HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-15-2006-1ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 15, 2006
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Matters
DEPARTMENT: County Manager /Solid Waste PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
As noted in "Background" Rod Visser, 245 -2308
Gayle Wilson, 968 -2885
PURPOSE: To review and discuss various solid waste management - related matters.
-•
A. Solid Waste Operations Center Design
The architectural firm of Dixon Weinstein will provide the Board of Commissioners with a
presentation on the proposed design of the new Solid Waste Operations Center to be located
on the south side of Eubanks Road, immediately adjacent and to the west of the County's
mixed solid waste (MSW) landfill. The Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) received a brief
presentation from the architects at their March 2 meeting and gave a favorable review to the
planning efforts to date.
After receiving the Board's direction on facility design elements, staff and the architects will
make appropriate revisions and schedule a meeting with community representatives to review
with them the BOCC's proposed design for the facility. The project timeline at this point
contemplates soliciting and awarding construction bids in late summer or early fall, with move in
to the new facility targeted for mid -2007.
No Attachments
B. SWAB Recommendation Regarding Transfer Station Siting
At the November 9, 2005 work session on solid waste matters, the BOCC instructed staff to
conduct analysis and proceed with developing recommendations regarding the siting of a
transfer station in Orange County. The County's MSW landfill is expected to reach capacity
sometime in 2010 and, in light of the policy decision not to site any new MSW landfills in
Orange County in the future, a transfer station will be needed as a staging point for the
shipment of waste to disposal facilities in other jurisdictions.
The SWAB has reviewed the analytical work performed by staff and the County's consulting
engineering firm (Olver Incorporated) and has adopted the attached resolution recommending
that the BOCC direct staff to proceed expeditiously with permitting, design, and construction of
an MSW transfer station.
Attachment B -1
3102106 SWAB Chair Memo
Attachment B -2
3103106 SWAB Resolution
Attachment B -3
Map — Proposed Transfer Station Layout
C. Solid Waste Convenience Center Siting Issues
The County received notice in August 2005 from the new owner of property on which the
Highway 57 SWCC is located that the County's lease would not be renewed upon its expiration
on April 1, 2006. Staff then began working to examine alternatives to that site that would allow
the County to continue providing service to residents who use that site. The property owner
and BOCC approved an agreement in February 2006 that provides for the Highway 57 site
lease to extend automatically for two -month periods, subject to 60 days notice by either party to
terminate the arrangement.
While this lease extension provides some latitude, staff are vigorously pursuing both long -term
and short-term options for continuing convenience center services after the Highway 57 site
closes. Staff will report on efforts to date to examine potential property acquisitions that could
lead to co- located County facilities, such as a park and convenience center. As was discussed
at the joint work session with the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners on February 23, staff
will also review with the Board options for a possible temporary convenience center site at the
County's Public Works facility on Highway 86.
No Attachments
D. Greene Tract Disposition
In June 2002, the Greene Tract Work Group adopted the attached resolution recommending to
the County and Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill that approximately 86 acres of the Greene
Tract be preserved as open space protected by conservation easements and that
approximately 18 acres be earmarked for affordable housing purposes. This portion of the work
session provides the Board with an opportunity to discuss and provide direction to staff on how
to proceed with either or both components of the Greene Tract disposition.
Attachment D -1 6126102 Greene Tract Work Group Resolution
Attachment D -2 6125102 Greene Tract Concept Plan
E. Interim Report from SWAB Work Group on Solid Waste Management Plan Update
The next three -year update of the County's 10 -year solid waste management plan is due to the
State of North Carolina in Summer 2006. County staff have been working with the SWAB and
elected officials from each Orange County local government to examine the County's current
goals and solid waste plan, and to develop proposed recommendations for consideration by the
various governing boards related to the goals and the best array of programs and services for
achieving those goals. The accompanying report, prepared by the Solid Waste Management
Director and staff, and reviewed by the SWAB Chair, provides an update for all four governing
boards regarding progress to date.
Attachment E 3115106 Solid Waste Management Director Memo — Interim Report
3
F. Feasibility of Landfill Gas Recovery
The BOCC asked staff to examine the feasibility and implications of recovering gas from the
County's MSW landfill and converting it to energy that could conceivably be used to provide
power to various County or other public facilities. The accompanying report from the County's
consulting engineers discusses the potential for landfill gas recovery, and some of the
implications, benefits, and costs that might be associated with such an undertaking. This report
is provided simply for information at this time, although staff will receive Commissioner
comments and questions and perform further coordination with the consulting engineers as
necessary and appropriate.
Attachment F March 2006 Landfill Gas Recovery Feasibility Study
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact at this time associated with discussion of
these topics. The Board's decisions in the future to develop additional needed solid waste
management facilities would be funded through future appropriations in the Solid Waste /Landfill
enterprise fund. Depending on the timing of conservation easements and affordable housing
development on the Greene Tract, the County and Towns will be responsible for reimbursing
the enterprise fund for the original purchase cost of the property, plus interest, in keeping with
the interlocal agreement governing solid waste matters.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the solid waste
topics mentioned above and provide appropriate direction to the Manager and staff.
Memorandum
To: Mr. Barry,Jacobs, Chair
Board of County Commissioners, Orange County
CC: Mayor Foy, Chapel Hill
Mayor Stevens, Hillsborough
Mayor Chilton, Carrboro
From: Dr. .Jan F. Sassaman, Chair
Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board
Subject: Resolution to Recommend the Landfill Property Located North of
Eubanks Road as the Future Site of the Orange County Transfer Station
Date: March 2, 2006
In response to the request of the Board of County Commissioners, the Solid Waste
Advisory Board (SWAB) has considered options for location of the future Waste
Transfer Station on landfill property located north of Eubanks Road provided by Olver
Incorporated, consultants to the Solid Waste Management Department. The present
landfill property identified by Olver is physically amenable as a location of the transfer
station, and is also ideally situated from an operational standpoint in terns of local land
use, transportation issues of proximity to sources of waste and to Interstate roadways, and
existing use of the property.
Therefore, the attached resolution recommends, as a result of a unanimous vote of the
SWAB, that the landfill property located north of Eubanks Road be used as the future site
of the Orange County Transfer Station. Furthermore, since the Board of County
Commissioners has affinned that there will be no future county -owned municipal solid
waste landfill in the Orange County, the SWAB recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners proceed expeditiously to design, permit and construct the Transfer
Station so as to maximize retention of existing MSW landfill capacity for a disposal
contingency.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Attachment 1 — SWAB Resolution
Attachment 2 — Figure 1 — Proposed Transfer Station and Convenience Center Layout,
Olver Incorporated
a
Solid Waste Advisory Board
RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND THE LANDFILL PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF
EUBANKS ROAD AS THE FUTURE SITE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement confers responsibility to Board of County Commissioners for
providing for future waste disposal; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has previously adopted an ordinance affirming that
there will be no future Municipal Solid Waste Landfill located in Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the Eubanks Road site is located nearby the center of county waste generation; and
WHEREAS, the Eubanks Road site is adjacent to Interstate 40, providing for easy access for the
transfen ing of waste to distant disposal facilities; and
WHEREAS, it is regulatorily and operationally feasible to develop a Transfer Station in the area of the
existing landfill property located to the north of Eubanks Road; and
WHEREAS, long established waste transportation patterns from throughout the county could be
maintained, with virtually no changes in traffic flow or quantity of vehicular traffic; and
WHEREAS, the properly is already host to all existing waste disposal and processing facilities, including
the operational and environmental monitoring infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the property is located in an urban services district and eligible to receive public water and
service services; and
WHEREAS, the site is relatively distant from substantive residential development; and
WHEREAS, Orange County would not have to initiate a divisive and arduous siting process or expend
solid waste enterprise fund capital to purchase additional property; and
WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Advisory Board has been requested by the Board of County
Commissioners to consider and make recommendations regarding the location of 'a new Transfer Station;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board
unanimously recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that a Municipal Solid Waste Transfer
Station to service future Orange County waste disposal needs be developed on existing landfill property,
north of Eubanks Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board recommends that
the Board of County Commissioners proceed expeditiously to design, permit and construct the Transfer
Station so as to maximize retention of existing MSW landfill capacity for a disposal contingency
This the 3rd day of March 2006. �yv�sna'c
i
.Ian Sassaman, Chair
Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board
1 0 11 1
O
0/0 A IN
A
%
1 0 11 1
O
0/0 A IN
APPROVED
GREENE TRACT WORK GROUP
