Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-30-1997 - 9a 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 30, 1997 Action Agenda Item No. 9_ Q SUBJECT: Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Conceptual Framework DEPARTMENT: Public Works PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/1S) BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/1S) 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 Proposed Resolution 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: The Board discussed this subject at their June 5, 1997 work session on solid waste issues, but deferred action to the June 30, 197 regular meeting. 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 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. Pages 7-29 reflect excerpts from the March 26, 1997 LOG meeting which summarize 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. The LOG has decided to adjust its base year for the calculation of per capita waste reduction progress from 1988-89 to the year 1991-92. The latter is the base year that the State of North Carolina has decided to use to calculate the waste reduction progress of local governments. The LOG staff memo at pages 30-33 explains the mathematical basis for the need to change overall solid waste reduction goals to 45%by the year 2001 and 61%by the year 2006. 2 . Adoption of the proposed resolution(pages 34-39) would signal the endorsement by the Board of Commissioners of the conceptual framework for the integrated solid waste management plan, and approval of the revised solid waste reduction goals for the years 2001 and 2006. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board adopt the resolution. 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 61-7c 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 2001, the 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. 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 • 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 MRF mixed paper reduals governments • Non-Economic Convenience centers and other organics (deferred until Incentives outcome of current work with TJ for rural residential solid waste) COG and others is complete) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Yard waste and bulky (Toe 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 g . 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 any 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 50% reduction in per capita mixed waste disposed when compared to our base year of 1988-89. This wane 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&6/13196) 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 MEMORMLNDUM TO : Carrboro Mayor and Board of Aldermen Chapel Hill Mayor and Town Council Hillsborough Mayor and Town Board Orange County Board Chair and Commissioners =ROM: Landfill Owners Group DATE : November 27, 1996 SUBJECT: Selection of an 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 system •previously 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 ^__s eedback prior to its February (currently unscheduled) meetinc. 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Carrboro Mayor and Board of Aide_«en Chapel Hill Mayor and Town Council Hillsborough Mayor and Town Board Orange County Board Chair and Co=issicners 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 p.re'.--ously selected by the Owners Group . The Owners Groun requested that the member governments review the proposed system and recommend changes by July 1 . The Owners Group will receive co=ents at their July 11 meeting. The Owners Group requested that the local governments do the fallowing: 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 infornati on on the Owners Group rec:,crnnended system, unit-based rri ci ng versus collection_ bans, and uni-.__sal collection which mav_ be helpful -in addressing the -Itree items requested by the Owners Group . Backaround The preliminary system selected by the Owners Group _ncluaes tr_e ollcwing: 13 2 Waste Prevention: Nitre • select either unit-based cricina or collection bans to imDiement first • Unit-based pricing (volume or weicht 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 except mixed solid waste. i .e . yard waste, bulky items, salvageable items, recyclables, used motor oil, tires, auto batteries . Processing: • Materials Recovery Facility for sorting and processing of mixed rec,.iclables as well as source secarated recyclables . This facility would not acceDt mixed solid waste. • Centralized composting facility =or composting of some yard waste products and other comDostabl6_s such as non-marketable, residual paper sorted out from Materials Recovery =aC=_itv . We note that Triangle J Council of Governments is working with area waste_ water treatment slants to develop a csol_ds (sewage sludge) composting f roll_-_'% that could accent other 14 s ercanic material such as unmarketable paper, yard waste and food wastes (see attachment 2) . ire 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 constructed early in the process to handle either yard waste or residual Daner from the materials recovery facility. Yard waste is now