HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-16-1997 - 9c i
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 16, 1997
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
DEPARTMENT: Public Works PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)
BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/N)
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
4/4/97 Public Works Director Memo Wilbert McAdoo, ext 2625
3/26/97 LOG Staff Memo
11/27/96 LOG Memo
6/13/96 LOG Chair Memo TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
7/2/96 Memo from Don Willhoit Hillsborough 732-8181
2/4/97 Letter from Carrboro Mayor Chapel Hill 968-4501
3/19/97 Summary of Costs-ISWMP (Current Durham 688-7331
vs. Proposed) Mebane 227-2031
PURPOSE: To discuss issues related to the development of an integrated solid waste management
plan for Orange County and its municipalities.
BACKGROUND: At their March 26, 1997 meeting, the Landfill Owners' Group (LOG) discussed
a number of issues related to the integrated solid waste management plan being developed by the
LOG staff in conjunction with the County and Towns. Information concerning previous feedback to
the LOG from the various governing boards on the integrated plan was presented, including
summaries of discussions held by the Orange County Commissioners on this subject in June 1996,
December 1996, and January 1997.
During the March 26 LOG meeting,there were at least two topics identified which Commissioners
Crowther and Halkiotis indicated should be discussed by the full Board of Commissioners at an
upcoming Commissioners meeting:
• whether there should be universal collection(curbside or otherwise) for all sectors (e.g.
commercial and multi-family residential, in addition to single family residential)
• affirm whether the Board supports the construction of a materials recovery facility (MRF), as
outlined in the integrated solid waste management system that was recommended by the LOG to
the member governments
The Board may also wish to discuss further its views expressed to date concerning the solid waste
management plan(summarized in the April 4, 1997 memo from the County Public Works Director).
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the issues outlined
above, and provide any additional guidance to County and LOG staffs concerning development of
the integrated solid waste management plan.
z
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Wilbert McAdoo
RE: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
DATE: April 4, 1997
The Landfill Owners Group (L.O.G.) at the March 26, 1997 meeting requested that the Orange
County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) provide additional guidance on the Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan. The local Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan will be used for
development and adoption of a plan to meet the North Carolina Statutory requirements for a
Solid Waste plan from each local government. The requirements of the state plan are broader
and require submittal of far more background information than the integrated plan currently
under consideration by the Landfill Owner's Group.
The current proposed Integrated Solid Waste Plan is as follows:
Proposed integrated solid waste plan
Vewi: Co
._.. ..
• Differential Landfill Fees • Universal collection of • Commingled Materials
recyclables from all sectors Recovery Facility (MRF)
• Public Education --------------------------------------- with capacity to accept
source separated materials
• Non-Economic Incentives (To be decided by individual • Centralized Organics
governments) Composting to handle MRF
----------------------------------
• Convenience centers for mixed paper residuals and
(To be decided by individual
rural residential solid other organics (deferred
governments.) waste) until outcome of current
• Collection Bans • Yard waste and bulky items work with TJCOG and
(for a fee?) others is complete)
• Volume based fees • Universal At-the-Source -
solid waste collection for • Mulching facility to handle
urban commercial and yard and wood waste
residential sectors (already in place)
3
The Landfill Owners Group requested that the Orange County Board of Commissioners provide
feedback and recommendations on the following:
0 Confirmation of Solid Waste Convenience Centers as the method of collection for
unincorporated Orange County.
0 Confirmation on support of all five (5) waste prevention measures
1. Differential landfill fees
2. Public Education
3. Non Economic Incentives
4. Collection Ban
5. Volume Based Fees
0 Confirmation on support of Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)
0 Confirmation on support of mulching facility to handle yard and wood waste.
0 County position on Universal Recycling Collection- all sectors
The BOCC has previously provided the following feedback recommendations on the Integrated
Solid Waste Management Plan.
June 26, 1996 Regular BOCC meeting recommendations:
Incorporate all five waste reduction measures -
1. Differential Landfill Fees
2. Public Education
3. Non Economic Incentives
4. Collection Bans
5. Volume Based Fees
=> Pursue some forms of pay-as-you-throw for solid waste disposal -not to include recyclables.
=> Concentrate on form and content of materials delivered to a material recovery facility MRF
or landfill not means of delivery or collection.
Concentrate recycling programs and materials to be recycled on materials that will yield
largest overall waste reduction.
4 '
January 16, 1997 Board of Commissioners Solid Waste work session recommendations:
=> The BOCC selected the current system of Solid Waste Convenience Centers as the method of
collection for unincorporated Orange County.
Pay-As-You-Throw fees except for recycling as the preferred waste reduction measure.
By consensus endorsed waste reduction measures as the highest priority.
Should you have questions or need additional information,please contact me.
Attachment: Landfill Owners Group Agenda Item#3 and 4, March 26, 1997 Meeting.
5
• AGENDA#4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director
SUBJECT: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan- feedback from governing boards
DATE: March 26, 1997
This memorandum provides information regarding feedback received from member governments
on the integrated plan and information on the potential costs of implementing portions of the
integrated plan. It also recommends that the Owners Group consider specific elements to adopt
for the integrated solid waste plan.
BACKGROUND
In August 1994, the member governments of the Landfill Owners' Group began a County-wide.
integrated solid waste management plan study. The objective of the study was to develop a series
of options for waste prevention, collection and processing that, if implemented, would have the
potential to reduce mixed solid waste landfilled in Orange County by 50%. This study did not
address construction and demolition wastes:
The study was completed and presented to the Owners' Group in May, 1996. The study
described three systems from which the Owners' Group developed the system in Table 1. The
system shown has changed slightly from that previously shown to the governing boards. The
County has determined , at this time, it wishes to retain the six solid waste convenience centers.
The shaded items are the ones which we recommend that the Owners Group decide upon to
implement the first phases of the integrated solid waste plan.
Table 1
Proposed integrated solid waste plan
Waste Prevention Collection Processing,
• Differential Landfill •, . Universal collection of i • Commingled Materials Recovery
Fees"... recyclables from'all. Facility (MRF)with capacity to .
sectors'-, accept source separated materials
• Public Education • Centralized Qrganics Composting to
(To be decided by individual handle'MRF:fixed paper reduals
governments and other or ahi s deferred until
• Non-Economic g
Convenience centers outcome of current work with:TJ
Incentives;.,. ' " _
for rural residential COG and others is complete)
solid waste) _ -
• Yazd waste and bulky
(To be decided by individual items (for a fee?) Mulching facility to handle yard and
governments) Universal At-the- wood waste (already in place)
• Collection Bans •
Source solid waste
collection for urban
• Volume based fees commercial and -
residential sectors
6
2
Any solid waste system adopted will also include a provision for final disposal of residues and
materials that are not recycled or composted. The location or ownership of the disposal element
has not been determined and was not part of the cost analyses conducted during the integrated
study.
Responses from the Local Governments
The Owners Group has received formal written responses regarding the plan from Orange
County in a memorandum dated July 2, 1996 (see attachment 2) and Carrboro in a memorandum
dated February 4, 1997 (see attachment 3).
Discussion of the integrated plan was on the Town of Chapel Hill's March 24 Council agenda.
The Town of Hillsborough received information on the integrated solid waste plan at their March
11, 1997 meeting and is in the process of developing recommendations for the Owners Group.