A RESOLUTION REPORTING THE RECOMMENDED CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE
PORTION OF THE GREENE TRACT THAT REMAINS IN JOINT OWNERSHIP
WHEREAS, Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill acquired the property
known as the Greene Tract in 1984 as an asset of the joint solid waste management system;
and
WHEREAS, title to 60 acres of this property was deeded exclusively to Orange County in 2000
under provisions of the 1999 interlocal "Agreement for Solid Waste Management'; and
WHEREAS, under the same interlocal agreement the County and Towns agreed to bargain in
good faith during the two year period following the effective date of the agreement to determine
the ultimate use or disposition of the balance of the acreage on the Greene Tract; and
WHEREAS, the end date of the "bargaining period" as defined in the agreement was April 17,
2002, the second anniversary of the date upon which the County assumed overall responsibility
for solid waste management in Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the Greene Tract Work Group considered direction from the respective governing
boards, comments from interested citizens and organizations, and information developed by
staff in response to Work Group inquiries in developing a recommended concept plan for the
balance of the Greene Tract; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group reported to all three governing boards in a resolution dated March
21, 2002 that it had reached substantial agreement on a concept plan providing for
approximately 78 acres to be earmarked for open space protected by conservation easements
and approximately 15 acres to be earmarked for affordable housing but had not yet reached
agreement regarding what designation should be placed on the remaining 11 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group had recommended in that March 21, 2002 resolution that the
following additional steps be taken:
• The area shown on the concept plan as open space should be protected by executing a
conservation easement between appropriate parties
• The Board of County Commissioners should consider protecting its 60 acre portion of the
Greene Tract by executing a conservation easement with an appropriate party
• The Chapel Hill Town Council should consider initiating a small area planning process to
examine desirable land uses for the Purefoy Road area
• The property should be renamed in a manner that recognizes the significance of this area as
the headwaters for three important streams (Bolin Creek, Old Field Creek, and Booker
Creek)
• The governing boards should take note of the public investment already made in the general
vicinity of the Greene Tract, as cataloged in an accompanying table; and
WHEREAS, the governing boards of all three jurisdictions approved resolutions extending the
bargaining period beyond April 17, 2002 in order to allow the Greene Tract Work Group
additional time to try to reach consensus on the basic uses to be established for the
approximately 11 acres at that time unresolved; and
APPROVED
WHEREAS, the Work Group received a technical report from the County Engineer outlining the
basic alternatives available and approximate costs for providing sewer service to a portion of the
Greene Tract, which service would be necessary for the economical and practical provision of
affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group concluded by consensus that "the carrying capacity of the land"
should be the determining factor in establishing how much of the unresolved 11 acres should be
earmarked for specific purposes, and that the ridge line reflected on the accompanying concept
map determines the portion (approximately one - third) of the 11 acres that can practically be
used for affordable housing served by a sewer line that would access the Greene Tract via
Purefoy Road:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby
recommend that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, and the
Orange County Board of Commissioners accept the accompanying map as the Work Group's
consensus recommendation for a concept plan for that portion of the Greene Tract not deeded
exclusively to Orange County, with the acreage to be set aside for open space protected by
conservation easements approximating 8590 acres and the acreage for affordable housing
approximating 18,10 acres;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to
the three governing boards that the acreage for affordable housing be placed in the Land Trust;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to
the three governing boards that the Managers investigate options for reimbursement of the Solid
Waste /Landfill Enterprise Fund for the portions of the site designated for affordable housing and
open space; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to
the three governing boards that the triggering mechanism for reimbursement to the Solid
Waste /Landfill Enterprise Fund should be formal action taken by all three boards to approve
conservation easements protecting the designated open space, with such approvals taking
effect no sooner than July 1, 2003, and no later than July 1, 2005
This, the 26th day of June, 2002
Moses Carey, Jr,
Chair
Greene Tract Work Group
Greene Tract Concept Plan
Approved by the Greene Tract Workgroup, 6126102
%
Landfill
'j,
'
--- (Active) k-
ed
It - — ----
Neville
j,
tl
A/ Homestead
n-
" - Pot 111131 e We r UM
NaIsIng Se., U.
?V, FUmPond
Weitr une
/\/skeams
conjour Lh.
Petals
81r.W.,
ocsnoe C.Ny ueno
Me Use
Aflordwic Housim 18.10A .s
op.neo. MBD .,
IT
Orange Conty
+ uEnvironment& Resource
Conservation Department
300 0 300 600 Feet June 27 2002
B Young
Memorandum
To: Barry Jacobs, Chair, Board of Orange County Commissioners
Mark Chilton, Mayor, Town of Caiiboro
Kevin Foy, Mayor Town of Chapel Hill
Tom Stevens, Mayor Town of Hillsborough
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director
Subject: Interim Report on Development of Solid Waste Management
Plan
Date: March 15, 2006
cc. Cal Horton, .John Link, Eric Peterson, Steve Stewart, Jan Sassaman
Attachments: .3
This memorandum provides an update of the work and meetings of the Solid Waste Plan Work
Group from its inception in April 2005 to date. The memo also reviews the information
presented to the Work Group and presents a projected schedule and tasks for work yet to be
completed.
Background
Last February, the Board of Orange County Commissioners tasked the Solid Waste Advisory
Board (SWAB) with moving the solid waste planning process forward to develop the next three
year update required by the State of North Carolina and also to clarify and create consensus on
that plan as a road map for long teen solid waste planning in Orange County. The SWAB's
response was to expand into a broader working group for this task. Dubbed the Solid Waste Plan
Work Group, it includes the current SWAB membership and Solid Waste Department staff, an
elected official and key staff people from each jurisdiction, as well as an additional staff person
from UNC. (List of'work group membership Attachment 1).
A subsequent staff memo (Attachment 2) introduced a possible schedule through which the
Board could receive an updated solid waste plan for submittal to the State by the statutory due
date of June 30, 2006 It has become clear due to our rate of progress on this project, as well as
the upcoming budget work required by the various elected Boards and their staff, drive a realistic
date of completion later into calendar 2006. It is reasonable to say that the three -year, update of
the ten -year plan will not occur by June 30, 2006. That delay will allow a more thorough
consideration of all the elements of a relatively complex plan by all the jurisdictions and should
result in an effective consensus on a plan that moves deliberately towards the County's stated
61 % waste reduction goal.
Summary of Meetings
The work group began meeting in April 2005 and has met six times:
April .June October
May September November
A brief'recap of the primary discussion topics of each meeting is below. The minutes from the
meetings are available on request from the Solid Waste Management Department.
April:
Introductory meeting with a brief history of solid waste management in Orange County and
opportunity for each jurisdiction to state its concerns about solid waste. This meeting was
essentially an open forum for discussion of topics of interest by each member. Topics included:
• Meeting the 61 % goal
• Transitioning from landfill to transfer station.
• Handling commercial waste.
• Allocating recycling fee fiords among programs.
• Residential OCC collection.
• Expansion into commercial recycling
• Effects of PAYT on dumpster systems
• Ability to process commingled materials locally.
• Future tipping fees.
• How to achieve higher recycling rates.
• hrtegration of recycling with other aspects of solid waste management.
• Limits of recycling.
• Need for disposal options.
• Financing.
• Private sector compliance with County (and Town) regulations,
May
Presentation on how the waste reduction rate is calculated, showing it at 46% for 2003-
04, how C &D waste has been reduced and the potential within the waste stream to get to 61%
reduction from the current 46 %. Continued discussion of the underlying issues included:
Solid Waste Fund solvency.
Expanding the number of materials collected, particularly mixed paper and a PAYT
system.
The need to build a large MRF that is dependent on huge amounts of material versus
tailoring a processing facility to meet only estimated local processing requirements.
June
Report on waste stream analysis, comparing 2000 to 2005. Discussion of keeping the goal if it is
hard to reach given the current materials discarded. Additional discussion consisted of PAYT
and the Work Group and /or SWAB role in it. Focus future discussions on collection and
processing (of recyclables). Collection of recyclables at the curb in carts v. bins.
September
Report on collecting additional materials including residential food waste, other (non -food)
organics, plastic film, injection molded plastics, scrap metal, textiles, electronics, clean wood.
These show that at a 50% capture rate for all recyclables remaining in the waste that Orange
County could reach 54% a waste reduction rate. Disposal options were discussed and recycling
collection options were tabled. Report on administrative cost of PAYT was submitted with no
presentation.
October
Report on residential recycling options dual- stream v, single- stream /automated v, semi -
automated. Report on commercial recycling options delivered but not presented orally,
Commercial recycling waste stream analysis and options presented.
November
Clarification of commercial waste analysis, PAYT cost presentation, landfill v. transfer station,
and solid waste collection in Orange County. Other informational staff reports have also been
prepared but not presented addressing drop -off sites and rural waste collection.
At the November meeting, the Work Group realized they had been presented with a significant
amount of information and had given staff and SWAB some feedback and direction. They stated
their ° next step would be to have staff prepare some analyses of possible program options.
