HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-20-2008-6eORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 20, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No. (o ' e
SUBJECT: Recycling Processing and Collection Program Expansion Details and
Implementation Plan
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment 1 -May 20, 2008 Staff Memo
Attachment 2 -March 6, 2008 BOCC
Meeting Agenda Item
Attachment 3 -February 6, 2008 Meeting
Information Item
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gayle Wilson 968-2885
PURPOSE: To request the Board endorse the components of the FY 2008-09 Solid Waste
Management budget relevant to implementing the transition to commingled bottle and can
collection, program expansion and the proposed. timeline for implementation, pending approval
of the FY 2008-09 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund budget.
BACKGROUND: The recycling program can improve its collection efficiency and collect more
materials from more sources in FY 2008-09 without expansion of staff or an increase this year in
3-R Fees by making a transition from collecting, processing and marketing source-separated
cans and bottles to collecting and marketing those materials mixed together (commingled
containers). The synergies from those efficiency improvements will enable other expansions
including rural corrugated cardboard collection, expansion of commercial collections, adding
new plastics at drop off sites and baling of residential mixed paper. All projected program costs
can be managed within currently proposed budget.
At its March 6 meeting, the Board received a staff presentation that showed a preliminary
estimate of costs and benefits from this transition and authorized staff to create a detailed
transition plan. The details of the transition plan, costs and benefits are contained in the
attached staff memo. The plan includes:
• Reconfiguration of current recycling processing area to manage and receive commingled
containers;
• Expansion of the Urban and Rural Curbside Recycling collection to include corrugated
cardboard;
• Expansion of the drop-off recycling program to include additional source separated
plastics;
• Changing the Commercial and Drop-off recycling programs from source-separated to
commingled containers;
2
Adding up to fifty commercial recycling sites, as capabilities allow, and addition of the
collection of all paper except corrugated cardboard, to currently collected commercial
sites interested in this service;
Preparation of language adding cathode ray tubes to those items banned from disposal
at the Orange County Landfill and expansion of the Electronics Recycling program to
manage additional materials resulting from this disposal ban; and
Development and implementation of an effective education and outreach effort to
publicize the changes and enhancements to the various recycling program expansions
described herein and to execute this plan consistent with program implementation.
Staff projects that the above improvements may increase recycling 1,700 tons overall while
reducing incoming revenue by $58,000 based on switching from sale of source separated bottle
and cans to commingled. In addition to the above costs and benefits, the program gains a
projected 25% in collection efficiency to enable these transitions, reduction of 350 trips per year
for hauling cans and bottles out to market and gains in experience for the County in market-
based management of recyclable materials at private Materials Recovery Facilities.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: New first year program costs are estimated at $363,800 in the Solid
Waste Enterprise Fund budget and are broken down as follows:
non-recurring capital costs totaling $215,800 include a walking floor trailer to haul cans
and bottles, a rubber tire loader to load them into the trailer, dumpsters and roll-off
containers for collection of new plastics and related signs, electrical work and pad
reconfiguration.
non-recurring intensive first year education costs to promote new programs of $41,400
including mailing, advertisements and on-site instruction about recycling new plastics.
Future education costs will become part of standard program education.
recurring annual costs at $106,600 including leasing a road tractor, equipment
maintenance, fuel, contracted cardboard collection, and CRT collection.
There are projected annual labor efficiency savings of $80,000 to be reinvested in expanded
collections.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board endorse, pending
adoption of the FY 2008!09 budget, the service improvement approach for:
o the transition from the current source-separated program to commingled collection,
shipment and marketing of recyclables;
• adding corrugated cardboard to curbside recycling;
• ,adding new, source-separated plastics at drop-off sites;
• adding more commercial recycling stops;
• adding a ban on Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) at the landfill; and
• implementing public education and outreach for all these changes.
3
Memorandum
To: Laura Blackmon, County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director
Subject: Recycling Processing and Collection Program Expansion Details and
Implementation Plan
Date: May 20, 2008
At its March 6th 2008 meeting the Board of County Commissioners approved in concept the
Solid Waste Plan Work Group recommendation that the County's Recycling Program transition
the Drop-Off and Commercial Recycling programs from collecting and processing source
separated cans and bottles to the collection of commingled cans and bottles (mixed containers)
and the subsequent transfer and sale of these materials to a third-party processing facility. At the
time of this approval, the Board directed staff to prepare a detailed cost analysis and
implementation plan for this transition.
This memorandum contains the cost analysis and implementation plan, and provides further
discussion of how this transition will enable the Recycling Program to:
• add corrugated cardboard (OCC) to the Urban and Rural Curbside recycling programs;
• expand the materials collected and the number of businesses served by the commercial
recycling program;
• enable the baling thus increasing value of residential mixed paper that is currently hauled to
market loose; and
• allow the addition. of new source-separated plastics to the Drop-off recycling program.
