HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAG agenda 082514Waste Services
Comprehensive Review of Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal O ptions
Town of Chapel Hill
North Carolina
Presented to:
Town of Chapel Hill
405 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 969-5025
Presented by:
SCS ENGINEERS , PC
15521 Midlothian Turnpike
Suite 305
Midlothian, VA 23113
(804) 378-7440
October 22, 2012
File No. 02212203.00
Offices Nationwide
www.scsengineers.com
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 i 10/22/12
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ES-1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ ES-1
Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................... ES-1
Qualitative Comparison of Program Scenarios Evaluated ....................................................... ES-8
Implementation Schedule ................................................................................................................. ES-9
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Purpose............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Town Goals ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Town Governance ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Background Information .............................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Collection and Disposal Options Introduction ......................................................................... 3
1.6 Scenario Modeling Introduction ................................................................................................. 3
2.0 Summary of Current Solid Waste Management Systems .............................................................. 5
2.1 Solid Waste Disposal .................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Current Disposal System Structure ............................................................................ 5
2.1.1.1 Town of Chapel Hill ................................................................................ 5
2.1.1.2 Solid Waste Advisory Board ................................................................ 6
2.1.1.3 Other Department Assistance ............................................................... 6
2.1.2 Solid Waste Disposal Quantity ................................................................................. 6
2.1.3 Solid Waste Characterization ................................................................................... 7
2.1.4 Town Demographics ..................................................................................................... 8
2.1.4.1 Population Projection, Density, and Employment .............................. 8
2.1.4.2 Residential Customer Statistics ............................................................. 9
2.1.4.3 Commercial Customer Statistics .......................................................... 10
2.1.5 Solid Waste Disposal Costs ...................................................................................... 11
2.2 Solid Waste Collections ........................................................................................................... 12
2.2.1 Collections Policies and Practices ............................................................................ 12
2.2.1.1 Single-Family Residential Customers ................................................. 12
2.2.1.2 Multi-Family Customers ........................................................................ 13
2.2.1.3 Commercial Customers ......................................................................... 13
2.2.1.4 Yard Waste ........................................................................................... 13
2.2.1.5 Seasonal Loose Leaf Collection .......................................................... 14
2.2.1.6 Food Waste/ Grease/ Oil ................................................................. 15
2.2.1.7 Bulky Wastes/ White Goods ............................................................. 15
2.2.1.8 Construction and Demolition Debris ................................................... 15
2.2.2 Current Collections Route Description ..................................................................... 16
2.2.2.1 Residential Collections – MSW and Yard Waste .......................... 16
2.2.2.2 Commercial Collections ........................................................................ 17
2.2.3 Collections Fleet Description ..................................................................................... 18
2.2.3.1 Residential Collection ........................................................................... 18
2.2.3.2 Commercial Collection ......................................................................... 18
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 ii 10/22/12
2.2.3.3 Other Vehicles and Equipment ........................................................... 18
2.2.3.4 Vehicle Maintenance and Repair ...................................................... 19
2.2.4 Collections Personnel ................................................................................................. 19
2.2.4.1 Residential Collections Personnel ....................................................... 19
2.2.4.2 Commercial Collections Personnel ...................................................... 20
2.2.4.3 Task-Based Earnings Structure and Full-Time Benefits ................... 20
2.2.4.4 Overtime and Temporary Personnel ................................................. 20
2.2.5 Solid Waste Collections Cost ................................................................................... 20
2.3 Solid Waste Revenue ............................................................................................................... 21
2.3.1 General Program Revenue ....................................................................................... 21
2.3.2 Residential Collections and Disposal ...................................................................... 21
2.3.3 Commercial Collections and Disposal ..................................................................... 22
2.3.3.1 Bulk Containers ...................................................................................... 22
2.3.3.2 Compactors ............................................................................................ 22
2.3.3.3 Roll-Carts ................................................................................................ 22
2.3.4 Residential and Commercial Fines ........................................................................... 23
2.4 Current Recycling System ........................................................................................................ 23
2.4.1 Summary of Waste Reduction Goals ..................................................................... 23
2.4.2 System Description ..................................................................................................... 23
2.4.2.1 Residential Recycling Programs ......................................................... 24
2.4.2.2 Commercial Recycling Programs ........................................................ 25
2.4.2.3 Recyclable Material Processing and Marketing ............................. 26
2.4.2.4 Vehicles and Equipment Used for Recycling Programs ................. 26
2.4.2.5 Solid Waste Management Education and Outreach Services ..... 27
2.4.3 Quantity and Characteristics .................................................................................... 27
2.4.4 Recycling System Costs .............................................................................................. 29
2.4.5 Recycling System Revenue ........................................................................................ 29
2.4.6 Planned Recycling Program Modifications ............................................................ 30
2.4.7 Development Review/Solid Waste Permitting ..................................................... 31
2.4.8 Enforcement ................................................................................................................. 31
3.0 Recycling Program Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 32
3.1 Recycling Options ..................................................................................................................... 32
3.1.1 Option #1: Continued Participation With the Existing County-Provided
Recycling Services ..................................................................................................... 32
3.1.1.1 Advantages............................................................................................ 32
3.1.1.2 Disadvantages ...................................................................................... 33
3.1.2 Option #2: Recycling Programs Provided by Contract With a Private Hauler
...................................................................................................................................... 33
3.1.2.1 Advantages............................................................................................ 34
3.1.2.2 Disadvantages ...................................................................................... 34
3.1.3 Option #3: Town-Operated Recycling Programs ................................................ 35
3.1.3.1 Advantages............................................................................................ 35
3.1.3.2 Disadvantages ...................................................................................... 35
3.2 Financial Analysis of Town-Operated Recycling Option ................................................... 36
3.2.1 Curbside Recycling Collection for Single-Family Homes and Duplexes ........... 37
3.2.2 Other Recycling Services .......................................................................................... 38
3.3 Summary of Comparable Recycling Program Outsourcing Costs .................................... 39
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 iii 10/22/12
3.4 Summary Findings ..................................................................................................................... 39
3.5 Conditions for Continued Observation.................................................................................. 40
4.0 Solid Waste Collections Evaluation .................................................................................................. 41
4.1 Observations and Recommendations for Improved Collection Efficiency ...................... 41
4.1.1 Residential Collections ............................................................................................... 41
4.1.1.1 Containers .............................................................................................. 41
4.1.1.2 Exemptions ............................................................................................. 42
4.1.1.3 Private Driveways ................................................................................ 43
4.1.1.4 Limited Residential Routing Evaluation ............................................. 43
4.1.1.5 Customer Service System ..................................................................... 45
4.1.2 Commercial .................................................................................................................. 45
4.1.2.1 Routing Software .................................................................................. 46
4.1.2.2 Collections Route Start Time ............................................................... 46
4.1.2.3 Pickup Days ........................................................................................... 47
4.1.2.4 Customer Service System ..................................................................... 47
4.1.2.5 Reconfiguration of Commercial Collection Services ....................... 47
4.1.2.6 Grease Management ........................................................................... 48
4.1.3 Yard Waste................................................................................................................. 48
4.1.3.1 Collaborate With UNC for Yard Waste Processing ...................... 49
4.1.3.2 Containers .............................................................................................. 49
4.1.3.3 Seasonal Loose Leaf Collection .......................................................... 50
4.1.3.4 Knuckleboom .......................................................................................... 50
4.1.3.5 Re-Education, Notice, and Enforcement of Setout Requirements . 50
4.1.4 Bulky Waste Collections ............................................................................................ 51
4.1.4.1 Operations Improvements ................................................................... 51
4.2 Review of Town Solid Waste Ordinances ............................................................................ 52
4.2.1 Article I - General Solid Waste Code ................................................................... 52
4.2.2 Article II - Regulations for Collection and Disposal .............................................. 52
4.2.2.1 Section 8-21: Definitions .................................................................... 52
4.2.2.2 Section 8-24.1: Brush Disposal .......................................................... 53
4.2.2.3 Section 8-24.3: Limitations on Service ............................................. 53
4.2.2.4 Commercial Collections ........................................................................ 53
4.2.2.5 Section 8-35: Bulk Containers for Multiple Residential Units ...... 53
4.3 Implementing Waste Collection Technologies ..................................................................... 53
4.3.1 Transition to Fully-Automated Collections .............................................................. 54
4.3.2 Organics Diversion (Food Waste) ........................................................................... 56
4.3.2.1 Summary of Organics Diversion Process .......................................... 57
4.3.2.2 Estimated Material Volume ................................................................. 57
4.3.2.3 Key Elements of an Organics Diversion Program ........................... 58
4.3.2.4 Financial Analysis .................................................................................. 62
4.3.2.5 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................... 62
4.3.3 Employing Radio Frequency Identification Device Technologies ....................... 62
4.3.4 On-Board Scales ........................................................................................................ 63
4.3.5 Solar Powered Trash Compactor Receptacles for Public Areas ....................... 63
4.3.6 Monitoring and Locking Devices for Downtown Business Waste Compactors 64
4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 65
5.0 Solid Waste Collections Program Evaluation of Outsourcing ..................................................... 69
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 iv 10/22/12
5.1 Decision Factors ......................................................................................................................... 69
5.2 Outsourcing: Contract or Franchise? ...................................................................................... 72
5.2.1 Solid Waste Collections Contract ............................................................................ 72
5.2.2 Solid Waste Collections Franchise .......................................................................... 73
5.2.3 General and Town-Specific Contract Considerations ......................................... 73
5.3 Solid Waste Collections Cost Analysis .................................................................................. 74
5.4 Solid Waste Collection and Service Fee Comparisons ...................................................... 76
6.0 Disposal Option – Direct Haul to Transfer Station ........................................................................ 78
6.1 What Is a Transfer Station? .................................................................................................... 78
6.2 Identified Target Transfer Stations ....................................................................................... 79
6.3 Scenario Modeling Analysis .................................................................................................... 80
6.3.1 Collections Fleet Modifications and Capital Expenditures ................................. 82
6.3.1.1 NCDOT Overweight Regulations ....................................................... 82
6.3.1.2 Residential Collection Vehicles ........................................................... 82
6.3.1.3 Commercial Collection Vehicles .......................................................... 83
6.3.1.4 Fleet and Routing Modifications ........................................................ 83
6.3.1.5 Existing Fleet Summary and Projected Replacement Schedule .... 84
6.3.1.6 Fleet Routing and Modifications ........................................................ 84
6.3.2 Fleet Fuel and Maintenance Costs ........................................................................... 85
6.3.3 Impacts to Task-Based Collections System Structure ............................................ 86
6.3.4 Other Scenario-Consistent Assumptions .................................................................. 87
6.4 Scenario Modeling Results ...................................................................................................... 88
6.4.1 Summary Results ......................................................................................................... 88
6.4.1.1 Results - Six Routes, 3 Days Per Week ............................................ 88
6.4.1.2 Results – Current Operations with Seven Routes, 2 Days Per
Week ...................................................................................................... 90
6.4.2 Net Present Value Evaluation................................................................................... 91
6.4.3 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 92
6.4.3.1 Solicit a Request for Quotes for Transfer Station Tipping Fee .... 92
6.4.3.2 Transition to a 3-day Per Week Collection Schedule ................... 92
6.4.3.3 Capital Expenditures ........................................................................... 93
6.4.3.4 Additional Collections Staff ................................................................ 93
6.4.3.5 When to Transition? .............................................................................. 94
6.5 Other Considerations ............................................................................................................... 94
7.0 Disposal Option – Site/ Construct New Transfer Station ............................................................. 95
7.1 Evaluate Development of a New Town-Only or Regional Transfer Station .................. 95
7.1.1 Transfer Station Siting Challenges, Advantages, and Disadvantages ............. 95
7.1.1.1 Summary of Historical Transfer Station Siting Efforts .................... 95
7.1.1.2 Social Justice and Regulatory Concerns ........................................... 96
7.1.1.3 Advantages............................................................................................ 97
7.1.1.4 Disadvantages ...................................................................................... 97
7.1.2 Projected 20-Year Disposal Needs ........................................................................ 98
7.1.2.1 Population and Disposal Quantity Projections ................................ 98
7.1.2.2 Sizing an Appropriate Facility ........................................................... 99
7.1.3 Estimated Transfer Station Development Costs ................................................. 100
7.1.4 Estimated Transfer Station Operations Costs ..................................................... 102
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 v 10/22/12
7.1.5 Summary of Transfer Station Development, Construction,
and Operations Costs ............................................................................................ 105
7.1.6 Identified Target Destination Landfills ................................................................ 105
7.2 Scenario Modeling Results .................................................................................................... 106
7.2.1 Summary Results ...................................................................................................... 108
7.2.2 Net Present Value Evaluation................................................................................ 108
7.3 Conclusion and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 111
7.3.1 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 111
7.3.1.1 Pursue Siting and Permitting a Transfer Station
Within the Town ................................................................................. 111
7.3.1.2 When to Implement? ......................................................................... 112
7.4 Other Considerations ............................................................................................................. 112
8.0 Disposal Option – Pay-As-You-Throw .......................................................................................... 114
8.1 PAYT Approaches ................................................................................................................... 114
8.1.1 Bag Programs .......................................................................................................... 114
8.1.2 Sticker or Tag Programs ........................................................................................ 115
8.1.3 Variable Can or Subscribed Can Programs ...................................................... 116
8.1.4 Hybrid Programs ..................................................................................................... 117
8.2 Financial Analysis – PAYT Rates ........................................................................................... 118
8.2.1 Calculation of Baseline Collection and Disposal Cost ...................................... 118
8.2.2 Option A – Variable Can Program ..................................................................... 119
8.2.3 Option B – Modified Subscribed Can Program ............................................... 119
8.2.4 Option C – Hybrid Program: Subscribed Can and Bag ................................. 119
8.2.5 Financial Modeling Assumptions ........................................................................... 120
8.2.5.1 Waste Reduction ................................................................................ 120
8.2.5.2 Levels of Service ................................................................................ 121
8.2.5.3 Cart Costs ............................................................................................ 121
8.2.5.4 PAYT Coordinator .............................................................................. 121
8.2.5.5 Bag Set Out Levels ............................................................................ 122
8.2.5.6 Revenues .............................................................................................. 122
8.3 Implementation – Lessons Learned ...................................................................................... 122
8.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 124
9.0 Disposal Option – Site/ Construct a New Material Recovery Facility ................................... 126
9.1 Evaluate Development of a New Materials Recovery Facility ....................................... 126
9.1.1 MRF Siting Challenges, Advantages, and Disadvantages .............................. 126
9.1.1.1 Summary Economy of Scale ............................................................. 126
9.1.1.2 Competition from Current Orange County Recycling Program 128
9.1.1.3 Advantages......................................................................................... 128
9.1.1.4 Disadvantages ................................................................................... 129
9.1.2 Co-Locating MRF or Composting Facility With a New Transfer Station ....... 129
9.1.2.1 Sizing an Appropriate Facility ........................................................ 130
9.1.3 Estimated Development Costs for Co-Located MRF or Composting Facility
With a New Transfer Station ............................................................................... 131
9.1.4 Estimated Transfer Station/ MRF and Transfer Station/ Compost Facility
Operations Costs .................................................................................................... 133
9.2 Conclusion and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 136
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 vi 10/22/12
10.0 Disposal Option – Direct Haul to Out-of-County Landfill ......................................................... 137
10.1 Identified Target Landfill Facilities ...................................................................................... 137
10.2 Scenario Modeling Analysis .................................................................................................. 140
10.3 Scenario Modeling Results .................................................................................................... 141
10.3.1 Results – Current Seven Routes 2 Days Per Week ........................................... 141
10.3.2 Net Present Value Evaluation................................................................................ 143
10.4 Other Considerations ............................................................................................................. 144
10.4.1 Long-Term Tip Fee and Mileage Analysis .......................................................... 144
10.4.2 Disposal Option Sustainability Analysis .............................................................. 144
10.5 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 144
11.0 Disposal Option – Site/ Construct a New Landfill ..................................................................... 145
11.1 Evaluate Development of a New Town-Only or Regional Landfill ............................... 145
11.1.1 Landfill Siting Challenges ...................................................................................... 145
11.1.1.1 Advantages......................................................................................... 146
11.1.1.2 Disadvantages ................................................................................... 146
11.1.2 Projected 30-Year Disposal Needs ..................................................................... 146
11.1.3 Estimated Landfill Development Costs ................................................................. 149
11.1.4 Estimated Landfill Operations Costs .................................................................... 151
11.1.5 Closure and Post-Closure Care Cost Estimates .................................................. 152
11.1.6 Summary of Landfill Development, Operations, Closure, and Post-Closure
Costs ......................................................................................................................... 153
11.1.7 Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................ 153
12.0 Alternative Technologies – Town of Chapel Hill Benchmark ..................................................... 154
12.1 Reasons to Select a WTE or WC Technology .................................................................... 154
