Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-06-2008-7aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 6, 2008 Action Agenda Item No. _~q SUBJECT: Solid Waste Planning Work Group - Recyclables Processing Recommendation DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Memorandum From Gayle Wilson INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Wilson, 968-2885 PURPOSE: To present a recommendation by the Solid Waste Planning Work Group from its November 28, 2007 meeting regarding recyclables processing. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Solid Waste Planning Work Group (SWPWG) was created by the Board of Commissioners in 2005 and consists of elected officials and solid waste staff from each of the four jurisdictions, UNC solid waste staff and the members of the Solid Waste Advisory Board. The attached report outlines a recommendation of the. Solid Waste Planning Work Group from its November 2007 meeting and addresses the recyclable materials processing component of the overall Work Group analysis. The Work Group has concluded that a decision on a full service, in-county Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) is not necessary at this time and that alternative processing measures should be taken over the next 3-5 years. Implementing Phase I of the consultant's recommendation immediately and Phase II in 2-3 years will adequately manage current and anticipated collected materials. Essentially, the recommendation is to make marginal efficiency improvements in existing processing facilities, process less material on-site, and transfer collected materials to out-of-county merchant MRF's, while focusing staff time and efforts on improving and expanding collection programs/services. The State of North Carolina requires that each local government's comprehensive ten-year solid waste management plan be updated every three years. The current update was due June 30, 2006. The Work Group is working on a plan update that is to be comprehensive and integrated, focusing not only on waste reduction and recycling, but also on solid waste collection and final disposal, waste reduction education, regulations, litter prevention, financing and other aspects of solid waste management. The objective is to develop and integrate the plan elements that the Work Group feels need to be revised, present them to the various governing boards and the public, get feedback, finalize the plan and present it to the Board of Orange County Commissioners for final submittal to the State for approval. 2 The report includes a summary of a comprehensive analysis conducted by the technical consultant that reviewed current recyclable materials collection, reviewed hauling and processing operations, considered options for more efficiently hauling and processing of a greater quantity of materials, considered utilization of a regional materials recovery facility, determined that a shift to dual stream material collection should be initiated as soon as possible, and evaluated the present need for an in-county materials recovery facility (MRF). FINANCIAL IMPACT: An estimated $100,000 in labor and fuel would be saved annually by implementation of this recommendation, partially offset by needed capital expenditures that would be funded through the solid waste enterprise fund. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the recommendation of the Solid Waste Plan Work Group, provide guidance to staff as necessary, and direct the Manager to return at a March/April meeting with more detailed cost analysis and implementation recommendation consistent with Work Group recommendation and to incorporate recommendations regarding preserving landfill space. 3 Memorandum To: Board of Orange County Commissioners Through: Laura Blackmon, County Manager From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director Subject: Recommendation from Solid Waste Plan Work Group on Managing County-Collected Recyciables Date: March 6, 2008 At its November 28th 2007 meeting, the Solid Waste Plan Work Group voted to recommend to the Board of Orange County Commissioners a change in the County's method of handling recyclables that are presently delivered to the current processing facility on Eubanks Road. The Work Group recommends that all recyclable cans and bottles be commingled, eliminating the source-separation requirement now in effect at drop-off sites and commercial sites, and transferring those commingled cans and bottles in transfer trailers to private sorting facilities out-of-county. Additionally, these newly commingled cans and bottles would be combined with those cans and bottles now collected from the multifamily