In addition to their July 2 memorandum, the Orange County Board of Commissioners discussed
solid waste management at their mid-year retreat on December 7, 1996. While they took no
formal action, the County Manager's office reported that the Board favored retaining the solid
waste convenience centers in some form as a means for collection of residential wastes in
unincorporated Orange County. At their January 16, 1997 work session, the Orange County"
Board of Commissioners reviewed information from the County staff about citizen preferences
for the current system of solid waste convenience centers in unincorporated Orange County.
That preference is shown in the revised system in attachment 2. Curbside collection is preferred
by citizens in the County's more urban areas. The Board of Commissioners prefers volume-
based collection fees as an incentive for solid waste reduction except for recyclables.
Based on previous Owners' Group meetings, there appears to be an informal consensus among
the member governments that they do not wish to relinquish or share control of collection of
municipal solid waste. Thus, as part of the initial implementation process, solid waste collection
would not be considered as an area for integration. Each government would decide
independently how it wishes to regulate solid waste in order to achieve reduction. Therefore,
there would initially be no joint consideration of volume-based fees or collection bans
(mandatory recycling) by the governments. Each would pursue the strategies it believes most
effective in each sector within its jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
The staff prepared planning level estimates on the potential costs of implementing components of
the integrated solid waste management plan which are summarized in Attachment 4. The cost
estimates do not include all prevention, collection and processing elements of the proposed
integrated plan. Specifically we have not included cost estimates for implementing collection
bans or volume-based fees, universal solid waste collection, special waste centers or organics
composting.
The Owners Group stated in their February meeting that they would consider adding local
ordinances for construction waste reduction planning to the overall integrated plan when that was
considered. None of the costs associated with implementation of those types of programs is
included in the implementation estimates shown in attachment 4. The construction waste
reduction ordinances could be incorporated into a larger construction waste management plan.
3 7
• The key new.elements presented in the table for attachment 4 are the costs of additions and
expansions to recycling programs and the resulting reductions in mixed waste disposal per capita
achieved due to implementation of these programs (shaded sections). In order to show a more
complete picture of solid waste management system costs, we have also included estimates of
current collection costs for mixed waste, yard waste and bulky goods, and mixed waste disposal
costs. A detailed description of the attached table's new system elements follows the table.
We have shown a suggested level of service for each addition and expansion to the current
recycling programs. Cost estimates in Attachment 4 are based on those projected levels of
service. Program expansions include:
• Enhanced urban residential recycling (new materials). This would include a two bin system
with weekly collection for all types of paper in one bin and all types of cans and bottles in the
other. Commingled recyclables would be sorted at a materials recovery facility instead of
truckside as they are now.
• Universal and enhanced rural residential recycling. This would include a two bin system as in
urban residential recycling except with collection every other week.
• Universal commercial recycling collection through either weekly commingled collection
from office buildings, primarily in dumpsters but from some smaller businesses in carts.
Source-separated glass and food waste collection would be undertaken from bars and
restaurants where volume justified such service. Glass would be banned from commingled
recycling due to its potential to contaminate other recyclables, especially paper.
• Expanded and enhanced multifamily recycling collections to serve all multifamily complexes
and add new materials. Each multifamily dumpster site would have recycling carts instead of
the one-third of sites that now have recycling.
• Additional non-regulatory waste prevention efforts including especially expanded education
programs.
• A materials recovery facility would be needed to process the materials and its annualized
operating costs, including amortized capital, are included in the new system cost estimate.
As indicated in attachment 4, implementation of the above additions would cost about an
additional $2,050,000 per year and would collect and process an estimated additional 17,230 tons
of materials. The cost per ton for handling the additional materials would be an average of$119
compared to an avearge cost of $152 per ton for current programs. Total costs for the new
recycling system provided by Orange Community Recycling (OCR) would be around $3,575,000
for 25,577 tons of materials, or $140 per ton for collection and processing. We note that these
system costs assume no net revenues from sale of recycled materials nor do the cost estimates
ascribe those costs to any entity or entities.
We have estimated that the additional waste diversion that results from implementation of the
system described above and in the table could move us toward the already..adopted 5090
reduction in per capita mixed waste disposed when compared to our base year of 1988-89. This
waste reduction does not include construction and demolition waste which accounts for around
1/3 of our waste stream.
4 8
Because of the tasks involved in the implementation of the final integrated solid waste system,
we recommend that implementation of its various components be phased. The major expansion
in all recyclables collection programs would be dependent on a processing facility, so it is likely
that the processing facility should be the focus of initial joint efforts. Decisions to begin
implementation during the coming fiscal year would likely have an impact on the fiscal 1997-98
budget. For example, if there were consensus to proceed with a materials recovery facility to
handle recyclables, the facility would have to be designed and a site acquired. Those activities
could take place in fiscal 1997-98, if funds were allocated.
Alternatively, we could solicit proposals for a private entity to design, build and operate a
materials recovery facility at our site. That approach would require acquiring consulting services
to develop a request for proposals, to subsequently evaluate those proposals and then to assist in
development of a contract with the facility operator.
Once the Owners' Group adopts a final plan framework, we would develop a detailed
implementation plan and more detailed system cost estimates.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Owners Group consider the feedback received from the governing
boards along with other information and provide staff guidance on how to proceed with the
development of a draft integrated plan for consideration at the April 16 Owners Group meeting.
We recommend that the Uwners Group consider the elements of the expanded recycling system
described in this memorandum and determine if those are the measures they wish to adopt at the
levels of service proposed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Landfill Owners Group memorandums (11/27/96& 6/13196) requesting feedback on
"Selection of an Integrated Solid Waste Management System"
2. Orange County Board of Commissioners response to the Owners' Group
3. Carrboro Board of Aldermen's response to the Owners' Group
4. Solid waste management system costs
1
9
MEMORANDUM
TO : Carrbcro Mavor and Board of Aldermen
Chapel Hill Mayor and Town Council
Hillsborough Mayor and Town Board
Orange County Board Chair and Commissioners
FROM: Landfill Owners Group
DATE: November 27, 1996
SUBJECT: Selection of ari integrated solid waste management system
At their May 18 , 1996 meeting, the Landfill Owners Group
established an outline of an integrated solid waste system for the
member..governments-•-to.,consider. This outline is similar to the c
system previously seleted by the Owners-Group. The Owners Group
requested, in the attached June 13 , 1996 memorandum (Attachment 1) ,
that the member governments review the proposed system and
recommend changes by July 1, 1996 .
While we believe that the governing boards have discussed some or ,
all of these issues over the -past few months, the Owners Group has
not yet received any formal feedback that could be considered as
they continue to define the Solid Waste Plan. - At the November 21,
1996 meeting the Owners Group decided to contact the various
governing boards to request' some formal feedback regarding the
Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan.
As the attached memorandum relates, the Owners Group referred their
recommended system to the individual governing boards and requested
that the local governments do the following:
1 . Review the system as recommended (see June 13 Memorandum -
Background) and recommend any changes .
2 . - Provide feedback and recommendations on selecting unit-based
pricing v. collection bans (mandatory recycling) coupled with
differential landfill fees as the initial primary waste
prevention strategy. It should be noted that different sectors
(commercial/residential/mulit-family) could utilize different
options . We note that either of these strategies would be
coupled with public education. .
3 . Determine whether universal collection would be adopted for
both recycling and solid waste collections (residential and
commercial) county-wide or whether a system of convenience
centers and laissez-faire private collections would be
maintained in the unincorporated areas and for widespread
commercial recycling.
The Owners Grout) requests that member governments provide this
Feedback arior to its February (currently unscheduled) meeting.