Through December, January and February, the SWAB continued to receive informational reports
about aspects of the current system including rural garbage collection, multifamily recycling,
regulatory mechanisms for increasing recycling and controlling waste, transfer station
development, development of MRF and landfill siting guidelines. The remaining Work Group
members can readily review these presentations and the minutes of the subsequent discussions to
further their decision - making effectiveness.
The initially planned trajectory was for the Work Group to reconvene once the recycling
programs' technical analysis had been completed and there was some substantive information to
review. At the December SWAB meeting, the SWAB requested a `decision- points'
memorandum to make explicit the types of'decisions needed to build a solid waste plan. That
memorandum and questionnaire on the decision points was distributed to the Work Group March
2 (attachment 3). Preliminary results of the questionnaire will be compiled and discussed in April
then used again when discussing the analysis in subsequent meetings. Having a preliminary set
of preferences and comparing them to a second set once the technical data are available may
sharpen the decision making process. It now appears the analyses will be completed in late April
and presented at the following Work Group meeting.
Discussion
Through preparation of the previous solid waste plan update in 2003, there was dissection among
the jurisdictions on a number of key issues including whether to consider an in- County materials
recovery facility and how to go about achieving the 61% waste reduction goal. A significant
outcome was that the Town of Chapel Hill did not endorse the 2003 plan update. Another key
outcome was that the County, as lead agency, did not firmly commit to a strategy to achieve the
goal and, notably, removed its previous at least tacit support for a materials processing center as
integral to meeting the waste reduction goal.
As the various jurisdictions and the Solid Waste Advisory Board re- engage, the intent is to
produce the statutorily required three year update of the State - required ten year solid waste plan,
as well as develop a consensus around a workable, practical plan that achieves the waste
3
reduction goal. While staff believes plan development must be an iterative process, it is also
useful to try to clarify at least generally, procedural and substantive steps in moving forward.
Technical Assistance and Anal
The staff has engaged its Departmental engineering consultant, Olver, Inc and their subcontractor
Resource Recycling Systems Incorporated, to assist in technical aspects of the analysis of
recycling collection and processing options, The collection options will compare dual stream to
single stream collection in each of the three sectors — residential, multifamily and commercial -
along with corollary issues of types of containers and automated to semi - automated collection.
There will be a specific analysis of public v. franchised collection options for the commercial
sector, as this is the least developed part of the County's recycling program. This analysis will
be combined with an analysis of potential processing for recyclable materials — how much does it
cost and what are the pros and cons of processing materials in- County with a County -owned
and /or controlled facility compared to sending materials out to be processed by other private
processors.
Other possible work by staff
Other important elements of the overall plan will continue to be worked on by staff at the
direction of the Work Group including:
• whether and how to include PAYT or mandatory recycling in the planning process,
• franchising solid waste collection, particularly in unincorporated areas,
• franchising solid waste collection in some or all.jurisdietions for non- residential waste,
• multiple, jurisdictions working together to franchise waste and /or recycling services,
• the future of drop -off sites and solid waste convenience centers wider changed solid
waste and recycling collection options,
• financing of the solid waste system,
• soliciting and compiling public input.
NOTE: Where we address franchising issues above, it is important to point out that in the
upcoming legislative short session of the North Carolina General Assembly, Senate Bill 951,
could be adopted. This bill would require local governments to pay any private haulers collecting
waste or recyclables in areas in which they were considering collecting waste or recyclables
beginning as soon as .July 1, 2006. Adoption of this bill as written, would require immediate
action by Orange County and the Towns, outside the solid waste planning process considered
below, to ensure passage of a local franchising ordinance which would preserve local
governments' flexibility to franchise or outright collect waste and recycling without pre - paying
private haulers who might already be working within the jurisdiction.
Schedule and Process
The staff has prepared a survey of decision points (attachment 3) that will provide the building
blocks for development of a solid waste management system. The first iteration of the decision
points survey will be completed without analytical data. Once data from the technical analyses
are available to help the Work Group inform their decisions and ranked preferences for types of
collection and processing, then they can begin development of a first draft of a system,
4
A series of decisions on recyclables collection methods will impact processing choices and there
will have to be more feedback once the impact on processing is assessed. Plan development
could go through several cycles including financial analysis, until there is an outcome that the
work group wishes to put forward as the first draft of the system plan.
Other elements to be included in the system include decisions such as whether or not to provide
universal waste collection services and use of Pay As You Throw methods for financing
residential waste collection. Once a whole system is established, it will be revised by the Work
Group and then presented to the elected boards and the public for further feedback.
Once the substantive recycling analyses are complete, they could be presented at a scheduled
meeting of the Solid Waste Plan Work Group. The Work Group could then develop its straw
plan including the other elements mentioned above and a financial analysis, and then present that
to the various elected Boards. Following those presentations and subsequent revisions to the
plan, in response to board feedback, would be one or more public hearings and a final draft to be
prepared for the BOCC and other governments' approval and subsequent submittal to the State.
This process could take the remainder of the current calendar year.
There are then several steps to putting this draft forward that could be taken in a variety of
sequences. It will be a Work Group decision on the sequence. Thus the order of the steps below
does not reflect any preference, just enumeration.
I. Complete draft plan after receiving technical reports, conducting internal debate,
further analysis and discussion. Planning level estimates of financial
aspects will be included for the straw plan.
2. Take complete draft plan to each jurisdiction for presentation to the elected boards and
their constituencies. We believe this effort should be led by the elected officials and
SWAB representatives from each.jurisdiction, with solid waste staff providing technical
backup.
3. Work Group and staff revise the resultant plan and present to the public in a public
hearing or series of hearings. This phase would include other public education including
articles in the newspapers and on the County web site as well as possible radio interviews
or other media coverage, At least one public hearing is statutorily required for this
process
4. Reconsider the plan in light of public continent,
5 Develop a more precise financial model of the selected plan including revenue sources
and levels.
6, Revise plan as needed to meet BOCC requirements,
T Get final approval from all,jurisdictions.
8. Submit to the State.
5
Frankly, the only things we are certain of in the sequence are item one being first and item eight
being last, The other six items could be subject to a variety of sequences and we believe the next
Solid Waste Plan Work Group meeting should consider this procedural sequence and provide
some direction on the staff work they need. We believe one focus of the Work Group could be
on items that relate to individual jurisdictions' control of waste, specifically PAYT, mandatory
recycling, and franchising, While we recognize these are potentially important elements of the
solid waste system, arguments could be made that they are solely the responsibility of each
jurisdiction and not of the Solid Waste Department. Therefore each jurisdiction could implement
at its own discretion. Conversely, implementing for example PAYT in only one jurisdiction
would potentially have effects in other jurisdictions that they have to react to. If the Town of
Chapel Hill implemented PAYT alone, then the County might have to restrict use of solid waste
convenience centers in some way by providing PAYT there, which would cause the County to
reassess its method of tax -based financing of these centers.
Summary
The Solid Waste Plan Work Group began meeting in April 2005 to begin a planning process that
would result in adoption of the three -year update to the State - required ten year solid waste
management plan for Orange County. The Group has laid out its concerns, received a series of
staff technical reports explaining aspects of the current solid waste and recycling system and
requested additional information to inform their future decision - making. While the Work Group
last met in November, the SWAB and staff have continued to examine details of the solid waste
management system over the past three months.
In the coming months, the Work Group will complete a decision - points survey, evaluate its
results, receive additional techmical analysis and craft a draft plan and time line for submittal to
the elected boards and the public for consideration.
M
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WORK GROUP
SWAB
Hillsborough
.Jan Sassaman
Brian Lowen
Randy Kabrick
659 Cornelius Street
Al Vickers
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Linda Bowerman
644 -1427
Remus Smith
lowenb(cDmadisonriver.net
Joe Clayton
Bonnie Norwood
BJ Tipton
UNC
Tom Draney
.Jim Alty
CB 1800, Giles Horney Bldg,
Chapel Hill
UNC- Chapel Hill
Bill Strom
Chapel Hill, NC 27599 -1800
714 Greenwood Rd
962 -0761 W
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
468 -2620 H
933 -2711 H
Jim.alty a fac,unc.edrr
billstrom o ne.rr.com
Coun
Carr °burro
Barry Jacobs
Marls Chilton
2105 Moorefields Rd.
203 Ashe Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Cariboro, NC 27510
732 -4384 H
919 - 636 -0371 H
732 -4941 W
919 - 932 -1990 W
barryJ a mindsprina..com
Mark.chiItonC@hotrnai1.com
Note: Work Group members may involve
jurisdictional management staff as needed
Attachment 1
7
Attacluirent 2
Memorandum
To: Solid Waste Plan Work Group
From: Jan Sassaman, SWAB Chair
Subject: Decision Points Questionnaire
Date: February 28, 2006
Attached is a questionnaire that I requested the staff prepare to define and detail some of the decisions that must
be made to move forward in development of a comprehensive, integrated solid waste management plan. The
plan for using this questionnaire is that all Solid Waste Plan Work Group members will complete it,
electronically if possible, and return it to staff with any additional comments by March 23. The completed
questionnaires will form the basis for the April Solid Waste Plan Work Group meeting to further develop its
ideas, positions and possible consensus on these decision points as well as other decision points that may arise
through discussion and further comment from the Work Group. In your response please indicate what dates in
April and May you are available for meetings exclude week of April 3-7.