ade7uately handledt.. through the mulching process at the landfill_ Residual mixed paper may have other markets as both sorting technology and end-use markets improve . implement; na 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 r.anagement 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 first steps towards plan implementation. WESTON' s final reoort chapter _5 on plan implementation guidance details many of the types of decisions that must occur in order to fully implement the plan. This sec_ion 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 wES'_'ON study considered implementation of all five prevention =asi.:rc listed sted above . The Owners Group -eccmmended imDleme_tali On _= Dubli_ education and non-economic incentives . They requested =at member governments select either a u_n=t-based pri-=na --zstem cr a collection ban (mandatory recycling) system _lus _-ffers ___al landfill fe?S . Either of :1-lc2se strategies would _-.�:COMDany Dublic education as the Drima=y waste prevention 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 recruired 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 e xample 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 811 to 1311 . Other locations where both recycling and unit-based pricing were implemented simultaneously report reduction rates in mixed solid waste in the 3011 to 4011 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 . Setting Svstem Goals System Coals should be established to determine the pricing structure . Goals to consider include : - What portion of the costs of collection, processing and disposal will the fees cover? 16 5 Will the fees be levied on only waste or waste and recyclables? ire -he -fees to provide an incentive for waste reduction and r=C�IC"inC While these goals are not mutually exclusive, ranking them in imrortanc= would have an imoact on the fee structure . There «av be ocher goals that the governing bodies and Owners Groun sho-uld 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, • 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) , • Svstem set-up costs and rate structure development are significant tasks . Professional technical asS_Stance could be necessanI to establish rate structures and billing systems, s 7t is potentia=_y d_=ficul_ to achieve _esaons_ t_ �rHjs SVSt=m from tenants of multi-tananc COmme'_'Ci�_ Or residential bu_ldincs Since costs are Dr`mari iy '.^,C=-e by the owner, not the tenant . Hauling fees ar= usual bui_t into the rent and do nct vary . Thus them _S no individual "reward" , 17 6 • ?financial savings from waste reduction may be cancelled out for residents by the non-deductibilit-y, 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 primanr 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 . 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 3416 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 4016 waste reduction at those sites . Islip New York reports a 9516 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 enforce_n.ent or education efforts are reduced, compliance with the bans drops . When enforcement 1s stepped up, compliance_ increases . Advantages of Collection Bans • Easy to implement and understand. • Can be enforced at the point of disposal . • Applies equally to all generators . 18 7 Great er potential for diversion if enforcement level is hich and Maintained over time . Disadvantages of Collection Bans • Enforcement requires regular and continuing inspection of solid waste containers for violations that will require either addi ti onal 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 . o Enforcement with no 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 the 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 recyclables 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 urban residential sector and most multifamily units . Universal collection of solid waste and recyclables currently does not exist for the unincorporated residential sector; however solid waste convenience centers are provided for sell-hauled disposal of waste , Also universal cc ilecticn of recyclables does not exist ;n the ccrL=ierc:.r.l sector . Chance to a Universal ccilectlon system would rave the most impact throughout the unincorporated area followed by the commerc-La_ sector . su-nmary table of how services are provided in each jurisdiction is att=achment 1 . 19 S 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 ctirrent 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 any necessary changes . 2 . Selection of either collection bans (mandator-,,r recycling) wit_^_ differential landfill fees or unit-based Dr_cina systems for prevention. 3 . Determine whether universal collection for al.]_ solid waste and recvclables 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 1= meeting. 