HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-15-2008-6dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 15, 2008
Action Age ~ a I
Item No. --mot
SUBJECT: ~ Draft Interim Solid Waste Plan
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Staff Memo re: Draft Interim Solid
Waste Plan
2. December 3, 2007 Agenda Item
Recommending Plan Adoption
Strategy
3. Draft Interim Solid Waste Plan
(Under Separate Cover)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gayle Wilson, 968-2885
Blair Pollock, 968-2788
PURPOSE: To accept, as information only, the Draft Interim Solid Waste Plan as reviewed by
Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) at its April 3, 2008 meeting; to authorize the Solid Waste
Management Department with SWAB to establish the May 1, 2008 SWAB meeting as a public
meeting for input to the Plan; and further to authorize staff to set meetings with all three towns
to present the draft plan that includes the public input from May 1.
BACKGROUND: The ten year comprehensive solid waste plan must be updated every three
years. The scheduled June 2006 update for Orange County is overdue. In December 2007,
the BOCC authorized staff to produce an interim plan for SWAB review and subsequently host
the required public meeting. The public meeting would be advertised with paid print ads, a
news release and a mention in the monthly scheduled "Watching Our Wasteline" article in the
April 20t" edition of the Chapel Hill Herald. The Board also authorized staff to establish follow
up presentations to all three town governments with the intent for them to sign a cooperative
resolution endorsing the plan after providing input.
Attachment 1 is an accompanying staff memo regarding the Plan. Attachment 2 is the
December 3 2007 BOCC agenda item detailingthe approval strategy previousl~r adopted by the
BOCC. The draft Interim Plan as revised by SWAB, is provided under separate cover at
Attachment 3. All substantive plan information is contained in the draft Interim Plan. Staff
notes that the voluminous required descriptive appendices are not included to save paper and
time for review. These materials are available for BOCC and public review in the County
Clerk's Office or by contacting Solid Waste staff. Background documents as cited simply
describe existing programs and do not impact the overall plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact attached to conducting the public meeting or
presentations to the Towns on the Interim Solid Waste Plan.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board
1. Accept as information only the Draft Interim Solid Waste Plan;
2. Authorize staff, with SWAB, to set the May 1, 2008 SWAB meeting as the public meeting
date for input to the Interim Solid Waste Plan; and
3. Authorize staff to establish dates for presentations to the three town elected boards to
gather their input for the Interim Solid Waste Plan before presenting a final draft to the
BOCC for its review and approval
Memorandum
To: Laura Blackmon, County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Director, Solid Waste Management
Subject: Next Steps for Advancing the Interim Solid Waste Management Plan
Date: April 4, 2008
Attachments: 2
'This memorandum requests that the Board of Orange County Commissioners accept for
review the interim solid waste plan submittal and authorize the public meeting for
comments on the plan to beheld May 1 as part of the regularly scheduled Solid Waste
Advisory Board's monthly meeting.
Background
On December 3, 2007 the Board of Commissioners received a report (attached) from staff
recommending a process for proceeding to get the interim solid waste management plan
(attached) approved. As there was no objection from the Board at its December 3
meeting on the recommended process, staff prepared a draft of the plan and presented it
to the Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) on Apri13. The SWAB approved the draft
plan with some modifications that are incorporated into the attached version and is
prepared, if requested, to host the required public meeting on the plan as part of its
regularly scheduled May meeting, currently set for Thursday May 1, 7pm at the Orange
County Government Services Center.
Per the December 3 report proposed protocol, following receipt and incorporation of
comments at the public meeting, the plan would be presented to each of the three Town
boards for their review. Once Town Boards' comments were incorporated, the finalized
draft of the interim plan would be presented to the BOCC for its consideration, comment,
revisions and approval. Following that, the plan would be submitted to the State. That
submittal would bring the County into compliance with the state statute requiring athree-
year update of the ten year solid waste management plan. Ours was due June 30, 2006,
thus it will be about two years late if we follow this timetable and can get on all the Town
meeting calendars throughout May.
Discussion
As this is an interim submittal that is primarily descriptive of the planning process to
date, rather than prescriptive, we do not believe it will be highly controversial. The
ongoing solid waste planning process that includes decisions on:
• development of a broad commercial recycling plan,
• franchising rural residential and perhaps non-residential solid waste collections,
• accelerating rural recycling route expansions,
• changes in operations of drop off sites and convenience centers,
• consideration of alternate means of collecting recyclables and
• a financial and implementation plan to accomplish all this
will be ready later this year for public consideration and debate. That will entail a
much higher level of scrutiny and critical decision-making.
We recommend that the Board consider using the May SWAB meeting as the time for the
required public meeting on the interim plan and that staff be authorized to schedule the
meetings with the Town elected boards for review of the interim plan..
l ~ ~ ORANGE COUNTY ~~~""".....~~~°°°\\\
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 3, 2007
Action Agenda
Item No. ~'' A_
SUBJECT: Report on the Development of Interim Solid Waste Management Plan
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
INFORMATION CONTACT:
SWAB Report of October 4, 2007 with Gayle Wilson, 968-2885
Adopted SWAB Resolution and
Outline
PURPOSE: To present information to the BtOCC and receive feedback on the development of
an Interim Solid Waste Management Plan - 3-Year Update, for submission to the State, pending
completion of ongoing Solid Waste Planning Work Group process.
BACKGROUND: Each local government entity is required by state law to develop and submit a
10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan and update it every three years. Orange County, an
behalf of the County and municipalities, is responsible for preparation of such a plan that must
ultimately be adopted by each of the local governments prior to submission. The most recent
plan submitted by Orange County was June 2003. The County's new plan update was due
June 30, 2006.
In 2005, Orange County created a Solid Waste Management Planning Work Group that has
been meeting to: perform a comprehensive review and modification of the existing plan,. and to
consider additional means toward reaching the County's aggressive waste reduction goals.
This Work Group was created due to various concerns expressed primarily by the Town of
Chapel Hill over the draft plan the town was asked to consider at that time. The BOCC then
created the Work Group to conduct a comprehensive evaluation and overhaul of the local plan.
Over this time, the Work Group has met 13 times, the mast recent of which was November 28,
2007. County staff and engineering consultants are conducting the analysis of options for the
integrated comprehensive plan.
Given the likelihood that the current County planning process will continue well into 2008, the
Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) has recommended that an interim plan be produced,
acknowledging and describing the County's current comprehensive planning process, without
speculation as to outcomes or final recommendations. Staff concurs with this recommendation.
The interim plan would act as a placeholder that would allow Orange County govemmenfis to
become compliant with state regulations that require that an updated and locally adopted plan
be in place. Regaining regulatory compliance will allow Orange County to become eligible for
state grants and reduce the potential for environmental permitting delays or interruptions.
Cv
Should a municipality fail to endorse the interim plan, the BOCC could choose to proceed to
adopt and submit, with that municipality then becoming non-compliant.
Absent alternative direction from the BOCC, staff will proceed to:
• prepare a draft interim plan,
• submit the draft interim plan to the SWAB for review and comment,
• present the final draft to the BOCC for review and comment, .
• assist the SWAB in sponsoring a public meeting to obtain public comments,
• revise the draft interim plan as necessary per public input,
• submit the draft interim plan to the Towns of Carrboro; Chapel Hill and Hillsborough for
comment and adoption, and
• present the draft interim plan to the BOCC for final adoption and authorization to submit
to the State.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no financial expenditures anticipated relative to preparation of
- an interim plan.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive this report and
provide additional direction or guidance as necessary regarding development of an interim plan
for referral to each of the Orange County local governments far adoption and then to be
submitted to the State in order to achieve compliance with state law.
.~
Memorandum
To: Solid Waste Advisory Board
From: Gayle Wilson, Director, Solid Waste Management
Subject: Development of an Interim Solid Waste Management Plan
Date: October 4, 2007
Attachments: 2
Staff is becoming concerned about the length of time it is taking to develop the
comprehensive County-wide.solid waste management plan. We are overdue by 20
months naw with our submittal of the three-year update to the State, which was due June
30, 2006. Staff believes it prudent to consider development and submittal of an interim
plan now for approval by our local elected boards. This would allow us to comply with
State statutes without compromising the quality of the process we need to create an
effective long-term plan for Orange County and its municipalities.
Attached is a resolution that SWAB may wish to consider submitting to the Board of
Orange County Commissioners requesting preparation of an interim plan. An outline of
the proposed interim plan is also attached. '
Developing an interim plan would serve several important purposes:
1. Compliance with state statutes, thus enabling Orange County to be eligible for
solid waste grant funds, for which we are not now eligible because we are out
of compliance.
2. Compliance with state statutes enabling Orange County to avoid delays or
suspensions for environmental permitting reviews and approvals which could
occur as a result of our nan-compliant status: .
3. Compliance with state statutes in order that Orange County not loose .
eligibility far various solid waste related State reimbursements.
4. Creation of an updated interim plan allows our elected officials and the public
to see what has been accomplished since the solid waste plan was last updated
three years ago. There is quite a long list of developments and
accomplishments that should be pointed out in a public, organized way.
Because the plan has to be reviewed by each local government as well as at a
public hearing, we can use this opportunity to let people know about these
improvements in service and the issues facing us, without having to wait
another eight months for the report.
We understand that there maybe some risk in developing an interim solid waste plan
update, such as it becoming in the focus of premature debate with respect to some
components/details of our current ongoing comprehensive study process or other ongoing
3
v
solid waste endeavor(activity. However, we trust that our interim report will be received
and considered just as we propose, as a "stop gap" measure to maintain compliance
without impairing our current planning process or precluding alternative courses of action
in the future. While the staff and consultants are proceeding with the plan element
reports and intend to.present those next month to Work Group; we are aware that this
process is, slow, deliberate and sometimes frustrating. An interim report is a chance to
show some progress while the bigger picture is taking shape.
We recommend that the Solid Waste Advisory Board submit the attached resolution to
the Board of Orange County Commissioners to approve development of an interim solid
waste plan as a `placeholder' that allows us to comply with state statute without
compromising or rushing along the plan development prpcess. We further request that the
Advisory Board offer recommendations on the plan outline presented as Attachment 2.