12.2 Classification of Technologies ............................................................................................... 155
12.3 Conventional WTE Technology ............................................................................................. 156
12.3.1 Basic Combustion System ....................................................................................... 156
12.3.1.1 Stages of Combustion ....................................................................... 157
12.3.1.2 Waste-to-Energy Solid Waste Combustors .................................. 157
12.3.1.3 Products of Combustion .................................................................... 158
12.3.2 Mass Burning ............................................................................................................ 158
12.3.2.1 Process Description ............................................................................ 158
12.3.2.2 Operations Experience ..................................................................... 160
12.3.3 Modular Combustion ............................................................................................... 161
12.3.4 Refuse-Derived Fuel Systems ................................................................................ 164
12.4 Alternative WC Technologies ............................................................................................... 166
12.4.1 Thermal ...................................................................................................................... 166
12.4.1.1 Pyrolysis - Gasification ..................................................................... 166
12.4.1.2 Autoclave ............................................................................................. 168
12.4.2 Biological .................................................................................................................. 169
12.4.2.1 Anaerobic Process ............................................................................. 169
12.4.2.2 Aerobic Process .................................................................................. 170
12.4.3 Bio-Chemical ............................................................................................................. 170
12.5 Status of Commercial Operating WTE and WC Facilities .............................................. 171
12.5.1 Waste-to-Energy ..................................................................................................... 171
12.5.2 Waste Conversion ................................................................................................... 172
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 vii 10/22/12
12.5.2.1 Plasma Arc Gasification ................................................................... 172
12.5.2.2 Pyrolysis Plants ................................................................................... 172
12.5.2.3 Anaerobic Digesters .......................................................................... 173
12.6 Benchmark Metrics .................................................................................................................. 174
12.6.1 Summary of Current Town Solid Waste Statistics ............................................. 174
12.6.2 Minimum Waste Throughput Processing Capacity ............................................ 175
12.6.2.1 Waste-to-Energy ............................................................................... 175
12.6.2.2 Waste Conversion ............................................................................. 175
12.6.3 Summary of Readiness for Commercial Operations ......................................... 176
12.6.4 Capital and Operating Costs ............................................................................... 176
12.6.5 Tipping Fee Survey ................................................................................................. 178
12.6.6 Comparison to WTE Fees ....................................................................................... 178
12.6.7 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................... 180
12.7 Recommendations to Position the Town for Potential WTE and WC Technologies .... 181
13.0 Alternative Technologies – Collaboration With Area Institutions ............................................ 183
13.1 Universities ............................................................................................................................... 183
13.1.1 Duke University ........................................................................................................ 183
13.1.2 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ....................................................... 184
13.1.2.1 Landfill Gas ........................................................................................ 184
13.1.2.2 Biomass Feedstock Implementation ................................................. 184
13.1.2.3 Anaerobic Digestion Potential ......................................................... 185
13.1.3 North Carolina State University............................................................................ 185
13.2 Other Available Area Resources, Projects, and Funding ................................................. 186
13.2.1 Environmental Research and Education Foundation .......................................... 186
13.2.2 Southern Research Institute .................................................................................... 187
13.2.3 North Carolina Biofuels Center ............................................................................. 187
13.2.4 USDA Rural Energy for America Program .......................................................... 188
13.3 Recommendations for Further CollAboration Efforts ........................................................ 188
14.0 Pro Forma Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 190
14.1 Purpose of Pro Forma ............................................................................................................ 190
14.2 Major Components of Pro Forma Model ............................................................................ 190
14.3 Program Cost Modules .......................................................................................................... 197
14.4 Pro Forma Results .................................................................................................................... 198
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 viii 10/22/12
List of Exhibits
No. Page
Exhibit 1-1. Pro Forma Model Program Scenarios ..................................................................................... 4
Exhibit 2-1. Solid Waste Services Division Organization ......................................................................... 5
Exhibit 2-2. Waste Disposal Volume Data and Trends ............................................................................. 7
Exhibit 2-3. 2010 Waste Composition Study Results ................................................................................ 8
Exhibit 2-4. Anticipated Chapel Hill Population ......................................................................................... 9
Exhibit 2-5. Summary of Area Landfill Tipping Fees ............................................................................... 11
Exhibit 2-6. Collection Times ......................................................................................................................... 16
Exhibit 2-7. Collection Routes ....................................................................................................................... 17
Exhibit 2-8. Average Maintenance and Repair Cost ............................................................................... 19
Exhibit 2-9. FY 2012-13 Solid Waste Services Budget ......................................................................... 21
Exhibit 2-10. Commercial Sector Bulk Container Collection and Disposal Fees ................................. 22
Exhibit 2-11. Vehicles and Equipment for County Recycling Programs ............................................... 27
Exhibit 2-12. Recycling Material Quantities by Source, FY 2010-11 ................................................ 28
Exhibit 2-13. Recycling Material Quantities by Commodity, FY 2010-11 ........................................ 28
Exhibit 2-14. County Fees for Recycling Applicable to the Town ......................................................... 29
Exhibit 2-15. Current and Expected Costs for Urban Curbside Collection Utilizing Single Stream
Recycling ................................................................................................................................................. 30
Exhibit 3-1. Summary of Capital Costs for a Town-Operated Curbside Recycling Collection
Program ................................................................................................................................................... 38
Exhibit 3-2. Summary of Operating Costs for a Town-Operated Curbside Recycling Collection
Program ................................................................................................................................................... 38
Exhibit 4-1. Number of Residential Units Serviced Per Hour by Collection Method .......................... 54
Exhibit 4-2. Advantages and Disadvantages Associated With Semi-Automated and Fully-
Automated Collection ............................................................................................................................ 55
Exhibit 4-3. Residential Route Potential for Fully-Automated Waste Collection ................................ 56
Exhibit 4-4. Organics Diversion Calculation, Town of Chapel Hill ........................................................ 58
Exhibit 4-5. Organics Diversion Collection Estimate for the Town of Chapel Hill .............................. 60
Exhibit 4-6. Type III and IV Compost Facilities Within 60 Miles of Chapel Hill, NC ........................ 61
Exhibit 4-7. Example of Solar-Powered Trash Compactor .................................................................... 64
Exhibit 4-8. Example of Waste Compactor Security and Monitoring Device ..................................... 65
Exhibit 5-1. Pro Forma Allocated Budget Costs and Revenues for FY 2012-13 (Status Quo)....... 75
Exhibit 5-2. Summary of Comparable Solid Waste Programs ............................................................. 77
Exhibit 6-1. Target MSW Transfer Station Facilities ............................................................................... 80
Exhibit 6-2. Summary of Target Solid Waste Transfer Stations ........................................................... 81
Exhibit 6-3. Route Capacity Analysis .......................................................................................................... 85
Exhibit 6-4. Projected Town Vehicle O&M Cost ....................................................................................... 86
Exhibit 6-5. Summary of Direct Hauling to Transfer Station Scenarios
(6 Routes, 3 Days Per Week) .............................................................................................................. 89
Exhibit 6-6. Summary of Direct Hauling to Transfer Station Scenarios for Current Residential Route
Configurations (7 Routes, 2 Days Per Week) .................................................................................. 90
Exhibit 6-7. Net Present Value of Direct Hauling to Transfer Station
(6 Routes, 3 Days Per Week) .............................................................................................................. 91
Exhibit 6-8. Net Present Value of Direct Hauling to Transfer Station for Current Residential Route
Configurations (7 Routes, 2 Days Per Week) .................................................................................. 92
Exhibit 7-1. Population Projections, Town of Chapel Hill ........................................................................ 98
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 ix 10/22/12
Exhibit 7-2. 20-Year Disposal Quantity Projections ................................................................................ 99
Exhibit 7-3. Estimated Cost to Develop a Town-Only Transfer Station ............................................ 101
Exhibit 7-4. Estimated Cost to Develop a Regional Transfer Station for Town of Chapel Hill and
Town of Carrboro ............................................................................................................................... 102
Exhibit 7-5. Estimated Annual O&M Cost for Town Only Transfer Station Scenario .................... 103
Exhibit 7-6. Estimated Annual O&M Cost for Regional Transfer Station Scenario for Town of
Chapel Hill and Town of Carrboro ................................................................................................. 104
Exhibit 7-7. Summary of Estimated Transfer Station Costs .................................................................. 105
Exhibit 7-8. Summary of New Transfer Station Scenarios ................................................................... 109
Exhibit 7-9. Net Present Value of Town-Only Transfer Station .......................................................... 110
Exhibit 8-1. Advantages and Disadvantages of a PAYT Bag Program ........................................... 115
Exhibit 8-2. Advantages and Disadvantages of a PAYT Tag/ Sticker Program ............................ 116
Exhibit 8-3. Advantages and Disadvantages of PAYT Can Programs ............................................. 117
Exhibit 8-4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Hybrid PAYT Programs ........................................ 118
Exhibit 8-5. Collection and Disposal Cost Per Household .................................................................... 119
Exhibit 8-6. PAYT Scenarios ...................................................................................................................... 120
Exhibit 9-1. Example Schematic of a Typical MRF Operation ........................................................... 127
Exhibit 9-2. Estimated Cost to Develop a New Transfer Station/ Materials Recovery Facility ... 132
Exhibit 9-3. Estimated Cost to Develop a New Transfer Station/ Compost Facility ....................... 133
Exhibit 9-4. Estimated Annual O&M Cost for New Transfer Station/ Materials
Recovery Facility Scenario ................................................................................................................ 134
Exhibit 9-5. Estimated Annual O&M Cost for New Transfer Station/ Compost
Facility Scenario .................................................................................................................................. 135
Exhibit 10-1. Target Landfill Facilities ..................................................................................................... 138
Exhibit 10-2. Summary of Target Solid Waste Landfill Facilities ...................................................... 139
Exhibit 10-3. Net Present Value Comparison: Transfer Station to Landfill
(7 Routes 2 Days Per Week) ............................................................................................................ 143
Exhibit 11-1. Population Projections, Town of Chapel Hill .................................................................. 147
Exhibit 11-2. 30-Year Disposal Quantity Projections ........................................................................... 148
Exhibit 11-3. Disposal Capacity and Total Property Area as a Function of
Landfill Footprint Area ...................................................................................................................... 149
Exhibit 11-4. Summary of Landfill Sizing Requirements ...................................................................... 149
Exhibit 11-5. Estimated Cost to Develop a Town-Only Landfill ......................................................... 150
Exhibit 11-6. Estimated Cost to Develop a Regional Landfill ............................................................. 150
Exhibit 11-7. Estimated Annual O&M Cost for Town Only Landfill Scenario ................................. 151
Exhibit 11-8. Estimated Annual O&M Cost for Regional Landfill Scenario .................................... 152
Exhibit 11-9. Summary of Estimated Landfill Costs .............................................................................. 153
Exhibit 12-1. Cross-Section of Typical Mass-Fired Waterwall Facility ............................................. 159
Exhibit 12-2. Cross-Section of Typical Modular Facility ...................................................................... 161
Exhibit 12-3. Cross-Section of Batch Oxidation System, Modular Facility ....................................... 162
Exhibit 12-4. Comparison of Active Modular Combustion Facilities .................................................. 163
Exhibit 12-5. Cross-Section of Typical RDF System .............................................................................. 165
Exhibit 12-6. Basic Gasification Process ................................................................................................. 167
Exhibit 12-7. Basic Plasma Gasification Process ................................................................................... 168
Exhibit 12-8. Basic Autoclave Process ..................................................................................................... 169
Exhibit 12-9. Basic Anaerobic Process .................................................................................................... 170
Exhibit 12-10. Basic Bio-Chemical Process ............................................................................................. 171
Exhibit 12-11. U.S. WTE Plants by Technology ..................................................................................... 172
Exhibit 12-12. Commercial Operating Plasma Arc Gasification Facilities ....................................... 172
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 x 10/22/12
Exhibit 12-13. Commercial Operating Pyrolysis Facilities Using MSW ............................................ 173
Exhibit 12-14. European Countries With AD Facilities ......................................................................... 174
Exhibit 12-15. Summary of Main Processes ........................................................................................... 176
Exhibit 12-16. Summary of Project Economics for Thermal and Biological Conversion
Technologies(1) ................................................................................................................................... 177
Exhibit 12-17. Summary of Economic Data(1) ....................................................................................... 178
Exhibit 12-18. Summary of Tipping Fee Range for Technologies ...................................................... 179
Exhibit 12-19. Advantages and Disadvantages to Waste Processing Technologies ..................... 181
Exhibit 13-1. Collaboration Contact Summary ...................................................................................... 189
Exhibit 14-1. Solid Waste Projections, Town of Chapel Hill Status Quo Scenario,
FY 2012 - 2022 ................................................................................................................................. 192
Exhibit 14-2. Solid Waste Projections, Town of Chapel Hill Implement PAYT Program,
FY 2012 - 2022 ................................................................................................................................. 193
Exhibit 14-3. Solid Waste Projections, Town of Chapel Hill Implement Organics Diversion and
PAYT Program, FY 2012 - 2022 ..................................................................................................... 194
Exhibit 14-4. Pro Forma Budget Summary for FY 2012-13 ............................................................... 195
Exhibit 14-5. Example Program Scenarios and Decision Inputs ......................................................... 199
Exhibit 14-6. Example Pro Forma Output FY 2013 - 2022 ............................................................... 200
Exhibit 14-7. Example Output Summary From Pro Forma Model, Net Present Value of Program
Scenario 3-day Per Week and 2-day Per Week Pickup Schedules ....................................... 201
Appendices
A Commercial Collections Evaluation
B Evaluation of Multi-Family Waste Collection and Disposal Service Levels
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 xi 10/22/12
List of Acronyms
CDD Construction and Demolition Debris
CHP Combined Heat and Power
cy or CY Cubic Yard
DCOI Duke Carbon Offset Initiative
Duke Duke University
FY Fiscal Year
LFG Landfill Gas
kWh kilowatt-hour
MMBTU Million British Thermal Units
MRF Materials Recovery Facility
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCSU North Carolina State University
OCR Orange County Recycling
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PAYT Pay-As-You-Throw
RFID Radio Frequency Identification Device
REC Renewable Energy Credits
REPS Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard
RFP Request for Proposal
SWAB Solid Waste Advisory Board
SWSD Solid Waste Services Division
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UNC University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
WTE Waste-to-Energy
WC Waste Conversion
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 ES-1 10/22/12
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Town of Chapel Hill (Town) contracted SCS Engineers (SCS) to provide professional
engineering services for this Comprehensive Review of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
Options (Study). The purpose of the Study is to examine the Town’s current solid waste
collections and disposal programs to identify opportunities to enhance these services, improve
efficiencies, and evaluate the applicability of innovative technological developments in the solid
waste industry, including: recycling, re-use, waste conversion, and waste-to-energy (WTE). The
results of this evaluation will be used by Town Council, Solid Waste Services Division (SWSD)
staff and other Town staff to guide decision making when considering current and future solid
waste management issues. This study also reviews opportunities for collaborative partnership to
assist in enhancing the solid waste management system. Lastly, when evaluating identified
options, the Study considers the Town’s organizational values, and commitment to sustainability
through social equity, economic vitality and environmental stewardship.
SCS evaluated a series of issues and alternatives relative to the Town’s solid waste collection,
disposal, and recycling functions. The major findings, conclusions, and recommendations
resulting from these evaluations are summarized in this executive summary. Background
information on the Town’s demographics, solid waste generation, current solid waste system and
budget, and operational practices is provided within the body of the report, and is not repeated in
this section.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIO NS AND RECOMMENDATIO NS
Recycling Program. SCS recommends that the Town continue to participate with
Orange County to provide recycling services to its residents and businesses in lieu of
creating its own program or independently contracting with a new third party for all
or part of the recycling services. Initiating a new Inter-Local Agreement with Orange
County that identifies metrics of success and governance for the recycling program is
recommended. SCS did not identify significant cost savings or improved operational
efficiencies resulting from the alternatives considered. Furthermore, ongoing
participation with Orange County’s program promotes continued regional cooperation
and the economies of scale that result. One of the recommendations provided for the
Town’s solid waste collection program involves conducting a routing and technology
study to optimize the collection routes. Coordinating the residential and recycling
collection days may be desirable, and could be addressed in the routing study;
however, since the County manages the curbside recycling program, the Town does
not have a direct say regarding the scheduling of the recycling pickup days.
Residential Solid Waste Collections. SCS recommends the Town consider the
following recommendations regarding its residential solid waste collection program:
- Routing and Technology Study. Conduct a formal, residential and commercial
routing and technology study to optimize the Town’s residential curbside
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 ES-2 10/22/12
collection program taking into account potential changes in equipment, personnel,
and collection methodology (e.g., automation and vehicle capacity), and
collection schedule. A routing and technology study would likely take four to six
months to complete. A budget of $50,000 to $70,000 is estimated to complete a
routing and technology study. If the routing study was contracted by January
2013, it could be completed by mid-2013. Full implementation of any
recommended changes likely could be implemented by mid-2014.
- Collection Routes. Approve a budget amendment to fund the current collection
routing configuration, which includes seven residential curbside collection routes
running two days per week, until the routing and technology study described
above can be conducted to confirm the most optimum routing and scheduling
configuration. The Town’s budget currently includes funding for only six routes,
although seven routes are currently being dispatched using temporary employees.
SCS evaluated changes that would be needed to the collection schedule to
accommodate the currently budgeted six route configuration and concluded that
an additional collection day would be needed for residential curbside collection
and the routes would need to be reconfigured. Reconfiguring the collection
network to six routes and a three-day per week collection frequency appears
feasible and could result in potential cost savings compared to fielding seven
routes. If the Town were to keep the six route configuration, it would need to
reconfigure work schedules (e.g., from the current 4-day, 10-hour per day
workweek to a 5-day, 8-hour per day workweek) and reconfigure the collection
routes. The routing and technology study recommended above is needed to
confirm the feasibility and practicality of these changes and could potentially
identify additional alternative routing configurations, staffing, equipment
deployment, and collection day schedules.
- Automation. Implement a partial transition to fully-automated residential waste
collection for a select route or routes in a pilot phase study planned for FY 2014-
15, depending on the results of the routing and technology study. This would
require the purchase of at least one (and likely two) new automated collection
truck(s). SCS recommends the Town consider a 28-cubic yard capacity fully
automated collection vehicle. This type of vehicle costs approximately $250,000,
compared to the Town’s current 18 to 20-cubic yard semi-automated rear loading
vehicles, which have a budgeted replacement value of $139,000.1 Following this
pilot study, SCS believes the Town could transition most of the existing routes to
full automation within 2 to 4 years with the replacement of collections fleet
vehicles in accordance with the current depreciation and vehicle schedule. Cost
savings are projected over the 30-year period considered in this study if the Town
were to transition to automated collection primarily due to decreased labor costs.