10
MEM0RANDUM
TO: Carrboro Mav_ or and Board of Aldermen
Chapel Hill Mayor and Town Council
Hillsborough Mayor and Town Board
Orange County Board Chair and Commissioners
FROM: Don Willhoit, Landfill Owners Group Chair
DATE: June 13 , 1996
SUBJECT: Selecting an integrated solid waste management system
At their May 18 meeting, the Landfill Owners Group established an
outline of an integrated solid waste system for the member
governments to' consider. This outline is similar to the system
previously selected by the Owners Group. The Owners Group
requested that the member governments review the proposed system
and recommend changes by July 1. The Owners Group will receive
comments at their July 11 meeting.
The Owners Group requested that the local governments do the
following:-
1. Review the system as recommended and recommend any changes.
2 . Provide feedback and recommendations on selecting unit-based
pricing v. collection bans (mandatory recycling) coupled with
differential landfill fees as the primary waste prevention
strategy. We note that either of these strategies would be
coupled with public education.
3 . Determine whether universal collection would be adopted for
both recycling and solid waste collections county-wide or
whether a system of convenience centers and laissez-faire
private collections would be maintained in the unincorporated
areas and for widespread commercial recycling.
Summary
This memorandum contains additional information on the Owners Grout)
_commenced system, unit-based pricing versus collection bans, and
universal collection which may be helpful in addressing the three
items recs_sted by the Owners Grout).
Backcround
'.'he preliminary system selected by the Owners- Group _ncludcs the
_0110W1nC
1
11
2
Waste Prevention:
Note : select either unit-based pricina or collection bans to
implement first
• Unit-based pricing (volume or weight based)
OR
• Collection bans (Mandatory Recycling)
• Differential Landfill Fees NOTE: Differential fees for a
broad range of materials could be coupled to collection bares .
Fees for selected items such as construction wastes could be
implemented without the collection bans .
• Non-economic incentives
• Public Education NOTE: This would be integral to all other options .
Collection:
• Universal collection of waste and recyclables except no rural
yard waste collections,
• Collection of solid waste by individual governments, collection
of recyclables by Orange Regional Landfill/Orange Community
Recycling or its successor agency,
• Collection of commingled recyciables,
• Elimination of convenience centers for solid Waste Collection i.l
unincorporated areas,
• Creation of two (Cr more) Special WaSt°_ Centers for all
materials except mixed solid waste. i .e . yard waste, bulk--,,
salvageable items, recyclab?es, used motor oil, tires,
auto batteries .
Processing:
• Materials Recovery Facility for sorting and processing of mixed
-ecvclables as well as source separated recyclable_s . This
facility would not accept mixed solid waste ,
• Centralized composting fac?li ty for comucsting of- some yard
waste products and other compostab les such as non-marketabl=,
residual paper sorted out from Materials Recovery -aCi litV.
We note that Triangle J Council of Governments is working
area Waste Water treatment plants to develop a biosoliC'.s
(sewage sludae) composting facilizv that could accept of c=
12
3
organic material such az unmarketable paper, yard waste and
food wastes (see attachment 2) .
We believe that the materials recovery facility is a cornerstone of
this system and work on it should begin early, if this system is
adopted. The composting facility does not necessarily need to be
construct ed early in the process to handle either yard waste or
residual order from the materials recovery facility. Yard waste is
now adequately handled.,: through the mulching process at the
landfill . Residual mixed paper may have other markets as both
sorting technology and end-use markets improve .
imolementina the Plan and Reorganization of Solid Waste Management
The Owners Group recommended proceeding with plan implementation
prior to -finalizing the structure and functions of the solid waste
management reorganization. I forwarded a memorandum concerning the
reorganization process to all governing board members last week.
The proposed timetable calls for development of an agency. by
January 1997 with implementation by July, 1997 . While proceeding
with the plan absent a new governing structure is theoretically
possible, it would require considerable or_coing coordination of
waste reduction activities by each government to ensure that the
solid waste plan remains integrated.
Discussion
Owners Group member governments will need to make at least three
key decisions in order to proceed with implementation of an
integrated solid waste management plan. These decisions are only
the first steps towards plan implementation . WESTON' s final report
chapter 5 on plan implementation guidance details many of the types
of decisions that must occur in order to fully implement the plan.
This section reviews the first set of key decisions and presents
some- advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
1 . Decide on the structure of the overall integrated solid waste
system as presented above and make any desired changes.
2 . Select _ between unit-based pricing and collection bans
(mandatory recycling) coupled with differential landfill fees
as the main mixed solid waste prevention strategy.
he WESTON study considered imDlementatioTM of all five Drevent_On
meaSures listed above. The Owners Group recommended implementation
of pubic education and non-economic i nc=__^_ti ves . They requez zed
ghat the member governments Select e?th=_r a unit-based Dri_ina
system or a collection ban (mandatory _ecyclinc) - system Plus
d'_ff=_ent_al landfill fees . Either or -he-Se Strategies would
acccmranv public education as the primary waste prevention
1
13
a
It is theoretically possible to implement both unit-based pricing
and collection bans simultaneously or to implement different
measures in each jurisdiction. However, we believe that the effort
required and the accompanying public education and awareness would
make a choice between the two approaches a more practical approach.
The other measure could be phased in, if desired, at a later date .
We believe it is possible to use different strategies for different
economic sectors . For eXample collection bans could be instituted
in the residential sector where each can of waste is easily
observed. At the same time, unit-based pricing could be instituted
in the multifamily and commercial sectors where it is more
difficult to observe the contents of the waste and where fee for
service is more common.
Unit-based pricing systems:
These types of systems are becoming more prevalent throughout the
country; over 3, 000 are now in place. Most of the recently
implemented systems apply primarily to the single family
residential sector and most are tag or bag-based. Some are based on
size or number of cans or carts . There are a few weight-based
systems in place, but they , are largely experimental and the
technology is still being perfected to weigh solid waste "on board"
the truck. Use of a weight-based or cart-based system also assumes
the existence of a sophisticated billing system.
Reported Waste Diversion
Various cities that have implemented unit-based pricing after
having had recycling in place report reductions in weight ' of
residential mixed solid waste of 89i to ?31k . Other locations where
both recycling and unit-based pricing were implemented
simultaneously report reduction rates in mixed solid waste in the
30s to SO% range .
When unit-based pricing systems are used in the multifamily and
commercial sectors, the dumpster volume and frequency of collection
are the primary basis for billing. Virtually all private
commercial haulers use some volume-based rates to determine the
fees to charge for collection. There is little_ to no direct 4=act
on the tenants of a multifamily or office_ building from this type
of system and no readily available method to create an impact .
Setting System Goals
System coals should be established to determine the o__cina
structure. Goals to consider include:
What portion aT-' the costs of collection, processing and d_sposaI
will the fees cover?
14
5
Will the fees be levied on only waste or waste and recyclables?
ire the fees to provide an incentive for waste reduction and
recycling?
While these goals are not mutually exclusive, ranking them in
importance would have an impact on the fee structure . There may be
other goals that the governing bodies and Owners Group should
consider.
Advantages of Unit-Based Pricing:
• Uses economic incentives to change solid waste generation
behavior and increase prevention/recycling,
• Enables raising of funds specifically related to solid .
waste collection activities,
• Distributes costs of solid waste system according to use,
• Enables development of a rate structure to achieve
certain goals e.g. cost recovery, diversion of materials
from solid waste, sending a "message" about solid waste
costs,
• Offers flexibility to system users and administrators in
consumption choices and policy making/fee setting.
