HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-29-1993 - VIII-C 1
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: 6/29/93
Action Agenda
Item f VIII-C�
SUBJECT: Draft Scope of Work and
Process for Developing
A Solid Waste Management
Plan
DEPARTMENT: Public Works PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:Wilbert McAdoo
Memorandum-Alan Rimer Ext . 2627
Proposed Scope of Work
Integrated Solid Waste TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Management Plan Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251 /968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider the proposed scope of work and process for
development of an integrated Solid Waste Plan.
BACKGROUND: In November 1991 , the Landfill Owners ' Group began work on
developing a Solid Waste Management Plan for Orange County.
This work followed the dissolution of the Durham-Orange
Regional Solid Waste Task Force. During the winter and
spring of 1991 -92 , the Landfill Owners ' Group developed a
scope of work for a series of studies intended to lead to
the creation of an integrated plan for solid waste
management . The scope of work was forwarded to the three
Governing Bodies , who made changes to the document and
returned it to the Landfill Owners ' Group for additional
work . A public input meeting was also held, at which time
citizens ' comments on the proposed action plan were
received by the Landfill Owners ' Group. In the summer and
fall of 1992 , the three Governing Bodies began discussions
about solid waste management goals and objectives , which
resulted in the three Boards producing respective sets of
goals . In light of ' discussions about goals and objectives
and followup work by the Landfill Owners ' Group and staff
revealed the need for revisions in the scope of work. The
attached draft of the scope of work reflects those
revisions .
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board of Commissioners
consider the proposed scope of work and process for
development of an integrated Solid Waste Management
Plan and provide feedback.
2
AGENDA #
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Council Member Alan Rimer
SUBJECT: Draft Scope of Work and Process for Developing a Solid
Waste Management Plan
DATE: June 14, 1993
The attached scope of work describes work to be done in developing
an integrated solid waste management plan for Orange County. This
memorandum also proposes a process for proceeding with the study.
The staff presented the proposed scope of work and process to the
Landfill Owners ' Group at the May 20 meeting. The Owners ' Group
agreed to present the information to the governing bodies, asking
that they consider the scope of work and process, and provide
feedback in order for the Owners ' group to continue with the
process of engaging a consultant to work with the Owners ' Group on
the study.
Background
In November, 1991, the Landfill Owners ' Group began work on
developing a solid waste management plan for Orange County. This
work followed the dissolution of the Durham-Orange Regional Solid
Waste Task Force, and a request from the Chapel Hill Town Council
for a report on future solid waste management activities.
During the winter and spring of 1991-92 , the Owners ' Group
developed a scope of work for a series of studies intended to lead
to the creation of an integrated plan for solid waste management.
The scope of work was forwarded to the three governing bodies, who
made changes to the document and returned it to the Owners ' Group
for additional work. A public input meeting was also held, at
which time citizens ' comments on the proposed action plan were
received by the Owners ' Group.
In the summer and fall of 1992 , the three governing bodies began
discussions about solid waste management goals and objectives,
which resulted in the three boards producing respective sets of
goals. In light of discussions about goals and objectives and
follow up work by the Owners' Group and staff revealed the need for
revisions in the scope of work. We believe the attached draft of
the scope of work reflects those revisions.
Discussion
The proposed scope of work includes the following:
3
2
* Evaluation of waste reduction methods;
* Evaluation of collection methods for solid waste,
including recycling;
* Evaluation of composting methods; and
• Comparison of shipping waste out of county versus
processing and disposing of materials within Orange
County.
The Owners ' s Group believes this work should be performed by a
consulting firm. The staff would be responsible for providing
recommendations on organization, legal issues and financing
options, rather than having the consultant do so. In addition, we
recommend that the staff conduct a study on handling and management
of construction and demolition waste.
The Duke University School of the Environment is completing its
work on a market study for compost. We recommend that the results
of that study be provided to the consultant for incorporation into
the proposed larger study. We also recommend that we contract with
Duke University to conduct a market study for refuse derived fuel
(RDF) . If the market study shows that there are potential markets
for RDF, the Owners ' Group may wish to recommend to the governing
bodies that additional study of that process be performed by the
consultant. We do not recommend the inclusion of RDF in the basic
scope of work absent positive findings of accessible markets for
the product.
The attached scope is intended to. be a description of the work to
be performed in the study. It is not intended to constitute a
detailed basis for agreement with a consultant, nor is it intended
as a prescriptive request for proposals. Rather, it will permit
the consultant the maximum flexibility in responding to how they
would study the project.
Selection of a Consultant
We recommend the following process for selection of a qualified
consulting firm to perform the proposed study:
1. We propose that the staff prepare a request for qualifications
(RFQ) and advertise it regionally and possibly nationally.
The RFQ would solicit expressions of interest on the part of
consulting firms, and statements of their qualifications to
perform this work.
2 . The staff would review responses to the RFQ, and prepare a
list of firms to receive requests for proposals (RFP) .