Depending on how the routes are configured and staffed (six routes versus seven
1 Another option, not specifically addressed in this study, is the use of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles.
CNG fuel on a diesel equivalent basis costs significantly less than diesel fuel, and CNG vehicles are quieter, and
have fewer emissions. However, CNG vehicles are more expensive (e.g., +$40,000 per vehicle), require special
maintenance facilities, have additional maintenance requirements and costs, and require a dedicated special filling
station or access to such station.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 ES-3 10/22/12
routes, or some other configuration), and when and how automation is phased in,
SCS estimated savings of between $7 to $14 million over a 30-year period. The
routing and technology study recommended above will provide additional
guidance with respect to the deployment and number of automated routes.
- Vehicle Replacement. Replace the oldest 18 or 20 cubic yard tandem-axle rear-
loading compactor truck with a new, 18 or 20 cubic yard collection vehicle in
accordance with the Town’s programmed capital expenditures for FY 2012-13.
The existing collection vehicle can then be designated as a backup vehicle to
replace one of the single-axle vehicles. The Town should also consider replacing
the existing single-axle backup vehicles with tandem-axle vehicles (the Town
currently has four of these) in order to have sufficient backup vehicles. This is
especially critical as the Town transitions to an alternative disposal facility by
July 1, 2013. Replacing the four existing backup vehicles is estimated to cost
$760,000, which is subject to various arrangements and upgrade options. This
recommendation is independent of the collection routing and technology
decisions.
- Collection Carts. Require that residential MSW be placed in a Town-issued waste
collection cart, unless special collection for bulky waste and/or excess waste is
arranged in advance, on a per incident basis, with collections staff. SCS suggests
the Town provide one cart per household at no charge and, if requested by
residents, supply additional carts for an annual fee. Implementation will likely
require 6 months to a year and public notification along with a public education
campaign will be necessary.
- Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT). Develop a collections infrastructure to collect excess
residential waste that does not fit into the Town-issued waste collection cart via a
hybrid PAYT program (i.e., sticker or bag). Implementing such a modified
PAYT program would introduce the concept to Town residents while holding
excess waste generators accountable for incremental collections costs.
Implementing a PAYT program can be instrumental in reducing the quantities of
municipal solid waste that must be disposed through increased recycling,
composting, and changes in behavior that reduce the amount of household waste
generated. Research suggests that municipal solid waste disposal tonnages can be
decreased by 16 to 17% with the implementation of PAYT programs. The major
additional costs include the hiring or assigning a PAYT coordinator (assumed
$45,000 per year, or 50% of a full-time staff person’s time), and purchase of carts
and applicable stickers (the details of the carts and use of stickers will need to be
finalized with the full development of the program. Stickers are sometimes used
in conjunction with carts and bags to facilitate identification and approval of
containers). SCS estimates that an additional 2,100 carts would need to be
purchased at an average cost of $50/cart (mix of 32-gallon and 96-gallon carts) to
accommodate lower and higher generators, for a capital cost of $106,000. A
detailed discussion of the variables considered, potential fee structures, and a
phased in approach is provided in Section 8.0.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 ES-4 10/22/12
- Curbside Collection Exemptions. Limit residential special collection (exemptions
and private driveway service) to those who have mobility challenges and charge
an additional fee for special collections requested by residents with challenging
private driveway access. The Town should review and audit all the special
exemptions (existing and future).
- Customer Service Technology. Consider investing in a customer service system,
such as Mobile 311, for residential, commercial, yard waste, and bulky collection
services. The cost for Mobile 311 is $60 per month per field user excluding the
purchase cost of a smartphone and monthly mobile phone contract. SCS
estimates a total monthly cost of approximately $2,700, assuming $100 per month
for each mobile phone contract, based on 17 users under the current residential
and commercial collection configuration. There is a one-time services setup fee
of $500 and training is available for $125/hour. There may be some additional
administrative and program costs for such a program, which is beyond the scope
of this study, but it is believed to be negligible compared to the monthly
operational costs. If the Town wishes to add additional users, the price costs
would adjust accordingly.
- Yard Waste Collection. Require yard waste be placed in Town-issued, yard waste
carts for collection and require that residents schedule and pay for collection of
large piles of yard waste (too large for the one cart) or additional carts. SCS
suggests the Town provide one cart per household at no charge and, if requested
by residents, supply additional carts for an annual fee. Implementing this change
would likely require 6 months to a year to implement, and require public
education and notification.
- Enhanced Billing and Payment Collection System. The Town needs to evaluate
options for an enhanced billing and payment collection system to accommodate
billing and recovery activities associated with the MSW and yard waste carts,
yard waste piles, private driveway service, PAYT program, etc.
Commercial Solid Waste Collections. SCS recommends the Town consider the
following recommendations regarding its commercial solid waste collection program:
- Given the declining number of commercial accounts and reduction in tonnage,
consider reducing the number of days per week used for commercial waste
collection. A formal routing analysis and maximizing container capacities may
result in further routing consolidation, supporting a collection schedule change.
By consolidating collection days, the waste containers would maximize their
volume capacity, collection vehicles may more efficiently achieve load capacity
along fewer trips to these customers, and the Town would recognize a savings in
fuel and equipment usage charges attributed to this extra collection day.
However, when consolidating collection days and maximizing container
capacities, these analyses must take into consideration the need for contingent
waste capacity needed to manage excess volume in the event Town collection
vehicles break down, or during peak disposal periods coinciding with the school
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 ES-5 10/22/12
calendar. The routing and technology study recommended above would address
optimization of the commercial collection routes.
- Consider allowing commercial waste collection crews to begin waste collection as
early as 4:30 a.m. to facilitate completing collection prior to heavy traffic times in
commercial areas.
- Consider the purchase and use of solar-powered trash compactors dispatched to
public areas for use by the general public (e.g., street cans). These units can hold
about five times the amount of a normal trash receptacle, thus reducing the
servicing frequency of the containers. However, the units are relatively expensive
($3,700). The design of the units would also need to be reviewed by the Town’s
Planning Department to assure consistency with streetscape architectural
standards.
- Consider changes in the management of the two commercial compactors owned
and operated by the Town in the commercial district. The Town should consider
changing the locks for the waste compactors and reassessing users of the waste
compactors to confirm that all users are being properly charged. The new
inventory and registration process should include education through brochures or
a flyer about the operation of the waste compactors as is the current practice.
Additionally, the Town should install signage in both English and Spanish on the
operation of the waste compactors. The Town should also consider using
technology that limits usage, records frequency of compactor usage by businesses,
and offers data retrieval for billings. These types of systems store information on
usage by businesses that can be downloaded periodically by the Town.
Outsourcing. SCS does not recommend the Town pursue outsourcing its residential
collection program at this time. Outsourcing of collection services is a feasible
alternative, and used by Communities throughout North Carolina and elsewhere;
however, SCS did not identify significant operational, cost, or service benefits that
would result to the Town through outsourcing the collection services. The collection
services the Town currently provides are similar to other communities and the cost of
service is within expected cost ranges. Self-performing these services provides the
Town maximum flexibility to respond to the needs of the community. The Town
currently provides a high level of service to its citizens through its residential
curbside, yard waste, bulky waste, and commercial collection programs, as well as the
various special provisions it makes to handle special collection situations.
Outsourcing this function would likely result in diminished levels of services due to
the nature of contracted services (i.e., contractors do what the contract says and ask
for change orders for variations).
Disposal Options. SCS’s evaluation and analysis of identified disposal options
resulted in both short term and long term recommendations for the solid waste
program as follows:
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 ES-6 10/22/12
- White Goods. SCS recommends that the Town continue collecting and delivering
white goods to the Orange County Landfill facility for recycling.
- Short-Term, Transfer and Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste. SCS recommends
that the Town direct haul residential and commercial waste to an out-of-county
solid waste disposal facility, beginning no later than July 1, 2013, selected
through the Town’s procurement process (i.e., a solicitation of quotes). During
our analysis, SCS identified two transfer stations located approximately 17 to 18
miles from the Town of Chapel Hill: the City of Durham Transfer Station2, and
the Waste Industries Transfer Station (also in Durham). This short-term solution
provides the quality of service the Town’s residents value, while the SWSD and
Town Council continue to evaluate future solid waste disposal options.
SCS concluded this approach was the preferred short-term option for the Town
for cost and operational reasons, since it is unlikely that the Town could site,
permit, and construct its own transfer station facility before July 1, 2013, and
doing so would increase its solid waste management costs compared to the
projected direct haul option costs. Based on financial modeling, the Durham
locations appear to present the lowest cost of the viable options. If current
operations are maintained, SCS estimates an additional $368,300 would be
needed to implement this option due to increased labor, equipment, fuel, and
maintenance costs. This analysis assumed a $42.50/ton tip fee. If the Town
selects the Waste Industries bid, these costs figures would reduce by
approximately $25,000 per year.
- Short-Term, Transfer and Disposal of Yard Waste. SCS recommends that the
Town continue collecting and delivering yard waste to the Orange County yard
waste facility, where the County provides mulching and composting operations.
This recommendation is made for the following reasons: 1) the operation is
proven and reliable and makes beneficial use of the yard waste collected; and, 2)
the Orange County fees are reasonable for the service provided. However, the
Town should continue to consider potential partnership with the University of
North Carolina and its yard waste and organics management programs. The
University has expressed an interest in exploring a partnership with the Town to
manage yard waste.
- Long-Term, New Transfer Station. SCS recommends the Town pursue
development of its own transfer station in conjunction with evaluating the
operational and fiscal performance of the direct haul scenario to Durham. SCS
recommends that the Town continue to evaluate developing a transfer station in
2 During our analysis, SCS engaged in preliminary discussions with the City of Durham solid waste staff. They
confirmed they would be interested in accepting the Town’s projected waste volume; however, the advertised tip fee
($42.50) is reportedly not negotiable. The City of Durham would entertain establishing a long-term agreement with
the Town to fix this rate for an extended period of time. Also just prior to completing this report, the Town received
quotes from the City of Durham and Waste Industries for disposal at their transfer stations for $42.50 /ton and
$41.00/ton, respectively. The Town may elect to begin transitioning to the new disposal location prior to July 1,
2013 in order to work out logistical issues.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 ES-7 10/22/12
the future for the following reasons: 1) a Town-operated transfer station provides
maximum flexibility on where the Town disposes its waste and at what cost; 2) a
Town-operated transfer station would promote self-reliance and independence
from the decisions of other entities; and, 3) a Town-operated transfer station
provides for additional flexibility in handling various waste streams and
recyclables in the future. Development, construction, and equipment cost
estimates for both a Town-only and Regional facility considered in this study
ranged from $2.6 to $3.2 million, with annual operating expenses ranging from
$342,000 to $472,000, respectively. Developing a new transfer station would
include the following major tasks: a) conducting a siting study; b) potential
property acquisition and zoning approvals); c) design and permitting; d) bidding;
and, e) construction.
- Long-Term, New Transfer Station/Material Recovery Facility (MRF). SCS
recommends that the Town not engage in development of a stand-alone MRF at
this time for the following reasons: 1) Siting and developing a new stand-alone
MRF is not considered to be a productive or an economically viable operation due
to prohibitive costs arising from insufficient material quantities (yielding
infeasible economies of scale); and, 2) it would have a negative impact on the
current regional cooperative recycling strategy with Orange County. However, in
the event the Town pursues development of its own transfer station, SCS
recommends the Town consider potential adaptation of the facility to include
additional equipment and capabilities to enable recovery and processing of yard
waste, recyclables and possibly organic wastes. The concept of a co-located MRF
and/or vegetative waste composting facility in conjunction with a transfer station
could be further refined in conjunction with future siting and design efforts, as
appropriate.
- Long-Term, Organics Diversion. SCS does not recommend the Town pursue a
separate organics collection program at this time; however, the Town should
continue to evaluate this conclusion in light of future technology and regulatory
changes (e.g., bans on disposal of food waste in landfills). Implementing a Town-
managed residential and/or commercial organics collection and diversion program
likely would add significant additional expenses to the Town’s solid waste
budget.
- Long-Term, Waste to Energy and Other Waste Conversion Technologies. Many
of the WTE and waste conversion technologies considered in this study appear to
be cost prohibitive with the Town’s current and projected quantities of municipal
solid waste. Mass burn or refuse derived fuel WTE facilities are proven at the
commercial scale; however, they generally require larger waste flows and other
economic conditions to be feasible. In addition, the other alternative waste
conversion technologies currently under consideration by some municipalities
throughout the United States, such as plasma arc, gasification, and anaerobic
digestion, have not been proven at a commercial scale with municipal solid waste,
and the reported capital, operational and maintenance costs for these technologies
vary widely. SCS’s opinion is that regional efforts will be necessary to secure the
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 ES-8 10/22/12
desired waste flow to provide economies of scale for these technologies.
Consequently, we recommend that the Town implement a “wait and see
approach” relative to moving forward with any WTE or waste conversion
technologies. The Town should continue to pursue potential synergies between
innovative technology vendors, local institutions of higher education, and
professional associations to attract interest in fostering further feasibility studies
and/or development of pilot studies.
- Sit/Construct a New Landfill. SCS does not recommend the Town proceed with
developing its own landfill, but continue to participate in potential future regional
cooperative efforts in this regard for the following reasons: 1) siting, designing,
permitting, and constructing a new landfill within the Town limits would be
difficult and would require significant capital investment and political
determination over a long-period, since implementing such a strategy could take
as much as a decade to complete; and, 2) insufficient economies of scale (e.g.,
dollar per ton costs would be significantly higher than other alternatives for a
Town-only landfill). However, SCS concluded that a new regional landfill could
be developed and provide disposal capacity at a tip fee similar to what the Town
currently is paying Orange County.
QUALITATIVE COMPARIS ON OF PROGRAM SCENAR IOS
EVALUATED
SCS considered both quantitative and qualitative factors in the evaluation of the collection,
transfer, processing, and disposal scenarios included in this study. The evaluation took into
account the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and goals set forth in the 2020 Vision process with
respect to social, fiscal, and environmental impacts, including the following:
Social Impact
- Quality of Service
- Convenience to Customers
- Roadway Safety
- Cleanliness/Odor
- Social Justice
- Community Pride and Responsibility
Fiscal Impact
- Cost of Service
- Cost to Town Government
- Cost to Commercial Customer
- Cost to Residential Customer
- Government Control of Costs
- Job Loss/Creation
- Municipal Bond/Capital Generation
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 ES-9 10/22/12
Environmental Impact
- Fuel Cost
- Fuel Consumption
- GHG Emissions
- Waste Reduction Goals
- Groundwater
- Air
- Stormwater
- Permitting
The report addresses these factors in more detail, and discusses the advantages and disadvantages
of the alternatives and the interplay of social, fiscal, and environmental factors in the
recommendation and decision making process.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHED ULE
The implementation schedule for individual initiatives is presented in the individual sections of
this report and is intended to provide a preliminary timeline for the implementation of the
recommendations contained in this report. This study includes an assessment of a variety of
issues relating to the Town’s current and future solid waste management system, including
recycling, residential and commercial collection, yard waste management, and short and long-
term solid waste processing and disposal options. The preliminary timeframes are dependent on
a number of factors involving decisions by the Town Council regarding strategic matters (e.g.,
decision on a new transfer station, decision to proceed with automation or other program changes
such as collection day schedules), public involvement and notification, procurement, inter-
department coordination, and approvals by the Town Council and State and local agencies. As
such, the timeframes for the individual tasks may vary.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 1 10/22/12
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE
The Town of Chapel Hill (the Town) contracted SCS Engineers, PC (SCS) to provide
professional engineering services for this Comprehensive Review of Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Options (the Study). The purpose of the Study is to examine the Town’s current solid
waste collections and disposal programs to identify opportunities to enhance these services,
improve efficiencies, and evaluate the applicability of innovative technological developments in
the solid waste industry, including: recycling, re-use, waste conversion, and waste-to-energy
(WTE). The results of this evaluation will be used by Town Council, Solid Waste Services
Division (SWSD) staff and other Town staff to guide decision making when considering current
and future solid waste management issues.
1.2 TOWN GOALS
The primary goal of the Study is to complete a comprehensive review of all areas of the Town’s
SWSD program to include:
Solid Waste Disposal
- Both Residential and Commercial Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
- White Goods and Bulky Wastes
- Yard Waste and Brush
- Food Waste, Oils, and Grease
Solid Waste Collections and Transportation
Recycling and Re-Use
Opportunities for Waste Conversion and/or Waste-to-Energy Technologies
Furthermore, with this study the Town hopes to identify and evaluate opportunities for public-
private partnership, where appropriate, to assist in enhancing the solid waste management
system. Lastly, when evaluating identified options, the Study considers the Town’s
organizational values, and commitment to sustainability, social equity, economic vitality and
environmental stewardship.
1.3 TOWN GOVERNANCE
The Town is governed by a Town Council and Mayor who decide policies, directives, and a
budget in the best interest of the Town and its citizens. This elected body consists of eight (8)
council members and the Mayor. Council members serve a 4-year term and are elected on a
rotating 2 year schedule, designed to facilitate transition and maintain continuity. Similarly the
Mayor serves a 2-year term. Elected council members serve the Town in a non-partisan, at-large
capacity and do not represent any identified districts.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 2 10/22/12
Town Council appoints the Town Manager to carry out the directives decided by council. The
Public Works Director oversees the SWSD, among numerous other divisions, and reports to the
Town Manager. The results of this study will be presented to the Town Manager by the Public
Works Director, with recommendations carried to Town Council by the Manager for
consideration and deliberation. Decisions concerning programmatic and budgetary changes to
the current solid waste services program will be made by a majority of Town Council.