4
Attachment 1
A RESOLUTION REQUES'I~G AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT TO THE STATE
AN INTERIM 'T'HREE YEAR UPDATE TO THE TEN YEAR STATE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEI~~NT PLAN
WHEREAS, every three years each County must submit an update to its original ten year
approved solid waste management plan, and
WHEREAS Orange County has not submitted its current three year update due June 30,
2006 because local officials desire to conduct a comprehensive reexamination of
community waste management priorities, and
WHEREAS the County has initiated a deliberate, transparent and thorough planning
process involving all four local governments as well as UNC, thus causing a longer
planning period, and
WEIEREAS development of the scheduled, comprehensive three-year update will not be
complete for at least eight more months and
WHEREAS an interim plan would bring Orange County into compliance, enabling State
reimbursements and grant eligibility and avoiding delays or suspensions of environmental
permitting reviews and approvals, and
WHEREAS an interim plan would provide an opportunity for our elected officials and
public to become aware of local waste management accomplishments since the last plan
was adopted and to become aware of the local comprehensive planning process underway
TI~REFORE NOW BE IT RESOLVED the Solid Waste Advisory Board requests that
the Board of Orange County Commissioners authorize staff to prepare an interim report,
which, while primarily descriptive in nature, also lays out the elements and sequence of
the planning process that will result in the more complete plan update in 2008.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this interim plan would be presented for public input
as required by State Statute.
This is the 4'i' of October 2007
aK ~~iEracan.
5
~~
Attachment 2
Outline of Solid Waste Interim Three-Year Update Report
(this update follows the structure of the 2003 update as the State has provided no
additional guidance on this plan update process)
Executive Summary
In this section we will primarily discuss what has been accomplished since the last
submittal in August 2004, along with a brief description of why we are submitting an
interim plan and further describe the upcoming more comprehensive planning process,
elements and projected outcorries with respect to disposal and recycling tonnages. It will
include an updated goal calculation for the ten year target of 2016-17.
Chapter I
Solid Waste Data from 2005-06 and 2006-07.
This chapter will show all solid waste tonnage and budgetary information from the fiscal •
year when the report was to have been submitted and, because we have it, data from the
most recent year.
Chapter II •
Major New Solid Waste Activities:
This chapter will describe County and Town solid waste management activities by sector
over the three years (actually four) since the last, update: recycling and waste reduction,
MSW management, C&D management, Hazardous Waste Management, Planning
activities.
Chapter III
Interim Solid Waste Planning Update
Evaluation of Program Performance
Financing
Disposal Options and Intergovernmental Cooperation
Location of Solid Waste Management Facilities
Chapter IV
Summary of Comprehensive Plan Development Procedure and Key Plan Elements
This chapter will outline the current state of plan development, the projected decision
making sequence and elements to be decided on, element integration into a unified plan
and how to finance the overall comprehensive plan.
6
Appendices: include descriptive materials, .
Per the State Plan Outline, the various appendices will be detailed planning element
sheets required in the report that address:
A. Reduction at the source,
B. Solid waste collection,
' C. Recycling and reuse,
D. Composting and mulching,
E. Incineration, '
F. Transfer of waste out of the area,
G. Disposal capacity,
H.. Education in community and schools,
I. Special wastes including tires, white goods, yard waste, etc
J. Illegal disposal/litter, .
K. Purchasing Recycled products,
L. Disaster response.
7
Interim Three Year Update of Solid Waste Plan (for 2006)
Orange County NC
Revised April 4, 2008
Executive Summary
The Orange County Solid- Waste Management Department three-year update
encompasses the period from the previous update, 2004 through January 2008. The
functions of our Department have expanded and changed since the last update. This
report details those function changes, provides statistical information about solid waste
management in Orange County from 2006-07 and a description of the planning process
we're undertaking now for the integrated comprehensive solid waste plan that will help
the County on its way to achieving the goal of 61 % waste reduction. As of 2006-07, the
County achieved its highest waste reduction rate of 47.7% according to State records.
Highli~hts•
2003-04:
• Added permanent electronics recycling program including
warehouse to process materials
• Expanded hazardous household waste to four days a week from
monthly collection events, hired permanent on-site contractor to
staff Orange County facility.
• Developed 3-R Fee to finance recycling programs and shift costs
away from dependence on landfill tipping fee;
• Build pad for storage of wood chips and management of scrap
metal and cardboard diverted due to new ban on landfilling clean
wood waste,
• Enforcement of regulated recyclable materials ordinance initiated
2004-05:
2005-06
2006-07:
• Expanded electronics collection to Solid Waste Convenience
Centers and provide service to central processing location,
• Installed glass pulverizer to crush low value green glass for sale as
groundcover,
• Began in-house operations of Rural Curbside recycling in June
2005. Services previously provided by contractor,
• Built new drop-off site for Hillsborough to replace old site,
• Instituted 3-R Fee for all improved properties in Orange County,
first billing summer 2004,
• Formed Solid Waste Plan Work Crroup to lead Integrated Solid
Waste Plan development process
• Carrboro automates residential waste collection
• Increased HHW program hours to include Mondays and Tuesdays,
• Add 1,050 new homes to urban curbside program,
• Add 600 homes to rural curbside,
• Open new C&D landfill at existing site, close old C&D landfill
• Added mixed paper recycling at curbside and, convert multifamily
and some commercial sites from news/magazines to mixed paper.
• Closed Highway 57 Solid Waste Convenience Center (lease
expired after 14 years),
2
• Added 500 homes to rural curbside, 575 to urban curbside
• A11 residential and MFU and some commercial collections now
commingled two-stream, two bins/carts no longer source-separated
• Completed design of Solid Waste Operations Center
• Apri12007 the BOCC created the Historic Roger's Road
Community Enhancement Plan Development and Monitoring Task
Force. To develop and recommend a plan to the BOCC for the
enhancement of the living environment in the Historic Rogers
Road Community.
• Acquired site, expanded and improved Walnut Grove Church Road
Solid Waste Convenience Center, built own site including
emergency storm debris management area.
2007-08:
Statistics
• Solid Waste Department took over operation of Solid Waste
Convenience Centers and other Sanitation functions e.g. Orange
Co. government and school buildings waste collection, from
Orange County Public Works Department
• Initiated County-wide Transfer Station Siting Process
• Added CESQGs to hazardous waste and electronics recycling
programs at no direct disposal cost to generator (covered by 3-R
Fee revenues)
• Closed Animal Shelter Recycling site, lease with UNC expired
after 20 years
• Initiated construction of Solid Waste Operations Center
During FY 2006-07, the Orange County landfill accepted for burial 73,847 tons of waste
including 57,298 tons of MSW and 16,549 tons of C&D that includes mobile homes and
inert debris. Another 14,211 tons are reported as generated in Orange County were
landfilled out-of-county. (See attached reports in Chapter 1). Most of the out- of-county
waste destinations are the same in 2006-07 as reported in previous years, but notably
absent was the City of Durham transfer station. We are aware anecdotally, from a local
private residential hauler that he delivers about 1;400 tons a year to Durham originating
from his Orange County private routes. He has also stated he is aware that other private
residential haulers also pick up in Orange County and deliver to the Durham Transfer
station. Thus we believe waste generation in Orange County remains underreported.
Tahle F.S-1 Waste Generated from Orange County 2006-07
Ori ' of Waste Tons Comments
MSW landfilled in Orange County 57,298
C&D landfilled in Orange County 16,549 Includes LCID, mobile homes,
water lant alum sludge
MSW landfilled outside Orange County 5,55
C&D landfilled outside Orange County 8,674 Excludes C&D recycled at MWPs
Total tons dis osed from Orange County 88,060
Waste per capita (pop = 123,776) 0.711 tons Base year 1.36 tons/capita --
2006=07 Waste Reduction Rate:
3
' 48%
The revenue base for Orange County's Solid Waste management operation has changed
substantially from the last three-year update submitted in 2003. In 2003-04, the County
passed a 3-R fee (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) to finance most of the recycling programs
and limit dependence on landfill tipping fee revenues to finance recycling along with its
primary objective of financing the landfill operation. This fee is levied on all improved
properties, including non-profit facilities, in Orange County at levels that vary in
accordance generally with the types of services available to that property. The fee is
included on the annual property tax bill. Government agencies, the school system and the
Orange Water and Sewer Utility receive special individualized assessments for services
provided at all their properties. The U, R, and M fees are levied where applicable, in
addition to the B fee below. For example an urban single-family house gets
B ($37)+ U ($44) fees annually to cover its basic recycling and weekly curbside
collection.
The fees are as follows:
Table ES-2 .Annual 3-R Fees iin Oran a Coun 2007
Fee Type Fee amount Comments
Basic Fee (B) $37 Levied on all improved properties including
non-profits and those within Chapel Hill
limits, but in Durham County.
Urban curbside (CT) $44 Weekly curbside residential recycling
Rural curbside (R) $26 Bi-weekly curbside residential recycling
Multi Family $19 Fee levied on each unit in coin lex
The attached budget document in Chapter 1 details the funding, revenue and expenses for
the Solid Waste Management Department in 2006-07.
Changes in the Solid Waste ManagLement Plan for MSW Reduction
Development of the Integrated Solid Waste management plan
The focus of developing the recycling and waste reduction element of the County's
integrated solid waste management plan has shifted from primarily a question of whether
or not to build its own materials recovery facility (IVIlZF) as the basis for planning future
solid waste reduction strategies to a broader, but more incremental approach to the
County's achievement of its sixty-one percent waste reduction goal.
In 2005, to get the planning process energized for the three year update and to revisit the
concepts of how to reach the stated 61 % goal, the County and the Towns initiated a solid
waste planning process by forming a Solid Waste Plan Work Group that included an
elected official from each of the four jurisdictions, key members of their solid waste and
sanitation collection staffs and the full membership of the County-wide Solid Waste
Advisory Board (SWAB). That work group using the technical advisory services of
Resource Recycling Systems Inc (RRSI) represented primarily by and Jeremy O'Brien
4
both under subcontract to Olver, Inc. the County's solid waste consultant, developed a
series of reports on the solid waste and recycling system to assist in decision making.