These expansions will increase the operating efficiency of the Recycling Division and decrease
the amount of material buried as waste in the Orange County Landfill a projected 1,700 tons,
thereby contributing to extension of the life of the landfill. All costs associated with the items
detailed in this memorandum are included in the Department of Solid Waste Management's FY
2008-09 Budget request, and are being proposed to be accomplished without the need to increase
the 3-R Fee this year. Net first year cost of all program expansions are projected at $341,800
including all non-recurring capital costs. Preliminary information on many of the topics
discussed in this report was included in information item discussing Tools to Extend Landfill
Life and Reduce waste, presented to the Board during their February 5th meeting.
The Drop-off and Commercial Recycling programs are the only County-operated recycling
programs that have not completed the transition from source-separated to commingled
containers. The Rural Curbside program made this transition in June of 2005, and the
Multifamily program made this transition in July of 2007. Transition of the Drop-off and
Commercial recycling programs to managing commingled containers will significantly increase
operating efficiency and enable multiple improvements and enhancements to a variety of
recycling operations. The following table details the new costs included in the Solid Waste
Administration and Recycling Division FY 08-09 Budget Request associated with this transition
and related program enhancements.
Table 1
FY 2008-09 Costs Associated with Transition to Commingled Containers and Related
Program Enhancements: (rounded to `OOs)
Item Cost
Dum sters and Roll-offs for new lastic at dro -off sites (ca ital cost $ 55,000
Walkin Floor Trailer to haul containers (ca ital cost) $ 66,000
Com act Rubber Tire Loader to load commin led containers (ca ital cost $ 80,000
Processin Facili Electrical Work ca ital cost $ 5,000
Labels, Si s, and Push-block for bunkers (ca ital cost $ 9,000
Education and Outreach to Promote Chan es (one-time cost, first r. onl) $ 41,400
Subtotal first ear, non-recurrin costs $257,200
Rubber Tire Loader -annual maintenance cost $ 1,500
Walkin Floor Trailer -annual maintenance cost $ 1,000
Fuel for Road Tractor annual cost $ 22,900
Contract Cost cardboard addition to Urban Curbside Pro ram annual cost $ 51,000
Leased Road Tractor for haulm Walkin floor trailer (annual cost $ 22,200
Additional Rec clin Costs -Monitors and Televisions (annual cost) $ 8,000
Subtotal Annuall Recurrin Costs $106, 600
Total $ 363,800
Costs listed above are divided into non-recurring first year education and capital costs, totaling
$257,200, and annually recurring costs totaling $106,600. While the additional funds budgeted
to manage recycling ofend-of--life monitors and televisions are not directly related to the
transition of Drop-off and Commercial cans and bottles, the proposed Orange County disposal
ban on Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs, found in computer monitors and televisions) is the only other
enhancement of recycling programs proposed for next year. The proposed CRT ban will
continue the County's ongoing effort to reduce overall toxicity of the Orange County waste
stream and enable the County to take apro-active role in managing the anticipated increase in
disposal of old televisions with the advent of digital television in early 2009. Current staff can
manage the projected increase of 1,000 more CRT-bearing televisions or monitors anticipated
due to the ban, projected to be implemented in January /February 2009.
Increased Tonnage from Commingling and Program Expansions
We project that the transition from managing the Drop-off and Commercial source-separated
cans and bottles to commingled containers will create the opportunity for significant
programmatic improvements. When the Multifamily recycling program completed a similar
transition during the summer of 2007, the program experienced a 25% increase in collection
efficiency and a 12.5% increase in tonnage of material collected. The transition enabled this
program to add the collection of mixed paper while decreasing overall collection times. The
tonnage increase resulted from the combination of adding mixed paper and the increased ease to
participants of recycling because the number of sorts they had to perform was reduced from six
down to two. Reducing the need to sort the cans and bottles removed a psychological and
physical barrier to participation, and also reduced the number of carts required at each collection
site. Staff estimates that half (or 6.25%) of the 12.5 % increase observed in the Multifamily
program tonnage can be attributed to the increased amount of cans and bottles collected.
2
5
Staff projects that Drop-off and Commercial programs will experience similar increases in
tonnage and collection efficiency up to 1,100 new tons (see Table 2). The increased collection
efficiency will enable the commercial recycling program to add collection service to new
locations without increasing the number of employees or adding collection equipment. This
more efficient collection approach will also enable the Recycling Program to offer collection of
newspapers, magazines, phone books and mixed paper at all commercial recycling stops, thus
greatly increasing paper tonnage from this program. Additionally, staff projects that the
Commercial recycling program may be able to add 40 to 50 business sites as a result of the 20 to
30% increase in collection efficiency expected as a result of the transition.
Bringing corrugated cardboard recycling to the curbside programs has been a popular public
request that the program is able to now fulfill. In the urban areas, a charge of $2.76 per
household per year will cover costs of adding this material. In the rural areas with curbside, no
additional direct costs are anticipated in the first year. A major publicity campaign will be
conducted with 'the advent of this addition, focusing on the need to cut cardboard down to a size
that will fit into recycling bins and current trucks. We expect 500 new tons of recyclable
cardboard from this program. Impact on the use of drop-off sites is unknown at this time.