Compared to other localities, matters of Town governance and the budgetary process are open
door practices with an engaged citizenry. Core government functions include regularly
scheduled bi-weekly Town Council meetings, board and commission meetings, public forums,
and Board work sessions open to the public. Much information is available publically posted to
the Town website and include: previous and future proposed budgets, annual financial reports,
meeting minutes and video, presentations, and comprehensive plans.
The Town’s annual budget is routinely presented and adopted in June by the Town Council.
Thereafter, Council enters a recess until September. The timing and presentation of much of this
study information is understandably critical to the Town’s budgetary and governance cycle.
1.4 BACKGROUND INFORMATI ON
Currently, the Town provides solid waste collection services for residential and commercial
customers. The solid waste collected by the Town is disposed at the Orange County Landfill
(Landfill) located on Eubanks Road in Chapel Hill. The Landfill commenced operations in 1972
by the Town and since 1999 has been owned and operated by Orange County as the regional
solid waste management and disposal facility for the County and surrounding municipalities of
Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough.
The Landfill consists of an active MSW landfill unit (Solid Waste Permit No. 68-01) and an
active construction and demolition debris (CDD) landfill unit (Solid Waste Permit No. 68-04).
While the MSW landfill unit is nearing its permitted capacity, and in keeping with organizational
values and socio-political considerations, the County decided to cease acceptance and disposal of
MSW and formally close the MSW landfill unit beginning July 1, 2013. Other operations now
conducted at the Landfill facility are projected to continue including construction and demolition
waste burial, yard waste and clean wood waste mulching, collection and transfer of tires, white
goods, scrap metal, and conventional recyclables processing and transfer.
The pending closure of the MSW landfill unit at the Landfill will necessitates that the Town
implement alternate arrangements for disposal of this segment of the solid waste stream.
By commissioning this Study the Town recognizes the closure of the MSW landfill unit will
mandate a change in solid waste management practices and is seizing an opportunity to review
and re-define their future solid waste management program to include systematic operational
efficiencies and innovative technological advancements in the solid waste industry for the
short-term and long-term benefit of its citizens.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 3 10/22/12
1.5 COLLECTION AND DISPO SAL OPTIONS INTRODUC TION
Solid waste collection and disposal practices and options evaluated by this Study include:
Summary of current collection and disposal practices and costs;
Implementing a Town-operated recycling program;
Identifying opportunities for improvement in collection system efficiencies;
- Collections routing and scheduling
- Semi-automated and Automated collection
- Equipment and technologies
Collection system outsourcing;
Direct transportation and disposal to an out-of-county transfer station;
Siting and constructing a transfer station;
Implementing Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) policies;
Siting and constructing a material recovery facility (MRF);
Direct transportation and disposal to an out-of-county landfill;
Siting and constructing a new municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill;
Considering the feasibility of relevant waste-to-energy (WTE) and waste conversion
technologies; and,
Collaborating with area universities to advance alternative disposal technologies.
1.6 SCENARIO MODELING IN TRODUCTION
For economic analysis, SCS developed a Pro Forma Model specifically for this Study to provide
preliminary, planning-level cost estimates and revenue projections to compare the alternative
collection, disposal, recycling, and other solid waste program scenarios considered for the Town
during the course of this Study. A 30-year planning period was selected to estimate the net
present values of the alternative scenarios considered. Section 14 provides a detailed description
of the pro forma model methodology, structures, assumptions, and results.
The Pro Forma Model is a spreadsheet program that projects annual costs to construct, operate,
administer, and maintain the Town’s existing and hypothetical future solid waste collection,
processing, recycling, and disposal infrastructure. The model uses decision tree-type logic to
modify waste projections, collection and disposal costs and revenue estimates, select disposal
location (e.g., direct haul to an existing transfer station, construct a new transfer station, or direct
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 4 10/22/12
haul to a new or existing landfill), and schedule when certain program modifications are
implemented. The model addresses major capital and an operational cost to operate the Town’s
solid waste system under various assumptions and configurations as described in more detail
below.
The model is fairly complex. For each scenario, consistent assumptions are made regarding
annual solid waste quantities, population projections, escalation rates for waste growth and costs,
administration costs, transportation costs, and landfill, waste-to-energy, and conversion
technology processing and disposal costs. The output from the model is an estimate of the net
present value (NPV) of each alternative strategy or scenario. NPV costs are calculated for each
alternative scenario for the 30-year planning period to allow for comparison of the scenarios
from a cost perspective. NPV is the current value of one or more future cash payments and
offsetting revenues discounted at an assumed interest rate. A NPV analysis is a useful tool in
evaluating alternatives involving complex cash flows. For this analysis, a lower NPV represents
a more favorable scenario from an overall cost perspective only.
The program scenarios evaluated using the pro forma model are presented below in Exhibit 1-1.
Exhibit 1 -1. Pro Form a Model Program Scenarios
Designator Description
A Status Quo, No New Programs, No Automation of Residential
Collections, Town Keeps Commercial Collections
B No New Programs, Town Eliminates Commercial-Business Collections,
Town Keeps Multi-Family Collections
C No New Programs, Town Eliminates All Commercial Collections
D Automate Residential Collections, Town Keeps Commercial
Collections
E Automate Residential Collections, Implement PAYT Program, Town
Keeps Commercial Collections
F Automate Residential Collections, No PAYT, Town Implement
Organics Diversion Program, Town Keeps Commercial Collections
G Automate Residential Collections, Implement PAYT, Town Implement
Organics Diversion Program, Town Keeps Commercial Collections
H Develop New Regional Landfill, Automate Residential Collections,
Town Keeps Commercial Collections, No PAYT, No Organics
Diversion
I New Regional Landfill, Automate Residential Collections, Town
Keeps Commercial Collections, PAYT, Organics Diversion
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 5 10/22/12
2.0 SUMMARY O F CURRENT SOLID WAST E
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
2.1 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
2.1.1 Current Disposal System Structure
2.1.1.1 Town of Chapel Hill
Solid waste collection and disposal for the Town is managed by Solid Waste Services, a division
of the Public Works Department. The organizational structure of the SWSD is depicted in
Exhibit 2-1 and includes 35 positions. The SWSD is managed by a Superintendent and is
divided into Commercial operations and Residential operations, each with a designated
Supervisor. The SWSD includes seventeen (17) equipment operators and fourteen (14) waste
collectors. The roles and responsibilities of these subordinate positions are further described in
Section 2.2.4.
Exhibit 2 -1. Solid Waste Services Division Organization
Public Works Director
Lance Norris
Solid Waste Superintendent
Wendy Simmons
Solid Waste Supervisor
– Commercial
Jeff Allen
Town of Chapel Hill
Solid Waste Services
Solid Waste Supervisor
– Residential
Andre Jones
Solid Waste Inspector
Vacant *
Solid Waste Equipment
Operator III
4 Positions
Solid Waste Equipment
Operator II
10 Positions **
Solid Waste Equipment
Operator I
3 Positions
Solid Waste Collector
14 Positions *** * Position authorized but not funded
** One position authorized but not funded
*** Four positions authorized but not funded
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 6 10/22/12
The Public Works Director presides over the following Town divisions: Engineering and Design
Services, Facilities Management, Inspections, Streets and Construction Services, Traffic
Engineering, Stormwater, Administrative and Support Services, Fleet Services, and Solid Waste
Services. SWSD is managed by a Superintendent with three (3) direct reports: a Residential
Collections Supervisor, a Commercial Collections Supervisor, and a Solid Waste Inspector. The
Solid Waste Services Superintendent and Public Works Director have authority to manage the
solid waste program within the constraints of the municipal ordinances promulgated by the Town
and the program’s current objectives, policies, design and established annual budget. Decisions
impacting the program objectives, policies, system design, services, and budget are determined
by Town Council, memorialized in municipal ordinances as appropriate, and implemented by the
Director and Superintendent as directed by the Town Manager.
2.1.1.2 Solid Waste Advisory Board
In 1999 when Orange County assumed ownership and operation of the Orange County Landfill,
the three (3) area municipalities (Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough) and Orange County
entered into an Interlocal Agreement regionally committing to dispose of collected solid waste at
the Orange County Landfill. With the closure of the MSW landfill unit, the municipalities may
or may not decide to amend the existing Interlocal Agreement or enter into a new Interlocal
Agreement to guide ongoing regional collaboration.
In 2000, through the Interlocal Agreement, the members created the Solid Waste Advisory Board
(SWAB). SWAB was formed to advise the County and participating municipalities on solid
waste issues, budgeting, policy, and other related matters. SWAB was designed to be comprised
of eight (8) members, two (2) members from each participating entity, and two (2) liaisons, one
(1) each for the Board of County Commissioners, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill (UNC). The two (2) members representing the Town are appointed by the Town Council
and serve a 3-year term. The potential for SWAB activities continuing forward after closure of
the MSW landfill unit at the Orange County Landfill and potential expiration of the Interlocal
Agreement is yet to be determined; however, the Town agrees SWAB may promote beneficial
discussions regarding ongoing collaboration regarding regional solid waste issues.
2.1.1.3 Other Department Assistance
In addition to Solid Waste Services, several other Town divisions routinely assist in solid waste
management issues. These include: Engineering and Design Services/Special Projects; the
Sustainability Office; and Economic Development Office. These other divisions provided key
input when evaluating capital improvements to the Town’s solid waste collections and
management (i.e., recycling programs, composting and mulching, siting a transfer station,
implementing a MRF, evaluating WTE and waste conversion technologies).
2.1.2 Solid Waste D isposal Quantity
According to the most recent “Solid Waste and Materials Management Annual Report” for the
period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, submitted to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Waste Management, the Town
collected and disposed of 14,700 tons of MSW at the Orange County Landfill. According to
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 7 10/22/12
Orange County records, the Town’s disposal quantities have historically represented
approximately 25 to 30% of total MSW accepted at the Landfill. Of the total MSW disposed by
the Town in 2010-2011, approximately 6,715 tons (45%) were attributed to residential
collections, with the balance attributed to bulky waste and commercial collections. In addition,
the Town reported 2,470 tons of yard waste were transported and delivered to the Orange County
Landfill for management via grinding and mulching. Total MSW and yard waste collected by
the Town and delivered to the Landfill in 2010-2011 equals 17,170 tons.
SCS reviewed waste disposal records dating to 1995/96 and noted the following trends:
Historical total waste disposal quantities remained relatively consistent through 2007,
averaging approximately 20,000 tons annually.
Since 2007, total waste disposal quantities have decreased, declining more than 25%
over the last 5 years. This decrease is primarily associated with a reduction in
commercial waste.
The commercial waste contribution to total waste disposal has decreased from 68% in
1995 to 55% in 2011. During this same period, the residential waste contribution to
total waste disposal has remained relatively consistent, averaging approximately
7,000 tons, and its contribution to total waste disposal has increased from 31 to 45%
in 2011. Exhibit 2-2 depicts these data and trends in historical waste disposal
quantities.
Exhibit 2 -2. Waste Disposal Volume Data and Trends
2.1.3 Solid Waste Characterization
SCS has historically performed waste composition studies for Orange County, including Chapel
Hill and the surrounding municipalities, since 1990. A waste composition study has been
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 8 10/22/12
completed every 5 years, with the most recent study completed in April 2010. Exhibit 2-3
presents the Town’s typical waste composition based on the 2010 study.
Exhibit 2 -3. 2010 Waste Composition Study Results
Compared to Orange County and the surrounding municipalities, the composition of the Town’s
waste is generally higher in organics (40% vs. 30-35%) and wood waste (4% vs. < 4%).
However, the Town’s waste composition generally has less metal and inert debris (4% vs. 5-6%).
SCS noted the following general trends in the Orange County waste composition data since
1995, which may represent the Town’s waste composition for the purposes of this Study. Paper,
metal, and glass composition in the waste stream has demonstrated a consistent decline to
approximately half of their initial contributions over the last 10 years. Organics (10-15%),
plastic (4-6%), wood (1-2%), and yard waste (2-3%) contributions have each increased.
2.1.4 Town Demographics
2.1.4.1 Population Projection, Density, and Employment
According to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau statistics, Chapel Hill records a population of 57,233
people. This includes the student population of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 9 10/22/12
recorded to be 29,137, or approximately 51% of the Town population. The Town’s population
has increased 17.5% since 2000. Exhibit 2-4 presents the future population projections. The
town limits comprise 21.12 square miles which equates to a population density of approximately
2,710 persons per square mile. According to data published by the Metropolitan Planning
Organization, the Town is anticipated to grow to more than 65,700 people by 2015 and near
80,500 by 2035.By comparison, the unincorporated portion of Orange County records a
population of 133,801 people. Its population has increased 13.2% since 2000. Orange County is
reported to comprise 397.96 square miles, which equates to a population density of
approximately 336 persons per square mile.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Durham-Chapel Hill,
NC area has reported an unemployment rate of between 7.3 and 8.3% between August 2001 and
January 2012. The unemployment rate decreased to 7.3 in November and December, most likely
attributed to temporary holiday positions, and has returned to 8.0% as recorded in January 2012.
Unemployment in the Town has been notably lower than the state average (10.2 to 10.7%) over
the same period and has remained below the national average, 8.3%, during this time. The 2010
census data indicates a median household income of $52,785, which is greater than the state-
wide average of $45,570 per household.
Indicative of a university town, Chapel Hill claims over 75% of the population to have earned a
bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to the Orange County average of 54.4% and the state
average of 26.1%.
2.1.4.2 Residential Customer Statistics
According to the most recent “Solid Waste and Materials Management Annual Report”
submitted to NCDENR in August 2011, the Town provides MSW collection and disposal to
11,500 residential households. This exhibit is consistent with statistics provided on the Town’s
website.
Exhibit 2 -4. Anticipated Chapel Hill Population
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 10 10/22/12
According to the Census Bureau statistics, Chapel Hill is comprised of 22,254 housing units,
both single and multi-family. As reported, 45% of the housing units are designated as multi-
family housing (i.e., apartments, condominiums, townhomes). This distribution equates to
approximately 10,015 multi-family dwellings and 12,240 single-family residential properties.
The relatively small disparity (3.3%) between the Town statistics and census data may be
attributed to: properties in transition between occupancy, property with other contracted
collection, or census recording error (i.e., town boundaries, double-counting).
Comparatively, census data for surrounding Orange County reports 55,597 housing units with
approximately 30% designated as multi-family. This equates to 16,680 multi-family properties
and 33,360 single-family residences.
The census data also indicates that approximately 65% of the population has consistently resided
at the same location for more than 1 year compared to 76% of the Orange County population.
This trend is indicative of a more transient population associated with localities which support
institutions of higher education. Based on the population data, the census reports household
occupancy for Chapel Hill at 2.34 persons per household.
2.1.4.3 Commercial Customer Statistics
According to Town billing records, the commercial sector provides service to 241 paying
customers, which comprise collection from 369 containers per week and approximately 562
stops. These customers are identified as having contracted with the Town for weekly collections
from commercial waste receptacles (e.g., 2 to 8 cubic yard roll-off) provided to the place of
business, or group of businesses, and serviced by Town front loader(s). The frequency of
collections for commercial establishments varies for each customer.
The census records more than 5,700 “firms” in Chapel Hill, which is substantially greater than
the number of commercial establishments serviced by the Town for solid waste collections;
however, this statistic is misleading assuming a large portion of these “firms” would not require
commercial waste disposal service. Furthermore, SCS understands that other Town businesses
contract with private sector waste collection and disposal service(s). SCS understands new
commercial customers are rarely added and suspects an opportunity exists to capture additional
commercial sector market share.
In addition to these scheduled commercial collections, the Town maintains two (2) waste
compactor units located in the central business district. Individual commercial customers are
billed an annual fee depending on their respective level of use: high, medium, or low. Currently
53 commercial customers use the waste compactor units. These customers consist primarily of
food service entities and small retail shops. According to historical Town records, the two (2)
compactors collect approximately 560 tons of waste per year combined.
Lastly, the Town provides service to approximately 16 commercial establishments who utilize
the 65-gallon roll-carts for disposal where their weekly volume does not justify a bulk container
or where bulk container service cannot logistically be provided. The Town collects weekly for
each customer up to seven (7) roll-carts for a flat fee of $250 per year and a unit cost of $36 per
year for each additional cart.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 11 10/22/12
2.1.5 Solid Waste Disposal Costs
As described by the Interlocal Agreement, all residential and commercial solid waste collected
by the Town is disposed at the Orange County Landfill. The Town is assessed a tipping fee at
the Landfill of $57 per ton for MSW, and $18 per ton for yard waste. According to the 2011
Annual Report, the Town paid $355,145 for residential MSW disposal, $431,831 for commercial
MSW disposal, and $45,655 for residential yard waste disposal.
Based on an SCS survey of published tipping fees of municipal and private landfills within a
200-mile radius of the Town, the average tip fee for MSW disposal is approximately $40 per ton
(see Exhibit 2-5).
