HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-05-1997 - 1 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 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:
5/28/97 LOG Memo -Framework for Solid Wilbert McAdoo, ext 2625
Waste Plan
3/26/97 LOG Memo -Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
5/28/97 LOG Memo -Waste Reduction Goals Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider approving a framework for implementation of an integrated solid waste
management plan involving the County, and the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough.
BACKGROUND: At their meeting on May 28, 1997,the Landfill Owners' Group (LOG)
adopted a resolution that endorses a framework for an integrated solid waste management plan,
which includes elements for waste prevention, collection, and processing. The resolution,
framework, and background material from the LOG meeting agenda are included at Attachment 1
(pages 3-6).
The LOG requested that each of the four governing boards adopt this framework for Orange
County's solid waste management plan and the plan which will be submitted to the State of North
Carolina in July. Note that the framework refers to the need for a"processing facility to sort out the
recyclables and make them market ready". Adoption of this framework would thus signal
endorsement of plans to pursue some kind of materials recovery facility(MRF), although details
about the exact capabilities, functions, and design of such a facility could be worked out later.
Attachment 2 (pages 7-29) is an excerpt from the March 26, 1997 LOG meeting which summarizes
the specific elements of the LOG recommended integrated solid waste plan, and some of the
advantages, disadvantages, and waste diversion potential of some of these elements, as studied by
the WESTON consulting firm.
At the May 28 meeting,the LOG also took action to adopt new, higher overall solid waste reduction
goals of 45%by 2001, and 61%by 2006 (compared to current goals of 33%and 50%, respectively).
The decision to pursue these higher goals was related to information received from the State of
North Carolina that solid waste reduction progress across the State would be measured against a
2
base year of 1991-92 (Orange County has to this point been using a base year of 1988-89). Using
this new base year, Orange County's reduction efforts are measured now at 37%. Attachment 3
(pages 30-33) is additional background material from the May 28 LOG agenda that explains how
the new base year affects our solid waste reduction goals. Ultimately,the adoption and
implementation of the integrated solid waste management plan will establish the tools that Orange
County and its municipalities will employ to achieve the solid waste goals reduction goals that we
have set.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board adopt the solid waste
mangement plan framework as recommended by the Landfill Owners' Group.
3
MEMORANDUM
To: Landfill Owners Group
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
Subject: Resolution requesting that local governments in Orange County Adopt the
Framework for a Solid Waste Plan
Date: May 28, 1997
The attached resolution finalizes the framework for the county-wide solid waste plan and
requests that all local governments in Orange County adopt this solid waste plan framework to be
used as part of the plan required by the State of North Carolina.
Background
The Landfill Owners Group has prepared and adopted a framework for a solid waste reduction
plan that has potential to reduce waste landfilled per person by 45% by 2001 and 61% by 2006
when compared with 1991-92 amount landfilled of 1.36 tons per person. [See agenda item#2]
Some progress has already been made towards this goal; the State of North Carolina has
calculated that we have reduced waste 37% per person since 1991-92.
This solid waste reduction plan framework is part of a larger solid waste plan required by North
Carolina statute. That larger plan will include all the jurisdictions in Orange County and has
additional elements which the individual member governments are preparing. The local
government program descriptions and the plan framework will be assembled into a single
document that will function as both Orange County's,integrated solid waste plan and the state
required plan for solid waste reduction and management. The draft of the state-required plan will
be submitted to the Owners Group in June prior to submittal to the State of North Carolina. This
plan framework is the most important part of the state-required plan since it creates the basis for
waste reduction investments and programs necessary to meet the waste reduction goals.
Discussion
The Owners Group has discussed the solid waste plan, developed its framework and conducted a
public hearing about the elements of the plan and the proposed goals. By finalizing the
framework shown in attachment 1, the Owners Group will recommend to the governing boards
that they begin to implement programs to further reduce the amount of waste landfilled and that
they authorize staff to present this plan to the state.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Owners Group adopt the attached resolution adopting the framework of
the solid waste plan.