Program efficiencies gained and changing market conditions should enable the County to add
collection of a new grade of source-separated plastics to the drop-off sites. We intend to deploy
a mix of roll-off containers and dumpsters to collect those plastics the market will accept at that
time. We anticipate the accepted material could be some combination of small rigid plastics like
buckets plus those injection molded tubs and cups with a proven market. Based on the amounts
of these materials estimated to be in Orange County's waste stream, with an implementation
early in 2009 and broad public participation based on long-time demand for this service, we
project collection of 100 tons of material in the first year.
Labor Savings and Hauling Improvements Associated with Commin lg ing
In addition to the increase in collection efficiency, there will be a net labor savings associated
with the reduced level of materials handling resulting from the management of commingled
containers when compared to the management of the source-separated materials. This labor
savings will be experienced on the collection side and the processing side, but will be slightly
offset by the increase time expended to haul materials to market. In addition to the labor savings
experienced by Commercial and Drop-off recycling programs, the Rural and Multifamily
Programs will also benefit from this transition because the commingled containers collected by
these programs will be transported to market using the road tractor and higher-volume 115 cubic
yard walking floor trailer instead of the current method of hauling the cans and bottles from these
programs in 40 yard roll-offs. Detailed analysis shows nearly 3,500 hours of labor savings
annually with afull-cost value of approximately $80,000.
These labor savings will be used to enhance and expand current recycling programs and to
pursue additional diversion opportunities including the addition of new materials to the Drop-off
program. Specifically, the staff time will be used to:
• manage cardboard collected by the Rural Curbside program (urban cardboard will be added
to the contractor's tasks for an additional $0.23 per household per month);
• add a new type of source-separated plastic (in addition to the currently collected bottles) at
drop-off sites and Solid Waste Convenience Centers;
3
• bale the portion of the source-separated residential mixed paper now collected at drop-off
sites loose in roll-offs, thus increasing material revenue and increasing the overall efficiency
and cost-effectiveness of managing this material that is now hauled loose to market; and
• expand commercial recycling efforts.
To optimize use of the freed-up labor time, two FTE positions are to be proposed to be
reclassified from recycling materials handlers to the position of solid waste collectors to enable
them to collect materials from more sites.
Hauling commingled containers in 115 cubic yard trailers produces synergies that benefit the
Rural and Multifamily programs including:
• increased hauling efficiency of commingled containers collected by these programs;
• reduction in fuel usage hauling these materials to market;
• net reduction in hauling time; and
• reduction by an estimated 350 trips a year in the number of outgoing trips from the Orange
County Landfill hauling the container recyclables collected by these programs.
The transition to more efficient hauling of commingled containers from these programs is
necessary for the Rural Curbside program to begin collecting corrugated cardboard because the.
addition of corrugated cardboard to this program will reduce the density of the outgoing paper
and increase our need to be able to receive, consolidate and store the residential mixed paper
with corrugated cardboard managed by the Rural curbside program. More efficient hauling of
bottles and cans allows reallocation of space and labor to manage the increased volume of paper.
Without the increased efficiency of hauling commingled containers in large loads, it would not
be possible to accommodate the Rural Curbside corrugated cardboard expansion using current
staffing and materials holding capacity.
Economic Tradeoffs from Switch to Commingling
Therers an economic trade off associated with this transition. With the significant
improvements in collection efficiency comes a reduced market value for the commingled cans
and bottles. On atop-per-ton-basis, source-separated materials have greater value as marketable
commodities than commingled containers. Despite this differential, across the country the
recycling industry has recognized that the benefits of collecting commingled materials,
especially the increase in collection .efficiency, outweighs the downside of reduced materials
revenue and for this reason the move towards commingling is an industry wide trend.
The following table provides a comparison in performance of projected tonnages and revenues
for FY 2008-09 for those programs that would be impacted by the transition in the Drop-off and
Commercial cans and bottles collection systems. The tonnage projection for commingled
containers shown for the Drop-off and Commercial Programs reflects a 6.25 percent increase
over the projections for source-separated tonnage that we expect to result from increased ease of
recycling plus an additiona125% increase in tons that result from the ability to expand the
number of commercial collection sites. Additionally, the revenue figure shown for commingled
containers is a relatively conservative projection, and Solid Waste staff members are actively
working on securing more favorable deals for the County, which could improve the revenue
projections for commingled containers. The table also shows revenue for the source-separated
plastics proposed to be added at Drop-off sites, increased revenue resulting from baling the
4
source-separated mixed paper collected by the Drop-off program, increased revenue for
additional paper collected by the Commercial program, and additional revenue for the corrugated
cardboard added to the Rural Curbside program. All these new tonnages and revenues are
enabled by the transition to commingled cans and bottles in the Drop-off and Commercial
collections.