We expect completion of a technical report on primarily the recycling portion of the County's scope of work due
at the end of April. We expect to schedule a presentation of that work in May for the Solid Waste Plan Work
Group, Once you receive the report, you will, at the subsequent Work Group meeting, have an opportunity to
reconsider the responses to the questionnaire in light of data presented in the report.
We realize that some of the questions are better answered with data the technical report in hand, while some,
such as developing ranking preferences, may be better made before the data are presented. Feel free to answer
all or some of the questions this first time as a way to express initial preferences; once you get data you may
change your mind on some of them. Group consensus may shift. You may choose to not answer those that are
more data - driven until you get the data; that's fine too. There is a lot of indecision right now, as no data on
projected program performance has been presented, eg, single stream v, dual stream cart v bin.
Use of the decision points tool is a two -step process. The first iteration allows representatives of the various
entities to express what they want at this point and to a certain extent, we will use that to push against the
recycling technical analysis. Then we'll do a second iteration once the data are in and come to consensus about
the system we recommend.
It will be important for all jurisdictions to express their preferences particularly in the part VII B of the
questionnaire that pertains specifically to them. Work group members from outside the particular jurisdiction
may express their preferences for solid waste management techniques in communities other than their own, but
the opinions of those representing that jurisdiction will have most importance. The exception to this is that all
members are able to comment on solid waste management needs for the unincorporated area because all are
residents of Orange County and all pay taxes to support the current system of convenience centers.
Please respond to the questionnaire along with any comments you may have on it, preferably electronically, and
return to Blair Pollock of the staff by March 23 so he can prepare a summary of responses for presentation at the
as yet unscheduled Solid Waste Plan Work Group meeting to be held in April.
Decision Points Requiring Solid Waste Plan Work Group Recommendations
This document lays out a series of decisions that must be made to continue development of the updated
solid waste management plan. Those decisions will provide guidance to the staff on how to conduct the
detailed analysis needed to bring back specifics on how various solid waste and recycling systems
might perform fiscally and in terms of the tonnage of materials managed by each element of the system
e.g. dropoff recycling, residential solid waste collections, etc.
Since the Solid Waste Plan Work Group began its effort last April, they have reviewed descriptive data
from the various recycling programs operated by the County and learned about the potential for further
waste reduction through a detailed examination of recyclables remaining in the waste stream. The
Work Group has also learned about various recycling collection and processing concepts and options
that could be involved in advancing our County's recycling efforts. Considerable additional analysis is
underway and will continue through the spring, when the Work Group will begin formulating
recommendations. We anticipate results of our technical analysis to be available in May and plan to
schedule a presentation when the technical analysis is complete
At this point, the staff is presenting the Work Group with this decision - making framework for a
preliminary opinion forming exercise. We do not expect you to answer all the questions presented
without more data, but do answer as much as you like to help create a bounded useful discussion at the
April meeting. As you answer the questions, critically review this document with an eye towards
ensuring that the questions being asked get us the answers we need to develop a comprehensive,
integrated solid waste management plan that reflects the priorities and desires of the County and its
municipalities regarding the future of waste management. We urge you to answer at least those
questions that do not require data e.g. ranking of the importance of various criteria to decide where and
by whom materials should be processed. Staff believes that the criteria should be established and
ranked prior to seeing the data so that the data don't drive what we believe should be values -based
decisions, You will see the questionnaire again when the data are analyzed and continue to use it for
decision- making.
Many critical items in this summary are currently under analysis. Once the analysis is complete the
number of items will likely be reduced. One thing to keep in mind is that all of these items are
interconnected and interdependent. While we may look at residential collections separately, in the end
decisions made in processing or even multi- family collection may dictate the residential course.
Development of the solid waste plan will be an iterative process that will be informed by the data from
the upcoming analyses along with the judgments of the Work Group and staff We anticipate being
able to present a planning document to the Towns and County later this year based on the decisions
taken from this document For the past several months the Work Group has been involved in
reviewing and discussing the many different alternatives for managing solid waste in the County,
particularly as regards reducing solid waste in the most effective and efficient manner. Considerable
data and reports have been presented and discussed, but to date no recommendations have been made.
The SWAB has continued focusing on elements of a new plan in the absence of recent formal Work
Group meetings.
Affiliation
The breakdown is by sector. Please circle your response and for the few questions
requesting additional information please so respond:
I, Waste Reduction Goals- The County has been working towards a 61 % waste
reduction goal. This goal is ambitious, but appears to be achievable considering that
we are currently at 45% (2005). The staff has presented information that 54% is a
reasonable step based on the recyclables materials matrix provided earlier. This
assumes that additional investment and commitment is provided in support of these
goals.
Should the County keep its waste reduction goal of 61 %?
Target date- 2016 Yes (or by ) No
Is an intermediate goal of 54% acceptable?
Target date- 2011 Yes (or" by ) No
IL. Residential Curbside Recycling Collection-
A. Urban -
1. How often should we pick up the curbside recyclables?
a. Weekly
b. Bi- weekly (every other week)
2. What method of collection should be used to collect recyclables?
a. Single stream
b. Dual stream
.3. What type of collection container should be used?
a. Cart /Carts or Bins
b. Ifbin(s)- Should the county provide additional bin(s) at no cost
to the resident: Yes No
c. If YES to b above: Does the County provide at no cost:
one bin two bins as many as needed
Or
Does the County charge a fee for each additional bin Yes No
* NOTE: Especially if carts are chosen as the standard method, it is possible that
standard methods of collection may be difficult in some neighborhoods due to
roads, terrain, geography or other factors and a different combination of collection
containers specific to these areas may be necessary.
4. Which of the following materials should be added to urban curbside
collection:
a. Mixed Paper- Yes No
b. Corrugated Cardboard Yes No
c. Textiles Yes No
d. Injection Molded Plastic (e.g. tubs, cups) Yes No
e. Scrap Metal (Pots, Pans, small household scrap) Yes No
f Other:
B. Rural Residential Curbside Recycling -
1. How often do we pick up the curbside recyclables?
a. Weekly
b. Bi- weekly (every other week)
2. What method of collection should be used to collect recyclables?
a. Single stream
b. Dual stream?
3. What type of collection container should be used?
a. Cart /Carts or Bins
b. If bin(s)- Should the county provide additional bin(s) at no cost
to the resident: Yes No
c. If YES to b above: Does the County provide at no cost:
one bin two bins as many as needed
Or
Does the County charge a fee for each additional bin Yes No
* NOTE: Especially if carts are chosen as the standard method, it is possible that standard
methods of collection may be difficult in some neighborhoods due to roads, terrain, geography
or other factors and a different combination of collection containers specific to these areas may
be necessary.
4. Which of the following materials should be added to rural curbside collection:
a. Mixed Paper-
Yes
No
It, Corrugated Cardboard
Yes
No
c. Textiles
Yes
No
d. Injection Molded Plastic (e.g, cups or tubs)
Yes
No
e. Scrap Metal (Pots, Pans, small household)
Yes
No
f, Othet
5. Should we continue to pursue the objective of providing curbside recycling
collection to all eligible households in the unincorporated county? Yes No
Additional Continents:
11
III. Multi - family Recycling Collections-
1. How should material be collected?
a. Source- separated
b. Single stream
c. Dual stream
d. Commingled with glass collected separately
2. Which of the following materials should be added to multifamily collection:
a, Mixed Paper-
Yes
No
b. Corrugated Cardboard
Yes
No
c Textiles
Yes
No
d. Injection Molded Plastic (e.g. cups, tubs)
Yes
No
e. Scrap Metal (Pots, Pans, small household)
Yes
No
f. Other
IV. Commercial Recycling Collections- Expansion of commercial recycling programs
is essential to achieve the volume goals projected in the materials matrix.
1. Rank in order I through 5 where 1 is first preference. Which of the following
commercial options you recommend the county pursue (more than one choice
may have the same rank):
a. County - provided comprehensive universal commercial
recycling service funded (primarily) by 3 -R fee to non - residential
properties.
b. Ordinances banning recyclable materials from collection and
landfill/transfer station with recycling services provided by the private
sector'.
a County competes with private sector on a fee -for- service
basis.
d. County and privates co -exist with county providing some
services and private sector others.
e. County franchises commercial recycling services and directs
materials to its facility.