4
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FRAMEWORK FOR A COUNTY-WIDE SOLID WASTE
PLAN AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE TOWNS OF CARRBORO, CHAPEL HILL AND
HILLSBOROUGH AND ORANGE COUNTY ADOPT THIS FRAMEWORK.
WHEREAS, The Orange Regional Landfill Owners Group has committed to a program of solid
waste management that includes solid waste reduction per person of 45% by 2001 and 61% by
2006,:and
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina requires a solid waste management plan with specific
reduction goals for 2001 and 2006, and
WHEREAS, the Owners Group has conducted an integrated solid waste plan study to develop
options for reducing and managing solid waste in Orange County, and
WHEREAS, the Owners Group has endorsed a solid waste management plan that includes waste
prevention measures, collection programs and processing methods described in attachment A to
this resolution, and
WHEREAS, successful implementation of a solid waste plan that meets the waste reduction
goals will also require cooperation and coordination with all the local governments and waste
generators throughout Orange County, and
WHEREAS, local governments may need to further regulate and control solid waste in order to
fully accomplish the waste diversion goals set by the Landfill Owners Group, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste Staff has been authorized as the lead agency
representing the governing boards of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange Regional Landfill Owners Group that,
The Orange Regional Landfill Owners Group adopts a framework for a solid waste management
plan as described in attachment A,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that
The Owners Group recommends that all local governments in Orange County adopt this
framework for the solid waste management plan.
This is the 28`h of May, 1997.
5
Solid Waste Plan Framework for Orange County, North Carolina
The waste reduction plan framework for mixed solid waste includes:
Waste prevention: [The first three items below can be considered by the Landfill Owners
Group. The last two --mandatory recycling and volume-based solid waste costs - could be
enacted by the individual local governments only.]
1. Public education: increases in the amount, type and targeted audiences.
2. Differential landfill fees: We have these in place now for yard waste, clean wood
waste and corrugated cardboard. Higher or lower fees could be applied to other materials to
encourage their diversion from the landfill in favor of some type of separation.
3. Non-economic incentives : This includes all the other strategies for influencing waste
reduction such as the solid waste plans now required for new, non-residential construction in
Chapel Hill.
4. Mandatory recycling, Also known as collection bans individual governments could
apply a variety of bans in each sector-- residential, commercial or apartments. Some
enforcement would be necessary for success.
5. Volume-based fees: Also known as pay-per-throw, treats solid waste as a utility.
Under this approach, local governments would set up a system of user fees under which residents
and businesses would pay for varying amounts of garbage collected. A proper fee structure with
good enforcement has proven to reduce waste in many other communities.
Collection:
The Owners Group has recommended weekly universal recycling collection in incorporated areas
for residential, commercial and apartments and also for commercial recycling in unincorporated
areas. For the unincorporated areas, the Owners Group recommends continuation of biweekly
curbside recycling in the relatively densely settled subdivisions, combined with the system of
sanitation sites such as now exist for solid waste and recycling collection. Currently, there is no
universal commercial recycling. That would be the biggest single new collection expense; it
would also have the greatest potential for increasing recycling.
Solid waste collection and management would continue to be under local government control. It
is possible that large increases in recycling may reduce the need for solid waste collection so the
local governments may save on collection costs as the rate of waste generation goes down.
Processing:
If the amount and types of recyclables is increased significantly to reach the overall 61%
reduction goal by 2006, then Orange County would need a processing facility to sort out the
6
recyclables and make them market-ready. Collection at the curb or business is, in some ways, the
easiest part of the recycling cycle. Processing, sale and reuse are more challenging, since that is
where the real "business" of recycling is. Sorting and processing are especially important if we
are to achieve a long-term stable market for mixed paper.
The waste plan framework for construction and demolition waste
Construction.waste makes up approximately one- third of the material we landfill. As much as
70% of this type of waste is recyclable as wood products, scrap metal, construction rock and dirt
products. Most of our recycling efforts have concentrated on the other two-thirds of our waste
but there is enormous potential in the construction waste sector.