Table 2
Comparison of Tons and Revenues from Source Separated v. Commingled
Material Tons Mana ed Revenue
Projected tons and revenue source-separated
currenta roach
Source Separated Containers - Drop-off and
Commercial Pro ams
1,500
$ 166,800
Dro -off Mixed Pa er delivered loose 1,200 $ 24,000
Commercial Pa er current levels 200 $ 5,000
Sub-Total without transition to comrnin led 2,900 $ 195,800
Projected tons and revenues commingled and
addin new ro rams
Commingled Containers - Drop-off and
Commercial Pro ams
2,000
$ 52,800
Dro -off Mixed Pa er baled 1,200 $ 48,000
Ex ended Commercial Pa er 800 $ 20,000
New source-se arated Plastic 100 $ 12,000
Rural Curbside Cardboard Ex ansion 200 $ 5,300
Urban Curbside Cardboard Ex ansion 300 Contractor kee s
Sub-Total of enhancements from transition 4,600 $ 138,100
Net Increase Tons 1,700 --
Net Decrease Revenue -- $ (57,700
Summary of the primary costs and benefits associated with the transition to collecting
commingled containers and related program enhancements and expansions made possible by this
transition:
• First year costs, including capital expenditures = $363,800;
• Labor savings to be used to expand services = $80,000;
• Reduction in revenues = $57,700;
• Increase tonnage collected = 1,700;
• 25% increase in collection efficiency for Commercial and Drop-off Programs enables
program expansions including service to new businesses, addition of paper collection to all
serviced businesses, and addition of materials at drop-off sites;
• Increased hauling efficiency reduces number of outgoing loads of Rural and Multifamily
containers by 350 trips per year and enables addition of cardboard collection to Rural
Curbside program through increased storage capacity on yard and freeing up labor;
• Addition of corrugated cardboard to materials collected by Urban and Rural Curbside
Programs;
• Addition of new source-separated plastic to Drop-off Program
• Allows County to develop more productive relationships with the highly competitive third-
party processors (MBE's) in our region and build a body of knowledge to enable future
decision-making.
5
Milestones in Implementation Sequence:
• BOCC Approved Budget -- June
• Arrange for purchase of loader and trailer -- July
• Lease Road-Tractor -- Summer 2008
• Receive Loader and Trailer -- Summer 2008
• Initiate minor modifications to the existing processing pad to allow it to accommodate receipt
of commingled containers -- Summer 2008
• Add OCC to Curbside collection and associated PR Campaign --Fa112008
• Re-label and reconfigure collection. containers and haul commingled materials -- Fall 2008
• Implement commingled collection at drop-off sites and commercial programs, including
associated PR campaign --Fa112008
• Begin baling source-separated mixed paper --Winter 2008/2009
• Ban CRT disposal -- January-February 2009
• Add new source separated plastic to drop-off site, conduct associated PR Campaign (also
• combine news and magazines into one container at this time to gain further collection
• efficiencies and space savings at the drop off sites) -- Spring 2009
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board endorse the relevant budgetary components as described within
this report and as will be submitted as a part of the Manger's Proposed FY 2008-09 Solid Waste
Departmental Budget Request for the Recycling Division.
Endorse the proposed timeline including the foilowrng subcomponents:
• Reconfiguration of current recycling processing area to manage and receive commingled
containers;
• Expand Urban and Rural Curbside Recycling collection to include corrugated cardboard;
• Expand drop-off recycling program to include additional source separated plastics;
• Change the Commercial and Drop-off recycling programs from source-separated to
commingled containers;
• Expand the number of commercial recycling sites serviced as capabilities allow and to add
the collection of all paper but corrugated cardboard to those commercial sites that are
interested in receiving this service and as program resources allow;
• Prepare language adding Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) to those items banned from disposal at
the Orange County Landfill and expand the abilities of the Electronics Recycling program to
manage the resultant materials generated by this disposal ban; and
• Develop and implement an effective education and outreach effort to publicize the changes
and enhancements to the various recycling program expansions described herein and to
execute this plan consistent with program impiernentation.
6
ORANGE 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):
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Memorandum From Gayle Wilson
Gayle Wilson, 968-2885
PURPOSE: To present a recomrneridation 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 ofFcials 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.
Io
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 fihis 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
implerneritation recommendation consistent with Work Group recommendation and to
incorporate recommendations regarding preserving landfill space.
II
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 Recyclables
Date: March 6, 2008
At its November 28~' 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.
Sack round
Orange County operates four recycling programs from which materials are hauled liack~to
our processing area at Eubanks Road and subsequently transferred to private facilities for
sale and fiirther 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 atwo-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
is
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, RRSI,
and presented at the November 28~' 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, Chase revenue reductions would be exceeded by the savings in fuel
and time eff ciency 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 fire 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
13
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 staffmg.
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 issue's. 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,
5
i~
6
• Acquisition of new rubber tine 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
~~
s_
www.recyde.com
~5
a,..
an`"~
Program Savings &
Revenues - $254,375
~.i'1~-~-.r ~_'fl C~t.1.
icy..
