waste related laws to local government. DPW currently does not have an enforcement division but instead depends on the Department of Housing and Community Development to enforce trash-related violations. 

8.           Education and Outreach: Some residents do not know that trash should be bagged before placing it in trash bins to protect collection workers from sharp or hazardous materials.

Opportunities for Improvement

Surveys conducted as part of the LWBB Plan indicated that most residents are satisfied with their curbside collection services.  However, some residents complained that roads and alleys are littered due to messy waste collection practices and suggested providing collection crews with brooms and shovels to clean up waste dropped during collection.  In 2022, the City prepared an operational review (Rubicon Report) of Routine Services operations to optimize collection routes for the City .  The Rubicon Report provides the following recommendations to improve trash and SSR collection:

1.           Short-Term Rightsizing of Routes, Equipment, and Personnel:  The Rubicon Report found that trash collection routes put the City near the upper end of industry standard route sizes with 1,900 stops per route.  To reduce the number of stops per route to 1,050 in the short-term, it was recommended that the City maintain a fleet of at least 60 load packers with less than 20% breakdown factor, increase the number of CDL trash collection drivers to 60, and increase the number of trash laborers to 120.

2.           Final Rightsizing of routes, Equipment, and Personnel: In the long-term the Rubicon Report recommends reducing the number of stops per trash collection route to 950 by maintaining a fleet of at least 66 load packers with less than 20% breakdown factor, increasing the number of CDL trash collection drivers to 66, and increasing the number of trash laborers to 132.

3.           Maintain Funding Levels to Sustain Fleet and Staffing: To improve the long-term performance of trash collection in the City, the Rubicon Report recommends maintaining future funding levels to sustain at least a 20% reserve of vehicles and personnel.

4.           Maintain Onboard Technology for Employee and Departmental Success: The Rubicon Report recommends installing onboard technology to verify collection service in real time and provide drivers with intuitive tools to enhance their workflow.

5.           Implement a Collection Performance Standard: the Rubicon Report recommends that the Routine Services Division adopt an appropriate performance management system for trash collection that tracks route completion time and customer complaints.

Additional opportunities to improve mixed refuse collection include increasing starting pay for CDL drivers, adding additional refueling stations (possibly at residents’ drop-off centers), enforcing existing trash collection programs (e.g., for multi-family dwellings), and improving education and outreach to improve worker safety.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its existing mixed refuse collection program is found below.

Barriers

              •            Staffing shortages

•            Inconsistent collection

•            Limited refueling locations

•            Aging collection fleet

•            Trash can color

•            Landlords do not Always Provide Trash Bins to Tenants

•            Lack of Enforcement

•            Education and Outreach

Opportunities

              Administrative:

•            Increase funding levels to sustain fleet and staffing

•            Implement a collection performance standard

•            Increase starting pay for CDL drivers

•            Enforce existing trash collection programs

•            Improve education and outreach

Programmatic:

•            Short-term rightsizing of routes, equipment, and personnel

•            Final rightsizing of routes, equipment, and personnel

•            Maintain onboard technology for employee and departmental success

•            Add additional refueling stations

 

Single Stream Recyclables Collection

SSR collection is provided by the Routine Services Division and is described in Section 3.4.

Barriers to SSR Collection

The assessment of the City’s SSR collection program identified the following primary barriers to effective SSR collection service:

1.           Staffing Shortages: Hiring and retention of personnel, and particularly CDL drivers, has been extremely difficult.  While the City offers many long-term benefits over private companies (e.g., job stability, benefits, etc.), private trucking companies offer a significantly higher starting pay than the City.  As such, the City often has difficulty hiring new drivers and retaining existing drivers.

2.           Collection Schedule:  Due to staffing issues during the COVID-19 pandemic, the City reduced SSR collection to once every two weeks.  This not only discourages some residents from participating in the curbside SSR collection program, but it also leads to longer workdays for SSR collection personnel, as the volume of recyclables collected is greater.  In fact, some personnel have reported working as much as fourteen-hour days.

3.           Inconsistent Collection from Apartments and Condominiums: Apartment buildings and condominiums largely hire private haulers to provide SSR collection.  However, due to contamination issues in the recycling stream, many private haulers refuse to collect from these locations, leading to inconsistent SSR collection.

4.           Economics of Recycling:  Recycling markets are always changing, and private haulers may reduce or completely eliminate SSR collection when recyclable prices are low.  As an example, the price of recyclables plummeted following China’s National Sword policy in 2017.  This led to many private haulers ceasing SSR collection in the City.

5.           Lack of School Recycling: City schools are served by private haulers to collect recyclables.  Payment for these hauling services comes from school budgets.  Many Baltimore schools have a limited budget and, although they are legally obligated to provide recycling collection, choose to reallocate funds to other priorities.  As such, many City schools do not offer recycling programs.

6.           Lack of Public Recycling Bins: There are limited public recycling bins in many neighborhoods.

Opportunities for Improvement

The LWBB Plan outlines several strategies to improve and expand SSR collection in the City.  These include:

1.           Extend curbside collection to multi-family dwellings (MFDs): Currently, residents in MFDs rely on private haulers contracted by landlords for trash and recycling services.  Reportedly, private haulers periodically reject recycling loads from MFDs and/or stop services altogether due to contamination issues (generally, because they may be fined or have their loads rejected at receiving MRFs if contamination is too high).  This leads to inconsistent collection and contributes to low participation in recycling programs among MFD residents.  By extending recycling services to MFDs, DPW could improve collection by creating a more stable recycling environment.

2.           Design guidance/codes for multi-family dwellings: To improve recycling collection from MFDs, the City could issue guidance on how new developments or redevelopments must consider design of waste collection areas, including provision for diversion capacity and placement of waste containers.  These design guidelines could provide direction to property developers and owners on how to incorporate recycling collection infrastructure into multi-family developments to make recycling as easily accessible to residents as trash receptacles. 

3.           Provide mobile collection units: The City could consider provision of mobile collection of recyclables and other materials using a modified trailer or truck.  While DPW currently accepts these materials at residents’ drop-off centers, residents must have the means to physically transport these materials.  Provision of a more convenient way to accept these materials may encourage additional diversion.

4.           Improve recycling in public spaces: Some stakeholders requested that more public trash and recycling cans be provided on streets, in parks, and in other public areas.  In this regard, rather than simply provide a larger number of cans in more places, all of which would require additional emptying by collection crews, DPW could look for ways to embrace the smart transformation of waste operations in public spaces that many other U.S. cities have implemented.  Not only does this keep streets noticeably cleaner, streets are calmer as fewer collection events mean less trash truck congestion and vehicle emissions.

5.           Special event recycling: While DPW currently provides cleaning services, trash removal, and recycling services to qualifying events (if their services are requested), there is a range of additional support that DPW could provide to event organizers.  This includes providing advice on setting up a recycling plan, provision of bins and containers, or developing self-assessment guides to help organizers manage and minimize waste generated at events (e.g., by requiring that food and drink vendors minimize single use serviceware).

6.           Expand recycling services to the commercial sector: The City could improve diversion of SSR by providing collection services to the ICI sector.  Collection could be achieved either through DPW (public service) or through a franchising agreement with a private hauler.