4
3
3 . After review of the scope of work by the governing bodies (see
below) , an RFP would. be produced and sent to the firms
selected as a result of the RFQ. The staff would review the
resulting proposals, and select no more than four consulting
firms for interviews. The interviews would be conducted by
the Owners ' Group and staff, with the Owners ' Group selecting
the firm to conduct the study.
Process for Developing the Scope of Work
The Owners ' Group agreed upon and recommends the following process
for finalizing the scope of work:
1. The Owners ' Group reviewed the draft scope at the May 20
Owners ' Group meeting. Changes requested at that meeting have
been incorporated into this report. The scope has been
forwarded to the three governing bodies for their
consideration.
2 . The three governing bodies will review the scope of work
during meetings in June. This allows time for the Owners '
Group to receive comments from the governing body and complete
any revisions based on those comments consistent with a
reasonable schedule for issuance of an RFP.
Public Input
We recommend that the Owners ' Group sponsor two public input
meetings as part of the study process. The first could occur near
the beginning of the study, after the consultants have gathered
information on existing solid waste systems. The second could
occur after the consultants have performed analysis on potential
options and have prepared a report of their interim findings.
Comments received from the public could then be included in the
analysis of options by the consultant for their final report to the
Owners ' Group.
Final Report
•
We recommend that the report from the consultant not recommend a
"best" option or group of options for managing solid waste in the
County. Instead, we suggest that the consultant should present a
range of options, and provide a comparative analysis of the
options. We believe that the Owners ' Group may wish to decide what
constitutes the "best" option or set of options to be recommended
to the governing bodies.
We recommend that the consultants' report to the Owners ' Group be
forwarded to the governing bodies as part of a report from the
Owners' Group. The Owners ' Group' s report might recommend an
option or options from the consultants ' report to pursue, and it
5
4
could suggest possible next steps for the local governments to
follow by way of implementation.
Recommendation
The Owners ' Group requests that the Council review the attached
scope of work and the process for proceeding with development of a
solid waste management plan as herein described. We ask for your
comments and suggestions.
Attachment: Scope of work for integrated solid waste management
plan
•
•
•
6
5
Proposed Scope of Work
Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
The purpose of the study is to produce a plan for solid waste
management for the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough,
and the unincorporated areas of Orange County.
I . Study Criteria
The final report should provide information on options for the
various aspects of solid waste management which meet the
following criteria:
A. Comprehensiveness--the study should fully address current
and potential future handling and management of solid
. waste in Orange County. The following pages address
which handling options must be addressed, and which
should not be addressed.
B. Integration--the study should provide options for
handling waste which are complementary of one another.
For example, the type, size and cost of collection and
possible volume reduction techniques should assume
aggressive waste reduction and recycling programs.
C. Environmental protection--the program options resulting
from the study should not degrade air quality, water
quality and other areas of the natural environment to the
extent practicable.
D. Consistency with solid waste management goals and
objectives--the analysis and results of the study should
take into account and be guided by the goals and
objectives as adopted by three of the participating local
governments. These goals and objectives are attached.
E. Economic feasibility--the program options should be cost
effective approaches to solid waste management. Cost
analyses should include capital and operating expenses,
where appropriate. Financing options are not required as
part of this study.
F. Practicality--the study should produce options which
could logically be implemented. The local governments
involved with the study do not desire to pursue
experimental options which are not proven to be
successful . Examples of currently operating program
options should be provided in each instance where such
options are recommended for further consideration.
7
6
II. Study Process
We anticipate the following steps in the conduct of the
development of the plan:
A. Data Collection--existing information will be provided to
the consultant by the staffs of the local governments as
required by the scope of the study and as available.
Additional information may be gathered by the
consultants.
B. Public Input Meetinq--the Landfill Owners ' Group will
sponsor a public input meeting for the consultant to
obtain information from citizens regarding solid waste
management issues to be 'addressed in the plan. This
meeting is intended to take place early in the study
process, after collection of data.
C. Presentation of Interim Findings--the consultant will
provide to the Landfill Owners ' Group interim findings of
their analysis. _
D. Public Input Meetinq--the Landfill Owners ' Group will
sponsor a public input meeting to obtain citizen comments
on the interim findings of the consultant.
E. Final Report--the consultant will make a final report to
the Landfill Owners ' Group.
F. Report to the Governing Bodies--the Landfill Owners '
Group will report to the governing bodies regarding the
consultants' report, and other relevant information,
along with the Owners ' Group' s conclusions and
recommendations.
Note: deliverable products for the steps above cited are
discussed in a section, below.
III . Major Study Elements
The following should be addressed in the study:
A. Waste Reduction
This study element should address methods of waste
reduction, including but not limited to disincentives
such as bans and fees. An aggressive waste reduction
strategy should be assumed as a cornerstone of an
integrated plan.
8
7
Waste reduction strategies to be investigated should
include:
1. Landfill bans (e. g. , corrugated cardboard ban) .
2 . Collection bans (e. g. , yard waste ban) .