For 2004the Owners Group has recommended a 20% reduction goal in this sector as part of the
overall goal of 45% for all sectors by 2001. We believe that goal could be achieved with a
construction materials salvage operation at the landfill and an enforceable solid waste plan
requirement for new construction or major renovations in all jurisdictions. The Owners Group
recommended paying for both these programs with a surcharge on building permit fees in all
jurisdictions.
To help meet the overall 61% reduction goal by 2006, waste in this sector must be reduced 58%
by 2006, and some type of sorting facility would be required to separate and process recyclable
materials from mixed construction wastes.
a '
AGENDA#4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director
SLBJECT: 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 Commingled Materials Recovery
Fees recyclables from all Facility(MRF) with capacity to
sectors_ _ _ _ accept source separated materials
• Public Education • Centralized Organics Composting to
(To be decided by individual handle h j mixed paper reduals
• Non-Economic governments and other organics (deferred until
Convenience centers
Incentives for rural residential outcome of current work with TJ
solid waste)
COG and others is complete)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ _ _ _ _
• Yard waste and bulky
(To be decided by individual items (for a fee?) Mulching facility to handle yard and
govt° menu) Universal At-the- wood waste (already in place)
• Collection Bans Source solid waste
• Volume based fees collection for urban
commercial and
residential sectors
2 8
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 9
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
sys:em 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 50%
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 10
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 Owners 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 & 6/13/96) 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
MEMORANDUM
TO : Carrboro Mayor 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 arr 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
systempreviously selected 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 Group requests that member governments provide thi=
feedback prior to its February (currently unscheduled) meeting.
12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Carrboro Mayor 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
pre-.-_ously 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 Group
recommended system, unit-based pricing versus collection bans, and
uni-rrsal collection which may be help_ ful in addressing the three
items requested by the Owners Group.
Backcround
The preliminary, system selected by the Owners Group =ncludes the
following:
,13
2
Waste Prevention:
Note select either unit based pricing 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 bans .
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 bf commingled recyclables,
• Elimination of convenience centers for solid waste collection in
unincorporated areas,
• Creation of two (or more) special waste centers for all
materials exceott mixed solid waste . i .e . yard waste, bulky
items, salvageable items, recyclables, used motor oil, tires,
auto batteries .
Processing:
• Materials Recovery Facility for sortina and processing of mixed
recvclables as well as source separated recyclables . This
facility would not accept mixed solid waste.
• Centralized comoosti ng facl li ty for composting of some Yard
waste products and other comnostab_es such as non-marketable,
residual paper sorted out from Materials Recovery _ acility.
We note that Triangle J Council- of Governments is working with
area waste water treatment plants to develop a biosolids
(sewage sludge) composting facility that could accept other
14
3
organic material such as unmarketable paper, yard waste and
food wastes (see attachment 2) .
We believe that the materials recovery facil'_tv is a cornerstone of
this syscem and work on it should begin early, if this system is
adopted. The composting facility does noc necessarily need to be
constructed early in the process to handle either yard waste or
residual caper from the materials recovery facility. Yard waste is
now adequately handlea%. through the mulching process at the
landfil' Residual mixed paper may have other markets as both
sorting technology and end-use markets improve .
implementing 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 ongoing 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 firs- steps towards plan implementation. WESTONIs final report
chapter 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.
The WESTON study considered implementation: of all five prevenzion
measures- listed above . The Owners Group __commended itrplementazion
pu'blic education and non-economic ince_^_-ives . They reQlleSted
at the member governments select either a unit-based pri:
,-stem cr a collection ban (mandatory -_c�icling) system _'_us
_i fferer-_al landfill fees . Either of z hese scratecr es would
_.-company public education as the primary waste prevention
...=asures- -
15
4
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 81r to 130 . Other locations where
both recycling and unit-based pricing were implemented
simultaneously report reduction rates in mixed solid waste in the
30o to 40%- 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 impact
on the tenants of a multifamily or office building from this type
of system and no readily available method to create an impact .