20 9 Ittachment 1 Summary Table of Solid Waste and Recycling Services . (where U = universal collection, S = selected publicly funded collection_ P = paid, orivate 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°6 of but not used 95-06 Of complexes) complexes Commercial U (some U U (some are P Solid waste Drivate private) compactor service) i Commercial S (glass S (glass S, some, on P (none known Recycling program) , program) , curbside except cardboard) (all are only sub;e::t :.o P (some P (some P (some have cardboard have own have own own servicell :,all_) service) service 21 TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS W o r l d C 1 a s s 100 Park Drive,P.O.Box : 170 Research 7rian¢ie Park,vC 27709 R e g i o n 919.349.0551 �,x:919.5:9.9390 June 10,1996 MEMORANDUM TO: Gavle Wilson FROM: Judv 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 Council o;:Governments(TjC�G; 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,Carv,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 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 com_oostine 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 analvsis 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 Cary, and others continue to discuss the legal issues described above, and they%velcome 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. 21l-',' S. C-�7ne?-ar; 22 919-638-7.72 91,."7.7r3: D U N [ORAIN TYI To: Landfill Owners Grhup and Staff From: Don Willhoit. 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 res-oonded to the Landfill Owners GrOUC 7eClUeSt that member governments review the outline and provide feedback and make recommendations regarding the proposed syszern. The Board or provi I Commissioner's discussions and considerations if the solid waste manazement 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. DIH rential landfill fees c. Non-economic incentives d. Public -education regarding soild waste issues including disposal, recycling and waste reduction. e. Unit-based pricing (pay-as-you-throw plans). The Board of County Commissioners strongly supposed unit-based pricing as a waste reduczlon tooi. They suggested that a Ev_as-vo u-throw pian for solid was-,e disposal only (not to rec•'c;:1:7.2 related see:-acts) wc,_,iZ' constitute a strong economic incentive for citizen_ 110 e,4uce so"d waste gene-adon and recycling par-Licipat' 10 n. "-e I'CCI!S C�7 ::-,e �0110 W Lion prog?,am 3, T'Ln B 0 C C z c-I i h a waste colle be �Mie :C11-771 C C 3 n:tr; C, r'a;s r o be d sal!laridfiii faciiines and 07,-c_-s3Inz, [a-.! Z!S-C -OVER- 0.1�. CO A7K, 23 Recovery Facilities (NOUs). Focus on foam and content of materials places emphasis on separation of recyclables and soiid waste prior to delivery to the appropriate facility and that the mode method of collection and deiivery is not a priority at t;`lis time. 4) The BOCC recommended that the Counrv's waste redu::Ion and r ecvciing program concentrate or: reducing and recyciine materals (such as those desciiibed below) mat will provide the greatest impact on waste reduction at the landfill. According to waste characterization studies at Orange Regional Landfill and stag recyciing data (see a.—.,ached chart), recyciing and diversion of the following materials constitutes the greatest oopor uniny for mixed solid waste reduction (excluding constnscticnidemolition debris and ash) at the landfill. a. Commercial waste sector - commercially-generated mixed paper, oid corrugated cardboard (OCC), and old newspaper(ONP). b. Sinsie-family and multi-family residential sectors - 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 Or CARRBORO 24 •�� � NCh-r+ GAROL!NA February 1997 Nx1r. Richard Franck, Chair Landfill 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 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-vou-.;-grow. With retard to collection bans vs. pay-as-vou-throw, the consensus of the Board was that each government should pursue one or the other. We will not achieve our 50% waste reduction goal otherwise. However, Carrboro took the position tca.-. for our communinV. collection bans make the most sense. Should you have questions, don't hesitate to call. Sincerely. `lichael R. Nelson `favor 25 W W W W W W N N N N N N N N to co V Q- cJ1 A W N ++ O (0 CO V Qf tTt A W N -+ O (O CJ V Qf t77 A W N n CD o � m � � 00 = nc� CV � c Oc (moo OD � C� 7] C � N N �a a Dpi m a,� c 3 v v (n O. O °,,. -C (D n t?CD n C y rD 37 0 n G O -Q = n Zo ID m O vD 1 n G O 3 n 'y n-n t� m a 0 11 O � +n + � O 'C _ m-p cn cn iD v C ry `CZ ��Q m o in D .0 TjCD airn � CD o C5 fD CD a c � CD R. D C cn 0% N •+ m O 1 1 r 1 C V (D A N O ? m (Q N U7 O (O (0 O O N cn (C V W W = Ws 0 O n CO N (D O W O co ? O A O (n ? is a;:O CO W U1 CTi v� O N o O W O V7 O V 0) U7 i1 O 0) -+ CJ1 (D -�. N () m Z r' &s ss 69 69 69 ys t� �:ty9 69 69 69 - C n a c (O V V W Gm A O V N 4V cn 1 W (� Z Z n (D O O U i N U7 (D co W N W p "� n O r0 N Q1 V W (D to W N N -` W O N A (n (n m O - N v Co 0) O W -+ to N t\I N:Q1 m O0) N D? m V V W O W O CO itt ice::N O O 0 0 w 3] (D n O N W O Ul O (D Ul A m` 0 3 D CD ti vi bs 69 69 69 69 � EA 44 _x:64 64 69 b9 -A 0 rri D O O O OD co V Q) O O i!T t?t:4h. N+ 00 N W Can 0 O N N O W A N O W V N _ i�;Ul V W O ' mm � n moo Itz C) N CL - D (q W-� 1m � Wm C. m m m y c ca N to Q D CO a c y ^ � tv n, n� c o - -tncDmoN v,-iTt pm 4 -j 4:6 1O.7 w CW.7 ' = -��.. a m y y In p ? a ° m m:. Q v j W CD .► V j V O (p Z CD tp t0 ,O to N A O j O 11 i1 W -+ N -` O W C1 •-• U1 Vt: A N N Ul (n V 6t V (0 W 91 ctt O N IV �1 W 2 C O W( M4 y - v OG7 cn 69 69 69 b9 69 69 69 EA b9 409, 69 69 6111 -64 69 Z (D cA (0 --J ­4 w to (D G7 (D Ut N L, W Cl V V O O N .'