Disadvantages of Unit-Based Pricing:
• Potential for illegal disposal to avoid payment of fees,
a Uncertainty in revenue generation_ depending. on user
behavior and unit costs (e.g. if there is a lot of
recycling, prevention, and/or illegal dumping the revenue
from sale of bags or stickers may not cover costs as
projected) ,
• System Set-L`p costs and rate structure development are
significant tasks . Professional technical assistance
could be necessary to establish rate strictures and
billing systems,
• ' potentially difficult :.o achieve response t0 this
system from tenants of multi-tenant rcommercia_ or
res=dential bL'ildinCs s__nde c--sts are arimarily bone by
1
1 the owner, not the- tenant . Hauling fees are usual? cui It
into the rent and do not vary. Thut there -= no
individual "rewarc" , -
15
6
• :financial savings from waste reduction may be cancelled
out for residents by the non-deductibility of garbage
fees from federal taxes where local property taxes are
deductible .
• Can be perceived as an additional tax, especially if
taxes are not reduced when unit-based pricing is
implemented.
Collection Bans (Mandatory Recycling) With Differential Landfill
Fees
An alternative to unit-based pricing fees as a primary waste prevention
strategy fis collection bans (mandatory recycling) . These bans could be
applied to a variety of materials in a variety of sectors . The bans
could be most effective if coupled with differential fees at the
landfill . Thus, those haulers who choose not to enforce collection bans
would still be subject to penalties if their loads are in violation of
landfill regulations . This combination of collection bans and
differential landfill- fees is now in place in Orange County for
commercially generated, recyclable corrugated cardboard and all yard
waste.
Reported Waste Diversion
Compared with unit-based pricing fees, fewer communities that we are
aware of, have instituted widespread collection bans . Locally, Alamance
County reports a 34% decline in waste generation with their collection
ban/differential landfill fee system. The system was instituted at the
same time as recycling programs . Mitchell County has instituted
collection bans at sanitation sites . They report a 409.- waste reduction
at those sites . Islip New York reports a 95t recycling bin set out rate
and diversion of 48 pounds of recyclable containers and paper per
household per month. That recycling rate fis double our local
residential recycling rate.
Our anecdotal, research with other communities who have used these bans
for loner periods seems to show that if enforcement or education
efforts are reduced, compliance with the bans drops . When enforcement is
stepped up, compliance increases .
Advantages of Collection Bans
• Easv to imolement and understand.
0 Can be enforced at the point of disposal .
` • Applies equally to all generators .
16
7
a
Greater potential for diversion if enforcement level is high and
maintained over time .
Disadvantages of Collection Bans
• Enforcement requires regular and continuing inspection of solid
waste containers for violations that will require either additional
Dersonnel to maintain the present solid waste collection
productivity. ;
NOTE: Islip, New York, which has mandatory recycling, reports use
of 7 inspectors to police 78, 000 households plus one supervisor.
The inspectors also handle solid waste complaints .
• Enforcement with i10 alternative means for handling banned materials
may lead to resistance to the program and illegal dumping.
• Difficult to determine if those using dumpsters are in
since most material is bagged in opaque garbage bags .
• Inflexible in the face of changing markets and processing
technologies for different materials that may or may not be subject
to initial ban.
• Requires subjective judgment on the part of each solid waste
collector and landfill inspector regarding tolerance levels, i.e ..
How many cans are too many? Was paper mixed with solid waste
contaminated at the source or when it was mixed into the waste?
• Regulatory approach may be resisted by the public .
3 . Decide whether to provide universal collection of solid waste and
r=_cyclables or to continue current drop-off site collections.
The system recommended by the Owners Group includes universal collection
of solid waste and recyclables .
Currently universal collection of solid waste is provided to the urban
residential, multifamily and commercial sectors . Universal collection
of recyclables is provided to the ur::an residential sector and most
multifamily units .
Universal collection of solid waste and recyclables currently does not
gist for the unincorporated resident=-al sector; however solid waste
can'ienience centers are •provided for self-hauled diszcsal of :dash .
Also universal collection of recycle= les does nor exist in the
c=r ercial sector. Chance to a universal collection syscem would have
=e most --impact. throughout the unincorporated area _G1lGWed '-v the
comzierc'_a'_ sector.
A summary table of how services are P--ovided in each jurisdic_ion is
G��acrme^t 1 .
17
8
-Advantages of Universal Collection
• Provides more control of waste and recycling collections than an
open system,
• Provides similar, equitable service. to all customers,
• Makes recycling easier and more convenient than self-haul,
• Possibility of integrated service with existing fleets in some
sectors e .g. commercial service in unincorporated areas might be
able to be provided from existing incorporated commercial fleets,
• Ability to provide._recycling in the commercial sector which has the -
largest untapped potential for diversion.
• Assures consistent enforcement of bans or assessment of fees in the
unincorporated areas ..
Disadvantages of Universal Collection
• More costly than ctarrent collection system. Presently the
collection system is not universal, providing curbside collection
to all households in the county would raise the level of".service to
citizens but also increase total system costs . Current system
costs do not include the costs to citizens for self-hauling their
waste to convenience centers for disposal .
There is some demonstrated support in unincorporated residential
sector for retaining solid waste convenience sites .
• Drop-off recycling sites are eliminated thus reducing flexibility
for diversion programs .
Recommendations
we recommend that the member governments of the Owners Group consider
the integrated solid waste system proposed by the Owners Group,
recommend any changes and resolve the following issues :
1 . Review t1he Owners C-rouA recommended system, and recommend an-v
necessary chances .
2 . Selection of either collection bans. (mandatory recycling) with_
differential landfill f e_s or unit-based pricing systems for
prevention.
3 . Determine whether universal collection for all solid waste and
recyclabl:s is the best tvpe of collection system.
The Owners Group has re Quested that the governments discuss and resolve-
these issues by July 1 so they can finalize the system at their JuIV 11
. meeting.
18
0
Attachment 1
Summary Table of Solid Waste and Recycling Services .
(where U = universal collection, S = selected publicly funded collection
P = paid, private collection)
Jurisdiction Carrboro Chapel Hill Hillsborough Orange Co .
Sector
Single Family U U U P (about 4, 000 of
Solid Waste 17, 000 use private
service, remainder
use convenience
centers)
Single Family U U U S (7000 receive
Recycling biweekly service .
Remainder use
convenience
centers)
Multifamily U U U P
Solid Waste
.Multifamily U (at U (at least none, P (none known
Recycling least 1 1 site at available except cardboard)
site at 85%r of but not used
9596 of comp_ lexes)
complexes
Commercial U (some U U (some are P
Solid Waste private private)
compactor
service)
Commercial S (glass . S (glass S, some, on P (none known
Recycling program) , program) , curbside except cardboard)
(all are oniv
subJect to P (some P (some P (some have
___dbcard have own have own ewn service)
ba=) service) service
1
19
TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
W o r l d
100 Park Dri%e.P.O.Box 12276
C l a s s Research Trian¢ie Park,`C 27709
------ ---- 919549.0551 FAX:919.549.9390
R e g i o n June 10,1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gavle Wilson
FROM: Judy Kincaid and Patrick Davis
RE: Regional composting facility
For your information and the information of members of the Orange Regional Landfill Owners Group,this memo
summarizes the status of recent regional discussions coordinated by Trianaie J Coundi vi Govt:-n:nenis
regarding a regional composting facility.
Last fall, several jurisdictions within the TJCOG region decided to undertake a joint study of the feasibility of a
regional composting facility for handling biosolids remaining as a result of the wastewater treatment process.