The Rubicon Report also provided several recommendations to improve SSR collection in the City.  These include:

1.           Short-Term Rightsizing of Routes, Equipment, and Personnel:  The Rubicon Report found that SSR collection routes put the City near the upper end of industry standard route sizes with 2,500 stops per route.  To reduce the number of stops per route to 2,200 in the short-term (while maintaining collection once every two weeks), it was recommended that the City maintain a fleet of at least 29 load packers with less than 20% breakdown factor, increase the number of CDL SSR collection drivers to 29, and increase the number of SSR laborers to 58.

2.           Final Rightsizing of routes, Equipment, and Personnel: In the long-term the Rubicon Report recommends reducing the number of stops per recycling collection route to 1,300 by maintaining a fleet of at least 48 load packers with less than 20% breakdown factor, increasing the number of CDL SSR collection drivers to 48, and increasing the number of SSR laborers to 196.

3.           Increase Funding Levels to Sustain Fleet and Staffing: To improve the long-term performance of trash collection in the City, the Rubicon Report recommends increasing future funding levels to sustain at least a 20% reserve of vehicles and personnel.

4.           Maintain Onboard Technology for Employee and Departmental Success: The Rubicon Report recommends installing onboard technology to verify collection service in real time and provide drivers with intuitive tools to enhance their workflow.

5.           Implement a Collection Performance Standard: the Rubicon Report recommends that the Routine Services Division adopt an appropriate performance management system for recycling collection that tracks route completion time and customer complaints.

Additional opportunities to improve SSR collection include increasing starting pay for CDL drivers, improving enforcement of existing recycling programs (e.g., for apartment buildings and condominiums), and providing additional funding for school recycling programs.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its existing SSR collection program is found below.

Barriers

              •            Staffing shortages

•            Collection schedule (once every two weeks)

•            Inconsistent collection from apartments and condominiums

•            Economics of recycling

•            Lack of school recycling programs

•            Lack of public recycling bins

Opportunities

              Legislative:

•            Design guidance/codes for multi-family dwellings

Administrative:

•            Increase funding levels to sustain fleet and staffing

•            Implement a collection performance standard

•            Increase starting pay for CDL drivers

•            Improving enforcement of existing SSR collection programs

•            Providing additional funding for school recycling programs

Programmatic:

•            Extend curbside recycling collection to multi-family dwellings

•            Provide mobile collection units

•            Improve recycling in public spaces

•            Additional support for Special event recycling

•            Expand recycling collection services to the private sector

•            Short-term rightsizing of routes, equipment, and personnel

•            Final rightsizing of routes, equipment, and personnel

•            Maintain onboard technology for employee and departmental success

 

Residents’ Drop-Off Centers

Residents’ Drop-Off Centers are managed by the Street Sweeping and Roll-Off Division and are described in Section 3.4.

Barriers to Efficient Operation of Residents’ Drop-Off Centers

The assessment of the City’s residents’ drop-off centers identified the following barriers to effective operation:

1.           Commercial Vehicles and Non-Residents: Residents’ drop-off centers are meant to serve only residents of the City.  However, many commercial vehicles and non-residents attempt to use the facilities.  Currently, workers at the drop-off centers check drivers licenses and license plates to prevent commercial vehicles and non-residents from dumping at the residents’ drop-off locations.  However, commercial and non-resident vehicles contribute to lines and inefficiencies.

2.           Unacceptable Wastes: The most common unacceptable wastes dumped at residents’ drop-off centers include drywall, concrete, structural wood, and pallets. Customers with these materials are generally sent away, but regularly have already dumped or argue with the staff.

3.           Illegal Dumping: Waste (both acceptable and unacceptable) is left outside and inside of residents’ drop-off centers on a near daily basis resulting in staff time to move the material to the appropriate location within the drop off center.

4.           Staffing Shortages:  Staff hiring and retention (particularly for CDL roll-off truck drivers) are a persistent problem at residents’ drop-off centers.  On busy days at some facilities, roll-off containers cannot be hauled offsite fast enough to keep up with demand. While the City offers many long-term benefits over private companies (e.g., job stability, benefits, etc.), private trucking companies offer a significantly higher starting pay than the City.  As such, the City often has difficulty hiring new drivers and retaining existing drivers.

5.           Space Restrictions: Many of the residents’ drop-off centers are space restricted.  On busy days, this lack of space can mean that lines to enter the facilities back up onto City streets.  Further, there is minimal storage space for additional roll-off containers, trucks, or equipment.

6.           Equipment Shortages: Some residents’ drop-off centers lack the equipment necessary to operate efficiently.  Specific equipment shortages include roll-off trucks and bobcats.

7.           Security:  Not all residents’ drop-off centers are fenced and gated around their entire perimeter.  As such, they are subject to illegal dumping and break-ins.

8.           Worker Comfort: Many residents’ drop-off centers lack shelter and break rooms for workers.  As such, many workers are forced to work in the elements without a space to eat their lunches or take breaks.

Opportunities for Improvement

The LWBB Plan outlines several options to improve residents’ drop-off centers in the City.  These include:

1.           Constructing additional capacity: This option would require DPW to either construct new facilities for both residents and small haulers to drop off waste, or expand existing DOCs to allow small haulers to use them in addition to QRL and NWTS.  As most existing DOCs are on fairly compact lots, it seems unlikely that these locations could be expanded sufficiently to allow small hauler use (this would require a truck scale and larger throughput capacity, amongst other upgrades).  As such, it is assumed that developing new capacity would require the construction of new DOCs. 

2.           Expanding reuse and diversion opportunities at existing facilities: This option would require reconfiguration of existing DOCs to allow for a larger number of materials to be handled and diverted.  This would require increased staffing to direct residents and haulers to the correct location for each material.  Additional materials to consider for acceptance include non-traditional recyclable/divertible items such as mattresses, carpet, furniture, homewares, textiles, household hazardous waste, and ceramics/porcelain, as well as items that are currently accepted but are not separated (e.g., C&D waste, bulk waste, appliances with large amounts of rigid plastic, and yard waste).  This option could include a materials exchange network/partnership that would allow drop-off facilities to partner with nonprofits to expand donation of items such as bicycles, musical instruments, books, clothes, etc.

3.           Constructing a resource recovery park (eco-park): The most practical option available for construction of an RRP would be to co-locate individual reuse and diversion facilities in one large, centralized location.  The location of this facility would be subject to an extensive siting and feasibility study, although optimally it should be located close to QRL to minimize transportation of process residuals.  Reuse and diversion facilities that could be located within the RRP include reuse facilities (such as a food bank, C&D salvage and reuse center, a thrift store, and a fix-it/repair clinic), a composting facility, a MRF for processing SSR, a MRF for processing C&D waste, or a residents’ drop-off center that could serve small haulers.

Additional opportunities to improve the operation of residents’ drop-off centers include installing tag readers or driver’s license scanners to efficiently identify non-residents and commercial haulers, installing security fencing and gates to prevent illegal dumping, increasing starting pay for CDL roll-off truck drivers, and upgrading staff facilities (including shelters and breakrooms).

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its residents’ drop-off centers is found below.