2. Which of the following materials should be recycled through commercial
collection:
a.
Bottles and cans
Yes
No
b.
Newspaper- and Magazines
Yes
No
c.
Mixed Paper-
Yes
No
b.
Corrugated Cardboard
Yes
No
d.
Plastic Film
Yes
No
12
e. Textiles Yes No
I. Injection Molded Plastic (e.g, tubs, cups) Yes No
g. Scrap Metal Yes No
h. Other:
3. Do we expand the commercial food waste /organics waste collection?
Yes No
Do we lower the threshold for participating in the food waste collection
program?
Yes No
5. Do we require food stores over a specified size to participate in the food waste
collection program? Yes No
V. Processing- Any growth in collections will require additional processing capability.
Without having finalized all of the collection decisions it is difficult to determine
exactly what the county's recycling processing requirements will be Once this is
complete, we will provide analysis breaking down internal and external options and
costs. It is important to get feedback in determining the philosophic direction the
department should pursue Primarily that is one of "Does the County build its own
MRF or contract out to a private merchant facility ?"
1. Does the county expand its processing capabilities for all materials it collects?
Yes No
2. In selecting processing capability raulc the following criteria in selection of She
processing alternative where I is most important and 5 least important:
a. Worker protection and care including: living wage, safety and a health
plan and benefits for employees.
b. Facility is operated in enviromnentally responsible manner, is fully in
compliance with all regulations and permits and demonstrates the
highest degree of environmental protection (even going beyond the
minimum regulatory standards)
c. Highest diversion rate (net of all residue, out throws, rejects, etc) _
d. Lowest cost option.
e. Processor provides flexibility in materials accepted.
3. If a processing facility can be built and operated more economically in county
than out of County, would you recommend doing so (this includes debt
service on capital as well as operating costs)
Yes No
4. If a processing facility can be built and operated in county at a higher cost
than out of County, but would process additional types of materials not
accepted by an outside processor would you recommend doing so and at what
cost premium ?
13
5% 10% 20% other
level of diversion from new materials:
5% 10% 20% other
Tied to what potential increased
No, lowest cost processing is most important
5. Would you oppose building an in- County facility, even if the economics are
favorable or neutral?
Yes (oppose in County) No (don't oppose)
If Yes, state major concerns:
siting/environmental concerns
financial risk of investing is too great for County_
this is best done privately by existing facilities
other (state)
14
VI. Drop -off Recycling Centers
A. Unstaffed
If countywide curbside recycling is provided with mixed paper and corrugated
containers should we?
a. Close all drop -off sites
b. Leave all drop -off centers the same - no change
c. Reduce the number from the current six to how many
2. As follow -up to question one, if we are collecting mixed paper and corrugated
containers curbside, does the county modify the scope of drop -off recycling
centers to accept other materials in addition to traditional recyclables..
Yes No
Which materials (list)
B. Staffed
Would you like to see a staffed site replace the unmanned drop -off centers
(meaning higher costs and more limited hours) if more materials were added
including those now collected at staffed convenience centers such as oil,
filters, batteries, anti- freeze and electronics as well as materials not now
collected such as other hazardous materials m food waste?
Yes No
2. Would you like to see staffed drop -off centers accept other types of materials
as textiles, reusable goods?
Yes No
Which materials (list)
VII. Jurisdictions- Regulatory and Waste Collection
(ALL, MAY REPLY TO SECTION A BELOW, AS ALL ARE COUNTY
RESIDENTS AND TAXPAYERS)
A. Unincorporated (outside Town limits)
1. Should the County offer universal solid waste collection in unincorporated
areas (Towns take care of incorporated now)? Yes No
2. Should it be universal for only residences or also non - residential users
including coimnercial or non - profits? Residential only All waste generators
15
3. Should universal solid waste collection be:
a. Voluntary
b. Required (and possibly pre -paid through taxes or fees)
4. Would the above be:
a. Franchised
b County- provided
c. Combination of both
5. (If the County does not opt for pre -paid collection and /or disposal through
taxes or fees) Should the county implement residential PAYT? (This would
apply to universal pickup or convenience centers if maintained.)
Yes No
6. If yes, should the PAYT fees be set to cover cost of
a. collection
b. disposal
c. both collection and disposal
d. other amount not based on collection and /or disposal
7. Should the county ban collection the following materials mixed with solid
waste?
a.
Bottles and cans
Yes
No
b.
Newspaper and Magazines
Yes
No
c.
Mixed Paper-
Yes
No
d.
Corrugated Cardboard
Yes
No
e.
Other
Note: All bans will apply throughout the county, which would include the incorporated and
unincorporated areas. Towns would have to adopt corollary ordinances affecting waste within
their corporate limits.
8 Should the county make commercial recycling mandatory?
Yes No
9 If yes to 8, above what criteria or thresholds will apply?
a. By square footage /number of employees Yes No
b. Type of Business Yes No
c. Tonnage Yes No
d. Materials (which)
Remainder of this page intentionally blank
16
B. Municipalities
THOSE REPRESENTING THE MUNICIPALITY LISTED SHOULD REPLY FOR
THAT MUNICIPALITY. Others may comment. Indicate if you are from Chapel Hill or
not for this section.
Chapel Hill representative
Not a representative:
Chapel Hill -
1. Do you see any changes in residential collection?
a. Methodology? If so, what? _
b. Competitive? If so, what? _
c. Franchised? If so, what?
d. Compliance with inter -local agrecment in terms of the level of
commitment of delivery of solid waste to the county disposal facility?
If so, what?
e. Other?
If so, what?
2. Do you see any changes in commercial (and other non - residential) collection?
d. Methodology? If so, what?
C, Competitive? If so, what?
f. Franchised? If so, what?
g Compliance with inter -local agreement commitment of delivery of
solid waste to the county disposal facility? If so, what?
It, Other? If so, what?
Should Chapel Hill implement residential PAYT?
Yes No
4. If yes, should the PAYT fees be set to cover cost of
a. Collection
b. Disposal
c, Both collection and disposal
d. Some other amount not based on collection and /or disposal
5. Should the Town ban the following materials from the trash?
a. Bottles and cans
Yes
No
b. Newspaper and Magazines
Yes
No
c. Mixed Paper
Yes
No
d. OCC
Yes
No
e. Other
Note: The objective is for all bans to apply throughout the county, which would include the
incorporated and unincorporated areas, but each Town must adopt its own collection bans.
lK
6. Should the Town require commercial (non - residential) recycling?
Yes No
7. If yes, above should criteria or thresholds will apply including:
a. By square footage /employees /other Yes Nc
b, Type of Business (only those that might be high waste generators)
Yes
No
c. Tormage
d. Materials
If so, which list
Carrboro:
Yes No
Yes No
THOSE REPRESENTING THE MUNICIPALITY LISTED SHOULD REPLY FOR
THAT MUNICIPALITY. Others may continent. Indicate if you are from Carrboro or not
for this section.
Carrboro representative
NOT a Carrboro representative _
1. Do you see any changes in residential collection?
a. Methodology? If so, what? _
b. Competitive? If so, what? _
c. Franchised? If so, what?
d, Compliance with inter -local agreement in terms of the level of
commitment of delivery of solid waste to the county disposal facility?
If'so, what?
e. Other? If so, what?
2.Do you see any changes in commercial (and other non - residential) collection?
a. Methodology? If so, what?
b. Competitive? If so, what?
c. Franchised? If so, what?
a
d. Compliance with inter -local agreement in terms of level of
commitment of delivery of solid waste to the county disposal
facility? If so, what?
Other? If so, what?
.3. Should Carrboro implement residential PAYT?
Yes No
4. If yes, should the PAYT fees be set to cover cost of
a. Collection
b. Disposal
c. Both collection and disposal
19
d. Some other amount not based on collection and /oi- disposal
20
5. Should the Town ban the following materials from the trash?
a. Bottles and cans
Yes
No
b. Newspaper and Magazines
Yes
No
c. Mixed Paper
Yes
No
d. OCC
Yes
No
e. Other
Note: The objective is for all bans to apply throughout the county, which would include the
incorporated and unincorporated areas, but each Town must adopt its own collection bans.
6. Should the Town require commercial (non - residential) recycling?
Yes No
7, If yes, above should criteria or thresholds will apply including:
a. By square footage /employees /other Yes No
b. Type of Business (only those that might be high waste generators)
Yes No
c. Tonnage
d, Material
If yes, which
Hillsborough
Yes No
Yes No
THOSE REPRESENTING THE MUNICIPALITY LISTED SHOULD REPLY FOR
THAT MUNICIPALITY. Others may comment Indicate if you are from Hillsborough or
not for this section.