., ~^~?~
'Revenue- :r;~ 'a . v
._s~y-~=3995t.-.~
! 9~y~ ffiv=e • tau n
I"~~•'yp~-",f,:~ G~ tL
`~ ilijf;..
~~.`j-~_
Lost Revenue - $154,043
Commingled
Containers
1296
steel
6%
~~7A3 m~ncu"'tm€'~~~~'~.
..~3, ky~xC~C'oivAira .c`~~
Y' Glass (Avg
• farallj
896
Rev:11/20/200~ EXPANDING ORANGE COUNTY COMMINGLED RECYCLING 1 / 4
~, -
www.recycle.com
I~
i
o,~• ••~•
Rev:11/20/2007 EXPANDING ORANGE COUNTY COMMINGLED RECYCLING 2 / 4
_~
www.recytle.com
,. .
Current:aabor;to;manage;;processing ofsource-separated.: -;:
Material from'the drop offs and commercial and transferring, of
ommingled~material,.from the rural and mulij-family programs
~-estimated `at;2 FCE ~ ~~
i•:
Labor;toload.bottles:& cans'from'all.these.Prograrns:(approx.
y000 tons(year),;`into;.transfertia'ilers;is conservatively'.: . ; ::.:.`::`
s6matetl at 0 5 FfE
.:.
,.......a ...:.:...::::.:.:
~Although'stafF.will..nee~~;to.be.'avallable;throughout the day to .
~ceive~material antl manage the pile, they will be ableao. do ;.
tlierwork~ai>=t6e~Eubanksaite. ~:;::::.~';.:':`:c::_,;•;: ,: -: .
L:25`EfE as~transfer..trailer haul will be •
tred:wtieel, loader::.
..
future transfeF, ~.' ' •:;;:::
ier as'backup,,;'; - -
i~
P~ase~~~osf~Est' 'ire-~ "'or~C .P~ i~i Cdu a7 1 _
Charge to
Item Capital Cost Annual Cost Ufilization Program
Bin Blocks $10,000 $2,OD0 100% $2,000
Door Modifications $5,000 $1,OOD 100% $1,000
grading of Trailer Exit $5,000 $1,000 100% $1,000
Medium sized Loader $9D,000 $12,857 10% $1,286
TOTAL $110,000 $16,857 $5,286
Rev:11/20/2007 EXPANDING ORANGE COUNTY COMMINGLED RECYCLING
3/4
47r,.
uj
www.recydacom
~'I~~orderto;convert:to:single.stream='or:furtlier expand :the dual':
~tream;tran§fer; operationa.,loini.;cost-transfer facility could: be
?uilfion Ytie Eubanksate"or:;otlier.aocation`
.... t .
..~`• _
_ ~~I! _
... r. :.~ .... .•..:....r ~... .... ~. .......: :.. .. ..:.. .. ....
~~{~_ -
~One"possible"site,at',Eubanks~that;wasanalyzed is:the'south:.:`.:
. `:• ~ `: ; •: and to .ca ~talize,on ae. ~°
~dge~of;:tfiecurrent;_dversized.retention,:p.. ,p
~.:,: :
- :~:.
~~:: -~:•
e``
'ist ` "iade`ctaii
.x n'
- :~:
o ~include~fill
-:Tle:cost~.estmate;does:~n t
~a~:
:r' '~ .
%fhe~`estmate'`ncludes ~an.8~000sf.Coverall .8:.load-out bay; 26
,.: =
~ollipdoors.`for:tippig,tiasc:;utilties:;to the~s'ite andgravel ~ :`::.:.`.
.,:;,<
?outside`
avri
;:,, ..:.
9-
~.~:_
~i.: _
:~.' I
COU d
Pre'''arin•`;tlie~ro`~ramfor`future rowtli~;=.Ttiis:faci~
andie:upwards'of~:].8Q00';tons,per•year:or:approximately 8.
'ransfer~:trailer~ trucks -.per; daywith'storage ;for: 2:days of;~rriaterial
... .. .
..:. ,:
_ -
lfl
(~ •
a`'~ •.
~~.I 4. ~
Phase''~ll.,~.~:T:riansfe_.r:F,a_ cili ~,~~~~i~~::,~:; rate
Cost Life Annual Cost
g ) ......:..:.
,;..
cludin fill
Site: notin $ <306250; _ ..,;...:.. _
~
~
_
.