Barriers

              •            Commercial vehicles and non-residents

•            Unacceptable wastes

•            Illegal dumping

•            Staffing shortages

•            Space restrictions

•            Equipment shortages

•            Security

•            Worker comfort

Opportunities

              Small-Scale:

•            Installing tag readers or driver’s license scanners

•            Installing fencing and gates

•            Increasing starting pay for CDL drivers

•            Upgrading staff facilities (shelter and breakrooms)

Large-Scale:

•            Constructing additional capacity

•            Expanding reuse and diversion opportunities at existing facilities

•            Constructing a resource recovery park (eco-park)

 

Bulk Waste Collection

Bulk waste collection is provided curbside, by calling 311, or at residents’ drop-off centers.  Bulk waste collection is described in Section 3.4.

Barriers to Bulk Waste Collection

The assessment of the City’s bulk waste collection program identified the following barriers to effective operation:

1.           Lack of Accessibility: While the City does provide curbside collection of bulk waste and collection at Residents Drop-off Centers for bulk waste disposal, it does not provide collection of bulk waste for diversion or reuse.

Opportunities for Improvement

The LWBB Plan includes several strategies for improving bulk waste collection in the City.  These include:

1.           Collecting bulk waste for donation: DPW currently recycles or disposes of bulk trash collected at residents’ drop-off locations and via curbside collection.  Working with local charitable and reuse organizations (e.g. the Salvation Army, Goodwill, Habitat for Humanity ReStores) to offer donation of bulk items might encourage more participation in the program.

2.           Charging residents for bulk waste collection: This would encourage reuse, repurposing, and resale of bulk items.  As an example, Seattle, WA currently charges residents $30 per item collected and $38 for items with refrigerants.  However, this option could also encourage illegal dumping.

3.           Reducing the amount of bulk trash that can be collected via curbside collection: The City already limits the amount of bulk waste per household to three items per household per month.  However, this could be reduced to encourage residents to pursue other options (such as donation).  Currently, many other cities (e.g. Washington DC and San Francisco, CA) have limits on the amount of bulk waste collected per household in order to reduce disposal of bulk waste.  However, this option could also encourage illegal dumping.

4.           Constructing a large, accessible recycling center for bulk waste: This facility would not need to be open every day, but its opening hours would need to be clearly communicated to residents to encourage recycling.  This facility could be part of an expanded network of Residents’ drop-off facilities (see above). Monterey, CA operates a facility called “Last Chance Mercantile”.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its bulk waste collection program is found below.

Barriers

              •            Long wait times for bulk waste collection

•            Lack of accessibility

Opportunities

              Administrative:

•            Charging residents for bulk waste collection

•            Reducing the amount of bulk trash that can be collected via curbside collection

•            Increasing staffing for 311 calls

•            Allowing City workers to enter residents’ homes

Programmatic:

•            Collecting bulk waste for donation

•            Constructing a large, accessible recycling center for bulk waste

 

Yard Waste and Leaf Collection

Yard waste and leafs are not collected separately within the City. Residential yard waste is collected with mixed refuse on trash collection days throughout the City.  Yard waste and leaves are sent to WIN WASTE for incineration with the residential trash.  Additional information on yard waste and leaf collection is provided in Section 3.4.

Barriers to Yard Waste and Leaf Collection

The assessment of the City’s yard waste and leaf collection program identified the following barriers to effective yard waste and leaf collection:

1.           Incineration is not Ideal: Incineration of yard waste is not the most sustainable method of disposing of yard waste.  Composting would be a better solution.

2.           Lack of Enforcement: City code requires branches to be bundled and meet certain size requirements.  However, many City residents do not follow this requirement, which makes yard waste collection messier and more dangerous for collection workers.

3.           Education and Outreach: Many residents are unaware of the proper way to bag yard waste for curbside collection.  As such, many residents use plastic bags rather than paper and fail to break down their branches properly.  This leads to collection and safety issues for workers.

Opportunities for Improvement

The following opportunities for improving yard waste and leaf collection were identified as part of this assessment:

1.           Improve education and outreach initiatives to educate the public about City requirements for yard waste and leaf collection.

2.           Improve enforcement of existing City code to improve worker safety.

3.           Construct or encourage construction of a composting facility in the City so that yard waste and leaves can be diverted from incineration.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its bulk waste collection program is found below.

Component       Assessment

Barriers

              •            Incineration is not an ideal way to dispose of yard waste and leaves

•            Lack of enforcement

•            Education and outreach

Opportunities

              •            Improve education and outreach initiatives

•            Improve enforcement of City code

•            Construct or encourage construction of a composting facility in the City

 

Illegal Dumping

Illegal dumping remains a persistent problem in the City with an annual cost to the city for cleanup of over $22,000,000.  Additional information on illegal dumping collection is provided in Section 3.4.

Barriers to Reducing Illegal Dumping

The assessment of the City’s illegal dumping problem identified the following barriers:

1.           Lack of Working Mechanism to Prevent Illegal Dumping: There are currently no effective policies in place to reduce or prevent illegal dumping. 

2.           Fees Imposed on Small Haulers:  Fees imposed on small haulers as part of the small hauler program may incentivize illegal dumping.

3.           Illegal Dumping is Not Reliably Collected: The City has trouble keeping up with the illegal dumping problem in the City.  As such, illegally dumped material becomes an eyesore until it can be collected. If waste is not collected, more waste is added by other illegal dumping activities.

Opportunities For Improvement

The LWBB Plan highlights several opportunities to reduce illegal dumping in the City.  These include:

1.           Provide stronger enforcement of fines for illegal dumping violations equally throughout the city;

2.           Offer more bulk trash pickup;

3.           Use surveillance cameras in highly impacted areas to identify people illegally dumping their trash;

4.           Remove fees for small haulers and residents using commercial vehicles (e.g., U-Haul vans) at QRL, NWTS, and the other residents’ drop-off centers;

5.           Contract residents and/or small haulers to pick up and transport illegally dumped waste in their private vehicles;

6.           Increase DPW staff capacity to improve reliability of waste collection services and information and to provide better response to illegal dumping, including following up more promptly on complaints from 311 calls/website;

7.           Identify common illegal dumping sites (e.g., in Carrollton Ridge, Shipley Hill, and Edmondson Village), place a dumpster there, and schedule regular collections;

8.           Get input from local haulers who could help identify the culprits of illegal dumping;

9.           Require small haulers of junk to report where they take the materials they collect;

10.         Maintain a list of registered contractors to help track and identify where illegally dumped material is coming from;

11.         Use social media to reward those reporting illegal dumping, and to publicize contractors and small haulers determined to be illegally dumping so others don’t use them;

12.         Establish a smartphone app that would provide credits or coupons to people who take verifiable pictures of illegal dumping in the act;

13.         Work more closely with community development organizations, neighborhood business districts, conservation land trusts, BMORE Beautiful, small haulers, and other interested parties to explore and provide opportunities for the purchase and transfer of derelict land and buildings to residents and nonprofits to create public safe clean green spaces, reduce blight, and implement a vision of community led stewardship for the land;

14.         Require absentee landowners to perform cleanups and make the site improvements required by the City, or forfeit their property under eminent domain for transfer to a Conservation Land Trust that is willing to make those site improvements; and

15.         Transfer lands in public ownership (e.g. plots where public housing was torn down but not replaced) to Conservation Land Trusts to begin pilot programs.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its illegal dumping program is found below.