Hillsborough Representative
NOT a Hillsborough Representative
1. Do you see any changes in residential collection?
a. Methodology? If'so, what? _
b. Competitive? If so, what?
c. Franchised? If so, what?
d. Compliance with inter -local agreement in terms of the level of
commitment of delivery of solid waste to the county disposal facility?
If so, what?
e. Other? If so, what?
2. Do you see any changes in commercial (and other non- residential) collection?
a. Methodology? If so, what?
b. Competitive? If so, what?
c. Franchised? If so, what?
d. Compliance with inter -local agreement commitment of delivery of
solid waste to the county disposal facility? If so, what?
e. Other? If so, what?
21
3. Should Hillsborough implement residential PAYT?
Yes No
4. If yes, should the PAYT fees be set to cover cost of
a. Collection
b. Disposal
c. Both collection and disposal
d. Some other amount not based on collection and /or disposal
5. Should the Town ban the following materials from the trash?
a.
Bottles and cans
Yes
No
b.
Newspaper and Magazines
Yes
No
c.
Mixed Paper
Yes
No
d.
OCC
Yes
No
e.
Other
Note: The objective is for all bans to apply throughout the county, which would include
the incorporated and unincorporated areas, but each Town must adopt its own collection
bans.
2. Should the Town require commercial (non- residential) recycling?
Yes No
3. If yes, above should criteria or tluesholds will apply including:
a. By square footage /employees /other Yes No
b. Type of Business (only those that might be high waste generators)
Yes
c.
d.
No
Tonnage
Materials
If yes, which, list
Yes No
Yes No
VIII. Staffed Solid Waste Convenience Centers- this section refers to waste only,
recycling at these sites was addressed in section VI above,
1. If universal MSW collection is provided in the county, do we continue to
operate convenience centers?
Yes No
2. If above, do we charge those citizens for dumping trash at the centers
recognizing that not charging may attract more waste to the centers and make
curbside waste collection uneconomical as economies of scale will be lost if
most don't participate?
Yes No
IN
.3. If we charge, do we allow other, non - residential users at the centers?
Yes No
If'yes, any thresholds /maximums/restrictions?
What level?
4. If one or more municipalities adopt PAYT, should the County implement a
fee for solid waste disposal at the convenience centers? Recognizing that
leaving solid waste disposal at convenience centers free would attract
significant amount of waste from those avoiding paying waste disposal fees,
Yes No
IX Landfill/ Transfer Station-
1. Should the county give further consideration for a landfill within the county?
Yes No
2. Is there still a commitment by all municipalities to continue to take all solid
waste to the County -owned landfill or transfer station?
Yes No
3. Should the county accept out of county solid waste at the transfer station?
Yes No
4. Should the county continue to offer free landfill permits?
Yes No
X UNC
Should the County and municipalities consider UNC's concerns /interests
when evaluating and /or implementing PAYT?
Yes No
Should the County consider expanding recycling services (residential or non-
residential) to UNC, assuming an equitable funding mechanism can be
developed?
Yes No
XI. Budgets and Financials/ Fee Changes — Decision Points to be developed at a later
point.
23
Attaclunent 3
Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan Reconsideration /Review Process
The current adopted Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan contains several
components. The component that is the focus of this planning document is the waste
reduction goal, including the operational /financial means to achieve that goal. In the
most recent BOCC approved Solid Waste Management Plan that was submitted to the
state earlier this year, a number of substantive changes were made from earlier approved
Plans relative to future waste reduction strategies. While the waste reduction goal of
61% was maintained, virtually all of the waste reduction and recycling program
improvements /expansions were eliminated. This memorandum discusses how the
County could reestablish a long -term waste reduction plan that is acceptable to the
stakeholders and is aimed at achieving the adopted 61 % goal.
Suggested participants in the process include:
• Solid Waste Advisory Board
• Board of County Commissioners
• Carrboro Board of Alderman
• Chapel Hill Town Council
• Hillsborough Town Board
• Citizens
• Staff
At the February 8 Board of County Commissioners' Work Session the BOCC indicated
that the SWAB should take the lead role in development of a revised Solid Waste
Management Plan. The SWAB intends to initiate a plan development process that
involves the key stakeholders, especially interested elected officials. The SWAB will
request each,jurisdiction appoint at least one elected official to become part of the SWAB
Solid Waste Plan Work Group. UNC would also be invited to send a representative to
the Work Group. The SWAB Work Group would meet periodically (at least monthly and
occasionally more often) over the course of a year to review and discuss staff work and
provide guidance. Additionally, these members would keep their own boards' apprised
of the progress and key issues relative to the planning process.
The following represents an outline of a timeline and process that could be followed to:
• reexamine and reconsider the portion of the Plan that serves as the means by which
the 61% goal could be achieved, including
• residential and commercial recyclable material collection methodologies
• equipment and staffing
• adding new materials and marketing
• regulatory issues
• material processing options
• financial impacts and funding requirements for the enterprise find
• implementation issues
El
receive input fiom the SWAB, the Town's, the public, and the BOCC, and
prepare a recommended revised Plan and have that revised Plan considered and
adopted by the three Towns and the BOCC before the next 3-Year Update to the
State required plan is due on June 30, 2006.
Suggested Timeline
2004
November- December -Solid Waste staff to examine and identify a scope of work and
timeline necessary to reexamine and analyze future waste reduction policy (including
recyclables collection and processing options).
Staff begins information gathering and analysis and discussions with the SWAB that will
continue throughout the process.
11R
February — Staff presents to the BOCC a proposed process and timeline to conduct a
study reconsidering the County's long -tern waste reduction strategy, including specific
issues previously raised by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Staff receives
guidance and proceeds to implement approved process /timeline,
March — Staff discusses approved process with SWAB and defines and discusses the
SWAB's role in the process. (SWAB will discuss as necessary at any scheduled monthly
meeting or at a special meeting if desired). A letter- will be sent to the four jurisdictions
requesting appointments to the Work Group.
March /April - Work Group is fornned and meets to receive progress update and review
work to date, discuss their role and degree of involvement in the process, and to provide
guidance /input to the process.
April — Staff provides status of process to the Assembly of Govermments, including
discussion of Interlocal Agreement provisions regarding long terns planning policies.
August/September — Work Group meets as necessary.
September - SWAB provides status update to BOCC and Town Boards (if desired).
Public education conducted on the newly proposed Plan elements.
October — SWAB sponsors open forum for citizen input.
November /December — Staff submits preliminary draft of recommended revised Plan to
Work Group and SWAB. Receives feedback on recommendations.
25
2006
February — Staff submits final draft of recommended Plan to SWAB Work Group
Receives final input prior to submitting recommendations to governing boards.
March - SWAB submits final draft of recommended Plan to BOCC, suimnarizing input
from citizen forum, Work Group and SWAB. Public invited to attend and provide input.
BOCC provides guidance.
April — SWAB submits final draft of Plan to Towns. Towns provide feedback, Requests
for any substantive changes by Towns will be shared with BOCC. (This could be done at
AOG meeting, if desired)
May— Towns endorse revised 3 -Year Solid Waste Management Plan Update to State,
which includes revised waste reduction and recycling component.
June — BOCC endorses revised 3 -Year Solid Waste Management Plan Update and
authorizes submission of 3 -Year Plan to State (Due June 30).
Summer — Staff prepares comprehensive implementation plan for adopted Solid Waste
Management Plan, including financing, capital, and operational elements.
26
-P�
LANDFILL GAS
axc"r '
FEASIBILITY STUDY
►n_AM:�z�1�z�
Prepared for:
Orange County,
North Carolina
® MMk�'Gfi:1 ri®
Orange County
PO Box 17177
Chapel Hill, NC 27516 -7177
Prepared by:
I%a�
//, a`` Olver Incorporated
OLVERCharlotte, NC 282It lard, Suite 505
INCORPORATED Project Number 20151
1.0 INTRODUCTION
One of the major components of Orange County's (County) integrated solid waste management
system is the municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, MSW contains significant quantities of
organic materials that produce a variety of gaseous products when anaerobically decomposed in a
landfill. Anaerobic bacteria produces significant quantities of carbon dioxide and methane gas
Landfill gas also commonly contains trace amounts of hydrogen sulphide, me captans, vinyl
chloride, and numerous other volatile organic compounds Landfill gas represents both an
environmental liability and a unique renewable energy resource. The methane component of
landfill gas contains energy that can be used to generate electricity, heat buildings, or fuel for
industrial processes. Utilization of energy from landfill gas not only aids in the control of local
environmental impacts but also avoids consumption of fossil fuels that would otherwise be
required to generate an equal amount of energy
2.0 ENERGY RECOVERY OPTIONS
The primary objective of a landfill gas -to- energy project is to convert landfill gas into a useful
energy form such as electricity, steam, supplementary or replacement boiler fuel, or pipeline
quality gas. There are several technologies that can be used to maximize the value of landfill gas
when producing these energy forms; the most prevalent of which are:
• Direct medium -Btu gas use
• Power' production /cogeneration
Sale of upgraded pipeline quality gas
The most advantageous form of energy for a particular landfill will depend upon a number of
factors including the existence of available energy markets, process technology requirements, and
project development and operation costs. This study focuses on the key elements that determine a
project's preliminary economic feasibility and, more specifically, on -site specific design issues
related to direct use of gas and /or power production since these are the most common landfill gas
recovery options.