and rural curbside programs to make larger, more economically transported loads. This proposal would result in a projected labor and fuel savings of $100,000 a year in materials processing and hauling costs compared to current practices (see attachment 1). All paper collected from those programs involved would continue to be transferred as it is now to existing private regional paper processing facilities, but the paper recycling program might also use any new transferring equipment to increase load size and reduce the number of truck trips required to bring paper to market. Background Orange County operates four recycling programs from which materials are hauled back to our processing area at Eubanks Road and subsequently transferred to private facilities for sale and further processing into end products. Currently, materials from the commercial bottle and can collection and the drop-off programs are collected source-separated in a six-way sort by three colors of glass bottles, metal cans, plastic bottles, and paper. County staff collects, cleans, bales, and trucks those materials to market using primarily 40 cubic yard roll-off containers along with some tractor trailers loads for baled plastic bottles and steel cans. Materials from rural curbside recycling and multifamily sites are collected in a two-sort program where cans and bottles are in one bin and paper in the other. Those materials are also brought back to the County's processing area and consolidated from curbside 4 recycling collection trucks into the 40 cubic yard containers, then hauled to market. The current system is operating at capacity. Discussion Analysis conducted by the County's staff and the Work Group's technical advisor,ltRSI, and presented at the November 28th Work Group meeting, showed that converting the drop-off program and commercial program to two-stream (as the multi-family and rural curbside programs are currently), then loading and shipping out the commingled cans and bottles in tractor trailer loads of about 110 cubic yards each, instead of 40 cubic yard roll- offs used presently, would eliminate the current use of labor to bale the plastics and metal cans and further clean up the glass and reduce the number of hauls to market. While this commingling of cans and bottles would reduce revenue from selling more `refined', separated products, those revenue reductions would be exceeded by the savings in fuel and time efficiency from shipping larger loads, and reductions in processing labor. It has been noted that changes to two-stream from six-way sorting in programs elsewhere have resulted in more materials being recycled, just by simplifying the nature of public participation. Moving to a commingled system would solve various logistical problems, creating higher collection efficiency, thus freeing labor to enable the improvement and expansion of County programs to meet local waste reduction goals and growing demands for more recycling. Currently we handle about 2,700 tons of cans and bottles per year and these changes could readily enable an increased volume of at least 10% with no new labor. For example, the new state statute requiring recycling by bars and restaurants has resulted in new customer demands for our program and allowing these establishments to switch to commingled containers will address their current interior space constraints and multiple containers for sorting. The addition of mixed paper to curbside recycling did not result in a commensurate reduction of tonnage delivered to the drop-off sites, thus overall recycling program tonnages that we collect continue to increase. For instance, rural curbside tonnage has grown 42% and multifamily 5% compared to last fiscal year. Improvements in processing and hauling efficiency are ways to meet this growth without increasing staffing. Creating the loading capability to handle the materials in 110 yard tractor trailers would involve some modest improvements to our existing recycling without expanding its current footprint. A concrete `push wall' and storage area would be constructed on the existing recycling pad, under the covered area, to enable a loader to scoop up materials and dump them into the higher-walled trailers needed to deliver materials efficiently to market. Some minor modifications to the coverall structure doors and improvements to the gravel area to enable a wider turning area for the trucks would make movement of materials safer and more efficient. A new rubber tine loader would be required to scoop these materials off the pad and into the transfer trailers. Staff has also just completed a hauling analysis that confirms projected efficiencies. 