Barriers

              •            Lack of working mechanism to prevent illegal dumping

•            Fees imposed on small haulers

•            Illegal dumping is not reliable collected

Opportunities

              Administrative:

•            Increase enforcement

•            Remove fees for small haulers and residents using commercial vehicles

•            Increase DPW staff capacity to improve response to illegal dumping

•            Interview small haulers to identify likely culprits

•            Require small haulers to report where they take their waste

•            Maintain a list of registered contractors to track illegal dumping

•            Use social media to reward those reporting illegal dumping and publicly identify contractors who have illegally dumped material

•            Establish a smartphone app

•            Work closely with community development organizations

•            Require absentee landowners to perform cleanups or forfeit their property

•            Transfer land in public ownership to Conservation Land Trusts

Programmatic:

•            Offer expanded bulk trash collection

•            Install and monitor surveillance cameras in highly impacted areas

•            Contract residents and/or small haulers to collect illegally dumped materials

•            Place dumpsters in common illegal dumping sites

 

Street and Sidewalk Sweeping

Street and sidewalk sweeping is provided by the Street Sweeping and Roll-Off Division and is described in Section 3.4.

Barriers to Effective Street and Sidewalk Sweeping

The assessment of the City’s street and sidewalk sweeping program identified the following barriers:

1.           Year-Round Operation: Street sweepers in the City run year-round, but they may not be needed in the winter when freezing conditions prevent debris collection.  Due to the lack of CDL drivers, it may be more efficient to reallocate drivers of street sweeping trucks to snow plowing during the winter months.

2.           Inconsistent or Nonexistent Service: Street sweeping is reportedly inconsistent or non-existent in some neighborhoods.  This issue is due predominantly to a lack of enforcement when parked cars are not moved during street sweeping days.

3.           Ineffective for Collecting Leaves: The City’s current street sweeping trucks are not appropriate for collecting leaves from the City’s streets.

4.           Ineffective for Bike Lanes: The City’s current street and sidewalk sweeping trucks are ineffective for cleaning bike lanes.

Opportunities for Improvement

The LWBB Plan outlines multiple ways to improve street sweeping and litter control in the City.  These include:

1.           Educational Programs to Reduce Litter:  Baltimore needs to build ownership to keep neighborhoods clean, which requires educating residents and schoolchildren on littering and what is recyclable (e.g., through anti-littering campaigns and PSAs).

2.           Streamlining Street Sweeping Schedule:  The current street sweeping schedule is seen as intermittent and hard to understand.  This could be improved by ensuring sweepers come as scheduled and by making the schedule simpler to understand.  The efficacy of street sweeping could be improved by offering sweeping services in more places (e.g., alleys) and by enforcing parking rules for sweeping days.

3.           Litter Crews:  DPW could provide more litter cleanup crews, separate from curbside collection crews, or alternatively contract private organizations for street litter collection.  One example is to have “on calls” for rapid cleanup of litter or illegal dumping by small hauling contractors.

4.           Litter Collection Drives:  The City could organize litter collection initiatives with local schools or communities, providing certificates for community service hours and/or offering awards for groups that clean up and recycle the most litter.  This could be conducted as an extension of the biannual Mayor’s Spring and Fall Cleanups in which participants earn credits towards their stormwater fee.

5.           Responsible Businesses:  The City could conduct educational campaigns to encourage businesses such as restaurants, cafes, and stores to collect litter from in front of their premises.

6.           Residents’ Litter Squads:  The City could create jobs for those who need them by hiring squads to collect litter and bulk trash from the streets.  Squads could be staffed by vulnerable and at-risk members of the community (e.g., youth and homeless people), connecting and organizing them with additional support services.  Communities are less likely to tolerate littering and dumping in areas they have cleaned.  Examples of U.S. cities that have programs to give homeless people and panhandlers jobs picking up trash, pulling weeds, and street cleaning include Albuquerque, NM, which started their program in 2015, as well as Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL, Denver, CO, and Portland, ME.

Other opportunities to include street and sidewalk cleaning include suspending street and sidewalk cleaning during winter months, procuring additional vehicles for leaf collection and procuring additional smaller street sweeping vehicles for bike lane cleaning.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its street and sidewalk sweeping program is found below.

Barriers

              •            Year-round operations

•            Inconsistent or nonexistent service

•            Ineffective leaf collection

•            Ineffective bike lane sweeping

Opportunities

              Administrative:

•            Educational programs to reduce litter

•            Streamlining street sweeping schedule

•            Responsible businesses

Programmatic:

•            Litter crews

•            Litter collection drives

•            Residents’ litter squads

 

Small Hauler Program

The City’s small hauler program is described in Section 3.4.

Barriers to Small Hauler Program Operation

The assessment of the City’s small hauler program identified the following barriers:

1.           Inefficient Payment System: Currently, small haulers pay a set fee for every load they dump at NWTS or QRL.  However, small haulers have to pay every time they enter the facilities, which can be slow (particularly when paying with cash).

2.           Lines at NWTS and QRL: Since rollout of the small hauler program, small haulers have significantly outnumbered residents and commercial haulers at NWTS and QRL.  This has led to lines at both facilities (particularly on Saturdays).

Opportunities for Improvement

The following opportunities for improving the small hauler program have been identified:

1.           Setting up an automatic payment system:  Setting up an automatic payment system where small haulers had registered accounts to charge would make the program easier, safer, and more efficient and may help to reduce lines at QRL and NWTS.

2.           Expand the small hauler program to additional locations: While the City does not currently have other locations where small haulers could bring waste (existing residents’ drop-off centers are space constrained), if the City developed a new facility (e.g., an eco-park or a new drop-off center), the small hauler program could be expanded at that new facility.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of its small hauler program is found below.

Component       Assessment

Barriers

              •            Inefficient payment system

•            Lines at QRL and NWTS

Opportunities

              •            Setting up an automatic payment system

•            Expand small hauler program to additional locations

 

Other Waste Collection Programs

The City’s other waste collection programs are described in Section 3.4.

Barriers to Collecting Other Waste

The assessment of the City’s other waste collection programs identified the following barriers:

•            Christmas Tree Diversion: Currently, Christmas trees may be brought to multiple locations throughout the City where residents are given the option to mulch their trees and collect the mulch.  However, mulch that is not collected is sent to QRL or WIN WASTE for disposal.

•            Animal Carcass Diversion: Animal carcasses are currently collected and sent for incineration.  However, these carcasses would ideally be diverted and composted.

•            Collection of Sharps and Human Waste: Sharps and human waste pose a health risk to City collection crews.

Opportunities for Improvement

Potential opportunities for improving collection of other waste in the City include:

1.           Diversion of Christmas trees for shoreline habitat restoration.  Whole Christmas trees can reportedly be diverted for use as a biodegradable material to restore natural habitat along shorelines.

2.           Diversion of Christmas trees as animal food: Christmas trees may be fed to goats as a nutritional supplement during winter months.

3.           Diversion of animal carcasses: Divert animal carcasses to a compost facility (particularly if the City constructs or facilitates the construction of a compost facility within the City).

4.           Sharps and human waste:  The City is currently piloting a program to remove sharps and human waste from encampments.  If the pilot is successful, this program could be implemented at a larger scale.

Summary

A summary of the other waste collection programs is found below.