Settinc Svstem Goals
System goals should be established to determine rh riCi*:G
structure . Goals to consider include :
What portion_ of the costs of collection, processing and disposal
will the Lees cover?
16
5
Will the fees be levied on only waste or waste and recyclables?
Are the fees to provide an incentive for waste reduction and
recycling?
While these goals are not mutually exclusive, ranking them in
imnortanc= would have an i mnact on the fee structure . There may be
ocher 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 a-rid administrators in
consumption choices and policy making/fee setting.
Disadvantages of Unit-Based Pricing:
0 Potential for illegal disposal to avoid payment of fees,
• Uncertainty in revenue generation depending on user
behavior and uni_ 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-up costs and rate structure development are
significant tasks . Professional technical assistance
could be necessary to establish rate structures and
billing systems, +
f Z: is potentia=_y difficul- to achieve _esponse t- this
system from tenants cf multi-tenant commerc- a_ or
residential bu:ldincs since costs are Drimaril?t bc=ne by
the owner, not the tenant . Hauling 1
_ees are usual' bui_t
into the rent and do rct vary_ . Thus there no
individual "reward" ,
17
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 prima,—Z waste prevention
strategy is 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.
Revorted 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 349. 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 4A waste reduction
at those sites . Islip New York reports a 95%- recycling bin set out rate
and diversion of 48 pounds of recyclable containers and paper per
household per month. That recycling rate is double our local
residential recycling rate .
Our anecdotal research with other communities who have used these bans
for longer periods seems to show that if enforc went or education
efforts are reduced, compliance with the bans drops . W..1en enforcement is
stepped up, compliance increases .
Advantages of Collection Bans
• Easy co implement and understand.
• Can be enforced at the point of disposal .
• Applies equally to all generators .
18
7
Greater potential for diversion if enforcement level is high and
Liaintained over time .
Disadvantages of Collection Bans
• Enforcement requires regular and continuing inspection of solid
waste containers for violations that will require either additional
personnel 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 no alternative means for handling banned materials
may lead to resistance to the program and illegal dumping.
O Difficult to determine if those using dumpsters are in-compliance
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 the initial ban.
O Requires subjective judgment on the part of each solid waste
cofiector 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
recyclables or to continue current drolo-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 urban residential sector and most
multifamily units .
Universal collection of solid waste and recyclables curre*itly does not
exist for the unincoroorated residential sector; however solid waste
convenience centers are crovided for self-hauled disposal of waste .
Also universal collection of recyclables does not exist in the
corL=ercial sector . Change to a Universal collection system would have
the mCSt impact throughout the unincorpora-ed area followed by t:1e
commercial sector .
A summan/ table of how services are provided in each jurisd?cz;on 1S
attachment 1 .
19
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 ccmmercial 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 current 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 the Owners Group recommended system and recommend an-y,
necessary changes .
2 . Selection of either collection bans (mandatory recycling) with
dif f erential landfill fees or unit-based pr:.c2 .na systems for
prevention.
3 . Determine whether universal collection for all solid waste and
recyclables is the best type of collection system.
The Owners Group has requested that the governments discuss and resolve
these issues by July 1 so they can finalize the system at their July 11
meeting.
20
Attachment 1
Summary Table of Solid Waste and Recycling Services .
(where U = universal collection, S = selected publicly funded collection
P = paid, u rivate 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%s of but not used
950 of complexes)
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 cnly
subject to P (some P (some P (some have
c a_-411 oard have own have own own se---vice)
bar_) service) service
P,
21
TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
W o r l d
-- 100 Park Drive.P.O.Box 1 2276
C l a s s Research Triangle Park,.`C 27709
Region 919.549.0551 FAX:919,549.9390
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 Triangle J Council of Goverrunenis(—,J CvG;
regarding a regional composting facility.
Last fall, several jurisdictions within the TJCOG region decided to undertake a joint studv 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,Gamer,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 Study—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 legal structure 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 515.