Exhibit 2 -5. Summary of Area Landfill Tipping Fees
Facility Name
Tipping Fees
(per Ton of MSW)
Distance to
Chapel Hill, NC
(miles)
Orange County LF 57.00 5
Austin Quarter SW Management Facility/
Alamance County 38.00 18
South Wake Landfill 30.00 40
Upper Piedmont Environmental Landfill 32.67 46
Johnston County Landfill 33.00 60
Pittsylvania County Landfill, VA 60.00 72
Rockingham County Landfill 36.00 75
Southside Regional Landfill, VA 35.50 78
Uwharrie - Montgomery 31.00 85
Hanes Mill Road LF 34.00 85
Wayne County Landfill 30.00 93
Albemarle Landfill 28.00 96
WI-Sampson Co. LF 29.79 100
Lenoir County Landfill 60.00 101
Edgecombe County Landfill 46.50 103
Franklin County Landfill, VA 32.00 105
Brunswick Waste Management Facility, VA 36.00 107
Lunenburg County Landfill, VA 29.00 109
BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway LF 44.00 130
Maplewood LF, VA 45.00 133
East Carolina Regional LF 60.46 140
Shoosmith Sanitary LF, VA 40.00 155
Atlantic Waste Disposal LF, VA 47.00 160
Average Tipping Fee 39.78
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 12 10/22/12
2.2 SOLID WASTE COLLECTI ONS
The Town provides residential solid waste collection for both single-family and multi-family
properties within the jurisdictional limits of Chapel Hill. Commercial solid waste collection is
provided to businesses, schools, multi-family properties, and other small enterprises that contract
with the Town for either bulk container service, compactor service, or roll-cart service as
described in Section 2.1.4.3.
2.2.1 Collections Policies and Practices
2.2.1.1 Single-Family Residential Customers
The Town provides each single-family property, and some smaller multi-family properties, one
65 gallon roll-cart at no charge for purposes of MSW collection by the Town. Each cart is
assigned a serial number, which is recorded along with the corresponding residential address;
however, these records have not been well maintained. Residential MSW collection throughout
the Town is accomplished on a weekly basis and occurs on Mondays and Tuesdays according to
an established routing schedule described in Section 2.2.2. Collections typically begin at
approximately 6:00 a.m. in the summer and 6:30 a.m. in the winter and conclude by
approximately 1:00-1:30 p.m. Town residents are expected to place their waste carts at the curb
on the day of collection. Residents who do not remove empty waste carts from the curb by 7:00
p.m. on the collection day are subject to a $25 per day fine.
Missing or damaged waste carts are replaced and/or repaired by the Town at no charge to the
residents. The Town maintains a minimum of 25 operating, spare carts at all times. Residents
may place an unlimited number of additional waste containers and/or bags for collection along
with the Town-issued waste cart. According to Town policy, these additional vessels may not
exceed 32-gallon capacity, must weigh less than 60 pounds, and maintain a secure lid; however,
these practices and policies are neither followed nor enforced.
Residents who are unable to roll their carts to the curb for collection may apply for an
exemption. Such exemptions are typically granted for:
Residents with physical limitation or disability;
Elderly residents 70 years or greater; and,
Residential properties which exhibit physical limitations to collection (e.g., steep or long
driveway, difficult access).
Solid waste is collected from exempt residential properties by Town solid waste workers
retrieving cans and carts from the resident’s property and depositing the solid waste into small,
“Scooter” trucks (i.e., pick-up truck with lined, dump bed). Town personnel indicated that in
2010, approximately 900 residents maintained an exemption for placing their carts at the curb.
This represents more than 8% of the properties receiving Town collection service. SCS
understands the list of exemptions has not been reviewed for some time and the Town suspects
that many of these are no longer valid exemptions.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 13 10/22/12
2.2.1.2 Multi-Family Customers
Multi-family properties throughout the Town rent, lease, or purchase bulk container(s) provided
by a private sector vendor. The Town provides the associated collection and disposal services.
Bulk containers should be appropriately sized for each property based on anticipated disposal
volume and available collection vehicle access. These containers range between 2 and 8 cubic
yards, but are most often 6 or 8 cubic yard containers. Town policies for multi-family customers
are designed to assume one (1) bulk container per every 25 housing units. Collection from these
containers is provided by the Town at a minimum of once per week at no cost. Additional
weekly collection events for any container are scheduled and provided in accordance with the
Town’s bulk container collection fee schedule, based on the container size and frequency of
collection. Collections from these multi-family properties are performed by the Town’s
Commercial operations utilizing front loader trucks.
Due to access constraints, typical disposal volume, or number of housing units, some multi-
family properties use waste carts that are collected once per week using residential collections
staff.
2.2.1.3 Commercial Customers
As described in Section 2.1.4.3, the Town provides commercial waste collection and disposal to
businesses that contract for these services. In addition to businesses, the Town municipal
buildings and public education buildings (K through 12, excluding UNC) are included in this
customer category. As with the multi-family customers, bulk containers are rented, leased, or
purchased by the business from a private sector vendor. The customer may select a collection
schedule ranging from one to five times per week depending on their volume and container size,
which ranges between 2 to 8 cubic yards. According to the Town, the typical customer
maintains an 8-cubic yard bulk container. The fee schedule for each container size and
collection frequency is posted on the Town website and depicted in Section 2.3.3.1, Exhibit 2-10.
In the more concentrated downtown business district, the Town provides two (2) waste
compactor units for use by businesses that pay for this service. The SWSD charges variable fees
to each business as determined by the apportioned annual waste contribution: heavy; medium; or
light. These compactors are designated as “Post Office” and “South Columbia,” which
corresponds to their location.
2.2.1.4 Yard Waste
Yard waste collection is provided to residential customers throughout the Town and is
accomplished on a weekly basis and occurs on Thursdays and Fridays using the same labor and
equipment as employed for MSW collections. Dedicated yard waste roll-carts are available for
purchase from the Town for $47 each; however, residents may also prepare yard waste for
collection per the following methods:
Rigid container – less than 40 gallons and less than 60 pounds;
Paper yard waste bags;
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 14 10/22/12
Bundled limbs and twigs, etc. – less than 50 pounds, less than 4 feet in length, and
less than 24 inches in diameter;
Loose piles at the curb – brush and twigs less than 3 cubic yards; and,
Larger portable containers for rent from Public Works Department.
Small, loose yard waste (i.e., grass clippings, leaves, straw) cannot be managed in loose piles and
must be bagged or containerized. No plastic bags are accepted. Large limbs and logs (exceeding
24 inches in diameter or 4-foot lengths), stumps, or land clearing debris are not collected.
Specifically, the Town ordinance specifies:
“No materials such as trees, logs, stumps, shrubbery or underbrush resulting from
land being cleared shall be collected by the town and shall be the responsibility of the
contractor or builder. In the event that the contractor or builder fails to remove such
material, it shall be the responsibility of the owner of the property”.
While this ordinance is clearly communicated as it pertains to site development activities (i.e.,
land clearing), it is often open to interpretation as it pertains to smaller scale residential activities
(e.g., tree trimming and removal), and Town staff is periodically faced with managing large piles
of wood waste and debris.
The majority of yard waste collected by the Town is placed by hand into Town compactor
trucks; however, large loose piles and larger bundles are picked up using a knuckleboom truck.
Christmas trees are characterized as yard waste and similarly collected. Town collections
practices are equipped to manage yard waste generated by the typical resident or contracted,
residential landscaping or lawn care (i.e., grass clippings and brush trimmings). Typical yard
waste quantities collected range between 1 and 6 tons per compactor truck, depending on the
season. Yard waste prepared for weekly collection can be as small as a pail of pinecones or as
large as a full knuckleboom load.
2.2.1.5 Seasonal Loose Leaf Collection
The Town provides seasonal loose leaf collection from mid-October through mid-February each
year. Under this program, residents may place loose leaves and pine straw, free of limbs and
debris, at the back of the curb for collection. While this program is implemented and managed
by a separate Town Department, the Streets Division, and not SWSD, it deserves consideration
in this comprehensive evaluation and may provide composting/mulching value should the Town
consider implementing its own yard waste program. The Town’s Streets Division crews start at
one end of Town and make a complete circuit at least three times during the period from October
through February to give all residents the same number of pickups. The length of the collection
cycles depends upon the number of leaf piles and the timing of their placement. In FY2011-12,
the Town completed six collection cycles by the end of February, collecting a total of 1,249
loads of loose leaves. According to the Town operating record, the program costs range between
$15,000 to $50,000 per month when collecting loose leaves depending on the volume of leaves
to be collected.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 15 10/22/12
2.2.1.6 Food Waste/ Grease/ Oil
Food waste, grease, and oil is not currently segregated and collected from residential customers.
Since 2005, the Town has provided a grease corral in the downtown business district at the North
Alley near the Wallace Parking Deck. Third-party grease collector vendors (e.g., Valley
Proteins, Greenlight Biofuels, Eco-Collections Systems) stage their collection vessel(s) in the
corral for use by businesses (or groups of businesses) with whom they contract for oil and grease
disposal. These grease collector vendors and participating businesses are required to empty the
containers a minimum of once per month, and to clean and maintain the corral routinely at their
own expense. As these grease management arrangements have become an attractive business
venture for most participating restaurants, it represents an ongoing maintenance issue for the
Town with no direct financial return. The Town maintains the physical structure of the corral,
performs repairs, and washes the surrounding area.
SCS understands the grease corral provides an ongoing challenge to the Town regarding:
Abuse and damage to the physical structure;
Ensuring the corral is properly operated and maintained;
Responding to spills and maintaining spill supplies;
Inspecting the facility;
Protecting stormwater; and,
Educating participating businesses and their employees in proper maintenance and
spill response.
2.2.1.7 Bulky Wastes/ White Goods
Bulky items, white goods, and electronic equipment are collected at the request of a resident and
scheduled with SWSD. Up to three (3) items are collected for a minimum fee of $15. Each
additional item is charged an additional $5. These items are typically collected by hand and
placed in a flatbed truck, or occasionally picked up with the Town knuckleboom truck or rear
loader.
2.2.1.8 Construction and Demolition Debris
Construction and demolition debris (CDD) is prohibited from being included in the residential
waste or commercial waste collected by the Town. Collection and disposal of CDD is the
responsibility of the contractor performing work at either a residence or business and is typically
provided by a private sector collection and disposal vendor. CDD collected within the Town
jurisdictional limits is supposed to be disposed at the Orange County CDD landfill unit or other
approved facility, which is anticipated to continue to be the practice after the closing of the
Orange County MSW landfill unit.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 16 10/22/12
2.2.2 Current Collections Route Description
2.2.2.1 Residential Collections – MSW and Yard Waste
SCS reviewed a map provided by the Town, entitled “Sanitation Collection Routes” and dated
March 2012. Residential MSW and yard waste collections are both performed along seven (7)
designated routes each day to service the Town population. As described above, MSW
collection is completed weekly on Mondays and Tuesdays, and yard waste collection is
completed along the same routes on Thursdays and Fridays. Each of the seven (7) routes is
serviced by a single collection vehicle and crew.
According to Town collections staff, the current routing configuration and the equipment and
resources assigned to each, typically allow most of the seven (7) crews to collect from the entire
assigned route and transport to the Orange County Landfill without making multiple trips. The
Town tracks the associated labor effort for each residential route throughout the year. The
current routes average between 5 and 6 man-hours to complete (see Exhibit 2-6 below).
Exhibit 2 -6. Collection Times
With the exception of a few small pockets split between routes, the seven (7) collection routes
appear to be relatively evenly distributed geographically across the Town service area and
divided by major transportation infrastructure as described in Exhibit 2-7. The size of the Route
appears to be apportioned to the relative density of the population served.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 17 10/22/12
Exhibit 2 -7. Collection Routes
Route No. Weekday Route Description (Direction/Density)
232 Monday Southeast side of Town. East of Route 501 and North of Route 54.
Relatively broad.
Tuesday South side of Town. South of Route 501. Relatively broad.
216 Monday North of side of Town. Relatively broad. Intermixed with Route 204.
Tuesday North of side of Town. More dense. East of MLK Blvd. and South of
Weaver Dairy Rd.
210 Monday West side of Town. North of Route 501 to Cameron Ave. Smaller area
and relatively dense.
Tuesday West side of Town. Continuing North of Cameron Ave. and west of MLK
Blvd. Smaller area and relatively dense.
209 Monday East central. Generally east of Route 501. Smaller area and relatively
dense.
Tuesday West central. East of MLK Blvd. Smaller area and relatively dense.
Mixed with 204 and 208.
208 Monday South end of Town. Very dense. Southern Village area.
Tuesday West and Northwest perimeter of Town. Two small dense areas linked by
Seawell School Road. Mixed with 209.
207 Monday East side of Town. East of Route 501. Relatively broad area.
Tuesday East side of Town. Continuing north of Route 501. Relatively smaller
area and more dense.
204 Monday Central to Town. Vicinity of East Franklin St. Intermixed with Route 204
Tuesday collection east of E. Franklin St.
Tuesday North central side of Town. North of North Elliott Rd. Relatively broad
with a few smaller remote pockets.
SCS understands the routing pattern has existed without change for many years. A
comprehensive routing and technology study has not been performed for the Town. Similarly,
neither the Town nor any consultants has employed collections routing software to evaluate the
Town’s collection patterns.
2.2.2.2 Commercial Collections
Commercial collections contracted by customers throughout the Town are routed according to
the customers’ locations, waste disposal volumes, and requested frequency of collection. The
Town’s commercial fleet collects 5 days per week on these established routes and schedule.
Additional locations and container collections are worked into the schedule on and an as-needed
basis.
Similar to residential collections the Town has tracked the labor effort associated with each
commercial collection vehicle. Commercial collections average approximately 5 hours per
collection day per vehicle.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 18 10/22/12
2.2.3 Collections Fleet Description
The Town’s solid waste fleet dispatches from the Public Works complex located on Millhouse
Road. Vehicles are stored here daily in a secured, paved lot, and are serviced and maintained as
necessary at the service building located on the premises. In addition, the Town complex
maintains fueling facilities for all Town vehicles. Of the 25 vehicles assigned to Solid Waste
Services, all but four (4) vehicles are fully depreciated. The total fleet currently represents a
depreciated asset value of approximately $1.7 million and a total asset value of approximately
$2.1 million.
2.2.3.1 Residential Collection
Presently the Town maintains eleven (11) rear loader compactor trucks to manage routine
weekly residential MSW and yard waste collections. Seven (7) trucks are assigned to front line
service and range in age from 2005 to 2011. One (1) truck is assigned to each weekly collection
route. The remaining four (4) trucks are maintained as a backup fleet for any of the seven (7)
front line trucks. These trucks range in age from 2003 to 2005. Each of these eleven (11) trucks
generally exhibit 18 to 20 cubic yards capacity. All of the front line trucks are equipped with
dual-axles, while the backups are equipped with a single-axle. Vehicle weight, storage capacity,
and number of axles are critical input parameters while considering alternate disposal options
transporting waste outside the city limits.
2.2.3.2 Commercial Collection
For commercial MSW collections the Town maintains three (3) front loader compactor trucks
equipped with hydraulic forks to lift and dump bulk containers. Two (2) trucks are assigned to
the front line and were acquired in 2010. The third truck was acquired in 2004 and is maintained
as backup for either of the front line trucks. Each of these three (3) trucks exhibit 28 cubic yard
capacity and are equipped with tandem axles.
2.2.3.3 Other Vehicles and Equipment
In addition to these main collection vehicles, the Town maintains:
One (1) knuckleboom truck typically used for yard waste, purchased in 2007.
One (1) hook-lift truck typically used for Yard Waste, purchased in 2003.
Two (2) “scooter” trucks with dump beds typically used for exempt residential
collections and roll-cart collections in the downtown business district and Southern
Village, each purchased in 2006.
Two (2) flatbed trucks typically used for bulky waste collection, purchased in 2008
and 2011.
Three (3) general pick-up trucks, purchased in 2007 and 2008.
One (1) passenger car, purchased in 2009.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 19 10/22/12
2.2.3.4 Vehicle Maintenance and Repair
As described, the Town provides its own maintenance and repair services for all vehicles in the
waste collection fleet. Maintenance and repair costs, fuel expenses, and mileage are recorded
and tracked monthly for each vehicle. Using these historical records, SCS calculated the average
maintenance and repair cost per mile and total operating cost (including fuel) per mile for each
vehicle type as depicted in Exhibit 2-8 below.
Exhibit 2 -8. Average Maintenance and Repair Cost
Vehicle Description
Maintenance &
Repair Cost
($ per mile)
Total Cost
Including Fuel
($ per mile)
Commercial Front Loader 1.43 2.35
Residential Rear Loader 1.38 2.28
Hooklift 1.45 1.74
Knuckleboom 0.91 1.60
Scooter Truck 0.37 0.66
Flat Bed 0.22 0.58
Pick-up/Passenger Car 0.08 0.23
2.2.4 Collections Personnel
According to the Town’s FY 2011-12 budget, SWSD is comprised of 35 salaried positions.
Refer to the organizational chart provided in Exhibit 2-1. Of these 35 positions, 29 are presently
filled. Vacancies exist for a Solid Waste Services Inspector, one (1) equipment operator, and
four (4) collectors/laborers. These vacant positions are noted as authorized but not funded for
the current fiscal year.
Hierarchy in SWSD is depicted to include a Solid Waste Superintendent and two (2) Solid Waste
Services Supervisors, one (1) each for commercial and residential collections. Equipment
operator and collections personnel are assigned to these two (2) groups respectively.