4 5 In addition to the improvements in .efficiency, this change in operation would have the added benefit to Orange County of being able to test the market for private transferring and processing capability on a small scale before any large investment in transfer or processing capability had to be considered. As a pilot project, this effort could last up to eighteen -twenty-four months, at which time, the County programs would have the opportunity to expand their scope by including materials from the urban curbside program and possibly other materials that might come from UNC or from expansion of other recycling efforts, such as broader commercial programs. In addition, it would provide an opportunity to expediently accommodate program expansions or bans, should the BOCC determine are necessary to extend landfill capacity. Other transferring and processing options can be more thoroughly evaluated during this time, with less pressure for making decisions while other important solid waste considerations such as transfer station siting, loom larger. All proposed Phase I processing pad site improvements could be made using the current budget and current staffing. Benefits of Processing and Hauling Improvements: ® Fewer truck trips hauling more materials ® Delays necessity to decide on in-county MRF ® Significant gains in hauling efficiency ® Allows conversion to dual stream collection for bar/restaurant and drop-off programs ® Processing improvements involve only existing facilities and require minimal costs Recommendation The Solid Waste Plan Work Group recommends that the Board of Orange County Commissioners authorize staff to proceed with the development of a detailed cost analysis and implementation plan for the proposed system to enable commingled collection of drop-off site and commercial program cans and bottles and combining those materials with the currently commingled materials from rural curbside and multifamily programs to ship them out to private processors. Should the BOCC have interest in program expansions presented in the February 5, 2008 Information Report regarding extending landfill life, the analysis could also include these issues. The system, as conceived, would include the following elements: • Public education campaign to change usage of drop-off site containers to mix all cans and bottles (as is done in curbside bins or multifamily carts now), • Conversion of 120+ commercial can and bottle sites from source-separation to commingled collection of cans and bottles (and addition of mixed paper collection at these locations), • Modification of existing processing pad's doors, construction of push wall and improved turning areas at the current recycling processing pad, 6 • Acquisition of new rubber tire loader and walking floor trailer to efficiently handle increased loads of commingled materials, • Lease of a tractor to pull the loaded trailers to a merchant processing facility, • Reclassification of two existing Recycling Material Handlers (processors) to Solid Waste Collectors (drivers), and • Capability for additional materials pursuant to BOCC program expansion priorities regarding extending landfill capacity. At this time, staff requests the Board to direct the preparation of a detailed cost analysis and implementation plan, consistent with the Work Group's recommended course of action, and report back to the BOCC at a March/Apri12008 meeting for a final decision or further guidance. 6 !?"_i~l. ~~~ 0 s~ `..% n,,. EXPANDING ORANGE COUNTY COMMINGLED RECYCLING • Transferring bottles & cans to an area MRF in 110cy transfer trailers offers immediate reduction in costs and environmental impact - Estimated cost savings total $100,332 annually based on prices from FCR- Greensboro merchant MRF proposal - Labor savings estimated at 1.5 FTE for Recycling Material Handlers and 1.25 FTE for drivers • Transfer of bottles & cans can be accomplished in the current processing center - Including drop-offs, multi-family, commercial and rural curbside (approx 3,000 tons/year) • Further expansion of the program or conversion to single stream will require a larger transfer facility - Site could be edge at of the retention pond - 8,000 sf facility could handle over 18,000 tons/year • Labor could be reprogrammed to accomodate program expansions such as expanding the commer- cial collection routes • Develop details of a contract with merchant MRF - Include new materials (e.g. injection molded plastics) - Confirm single stream alternative 1 ' ~ ~~.°ut. ,~, ~( Program Savings & Revenues - $254,375 Revenue ~ b :,~ ~ 4v,. ~ ~ ~ F~ci ~.~~.~" Lost Revenue - $154,043 Commingled Containers 12% Steel -~ l-- ~. 