OWASA, the Town of Cary,and others continue to discuss the legal issues described above, and thev welcome
formal participation in these discussions on the part of the Landfill Owners Group. The assistance provided to
date by Mr. Blair Pollock has been very valuable and appreciated.
0R.4 Jti"GE CO UA-TY CO LVISSI Oti -
�'.v. Box 8181
0i S. C:rreron Srree-- 22
'orough, NC.
�7278
.N. L c� 919.968-43:1
.. - 919.688•.x_1
IIElI0RAiYDU PyI
To: Landfill Owners Group and Staff
From: Don `Yillhoit, Orange County Commissioner
Subject: 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 BO.CC
responded to the Landfill Owners Group request that member governments review the outline and
provide feedback and make recommendations rezardins the proposed system. The Board of
Commissioner's discussions and considerations of the solid waste management system resulted in
the following recommendations to the Landfill Owners Group (LOG).
1) The LOG should adopt the five waste prevention options as suggested, including:
a. Collection bans
b. Dii.ierential landfill fees
c. lion-economic incentives
d. Public education resardins soiid waste issues includins disposal, recycling and waste
reduction.
e. unit-based pricing (pay-as-you,-throw- plans).
_) The Board of County Commissioners stronsiv suopored unit-based oncins as a waste-
reduction tool. They suggested that a pa..,-_;-you-throw pian for solid waste aisoosal only (not to
I i:',,d- rec,:ciii v_ related services) wotaC zoriszizute a strong economic incentive for Citizen t0
recuce soad ti,aste generation and i:,c'e:se recyciins pa, icipauoil.
A
1) he BOCC Sza:ems that the focus C: i'° Soda was:.- coileCtion program, should C� _.. irle :Oriel
l: coo-tea: c: .mtaierial t °� �•°�°.�. r!�-� �1 .. -i.t e j an•i '1-'� e •�,. -�.-
� O be a .i ., .:. �CSaI tailai:ill faCl 11,. �. �:�,,C s�lilc• Ia:_. aa
COQ.;.\'; I
23
Recovery Faciiities (`CRFs). Focus on form and content ofmaterials places emphasis on
secaration of recyclables and soiid waste prior to delivery to the appropriate faciar, and that the
modz1method of collection and deiivery is not a priority at this time.
'1 The BOCC recommended that the County's waste reduction and recycling program
concentrate on reducing and recycling materials (such as those described below) that will provide
the greatest impact on waste reduction at the landfill. According to waste characterisation studies
at Orange Rev:onal Landfill and stall recyciing data(set arzached chart), recyclinC and diversion
of the following materials constitutes the greatest opportuniry for mixed solid waste reduction
(excluding constructionidemolition debris and ash) at the landfill.
a. Commercial waste sector - commercially-generated mixed paper, old corrugated
cardboard (OCC), and old newspaper(ONP).
b. Singie-family and multi-family residential sectors - mixed paper.
The Board of Commissioners did not take action on processing options pending information on
alternatives. The Board delayed discussion of LOG reorsariization issues until the next meeting.
i
S,
TOWN OF CARRBORO 24
^' NORTH CAROLINA
1
R A
February -1, 1997
Mr. Richard Franck, Chair
Landfill Owners Group
Town of Chapel Hill
306 N. Columbia Street
Chapel Ell, '-Nr.C. 27514
Dear Richard:
On January 21, 1997, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen discussed an endorsed a solid
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 regard to collection bans vs. pay-as-you-throw, the consensus of the Board was that
each government should pursue one or the other. We will not achieve our 50 1/'o waste
reduction coal 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,
N ichae? R. telson
Mayor
-.. =_'.:AL CPQCR-jN17Y =Vin?__'_
25
47 cm A W N -A co O � 0 to A W O W 0 -1 0 M A W N -j O t0 t1� �I O w ?