The reports covered the following topics:
Review of the County's options and potential for increasing recycling to divert
more materials from each sub-sector -residential, multifamily and
commerciaUnon-residential and potential reduction and cost to each sub-sector,
Market-based assessment of the availability of materials processing services from
various private MRFs in the region compare to building apublicly-owned MRF,
Solicitation of information on the costs of constructing a MRF in Orange County
to process a larger tonnage than is now collected, possibly including UNC Chapel
Hill's recycling tonnage, (18,000 tons is a minimum. to make a local MRF work
well financially, we're at about 13,000 dry tons, UNC is at about 3,000)
Evaluation of the drop off site and convenience center systems and alternatives to
the current system,
Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and environmental impact of a rural
residential solid waste collection franchise compared to the current system of
convenience centers, public curbside recycling to 65% of households and private,
market-based, laissez-fair waste collection,
Evaluation of conversion of all collection programs to commingled recycling with
transfer to private processors from current facility including minimization of
current in-house materials sorting, baling and processing for market.
At the writing of this report, two additional studies have been presented for evaluation.
One is the development of various scenarios for commercial recycling and waste
collection including:
-- highly-regulated waste disposal, banning a variety of materials from disposal
presumably to `force' recycling with market-based private collections of waste and
recyclables,
-- franchised waste collection with recycling collections by the franchisee or public
sector (County), and
-- publicly-provided collection of recycling with a variety of public and private waste
collection services available on the open market.
The other submitted study is an evaluation of franchised waste collection throughout
Orange County with various combinations of jurisdictions potentially participating. The
study concluded that creating a franchise does not appear to have great value in reducing
waste collection costs within the urban areas, but may have other value through reducing
air emissions and other environmental impacts from collection through economies-of-
5
scale and efficient routing of services, while reducing market choice at least until the
franchise is rebid.
These reports will be followed by technical reports on integrating the plan and financing.
That will result in development of an overall draft plan to meet the next three year
planning cycle update due in June 2009.
Construction and Demolition Waste
After establishment of the Regulated Recyclable Material Ordinance (]Z12M0) in 2002-
03, the County, in 2005, opened a new C&D landfill cell of 13 acres purchased next to its
current site. Adjoining property owner Duke University provides the buffer zone, a
unique arrangement in North Carolina. The RR1VI0 prohibits landfiiling clean wood,
corrugated cardboard and scrap metal and requires they be recycled. It also regulates
construction and demolition activities by requiring a solid waste plan in which builders
must stipulate how the regulated materials will be managed for recycling. It further
regulates haulers to require them to separate these regulated materials or haul to a mixed
waste processor as a condition of their local hauling license. It also provides for
certification of mixed C&D waste processors to ensure they are separating recyclable.
materials as an alternative to source-separation.
This C&D cell was originally projected to last 13 years at use rates projected based on
diverting the regulated,materials which were about 30% of C&D. Due to instituting the
RRMO; relatively high rates for C&D disposal compared to surrounding alternatives and
availability of mixed C&D waste processing options as alternatives to source separation
of the regulated materials, the cell is now projected to last eighteen years. C&D waste
landfilled at Orange County has dropped by an average of 47% from about 30,500 tons a
year prior to RRMO implementation to an average of 16,100 tons a year since full
implementation. Overall C&D generation in the County has remained fairly steady, but
the destinations have shifted from the Orange. County landfill to a combination of the
Orange County Landfill, source-separated recycling at Orange County, mixed waste
processing facilities and other. C&D landfills that accepted materials free of the regulated
materials. The table below compares C&D destinations in the year before RItMO's
passage with last year, three years after full implementation and staffing of RRMO.
Orange County expects a further drastic drop in waste tonnage directed to this facility
now that the State regulators have determined anything that is not `pure' C&D, coming
from a construction site, must be placed in a lined. MSW landfill. Orange County
estimates that is over 75% of the weight received at its C&D landfill that must now be
diverted to MSW.
Table ES-3 Tonnages & Destinations of C&D from Orange Co 2001-02 v. 2006-07
Year Landfilled in- Landfilled out- Clean wood & Mixed waste Total
Coon of-Coon scra metal rocessing
2001-02 27,792 8,134 -- -- 35,863
2006-07 16,546 349 2,305 12,436 (inbound to 31,636
facilities) before
processing
6
An average of one-third of the tonnage sent to the two County-certified mixed waste
processing facilities was recovered, while an average oftwo-thirds was landfilled. This
33% collective recovery rate (including rating the processed small particles or `fines' as
alternate. daily cover at 50% of their weight for the diversion calculation) makes the
diversion rate from waste at these facilities numerically comparable to the tonnage of
readily recoverable clean wood, cardboard and metal that were estimated to have been
formerly contained in mixed loads of C&D delivered to Orange County landfill.
The County has added a staff member to conduct field enforcement and education about
the RRMO and one-and-a-half staff members to physically handle the regulated materials
delivered to the landfill along with a significant investment in infrastructure including a
large, heavy-duty concrete pad for delivery, storage and loading the metal as well as
processing and loading white goods and cardboard, open top 40 yard containers for scrap
metal, open top trailers and a conveyor for loading and hauling wood chips and a
cardboard compactor. Use of other equipment including the horizontal grinder used for
grinding mulch and clean wood and arubber-tire loader and a track hoe with thumb
bucket attachment used to both load regulated materials and feed the grinder are partly
attributable to the County's C&D management program.
Overall the C&D landfill and recycling program functions smoothly with a 50%
reduction in tonnage resulting since the l?:RMO was passed in 2002. While the reduction
in C&D resulted in tipping fee revenue loss averaging $590,000 at the current C&D
tipping fee of $41 per ton, (14,4000 tons x $41/ton), $334,000 in new RRMO-related
revenue was generated from sale of scrap metal and clean wood along with the various
solid waste plan review fees, licensing fees and penalties for RItMO violations (double
tip fee penalties). Thus net loss to the Solid Waste Department in exchange for gaining a
projected seven years of locally available C&D landfill space averages $256,000
annually.
MSW Mana eg ment
Orange County's rate of MSW generation has not increased in nine years. For the past
four years, since the last three year update submittal, tonnage averaged 57,100 tons and
last FY it was 57,300 (table 1-4). Reported out-of-county disposal did not rise during
the past four years either.
Table ES-4 MSW landfilled in Orange Co. and outside Orange Co. 2003-04 to 2006-07
We gained two years of landfill airspace, due to a combination of this lower-than-
expected waste generation rate coupled to the use of heavier landfill compaction
equipment and higher-than-expected rates of landfill subsidence, which allowed
reclamation of some air space from formerly completed landfill side slopes. Now the
MSW lined landfill is projected to close in early 2011, as opposed to the 2009 closure
date projected in the previous solid waste plan update submittal. That maybe again
revised to an earlier closing date by State-mandated recent rules changes now requiring
the County to deposit furniture and other bulky items that formerly went to C&D into the
lined landfill as of April 2008. That rules change may result in a shift of as much as 8,000
7
to 12,000 tons a year of waste that is far less dense and not as readily compactable as
conventional MSW.
The County is now engaged in a site search for an MSW transfer station as a resolution
passed by the Board of Orange County Commissioners (BOCC) in 2001 stated that no
new MSW landfill would be constructed in Orange County. The County now seeks to
locate a 25-acre site for the transfer station, which could accommodate waste
management activities as well as provide ample buffer. This transfer station site search is
being led directly by the BOCC with assistance of an engineering consultant and
scheduled to be completed by the end of calendar 2008. Design, permitting and
construction are to follow that. An opening date is reasonably projected at mid-2011.
The timing of the projected landfill closure in early 2011 compared to projected transfer
station completion in mid-2011, creates at least a several month projected gap. Managing
MSW during that time period will be challenging, expensive and environmentally
difficult and will become more so as the new rules governing what was formerly
considered C&D further reduce the lined landfill space.
Planning Approach and Progress Towards Goals
While Orange County is the lead agency in overall solid waste management in Orange
County, it continues to actively engage with its partners, the three Towns and UNC as
well as citizens and businesses overall. The partnership is partly institutionalizedthrough
the interlocal agreement which stipulates all waste controlled by the four local
governments is to be delivered to the Orange County landfill. While UNC is not a
signatory to the interlocal agreement, it continues to direct its waste collection contractor
to deliver its waste to the Orange County landfill. In exchange, the University receives
collection, at no fee, of organic waste including food, lab animal bedding and other
separated putrescible wastes under auspices of Orange County's contract for diverting
commercial food waste to a commercial compost facility.
The intergovernmental partnership is also manifested through the work of the Solid
Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) whose eight voting members are selected, two each, by
the elected boards of the County and each of the three Towns, with UNC as an ongoing
ex-officio partner. The SWAB advises the County on solid waste matters, budget and
policy. In 2005, the Solid Waste Plan Work Group was established to further the specific
objective of creating a more comprehensive solid waste plan and it continues to review
technical materials and deliver its opinion and recommendations on matters related to the
reports referenced above. That group includes the SWAB membership, an elected official
from each of the four jurisdictions~and technical staff from each jurisdiction's
Sanitation/Solid Waste Division.
Service Provision
The County continues to provide recycling and landfill services county-wide. Provision
of recycling collections by one agency across multiple jurisdictions is relatively unusual,
but continues to be effective here in terms of the economy-of--scale and centralized
provision of solid waste and recycling education and information. The whole County has
one phone number email and web address for recycling and landfill information.
Beginning in 2007-08 the Solid Waste Management Department also took managerial
control of the Sanitation Division including five rurally located solid waste convenience
centers, the County schools' waste collection and responsibility of ofF landfill litter
control. Fiscally the centers, school waste collections and litter control activities remain
part of the County's general fund budget, while the rest of the Solid Waste Management
Department is funded through an enterprise fund, with income sources separate from the
County's General Fund.
Solid waste collection services are all privately provided in unincorporated Orange
County. The three Towns all provide public waste collection to residential customers in
their respective incorporated areas and a mix of public and private providers is used by
commerciaUnon-residential entities in the incorporated areas. UNC provides most waste
collection and recycling services by contract. The majority of waste generated in Orange
County is delivered to the Orange County Landfill (see Table I). On-site inspectors at the
working face scrutinize all incoming waste for the presence of regulated recyclable
materials -- cardboard, metal and clean wood as well as for State or Federally banned
materials including brush, batteries, tires, appliances, hazardous waste and infectious
wastes.