The Towns of Apex,Cary,Clayton,Garner,and Zebulon;the City of Durham;the County of Durham;and Orange
• Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) subsequently contracted jointly with TJCOG and E&A Environmental
Consultants, Inc. to produce the resulting study report, "Regional Biosolids Composting Feasibility_Studv—Final
Report," dated March 28, 1996. Based on this report,it is evident that local governments can realize several
benefits through a cooperative interlocal approach to biosolids composting: significant economies of scale in
constructing, operating,and maintaining such a facility;economies of scale and minimized competition in
marketing the compost product to end users;an invaluable biosolids management option for those periods when
inclement weather or other conditions prohibit the use of conventional land application as a method for biosolids
disposal; and extended life for municipal solid waste landfills due to the opportunity to compost with the
biosolids other organic material.
The cost projections in the study report indicate that,for some jurisdictions,composting biosolids at a publicly
owned regional facility could be economically competitive with current methods of biosolids disposal. Based on
these cost projections, the Town of Cary and OWASA have to date formally committed to further evaluate the
economic, technical, environmental, and institutional feasibility of establishing a publicly-owned regional
biosolids composting facility using an aerated static pile composting technology. More specifically, these
entities are currently working with TJCOG to develop (a) a set of general principles for guiding the further
development of a regional biosolids composting facility;(b)recommendations concerning the legral struct=e for
public ownership of such a facility; and (c) a draft interlocal agreement related to the foregoing.
The facility size currently under discussion is one handling 20 dry tons per day of biosolids. This amounts to 111
tons per day of biosolids at 18%solids. For each of these 111 tons of biosolids, a little over half a ton of new
bulking agent would be needed in the compost mix. The bulking agent should be primarily yard waste,but it
could also include clean construction wood waste,and up to a third of the bulking agent could be mixed paper
waste. Furthermore, once a facility was operational, food waste could also be composted in the facility,
although, as with biosolids, a little over half a ton of bulking agent would have to be added for each ton of food
waste.
In the financial analysis of such a facility, a tip fee of S15 per ton was assumed for the bulking agent, although
the biosolids would have a significantly higher tip fee. Once a facility was built, on the other hand, the
marginal cost of processing a ton of food waste would be such that it is conceivable that food waste could also be
accepted at a tip fee as low as S15.
OWASA, the Town of Carv, and others continue to discuss the legai issues described above, and they welcome
formal participation in these discussions on the part of the Landfill Owners Group. The assistance provided to
sate by Mr. Blair Pollock has been very valuable and appreciated.
P.0. Box 8131
2-L7 Cz-�
neron Scree: 20
N.C.
'77278
To: Landfill Owners Grbup and Staff
From: Don Willhoit. Orange County Commissioner
Subject:7. Orange County Board of Commissioners Recommendations to
Landfill Owners Group
Date: July 2. 1996
The Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) met. on June 26, 1996, and reviewed an
outline of the County's proposed integrated solid waste'management'system. The BOCC
resoonded to the Land-fill Owners Group request that member governments review the outline and
provide feedback and make re.ammendations restarding the proposed sysz-.'.TL The Board of'
Commissioner's discussions and considerations of the solid waste management system resulted in
the foilowinerecommendations to the Landflil Owners Group (LOG),.
1) The LOG should adopt the�five waste prevention options as suggested, including:
a. Collection bans
b. DifTerential landn'll fees
c. `on-economic incentives
d. P,-,biic education regarding soild waste issues including disposal. re-.vciinsz and was:.-
r c o n.
e. Ur,::-based pricing (pay-as-you--hrow plans).
The Boar.' of Countv Commissioners strongly suppor-,ed unit-based orlcin!z as a wasze_
re,duczon tooi. They suggested that a ca av--s-you-tahrow pian for solid waste disposal only (nat to
7-
c- c"m -1 d servic!s) wou" cons:* econorn c
..;:',,de rec. 1, .2 r..ate ItUte a sZrCrZ i inctritive for citizens ro
7!dUCe SCiid waste gene.ra:ion and !:1.-7else recvciing pa,-,icipation.
ec:10d ciograrn mo
i The BOCC z�-at the foclus cl-- soild waste colle uid be on the iCCitl
;s to ,,,e d�5-, csal/1a,-,&:H and pr;�cessirlz'N.lat! 'a'
corlll,= C- M1!-?1"7i_. 4
.7-Y
CC I-N-- OR._1NC___ Co , . ! -
21
Recovery Facii1des (%I MFs). Focus on fora and content of materials places e:npnasis on
separation of recyclables and solid waste prior to delivery to the approprate faciiit< and that the
mod-_mechod of collection and deiivery is not a priority at this time.
4) The BOCC recommended that the County's waste reduction and recycling orogram
concentrate on reducing and recycling materials (such as those described below) that will provide
the greatest impact on waste reduction at the landflil. According to waste characte.2;tion studies
at Orange Regional Landnil and stab recycling data (see attached chart), recycling and
diversion
of the following materials constitutes the greatest opportunity for mixed soiid waste reduction
(excluding constructionideznolition debris and ash) at the landnil.
a. Commercial waste sector - commercially-generated mixed paper, old corrugated
cardboard (OCC), and old newspaper(Olv"P).
b. Singie-family and multi-family residential sector,- mixed paper.
4
The Board of Commissioners did not take action on processing options pending information on
alternatives. The Board delayed discussion of LOG reorganization issues until the next meeting.
t •A TOWN OF CARREORO 22
f^' NORTH CAROL!NA
CA4,
February T, 1997
,y
Mr. Richard Franck, Chair
LandfiII Owners Group
Town of Chapel Hill
306 N. Columbia Street
Chapel Hill, N'.C. 27514
Dear Richard:
On January 21, 1997, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen discussed an endorsed a soiid
waste management plan.
The Board endorsed the plan as recommended by the LOG with the following exceptions:
a) Universal Collection - the Board did not endorse.county-wide universal
collection.
b) Collection Bans vs. Pav-As-You-Throw- the Board decided to pursue
adoption of collection bans rather than pay-as-you-throw.
With retard to collection bans vs. pay-as-you-throw, the consensus of the Board was that
each government should pursue one or the other. We w1il not achieve our 50% xaste
reduction goal otherwise. However, Carrboro took the position that. for our community.
collection bans make the most sense.
Should you have questions, don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely.
Zlichael R. e?son
Mayor
NC _ _ .. • ?'9� >_. a.— .. c•_
r. 23
CY)o�
o>
o M LO v in as Cl o r- N Q o�
S o'mr- LO V oM ^ CD ^ l
r r r !�_.