2.2.4.1 Residential Collections Personnel
Residential collections staff are currently comprised of nine (9) Equipment Operator II positions,
three (3) Equipment Operator I positions, ten (10) Solid Waste Collector positions, and one
Residential Supervisor. This staff is generally assigned to the seven (7) rear loader compactor
trucks, which equates to a three-man crew for each truck. An Equipment Operator II each drives
the seven (7) trucks while the remaining two (2) Equipment Operator II’s serve as backup drivers
in the event any of the primary drivers are absent. The Solid Waste Collectors operate the truck
controls, and position and load waste cans. Two (2) Solid Waste Collectors are assigned to each
truck along with supplemental temporary personnel described in Section 2.2.4.4 below. Lastly,
the three (3) Equipment Operator I’s are assigned to each of the two (2) “Scooter” trucks and the
white goods flatbed truck.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 20 10/22/12
2.2.4.2 Commercial Collections Personnel
Commercial collections staff are comprised of four (4) Equipment Operator III positions and one
(1) Commercial Supervisor. Each of these positions operates the two (2) front loader trucks, the
knuckleboom truck, and the hook-lift truck. While the knuckleboom truck operation is assigned
to the commercial collections within the Town budget, its function is primarily engaged in yard
waste collection, primarily a residential collection activity.
2.2.4.3 Task-Based Earnings Structure and Full-Time Benefits
Each of the solid waste collections staff positions are full-time positions. No part-time positions
are currently included in the SWSD organizational structure. SWSD collections staff currently
work on a task-based payment structure. Employees are compensated their full annual salary
(i.e., equivalent 8-hour workday) upon the completion of their collection route and other
assigned daily tasks, and thus are not compensated commensurate with hours worked; however,
as described in Section 2.2.2 above, typical residential and commercial routes comprise between
5 and 6 hours on average. Accordingly, many of the staff engage in other employment and
coordinate their schedules accordingly (e.g., afternoon jobs).
Full-time benefits include: medical insurance, disability and life insurance, worker’s
compensation, and retirement benefits.
2.2.4.4 Overtime and Temporary Personnel
Occasionally the Town solid waste collections staff is required to work overtime. These
occasions include: responding to storm events, collection delays caused by hazardous weather
(e.g., ice and snow), holidays, and special events (e.g., festivals, sporting events). Review of the
Town SWSD annual operating budget indicates an allowance for overtime equivalent to
approximately 5% of annual salary.
At the time of this review, division positions are intentionally being held vacant, pending the
results of this study. In the interim, the Town has contracted four (4) temporary personnel who
supplement the Solid Waste Collector full-time positions currently authorized but unfunded in
the SWSD organizational structure. In addition, the Town routinely budgets temporary labor
from staffing agencies during illnesses and absences.
2.2.5 Solid Was te Collections Cost
Exhibit 2-9 summarizes SCS’s review of the Town’s SWSD budget for fiscal year 2012-13,
depicts a comparison to the previous fiscal year, and reflects the projected percent change from
the previous fiscal year.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 21 10/22/12
Exhibit 2 -9. FY 2012 -13 Solid Waste Services Budget
Item Description 2011-2012 Budget
($)
2012-2013 Request
($)
Change
(%)
Total Personnel 1,838,320 1,663,802 (9.5)
Operating Costs 103,400 103,650 .25
Fleet Usage 191,000 179,890 (5.8)
Vehicle Replacement 375,000 310,600 (17.2)
Vehicle Fuel 98,000 118,180 20.6
Subtotal Collections Cost 2,605,720 2,355,067 (9.6)
Per Ton Collection Cost 147.22 132.53 (10.0)
Subtotal Disposal Cost 932,000 942,350 ---
Total Program Cost 3,537,720 3,318,472 (6.2)
According to the most recent “Solid Waste and Materials Management Annual Report” for the
period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, submitted to the NCDENR, the Town reported
annual collections cost of $2,663,219 to manage a total of 17,169 tons of MSW and yard waste.
This equates to $155.12 per collected ton.
2.3 SOLID WASTE REVENUE
2.3.1 General Program Revenue
In July 2008, the state of North Carolina initiated a $2 per ton annual disposal tax assessed to
landfills throughout the state, based on scale receipts. A portion of these fees collected is
distributed back to local government on a per capita basis to support their waste management
programs. According to the Town’s budget, this state contribution is estimated $20,000 per year.
In recent years state contributed general revenue has been notably higher. In FY 2011-12,
$39,213.27 was received. In FY 2010-11, the amount received from the state was $38,487.64.
2.3.2 Residential Collections and Disposal
Currently the Town does not assess a separate fee or tax on its citizens for residential sold waste
collections and disposal. Some program revenue is generated through the Town’s Special Trash
Collections (i.e., bulky waste, white goods, and bulk yard waste), projected $8,000 per year.
Collection of bulky waste and white goods incurs a $15 minimum fee for up to three (3) items
and $5 for each additional item. Secondly, the Town provides for rental of yard debris
dumpsters to its citizens. Rental fees are assessed at $20 per weekday and $25 per weekend.
Additional residential revenue is collected from the sale of yard waste roll-carts. The sales price
of the roll-cart is $47. The actual unit purchase cost, currently $62.10 per cart, and fluctuates
with each Town purchase. Based on historical records, yard waste roll-cart sales contribute
approximately $3,000 towards annual revenues.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 22 10/22/12
2.3.3 Commercial Collections and Disposal
2.3.3.1 Bulk Containers
The Town has established fees for commercial sector bulk container collection and disposal
according to the size of the container and frequency of collection (up to 5 days per week). These
fees are posted on the Town website and are depicted in Exhibit 2-10. These fees were updated
as of July 1, 2012 and are much lower than fees charged by neighboring municipalities and other
private sector vendors.
Exhibit 2 -10. Commercial Sector Bulk Container Collection and
Disposal Fees
Container
Size 1x/week 2x/week 3x/week 4x/week 5x/week Extra Lift
2 yard $375 $725 $1,075 $1,775 $2,225 $50
4 yard $550 $900 $1,225 $1,950 $2,400 $50
6 yard $725 $1,075 $1,400 $2,125 $2,575 $50
8 yard $900 $1,250 $1,575 $2,300 $2,750 $50
Commercial collection and disposal billings represent the largest source of revenue to the Town
SWSD program. According to the FY 2011-12 budget, the Town anticipates approximately
$303,500 in revenue from this service. However, billing collection remains an issue for the
Town as a majority of customers participate in a partial payment option and a further portion is
routinely delinquent.
2.3.3.2 Compactors
Customers using either of two (2) solid waste compactor vessels, located in the downtown
business district, are billed an annual fee according to their respective usage: heavy ($1,500),
medium ($750), and light ($280). These fees were established in 2004-05 and have remained
unchanged. Historical records and the Town budget project that the compactors contribute
approximately $30,000 in annual revenues.
Like the bulk container collection, customers typically utilize a partial payment schedule (i.e.,
quarterly or semi-annual); however the compactor service results in more challenging revenue
collection with the Town collecting only 80% of billings. SCS suspects contributing factors to
this issue are likely the smaller size of the businesses, a high rate of turn-over and/or failure, and
more cyclical businesses associated with the university schedule. Furthermore, unlike its bulk
container service where service may be interrupted for non-payment, the Town maintains little
control over businesses continuing to use the compactors.
2.3.3.3 Roll-Carts
Commercial customers using 65-gallon roll-carts for disposal are charged a fee of $250 per year
for collection of up to seven (7) carts. An additional fee of $36 per year is assessed for each
additional cart. These contributions are included in the commercial sector revenue projection in
Section 2.3.3.1 above.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 23 10/22/12
2.3.4 Residential and Commercial Fines
A marginal contribution to revenue includes residential and commercial solid waste fines for
failures to comply with the established Town policies, for example:
Failure to remove residential roll-carts from the curb;
Commercial roll-off citations;
Disposing of unacceptable waste in commercial compactors (e.g., cardboard); and,
Leaving waste on the ground in front of compactors or roll-offs.
Based on historical records, revenue from these citations was $2,025 for FY 2010-11. Revenue
to date in FY 2011-12 was $9,400 (using two part-time retirees to supplement the vacant Solid
Waste Inspector position). The revenue contribution from fines is estimated to be similar to FY
2012-13.
2.4 CURRENT RECYCLING SY STEM
Orange County Recycling (OCR), a division of the Orange County Solid Waste Management
Department, offers a comprehensive and integrated recycling program throughout the County
with programs for both the residential and commercial sectors. Recycling services are provided
to the unincorporated areas of the county as well as the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and
Hillsborough.
2.4.1 Summary of Waste Reduction Goals
In 1997 Orange County and the incorporated municipalities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and
Hillsborough each adopted a solid waste reduction goal of 61% per capita. Towards this
objective, Orange County has made great progress, improving from 50% measured in 2007-08 to
56% measured in 2009-10. During FY 2010-11, Orange County was recognized for the second
year in a row as having the highest waste reduction rate in the state at 56% again. This rate is
calculated by dividing the total tons of waste landfilled that originated in the county, regardless
of where the waste is disposed, by the total population for each year.
Orange County, including the Town, is committed to reaching and exceeding this waste
reduction goal. Particular consideration should be given to the potential impacts any waste
disposal scenario option may have on meeting this objective.
2.4.2 System Description
The various recycling programs operated by the County share staff, vehicles and equipment;
hence, accounting for costs specific to the Town of Chapel Hill is difficult. It is also worth
noting that the County operates several other materials recovery and recycling programs,
primarily located at the landfill including scrap metal and white goods recovery, yard waste
mulching, clean wood waste grinding, oyster shell and tire collection that are not currently
funded by the recycling 3-R fee thus not always considered a formal part of recycling. These
programs infrastructure and operations are integrated into the overall solid waste management
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 24 10/22/12
department activities and account for over ten thousand tons of additional diversion annually
thereby adding to the County’s highly effective and successful waste reduction effort.
Recycling services provided by OCR to the Town are presented below.
2.4.2.1 Residential Recycling Programs
OCR provides residential recycling services for the Town through the following programs:
Urban Curbside Recycling Collection. The County contracts with a private hauler
(currently Waste Industries) for once weekly curbside recycling collection for 11,800
residences (single-family homes or duplexes) in the Town. Households are provided
two bins. Until July 1, 2012 one was designated for bottles/cans/jars, the other one for
mixed paper. OCR initiated single-stream collections in July 2012 using these bins
and proposes to transition to collection using 95-gallon roll carts in 2013.
Multi-Family Recycling Programs. County staff collects recyclable materials from
recycling sites which are located at over 95% of multi-family complexes (apartments,
town homes, and condominiums) in the Town. Multifamily recycling sites use
labeled wheeled carts for collecting materials. This program also transitioned to
single stream in July 2012.
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Program. The County accepts HHW
from all County residents and small businesses that are Conditionally Exempt Small
Quantity Generators (CESQGs) by Federal Law at a permanent facility operated
under contract at the Orange County Landfill 6 days per week. The five staffed solid
waste convenience centers also collect motor oil, oil filter, anti-freeze, batteries and
electronics from residents only. The County recycles much of the HHW such as
antifreeze, motor oil, oil filters and some household chemicals, batteries and
electronics. Some liquids like paint and solvents are blended for industrial fuel and
that which cannot be recycled, reused, neutralized or burned is safely stored in a
hazardous waste landfill. A second permanent HHW collection site is scheduled to
open in northern Orange County in early 2013.
24-hour Recycling Drop-Off Sites. The County operates five recycling drop-off sites,
three of which are located in the Town. Residents can use these sites to recycle the
same materials collected through the curbside program. County employees transport
recyclable materials from the drop-off sites to the County Landfill for processing and
then transfer to markets.
Solid Waste Convenience Centers. The County operates five solid waste
convenience centers located in the unincorporated areas of the County but open to all
County residents. These centers accept recyclable materials and some hazardous
materials (see HHW above) in addition to waste, bulky items, wood, scrap metal, tires
and yard waste. Similar to the Recycling Drop-Off Sites, County employees transport
material from the convenience centers to the County Landfill for processing and then
transfer to markets.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 25 10/22/12
2.4.2.2 Commercial Recycling Programs
OCR provides recycling services for the Town’s commercial sector through the following
programs:
Government Building Recycling. A County employee uses a box truck to collect
recyclables from every government building in the Town. An additional County
employee uses a front loader collection vehicle to collect all the cardboard at all of
the government buildings and schools. Public parks now have recycling collection
service for paper, cans and bottles as well. Thirteen pedestrian recycling bins were
installed along Franklin Street by the Town of Chapel Hill last year and are collected
weekly by the County. Bin design and choice were determined by the Town in
consultation with the County and several older, less effective bins were removed
when these were installed.
Commercial Recycling Collection. The County’s commercial recycling program
accepts all beverage containers and other recyclable materials including aluminum
cans, steel cans, empty aerosol cans, aluminum foil and trays, glass bottles and jars,
all plastic bottles, non-bottle containers #2, #4 and #5, beverage and food cartons and
all paper except corrugated cardboard. The County provides carts and collection
services. Where available, Commercial Recycling services are provided at no direct
cost to the participating businesses (costs are borne through the County’s 3-R
Recycling Fee described in Section 2.4.3 below).
Schools Recycling. The County collects recyclable material from all the K-12 public
schools in both the Orange County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro school systems. In both
public schools systems there are 34 total recycling locations, 19 of which are part of
the Chapel Hill Carrboro City school system located within Chapel Hill and Carrboro
corporate limits. In August 2011, the County began a pilot collection program
picking up pre-consumer food waste from three schools for composting. The purpose
of the pilot is to determine how best to divert this waste stream from the schools’
dumpsters and from within the schools’ food preparation systems in particular. The
pilot is ongoing and could be expanded depending upon results.
Food Waste Collection. The County contracts with a private hauler (currently Brooks
Contractor) to collect and compost food waste and other compostable organic
material from select local businesses. This program accepts source-separated organic
materials such as kitchen and produce department prep waste, post-consumer plate
waste, and other compostable organic materials from local restaurants, grocery stores,
and food service establishments for composting. The finished compost is available to
purchase locally at the County Landfill.
24-hour Recycling Drop-off Sites. These sites are available to commercial users and
a 2007 survey showed that many small businesses and non-profits use them.
HHW Facility. This facility is open to CESQGs (those with less than 220 pounds per
month). Many painting contractors use the facility.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 26 10/22/12
2.4.2.3 Recyclable Material Processing and Marketing
All collected recyclable material gets consolidated at the recycling area of the County Landfill.
The recycling area consists of a large concrete pad (about 15,000 square feet) that is partially
covered on which collected recyclables are dumped from the collection vehicles. Gross
contaminants are removed as time permits.
Waste Industries, the private hauler contracted to collect recyclable material curbside from Town
residences, delivers the recyclables to the recycling area at the County Landfill. Prior to June
2012 a two-stream system was in use in which fiber was transferred and sold to Sonoco in
Durham. Commingled cans and bottles were transferred and sold to FCR/ReCommunity in
Greensboro. Beginning in July 2012, the material is delivered to the County site single-stream,
inspected by County staff for contaminants and loaded into walking floor trailers for transfer for
sale and processing at the Sonoco MRF in Raleigh. Electronics are transported to Metech in
Creedmoor, NC, and rigid plastic are transported to Blueridge Plastics in Eden, NC, Sonoco in
Raleigh, NC or other plastics recyclers in the region depending on market value at the time.
There is one (1) County employee that manages the quality control and loading of single stream
material. Two (2) more County employees transport single stream and rigid plastic to market.
The electronics recycling vendor currently collects the County-prepared electronic recycling
material at the landfill property and transports the material to their property for further
processing and sale to end users.
2.4.2.4 Vehicles and Equipment Used for Recycling Programs
The County uses various vehicles and equipment to operate its recycling programs as presented
in Exhibit 2-11 below. The estimated resources allocated to the Town recycling efforts are also
depicted therein. The County contracts Urban Curbside Collection services, HHW, and
Commercial Food Waste Collection services. The remaining programs are staffed by County
employees and equipment is provided by the County.
The County employs three (3) Supervisors to manage the recycling programs and the program’s
15 dedicated employees. Additional administrative staff answer phone inquiries, and the County
program also allocates 1.5 employees to recycling education and community outreach. A full-
time on-site HHW contractor staffs the HHW facility.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 27 10/22/12
Exhibit 2 -11. Vehicles and E quipment for County Recycling
Programs
Recycling Program
Countywide
Vehicles & Equipment
Town Programs
Vehicles & Equipment
Urban Curbside Recycling Collection 5 trucks (owned and operated
by Waste Industries)
with low entry, dual drive cabs
and bodies that have hoppers
on both sides
2 to 3 trucks
Multi-Family, Commercial, Schools,
and Rural Recycling Collection
Programs
6 trucks
2 standard cab trucks with
hoppers on one side and 4
with low entry, dual drive cabs
and bodies that have hoppers
on one side
2 trucks
Drop-Off Sites and Convenience
Centers
1.5 Hook Trucks
0.5 Hook Trucks
Toxics Reduction Improvement
Program (TRIP)
1 Pickup Truck
12 Trailers, forklift, Electronics
warehouse, HHW building
PRO RATA SHARE of 40%
based on # households in
Chapel Hill as % of County
Corrugated Cardboard Collection at
Drop-Off Sites, Government Facilities
and Schools
2 Front Loader Trucks 0.5 – 1 Front Loader Trucks
Commercial Food Waste Recycling 2 Front Loader Trucks owned
and operated by Brooks
Contractor
2 Front Loader Trucks
Government Facilities Recycling 1 Box Truck 0.5 Box Truck
Processing and Hauling 2 Road tractors, 2 walking
floor trailers, 1 horizontal
baler, 1 rubber tire loader
All equipment shared among
programs and by all users
Note: All Solid Waste Department equipment except a few pieces of specialized landfill equipment is
shared among all divisions and used in an integrated manner.
2.4.2.5 Solid Waste Management Education and Outreach Services
Orange County offers comprehensive waste and recycling education services to schools,
businesses, non-profit and faith-based organizations, civic groups, governmental organizations,
and the public. Services include landfill tours, compost education and compost bins for sale,
waste assessments, information and displays at special events, newsletters, and regular columns
and advertisements in local media.