We have 35 monitoring groundwater monitoring wells as shown below. We sample 28
wells semiannually for the criteria pollutants of pH, conductivity, temperature, total
metals as well as volatile organics using EPA method 8260 and an inorganic analysis for
lead, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium and silver
The wells are distributed as follows:
South Side MSW (active, line) - 14 wells: sample - 12
North side (closed MSW, 1995, unlined) - 16 wells: sample - 12
New C&D north side - 5 wells: sample - 4
To monitor methane we have 18 gas monitoring probes on the north side and 19 gas
monitoring probes on the south side. We take gas readings quarterly. Through this
testing we recently discovered a methane migration at the landfill edge and it is being
controlled by installation of a localized gas collection system with a flare. There are also
45 passive gas venting pipes in the north landfill that are not monitored directly.
Waste Reduction Goal Calculations
In 2006-07 Orange County's state-calculated waste burial rate was 0.711 tons per capita.,
which is equivalent of a waste reduction rate of 47.7% per capita compared to the
County's base year waste generation rate of 1.36 tons per capita in 1991-92. This is the
County's highest calculated rate yet reached.
Orange County is aware of at least one private in-County hauler that reported to us orally
that they pick up about 1,400 tons of waste per year from Orange County residential
customers and deliver it to the Durham [City] transfer station, yet no tonnage is noted in
the annual state solid waste report as being delivered to the Durham Transfer Station
from Orange County. We have notified Durham and the State Solid Waste Section of this
9
via email. If, as a surrogate calculation we were to include an extra 1,400 tons of waste as
generated in Orange County to the 88,060 calculated by the State as landfilled from
Orange County, it would push the waste reduction rate down to 46.9%, still our highest
rate ever recorded since we began the calculation in 1995. If we were to further assume
other unmeasured tons have `escaped` the system, for each 1,600 tons that escapes
measure, waste reduction rate goes down another 1 %; another 3,200 tons would have had
to escape measurement to get as low at the previous record 45% waste reduction that the
County achieved in 2003.
Summary of Chapters 2-4
Orange County Solid Waste. Management program changes in recycling and landfill
operations including waste reduction efforts were noted in the bulleted, annualized list at
the start of the summary. They are detailed in Chapel 2, Table 2a. Table 2b summarizes
work by individual jurisdictions. Additional details of work by jurisdictions is included in
Appendix G.
Chapter 3 describes the prior planning efforts in more detail and highlights recycling
program performance over the past three years, showing an increased tonnage once the
mixed paper was added during 2006-07. Cost per person and cost per pound for
collecting and processing hazardous waste have FALLEN as more tonnage has been
collected in what the County terms its Toxic Reduction Improvements Program or TRIP.
Future program financing will include the 3-R fee, holding landfill tipping fees as low as
possible, given the law requiring a $2 per ton additional payment to the state, beginning
in 2009, from every North Carolina Landfill and transfer station.
Future disposal options will continue to include the County-owned C&D landfill and,
until 2011, aCounty-owned and operated MSW landfill. After that facility is full, the
County will build a transfer station to ship waste as the main component of MSW
management. As part of the transfer station operation, the County will also negotiate a
contract with anout-of-County landfill to accept MSW from Orange County. Future
solid waste financing options may include borrowing funds to close and cap the current
landfill as well as to construct the transfer station. We expect to continue to use
predominantly the tipping fees along with some recyclables sale revenue and other small
income sources to finance the landfill operation as well as provide some supplemental
funding to the recycling effort.
Chapter 4 shows the plan approval process including the public involvement element and
getting final approval from the Board of Orange County Commissioners.
10
Chapter 1
Solid Waste Department Budget for 2006-07 Tables la-ld
Table 1-a Summary of Revenues and Expenditures
Table 1-b Landfill Operations and Expenditures
Table 1-c Administration Expenditures
Table 1-d Recycling Division Expenditures
The Department is divided into three divisions, Landfill, Administration and Recycling
and the budget is organized that way. The fund for recycling represents the Departmental
expenditures on recycling and waste reduction programs for all programs, salaries,
equipment, fuel, repairs, etc. Ninety percent of its funding now comes from the 3-R Fee.
The remainder is from recycling program revenues and landfill tipping fees.
Cost of the solid waste education, programs, and planning are incorporated into the
administration budget. The administration division's budget is funded 50% from landfill
tipping fees and 50% from the 3-R (reduce, reuse, recycle) Fees which are collected on
the annual property tax bill plus 50% of other revenues such as income from material
sales, interest income, etc.
The Landfill Division is funded mostly by landfill tipping fees with a combination of
white goods and tire reimbursements, mulch and metal sales and interest on income
making up the remainder.
Table 1-a Solid Waste De artment Bud et Summa
Division 2005-06 Actual 2006-2007 Estimated
Administration 989,301 1,417,865
Landfi110 erations 2,608,863 3,345,681
Recycling O erations 3,972,084 3,005,459
Total Ex enditures 7,570,248 8,726,646
Ca ital 1,240,067 1,291,732
Total 8.810,315 10.020,378
Offsetting Revenues 8,810,315 10,020,378
Table 1-bLandfill Operations and Expenditures
Item 2005-06 Actual 2006-07 Actual
Personnel 1,175,401 1,139,037
O erations 1,269.799 891,469
Ca ital 163,663 43,153
Equipment Reserve Allocation 834,819 923,646
Total 3,443,682 2,997,305
11
Table 1-c Administration Eg enditures
Item 2005-06 Actual ~ 2006-07 Actual
Personnel 435,822 453,908
O erations 539,169 560,970
Ca ital Outlay 14,309 1,074
E ui ment Reserve .Allocation 15,592 923,646
Total 1,004,893 1,939,598
Table 1-d Rec clip Eg enditures
Item 2005-06 Actual 2006-07 Actual
Personnel 722,231 783,035
O erations 3,122,787 2,455,425
Capital Outlay 127,066 230,955
Equipment Reserve Allocation 389,656 360,404
Total 4,361,740 3,829,819
Solid Waste Tonnage Managed at the Orange County Landfill FY 2006-07
The spreadsheets below document the monthly incoming materials and revenues derived
from tipping fees, sales, and penalties. This record represents a comprehensive look at all
the materials and resulting revenues from the materials managed by Orange County's
Solid Waste Management Department except for recyclables collected at the curb and
dropoff sites which are presented in an annual summary table.
Table 1-e Monthly disposal by type of waste compared to 2005-06
12
Table 1-e Solid Waste Landfi lled and Managed by Ty e FY0607
a ~ _ :::- ~ ;;,
i~,~ ~
~ ~.d1ARlli~r~ I'YQ 4't~~tl}:tlSj.. "'
.__ Jul Au ust
... .... ~ ~ ~.u .-
.~.. V
7r _et- ^`~ +rt-~E'4T
__ ___
__. Se tember October
-. .. .; ....
. ~
~. y~ November
~ f~~
` December Janua Februar
...
~ ~ - u~
r
..
~, ~ i~ ._ .s _ f m:"._ ~ March Aril
w
c ~~ ~ 5. ~
~ a~ z:~n ~ ,~ ~ r, Ma
a~ mow.., ~~
,.w~ei. ''m,:
_ June
p4
`sa e~3~ ~"
~- - __ TotaU YTD
~ ~3 ~#
~. ~~DD6 ~D~~~:.
i'VISW
'
4 8.48 r
4,948. -.
4,726
4,971
._ .
5,060
-_
.4,596
5,054
r -
4,1U3
. -.__
4,721
-
4,721
__
4,978
_
4,574
57,298 i
Ti in Fees-$46/ton 224,214 229,586 218,804 231,235 235,321 213,765 234,942 190,736 219,357 219,206 231,516 212,974 2,661,658
RevenuelTan 46 46 46 47 47 47 46 46 46 46 47 47 46
YTD 4,848 9,796 14,522 19,493 24,553 29,148 34,202 38,305 43,026 47,747 52,724 57,298 57,298
of total tonna e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Year s o 4,772 5,457 4,757 4,837 4,861 4,724 4,807 4,125; 4,493 4,346 5,345 SQ45 ` 57,569
IncrlDecr from last ear month) 0.02 (0.09) (0.01) 0.03 0.04 (0.03) 0.05 (0,01) 0.05 0.09 (0.07) (0.09) (0.00
m
~~ 3" .,o : ~~ ~ "S ,
i i . - X2006 2001:,
ConstrucLiun & Demolition 1,682 1;297 1,141 1,429 ' 1,243 996 '1,078 977 2,059 1,217 1,414 1,440. 15,973
Ti in Fee-$41/ton 81,763 66,669 56,312 68,404 59,910 50,212 52,867 47,495 63,723 59,996 70,523 71,174 749,048
Revenue/ Ton 49 51 49 48 48 50 49 49 31 49 50 49 47
YTD 1,682 2,979 4,120 5,549 6,792 7,788 8,866 9,842 11,901 13,118 14,532 15,973
of total tonna e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yearsa 1,298 1,482 1,487 ' 1,431 1,152. 975 1,171 1,347'.' :`1;313. 1,134 .1;366 ],529 15,686
IncrlDecr from last ear month/ 0.30 (0.12) (0.23) (O.DO) 0.08 0.02 (0.08) (0.27 0.57 0.07 0.04 (0.06) 0.02
.Tires 139 '180 ]09 ' 140 128 115 126 105' .136 100 114 7766 1,557
Ti in Fees 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 2,001 28 0 0 0
Revenue l Tan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0
YTD 139 319 428 568 695 810 936 1,041 1,178 1,277 1,391 1,557
of total tonna e 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0
Years o 133' 107 ` 108 110 90 110 115 90 .121 111 130 '113 1,339
Incr/Decr from last ear month)
... ~~r~ _ ~_~" ~ 0.04
: 0.69 0:01
~' 0.27
~ 0.42 0.04
~ 0.10
- ~ 0.17
,: ,:rte ~ 0.13
' ~,~ 0.10
~ (0.13
^. 0.46
~,~.