Building @ 8,000 sf Coverall ~ _ ~ .$ 480,000 '20.00 24,000
$
Subtotal: $
786 250 ~,~:_ - ~ ;,~c~-_~ ;
~ .~;i~,'r,-~~;~ ~~',-•.~~';,~~'~ ~xr~•• ~~,- ;~~~--:
~~~~ ~}~~,~ ±~f-J ^~;;~;;
Contingency 10.0% of total $ 78,625 10.00 $ 7,863
Engineering/Inspection 15.0% of total $ 117,938 ~ 10.00 $ ~ 11,794
Rev:11/20/2007
EXPANDING ORANGE COUNTY COMMINGLED RECYCLING
4/4
i~
.~nfor~ma~"ion ~-~e m
Memorandum
To: Laura Blackmon, Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Director, Solid Waste Management
Subject: Landfill Bans and Recycling -Tools to Extend Landfill Life and Reduce
Waste
Date: February 5, 2008
This memo responds to a BOCC question at its meeting on November I5, 2007 about what types
of landfill or collection bans might effectively extend the life of the Orange County Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill until such time as a transfer station can be sited, permitted, built
and opened. Current time lines have the transfer station not able to be open until 3-6 months
after the landfill is projected to be full, thus actions to extend landfill life are critical to ensuring
that the County is able to meet its obligations under the Interlocal Agreement • to offer
environmentally sound and effective means of disposal.
Staff research contained within. this memo is not meant to pre-empt the more formal solid waste
planning process being led by the Solid .Waste Plan Work Group, which is examining
piogrammatie improvements in a more systematic and integrated manner. The Solid Waste. Plan
Work Group has been generally meeting every three to six months, and the Group's next meeting
should occur in March 2008. The information provided here is primarily included because the
potential opportunities are compatible with existing efforts and can be implemented relatively
quickly, albeit with very modest impact on disposal tonnages.
Landfill or Collection Bans
The materials staff believes could be considered for landfill bans include:
o newspaper,
o glossy magazines,
® plastic bottles (a state-wide landfill ban comes into effect on October 1, 2009),
residential corrugated cardboard (a ban of commercially. (non-residential) generated
corrugated cardboard. is already in effect),
® commercially produced waxed corrugated cardboard (heretofore considered "unrecyclable"),
® clean wood waste from the residential sector (a ban of commercially generated clean wood
waste is akeady in effect), '
® commercial food waste from large generators, and
®• Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) that would mostly be televisions and older computer monitors.
In its initial review, staff considered the timing, efforts and logistics necessary to implement,
enforcement factors, and amount of landfill space saved. Initial assessment suggests that the
County may want to pursue additional information on implementing a ban of the lead-bearing
Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT) commonly associated with televisions and computer monitors. Initial
staff evaluation indicates 'other landfill or collection bans may not yield sufficient landfill space
savings relative to problems identified with overall ~ timing, implementation costs, and
enforcement factors. Staff is certainly open to investigating all available options fizrther based
on additional direction. ~ '
A more complete review of staff research and findings relative to bans begins in Section I of this
memo.
Recycling Programs Additions and Expansions
This memo also expands on the Commissioners' ban inquiry to include a discussion of how other
recycling programs could be used to divert more waste from the landfill and extend its life by
means rather than implementation of additional disposal bans. Staff discussed several
possibilities with the Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) at the December meeting and
considered those comments in formulating this information.
Initial assessment suggests that the County may want to pursue additional information on
implementing curbside recycling of residential cardboard linked to enforcement of the collection
ban on this sector, banning televisions and computer monitors from the' landfill, and adding
bulky rigid plastics to drop-off sites where 'space allows. These measures combined could save,
based on initial estimates, 1.4 months of landfill space by Apri12011 and extend landfill life to
about mid-May 2011. Staff believes these measures could be implemented by mid 2008-09.
BOCC authorization to proceed immediately with pre-implementation planning would allow for
the most expedient implementation. ~ .
Amore exhaustive review of staff research and findings relative to recycling program efforts
begins in Section II.of this memo.
Bases on direction from the Board, staff could proceed with additional review, planning anal
implementation of the programmatic recommendations and could present an agenda item for
BOCC consideration in late February or March, 2008. Where funding is required beyond
existing approved FY 2007/08 budget capabilities, staff could return to the BOCC for necessary
authorization. The CRT ban, if pursued by the County, would require an ordinance amendment
following established protocols.
I -Landfill and Collection ]Bans:
When considering which materials could potentially be banned from disposal in Orange
County's landfill, this report considers materials that are readily recyclable or compostable, and
that are either already collected by current recycling programs or that have reasonable potential
to be collected by the County's recycling program. Additionally, viable markets /recycling
outlets for the chosen materials must exist so that the County can have high confidence in the
ability to market the material after it is collected.
Before discussing potential new bans, staff thought it might be beneficial to briefly review
current collection/landfill bans in place at the County level. Orange County banned corrugated
cardboard from landfilling in 1996. Orange County passed the Regulated Recyclable Materials
Ordinance (RRMO) in 2002. The RRMO effectively bans landfilling regulated materials by
requiring that regulated materials be recycled. The IZRMO regulates the following materials:
scrap metal, and clean (unpainted untreated) wood waste. It also includes the earlier banned
corrugated cardboard.While the RRMO and the various Towns' adoption of the RRMO has
nominally banned convgated cardboard from disposal from all waste generating sectors (except
the residential sector in the specific case of Carrboro), the ban on residential cardboard has not
been enforced heretofore pending development of residential curbside collection.