� W G, W O Za1 (p N G, V W (D CS W U!CS.07 w C W O K.) v V = C_ C CJ C1 N W 2 m O V (,, � O V O N W (D c,, O O A ? O p O C C W W W b9 to 69 �4/i {g b9 69 69 69 69 Efl (7 C _ n D C C (D �1 N O A W O ? --% -! W O rVO ° (OCT1 av, w .� g W ((i 2 26 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 Ian--`ill 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 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 MRl~. 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 incl :des 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. 29 5 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 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 Rezional 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 D El F G1 H I I J K 3 1 LOG INC i I 1 1 4 1 Base year I Base Year I Goal Year I Goal Year 5 YIU 11988-89 1991-92 1 1995-96 ZQUI 29951 6 Mixed Solid Waste tons 67,502 ' 65,981 ') 58,372 �'� 53,783 47,794 7 Mixed Solid Waste (tons/capita 0.76 0.69 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% 44% 10 Construction&Demolition Waste tons 31,624 1211 34,145 1 31,452 1 1 34,0751 1 18,621 11 Construction&Demolition (tons/capita 0.36 0.35 1 0.30 0.29 1 1 0.15 12 Percent reduction versus 1995-96 n/a n/a n/a 4%1 1 50% 13 Percent reduction versus 1991-92 n/a n/a I n/a 20% 58% 14 ITotal MSW+C&D landfilled tons 99,126 1 100,126 89,824 1 87,8581 1 66,415 15 Total MSW+C&D landfilled (tons/capita 1.12 1.04 0.85 1 0.751 1 0.53 16 Percent reduction versus 1988-89 n/a 7% 24% 1 33% 53% 17 Percent reduction versus 1991-92 n/a n/a 18% 28% 49% 18 Other Materials base ear/landlilled 19 Coal Ash,Yardwaste,Whhe Goods 9,996 (3) 30,206 131 - - 20 Tires - 736 1 557 649 692 21 ITotal Other Materials 9,996 30,941 1 557 649 692 22 Total Tons Managed(be r Aandfilled 109,122 131,067 90,381 1 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 -10%1- 31%1 39% 1 57% 25 Percent reduction versus 1991-92 n/a I I n/a 1 37% 45% 61% 26 27 Population 88,484 96,302 105,821 117,500 csi 125,300 5j 29 Notes: 30 1.This tonnage includes recycled materials in the base ear,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 S. Future population projections from Office of State Planning May 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 28`h day of May, 1997. 4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FRAMEWORK FOR A COUNTY-WIDE SOLID WASTE PLAN, SPECIFYING PERCENTAGES IN PER CAPITA WASTE REDUCTION GOALS WHICH CONFORM TO THE STATE STANDARD, ESTABLISHING A TIMETABLE BY WHICH TO MEET THE GOALS, CHANGING THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED 50% WASTE REDUCTION GOAL TO CONFORM TO THIS STANDARD AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO SUBMIT THE SOLID WASTE PLAN TO THE STATE WHEREAS, Orange County has previously adopted a general waste reduction goal as part of its overall solid waste goals and has also adopted a specific 50% per capita waste reduction goal for mixed solid waste; and WHEREAS, the Orange Regional Landfill Owners Group has adopted goals for solid waste reduction of 45%by 2001 and 61%by 2006 when compared to 1991-92; and WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina requires a solid waste management plan with specific solid waste reduction goals for 2001 and 2006; and WHEREAS, the Owners Group and its member governments, including Orange County, have conducted an integrated solid waste plan study to develop options for reducing and managing solid waste in Orange County and Chapel Hill; and WHEREAS, the County has previously considered 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 would also require cooperation and coordination with all the local governments and waste generators throughout Orange County; and WHEREAS, Orange County may need to further regulate and control solid waste in order to fully accomplish the waste diversion goals; 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 in the matter of the solid waste management plan required by the state, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Board hereby adopts a framework for a solid waste management plan as described in Attachment A. • 3� BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Orange County adopts a base year of 1991-92 to calculate waste reduction against, and County-wide goals of 45% solid waste reduction per capita by 2001 and 61%reduction per capita by 2006. This, the 30th day of June, 1997. - -_ ,,w OJT vilQh+C! llll i'ar...ail�,.y Lip -v..+�;r�, '.ill �.. �( 1V•VJ i vi i., 6 3� ATI'AC10 ENT A RESOLUTION Soad Waste Pon Framework for Orange Canty,Nortb Carolina Tim waste reduction plan frameworkfor mixed solid waste irdudes: Waste prevention: [The first thra items below can be considered by the Landfill Owners Group. The last two -- mandatory recycling i and volume-based solid waste costs - could be enacted by the individual local governments only.) 1.Public education: Increases in the type and targeted audiences. i 2. Differential landfill fees: We have these in place now for yard waste, clean wood waste and corrugated cardboard. Higher or l©wer fees could be applied to other materials to encourage their diversion ftm the landfill in*Vor of some type of separation. 