r 0.16
~ ~ 6 2 (i:
~_
Ve etative Waste 561 847 1,OlU 62G GU4 55G 560 383 ~ 675 ~ 912 7G0 679 8,145
Ti in Fees 11,402 16,065 17,853 11,989 11,253 10,755 10,419 7,414 13,150 17,119 14,461 12,9D2 154,784
Revenue /Ton 20 19 18 19 19 19 19 21 19 19 19 19 19
YTD 561 1,409 2,418 3,044 3,648 4,205 4,765 5,117 5,793 6,705 7,465 8,145
of total tanna e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year s o
635
713
590
571
546
` -557
662
450
701
814
" 764`
652 __
7,655
IncrlDecr from last vear (month/ (012) 0.19 0 71 D 10 011 (0 00) (015) (0 22) (0 04) 0.12 (0 01) 0.04 0.06
CleanWaod 125' 171 124 117 108 163 119 94 163 122 133 :149 1,530':
Ti in Fees 2,185 2,911 2,052 1,944 1,765 1,659 2,043 1,573 2,768 2,154 2,293 2,525 25,872
Revenue /Ton 17 17 17 17 16 16 17 17 17 18 17 17 17
YTD 125 296 420 537 646 749 ~ 868 962 1,125 1,247 1,380 1,530
of total tonna e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A ear a o 149 151 139 117 103 128 129 120 143 - 140 160. .185' ~ 1,663
Iocr/Decr from last ear month/ 0.16 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.19 0.0 0.22 0.14 0.13 0.1 0.19 0.08
~v~e 'u ~'~+~aF.~'
,,. ._ ~ " .,~~', ~ Jul
'~.,
_" Au ust
.. fir. Se tember
. _': ~ .$ _-!^vS ~k October
~ ~ _
u a T'Y ~ ' ~ ~~ November
H13n'-~.
~ +'~e December Janua Februa
cR 4 .~ 'mi 4' ~ 9
y
~ ~..~'-,~y?+L~~1J a~H€ tm~~ `°'~~~~ 13t March
~,y
~ +. _ Aril
r('~ . _
. ~ Ie`~i., "=e Ma
W-
a~~.^ C ~ ~ June
Fav: _ in
~ _ 3~~2 TotaU YTD
~, 5 ~ °':"~'.~
Landclearin & Stum s 75 14 S3 52 23 3G 17 53 31 25 ' 4Z S5 476`
Ti in Fees 3,090 569 2,153 2,140 949 1,484 705 2,198 1,305 1,045 1,750 2,268 19,655
RevenuelTon 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 41 41
YTD 75 89 142 194 217 253 270 324 355 379 421 476
of total tonna e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year a o 20' ]6 l0 69 37 15 2 4 ` 53 7 - '- 35 23- 284
TncrlDecr from last ear `month) 2 84 (014) 4 36 (0 24 0 25 1.43 6 64 12 20 0.41 2 80 019 1 40 0 68
Slud~~c O 0 0 0 0 ` 0 3 0 p p f 0 3
Ti in Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 0 25 0 139
RevenuelTon 45 45 45
YTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
of total tonna e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year a o
0'
0 --
0
0 --
0
0
0
1
0
' 0
0 -
0
1
IncrlDecr from lastyear month) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2
~~ ~~~ }
'~;~~'~-~~~ n
m _.
.
~.
r
tip:
~1 =`~ ~
White Gaods (Segregated~_ _ _
3G 41 31 30 27 `32 31 18 29 18 23' 26 342
YTD 36 77 108 138 165 197 228 246 275 293 316 342 2,424
of total tonna e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yeara o 32 36 32 30 33 "46 38 34 =44r 29 ' 36 [ 40 429
IoclDecr from last ear month)
~,.. _
~
~~~.~a.. .~. -- 0.13
_
, ... 0.14
. ,, .'. (0.04
_ 0.01
• °-
--. (0.17) 0.31
;
,. 0.18) (0,47)
- (034 0.38
_
~ (0.36 (0.35) 0.20
~, ~
~~"
Clean Metal 70' 66 64 59 ~7 50 71 58 67 80 80 68 793`
YTD 70 136 200 259 317 367 438 496 564 644 724 793 5,008
of total tonna e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year A o 73 75 64 60 G6 <68 73 64 79 80 74' '61 836
Inc/Decr from last ear month] (0.04) (0.12} (0.01) (0.01) 0.13) (0.26) (0.03)
~,~ (0.08) (0.14)
~. 0.00 0.09 0.12
.; 0.05
Mobilellomes 4 19 26 8 11 11 4 0 4 0 11 ~0 48
Ti in Fees 150 750 1,080 300 450 450 1 0 150 0 450 0 3,751
Revenue /Tan 40 40 40 40 40 40 0 #DN10! 40 #DN/0! 0 #DN10! 38
Number of Mobile Homes 1 5 7 2 3 3 1 0 1 0 3 0 26
YTD 4 23 49 56 68 79 83 86 184 184 814 '~
of total tonna e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0
Yeara o 4 11 23 19 11 45 15 15 23 19 0 4 188
Inc/Decr from last ear month 0.73 0.67 0.17 0.60 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.83 NA 0.67
14
Table 1-i and Table 1 j below are swnmaries of the annual tonnage of all materials by all programs operated
by Orange Community Recycling and others within Orange County..2005-06 compared to 2006-07. The
6.2% program tonnage growth is partly attributable to adding mixed paper to the urban curbside, rural
curbside and multifamily recycling programs, increasing those tonnages 8%, 21% and 5% respectively. The
TRIP tonnage increased 8% overall with the electronics component increasing 19% in 2006-07.
Table 1-f Annual Recycling Tonnage Summary FY0506
Pro ram Contractor Incomin Scale Out oin
Urban Curbside 3,810.30
.Rural Curbside 1,184.05
HHW 119.92
Lead-Acid 54.90
D -Cell 9.85
Electronics 290.10
Oil 104.70
Oil Filters 8.63
Antifreeze 3.88
Pro ane Tanks 3.20
Food Waste 1,840.50
Animal Beddin 509.00
Multifamil , 1573 759.28
Multifamil , 1574 273.94
Commercial, 1574 603.85
Gov Buildin s 85.83
Dro -off Blue Boxes 1,039.00
ONP 3,052.82
OMG -
OCC 1,491.58
OMP 1,187.73
Glass -sold
Glass -Crusher 249.15
Aluminum 36.27
Steel 144.07
Plastic 212.86
Commie le 515.04
Annual Total 6,464.88 3,945.95 8,267.95
Total Tons Managed:
Program Totals
Urban Curbside
Rural Curbside
Multifamily
Commercial
Gov Bldgs
Food/Animal Bedding
TRIP
14,732.83 Contractor + Outgoing
3,810.30 contractor
1,184.05 incoming scale
1,033.22 incoming scale
603.85 incoming scale
85.83 incoming scale
2,349.50 contractor
595.18 contractor /outgoing
15
Table 1-u Annual Recvcilin~ Tonnage Summary FY06-07
- --
Pro ram
Contractor
Incoming
Scale
Out oin
Urban Curbside 4,123.30.
Rural Curbside 1,432.90
HHW 116.41
Lead-Acid 41.09
D -Cell 12.47
Electronics 346.39 346.39
Oil 95.64
Oil Filters 10.32
Antifreeze 15.82
Pro ane Tanks 3.94
Food Waste 1,802.53
Animal Beddin 482.49
Multifamil , 1573 792.97
Multifamil , 1574 287.86
Commercial, 1574 637.75
Gov Buildin s 84.55
Dro -off Blue Boxes 898.25
ONP # 8 2,567.45
ONP # 6 494.89
OMG -
OCC 1,525.71
OMP 1,160.25
Glass -sold 1,372.57
Glass -Crusher 34.51
Aluminum 34.51
Steel 182.71
Plastic 232.70
Commin led Containers 640.43
Annual Total 7,050.39 4,776.35 8,592.12
Total Tons Managed:
Program Totals
Urban Curbside
Rural Curbside
Multifamily
Commercial
Gov Bldgs
Food/Animal Bedding
TRIP
15,642.50 Contractor + Outgoing
4,123.30 contractor
1,432.90 incoming scale
1,080.83 incoming scale
637.75 incoming scale
84.55 incoming scale
2,285.02 contractor
642.07 contractor /outgoing
16
Chapter 2
A summary of solid waste management activities undertaken in the past four years, specifically by the
Orange County Solid Waste Management Department Table 2-a.
There was only one major change in solid waste activities reported by an individual municipality during the
period from FY 2003-04 through the present. The Town of Carrboro converted to automated residential
collection in 2004-OS and saved one FTE; that position was transferred to another Public Works Division.
The various changes made at Solid Waste Convenience Centers are incorporated into the Solid Waste
Department's table 2-a although the County's Sanitation Division did not become part of the Solid Waste
Department until July 2007
Remainder of this page intentionally blank
17
° ~' ° ~ ? b ~
b qp cn Q. O
3 ~ o o C7 y
N ~ ..c~ s., U~
4-~
~
0, cC f~ N ~„ by O
~ ..-Oi
~
.,
p . ~
oa ~ O O ~ ~
~
° ~ y0 ~
~ y
~
(~ ~ ~ ~p ~" ~
U3 .
"'' ~ ~ ~ O
o°~•~
a~ °°
o
~ -b o~~~
U
~ ~
°
app ~ ~~~ ~ ~.~ ; i~'~
c
.x ° ¢.' °
'yy_ ~ o
~ wo cn o ~ °' '"
~'~ by cn ~
O ~ cci
O~,~' ~
C~ O O O bA
~ o~~ b~
o
U o
~;, ~~~.~ o ~
~
~, .~~
3a A ~~~~~ ~>~o xA~~..~~~ Q.~x~~
~ _
~
C O ++ bA ~1
~
'~ ~
J cn
•
~~ "r3
5~ O
~ ~ ~ U cd yV., ~
H N ~
~ O N
~
a
O O
~ .
~ °23 s.., ~
~, N ~ ~ ~ b
bA
U
~ O
p 0 -~ .~ b U
N r~ O O N ~.