Barriers

              •            Lack of Christmas tree diversion

•            Lack of animal carcass diversion

•            Collection of sharps and human waste

Opportunities

              •            Diversion of Christmas trees for shoreline habitat

•            Diversion of Christmas trees as goat food

•            Diversion of animal carcasses to composting facility

•            Pilot program to collect sharps and human waste from encampments

 

4.4       Waste Transfer

Currently, the City only operates one transfer station: NWTS.  This section will focus on NWTS and opportunities to expand the City’s transfer capacity.  This section will not focus on transfer stations operated by the private sector as these facilities are outside of the City’s control.

Northwest Transfer Station

As indicated in Section 3.6, NWTS is currently operated by DPW as a transfer station to consolidate mixed refuse and single-stream recycling (SSR) loads collected curbside by DPW’s load-packer trucks into larger truckloads.  It also serves as a drop-off point for the small hauler program and operates a residents’ drop-off center.  Mixed recyclables are sent from NWTS to the WMRA and World Recycling materials recovery facilities while trash is sent to QRL and WIN WASTE.  NWTS has a permitted capacity of 150,000 tons per year. However, in 2021, only about 18,200 tons of recyclables and 45,900 tons of mixed refuse were handled at the facility.  The facility’s operational life is expected to exceed 20 years.

Barriers to Operation

An assessment of NWTS identified the following barriers to efficient operations:

1.           Staffing Limitations: Due to a shortage of CDL transfer truck drivers, waste and recyclables currently accumulate on the tipping floor.  On especially busy days, this can force operations to halt, causing lines.

2.           Small Hauler Program: One reason for this lower throughput has been the implementation of the small hauler program at NWTS, which has limited the volume of load packer trucks that the site can easily accommodate.   To operate NWTS at its permitted capacity of 150,000 tons per year, the small hauler program would have to be significantly cut back or relocated to another location.

3.           Size Constraints: Expansion of NWTS is constrained by the location and size of the property and existing infrastructure.  In order to process the permitted capacity of 150,000 tons per year, NWTS would have to expand operation to include more shifts and/or longer working hours (which may require a permit amendment from MDE).  List others from Section 3.7 once finalized

Opportunities for Improvement

Opportunities for improving or expanding the existing waste transfer system are taken from the LWBB Plan and other publicly available planning documents.

1.           Reconfigure Northwest Transfer Station for Out-of-City Disposal: To reduce the City’s reliance on WIN WASTE and conserve airspace in QRL, the LWBB Plan recommends upgrading NWTS to operate at its full permitted capacity of 150,000 tons per year (the facility processed XX tons in 2021) and reconfiguring the facility for out-of-City disposal.  It is estimated that this would require adding additional shifts and equipment to keep the facility open for longer (potentially 24 hours a day, six days a week, depending on permit conditions and local neighborhood concerns).

2.           Construction of an Additional Truck Transfer Facility: NWTS is ideally located as a transfer point for northern and, potentially, western parts of the City, allowing load packers to dump their loads and continue servicing neighborhoods without having to haul waste all the way to WIN WASTE or QRL.  However, there is not currently a transfer point that allows load packers servicing the eastern part of the City to do the same.  To provide a central transfer point to the eastern part of the City and increase the City’s overall transfer capacity, the LWBB Plan recommends constructing an additional truck transfer facility in the eastern part of the City.  The LWBB Plan includes a conceptual layout for the eastern transfer station at the Bowley’s Lane residents’ drop-off center.

3.           Construction of a Large Rail Transfer Facility: The LWBB Plan recommends constructing a large rail transfer facility to reduce the City’s reliance on WIN WASTE and conserve airspace in QRL (particularly given that the City’s contract with WIN WASTE expires in 2031).  Such a facility would be constructed so it could be operated as a truck transfer station but would be built along a rail spur to allow for containerization and rail shipment to suitable out-of-city landfills as the primary transfer mechanism.  Rail would be the preferred method of transfer with trucking capabilities providing a backup.  This option would allow the City to send waste to regional landfills or even more distant facilities as needed.  Likely locations for a large rail transfer facility are QRL (rail lines currently run around the northern property boundary) or the Western Acceptance Facility in Baltimore County.  If the Western Acceptance Facility is chosen for development, it will require a collaborative agreement with Baltimore County to construct the facility.  Adding a rail spur at Western Acceptance Facility will likely be more challenging than at QRL.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of NWTS is found below.

Barriers

              •            Staffing limitations

•            Lines due to small hauler program

•            Size constraints

Opportunities

              •            Reconfigure NWTS for out-of-City disposal

•            Construct an additional truck transfer facility

•            Construct a large rail transfer facility

 

4.5       Waste Processing and Recycling

The only waste processing facility currently operated by the City is Camp Small.  This section will assess Camp Small and also offer opportunities for constructing additional processing capacity in the City.

Camp Small

Camp Small is a 5-acre facility operated by the Department of Recreation and Parks for processing wood waste.  In 2020, it reportedly handled 1,100 tons of logs and 900 tons of mulch.  Additional information is provided in Section 3.7.

Barriers to Efficient Operation

An assessment of Camp Small identified the following barriers to efficient operations:

1.           Space Constraints:  As a relatively small site, Camp Small has very limited opportunities to expand operations or store materials and equipment.

2.           Lack of Equipment: The facility currently requires a large grinder to more efficiently grind large logs and branches.

3.           Staffing Limitations: Staff currently have to split their time between processing high value woods to sell as prime logs and grinding less valuable woods to generate mulch.

4.           Lack of Marketing/Visibility: Many residents are not aware that Camp Small exists or that they can purchase mulch, logs, and other wood products from the facility.  As such, mulch has been accumulating at the site.

Opportunities for Improvement

The following opportunities for improving Camp Small have been identified:

1.           Improve education and outreach: Education and outreach can help improve visibility of the facility and help the facility to sell more mulch and wood products.

2.           Use of stored mulch as a carbon bank: Due to the large amount of stored mulch at the site, there is an opportunity to use Camp Small as a carbon bank if the City constructs or facilitates construction of a composting facility.

3.           Increase staffing and funding: Increasing staffing and funding for the facility could allow the facility to purchase a large grinder and hire additional personnel to process wood waste more efficiently.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of Camp Small is found below.

Component       Assessment

Barriers

              •            Space constraints

•            Lack of equipment

•            Staffing limitations

•            Lack of marketing/visibility

Opportunities

              •            Improve education and outreach

•            Use stored mulch as a carbon bank

•            Increase staffing and funding

 

Opportunities for Expanded Processing Capacity

Opportunities for improving or expanding the existing waste processing and recycling system are taken from the LWBB Plan and other publicly available planning documents.

Opportunities to Improve SSR Processing Capacity

The LWBB Plan includes several opportunities to improve SSR processing capacity in the City.  These include:

1.           Expanding existing MRFs in the City: The City may partner with existing MRFs in the City to expand in-City SSR processing capacity and reduce reliance on WMRA.  Older facilities focus on providing recycling services to bulk customers, mainly in the construction industry.  They are not equipped to handle high volumes of SSR.  Further, the changing composition of SSR and markets for recovered materials requires MRFs to make regular upgrades to include newer technology into their facilities.  While older facilities may be retrofitting with new technology, this is unlikely to be economical for the owners unless the City is willing to help fund the upgrades. 