G
a E an c O � t�o :Z 0 > K0 M Ctao �
ID
o o-0 ai n�i y m o`c Q'-0 � � m c1 0 3
r. � -� � �:O m o
? Q �7.(D (-.D � C C7 c = o O a n
`c y �:. m Z 0 ca = o co •c C3 -CJ':17 t7
y`� `C p n G O
47 'O QD 01 4 G� n �� '� �;C m n (D O A n 0 co
O to � Q O Z �: A a n —�p
y y < n < �'Z-0 < C p
CD
V1:�'o -. 2 W D
tO 1D p` N to = p 0
C H CD
N N tD. < t Q N
to CL m
CD ` D
CD 0 i m
CL
-' -� V O V O A N O r0 0 -i
0 O m 2 O O N U1 o v W W 'Gi'O CO W U7 A 71
o N CO Q W o W A O A O t37 A i1.CD U7 to
p 30 to W o t7t �' CD V M Ut U7 CO
c m � 6 " o 46 164 A04
C v t0 v V W C) A o +4 Wgrx,,1V'cn -+ W n Z Z
A tO Q1 lO U1 N Ut W o v co O N .WA UOi C!1 � o
a Q ro N O :! W t0 V1 W N? ;-�
O N Co co O ci -+ at N � .1 0) tb O � N "`G "q
fl?
-4 CA) i0 W O �IDtV �iu:N O 0
(D o NWCOU1CAt0 wa y.:-• o000 (D OD
h h 64 64 64 6% fH h .64 Wwh=69 E/4 44 64 6% C 7J m
N W 03 p CO co V O O CA iJt `ttt:A -� W N W U7 Q v
O V IU O W A N CA W -4 A3 Imo„U1 V -� W tT < r
P.
CLf. # mot o tv p C D m
cn rw w m Cn to +� car ca �, m N- V� cn
y - cn o cL .� cD O tv
.-
O m
C. ar ° o o n cv cn rO a
N to n 4
cx y (p (D C o � C Cit Vt •s Q1 t� 1V �} Qo (n D
4O to d AIV t\t N AOAO o mL1 -n
_ O b tp,,tJ �tA tSt t0 CO ;o ! V2..
T[i
o D Z
C COn tQ Co ��m b .b Ca O W W W
CD y fA y £ N 0
n
r
Z D C)
tp tD ob NAO �
Q to 11 td y N N
Ul
U1 -4 01 V i0 W tJt to
N CA V O W Ul V c o Vt V Q2 N N W
W 0 V v > O a W -+ Uf
O
h h E}3 fA f!4 64 69 % 69 6!! ty yf 69 61 64 59 64 69 Z
A �W `� O
G1 tD V V W Q1 > W v M V V U1 -+ W O W U1 n
�D tp O O Cn N U1 W M -4 V t0 CD N > W G� W y
�a t4 N v W C J C1 W to C1 C3
X3 v G cc C cz 01 N W (A t o O'1 -! C,�
co V v W -• C W tr co -4 w ik N Cn C t1] U1 W
O N W CO (,1 O t0 ii > O Q -O -+ O C W W W
h 4if h h v) 64 69 69 69 n
Cl
C �
to -4 %4 CA A W o CO L1 11 W 0
V V O;C tD CO > U1 W O W
CD
V
2
Attachment 4 26
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 coIIections and
processing and a total system cost adding the existing and proposed new system.
L 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.
fl. Cost of proposed new recycling systems.
A cost of waste prevention waste 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.
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.
3 27
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.
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 28
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
25% 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.
Ill. 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
costs and diversion rates by subsector. We assume for this report that the MRF is privately
bui!:, owned and operated but sited on publicly owned land.
5 29
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
goal. 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.
30
l�C?C�i?rY7�
MEMORANDUM
To: Landfill Owners.Group
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director
Subject: Reconciling Our Established Waste Reduction Goals with State of North
Carolina Solid Waste Section Records and Protocols for Calculating Waste
Reduction
Date: May 28, 1997
This memorandum recommends that the Owners Group revise its previous resolution of May
8, 1997 to choose a base year of 1991-92 for calculating waste reduction and to modify
their waste reduction goal percentages to reflect the change in base year. The change is
requested in order to conform with the base year that the State of North Carolina has
indicated they will use to measure waste reduction progress for all counties.