"CJ O rn
N O O
U ~-•
O 0 0 ~" O '~
~
~ t~.~.~
U O C/~
~
~ ~ O Q" O O U ~~ ~~
q~ v
U p ~ G ~
~ ' ~ ~ ~ `'~'' bA . ~ a~ O by ~ ~"
mo
V
a 'C ~ "
d ~ ~! ~
~ ~°~
~ O ~ ~
°op. Q, ~
~° ~^' ~ ~
30.,b ~ U y N N p ~ ~
°°.~.~ v~°
~
..oc~Ts
~ [-~..oo w3 v~~t<C ~~
~~~~
°
o ~
~
° bD V
~' '~ ~ ~ U ~ ~
m +
U ~ en ~ ~ a~ ~
'~
~ ~ ~
b ~ ~
° t
eC . O O
O
A ~ ~ .
ri GiO~o ai v ~ o i W ° ~~.~ ~ ~ °r~'xWC7 ~-d c° o(~O
~
aio o ~ ~
~ a ~ o .~ -b
o U ~, ~ ~ ° ~ o
~ o ~ ~,
r eA ,
.~~a~°.~' '~~o i ~°~ ~,~~,~a.N°,,'
~
;,~ ~ ~ ^O -b .~ ~j~. U
~ : ~ ~ 'T ° y~ rte, ~-'
y A b,° '~ ° `d ~j
can ~ b
~ N
~ ~
~
b ice, i.i .~
e~ v. ~ w ~ y
~
-c~ o ~ ..o V ~ b ~
~ ~ °~ n ~ O ~ .
~
b .
~ ~ °~ o ~ -d o
~s ~ a a~ ~ ~ ~, '.~ o ° o ~ on
3 ~
,a.~b y ~
U~ ~O a,
W o o~ ~UWw ,
~
r~b ~ a a0
~
cf ~
~
ai
'~ _
~ ~' o
;~
~ ~~
~ ~ ~ A°~
o 0
a .
~~ ° ~ ~
o °
C1 ~ bA U b O ~ N ~'.
,~ WOW UOZ
0 0 0 0 0
~.+
e~ ri, ~f• v~ ~o ~
a~
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
N
O
0
N
R
CtS
b
c
c
L'
00
Chapter 3
Solid Waste Planning Update
Planning
In this section we follow the outline in the guidance document. Thus we will start with general
planning guidelines in this chapter Appendix F contains the planning elements listed element by
element with source reduction, etc., description of the work by the Solid Waste Management
Depar6ment and the Solid Waste Plan Work Group on each plan element and include a timetable
for the coming year along with a description of likely activities in years to come.
Orange County's has maintained its long-term goal of 61 % per capita reduction in solid waste
landfilled but has removed any timetable for achieving that goal. The prior goal for the date was
2006. The County has made progress towards the goal and during FY 2006-07 achieved its
highest waste reduction rate ever of 47.7% per capita. The 2005 one-week waste sort indicates
that if about 50% of what is recyclable that now remains in the waste stream were able to be
recycled, the County could achieve a waste reduction rate in the mid-50's percentage. Achieving
the final 5% would have to be achieved through waste reduction, if the 2005 waste sort is
accurate and can be reasonably extrapolated and a set of interim goals by material can be
achieved. It is possible as it appears that our MSW generation rate remains steady while
population increases slowly at 1.5% to 2% per year. The amount landfilled continues to
decrease, even when what is landfilled out-of-county that we can account for is included as it is
in each year's state report.
Evaluation of Program Performance
Even without the long-term plan fully implemented, county solid waste efforts continue to
evolve and change.
Various programs have matured and continued to grow. The County's hazardous waste program,
known as the Toxic Reduction Improvements Program or T.R.I.P. includes the conventional
Hazardous Household Waste, the automotive fluids, filters and batteries collection from
Convenience Centers and the electronics program at Convenience Centers and the Landfill has
expanded annually and tonnage now exceeds 640 tons, up from 595 in 2005-06 and that was
increased from 487 three years ago, 32% increase in three years. (see Chapter 1, Table l j for
details)
Curbside recycling in both rural and urban programs as well as multifamily, was slowly growing
prior to mixed paper, but adding mixed paper in the second half of 206-07 with the attendant
public education, new bin distribution, conversion to two-stream at apartments and rural route
additions increased tonnage markedly.
19
Table 3-1 Recvciin~ Tonnage from Multi-Family and Curbside Programs 2004-2008
Program Tonnage OS-06 06-07 % inc. 07-08 through Jan Projected percent
2004-OS v.05- increase for fu1107-
06 08
2,713 tons thru Jan. 13%
Urban Curb 3,810 4,123 8% (4,650
3, 362 extra olated)
1,085 tons thru Jan. 30%
Rural Curb 1,140 1,184. 1,433 21 % (1, 860 extra olated)
792 tons thru Jan. 10%
Multifamily 1,026 1,033 1,081 5% (1,193 extrapolated)
Curbside, multifamily and TRIP were the main focus of program expansion in recent years
resulting in noticeable tonnage increase (Tables 3-1 and 3-2). Tonnage from the commercial
recycling program remained flat, while food waste and dropoff had modest growth despite little
program expansion (Table 3-3).
Table 3-2 Summary of Toxic Reduction Improvement Program (TRIP)
FY 2006-07 v. 2005-06
Program or Material Contractor Tons Tons % chap e
Motor Oil Holston 95.6 104.7 (-9%)
Oil Filters Holston 10.3 8.6 20%
Anti-Freeze Holston 15.8 3.9 405%
Lead acid batteries Chatham
Salvage 41.1 54.9 (-25%)
Dry cell batteries Battery
Solutions 12.5 '9.9 26%
Electronics
Recycling Synergy 346.4 290.1 19%
Hazardous Waste Eco-Flo 116.4 1.19.9 (-3%)
Pro ane Tanks 3.9 3.2 22%
Totals 642.1 595.2 8%
Table 3-3 Recvclin~ Tonnage from Commercial and Drop Off
Program Tonnage
2004-OS
2005-06
2006-07 % increase v.
OS-06
Commercial (cans
and bottles 646 604 638 6%
Food & animal
bedding 1,917 2,350 2,285 -3%
Dro Off Sites 4,6,34 5,071 5,209 3%
Totals 7,197 8,025 8,132 1
20
Financing
Departmental operations are now fmanced primarily by revenue from landfill tipping fees and
the 3-R fees with a growing contribution from recycling sales revenue. The key change since the
previous plan submittal has been the addition of the 3-R Fee to create a stable, predictable,
equitable source of income to support recycling. It had become apparent by 2002 that the landfill
tipping fees alone could not continue to support the recycling programs, thus a fee was
implemented. Other incomes sources include white goods and tine reimbursements, interest on
income, licensing and penalty fees. See Table 3-4.
Landfill fees cover all landfill operations, 3-R recycling fees cover about 90% of all recycling
program costs. Other administrative costs, capital costs and contributions to reserve make up
budget areas not included within operations. The 3-R Fee has become established as a major part
of the County's Solid Waste budget. It is tied generally to the level of service received by each
sector, thus one receiving weekly curbside recycling will pay more than one who receives
biweekly curbside, and those who receive no curbside pay less. The exception is that there are
two small commercial programs where the low level of 3-R fee ($37/unit/year) does not reflect
true program costs, but the tonnage diversion and longstanding nature of the programs along
with the strong business relationships have accounted for the continuation of those programs
under the broader financing umbrella. This arrangement is likely to continue until a broader
commercial program is established with a more comprehensive fee structure.
Table 3-4 Revenue Sources for 2006-07 Solid Waste Mana ement
Source Amount (to nearest 1,000) Comments
Landfill Tip ing Fees 3,671,000
3-R Fees 3,000,000 Charged to all improved
properties to cover most
recycling rogram costs
Recycling & Mulch Sales 712,000 Includes ail scrap metal,
compost and wood chips as
well as `conventional
recyclables paper, cans,
bottles
White Goods & Tires 212,000 State reimbursements
Landfill Penalty Fees 160,000 For illegally landfilling
measurable amounts of
cardboard, wood and scrap
metal.
Other: RRMO licensing, 206,000
grants, interest income, bin
sales, etc.
21
Disposal Options and Intergovernmental Cooperation.
The County has determined that it will not build another MSW landfill in Orange County. There
are an estimated three years of landfill life remaining at this point. The County has engaged in a
process to site and develop a transfer station to consolidate locally generated MSW and send it to
a remote landfill once the current County landfill is full. A site of 25 acres is sought that might
accommodate compatible and related solid waste management uses. Orange County has sited
and operates an unlined C&D landfill at the current location that is now predicted to last another
15 years or more.
The County plans to continue managing recyclables, hazardous wastes, tires and yard waste at its
current facility for the foreseeable future. There is a commitment to continue to reduce the
amount of waste disposed by 61 % per person in an effort to conserve resources, protect the
environment and save the remaining landfill space until a suitable alternative can be developed.
The intergovernmental agreement, finalized in 1999 continues to operate and provide a strong
fiscal and governance foundation for the solid waste operation. The four signatories to the
agreement, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County, as well as UNC, although it
is not a signatory, have all pledged the waste under their control to an Orange County run
facility. This pledge has stabilized the amount of waste coming to the landfill.
The Town of Hillsborough contractually obligated its franchised non-residential hauler, Waste
Industries, to deliver waste from Hillsborough to the County landfill. ITNC has similarly
obligated its contract hauler to do the same despite offers of lower tipping fees by the contractor.
to haul to its own transfer station. The Town and UNC receive recycling services as benefits. The
Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro deliver waste.they collect to the landfill, but other private
haulers operating in those jurisdictions are under no such obligation. Some of the waste they
collect is delivered to Orange County, while some goes to other area transfer stations or landfills.
Privately collected waste in the unincorporated areas is generally assumed to go elsewhere as
there is no current obligation to bring it to Orange County.
The Solid Waste Advisory Board consisting of eight formally appointed citizen members, two
each selected by each of the four jurisdictions plus an ex-officio member from UNC, continues
to offer policy guidance and comment on staff work. They also provide recommendations and
ideas to the Board of Orange County Commissioners on solid waste matters. Each set of two
SWAB members also periodically reports back to their respective jurisdictional elected bodies on
matters affecting them such as the County's overall solid waste management plan.