2.4.3 Quantity and Characteristics
In FY 2011-2012, OCR recycled just over 15,600 tons of material from all recycling programs in
the County. Exhibit 2-12 presents quantities of recyclable material by program and estimates the
portion that originated in the Town. Exhibit 2-13 presents the recyclable material quantities by
material type. Note that the total quantities in Exhibit 2-12 do not match Exhibit 2-13 as the
quantity in Exhibit 2-12 includes contaminants that were removed prior to marketing.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 28 10/22/12
Exhibit 2 -12. Recycling Material Quantities by Source,
FY 2010 -11
Recycling Program
County-Wide
Annual
Tonnage
Town of
Chapel Hill
Estimated
Tonnage
Urban Curbside Recycling Collection 1 3,397 2,178
Rural Curbside Collection 1,867 0
Multifamily Collection 2 1,125 628
Drop Off Sites and ConvenienceCenters3 5,107 1,532
Toxics Reduction Improvement Program (TRIP) 4 760 304
Commercial Recycling Collection 5 1,089 871
Commercial Food Waste Recycling 6 1,985 1,588
Government Facilities Recycling 7 143 72
Schools 8 139 78
Total Recycling 15,612 7,250
Notes:
1. The Town’s portion of Urban Curbside Collection is proportional to the number of single-family households
and duplexes served (11,800 in the Town out of 18,400 county-wide).
2. The Town’s portion of Multi-Family Collection is proportional to the number of multi-family units served
(9,115 in the Town out of 16,345 county-wide).
3. The Town’s portion of material from Drop-Off Sites and Convenience Centers is proportional to the number
of sites located in the Town (3 in the Town out of 10 county-wide).
4. The Town’s portion of material from TRIP is proportional to the number of households (22,254 in the Town
out of 55,597 county-wide).
5. The Town’s portion of material from Commercial Recycling Collection is proportional to the number of
commercial customers (about 80%).
6. The Town’s portion of material from Commercial Food Waste Recycling is proportional to the number of
customers that utilize the program (about 80%).
7. The Town’s portion of material from Government Facilities Recycling is proportional to the size of local
government (about 50%).
8. The Chapel Hill Carrboro City School’s portion of material from schools collection program is proportional
to the number of schools (19 in the district out of 34 county-wide). This tonnage does not include cardboard
collection that occurs at the school. That is included in the drop-off site tonnage as part of overall fiber as it
is collected on those routes.
Exhibit 2 -13. Recyc ling Mat erial Quantities by Commodity,
FY 2010 -11
Material
FY 2011/12
Tonnage
All Paper (includes newspaper, phonebooks, glossy magazines,
and mixed paper)
5,329
Corrugated Cardboard 1,464
Commingled Bottles/Jars/Cans 5,854
Non-Bottle #2 and #5 Rigid Plastics 146
Toxics Reduction Improvement Program (includes hazardous
waste, motor oil, filters, batteries and electronics)
760
Food Waste and Animal Bedding 1,985
Total Recycled 15,538*
Notes:
1. The difference in total tonnage between Exhibit 2-12 and 2-13 is due to discarding some
incoming materials that could not be sold.
2. After July 1, 2012, the paper and commingled bottles and cans are being sold as single
stream material.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 29 10/22/12
2.4.4 Recycling System Costs
The Orange County Solid Waste Management Department is responsible for all public recycling
efforts in Orange County, including those that serve the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and
Hillsborough plus the services for residents of unincorporated Orange County. In FY 2011-12,
the annual budget for all recycling services was more than $4 million including support services.
The County paid their contractor, Waste Industries, $4.17 per household per month. The annual
3-R fee of $52 per urban household per year covered the costs of collection plus the additional
costs for program administration, management and replacement bins for the Urban Recycling
Collection Program.
The 3-R Fee (waste reduction, reuse and recycling fee) provides the vast majority of the funds
used by Orange County to pay for the costs of the recycling programs, with the remaining funds
coming from revenue from the sales of recyclable materials.
The 3-R Fee is a multi-part/tiered fee that is assessed annually and billed on the property tax bill.
All improved properties in Orange County are subject to the Basic Fee which pays for recycling
services generally available to all. A separate Collection Service Fee is assessed to all multi-
family units and households depending on the level of service. Residents in the Town are
charged either the Multi-Family Unit Recycling Fee or the Urban Curbside Recycling Fee (for
single-family homes and duplexes), as presented below in Exhibit 2-14.
Exhibit 2 -14. County Fees for Recycling Applicable to the Town
Fee Type Description of Services Fee
Basic Services
Fee
Covers costs of recycling and waste reduction services generally
available to all residences and qualifying businesses throughout
Orange County including public education, hazardous waste
services, electronics recycling, recycling drop-off sites, and
administration.
$37/unit/year
Plus one of the following:
Multi-Family Unit
Recycling
Covers the costs of the multi-family recycling collection program
(including related indirect expenses). The multifamily recycling
program collects recyclable materials in roll-carts from recycling
sites established on the serviced property.
$19/unit/year
Urban Curbside
Recycling
Covers the costs of urban curbside recycling program (including
related indirect expenses). The urban curbside recycling program
collects recyclable materials in blue recycling bins every week
from eligible properties within the town limits of Chapel Hill as
well as Carrboro and Hillsborough.
$52/unit/year
In summary, multi-family units are charged $56 per year ($19 plus $37 or $4.67 per month) for
County-provided recycling services and single-family households and duplexes are charged $89
per year ($52 plus $37 or $7.42 per month).
2.4.5 Recycling System Revenue
Revenue from selling recyclable materials fluctuates according to the quantity of material
collected and the market value of the various materials. In FY 2011-12 the County received
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 30 10/22/12
about $830,000 from the sale of recyclables; however, this amount was substantially lower in
2008 and 2009 when recycling markets were at a historical low.
In FY 2011-12 commingled bottles/jars/cans were sold to ReCommunity in Greensboro. The
County has received revenue as high as $60/ton but at the end of the year they received around
$30/ton.
Fiber was sold to Sonoco in Durham. Sonoco paid a higher price for mixed paper if the County
also sold them its corrugated cardboard. The County typically receives “High Yellow Sheet”
(terminology is from a paper markets publication) minus $25 for mixed paper, newsprint, and
magazines; and High Yellow Sheet minus $10 for corrugated cardboard. Sometimes the County
bales mixed paper to receive High Yellow Sheet minus $10.
The County typically is paid between $.03 and $.08 per pound for baled rigid plastic delivered by
Orange County to a processor in Reidsville NC.
Beginning in July 2012, fiber, cans and bottles were sold as commingled material to Sonoco in
Raleigh at $43 per ton. That price will be periodically analyzed and adjusted as market
conditions or product quality change.
2.4.6 Planned Recycling Program Modifications
The County implemented single-stream recycling for residential curbside collection programs as
well as Drop-Off Sites and Convenience Centers in FY 2011-12. When re-bidding the Urban
Curbside Recycling Collection contract, the County will not dictate the method for private
haulers to collect recyclables; however, it is expected that the selected hauler will bid a lower
cost for using fully automated collection methods. First year costs and preliminary estimates for
cost of recycling single-stream in carts are presented in Exhibit 2-15. The County will utilize the
expected reduction in collection costs to fund the purchase of carts for all residences.
Exhibit 2 -15. Current and Expected Costs for Urban Cu rbside
Collection Utilizing Single Stream Recycling
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 31 10/22/12
2.4.7 Development Review/Solid Waste Permitting
Orange County Solid Waste participates in the Town’s development review process. The
County reviews all plans and specifications with regard to site plan review, recommendations for
solid waste permit approvals, solid waste plan evaluation, adequacy of recycling infrastructure,
service access, deconstruction/demolition minimizing waste during construction, use/reuse of
recycled content materials in construction, adherence to Regulated Recyclable Materials
Ordinance (RRMO), ensuring compliance with Solid Waste design standards, etc.
2.4.8 Enforcement
The County staff assists Town staff in the enforcement of both state- mandated and local RRMO
related landfill bans as well as enforcement at the point of disposal. Enforcement support for
illegal dumping and improper use of recycling sites/containers within the Town is also provided.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 32 10/22/12
3.0 RECYCLING PROGRAM EV ALUATION
3.1 RECYCLING OPTIONS
This section presents an evaluation of the Town implementing its own recycling program to
include collections, processing, marketing, and revenue recovery. Three options for the Town
are assessed:
Continue participation with the existing recycling services provided by Orange
County (the County), and initiate a new Interlocal Agreement with Orange County
that identifies metrics of success and governance for the recycling program.
Contract with a new, third-party collections and hauling firm to operate a Town-
managed recycling program for all or part of the recycling services currently provided
by the County.
Create a Town-operated recycling program in which the Town would assume direct
operational responsibility for all or part of the recycling services currently provided
by the County.
A summary description of services provided and the advantages and disadvantages of each
option are discussed below.
3.1.1 Option #1: Continue d Participation With the Existing
County -Provided Recycling Services
SCS evaluated the recycling program services currently provided by the County, as described in
Section 2.4 above. Ongoing participation with this program presents the following advantages
and disadvantages when compared with other service options considered in this evaluation.
3.1.1.1 Advantages
Based on SCS’s general experience with other municipal recycling programs, the
current service level provided by the County is generally accepted to be above
average. The County operates a comprehensive recycling program that incorporates a
wide array of materials and provides service to a vast number of Town customers
including residents (both single-family and multi-family), businesses, government
buildings, and schools. In addition the County program provides excellent
educational and community outreach efforts that explain the recycling programs and
encourages participation.
The current recycling programs are successful. In 2011, North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources reported that Orange County had the fourth
highest per capita recovery in the State at 268.1 pounds per person per year.
The County provides uniform public education about recycling that is consistent for a
mobile population that lives and works in different parts of the County.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 33 10/22/12
The County’s fees seem to be reasonably competitive. According to “The
Benchmarking of Residential Solid Waste Collection Services: FY 2008 Report” by
SWANA, the average monthly fee for curbside recycling services is $6.01 per
residential unit. Orange County provides curbside recycling collection services for a
monthly fee of $4.33 per single-family household or duplex and $1.58 per multi-
family unit. A discussion of Orange County’s Waste Reduction and Recycling (3-R)
fee structure is presented in Section 2.4.4 of this report.
The County plans to implement a single-stream recycling program which could
provide each single-family household or duplex with a recycling cart without
increasing the annual recycling fee. The County will use the savings in curbside
collection services to pay for the carts; hence, residents will benefit from increased
convenience without incurring additional fees.
In addition to curbside collections, the County operates five solid waste convenience
centers that accept recyclables and five 24-hour recycling drop-off sites, making
participation convenient for most users.
The County has existing contracts in place with several recycling markets in the area.
Continuing participation with the County program would require no additional capital
investment or increase in professional salary expense for the hiring of additional
Town employees to staff and manage its own program.
3.1.1.2 Disadvantages
The Town does not have direct control over processing and marketing of recyclable
materials it generates and accordingly cannot explore revenue sharing arrangements
to cover a portion of its recycling operational costs.
The Town cannot explore the potential to combine waste hauling costs with transport
costs of hauling recyclable materials to market.
The Town lacks control of the recycling program design and operation.
3.1.2 Option #2: Recycling Programs Provided by Contract With
a Private Hauler
Currently, the County contracts with Waste Industries for the collection of recyclables from
single-family homes and duplexes in the Town. County employees collect recyclables from
multi-family properties and some businesses in the Town. Option #2 would allow the Town to
be the entity to contract directly with a private hauler (e.g., Waste Industries) for the collection of
recyclables from single-family homes and duplexes in addition to multi-family properties and
businesses. In structuring a contract, the Town would decide which entity, the Town or vendor,
would procure, manage, and distribute recycling bins or carts.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 34 10/22/12
3.1.2.1 Advantages
By utilizing a third-party contractor/private hauler under contract to the Town, the
Town will avoid direct capital costs for new recycling collection vehicles and new
recycling carts. Similarly, the Town will avoid additional professional salary costs
associated with hiring a potentially significant number of new personnel to manage its
own program. However, the Town would retain management personnel to oversee
the contractor, manage the program and provide outreach and education to its
residents.
With implementing third-party contracting for its recyclables, the Town may usurp
more control over its recyclable materials than is presently afforded by the County
program. The Town could, through its own contract, explore opportunities for
increased recycling revenue through various revenue sharing arrangements.
Recycling revenue can vary substantially from month to month depending on market
conditions. Municipalities that receive a higher revenue share when markets are high
will also have a risk of receiving no revenue or even paying the market to take the
recyclables when markets are low. For this reason, municipalities often opt to assume
less risk by accepting a smaller share of the revenue with the contractor. The Town
would need professional guidance to establish revenue sharing terms in the contract to
control its risk.
The Town could control the recycling collection schedule and coordinate it with the
residential pickup days.
SCS is aware of other experienced private haulers in recyclables collection and
management that are capable of providing quality recycling collections. This would
promote competitive bids for the Town service.
3.1.2.2 Disadvantages
Based on a cursory survey of relative industry service rates, SCS believes it is
unlikely, but not impossible, that the Town would receive a more competitive bid
than the County currently provides. The County presently dominates a large service
area in the region, and as a result, has more bargaining power and can get bulk
discounts for operating their program and managing collected materials.
Soliciting a Request for Proposal for Recycling Services and subsequent contract
negotiations would require industry-specific expertise to minimize future contract
disputes and public relations issues from service levels that might be less than
anticipated.
While there are contract instruments, such as bid and performance bonds, that can
mitigate the chances of service disruptions under a third-party contract program, the
risks of such disruptions are still greater than if it the Town operated its own program.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 35 10/22/12
Contract oversight is needed to ensure that the Town is receiving the expected level
of service for the appropriate contract costs. SCS notes that under this scenario the
Town may potentially incur incremental salary costs in the form of existing
management staff providing contract management of the third-party recycling
collections program.
3.1.3 Option #3: Town -Operated Recycling Programs
Under this scenario, the Town would operate its own recycling program to collect, manage, and
market collected recyclables from single-family homes and duplexes using Town resources.
This would require significant capital investment by the Town for vehicles and equipment to
collect materials, a facility to repackage material into larger vehicles for transport to market, and
hiring of staff to support its program.
Additionally, this option may include the Town taking over recycling services provided by the
County to the Town’s multi-family homes, businesses and recycling drop-off sites.
3.1.3.1 Advantages
The Town would retain the maximum level of control if it operated its own curbside
and drop-off collection programs. It would control the level of service (which homes
or businesses get service and when they get it).
Implementing a Town-operated program presents opportunities for expansion into
other service areas (e.g., organics diversion, collection, and processing; yard waste
operations; mulching and composting, etc.), and potentially capitalize on capturing a
larger, regional market share if it assumes part or all services currently provided by
Orange County.
The Town presently has the personnel and infrastructure in place needed to properly
service recycling collection vehicles.
Generally speaking, the collection of residential solid waste is one of the most
appreciated and visible services provided by a Town to its residents. The current
County recycling service is also very well received and appreciated, and the
assumption of this service by the Town should only result in an improved public
perception of the worth of overall Town services.
3.1.3.2 Disadvantages
Capital outlays for collection vehicles, carts, and drop-off containers will be required.
The Town will incur professional salary expenses to hire and supervise personnel to
directly collect recyclables. Additional customer service personnel may also be
needed to properly address the incoming calls for missed collections, damaged/stolen
carts, and new service. However, there is an existing management structure for waste
collection that would only need a slight expansion to also manage a Town-operated
recycling program.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 36 10/22/12
The Town will have to market and transport the collected recyclable materials,
including logistics challenges and inventory controls.
The Town will incur additional equipment maintenance and usage costs to operate
other vehicles and materials processing equipment.
Because the Town represents a significant portion of the current County recycling
program, the County would need to completely restructure its program to continue to
provide recycling services to the Towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough and the
unincorporated areas of the County.
The established regional public education and outreach program would no longer be
centralized and the Town would incur additional program costs to establish its own
public education program for recycling.
Recycling participation, material volume, and quality could decline if a Town-
operated program differed from other regional recycling programs provided by the
County due to confusion of what can be recycled and where it can be recycled.
3.2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS O F TOWN -OPERATED
RECYCLING OPTION
With this financial analysis of a Town-operated recycling program, SCS thought is prudent to
evaluate a phased approach to estimating the value of the recycling service Orange County
currently provides to Town residents. While our analysis of comparative recycling services
recognizes that the Orange County recycling program provides many levels of service to Town
residents to include:
Curbside residential collections,
Multi-family unit collections;
Commercial sector service;
Convenience centers and drop-off locations;
Household hazardous waste and electronics recycling;
Automotive waste recycling (i.e., used oil, filters, etc.); and,
Educational and public outreach programs.
This analysis begins by first analyzing the cost to the Town of providing the core services of
curbside residential recycling for the estimated 11,500 households in the Town. This phased
analysis assumes that if these core services, implemented through a Town-operated program, are
economically viable, additional layers of service, comparable to the current Orange County
service, may be evaluated.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 37 10/22/12
3.2.1 Curbside Recycling Collection for Single -Family Homes and
Duplexes
Based on SWANA’s “The Benchmarking of Residential Solid Waste Collection Services: FY
2008 Report”, the average number of residential units served by a collection crew using a fully-
automated collection method in North Carolina was 121 homes per hour. For the purposes of
this financial analysis, SCS has assumed that each collection crew would spend approximately
6.5 hours per day collecting recyclables and 1.5 hours a day transporting recyclables, thus a
collection crew can collect from about 4,000 homes during a 5-day workweek. SCS notes that
under the Town’s current task-based performance structure, the staffing necessary to operate this
program would likely have different performance metrics than the residential or commercial
collections staff.