2.           Constructing a City-operated centralized MRF: The City could develop a new centralized MRF (either directly or by entering into an agreement with the private sector) to process SSR locally at a lower cost than offered by WMRA.  However, it seems unlikely this would provide a more cost-effective solution, when considering all capital costs and marketing experience needed.

3.           Constructing City-operated decentralized mini-MRFs: The City could develop a system of “mini-MRFs” to process SSR locally at a lower cost than can be offered by WMRA.  This option offers flexibility, as the City can choose to construct some mini-MRFs while continuing to send excess recyclables to WMRA for processing.  Mini-MRFs could be developed by community organizations in collaboration with experienced small haulers and licensed contractors, with the City potentially providing small business development grants.  Due to their small operational footprint, mini-MRFs can relatively easily be installed within disused/abandoned warehouses or industrial buildings.  With a smaller system, haulers would develop relationships with residents while mini-MRFs would also provide a source of jobs for the local community.  Shorter haul routes could even allow investment in smaller trucks (ideally non-compacting) to reduce contamination and produce a higher quality product.

Opportunities to Improve Organics Processing Capacity

One central recommendation from the LWBB Plan and the BFWRS is the need to develop in-City organics processing capacity (either composting or anaerobic digestion).  It is expected that organics diversion efforts in the City will increase over the Planning Period.  To reduce the transportation costs associated with hauling organic waste outside of the City for processing, additional in-City processing capacity should be created.  The LWBB plan offers three methods for the City to increase organics processing capacity:

1.           Building, permitting, and operating its own organics processing facilities;

2.           Partnering with private companies to design, build, and operate organics processing facilities under a public-private partnership (PPP); or

3.           Contracting with other existing public or private entities to accept organics for processing.

The BFWRS provides further guidance on how to expand organics processing in Baltimore, including conducting a feasibility and cost-benefit analysis for establishing composting or AD facilities at City-owned sites; working with surrounding counties to identify viable locations for small, medium, and large-scale composting and AD facilities; and issuing joint RFPs for private organics management companies to develop processing facilities at selected sites.

To meet expand organics processing capacity, the City has two options:

1.           Centralized facility:  Site, permit, construct, and operate one large facility capable of processing all SSO collected from residential sources as well as City government and public schools.  This facility would likely be sited at or near QRL.

2.           Decentralized facilities:  Site, permit, construct, and operate a series of small facilities to process SSO.  These would be distributed around the city and developed sequentially as demand for additional SSO processing capacity builds.

The main advantage of the centralized option is economies of scale, as it would be less expensive in the long term to staff and operate one large facility rather than a series of small facilities.  Another advantage is that a large facility requires only one plot of land while a decentralized would require multiple plots of land.  If only one facility is constructed, a temporary or permanent shutdown of the facility would completely eliminate the ability to process organic waste.   

The main advantage of a decentralized approach is redundancy and reducing vehicle miles.  If there is some problem and one of the facilities has to temporarily (or permanently) shut down, capacity could be relatively easily transferred to the other facilities.  Decentralized systems are thus more robust to climate change impacts such as flooding or storms.  Another advantage of decentralization is that capacity can be scaled up with time to match the demands of the SSO collection program.  SSO collection would most likely be rolled out in phases; therefore, constructing a series of small organics processing facilities would allow processing capacity to match demand and require less initial capital and operational funding. Developing multiple facilities also entails more permitting and environmental monitoring effort.

Opportunities to Improve C&D Processing Capacity

The LWBB Plan outlines three strategies for increasing C&D processing capacity in the City:

1.           Construct and operate a C&D MRF:  This would allow the City to implement full control over all aspects of C&D recycling.  However, it would also force the City to bear all the responsibility for any operational issues.

2.           Construct a MRF in coordination with a private company under a PPP:  With this option, the City would own the facility while the private company would operate it.

3.           Allow private companies to expand existing facilities and/or develop a new C&D MRF:  Baltimore is already home to at least two large operational C&D MRFs.  If increased C&D recycling is mandated, it is likely that private companies could expand capacity without any help or direction from the City.

Opportunities for Developing a Mixed Waste Processing Facility

The LWBB Plan considered the development of a mixed waste processing (MWP) facility to improve diversion.  MWP facilities are complex operations that employ a multi-stage approach to sort and process the incoming mixed waste stream.  A typical MWP facility includes a “dirty” MRF to recover recyclables and separate out undesirable materials prior to processing, an anaerobic digestion facility to convert organics separated from the MRF to methane, and other processing technologies (e.g., gasification) to convert plastics and other high calorific wastes to energy or fuel.  It is noted that an MWP facility may not include all these technologies or may employ different technologies in alternative configurations.  However, the main goals of MWP are to generate energy, recover recyclables, create reusable products, and reduce the final quantity of waste that requires disposal.

Ultimately, the LWBB Plan did not recommend construction of a MWP facility in the City for the following reasons:

1.           MWP technologies are largely unproven for use in the U.S;

2.           MWP technologies also tend to be capital intensive and expensive to operate, especially when compared with other waste disposal options, such as continued use of WIN WASTE or constructing a transfer station;

3.           MWP facilities work in opposition to reduction/diversion measures.  In other words, mixed waste processing performs best when all organic and recyclable material is left in the mixed waste stream.  MWP may thus be an inefficient, expensive, and highly centralized method of meeting diversion goals, which could be better achieved by implementing some of the reduction and diversion options detailed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

4.6       Waste Disposal

The City currently uses two facilities for waste disposal: QRL and WIN WASTE.  This section presents an in-depth assessment of QRL, as this facility is owned and operated by the City and is thus entirely under the City’s control.  Because WIN WASTE is not directly under City control, the assessment for this facility focuses primarily on the limitations of the current agreement with WIN WASTE and opportunities to improve the disposal agreement with WIN WASTE.

Quarantine Road Landfill

The permitted capacity of QRL is 18,320,799 cubic yards.  As of 2021, 15,653,479 cubic yards had been consumed, leaving 2,667,320 cubic yards of permitted capacity.  It is anticipated that the landfill’s remaining permitted capacity will be consumed in 2028.  However, a lateral expansion of QRL onto the adjacent Millennium Landfill is currently planned, with submission of the Phase III permit application report to MDE occurring in October 2022.  Based on the Phase III report, the lateral expansion will increase the landfill’s total capacity by 5.7 million cubic yards and extend its service life through 2035.  It is possible that QRL could be vertically expanded at a subsequent date, which would further increase its capacity and service life.

Barriers to Efficient Operation

An assessment of QRL identified the following barriers to efficient operation:

1.           Payment Issues: QRL currently does not accept credit cards for payment.  As such, an armed off-duty police officer must be present at the scale house during operating hours to prevent theft of cash payments.  Further, the lack of credit card payments means that some haulers who do not have cash simply do not pay for disposal as there is currently no means to penalize haulers that do not pay.

2.           Unacceptable Materials: There are currently cameras in place at the scale house so that cashiers can identify unacceptable loads.  However, cashiers are typically busy processing payments and often do not have time to inspect every load.  As such, unacceptable loads often make it to the active face where they may be landfilled if they are not identified by onsite workers.  The most common unacceptable wastes encountered at QRL are tires.