The Solid Waste Plan Work Group, an informal group was formed in 2005 to give direction to
the long-term integrated solid waste plan. That group consisting of the SWAB, an elected official
from each jurisdiction, LJNC representatives and solid waste staff from the four jurisdictions,
provides recommendations and guidance on the specifics of the plan, as they are brought forth by
staff and its technical advisors. The Work Group has played an integral role in plan development.
As the Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (lZRMO) and Solid Waste planning
requirements have strengthened and matured over the past five years, each of the jurisdictions
has adopted a formal means of informing the County of permitted construction or demolition
projects within its boundaries. Through ordinance and formal agreements, the various
jurisdictions now provide notification and allow plan review of new construction and demolition
22
to ensure adherence to the County's mandate to recycle wood, metal and cardboard as well as
provide adequate, accessible outdoor storage space for recyclables to be collected.
The County Solid Waste Department regularly receives lists of permitted building projects so
they can ensure a solid waste plan is filed, inspect job sites and provide education and
enforcement of the aspects of the R.RMO. Solid waste staff from Carrboro and Chapel Hill
continue to inspect dumpsters and rolloff containers under their respective jurisdictions' control
for the presence of regulated materials and routinely tag such containers to prevent their
collection until such materials are removed. Tagging reduces the landfill tip fee penalties the
Towns may incur.
Solid Waste Convenience Center staff educate, urge and direct the public to separate regulated
materials at the Convenience Center sites, as the trucks delivering waste from the sites to the
landfill are treated similarly to any other non-residential truck and routinely penalized for
presence of regulated materials in their loads. UNC employs its own staff to educate contractors,
building operators, students and faculty and police those containers under its jurisdiction to keep
them free of regulated materials or they too incur penalties. Thus RRMO enforcement is
equitable among jurisdictions and the private sector.
In general, the various Towns also support the County-wide recycling program by distributing
recycling bins from their offices, notifying the County of new residences slated to receive
collection, providing recycling information to new residents as they move in and giving
recycling schedules to all residents along with the jurisdiction's own solid waste information.
Each Town's web site also has a link to the recycling program web page.
In 2004-OS some of the various governments in the Triangle J Council of Governments
including Chatham, Durham, Orange and Wake Counties, undertook a year long investigation of
to determine if any county within a 100 mile radius of a nominal central point in the region, and
irrespective of state boundaries, was willing to host a regional landfill to accept waste from the
various counties in the Triangle region in exchange for an investment in constructing such a
facility. The investigation, led on Triangle J's members' behalf, by an engineering consulting
firm, deternvned there were no willing hosts nor any land that any County or other agency in the
region was willing to make available for a regional landfill. Two offers, one from a public
agency and one from a private landholder were investigated with no positive result.
23
Chapter 4
Process for Development of the Plan
Plan development in Orange County is an ongoing process. The process is complicated by the
fact that all four jurisdictions and UNC are interested in fashioning a fully integrated plan that
cooperatively incorporates all elements of solid waste management from waste reduction through
landfilling encompassing all the sectors of the economy in each jurisdiction. In November 2007,
Orange County decided to provide this interim plan document, which will still be overdue by two
years when approved and submitted. This interim submittal is far more descriptive than
prescriptive and serves primarily as an update.
The County remains the lead agency in the planning process. In 2005, they convened the Solid
Waste Plan Work Group (Work Group), which has functioned as the advisory group and
sounding board for the plan. The Work Group consists of an elected official from each of the
four jurisdictions, solid waste and sanitation staff from the jurisdictions led by Orange County's
Solid Waste Management staff and all members of the solid waste advisory board. The Work
Group has used the technical advisory services of Olver Inc. and its subcontractor RRSI to
provide technical analysis and recommendations on various plan elements over the past three
years.
Those plan elements evaluated by Olver and RRSI have focused primarily on the expansion and
further development of the recycling elements of the solid waste plan, secondarily on waste
management collection techniques. The evaluations and studies have included:
• overview of the various recycling programs and the potential to expand them to divert
enough materials to reach the County's waste reduction goal.
• evaluation of the option of the County's development of its own Materials Recovery
Facility compared to using the existing private MRFs in the region to market and process
materials collected in Orange County.
• detailed analysis of the dropoff and convenience centers and options for their future
constituted another element of the plan to determine the future role for this critical
segment of the solid waste management system.
• consideration of franchised collection of waste in the unincorporated areas of the county
• development of a detailed plan for transferring recyclables currently collected by the
County that might later grow to include recyclables from the urban curbside contractor as
well as those from UNC
• evaluation of options for commercial waste and recycling collection including the private
sector, public sector and various combinations under franchise and licensing agreements
• evaluation of the efficacy of franchising non-residential waste collection throughout
Orange County.
Ultimately, these elements will be decided on and knitted into an integrated plan along with a
fiscal analysis to determine how the needed expansions and changes could be financed.
Along with the collection components for solid waste and recycling, there is an important
disposal component to long-term solid waste planning. The County has decided to manage its
future MSW using a transfer station and contracting for disposal in anout-of-County landfill. It
24
initially decided in March 2007 to site the transfer station at the site of the existing landfill slated
to close in 2011. Due to strong local neighborhood opposition, the Board of Orange County
Commissioners rescinded its decision and decided to conduct aCounty-wide transfer station site
search using a set of criteria to be determined by the BOCC with citizen input. That process is
now underway and expected to be completed by the end of 2008. Following site selection, the
County is to design, permit, finance and construct the transfer station and hopes to fmish this
process before landfill closure. The site search process is being led by an engineering consultant
and directed by the BOCC with minimal solid waste management staff involvement.
Landfill gas capture and use is another solid waste planning activity the County is currently
undertaking. For three years, Orange County has been interested in capture and use of the
methane currently vented from its closed 45 acre landfill as well as that from the lined 26 acre
active MSW landfill. The BOCC has decided to negotiate a use agreement with University of
North Carolina to enable them to make use of the gas to power their new campus at Carolina
North. Using the methane for either direct heat or power as pipeline gas or combusting it to make
electricity and, ideally capturing the waste heat from the combustion turbines, would reduce the
proposed new campus' carbon footprint and help UNC meet its goal of a carbon neutral Carolina
North campus.
At this point, these three major elements of recycling program expansion, transfer station siting
and landfill gas capture are all being undertaken simultaneously within their own planning
constructs, but the integration of the three will occur in the fmancial analysis phase of the plan
due to be accomplished later this year. It is possible that same physical integration among the
three elements may occur. One possible synergy could be in the potential future siting of
recycling facilities at a transfer station site. Another is the potential to use some energy from
captured landfill gas to power solid waste operations in addition to those energy needs of UNC
that the gas might meet.
Next steps for plan development are shown in the attached memo to the Solid Waste Plan Work
Grroup delivered March 26, 2008. The responses to that memo at the March 26 meeting and by
the Solid Waste Advisory Board at their April 3 meeting are incorporated into the attached
version of the memo and indicated as such, using an alternate typeface and italics.
25
Memorandum
To: Solid Waste Plan Work Group
From: Blair Pollock, Solid Waste Planner
Subject: Planning Process Update and Decision Making Points
Date: March 26, 2008. UPDATED from SWAB MEETING 4/3/08. All revisions to
actual March 26 memo shown in ARIAL BOLD
This memorandum serves as a cover briefmg for the two attached technical papers from RRSI
and Olver Incorporated on commerciaUnon-residential waste collection options and approaches.
It also provides guidance on issues facing the Work Group and serves to recap some of the work
accomplished to date in developing an integrated solid waste plan.
Cover Briefm~
Agenda Item #2 (NOTE: Item 1 was overview presentation, no attachment here) Options for
Commercial Waste and Recycling Collection. Jim Frey of 1ZRSI presents a set of options for
collecting recyclables and waste from the non-residential sector. Options were developed by staff
and RRSI with input from focus groups held in October 2007 and presented in an electronic
survey to all businesses and other non-residential entities in Orange County (and Chapel Hill part
of Durham County) administered during January, February and March. Options include:
• Mandatory recycling with business' choice of licensed recycling and waste haulers, No
County role in collection, just enforcement.
• County, with Towns, selects franchise haulers for waste and/or recycling. Use of
franchise recycling haulers) is optional; other haulers may be selected but franchisee(s)
must offer recycling. No County role in collection, just billing, education and
enforcement. __
• County-provided recycling with choice of licensed waste hauler. County administers
recycling fees based on size and intensity of business.
• County-provided recycling and franchise haulers for waste collection with fees based on
service levels.
The commerciaUnon-residential sector is the sector with the fewest publicly provided recycling
services, thus the greatest opportunities for additional recycling tonnage to be collected.
Currently the County mandates recycling of corrugated cardboard, scrap metal and clean wood
but does not collect those. Generator. must manage them as separated items for recycling. County
provides recycling program services to only part of the bar and restaurant sector for cans, bottles
and paper and, for a smaller sub-sector, food waste recycling. The Work Group is considering
the means of expanding collection in the commercial sector as a key purpose of the March 26
meeting. For further consideration, as a corollary need, are ways to control waste flow through
either franchising or licensing with a public destination to be designated as a way to exert more
environmental scrutiny and fiscal control over solid waste.
26
One-hundred-forty six businesses and other non-residential entities replied to the survey and
there was no clearly favored option. Thus RRSI will present the results of the survey and its
analysis and opinions of the various options based on the respondents' preferences and RRSI's
own experience designing and implementing commercial waste and recycling systems
elsewhere.
We request that the Work Group review the options and if prepared, express its preference for
one or more of the options if there is a clear preference among the members. The expression of
preference and/or the need for more information will provide the staff will appropriate guidance
to take the next steps in developing what could be the most complex and challenging single
element of the overall solid waste plan.
Agenda Item 3. Franchise Commercial Waste Collection. The study from Jeremy O'Brien of
Olver Incorporated, one of the County's technical advisors on solid waste, focuses on comparing
the option of developing a franchise(s) for commerciaUnon-residential solid waste collection in
Orange County to the current system for that sector, which varies among the jurisdictions. A
franchise did not appear economically effective but it does have positive potential
environmental effects. A summary of potential effects identified include:
® reducing costs to customers (this turned out less cost effective than
predicted),
® reducing garbage truck traffic,
® limiting competition,
® controlling oversight and waste flow,
® presumably directing waste to aCounty-operated facility.