64 44 409). 64 64 y 44 403-y} 44 K h
C cO M cO o O O O o v a O CD u) a m N O
FD CO LO co O LO N Q m ti O LCD c) O c0 r` CC
n O r LO CD LD LO M N CC r CO 'J_ b CD N
c') L.^1 cc Cc�U C6 Q' O C6 t� C5 N C �t
r) CCOOOC M � L � 1" Lonm � Nmr- r- q) tr)
Q)
Z 64 63 64 64 64 64 K h 44 64 44 64 44 64 64 409 64 i9
O O t` 1� ti'O C7 QI O O CO e
to r CO N N co N. Ln m O f\ C7 N
T Cl) fl- N N ' O O LL1 c') CA r\ O r- LO O Ln
Ln N r N V t '.Lr. t*1 p" r •
N
.� O V N O> O O QL
C3QZ
J O fn O
H p U 69 b4 44 64 -46 K 44 M O V m i
y Q)
trII _ Msci C9 O O -0S Df cD Cf C y C
UJ
M tCt CD O LA +. cro r
X L<7-�
W W N �V O O _O LACC�C9`Of CA' R
(L OOT N NN �F .7 `U y O a Q
Z O CO
Ma
Q d O fAr to 44 64 44rS-i1Y K L+ m m O 6S �7
UA CO
Q to CD'LLl1 t*) � C7 C!f CD- O m C3 N pl
Zt
cc CD
W - --
J >
CD Co .- r` LO N GV'=1� �! CO N tr Cr) O N t� O
O Cn O CO N CO r of A co m O CA m rIl
Q r N N rFZv- ` r r
W Lr U 44 K 44 K 44 i!l_ .ill=44 y H 43 44 40)..403.K K y C
O m o 0 0 •• La. o� c0 LO O M N O
� y 8 0 0 0 N N NN�;CO O CO O r cl r` 41 c
C7 d T N CD O CO CD?N !V`.N LO C7 O CO CO
W Cn y -T CV O C' N NY C9 Lei C� C6 r` CD N of O
M N c') CD CD m Ln N LO CA CD a) et ca
Z Z U f9 r r Ln=N CV 1\ O d CD m r` r` Cif 7
J i
N r !t N_ (49 4i 44 64 a)
44 Vl 64 44 44 vs 4& N
_ _ o
0 W y Ln � tD co O O LOn O Q co O CO'f O Off co co
�+
m U CC O •7 O l'! C1 !� CA U) N CD CD QL CA O Ln H a) pl
W N �Y T CO N O T COD b
O u v aa)
Z a: c
Q Q �� •� L
L �
�g� 1 3
R p y y C t R �. O V
CD `O U Cc N CO to 7 c
C C
0 C a...a1 a1 y y O cs .�.. C4 :::. c4 '-
�y Q�.
Q Q U O O =C~�1�_.L1::�Q.Cn S � CQ O_ _ m O
O cOi C w m::� C Q:. C y cQ „ a) - co V d
O y O U R Q Q i U V v j U rx Cc O fn
V y ftS _ _.G U C4 y O a OOZ '
D1 7 i CQ U:0 OL C9 ¢_ R O O = C U �` m (D O
C U U O Caa p 'L7 w. R S� p G1 ` CD H v y a>- U c4 al
cc Q
O V 7 O 7 '7 .,'.Q;.V_� p cC L - Q y ca L
a � � C1U2 ¢ OyIy_Oy gmUU = 00cn Ohm Z
r N M Q t1f CD W O> O r N M Q CCf CD ti O O O N " � N CD ti oD CL O r N Ch C tl1
co
rr � �- rrrrr � NNNNNNN NN Nc> c9 Cl 2 Co co
'Cn
Y
2 24
Attachment 4
The information presented below summarizes all known costs of the existing solid waste system,
the cost of proposed additions to the system, assuming expansions to recycling collections and
processing and a total system cost adding the existing and proposed new system.
1. Cost of Existing System
A. Recycling Collection Costs
Recycling collection costs were calculated by adding the costs of Orange Community Recycling
.collection programs with landfill program costs including tires, white goods and mulch.
Municipal leaf and yard waste collection costs, where known, are shown. University of North
Carolina stated collection costs and estimated private system costs based on municipal costs and
known contract costs are shown separately. All recycling collection costs are assumed to include
processing costs since contracts with private collectors do not include an explicit fee for
processing and most materials are collected source-separated.
B. ; Solid Waste Collection Costs
Cost of the existing solid waste collection system were calculated by adding the costs of all the
municipal and county solid waste collection budgets including estimates for fuel costs and
amortized capital. Separate collection costs-are shown that include the University of North
Carolina's stated solid waste costs, the North Carolina Hospital's stated solid waste costs and
estimates of private sector solid waste costs based on hauling costs of municipalities and
statements from private haulers about their costs.
C. Landfill Costs for Municipal Solid Wastes
The costs for landfilling municipal solid waste include all landfill operating costs and annual
contributions to various funds including equipment, land and liner reserves. A cost of$16 per
ton for construction and demolition waste is subtracted from landfill operation costs based on
past calculations of the cost of operating the construction and demolition waste portion of the
landfill coupled with an estimated value of space consumed for construction and demolition
wastes. Costs for tires, white goods, mulch and all other recycling costs are not included in the
estimated cost of landfilling municipal solid waste.
ll. Cost of proposed new recycling systems.
A cost of waste prevention wastd estimated including personnel and education and outreach. No
specific implementation costs were shown for either collection bans or volume based fee systems
since it is assumed that local governments will implement them.
For each sector, we averaged the cost and tonnage diversion of the minimum diversion system
shown in WESTON's study with an estimate developed by the staff. All subsectors were
summed and additions to the education and prevention budget were included.
1
A. Prevention
Increased waste prevention efforts include an implementation specialist, especially for"expansion
into the commercial sector, a landfill inspector to enforce any differential fees implemented and
manage other materials and an increase in the education and outreach budget.
25
3
B. Commercial system.
Services provided in this sector now includes 44 commercial glass sites, ten food waste
collection sites, UNC campus collections and by Boy Scout Troop 39 at Blue Cross Blue Shield
Our proposed expansion includes four elements.
1. Standard commingled commercial recycling.
The commercial recycling system cost assumes that all 1,100 commercial locations that now
have dumpsters for solid waste will get dumpsters for recyclable materials. All types of paper
and all metal and plastic containers (no glass since it would contaminate the paper) are assumed =
to be diverted to that recycling dumpster. Corrugated cardboard that has "left the system" due to
the ban is shown in the diversion estimate since we assume that new recyclables will be
commingled with the cardboard now diverted and brought to the MRF.
2. Source-separated glass expansion . This is an active commercial program
we now operate.
Based on the number of bars and restaurants that do not now receive commercial glass service
but could generate sufficient amounts, we assumed that thirty new sites could be added and that
generation rates were equal to those at current sites.
3. Source-separated food wastes. This is an active commercial program that
we are now developing.
Based on the number of full service restaurants, grocery stores and institutional food waste
generators not now receiving service but identified in our food waste study last year, we
estimated that thirty new sites could be added at generation rates equal to the existing sites.
C. Single-family incorporated area curbside weekly service. This is a mature -
program operating since November 1989. We would add a second bin and all
types of paper would be collected in it with all types of cans and bottles in the
first bin.
Additional recycling in this sector include an assumed 40% rate for mixed paper and white
paper and a 25%percent recovery rate for#5 and#7 bottles and gable top boxes. These
materials are not now collected at the curb. After diversion for these items is subtracted from
residential waste, an overall 8% increased diversion rate is applied to solid waste remaining in
this sector based on the assumption that either a volume-based fee or a collection ban will be
implemented by each jurisdiction. Studies have shown an 8-13% reduction rate in residential
waste when volume-based rates or collection bans (mandatory recycling) are applied where
recycling already exists. l
D. Single-family unincorporated areas curbside service. This is a mature program
operating since April 1992. This collection system will also have two bins, one for
papers, one for containers.
Additions in this sector include universal.service to all residential households in the
! unincorporated areas with a 10% exception for households we estimate cannot be reached with
recycling equipment used in this program. If a decision were made to serve those hard to serve
households, costs could increase by more than the average cost per house. The diversion from
the unreached households is assumed to take place at the convenience centers. With universal
4 26
rural collection and a volume based system or collection ban in place, we assume an overall, a
diversion rate of 26 pounds per household per month , double the 13 pounds per household per
month now diverted . The urban rate is now about 32 pounds per household per month. That
includes all existing and new materials. It does not distinguish between materials diverted at the
curb or drop off sites. Service would remain biweekly.