. 2
~i
It is important to note that the impact of any landfill bans will be different on each of the three
distinct sectors that deliver waste to the MSW Landfill (Residential, Multifamily, and
Commercial). .Other issues that should be. considered when contemplating bans include
enforceability, the estimated percent of the banned material that is reasonably recoverable, public
resistance to any potential bans, the recycling program's ability to manage the banned materials,
and the time and effort needed to prepare for and implement associated recycling efforts.
Additionally, when considering the space-saving consequences of a ban, it is important to
consider not only the tans of material diverted, but more importantly the volume or space that the
material would occupy in the landfill. While this may seem a subtle distinction, because
different materials behave differently when compacted and as they age , in the landfill
environment, a material that may generate a large tonnage diversion such as food waste may not
necessarily result in a large amount of space-savings due to the materials density and
composition. Food waste, for example, is largely water and highly compactable thus high
tonnage may not result in high space savings where a low density material might have the
opposite impact, low tonnage but higher space savings.
The materials staff believed could be considered for landfill bans in this report include:
® newspaper,
® glossy magazines,
® plastic bottles (a state-wide landfill ban Domes into effect on October 1, 2009),
® residential corrugated cardboard (a ban of commercially (non-residential) generated
corrugated cardboard is already in effect), '
® commercially produced waxed corrugated cardboard (heretofore considered "unrecyclable"),
® clean wood waste from the residential sector (a ban of commercially generated clean wood
waste is already in effect),
® commercial food waste from large generators, and
o Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) that would mostly be televisions and older computer monitors.
When considering the implementation of further landfill bans, it is important to consider the
timing, cost to implement, and amount of landfill. space saved. The effort and logistics necessary
to put the bans in place would require staff resources from the County and the Towns and would
result in expenses directly to the Solid Waste enterprise fund as well as to the municipalities as
they make their own enforcement efforts as they've done on the RRMO.
Additionally, implementing all the above listed bans effectively by mid-year 2008-09 would be a
very ambitious goal that would only save an estimated 1.5 months of landfill space. The public
and' waste haulers would need significant education and advanced notice prior to the
implementation of 'the bans. The original cardboard ban, passed in 1995 and first enforced in
1996, took over a year to implement and then another year to make fully effective after getting
municipalities involved and further fine-tuning. The RRMO took two years to become effective,
and has resulted in ~ significant shift of construction and demolition waste tonnage from the
County's facility to certified private out-of-County processors for sorting as well as some
`sneaking away.' to private landfills.
In terms of space-savings, different items result in different amounts of diversion and landfill
space saved. While implementing a ban of the lead-bearing Cathode Ray Tubes commonly
associated with televisions' and computer monitors will not result in significant space savings, it
as
could result in a decrease in toxicity of the waste stream. Orange County's electronics. recycling
program is well-developed and ready to manage the additional materials a ban could create.
While a ban on newspapers, magazines or plastic bottles in theory shows a higher percentage
savings than corrugated cardboard, staff is concerned that those bans would be far more difficult
to enforce than beginning to enforce the akeady existing ban on the much more visible
corrugated cardboard. Further, there is a large public demand for curbside cardboard recycling
and that service could be a natural companion piece to enforcement of the current non-residential
ban.
I~ - Recyclins Program Additions and Expansions
Considerations for extending the life of the landfill by means of expanding current recycling .
services and implementing services for new materials include: .
A. Addition of rigid plastics, textiles and recyclable plastic film at the drop off sites and/or
solid waste convenience centers;
Items identified by staff that could be reasonably considered for addition to most drop-off
recycling sites include large rigid.plastics, injection molded plastics (cups and tubs), textiles, and
recyclable plastic film. It is not feasible to consider adding any of these materials to the curbside
recycling program at this time due to the fact that area processing facilities will not commit to
accepting these materials commingled with traditional recyclables and marketing of these
materials would require that materials be baled and sold in truck-load quantities. In general,
markets for all of these materials have strengthened considerably over the past few years.
Staff at this point believes that in the short term, the opportunity exists for adding only one of
these items, due to• space constraints at the convenience centers and that collection requires
intermediate processing and short-term storage at Orange County's current recycling processing
area. Before the Couuty could consider managing injection molded plastics, rigid plastics, or
plastic film, the Solid Waste Management Department would need to be able to free .up
processing capacity by malting changes in the way the traditional recyclables (bottle and cans)
from the drop-off and commercial recycling programs are managed by moving towards the
commuigling of these containers and shipping the can and battle mixture to an existing
commercially operated materials processor. This transition was discussed in detail at the Solid
Waste Work Plan Group meeting on November 28, 2007, and a recommendation to the BOCC
on this matter is forthcoming.
The addition of rigid plastics (buckets, toys, kiddie pools) may provide an estimated savings of
1.1 months of landfill space.