3 . Fee-based collection systems, (e. g. , variable
volume and weight-based systems.
4 . Assessment of impact of education programs (e. g. ,
"smart shopper" programs, office waste reduction
efforts, etc. ) .
5. Assessment of impact of policies or legislation (e.
g. , local government purchasing regulations which
require the use of returnable packaging) .
Issues to be addressed with regard to waste reduction
include the following:
(1) measurement of impact of source reduction efforts
' (2) analysis of alternatives
,(3) financial implications of alternatives
(4.) results of existing Orange County and Chapel Hill
Committees on waste reduction
B. Collections
1. Mixed solid waste (MSW) , including residential,
commercial, multi-family, both urban and rural.
2 . Recycling, including residential, commercial and
multi-family, both urban and rural.
3 . Reduction incentives, including but not limited to
fee-based systems.
4 . Integration of MSW and recycling collections.
Issues to be addressed with regard to Collections include
the following:
(1) cost of current systems of collection
(2) analysis of available alternatives
(3) financial implications of alternatives
NOTE: Orange County' s Solid Waste Committee has
presented recommendations to the County Commissioners for
solid waste collection in unincorporated areas. The
recommendations of the Committee should be made a part of
the study of collection options.
9
8
C. Composting
1. Large-scale source separated, including:
a. green waste
b. waste paper
c. wastewater sludge
d. food waste
2 . Large-scale end separated, including:
a. wet/dry collection and handling
•
b. materials recovery facilities (MRF' s)
3 . "Low technology" approaches, including:
a. backyard and neighborhood-based
b. use of chipped wood waste (Note: chipped wood
waste could be utilized with any composting
option and should be addressed with all
options)
4 . Integration with other components of a potential
plan.'
Compost issues to be addressed include the following:
(1) analysis of available methods
(2) environmental impact of different methods
(3) financial implications' of different methods
(4) regulatory implications of different methods
NOTE: A study of potential markets for products of
composting operations has been conducted by Duke
University. The results of this study will be made
available to the consultant, and should be integrated
into the study of compost options.
D. Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
A study of potential markets for RDF will be conducted by
Duke University. The results of this study will be made
available to the consultant. Should the market study
determine that there are potential markets for RDF, the
consultant may be asked to add an analysis of RDF to the
basic scope of work.
Issues which could be addressed include the following:
(1) analysis of alternative methods
(2) regulatory implications of different methods
(3) environmental impact of different methods
10
9
(4) financial implications of alternatives
(5) integration with other components of a potential
plan
Should the RDF work be added, it will be an additional
study element, and should not be considered a part of the
basic scope of work. The consultant should, though,
demonstrate the ability and experience to perform the
additional work should it be required.
E. Disposal Alternatives
There may be options for disposal of wastes other than
placement in an Orange County landfill for that material
not recycled, composted, or otherwise handled. It may be
feasible to have this material disposed of outside of
Orange County. Some alternatives have recently been
suggested, and should be considered. The following
points of analysis should be addressed:
(1) identification and analysis of alternatives
(2) regulatory implications of alternatives
(3) financial implications of alternatives
(4) environmental implications of alternatives
(5) integration with other components of a potential
plan
IV. Elements Which Are NOT To Be Considered
' The following are not to considered as part of this scope of
work:
A. Incineration, with or without energy recovery.
B. Large-scale, mixed solid waste composting.
C. . Organizational and related legal issues (these will be
addressed by the Landfill Owners ' Group) .
D. Construction and demolition waste (these will be
addressed by the staff) .
V. Deliverables
The consultant should provide the following:
1. Monthly status reports. These may be by letter report to
the Project Manager. These reports may be waived when
there is a lack of activity which would justify their
omission. Waiver of the reports shall• be by mutual
agreement between the consultant and the Project Manager.
11
• 10
2 . Report of interim findings. This report shall be made to
the Landfill Owners ' Group at such time as the consultant
has completed the initial review of the elements of the
study, and can report the results of that review.
Following this report, a public input meeting will be
held, at which time the consultant will be able to
receive feedback from citizens concerning the findings.
The report of interim findings should include a listing
of options for the various study elements. For example,
there may be three potential options for rural collection
of mixed solid waste. These options should be noted,
with a comparative analysis of them. The comparative
analysis should be based on the criteria noted in the
first section of the Scope of Work. No recommendations
are sought as part of this report.
3 . Final report. The final report shall be made to the
Landfill Owners ' Group after the public input meeting
regarding the interim findings, and upon completion of
the consultant ' s review of comments from the Landfill
Owners ' Group and public regarding the interim findings.
The final report should include a comparative analysis of
integrated solid waste management scenarios. The
comparative criteria should include those noted at the
beginning of the Scope of Work, plus public response.
There is no maximum number of scenarios required, but
there should be a minimum of three.
No recommendation fora "best". scenario is sought as part
of this report.
•