E. Multifamily recycling. This is a mature program operating since October, 1991, now
with 165-sites in Carrboro and Chapel Hill.
We assume that multifamily service will be provided at every dumpster site within the
multifamily complexes instead of the approximately one-third of dumpster sites now with
recycling carts. We estimated 500 total multifamily dumpsters throughout the County,based on
municipal reports and on a rule of thumb of 25 units per site. The cost estimate we used was
corroborated with the multifamily service provider. Any actual expansion would have to be
negotiated. We assumed a 25% increase in materials now collected and additional collection of
2.45% of the new materials including office paper, mixed paper, gable top boxes and#5 and#7
plastic bottles.
F. Drop-off sites and convenience centers
While..we do not show any increases in service levels in this sector, we assume that some of the
increased recycling projected in each subsector will actually occur at the drop off sites. No
additional tonnage is attributed to the sites since they are not an economic subsector. We expect
there will be some reduction in solid waste tonnage disposed of at the convenience centers.
G. Materials Recovery Facility. We do not operate such a facility nor is there a
commingled-materials recovery facility operating in the Triangle region now.
We estimated the cost per ton to process materials at a materials recovery facility based on a six
facility average including that at four private facilities operating around the nation, a quotation
from a private MRF operator to operate a facility in Orange County based on our tonnage and
the tip fee estimated by WESTON for their minimum diversion scenario . The WESTON tip fee
estimate included materials revenues. The total new and old recycling tonnage for all programs
operated by Orange Community Recycling was then considered as processed at the MRF and
multiplied by the average MRF operating cost to derive a total processing cost. That.was added
to the new system cost in columns two and three.
111. Total Solid Waste System Costs and Diversion Rates
A. The summary table includes the following:
1. Existing system costs of collecting and landfilling of solid waste plus collection costs for
recyclables, landfill operation costs for mixed solid wastes.
2. New cost of additional waste prevention and recycling programs averaging WESTON's cost
estimates and diversion rates for the minimum diversion system-and staff estimates of system
1 costs and diversion rates by subsector. We assume for this report that the MRF is privately
?wilt, owned and operated but sited on publicly owned land.
5 27
3. Estimated cost of tipping fees at a materials recovery facility that could be publicly or
.privately owned and operated and sited at or near a disposal facility owned by the Owners
Group. _
With no reduction in solid waste collection costs, we note that the overall system cost is greater
than in the current solid waste system. Cost per ton recycled by Orange Community Recycling
drops from$152 to $140 per ton. (See shaded area of table). The system we have presented is
estimated to meet the 50% mixed waste reduction goal set by the Owners Group members.
In this new system, we show no reduction in solid waste collection costs although there is a
reduction of 37% from the amount of solid waste now collected. We do not know how each
collector will respond to the reduced volumes. Cost savings likely to be achieved could be
applied to implementation of additional waste prevention measures. Continuing to provide the
same level of service to a smaller volume of waste will result in tipping fee savings as shown in
the reduction in landfill costs in the third column of the table,but not necessarily a reduction in
collection costs. Each collector may respond differently to the reduced waste volume that could
result from implementation of this system.
B. Measuring Progress towards the waste reduction goal
Last year the Owners Group adopted a 50% waste reduction goal based on a 1988-89 benchmark
of 1,526 pounds of mixed solid waste per capita. This excludes construction waste,coal ash and
brush. Using that benchmark, solid waste.generation per capita has dropped 28% by 1995-96 to
1,093 pounds per capita. This calculation is based on landfilling 57,889 tons of mixed solid
waste at Orange Regional Landfill by a population estimated by the County Planning Department
at 105,900 as of July 1, 1996.
The proposed recycling and-waste prevention system outlined in this attachment could further
reduce mixed solid waste to an estimated level of 768 pounds per capita thus meeting the 50%
goal for mixed solid waste. The goal does not include construction and demolition wastes.
While the Owners Group has adopted a goal of 25% reduction for construction and demolition
wastes, no actions have been taken which would move us towards that goal. Additionally, the
member governments have not adopted that 25% goal. Without a stated plan for meeting the
goal for construction and demolition wastes,that this material will be counted against the overall
Val. Thus even with a further reduction estimated at 17,230 tons from the mixed solid waste
fraction, if there were no reduction in construction and demolition waste below the 31,000 tons
per year now landfilled,this construction and demolition waste would more than cancel out the
reduction in mixed solid waste. As part of the overall integrated solid waste plan we recommend
that the Owners Group reconsider development of a plan for reducing construction and
demolition wastes so it is not counted against our waste reduction goal established for mixed
solid waste.
Agenda#3 28
Memorandum
To: Landfill Owners Group
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
Subject: State Solid Waste Planning Requirements
Date: March 26, 1997
This memorandum describes the requirements and proposes a timetable for preparation of
a local government solid waste plan required by North Carolina statute. The
memorandum also recommends that the Owners Group-adopt a resolution asking the
member governments to designate the Town of Chapel Hill as the lead agency in this
planning effort in order to effectively integrate the state requirements and current local
efforts in solid waste planning.
Background
At the January 22, 1997 meeting, the Owners Group adopted a schedule for development
and approval of the key elements of an integrated solid waste plan. The schedule is
intended to dovetail with the schedule that would be necessary for development and
adoption of a plan to meet the North Carolina statutory requirement for a solid waste plan
from each local government. The requirements of the state plan are broader and require
submittal of far more background information than the integrated plan currently under
consideration by the Owners Group. The following are required elements of the state
plan:
1. Evaluate the solid waste stream in the geographic area covered by the plan.*
2. Specify per capita municipal solid waste reduction goals for June 30, 2001 and June
30, 2006. The goal(s) should be determined so as to assist the State...to achieve the
State's 40% municipal solid waste reduction goal. Municipal waste includes all waste
landfilled(mixed solid waste, mixed construction and demolition waste, coal ash)
except Landclearing and Inert Debris (LCID).
3. Design the plan to achieve the'goals specified in the plan.
4. Include a description of the plan development and public participation process.
5. Include an assessment of current programs and intended actions with respect to:
a. source reduction ,
b. collection of solid waste N and recyclables,
c. recycling and reuse,*
d. composting and mulching,*
e. incineration with energy recovery, _
f. incineration without energy recovery,
g. transfer of waste outside the planning region,*
h. disposal,*
29
2
6. Include an assessment of current programs and a description of actions with respect to:
a.Education*
b. Management of Special wastes N
c. Prevention of illegal disposal and management of litter N
d. Purchase of recycled materials
7. Include a description and assessment of the full cost of solid waste management and
methods of financing those costs N.
8. Consider the use of private sector solid waste management and resources and
facilities.*
We have placed an asterisk next to those elements which have already been accomplished
and for which data are readily available. There are several aspects of the planning
process that will involve significant data gathering efforts by each local jurisdiction. We
have placed an N next to those elements. As part of the action plan outlined in this
memorandum, we will request that the Owners Group authorize Solid Waste Department
Staff to request staff cooperation from each local jurisdiction to gather the information
required to complete the plan.
Over the next three months, the staff expects to devote considerable time and effort to
preparing the state plan and refining the elements of the integrated plan agreed on by the
members of the Owners Group. In our opinion, the integrated plan addresses primarily
item 3 in the list of items to be included in the state plan. The staff work will consist of
completing and refining costs and implementation estimates for item 3 as well the other
elements of the State Plan requirements that need further work
An example is if the local ordinances for control of illegal dumping and littering were to
be changed to enable easier prosecution of dumpers and litterers, additional staff work
would be required.