2.1 Sale of Medium -Btu Gas
The simplest and often most cost - effective use of landfill gas is as a medium -Btu fuel for boiler or
industrial process uses (e g., drying operations, kiln operations, cement and asphalt production,
etc) For this type of project, the recovered gas is piped directly to a nearby customer where it is
used in new or existing combustion equipment as a replacement or supplementary fuel.
Orange County 1 March 2006
Draft
2.2 Power Generation
The most prevalent use for landfill gas is as a fuel for power generation with the electricity sold to
a utility and /or a nearby power customer. Power generation is advantageous because it produces a
valuable end product — electricity — from the waste gas. Facilities that use landfill gas to generate
electricity can qualify as a "small power producer" under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy
Act (PURPA), which requires electric utilities to purchase the output fi'om such facilities at the
utility's avoided cost The electricity can in some cases be used on site to displace purchased
electricity or be sold to a nearby electricity user (c g., municipality, industrial, etc.) Cogeneration
(electric power with waste gas heat recovery) is an alternative to the production of electricity only
Thermal energy cogenerated by landfill gas projects can be used on site for hearing, cooling and /or
process needs, or piped to a nearby industrial or commercial user to provide a second revenue
stream to the project.
2.3 Upgrade to High -Btu (Pipeline Grade) Natural Gas
Another option is to upgrade the landfill gas to a high -Btu product for compression and direct
introduction into a natural gas pipeline. This application requires extensive high technology
treatment of the gas to remove CO, and other impurities In addition, gas companies require that
gas injections into their pipeline systems conform to strict quality specifications, which can impose
additional quality control, cleanup, and compression requirements on the producer. However, this
can in some cases be an attractive option since it is possible to utilize all the gas that is recovered.
XM il] 11 �111�]O]fP__I
Determining the optimum size for a landfill gas recovery project requires a careful balance
between maximizing electricity In and /or direct landfill gas use while minimizing the risk
of insufficient gas supply in later years. The challenge arises because landfill gas production rates
change over time Gas generation may be increasing at an open landfill or decreasing at a closed
landfill. Other considerations such as existing and future electricity rates, equipment cost's, and
any penalties for shortfalls in electricity output must be factored into the system design.
The optimum design and operating scenario for a particular landfill gas project is likely to fall
somewhere between two general scenarios: (1) minimum gas flow design; and (2) maximum gas
flow design However, a third design scenario — a modular approach — may be used at landfills
where gas flow rates are expected to change substantially over time
For the purposes of this study, a minimum gas flow design was used in the evaluation of potential
landfill gas recovery alternatives The combined total production of gas from both the North and
South Eubanks Road landfill sites and the production from the South Eubanks site only were
respectively evaluated.
Orange County 2 March 2006
Draft
!i _100= 111' Gi DIE[ [,—Eli loon i'dli_000
Based on a review of existing potential energy users in the immediate vicinity of the Eubanks
Road solid waste management facilities, it was determined that power production and/or high -Btu
gas production were the most feasible alternatives available at this time No significant medium -
Btu customers (i.e., customers with an existing boiler or combustion system that could direct fire
landfill gas) were identified in immediate proximity to the Eubanks Road site It is assumed that if
a school or similar type energy user is constructed in the area that the option of using landfill gas
for heating and electricity (cogeneration) rather than direct firing of a medium Btu gas would
prove to be the most beneficial use.
4.1 Electric Energy (Power) Production
Several proven technologies exist for generating power — internal combustion engines and
combustion turbines (microturbines). A typical landfill gas -to- electric energy installation has the
following components:
• Landfill gas collection system
Landfill gas compressor(s)
• L,andfill gas pretreatment equipment (for moisture, siloxanes, and particulates removal)
Microturbine, boiler/steam turbine, or Internal Combustion Engine Generator
• Motor control center
Switchgear and step -up transformer
Waste gas beat recovery (cogeneration option)
4.1.1 Internal Combustion Engine
The reciprocating internal combustion (IC) engine is the most commonly used conversion
technology in landfill gas applications — almost 80 percent of all existing landfill gas
projects use them. The reason for such widespread use is their relatively low cost, high
efficiency, and good size match with the gas output of many landfills. IC engines are
relatively efficient at converting landfill gas into electricity
4,1.2 Microturbines
Microturbines are an emerging landfill gas energy recovery technology option, especially
at smaller landfills where electric generation plants are not generally feasible due to
economic factor's and lower amounts of landfill gas
Microunbine technology is based on the design of much larger combustion turbines
employed in the electric power and aviation industries Microturbines generally operate
as follows:
Orange County 3 March 2006
Draft
Fuel is supplied to the combustion section of the microt ubine under medium
pressure.
Air and fuel are burned in the combustor, releasing heat that causes the
combustion gas to expand
• The expanding gas powers the gas turbine that in turn operates the generator; the
generator then produces electricity.
• To increase overall efficiency, microturbines are typically equipped with a
recuperator that preheats the combustion air using turbine exhaust gas. A
microturbine can also be fitted with a waste heat recovery unit to heat water_
4.2 High -Btu (Pipeline Grade) Gas Production
The following treatment technologies are typically used to produce landfill gas of similar quality
to natural gas. However, it is sometimes necessary to employ a combination of these technologies
to obtain the desired quality.
The most commonly used technologies to upgrade landfill gas quality are water absorption and
PSA (pressure swing adsorption), which uses active carbon. The PSA process was assumed as the
gas treatment technology for this study.
0[—i M]i -I.1 111FIII nI 11 li I� I I's
the estimated methane generation and energy production capacity of the County's two landfills
were based upon the estimated emissions results using the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) landfill gas emissions model LandGEM. This model uses a first - order decomposition rate
equation for quantifying emissions from the decomposition of landfilled waste in MSW disposal
facilities_ The combined methane generation rate fron both disposal facilities is estimated to peals
at approximately 410 cubic feet per minute (CFM) in the years 2008 to 2010 and, subsequently,
decline to approximately 180 CFM by the year 2030.
Orange County 4 March 2006
Draft
The primary customers identified as potential energy users for a landfill gas -to- energy project at
the Eubanks Road site are the County, Duke Power, and PSNC Energy, The County would
primarily use power and /or waste gas heat from the electric generation gas combustion process for
the proposed operations building, transfer station, and other on -site power and heating uses Given
the relatively low projected on -site usage of available electrical energy, it was assumed that all
electric power generated from the project would be sold to Duke Power and that the County would
buy back electricity for its needs The cogeneration potential (exhaust gas heat recovery for
building and /or water heating, etc.) was not factored into the project economics at this time
because of the lack of a large user like a school, industrial process, or commercial building
complex in the immediate area.
If plans to construct a new public school complex and animal shelter in the area are implemented,
the economics of landfill gas recovery should be reevaluated with respect to cogeneration of
electricity and heat for these additional needs (i.e., energy demands in addition to the proposed
transfer station, operations building, and other existing on -site uses already factored into this
preliminary landfill gas recovery feasibility analysis). Cogeneration may potentially lower overall
energy cost's while using waste heat for internal building(s) uses and providing clean, complete
combustion of the waste gases.
Direct sale of pipeline grade gas to PSNC Energy was considered under the high -Btu gas
production alternative. The following power and gas production alternatives were considered.
Option I — Power Generation using Microturbine Technology — Utilization of combined
gas flow from both the North Eubanks and South Eubanks MSW Landfills
Option 2 — Power Generation using Microt'urbine Technology — Utilization of gas flow
from South Eubanks MSW Landfill
• Option 3 — Power Generation using Internal Combustion Engine Technology —
Utilization of combined gas flow from both the North Eubanks and South Eubanks
MSW Landfills
• Option 4 — Power Generation using Internal Combustion Engine Technology —
Utilization of gas flow from the South Eubanks MSW Landfill
Option 5 — Production of Pipeline Grade Gas using Pressure Swing Adsorption
Technology — Utilization of combined gas flow from both the North and South Eubanks
MSW Landfills
Based on the projection of annual costs and revenue, a net operating loss is anticipated for each
power generation option over the life of the project (2007 to 2030) Losses for Options 1 through
Orange County 5 March 2006
Draft
4 range from a low of approximately $128,000 in 2007 to $205,500 in 2020. The projection of
electric revenues is based upon Duke Power's fixed long -term (15 -year) rate schedule (Schedule
PP -N (NC), Non - Hydroelectric Qualifying Facilities - Purchased Power).