3.Non-economic incentives: This iac1;WO all the other strategies for influencing waste reduction such as the solid wash plans now M aired for new, non-residential construction in Chapel Hill. 4. Mandatory recycling: Also known s collection bans, individual governments could apply a variety of boas in each sector -- !residential, commercial or apartments. Some enforcement would be necessary for success. 5. Volume-based fees: Also known r+s 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 amountsEof garbage collected. A proper fee structure with good enforcement has proven to reduce waste is many other communities. Collection: The Owners Group has recommended weekly uWversal recycling collection in incorporated area for residential, commercial and apartments one,also for commercial recycling in unincorporated areas. For the unincorporated areas, the Owne>s 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 wane 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 maj reduce the need for solid waste collection so the local governments may save on collection cosh as the rate of waste generation goes down. 7 Processing: If the amount and types of recyclables is increased significantly to reach the overall 61% reduction goal by 2006, then Orange Countyi would need a processing facility to sort out the recyclables and make them market-ready. .Co cation 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 ever to achieve a long-term stable market far mixed paper. The Waste Plan Frammgdl 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 �o=entrat6d on the other two-thirds of our waste but there is enormous potential in the constructs®waste sector. For 2001,the Owners Group has recommended a 20'/o reduction goal in this sector as part of the overall goal of 45% for all sectors by 2001. iWe 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% 2006,some type of sorting facility would be regirired to separate and process recyclable materials from mixed construction wastes. i i _ f i g ' ATTACHMENT 1 GOALS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE IN ORANGE COUNTY The mission of the"Orange Solid Wake Management Group"shall be to minimise the generation of waste;to conserve resources;to recycle and iretise do portion of our waft that we can,and to dispose of the remaining solid waste in an anlly sound, socially responsible and cost effective manner. ` a Manage the waste in Orange County conausteat with the mission statement above, consistent with environmental and humaan health protection,cwnsistent with conservation of natural resources and energy, and in compliance with all federal, State and local laws and regulations. I b. Set aggressive waste reduction goals,with the intent of raitsing waste reduction goals when set goals have been adieved. C. Achieve these stated goals through the development of public and public-private waste prevention,source reduction,recycling 4W reuse opportunities,materials recovery, as well as developusent and impkmmtatioa of public and public-private education programs, policies and incentives to pmmote wasteprevention,recycling and reuse. d. Design, develop and implement public,, information, awareness and education programs designed to increase public awareness of to need for, and public involvement in the implementation of, source reduction, recycling, composting, and to promote environmentally sound and cost effective✓integrated solid waste management. e. Participate with regional efforts to manage and reduce waste, when consistent with adopted goals and policies. f. Evaluate and establish alternatives for the management of recyclable materials baruued from landfilling. g. Evaluate and establish alternatives or the management of materials which pose special management problems. Develop proFam which result in the elimination of these materials from the waste stream whenever possible. h. Reduce and eventually eliminate littering and illegal dumping of solid waste in Orange County by developing and enforcing harsh penalties for such activities. i. Make planning for solid waste in Orange County consiswat with the above staffed management practices. Priority should be given to waste prevention and waste reduction in order to inane landfilling the last resort. i r I I Town or �-napei Miii rax:9lu- br- uvb jun 25 '9r 1j:v`a r. 1U lU 9 j. Develop a integrated solid waste m magemaat plan for the A,germy, and work with all the generators of solid waste in Orange County to implement the plan. L Involve the public m solid waste maAagemea2 planning amd program developmas thmugh public hearings,committees and advisory boards,as well as other means. L Ensure that adequate capacity of solid waft disposal facilities exist to meet the reeds of the people of Orange County. m. Provide proactive planning, guidance and oversight for the construction, opasdon, monitoring amd closure of solid waste 'disposal facilities. n. Ensure'that the present landfill and any future land5ll s are operated to last as long as reasonable. i I i i I. i I I I ' it i I I i .I t I