B. Addition of corrugated cardboard to the curbside recycling programs;
The option of adding corrugated cardboard to the Urban and Rural Curbside Recycling Programs
could be available for implementation as soon as July 2008 (if enterprise funds are authorized for
the current year). The costs of the addition to the Urban Curbside program are known because
terms for this expansion are written into the current contract at an additional $0.20 per household
per month or about $43,500 per year for the approximately 18,000 homes currently on the
program. The cost to add corrugated cardboard to rural curbside could be greater than the urban
program because the additional bulls may accelerate the need to add an additional collection
4
as
truck as routes are adjusted to accommodate the additional tannage managed. In. addition to this,
managing the additional fiber at the current facility would require that the County proceed to a
mare efficient storage and hauling system for the currently managed materials. Details of this
were ~ discussed at the Solid Waste Plan Work Group on November 28, 2007, and a
recommendation will be brought to the BOCC at an upcoming meeting.
Including a maximum size or cut down requirement for acceptable cardboard will be critical to
program operations. In the current two-bin system, and even in any future cart system, cutting
down the cardboard would be a requirement far fitting the cardboard into the bins or carts and
then into the trucks. This means that corrugated cardboard placed at the curb that was not
flattened and/or cut to the minimum size would need to be rejected. The Town of Cary has acut-
down. requirement to 2'x 3' to fit the material in their 18 gallon curbside bins, and the County
would need to adopt a similar standard. While enforcement of this standard may cause
frustration to some residents, as an alternative to cutting boxes down, oversized boxes could still
be taken to drop-off sites, and benefits to the community-at-large. would likely outweigh the
inconvenience.
Based on initial review, the estimated landfill space savings of adding cardboard to residential
curbside collection services is 0.3 months.
C. Expansion of the rural curbside recycling program to an additional 5,000 homes (about
60% of the households in the unincorporated portion of Orange County are presently
serviced).
Based on initial review, the staff level of planning/preparation, staff commitment and cost to
implement this level of expansion would .not allow implementation in time to have any
meaningful impact on landfill space savings.
D. Expansion of the commercial recycling programs. (not analyzed here as it is under
review by the Solid Waste Plan Work Group)
This memo does not address expansion of the commercial recycling effort beyond the County's
current modest effort in cans and bottles and food waste from selected establishments. There is a
considerable amount of recyclable material, remaining in the commercial waste ,stream.
Expansion to adequately and thoroughly serve this sector is complex, potentially costly and
already under study by the Sold Waste Plan Work Group. Additionally, developing an effective
sector-wide program has a planning horizon that is longer than the time needed to save landfill
space. Thus it is considered separately and more deliberately. The Solid Waste Work Plan Group
has on its immediately upcoming agenda the consideration of various options for expansion of
commercial recycling programs and will likely make recommendations regarding commercial
recycling later this year.
III -Summary
It has not generally been County procedure in the past to implement landfill bans without first
ensuring that there are reasonable alternative options available besides landfill-based disposal.
Preliminary assessment indicates that it makes sense to couple the addition of carrugated
cardboard to the urban and rural curbside recycling programs with expansion of enforcement of
the existing cardboard collection ban to the residential sector: The two in conjunction would
likely produce greater diversion and landfill space savings than either one option taken alone.
~~-
In general, bans are sometimes the least effective and most onerous means of saving landfill
space. Staff suggests that if the Board were to consider additional bans, that it consider banning
a limited number of items, and that it do so only after an in-depth community discussion about
the utility of further bans. The community overall has had a negative experience lately with bans
and additional bans may create more of adversarial relationships around solid waste issues in
Orange County.
Extending to the residential sector enforcement of the existing ban for corrugated cardboard and
adding a ban on cathode ray tubes (CRTs). may be worth further investigation and consideration.
They are the easiest to enforce, least likely to meet strong public resistance, provide for a
reasonable implementation timeframe and strong, low cost and readily available recycling
options exist for these items. "
Adding rigid plastics to conaenience centers and drop-off sites would fit within the current
overall departmental operational and financial structure and can be implemented in a time frame
to extend landfill life those few critical months projected as necessary to bridge the gap from
landfill closure date to transfer station opening.
Efforts being undertaken by the Solid Waste Plan Work Group on commercial waste,
franchising, rural waste collection, financing and an overall integrated plan have a much longer
planning horizon, are more complex and potentially more effective in the big picture of meeting
County solid waste goals. Staff recognizes the Board's concern that the new transfer station
siting process may require more immediate steps. Considering the resources required to plan
and implement the program augmentations and expansions described in this report, it is not
possible to implement all options, and staff believe that the effort to save landfill space is most
likely to be successful by focusing on two or three top priorities.
While these highlighted measures are not necessarily. the largest space savers, staff is reasonably
sure of their utility, acceptance from residents, based on public feedback and our ability to
implement them effectively in the short time allotted, as they build on current program
infrastructure, existing markets and internal financing structures.
Based on direction..from.the Board, staff could proceed with additional review, planning and
implementation of the programmatic recommendations and could present an agenda item for
BOCC consideration at an upcoming " BOCC meeting. Where funding is required` beyond
existing approved FY 2007/08 budget capabilities, staff would return to the BOCC for necessary
authorization. The CRT ban, if pursued by the County, would require an ordinance amendment
following established protocols.
6