HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-26-1996 - IX-C 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 26, 1996
SUBJECT: Discussion of Integrated Solid Waste Study Implementation
Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT Public Works PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X
-------------------------------
BUDGET AMENDMENT
REQUIRED YES NO X
-------------------------------- -------------------------------
ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT
6/13/96 LOG Memo Wilbert McAdoo, ext 2625
6/10/96 TJCOG Memo TELEPHONE NUMBER
Solid Waste Collection Cost Comparison Hillsborough 732-8181
Chart Chapel Hill 968-4501
Mebane 227-2031
Durham 688-7331
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PURPOSE: To provide feedback to the Landfill Owners ' Group (LOG)
concerning the views of the Board of Commissioners on a number of
issues related to the integrated solid waste management plan
implementation.
BACKGROUND: At their May 18, 1996 meeting, the Landfill Owners ' Group
requested that each governing board provide feedback to the LOG by the
end of June concerning their views about several important
implementation issues related to the integrated solid waste management
plan. Specifically, the LOG asked that the Board of Commissioners
provide comments at this point about :
a) the overall solid waste management system studied by Weston, Inc .
and recommended by the LOG.
b) selecting unit-based pricing ("pay per throw") vs . collection bans
(mandatory recycling) , coupled with differential landfill fees, as the
primary waste prevention strategy. Public education would be coupled
with either of these strategies.
c) 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.
The attached LOG staff memo presents some of the advantages and
disadvantages of various implementation issues, from the staff
perspective. County staff prepared the chart on page 13 that
compares some of the estimated costs associated with the current
residential solid waste management system in unincorporated Orange
x
2
County (6 staffed solid waste sites, voluntary/self-paid use of private
haulers by individual residents, selected curbside recycling service,
and dropoff recycling service) , vs . a universal collection system.
County staff will provide an explanation of these cost estimates, and
County and LOG staff will be available to respond to Board questions
about the three subjects concerning which the LOG has requested
feedback.
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board discuss and
formulate specific recommendations to the Landfill Owners ' Group,
either now or at a subsequent date, concerning the integrated solid
waste management plan implementation issues identified in the June 13 ,
1996 LOG memo.
, . 3
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
previously selected by the Owners Group. The Owners Group
requested that the member governments review the proposed system
and recommend changes by July 1. The Owners Group will receive
comments at their July 11 meeting.
The Owners Group requested that the local governments do the
following:
1. Review the system as recommended and recommend any changes.
2. Provide feedback and recommendations on selecting unit-based
pricing v. collection bans (mandatory recycling) coupled with
differential landfill fees as the primary waste prevention
strategy. We note that either of these strategies would be
coupled with public education.
3. Determine whether universal collection would be adopted for
both recycling and solid waste collections county-wide or
whether a system of convenience centers and laissez-faire
private collections would be maintained in the unincorporated
areas and for widespread commercial recycling.
Summary
This memorandum contains additional information on the Owners Group
recommended system, unit-based pricing versus collection bans, and
universal collection which may be helpful in addressing the three
items requested by the Owners Group.
Background
The preliminary system selected by the Owners Group includes the
following:
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 of 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
recyclables as well as source separated recyclables. This
facility would not accept mixed solid waste.
• Centralized composting facility for composting of some yard
waste products and other compostables such as non-marketable,
residual paper sorted out from Materials Recovery Facility.
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
3
organic material such as unmarketable paper, yard waste and
food wastes (see attachment 2) .
We believe that the materials recovery facility is a cornerstone of
this system and work on it should begin early, if this system is
adopted. The composting facility does not necessarily need to be
constructed early in the process to handle either yard waste or
residual paper from the materials recovery facility. Yard waste is
now adequately handled through the mulching process at the
landfill. Residual mixed paper may have other markets as both
sorting technology and end-use markets improve.
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 coordipation of
waste reduction activities by each government to ensure that the
solid waste plan remains integrated.
Discussion
Owners Group member governments will need to make at least three
key decisions in order to proceed with implementation of an
integrated solid waste management plan. These decisions are only
the first steps towards plan implementation. WESTON"s final report
chapter 5 on plan implementation guidance details many of the types
of decisions that must occur in order to fully implement the plan.
This section reviews the first set of key decisions and presents
some advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
1. Decide on the structure of the overall integrated solid waste
system as presented above and make any desired changes.
2. Select between unit-based pricing and collection bans
(mandatory recycling) coupled with differential landfill fees
as the main mixed solid waste prevention strategy.
The WESTON study considered implementation of all five prevention
measures listed above. The Owners Group recommended implementation
of public education and non-economic incentives. They requested
that the member governments select either a unit-based pricing
system or a collection ban (mandatory recycling) system plus
differential landfill fees. Either of these strategies would
accompany public education as the primary waste prevention
measures.
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 8% to 13%. Other locations where
both recycling and unit-based pricing were implemented
simultaneously report reduction rates in mixed solid waste in the
30% 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.
Setting Svstem Goals
System goals 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?
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
importance would have an impact on the fee structure. There may be
other goals that the governing bodies and Owners Group should
consider.
Advantages of Unit-Based Pricing:
• Uses economic incentives to change solid waste generation
behavior and increase prevention/recycling,
• Enables raising of funds specifically related to solid
waste collection activities,
• Distributes costs of solid waste system according to use,
• Enables development of a rate structure to achieve
certain goals e.g. cost recovery, diversion of materials
from solid waste, sending a "message" about solid waste
costs,
• Offers flexibility to system users and administrators in
consumption choices and policy making/fee setting.