Recycling could be part of the franchise or not. The `fairness' issue of how to parcel out
franchises to the current haulers active in the County will be one issue that helps determine the
acceptability of franchising as a tool to manage solid waste locally.
Last year, Jeremy presented results of research that demonstrated it is not cost-effective to
provide franchised in only the unincorporated non-residential sub sector of Orange County.
There are not enough potential collection stops to create an economy of scale that makes this
more attractive than the current open market approach to waste collection. It could be included
in a larger system of franchising, but would not stand alone.
The Town of Hillsborough operates an exclusive franchise with a contractor for non-residential
waste within Town limits; waste is directed to the Orange County landfill as part of their
obligation under the interlocal agreement. The Town is currently evaluating its franchise
arrangement and hauler.
UNC also maintains an exclusive MSW hauling contract for on-campus wastes. 'The evaluation
also found ITNC's waste contract is also cost-effective compared to study alternative costs.
UNC's waste is currently directed to the Orange County landfill as part of their contract.
The current study evaluates the efficacy of franchising if some or all parts of the non-residential
sector throughout the County participate and the franchise is divided between two franchisees.
That approach may or may not be attractive to all potential users. Some combination of any or all
27
of the three municipalities and the University may opt into a franchise, while the others may
decide that their current system is suitable. A final system cost and environmental evaluation will
depend partly on the number and proximity of potential customers; that will be determined by
which jurisdictions opt in or not.
We request that Work Group members express their preference for further development of the
franchise concept, state if they are not interested in their government or entity pursuing this
further and/or if they need further information to make a decision. Those preferences would give
the staff and advisors more guidance on the scope of any future franchise analysis. A secondary
set of issues involves the administration, level of centralized control and billing, types of services
offered and whether or not recycling is included. Franchisee selection will be handled fairly and
competitively to ensure the best pricing for the County and an equitable solution among haulers.
Planning Process Issues for Recommendations by the Work Group
The list of issues described below are those that the Work Group has received information about
and on which they have either made a recommendation or will need to further evaluate for
development of an overall draft plan. RRSI and Olver have provided technical papers and
analyses on all these issues over the past year.
Processing Recyclables: One recent key recommendation the Work Group made in
November 2007, was to support development of a shipment point at the Eubanks Road
facility to a merchant MRF for all commingled recyclables that the County now collects
and is likely to collect in the next year. As program tonnage grows more than 10% over
the current tonnage level, it will be necessary to develop expanded recycling transfer
capacity at the current site or another site. The decision of whether or not the County
should build its own Materials Recovery Facility is hereby deferred as we can use this
short-term transfer opportunity to gain experience with the private market and focus on
program expansion. Commingling collection allows us the labor to both expand the
number of collection sites in existing programs and possibly add programs to increase our
recycling tonnage and further decrease landfilling. The Board of Orange County
Commissioners has requested the staff to return in April with a detailed implementation
plan for this action.
® Rural Residential Waste Services: Last year the Work Group received a technical report
from Olver Inc. about providing universal rural residential waste collection using a
franchise with one or more haulers with exclusive territories. That solution was evaluated
compared to the current system that is a mix of convenience centers and open-market
private haulers and found to provide aneconomy-of--scale that made it economically and
environmentally attractive, if collection were provided county-wide. Such a system works
best when it is either required to be used, i.e. paid for by all eligible users or there are fees
charged by volume for garbage disposed at solid waste convenience centers. Charging a
fee to cover waste management costs at the centers could then often economically justify
households' decisions to subscribe to waste collection from the exclusively franchised
haulers) rather than self-haul. The Work Group made no recommendation on this, but
will need to address this issue as part of completing a plan.
28
® Solid Waste Convenience Centers and Dropoff Sites: As a corollary to making a more
efficient rural residential waste collection system, RRS prepared a technical report on
convenience centers and dropoff sites issued in May 2007. Various options on how to
manage convenience centers included limiting the number of centers, charging a fee for
solid waste and providing more recycling opportunities at the centers. Along with this
was a proposal to close one or two of the least used unstaffed recycling dropoff sites to
improve collection efficiency. Initiating collection of corrugated cardboard at the curb
could further obviate the need for the extensive dropoff site system now in place.
Charging waste disposal fees at the convenience centers could make rural residential
waste collection at the house more efficient and economically attractive to the residents
than the currently perceived `free' convenience center system that an estimated 70% of
households use. Rising gasoline prices and concerns about increased carbon
consumption may add to this attractiveness. Adding more services such as hazardous
waste and rigid, bullcy plastic recycling could have the contrary effect of making the
centers more popular, but having fewer centers could make the trips more infrequent. The
Work Group has made no recommendation on these matters yet; they are pending as part
of the plan development.
The table on the next page belew summarizes the status of various solid waste management
issues described above and issues that remain pending and suggests areas where the Work Group
will face recommendation to make the draft plan complete. Items shown in ARIAL BOLD were
revised by SWAB in their review of the interim plan on April 3, 2008,
29
Table 1 _ Solid Waste Issues for Recommendations by Work Group (recent and near-term)
Item Status and Action by Work Comments
Grou
Recyclables Processing, current action Work Group recommendation Detailed implementation plan
completed from 11/07 received by BOCC due from staffto BOCC for 08-
to transfer commingled 09 budget consideration
, recyclables from existing
_ facility with necessary
modifications.
Rural Residential Waste Franchising Report received from Oiver in High level of interaction with
May 2007. No action taken, function of Solid Waste
Action Pending Needs further discussion and Convenience Centers. Decisions
recommendation from Work must be made together
Grou
Expansion of Rural Recycling to SWAB determined this to Works in concert with rural
all households be near term priority waste franchising
recommendation
Drop off recycling and Convenience Report received from RRSI High level of interaction with
Centers May 2007. No action taken. function of Solid Waste
Action Pending Needs further discussion and Convenience Centers. Decisions
recommendation ~ on franchise and SWCC
operations must be made
together.
CommerciaUnon-residential waste Report from RRSI outlining At this time, no further
collection options March 2008. Work direct Work Group or
Group recommends retaining survey takers on non-
Current Work current collection residential waste collection
practices following overall recommend work, as there
sentiment from survey appears to be satisfaction
responses ene-$ere with the current system.
CommerciaUnon-residential recycling Next step is development Large-scale commitment to
collection - of detailed options with program expansion, significant
Current Work costs and implementation financial implications. Major
concepts Work Group focus
Commercial Waste Collection Report from Olver evaluates May provide less costly service
Franchising franchise compared to current with lower environmental
system. No real financial impact. Significant cooperation
__ savings shown & coordination among
Current Work Recommendation from jurisdictions. Could involve any
~teedQd-~ Work Group is combination of jurisdictions
to continue current and/or iTNC. Study identified
collections ~ ~ °~~~°~* r'°~: no major cost savings.
Some of the other benefits
could be achieved through
licensin a reements.
30
The issues presented in the table below are integral to a comprehensive long-term solid waste
plan. They are issues on which the Work Group will need to make recommendations at some
future point. They are presented here to provide a perspective on future solid waste work. We
have indicated which ones, in our opinion, are integral to completing the current plan, which
could be deferred to a future planning effort, once the current plan is approved and submitted,
and which are optional for the Work Group to consider.
Table 2. Future areas for Work Group Consideration
Future Items for discussion in current plan Status and Action by Work Comments
Grou
Financing Recycling and Solid Waste No report yet made to Work Financing options will be part of any
Services Group. Any recycling plan elements considered. Future work
ex ansions will re uire fundin b staff & consultants needed.
Regulatory Issues No report yet made to Work Work Group may decide whether to
Group. Mandatory recycling is increase regulatory oversight. Flow
most likely measure to be control would improve financial
considered but flow control, stability & bring more environmental
PAYT, and other measures also oversight of waste disposal and
critical. increased recycling/diversion.
Accelerating Rural Curbside Recycling No report yet made to Work Work Group nzay recommend
Expansion Moved by SWAB Group. Staff report, if accelerated expansion, even in current
recommendation into items t0 be requested. Currently ~65% of . .planning cycle. Current expansion of
considered in the near term, unincoz~orated bonzes served 500-1000. homes/yr. No acceleration
and financed vy 3-R Tee. means all (>90°0) homes Beached with
five years. Expansion ifzzplies new
_. ___ _ _ _ _tz ucks and_types of collection
Recycling Program Materials Expansion No report yet made to Work Two-bin, two-stream system works
and Container Selection (bins v. carts) Group. Not necessary to well for current programs. Future
SWAB considered moving into determine specifics for current programs may require reconsideration
current decisions but determined plan submittal. of bin and cart types. $1.5 million to
decision could be separate and buy carts for all current customers.
made later
Items for future planning cycles Status and Action by Work Comments
Grou
Organics Management No report yet made. Highly Organics diversion, collection and
technical and complex work processing must be considered as part
required. of any long-term strategy to achieve
Coun oafs.
Items.which may not need Work Group Status and Action by Work Comments
attention but are integral to Solid Waste Group
Plannin
Urban Residential Waste Collection Each Town determines its own. Future Pay as you throw may bring
No action necessary by Work more coordinated action
Grou
Transfer Station Siting and Development No recommendation required by This is a BOCC led process, but future
Work Group uses of site may involve Work Group
in ut.
31
Appendices (not included with this interim plan, will be distributed at a later time, They are
descriptive materials as outlined below)
Appendix A Copy of Resolution Promoting development of interim plan
Appendix B Copy of Resolutions Adopting Plan (pending plan adoption by SWAB)
Appendix C Map of Waste Sites used by Orange County (from Mike Meagher)
Appendix D Waste Characterization Study Excerpts (1995 . v. 2000 v. 2005)
Appendix E Waste Reduction Goal Sheet
Appendix F Plan Elements
Appendix G Supporting Documentation -brochures, newsletters, other
Appendix H Departmental Goal
Appendix I -Financial plan (not complete and will not be submitted with interim report)
32