Background
On May 13, 1997, Chapel Hill Solid Waste staff met with representatives of the State of
North Carolina Solid Waste section to resolve issues about measuring progress towards the
waste reduction goals. State representatives made the following points:
• The State plans to measure and publicly report all waste reduction progress using 1991-
92 as a base year so all communities across the state can be tracked comparably. [They
noted the figures for 1995-96 are already on the Internet and show Orange Regional
Landfill at a 37% reduction rate compared to the 1991-92 base.]
• We may use an alternate year for our own planning purposes but the State will use 1991-
92, thus offering the potential of having two sets of waste reduction numbers being
reported for Orange County. We have historically used 1988-89 as our base year because
it is the year prior to implementation of significant publicly funded recycling programs
in Orange County.
• Coal ash, tires, yard waste, white goods, recyclables, solid waste and other materials
managed at the landfill, as well as waste landfilled elsewhere but originating in Orange
County, will all count in the base of the State's calculation, despite the manner in which
these materials were actually handled in the base year. This methodology gives counties
with programs existing in 1991-92 credit for waste reduction from these programs. For
example, Orange Regional Landfill already recycled white goods and diverted brush in
1991-92 but they were counted in the base.
• Coal ash, although now diverted and beneficially reused, in compost, could again be
counted against our waste reduction goal if the State were to find in the future that the
31
ash is no longer beneficially reused although it is no longer being landfilled at Orange
Regional Landfill.
Discussion
The table below shows progress towards the goal measured both by the State methodology
and the methodology that the Owners Group has historically used. The waste reduction
percentage goals for mixed solid waste, construction and demolition waste, and total waste
landfilled change due to the change in base year. However, the actual tonnage and per capita
targets do not change.
A B C 0 E F GI H I J K
3 LOG NC
4 Base year Base Year Goal Year Goal Year
5 Year 1988-89 1991-92 1995-96 2491 24451
6 Mixed Solid Waste tons 67,502 ' 65,981 "" 58,372 141 53,783 1 47,794
7 Mixed Solid Waste (tons/capita 0.76 0.691 0.55 0.46 0.38
8 Percent reduction versus 1988-89 n/a 10% 28% 40% 50%
9 Percent reduction versus 1991-92 n/a n/a 19% 33% 440/6
10 Construction&Demolition Waste tons 31,624 34,145 31,452 1 34,0751 18,621
11 Construction&Demolition (tons/capita 0.36 0.35 L 0.30 1 0.29 0.15
12 Percent reduction versus 1995-96 n/a rVal rda 1 4% 50%
13 Percent reduction versus 1991-92 n/a n/a I n/a 1 206/6 58%_
14 Total MSW+C&D landfilled tons 99,1261 1 100,1261 89,824 1 87,8581 1 66,415
15 Total MSW+C&D landfitled (tons/capita 1.12 1 1.041 0.85 0.75 0.53
16 Percent reduction versus 1988-89 n/a 7%11 24% 33% 53%
17 Percent reduction versus 1991-92 n/a n/a 1 18% 28% 49%
18 Other Materials base ear/landfilled
19 Coal Ash,Yardwaste,White Goods 9,996 6 cr
20 Tires - 7 61 557 649 692
21 Total Other Materials 9,996 30,941 557 649 692
22 Total Tons Managed bs andfilled 109,122 131,067 90,381 88,506 67,106
23 Total tons managed/landfilled(per capita) 1.23 1.36 0.85 0.75 0.54
24 Percent reduction versus 1988-89 n/a -1096 31% 39% 57/6
25 Percent reduction versus 1991-92 n/a n/a 1 370/6 4596 61%
26
27 Population 88,484 96.302 105,821 117,500 125,300
29 Notes:
30 1.This tonnage includes recycled materials in the base Xear,per guidance from State Solid Waste section
31 2.This tonnage is estimated at 1/3 of tonnage landfilled.