Discussion
The focus of the discussion section is on those elements of the state plan listed above on
which the Owners Group has not yet acted or where the staff has not already gotten the
necessary information or needs local government efforts to gather the information. The
elements that require additional Owners Group attention are referred to below by the
same number as in the list above. Any item not referenced is an item that has been
accomplished or can be accomplished by Solid Waste Department staff.
We have also presented a timetable for adopting the elements necessary to complete the
state plan coincident with the integrated plan schedule already adopted by the Owners
Group. Even if the Owners Group schedule is met, submitting a 100% completed state
plan will be difficult by the July Z deadline. We will make every effort at full
compliance.
3 30
Item 2 goal setting for waste reduction
The Owners Group and its member governments have adopted.a solid waste reduction
goal of 50% for mixed solid waste. Using a base year of 1988-89; the year prior to full
scale implementation of recycling in Orange County, we landfilled 1526 pounds of waste
per capita. In 1995-96, we landfilled 1,093 pounds per capita. That is a 28% reduction in
landfilling of mixed solid waste per capita. We believe that very little mixed solid waste
generated in Orange County was buried elsewhere so the reduction in waste per capita is
realistic.
ACTION: To satisfy the requirement of the State Plan, the Owners Group needs to
determine the year for meeting the 50% goal and a reduction goal for both 2001 and
2006. We note the State goal is 40% waste reduction by 2001.
If the 50% goal is for mixed solid waste only, the Owners Group needs to establish a
separate goal and plan for reducing construction and demolition wastes. Last July, the
Owners Group recommended a goal of 25% reduction of construction and demolition
waste, this goal was not adopted by the member governments. Subsequently, the Owners .
Group took no action on items that could have enabled progress towards a reduction of.
.construction and demolition waste. Failure to adopt a goal and a plan for reducing
construction and demolition waste will result in it counting against mixed solid waste
reduction and potentially canceling out any reductions achieved, because shipping waste
out of county does not count towards reduction goals.
ACTION: The Owners Group should consider a separate goal and plan for reducing
construction and demolition waste reduction, recognizing that a.plan to meet this goal
would be required.
Item 3. Design the plan to achieve the goal
This is the integrated plan.
ACTION: When the member governments resolve outstanding questions now before
them on the integrated plan and receive input at the public hearing scheduled for May 22,
then the Owners Group may synthesize the recommended solid waste system that forms
the basis of the plan to achieve the goal(s).
Item 4. A description of the plan and public participation process
The adoption of the May 22 public hearing date for the integrated plan extends to the
state plan requirement. That hearing will meet the minimum requirements. There has
been significant public participation in both the integrated plan and other solid waste
planning efforts over the past seven years.
Description of the plan will be determined by the decisions on the integrated plan.
l ACTION: If the schedule is met, no additional actions are necessary
4 31
Item 5a.Source Reduction
There are five options as part of the source reduction (also known as waste prevention)
element of the plan. Two types are regulatory measures i.e, mandatory recycling or
volume based fees. Those are proposed to be determined by the individual governments.
Other source reduction strategies include additional education and non-economic
incentives adopted by the Owners Group to support or enhance existing and planned
recycling programs. Differential landfill fees as a source reduction strategy will be
determined in part by the types of regulatory measures adopted by the local governments.
ACTION: Individual governments will determine the volume-based fees and collection
bans/mandatory recycling they wish to adopt for each sector. The integrated solid waste
management plan will address education,non-economic incentives and differential
landfill fees.
Item 5b.Solid Waste Collection
At this time, the member governments have decided that they shall each continue with
their own solid waste collection systems and not integrate with recycling collection or
with each others' solid waste collection.
ACTION: The member governments should clarify.their intent to operate only their own
solid waste collection systems and not operate recycling collections nor integrate solid
waste collection with each other.
Item 5c.Reevcline and Reuse
The elements of the integrated plan adopted by the Owners Group will determine the
nature of the recycling and reuse programs.
ACTION: As directed through the integrated plan
Item 5f. Disposal
The Owners Group has not acted on siting future disposal facilities. If no action is taken
at the time plan submittal is required we will describe efforts to date to site a new landfill
in Orange County and indicate local decisions regarding disposal do not extend ten years
into the future, as required by the State plan.
J
ACTION: Finalize siting decision.
Item 7.Financing
The state plan requires consideration of how costs of solid waste management will be
financed. In the past, the Owners Group expressed interest in alternatives to the current
financing which is from tipping fees for landfill and recycling and ad valorem taxes for
solid waste collection. Future integrated solid waste system costs may require
consideration of other sources of funds. If no other decisions are made, we assume.that
all public financing will continue to be based primarily on these two sources of funds.
5 32
ACTION: The Owners Group may wish to consider how the integrated solid waste plan
would be financed.
Proposed Timetable for State Solid Waste Plan
March 26 LOG meeting—continue discussion of unresolved issues for integrated plan.
Assemble.elements of the plan to go to public hearing on May 22. Identify outstanding
issues.
April LOG meeting: Establish dates for reaching mixed solid waste reduction goal of
50%.. Recommend those dates for adoption by the local governments as part of the state
plan. Finalize the system framework for the May 22 public hearing.
May 22: Use the May public hearing to present information on the state solid waste plan
Use the public input to refine the integrated plan and the state plan.
June: Synthesize information required for the state plan with the integrated plan. Send
the state plan,which will include the integrated solid waste plan, to the member -
governments for approval. We note that a goal and strategy for construction and
demolition waste reduction would be required for the state plan although this waste
stream has not been addressed as part of the integrated plan. If no separate goal is -
established, all construction and demolition tonnage will count against the goal set for
mixed solid waste.
July 1, 1997.Submit Solid Waste Plan to State Division of Solid Waste Management
Recommendations
We recommend that the Owners Group:
• resolve the remaining issues related to the integrated plan,
• consider a separate waste reduction goal and planning strategies for construction and
demolition wastes,
• adopt a date for reaching the solid waste reduction goals,
• consider how the plan will be financed, and
• adopt the attached resolution to the member governments.
1
33
6
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MEMBER GOVERNMENTS OF THE
LANDFILL OWNERS GROUP TO RECOGNIZE THE CHAPEL HILL SOLID WASTE
DEPARTMENT AS LEAD AGENCY IN PREPARATION OF THE STATE PLAN
AND ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE REQUESTS OF AND
COORDINATE WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF FOR INFORMATION
NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE STATE PLAN.
WHEREAS The State of North Carolina requires that local governments submit a solid
waste management plan by July 1, 1997; and
WHEREAS The State of North Carolina encourages submission of regional plans by
cooperating jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS The Orange Regional Landfill Owners Group has already engaged in a joint
planning process for integrated solid waste managemenrthat involves all four
governments within the County; and
WHEREAS the Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste Department of the Town of Chapel .
Hill has already acted as staff for that study and gathered much of the information that
would be required in the State Plan; and
WHEREAS the Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste Department has acted as lead staff.for
most solid waste planning efforts in Orange County;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange Regional Landfill Owners
Group requests its member governments formally acknowledge that the Town of Chapel
Hill is lead agency for development of the State Solid Waste Plan; and
rat'e�f�
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the governments hereby authorize their staffs to
work directly with Chapel Hill staff to gather the information necessary to complete the
State solid waste plan.
This is the 26`h day, of March, 1997.
1