3.           Mattresses:  Mattresses are very difficult to landfill as they are large, bulky, and they do not compact well.

4.           WWTP Sludge: QRL is temporarily accepting sludge from the BRWWTP while maintenance of the facility is underway.  However, sludge is a weak material that requires mixing with waste and ash prior to placement to maintain stability of the landfill.

5.           Lack of Signage/Communication: There is a general lack of signage and communication with customers and residents.

6.           Lack of Equipment: QRL currently does not have a roll-off truck onsite to haul roll-offs (and particularly tires) collected at the residents’ drop-off center.  As such, the landfill manager must schedule removal of all roll-offs from the site.  Additional roll-off containers are also required to store bulk waste.

7.           Staffing Limitations: Hiring and retention of personnel is a problem at QRL.  Laborers had to be hired through a third party to remove litter from the site as there were not enough onsite personnel.  Equipment operators are also hard to hire and retain as starting salaries are considerably lower at QRL than for private sector jobs.

8.           Power Outages: There is an issue with the power supplied to the site which has led to shutdowns of the landfill gas flare and leachate pump stations.

9.           Wait Times and Lines: Particularly on busy days (e.g., Saturdays), QRL is subject to significant wait times and lines.  These lines are often the result of limited on-site roll-off containers at the residents’ drop-off center.

10.         Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for the City produced by the BOS estimates that QRL generated approximately 638,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (using a global warming potential of 20 years) in 2021.  These emissions are largely driven by methane produced from the anaerobic degradation of organic waste in the landfill.

11.         Potential PFAS Contamination: There is potential that the leachate generated at QRL contains PFAS, which may subject the landfill to strict treatment requirements.

12.         Expiration of WIN WASTE Contract: When the existing disposal contract with WIN WASTE expires in 2031, QRL will be the only waste disposal facility in the City.

Opportunities for Improvement

The assessment of QRL identified several opportunities to improve efficient operation of the facility.  These include:

1.           Installing internet capabilities and credit card readers at the scale house.

2.           Training cashiers to identify unacceptable waste at the scale house.

3.           More consistent use of cameras at the scale house to identify unacceptable waste.

4.           Installing radiation sensors at scale house to identify unacceptable waste.

5.           Procurement of a roll-off truck and additional roll-off containers to provide additional storage and hauling capacity and reduce lines and complaints.

6.           Increasing pay, adding retention bonuses, and improving training to improve hiring and retention (particularly of CDL equipment operators).

7.           Providing more specific job postings to target equipment operators.

8.           Installing license plate readers and gates at the scale house to prevent people from leaving without paying.

9.           Procuring driver’s license scanners for use at the residents’ drop-off center to facilitate identification of non-residents and commercial haulers.

10.         Working with local utility to reduce power outages at the site.

11.         Increasing diversion away from the landfill (particularly organic waste) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce disposal pressure on QRL when the WIN WASTE contract expires.

Summary

A summary of the City’s assessment of QRL is found below.

Barriers

              •            Payment issues

•            Unacceptable materials

•            Mattresses

•            WWTP Sludge

•            Lack of signage/communication

•            Lack of equipment

•            Staffing limitations

•            Power outages

•            Wait times and lines

•            Greenhouse gas emissions

•            Potential PFAS contamination (leachate)

•            Expiration of WIN WASTE contract

Opportunities

              •            Training cashiers to identify unacceptable waste

•            More consistent use of cameras to identify unacceptable waste

•            Installing radiation sensors to identify unacceptable waste

•            Procurement of roll-off truck and roll-off containers

•            Increasing pay, bonuses, and training of equipment operators

•            Providing more specific job postings to attract equipment operators

•            Installing license plate reads and gates at the scale house

•            Installing internet and credit card readers at the scale house

•            Procuring driver’s license scanners for the residents’ drop-off center

•            Working with BGE to reduce power outages

•            Increasing diversion efforts

 

WIN WASTE

WIN WASTE has a capacity of 2,250 tons of refuse per day and the anticipated remaining service life of the plant is over 20 years.  Currently, the City sends most of its waste to WIN WASTE under a contract with the Northeast Maryland Waste Authority.  This contract will expire in 2031.

Barriers to Efficient Operation

An assessment of the City’s usage of WIN WASTE for waste disposal identified the following barriers:

1.           Emissions: The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for the City produced by the BOS estimates that WIN WASTE generated approximately 653,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (using a global warming potential of 20 years) in 2020.  Additionally, WIN WASTE produces particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.  These emissions can have a negative impact on City residents.

2.           Mattresses: WIN WASTE has stopped accepting mattresses, which contributes to the mattress problem experienced at QRL.

3.           Contract Ending in 2031:  If the City’s contract with WIN WASTE is allowed to expire in 2031, the City will need to be prepared to either send all waste to QRL for disposal or develop sufficient waste transfer capacity to move waste outside of the City for disposal.

Opportunities for Improvement

This assessment identified the following opportunities for improving the City’s relationship with WIN WASTE:

•            Increasing diversion away from disposal to prepare the City for the expiration of the WIN WASTE contract in 2031 and to reduce the City’s GHG emissions.

Summary

Summary table to be provided following full assessment of WIN Waste.

4.7       Plan to Return to Pre-Pandemic Services

As discussed in Section 3.1, the City had to reduce services during the Covid-19 pandemic to accommodate significant staff shortages.  As a result, the City has had to shift curbside recycling collection services from once a week to biweekly.  The City is currently planning to re-establish weekly recycling collection by hiring additional staff (particularly drivers).  Current efforts to provide job opportunities include training programs, open positions, job fairs, and other opportunities.  These efforts will continue until the City can hire enough workers to provide weekly recycling pickup.

4.8       Potential Limitations on Development

This section contains information on the limitations for development of new solid waste management facilities in Baltimore.  Solid waste management facilities considered in this section include transfer stations, solid waste processing facilities, and compost facilities.  As indicated in Section 4.6, no new landfills or incinerators are planned in the City; as such, these facilities are not considered in this section.

Geographic Considerations

Location and Topography

The location selected for development of any new solid waste management facility will likely need to be fairly flat to allow for site access and facility construction.  The facility should be located in such a way that it does not negatively impact any adjacent communities (e.g., by increasing traffic, generating noise, generating air or water pollution, etc.).

Land Use

The location selected for development of any new solid waste management facility should be consistent with historic land use for the site.  As such, historically industrial sites should be considered first for development of a new solid waste management facility.

Zoning

Zoning requirements for solid waste management facilities are described in Section 2.3 and Appendix C.

Defined Critical Areas

Maryland’s Critical Areas Law requires a buffer of at least 1,000 feet from tidal waters and tidal wetlands.  Any proposed development of new solid waste management facilities will meet this buffer.

Geologic and Hydrogeologic Considerations

Soil Types and Characteristics

Soil types should be considered when siting a proposed solid waste management facility.  Soil types and characteristics can have implications for stormwater management, infiltration, erosion and sediment control, and groundwater contamination and monitoring.

Geologic Conditions

Geologic conditions should also be considered when siting a potential solid waste management facility.  Geologic conditions can determine the locations of aquifers (typically in coarse-grained or fractured, permeable geologic layers) and aquitards (typically in fine-grained, low permeability geologic layers).  As such, geologic conditions can greatly impact the location and flow of groundwater at a site.