6/ t f ' Plastics ~;~* , 35 ~ tir ~.I ~ i Aluminum ~F~ 39°'0 ~ _ ;: ;a,a `~'~-Y.-~ Glass (Avg for all) 8% _~ - ~~.F ~ y t~ i I 4- - -_. ._ ... - ___._.. -. _~._~ _ ... _ __. Rev:11/20/2007 EXPANDING ORANGE COUNTY COMMINGLED RECYCLING 1 / 4 !~~~a i~~~)m ~~ PHASE Ie TRAf~SFERRTNG FROM THE PROCESSING PAD • At 3,000 tons per year the facility will be receiving 130 cy of material on an average day - Normal operation would continually load the transfer trailers and minimal storage of material would be needed • Only minor modifications will be needed in order to transfer materials from the North Coverall of the existing processing pad - Widening of one or combining of two doors to facilitate easier loading with a bucket loader - Grading of area just north of-the North Coverall so that the transfer trailer can pull past and then easily back up along the tip wall - Bin blocks will need to be added to store material & facilitate loading • This site will be contrained by limited tip floor space - Maximum tip floor & storage is 900sf -This allows for 1.5 days of material storage (approx 200 cy) with an 8' push wall - The storage is only needed for equipment breakdowns or lack of available transfer trailers - Commingled bottles & cans can also be stored outside if needed Rev:11/20/2007 EXPANDING ORANGE COUNTY COMMINGLED RECYCLING 2 / 4 • Current labor to manage processing of source-separated material from the drop-offs and commercial and transferring. of commingled material from the rural and multi-family programs is estimated at 2 FTE • Labor to load bottles & cans from all these programs (appiox 3,000 tons/year) into transfer trailers is conservatively estimated at 0.5 FTE • Although staff will need to be available throughout the day to receive material and manage the pile, they will be able to do other work at the Eubanks site • Driver savings total 1.25 FTE as transfer trailer haul Will be managed through FCR - 0.5 FTE savings from transfer of commingled. bottles & cans to Raleigh - 0.35 FTE savings from drop-off collectiori'by commin gling bottles & cans - 0.25 FTE savings from glass & baled plastics hauls - 0.15 FTE savings from efficiencies in commercial routes • Phase I frees up equipment and labor resources - Freed Labor: 1.5 RMH, ,1.25 Drivers - Freed Equipment: 1.1 Rolloff Truck, .15 Collection Vehicle • Enables program expansion in other areas - Adding materials to convenience centers - Possible commercial recycling expansion • Proposed new Recycling rubber tired wheel loader - Easiliy handles transtertasks (70% utilization) -Available for other tasks onsite -Will be able to handle future transfer expansions -Could use mulch loader as backup Transfer Operation Time At 3000 tons per year of material, approximately 5 loads per week will be sent to the MRF Hours per day Hours per week Pile management/Cleanup 2 Trailer Load time 0.5 10 2.5 TOTAL 12.5 M1EdL.7_'S"At "' F _i s Phase 1 Cost Estimate: North Processing Coveral l Charge to Item Capital Cost Annual Cost Utilization Program Bin Blocks $10,000 $2,000 100% $2,000 Door Modifications $5,000 $1,000 100% $1,000 Grading of Trailer Exit $5,000 $1,000 100% $1,000 Medium sized Loader $90,000 $12,857 10% $1,286 TOTAL $110,000 $16,857 $5,286 Rev:71/20/2007 EXPANDING ORANGE COUNTY COMMINGLED RECYCLING 3 / 4 1r??~r~ t _..~ V r t~C C tt ~ ;'~ I~~ cram (~ n~~• .. ~-. ~.. ~: ,~ PHASE II: EXPANDING THE TRANSFER OPERATION • In order to convert to single stream or further expand the dual stream transfer operation a low cost transfer facility could be built on the Eubanks site or other location • One possible site at Eubanks that was analyzed is the'south ; edge of the current oversized retention pond to capitalize on the existing grade change - The cost estimate does not include fill • The estimate includes an 8,000 sf Coverall; 8' load-out bay, 26' rollup doors for tipping, basic utilities to the site and gravel paving outside • Preparing the program for future growth -This facility could I handle upwards of 18,000 tons per year or approximately 8 transfer trailer trucks per day with storage for 2 days of material Operation of Transfer'Facility Tons/Year Loads/Day Hours/Week 4,000 1.6 14 9,000 3.6 24 15,000 6.0 35 Phase Il -Transfer Facility. rate 0% Cost Life Annual Cost Site .(not including fill) Building C~ 8,000 sf Coverall $ 306,250 $ 480,000 20.00 20.00 $ 15,313'' $ 24,000 Subtotal: $ 786,250 Contingency 10.0% of total Engineering/Inspection 15.0% of total $ 78,625 $ 117,938 10.00 10.00 $ 7,863 $ 11,794 Total Capital Cost; $ 9$2,813 $ 58,969 - ~.. ~, ~ ~" ' ( ~ ~T ir , ~ ., - - ^~ r. ,.. _ ~_ -... _ _.~ _,.r„ ~ ~ ` ~ ~~ ~+ ~ tt4 r .. ~w-~t a ... Rev:11/20/2007 EXPANDING ORANGE COUNTY COMMINGLED RECYCLING 4 / 4