32 3.This tonnage includes an estimate for white goods although they were diverted.
33 4.This tonnage includes waste landfilled out of county from state records..
34 5. Future population projections from Office of State Planning Mav 1997.
If the Owners Group wishes to adhere to its adopted goals of reducing total waste landfilled
33% by 2001 and 50% by 2006 versus a 1988-89 base year, but use the new state base year
of 1991-92, the table above shows the new percentages for mixed solid waste, construction
and demolition waste and total waste that should be adopted as the target goals to make the
tonnage reductions consistent with the earlier goals.
In the table, Row 8, compares the percent reduction in the amount of mixed solid waste
landfilled per capita in 2001 and 2006 to the original base year of 1988-89. Row 9 shows
the percent reduction compared to the 1991-92 base year. Note that the total tons of mixed
solid waste landfilled(Row 6) and the per capita landfilled (Row 7) are the same; the
percentages change only due to a change in the base year. Similar information is presented
for construction and demolition waste (Rows 10-13), the total of mixed waste and
2
32
construction and demolition waste (Rows 14-17) and Total Waste as defined by the State
(Rows 22-25).
If we want to decrease per capital waste generation to the same absolute figures envisioned
in our present goals (33% by 2001 and 50% by 2006), then we would need to change the
goals to 45% and 61% respectively. Please see rows 16 and 25. Thus adjusting the
percentage goals to the new higher levels reflects the Owners Group original waste reduction
goals while being consistent with how the State intends to publicly track and report our waste
reduction progress.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Owners Group adopt the attached resolution which sets the
following waste reduction goals versus a 1991-92 base year:
Material 2001 2006
Mixed Solid Waste Landfilled 33% 44%
Construction and Demolition Waste Landfilled 20% 58%
Total Waste Landfilled 45% 61%
3
33
Attachment 1
A RESOLUTION REVISING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED LOCAL SOLID WASTE
REDUCTION GOALS TO CONFORM TO NORTH CAROLINA STANDARDS FOR
CALCULATING WASTE REDUCTION AND A TIMETABLE IN WHICH TO
ACHIEVE THOSE AND REQUESTING MEMBER GOVERNMENTS OF THE
LANDFILL OWNERS GROUP TO ADOPT THESE GOALS.
WHEREAS, the Landfill Owners Group and its member governments have previously
adopted goals of 33% solid waste reduction per person by 2001 and 50% reduction by 2006
when compared to a base year total in 1988-89 of mixed waste, construction waste and
recyclables, and
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina Solid Waste Section has determined that the base
year for calculation of progress towards waste reduction shall be 1991-92, and
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina Solid Waste Section has determined that all yard
waste, coal ash, white goods,brush,mixed solid waste, tires, recyclables, construction waste
and other materials managed at the landfill or generated in Orange County and landfilled
elsewhere in 1991-92 shall count as part of that base year, and
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina Solid Waste Section has determined that coal ash
and other materials now diverted from landfilling shall be counted towards waste reduction
goals but counted against progress towards waste reduction if they are found to be landfilled
again in the future, and
WHEREAS,the State of North Carolina will publicly report each government's progress
towards waste reduction based on its formulas rather than local governments' individually
determined formulas, and
WHEREAS, the Landfill Owners Group member governments have conducted a public
hearing to gather further citizen input on the solid waste plan and its goals on May 22, 1997,
and
WHEREAS the Landfill Owners Group and its member governments have considered the
public information from that hearing.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange Regional Landfill Owners Group
adopts and recommends that its member governments consider the following waste reduction
goals versus a 1991-92 base year and timetable for meeting those goals:
Material 2001 2006
Mixed Solid Waste Landfilled 33% 44%
Construction and Demolition Waste Landfilled 20% 58%
Total Waste Landfilled 45% 61%
This is the 28th day of May, 1997.
4