Aquifers

The location, depth, flow, and usage of aquifers at a proposed site should be considered when siting a new solid waste management facility.  The facility should be designed in such a way as to minimize impacts to aquifers (particularly those that are used for drinking water) and groundwater monitoring wells should be located to monitor potential impacts to all aquifers potentially impacted by site development and operation.

Hydrologic Considerations

Site Water Management

A stormwater management plan for a potential solid waste management facility will be drafted and approved by DPW prior to construction of the facility.  Stormwater must be managed consistent with the approved stormwater management plan.

Any contact water produced at the proposed solid waste management facility will be collected and treated in accordance with the approved operations and maintenance manual for the facility.  Discharge to waters of the State must be limited to those allowable under permits governing solid waste disposal and water pollution control.

Surface Water

Proposed solid waste management facilities should be sited to minimize impacts to surface water sources.  No water containing pollutants shall be discharged from the site.

Wetlands

A proposed solid waste management facility should be sited to minimize impacts to non-tidal wetlands.  If wetland impacts cannot be avoided, a Joint Federal/State Application for the Alteration of Any Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal or Nontidal Wetland in Maryland must be filed with MDE.

Floodplains

Solid waste management facilities cannot be sited within FEMA-designated floodplains.

Watersheds

Development of a proposed solid waste management facility should not significantly alter watershed drainage areas or cause potential impacts to downstream facilities.

Existing Water Quality

The existing water quality for a given site should be considered when siting a proposed solid waste management facility.  Development of the proposed facility should not lead to significant impacts to existing surface or groundwater quality.  Construction of monitoring wells may be required prior to site development to determine the existing water quality conditions for the site.

Planned Long-Term Growth Patterns

Long-term growth patterns should be considered when siting a proposed solid waste management facility.  As previously indicated, solid waste management facilities should be located where they will not negatively impact any adjacent communities.  Similarly, long-term growth patterns should be considered such that the facility will not negatively impact any future communities over the proposed life of the facility.

4.9       Asbestos Disposal Capacity

The disposal of asbestos is largely unaddressed. Private companies that remove asbestos from older buildings in the City are mandated to transport it out of Baltimore for disposal.  Asbestos removal from City owned buildings is contracted out to private firms. 

4.10     Emergency Response Procedures for Hazardous Leaks and Spills

State regulations for the development of comprehensive solid waste management plans require that Chapter 4 evaluates programs and procedures for responding to the unplanned (emergency) spilling or leaking of hazardous wastes within the local jurisdiction. In compliance with this requirement, the City's emergency response system for hazardous wastes is summarized below.

Under the leadership of the Baltimore City Fire Department, which has the principal responsibility for responding to hazardous material emergencies in the City, Baltimore’s Local Emergency Planning Committee developed a Hazardous Materials Action Plan. The plan includes instructions for handling hazardous material emergencies, sources of information, and parties to be notified.

The City's emergency response system is activated by telephone calls to 911. Callers are asked to provide as much information as possible about the nature of the hazardous material, impending danger, and location and extent of the incident. The facility where the incident occurred, or the transporter, is required to notify the National Response Center of the incident after calling 911.

The Fire Department responds to 911 hazardous materials calls by dispatching a hazardous material task force of fire engines/trucks and a rescue team. Other agencies and resources are notified as required. At the site of the incident, an operations command post is established, and the severity of the incident is determined based on the likelihood of public impact. Depending on the public impact and its probable extent, the incident commander may initiate "secure premises," "public relocation," or a “general information” procedure to protect the public until the hazard has been neutralized.

The entire response to the emergency is coordinated by the Fire Department, whose personnel are trained and equipped to handle hazardous material emergencies. Other agencies respond only at the direction of the Fire Department's incident commander, to avoid any duplication of efforts or confusion.

The City's DP3 Plan is incorporated by reference into this solid waste plan. The plan is available for public review in the Maryland Room at the Enoch Pratt Central Library in downtown Baltimore.

4.11     Adequacy of Local Zoning and Master Plan

As indicated in Section 2.4, the City’s Comprehensive Plan provides the policy basis for guiding redevelopment and revitalization of the City’s developed neighborhoods.  Any proposed development of new solid waste management facilities will be conducted in accordance with this plan.

5.      PLAN OF ACTION

Section 5 will contain a plan of action for the City over the planning period.  It is only provided in outline form in this document as the public has not yet had a chance to provide input

5.1       Planning Period

10 years: 2024-2033

5.2       Diversion Goals

Interim Plan to Achieve 35% MRA Recycling Rate

This section will contain an interim plan for the City to meet its state mandated recycling rate of 35%

Long Term Solid Waste Management Goals

This section will contain a plan for the City to progress toward meeting it’s long term zero waste goals outlined in Section 1.1.

 

5.3       Waste Reduction and Diversion Programs

Single Stream Recyclables

This section will include all proposed changes to existing source reduction and waste diversion programs as well as any new programs that will be implemented for SSR.  It will include expected costs, benefits, diversion potential, and timeline for implementation (from LWBB plan).

Organics

This section will include all proposed changes to existing source reduction and waste diversion programs as well as any new programs that will be implemented for organics.  It will include expected costs, benefits, diversion potential, and timeline for implementation (from LWBB plan) – see example table below.

Plan to Reduce Food Wastage

Metric

Description

Max. Diversion

Potential

Universities: 3,250 tons

Commercial: 20,400 tons

Residential: 48,750 tons

TOTAL: 72,400 tons

Costs

Programs: Not calculated (see Section 3.1)

Administration:  $4.7M OPEX

Indirect Costs:

  • Reduced tip fees at QRL
  • Job losses at disposal facilities
  • Reduced demand for local food (farmers)
  • Increased need for donations

Benefits

Environmental: -304,600 MTCO2E

Airspace: $4.9M

Indirect Benefits:

  • Reduced trash collection frequency
  • Savings on food purchase/waste collection (residents and businesses)
  • Downstream employment opportunities

Challenges

  • Changing buying/disposal habits
  • Resistance from affected businesses
  • Hygiene standards for food rescue

Timeline

  • BFWRS target: 50-100% reduction by 2040 (depending on sector)
  • Begin with City government/public schools

 

Plan to Divert Organics from Disposal

 

Construction and Demolition Debris

 

Bulk Waste

 

Other Diversion Programs

 

5.4       Waste Collection System

This section will include all proposed changes to existing collection programs as well as any new collection programs to be implemented.  It will include expected costs, benefits, diversion potential, and timeline for implementation (from LWBB plan)

5.5       Waste Transfer System

This section will include all proposed changes to existing waste transfer system as well as any new transfer stations to be constructed.  It will include expected costs, benefits, transfer capacity, and timeline for implementation (from LWBB plan)

5.6       Waste Processing and Recycling System

This section will include all proposed changes to existing waste processing system as well as any new waste processing facilities to be constructed.  It will include expected costs, benefits, processing capacity, and timeline for implementation (from LWBB plan)

5.7       Waste Disposal System

This section will include all proposed changes to existing waste disposal system as well as any new waste disposal facilities to be constructed (including proposed expansion of QRL).  It will include expected costs, benefits, disposal capacity, and timeline for implementation (from LWBB plan)