Disadvantages of Unit-Based Pricing:
• Potential for illegal disposal to avoid payment of fees,
• Uncertainty in revenue generation depending on user
behavior and unit costs (e.g. if there is a lot of
recycling, prevention, and/or illegal dumping the revenue
from sale of bags or stickers may not cover costs as
projected) ,
• System set-up costs and rate structure development are
significant tasks. Professional technical assistance
could be necessary to establish rate structures and
billing systems,
• It is potentially difficult to achieve response to this
system from tenants of multi-tenant commercial or
residential buildings since costs are primarily borne by
the owner, not the tenant. Hauling fees are usually built
into the rent and do not vary. Thus there is no
individual "reward",
6
• Financial savings from waste reduction may be cancelled
out for residents by the non-deductibility of garbage
fees from federal taxes where local property taxes are
deductible.
• Can be perceived as an additional tax, especially if
taxes are not reduced when unit-based pricing is
implemented.
Collection Bans (Mandatory Recycling) With Differential Landfill
Fees
An alternative to unit-based pricing fees as a primary waste prevention
strategy 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 34% decline in waste generation with their collection
ban/differential landfill fee system. The system was instituted at the
same time as recycling programs. Mitchell County has instituted
collection bans at sanitation sites. They report a 40% 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 enforcement or education
efforts are reduced, compliance with the bans drops. When enforcement is
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.
7
• Greater potential for diversion if enforcement level is high and
maintained over time.
Disadvantages of Collection Bans
• Enforcement requires regular and continuing inspection of solid
waste containers for violations that will require either additional
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.
• 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.
• 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 self-hauled disposal of waste.
Also universal collection of recyclables does not exist in the
commercial sector. Change to a universal collection system would have
the most impact throughout the unincorporated area followed by the
commercial sector.
A summary table of how services are provided in each jurisdiction is
attachment 1.
8
Advantages of Universal Collection
• Provides more control of waste and recycling collections than an
open system,
• Provides similar, equitable service to all customers,
• Makes recycling easier and more convenient than self-haul,
• Possibility of integrated service with existing fleets in some
sectors e.g. commercial service in unincorporated areas might be
able to be provided from existing incorporated commercial fleets,
• Ability to provide recycling in the commercial sector which has the
largest untapped potential for diversion.
• Assures consistent enforcement of bans or assessment of fees in the
unincorporated areas.
Disadvantages of Universal Collection
• More costly than 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 any
necessary changes.
2 . Selection of either collection bans (mandatory recycling) with
differential landfill fees or unit-based pricing 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.
9
Attachment 1
Summary Table of Solid Waste and Recycling Services.
(where U - universal collection, S = selected publicly funded collection
P = paid, private collection)
Jurisdiction Carrboro Chapel Hill Hillsborough Orange Co.
Sector
Single Family U U U P (about 4,000 of
Solid Waste 17,000 use private
service, remainder
use convenience
centers)
Single Family U U U S (7000 receive
Recycling biweekly service.
Remainder use
convenience
centers)
Multifamily U U U P
Solid Waste
Multifamily U (at II (at least none, P (none known
Recycling least 1 1 site at available except cardboard)
site at 85% of but not used
95% of complexes)
complexes
Commercial U (some U U (some are P
Solid Waste private private)
compactor
service)
Commercial 8 (glass S (glass S. some, on P (none known
Recycling program) , program) , curbside except cardboard)
(all are only
subject to P (some P (some P (some have
cardboard have own have own own service)
ban) service) service
TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
W o r l d
100 Park Drive,P.O.Box 12276
C l a s s Research Triangle Park,NC 27709
919549.0551 FAX:919.549.9390
R e g i o n June 10,1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gayle 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 T riangie J Council of Governments(1 JCOG)
regarding a regional composting facility.
Last fall, several jurisdictions within the TJCOG region decided to undertake a joint study of the feasibility of a
regional composting facility for handling biosolids remaining as a result of the wastewater treatment process.
The Towns of Apex,Cary,Clayton,Garner,and Zebulon;the City of Durham;the County of Durham;and Orange
Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) subsequently contracted jointly with TJCOG and E&A Environmental
Consultants,Inc. to produce the resulting study report, "Regional Biosolids Composting Feasibility 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$15 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 $15.
OWASA, the Town of Cary,and others continue to discuss the legal issues described above,and they 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.
� G
to r" G
v to
V2 - a
. C M► Mt
N O � 40
o
to
,a
a c °ryo4� mr ° a w e
w W WN i �? G CA o Z"d v u c W. o
mus G G Ole .a te O
us
D 2
N l
to mct u• r �
v a � G•d w J i G
0 Q
-0� ;
4
40 46 0
IA i t a 6
N 4 47. 7 a► o►C! t C O u s
Q °
0 096
ss i� y + m Q or-
15146014%
p.
' o m ►� v .vim v $ g�— , "� � .►
Zm
4Z00 C6 Id�jj 0C-a
4 sa Wo e a ,;B
a -A c
46 0 too
t!� ° e �A 1
40 10 'a
di
� 06 ems "�•� " �� �' • o � `� L
O00 v
0 us
Z�
Pik