Production of Pipeline Grade Gas (Option 5) shows an initial breakeven projection; however, a
significant downside potential (operating losses of anywhere from $497,500 to $937,500 during
the 2020 to 2030 period) exists in the later years of the project resulting from the reduction in gas
flow from the disposal facilities as the waste decomposition is advanced. Based upon the
County's preliminary discussions with Mr, Jerry O'Keeffe, PSNC does not allow any connection
to their system by small suppliers,
In all cases, it was assumed that the County would own and operate the proposed landfill gas
recovery facilities. The results of the economic evaluation are summarized in the following table.
Construction Cast
LEG Collection System
5
1467.800
Micro-Turbine
$
1.336,800
Electrical Switch Gear B Transmission
5
100000
Contingency
$
580.920
Energy Production incentive
$
-
Subtotal
S
3485.520
Year 2007 2000 2009 2010 2016 2020 2025 2030
Revenue $ 194 370 $ 192.150 S 189.810 S 187.360 S 138.860 5 176.960 S 277.590 $ 299.890
Cast S 405.230 5 409.150 S 413.270 5 417,400 $ 440.720 $ 516.930 $ 549.810 S 435.630
Net Cash Flaw $ (210.860) $ (217.000) 5 (223.460) S (230040) S (301.660) $ (339.970) S (272220) $ (135.740)
S -
Increased Cost toCounty $ 171640 $ 175560 S 179680 5 183.810 S 250.330 $ 283.340 S 209.510 S 95330
Estimated Construction Cost
LEG COIIeclion System wlFlara
5
890700
Micro - Turbine
S
862580
Electrical Switch Gear 8 Transmission
S
65000
Contingency
$
363640
Energy Production Incentive
S
-
Subtotal
S
2181.840
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 2026 2030
Revenue S 89.260 $ 87.040 $ 84,700 S 82250 5 68.040 $ 67.750 $ 121.050 S 146.910
Cast S 256.440 $ 258.460 $ 260,620 S 262.820 $ 274720 $ 316.630 5 332.660 S 392.680
Not Cash Flew S (167.180) $ (171420) S (175.920) 5 (180.570) S (206.680) $ (248.880) $ (211.610) S (245.778)
Increased Cost to County $ 127,960 5 129,980 S 132,140 $ 134,340 5 146,240 S 188,158 $ 145,490 S 285,510
Orange County 6 Match 2006
Draft
Estimated Construction Cast
LFG Collection System S 1.467.800
IC Generator Set S 1820800
Electrical Switch Gear & Transmission S 100.000
Contingency 5 517.560
Energy Production Incentive S -
Subtotal S 3. 105.360
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Revenue S 194.370 S 192.150 5 189.810 S 187.360 S 137.120 S 175.360 S 276.330 S 297.070
Cast $ 388.150 S 392.160 S 396.270 S 400.480 S 423.530 S 482.990 S $14850 S 406.100
Net Cash Flow S (193.780) S (200.010) S (206.460) S (213.120) 5 (286.410) S (307.630) S (237.720) S (109.030)
Increased Cost to County S 154.560 S 158.570 S 162.680 $ 166.890 S 233.140 S MAIM S 173.750 S 65,800
Estimated Construction Cost
LFG Collection System wlFlare
S
890700
IC Generator Set
S
600,000
Electrical Switch Gear & Transmission
S
65.000
Contingency
S
311 -140
Energy Production incentive
S
-
Subtotal
$
1866.840
Year
Revenue
Cost
Net Cash Flow
Increased Cost to County
2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
S 89260 S 87.040 5 84.700 S 82.250 S 68040 S 65,050 S 117,430 S 139.090
S 236.830 S 239200 S 241120 S 244.290 S 258.250 S 295.610 $ 314,590 S 367.690
S (147.570) S (152.160) S (157020) S (162.040) S (190.210) S (230160) S (197.160) S (228.800)
S 108.350 S 110.720 S 113.240 S 115,870 S 129.770 S 167.330 S 127.420 S 180.720
Estimated Construction Cost
LFG Collection System S 1.467800
Gas Clean-up (Pressure Swing Absorplion)(1) S 1.978,400
Gas Transmission Q 500011 S 100.000
Contingency S 709200
Energy Production incentive S -
Subtotal S 4.255.400
Year
Revenue
Cost
Net Cash Flow
Increased Cost to County
2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
S 701.667 S 711813 S 701867 S 711.613 S 647.941 S 530.490 5 434.328 S 355.598
S 692.842 S 701.371 S 710286 S 719.614 5 773.680 5 971.405 S 1,066.962 S 1,252.821
5 9025 5 10.442 S (11419) S (7801) S (125738) S (440.916) S (632.634) S (897.223)
S 48,245 S 51,882 S 52.199 S 54,031 S 177,268 $ 497,546 $ 695,344 S 937,633
Orange County 7 March 2006
Draft
Landfill gas generation and recovery from the North Eubanks MSW Landfill is considered to be
more unpredictable and only marginally feasible because of the length time that waste has been in
place, the fact that the facility is unlined, and the nature of some of the waste disposed (lower gas
production and heating values resulting from ash and C &D disposal)
Based upon the results of this study, implementation of a landfill gas recovery project at the
Eubanks Road disposal facilities is not economically feasible based on the sale of electricity or
pipeline grade gas only Additional large waste heat recovery users (school, industrial process,
commercial building complex, etc.) would be required to capitalize on the cogeneration potential
(waste heat recovery) of internal combustion engine or microturbine electric power generation and
make landfill gas recovery more economically attractive.
If development of the proposed school complex or other significant energy user occurs in the
immediate vicinity of the Eubanks Road site, the feasibility of landfill gas recovery would be
significantly improved given the potential for this type of facility to make use of both the
electricity and heat created during power production. In this situation landfill gas could become a
clean efficient energy source rather than an environmental liability even when generated in
relatively small quantities as projected for the Eubanks Road disposal sites.
Given the beneficial impact of additional energy use on the feasibility of landfill gas recovery, the
County should further evaluate landfill gas utilization in the design of the school(s), animal shelter,
and /or other proposed facilities for electric and heating purposes. The following additional
information relative to each potential user will be required in order to provide a more
comprehensive evaluation of landfill gas use potential from the existing Eubanks Road site:
proposed facility implementation schedule, start -up date, heating loads, electricity demand,
seasonal load and demand variations, sustainable landfill gas production, and availability and costs
of supplemental fuels
By producing electricity and heat during power production, microtubine technology is highly
suited to landfill gas recovery applications, and is considered an emerging system technology that
is likely to improve in terms of economic feasibility as the result of ongoing product development
and commercial use experience (landfill gas -to- energy).
The microturbine offers the following advantages when compared to other types of landfill gas
utilization and power generation technologies:
Portable and Easily Sized — Microturbines are modular and available in incremental
capacities for multiple -unit stacks, so that single or multiple microturbines can be
configured to adapt to gas flow and satisfy on -site power requirements.
Orange County 8 March 2006
Draft
Flexibility — Microturbines may be a more viable option at smaller and older landfills
where landfill gas quality and quantity would not support more traditional landfill gas
electric power generation technologies. They may also be feasible at larger landfill gas
projects that have excess unutilized gas,.
Compact and Fewer Aloving Parts — Microturbines are approximately the size of a large
refrigerator and require minimal operation and maintenance. The use of air bearings
coupled with an air - cooled generator eliminates the need for lubrication and liquid
cooling systems.
Lower Pollutant Emissions — Microturbines burn cleaner than comparable r'ecipr'ocating
engines For example, NOx emissions levels from microturbines are typically less than
one -tenth those of the best performing reciprocating engines and lower than those from a
landfill gas flare
Capable of Conrbrr.sting Lower- Methane - Content Landfill Gas — Microturbines can
operate on landfill gas with .35 percent methane content and perhaps as low as 30 percent.
• Ability to Generate Heat and Hot Water — Most microturbine manufacturers offer a hot
water generator as a standard option to produce hot water (up to 200 °F) from waste heat
in the exhaust. This option can replace relatively expensive fuel, such as propane, needed
to heat water in colder climates to meet space - heating requirements. The sale or use of
tnicroturbine waste heat can significantly enhance project economics.
Orange County 9 March 2006
Draft