While SCS recognizes innumerable scenarios exist pursuant to configuring collections staffing,
routing, and equipment to implement a Town-operated recycling operation, our assumption of a
5-day workweek appeared to be the least cost option, requiring the least capital investment.
Under this scenario, SCS anticipates the Town would need at least three front line automated
collection vehicles to perform weekly collection at all single-family households during this 5-day
schedule. Compressing the collection schedule to 2 days to match the Town’s current MSW
collections schedule would likely double this capital investment to provide additional trucks and
crews to staff simultaneous collections routes. Apart from program costs, other intangible
factors may influence program configurations.
Capital costs necessary to implement a Town-operated recycling program assuming a 5-day
workweek are presented in Exhibit 3-1. Capital costs presented herein do not include an
aggregation facility where material is aggregated into a larger trailer for transport to market.
These discussions are presented further in Section 9. Similarly, the Town may elect to establish
a solid waste transfer station with an aggregation area for recyclables or build a concrete pad
similar to the one used by the County. It is assumed that the Town would need to purchase four
collection vehicles (three for weekly operations and one spare vehicle). The capital costs were
amortized at 5% interest for 7 years.
Operating expenses are based on three full-time drivers (assuming backup drivers can be
provided from existing staff when needed) for the fully-automated collection vehicles at an
annual loaded salary of $55,000 each, or $165,000 in total salary. Operating costs are presented
in Exhibit 3-2. Based on SWANA’s “The Benchmarking of Residential Solid Waste Collection
Services: FY 2008 Report,” the average maintenance cost of fully-automated collection vehicles
is about $40,000 per vehicle per year.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 38 10/22/12
Exhibit 3 -1. Summary of Capital Costs for a Town -Operated
Curbside Recycling Collection Program
Item Cost
Number of Households 11,500
Number of Carts 11,500
Average Cost per Cart 1 $50
Number of Collection Vehicles 4
Average Cost per Vehicle 2 $230,000
Total Capital Costs $1,495,000
Amortized Monthly Cost per Household $1.84
Notes:
1. Based on Orange County cost projection of $948,500 for 18,970 carts depicted
in board memo dated 2/21/12.
2. Capital Cost of automated collection vehicle, consistent with Pro Forma modeling
assumptions in other scenarios.
Exhibit 3 -2. Summary of Operating Costs for a Town -Operated
Curbside Recycling Collection Program
Item Cost
Salary $165,000
Maintenance $160,000
Fuel $30,00
Total Operating Costs $355,000
Monthly Cost per Household $2.51
Adding amortized capital cost to monthly operating cost per household results in a total
collection cost of $4.35 per household per month. This does not include the processing costs or
transportation costs of aggregated recyclables to market.
3.2.2 Other Recycling Services
The financial analysis of the residential curbside recycling program suggests that adding
additional recycling programs comparable to the Orange County program would not be
economically advantageous. The costs for the Town to provide, staff, operate, and manage these
additional services (multi-family collections, convenience drop locations, and educational
programs, etc.) would only drive up the cost of the total recycling program. The incremental
material volume and associated revenue recovered from these additional programs is not likely to
help offset the overall program costs.
Furthermore, recognizing the ongoing presence of the Orange County program and its
convenience centers and drop-off locations, a Town-operated program would have less control
over its residents using Town-provided drop locations versus County-provided drop locations.
In the absence of Town-directed collections, Town residents may be inclined to continue using
Orange County drop locations if convenient.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 39 10/22/12
3.3 SUMMARY OF COMPARABL E RECYCLING P R OGRAM
OUTSOURCING COSTS
With this analysis, SCS reviewed bid costs recently solicited by Orange County for the
collections of materials managed by its recycling program to include: curbside residential
customers; commercial customers; multi-family customers; and, convenience centers. A bid
tabulation for these services was provided in an Orange County Board of Commissioners, Action
Agenda Item Abstract, dated April 17, 2012, presenting the renewal of the Urban Curbside
Recycling Services Contract. As discussed above, the contract was renewed with Waste
Industries for cost to the County of $2.96 per household per month, assuming the County
procured the collection carts.
By comparison, four (4) other reputable firms bid for the services with a range of costs to the
County of $4.00 to $5.24 per household per month, excluding the collection carts. Program
collections costs for the third-party vendor to provide the collection carts ranged from $4.26 per
household per month to $7.24 per household per month.
Notably, Orange County appears to be getting a good value from its current vendor, Waste
Industries. Furthermore, these recycling collection program bid costs represent that by
outsourcing a Town-only recycling program, the Town would not likely anticipate program cost
savings compared with the current Orange County program or a Town-operated program. In
addition, these materials collection bid costs do not include the material processing, marketing,
and market transportation costs currently provided by the Orange County program. Lastly, due
to the smaller material volumes anticipated from a Town-only recycling program, comparable
bid prices for Town-only collections are anticipated to be higher due to economies of scale.
3.4 SUMMARY FINDINGS
SCS recommends that the Town continue to participate with the County to provide recycling
services to its residents and businesses for the following reasons:
A Town-operated program is estimated to cost $4.32 or greater for each single-family
household, per month, not including costs necessary for processing and transporting
materials to market. The County currently charges $4.33 per single-family household
per month. While the projected costs of a Town-operated recycling program is
approximately equivalent to the Orange County program, SCS suspects that any
improvements in these cost projections would not likely begin to cover the necessary
materials processing and transportation costs for the Town to manage the recyclables
collected from all 11,500 Town single-family households. Moreover, the County is
in the process of implementing single-stream recycling collection with roll-carts
which is projected to lower the County collection cost, and provide Town residents
with increased convenience (i.e., 95-gallon recycling collection carts) and the ability
to recycle additional materials without increasing its fees.
Implementing additional layers of recycling service comparable to the Orange County
program (e.g., convenience centers, drop-off locations, multi-family collections, etc.)
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 40 10/22/12
is anticipated to further contribute to the cost of a Town-operated program while
generating marginally increased material volume and revenue.
A third-party contract is not likely to bring more value/savings to the Town or its
residents. There is also an added risk of service impacts by replacing a proven and
valued service.
Inviting a third-party contractor to replace the County-provided service exhibits a
negative impact to regional collaboration.
SCS suggests initiating a new Interlocal Agreement with Orange County that identifies metrics
of success and governance for the recycling program.
3.5 CONDITIONS FOR CONTI NUED OBSERVATION
SCS recommends that the Town continue to observe the following conditions and evaluate future
developments that may affect the Town’s costs to continue participation in the County’s
recycling program:
Adjustment to the recycling fees after the Orange County Landfill ceases to accept
MSW.
Consistent and equivocal application of the 3-R Fee to Town residents and
businesses.
Value of the commodity markets for recyclable materials necessitates Town-program
participation to capture this revenue.
Development of a transfer station with capabilities to manage recyclables enables
recyclables
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 41 10/22/12
4.0 SOLID WASTE COLLECTI ONS EVALUATION
During the week of April 16 through 20, 2012, SCS conducted field observations of solid waste
collections practices and programs in the Town of Chapel Hill (Town) and interviewed
supervisors and waste collection staff. Residential, yard waste, scooter truck, and commercial
routes and collection practices were observed. SCS conducted these field observations and
interviews for the purpose of providing the Town with recommendations to improve solid waste
collection efficiencies while maintaining the ongoing high level of customer service Town
residents appreciate and expect.
4.1 OBSERVATIONS AND REC OMMENDATIONS FOR
IMPROVED COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
4.1.1 Residential Collections
4.1.1.1 Containers
During field observations, it was noted that some residents do not have the standard Town issued
trash carts, and instead use standard trash cans or leave non-containerized bags on the curb.
Furthermore, some residents use cans that cannot be mechanically tipped to manage excess waste
volumes in addition to the town issued carts. Management of these variable containers and waste
placement methods by Town collections staff introduces inherent inefficiencies in the collections
process. Non-standard cans often do not have wheels or handles which cause collection staff to
lift heavy objects and prevent the use of mechanized cart tippers. The physical management of
overweight cans and odd containers creates delays and subjects collections personnel to an
increased risk of injury. Requiring residents to use the town issued carts will allow the carts to
be mechanically tipped rather than physically lifted by Town employees, increasing efficiency
and reducing the amount of physical labor required.
The Town could realize increased efficiency with residential waste collection by collecting only
waste placed in the Town-issued cart. However, as with the current practices, a special
exemption for appropriate circumstances may be issued to qualifying households. Residents
who do not put their waste in a Town-issued cart would face the consequence of not having their
waste collected, which means having to store it for another week or transporting it to a disposal
site themselves. With the closing of the Orange County landfill, improving overall collection
efficiency becomes a more relevant factor when considering the additional off-route time
necessary to transport collected waste a longer distance to another public or private landfill or
transfer station as discussed in Sections 6 and 10.
The Town ordinances, Chapter 8, Sections I and II describe regulated collection and disposal
policies including receptacle policies; however, our assessment noted adherence to many of these
policies are loosely enforced. According to the Town ordinance, a 65-gallon cart, provided by
the Town at no charge, is available to each residence by request. A public notice directing those
residents needing a cart to request one, and an audit/inventory conducted by the collections staff
during their regular collections routes would identify other residents needing a Town-issued cart.
Standardizing the collection carts would not only promote collection efficiencies, it would
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 42 10/22/12
likewise assist in a transition to automated collections as discussed in other sections of this
report.
Furthermore, the Town should consider revising the Town ordinance to limit the number of carts
placed by individual residents for weekly collection, or establish a fee for collection from
additional carts. Section 8 of this report, an evaluation of PAYT practices, presents several
options which may assist the SWSD in managing and accounting for waste volumes that exceed
the Town-issued cart capacity. These include:
Implementing a supplemental PAYT bag or tag program, thus allowing excess waste
to be placed in a town-issued bag or a resident-provided bag/can tagged with a Town-
issued sticker, each purchased by the resident.
Implementing a PAYT variable or subscribed can program. For those residents
requiring additional weekly disposal capacity, the resident could request a larger cart
(e.g., 95 gallon) and would be assessed a requisite annual fee. A discussion of
recommended fees is presented in Section 8.
4.1.1.2 Exemptions
As discussed in Section 2, Town collections staff currently service more than 900 households
claiming an exemption from the standard curbside, cart collections service. According to the
Town ordinance, these exemptions are offered to provide service to customers with disabilities
and other physical limitations, age-related ability, and challenging physical property
characteristics. Town staff indicated that exemptions are ideally reviewed annually; however,
this review has not been performed in some time.
The waste from exempt households is collected with either a rear loader or the scooter truck (i.e.,
modified pick-up truck), depending on the household container’s distance from the main road.
Current and future routing processes cannot incorporate the exemptions since they require a
special vehicle or manual service. Proper routing for collection vehicles reduces travel time
between stops; however, the exemptions are located in all geographic areas of the Town which
will not benefit from reduced travel time between stops. Hence, servicing such a large number
of exemptions creates vast inefficiencies in the standard weekly collections.
Some of these exemptions were established several years ago and should be reexamined to assess
if the case for an exemption still applies to the current resident’s situation. Some exempt
collection households are close to the main streets, and these exemptions should be collected
with the rear loader trucks if the container is within a reasonable walking distance (i.e.,
approximately 20 yards).
The number of exemptions offered by the Town appears large when compared to the number of
exemptions offered by the County for recycling collection. The County manages collection of
recyclables for 18,400 households in the combined areas of the Town as well as the
unincorporated areas of the County and the Towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough. The County
has just 115 exemptions for special recycling collection services. Over 7% of the Town’s
households receive an exemption for waste collection but less than 1% of the County’s
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 43 10/22/12
households receive an exemption for recycling collection. It is recommended that the Town
review exemptions on an annual basis and require a verification of need such as a medical
statement or handicapped tag.
4.1.1.3 Private Driveways
Numerous households along the residential collection routes maintain lengthy and spatially
constrained private driveways, which limit access to the rear loader collection vehicles.
Currently, these households with private drives are not required to position their carts curbside
along the main roadway for collections by rear loader vehicles. Thus, the rear loader vehicles do
not collect containers from residences that can only be accessed by a private drive. The solid
waste from these households is collected by scooter trucks, which creates inherent inefficiencies
in providing this level of service because these households cannot be incorporated into the
existing waste collection route that services their geographic area. The scooter trucks represent a
much smaller capacity and require multiple daily trips (usually three to four times per day) to the
nearest rear loader. The inefficiencies of this service will be compounded with the closure of the
Orange County Landfill and proposed short-term solution to direct haul collected waste to a
transfer station.
Households currently receiving private driveway service should be evaluated along with the
households claiming a collection exemption to further determine the necessity to provide private
driveway service on a case-by-case basis. Those households that are physically capable (i.e., do
not qualify for a medical or age exemption) of positioning their waste carts curbside for routine,
scheduled collection with the rear loader collection vehicles, and in accordance with currently
established routes and collection days, should be required to bring their cart curbside for
collection. Residents who do not qualify for an exemption and choose not to put their waste-
filled cart at the end of their driveway would not have their waste collected by the Town.
Alternatively, the Town may assess a private driveway service fee (recommended $16.50 per
month), similar to the PAYT fee as described in Section 8, for those customers who would
choose a driveway service rather than placing their waste carts curbside for regular collection.
4.1.1.4 Limited Residential Routing Evaluation
Along with this collections system evaluation, SCS completed a limited review of the Town’s
current residential collections routes for the purpose of making general recommendations to
improve existing routing configurations and collections efficiencies. SCS and SWSD staff
concur that a formal, technical routing study, utilizing GIS data and industry-specific software is
particularly warranted at this time to support system-wide modifications with the closing of the
Orange County Landfill and need to transport collected wastes elsewhere. A routing study for
the Town is estimated to cost about $45,000 to $55,000. However, based on a review of the
Town’s existing routing schematics, interviews with route residential and commercial collections
supervisors, and observations of select residential routes, SCS recognized a number of
recommendations to improve collections while the Town considers a technical routing study.
Throughout the history of Town solid waste collections operations, SCS understands that a
technical routing study has not been performed to date. The existing routing configurations have
been developed over time through general trial and error while hauling residential MSW waste to
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 44 10/22/12
the Orange County Landfill. A general description of each of the historical fourteen (14)
residential collections routes is provided in Section 2. As described, these collections routes
have historically been serviced by seven (7) dedicated crews and vehicles. SCS’s initial
evaluation of the routing configurations on each of the two (2) residential MSW collection days
recognized that these routes are equally distributed throughout the town.
Considering budget authorizations for FY 2012-13, the SWSD was funded for full-time
collections staff commensurate with six (6) routes. Based on the Town’s budget data, our
limited review of collection routing data, and experience with collections in other municipalities,
considerations for general routing recommendations to provide sufficient collection capacity
while making a transition to an alternate disposal facility with the closure of the Orange County
landfill are discussed below:
Approve a budget amendment for FY 2012-2013 to fund the historical 2-day per
week collection schedule and provide appropriate weekly collection capacity. The
Town would likely fill the currently vacant full-time positions and cease using
temporary labor to accomplish the seven (7) route configuration (the Town maintains
sufficient collection vehicles and equipment and 7 routes are currently dispatched
despite the budget allocation and funding). This fiscal impact of this routing
configuration is presented in Section 6.
Alternatively, transition to a 3-day per week MSW collection schedule. The SWSD
would eliminate a route and maintain the budgeted six (6) residential collection crews
servicing consolidated and reconfigured routes. Yard waste collection would
continue on the current 2-day per week schedule. This fiscal impact of this routing
modification is presented in Section 6.
Consolidate collection routes to be located in the general vicinity of each other to
promote efficiencies while transitioning end routing from the Orange County Landfill
to a transfer station. Rather than equally distributing the residential routes throughout
the Town on the designated collection day, SCS recommends that the Town should be
divided into two (2) halves, so that there are an equal number of routes in the northern
half of town versus the southern half of town. Crews would then collect from half of
the town on one (1) collection day and the alternate half on the second collection day.
Modifying the routes in this manner would allow supervisors to adjust personnel and equipment
resources more efficiently to react to breakdowns, potential overweighting, and other routine
problems anticipated during collections. With the routes coordinated in closer proximity to one
another, it would be easier for the Town to re-direct resources from adjoining routes to cover any
deficiencies caused by these potential collections issues. Similarly, the individual routes may be
designed to terminate at a mutual end point, such that the vehicles may potentially caravan when
direct hauling out-of-county to a transfer station. By pairing or caravanning, drivers and crews
may efficiently respond to potential break-downs during this transport.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 45 10/22/12
4.1.1.5 Customer Service System
According to interviews with supervisors and other SWSD staff, SCS understands SWSD does
not operate with a formal customer service system. Historically, customer calls, comments, and
complaints are taken by phone, written down on paper, and then passed to the collections crews.
SWSD and the Town do not have a means to maintain electronic record of calls and Town
responses.
SCS is familiar with several readily available customer service software systems. Several are
tailored to solid waste management services, and in particular, Mobile 311 is designed for
municipal applications. Mobile 311 utilizes standard mobile devices (i.e., cell phones, text
messaging) to quickly relay information from the office to the field employees, while also
maintaining electronic record of correspondence. This software can help expedite the Town’s
response to routing issues, special requests, exemptions, and access problems, while assisting
SWSD management track the division’s response. Furthermore, the software can also help
streamline bulky and yard waste collection by allowing the drivers to generate work orders and
more efficiently communicate with the knuckleboom and flatbed truck equipment operators,
while more accurately and expeditiously initiating billing functions.
The Mobile 311 system is equipped with a GPS tracking system that relays GPS coordinates to a
central electronic locator map. Management may use the system to track the location of each
vehicle outfitted with the technology in order to respond quickly and efficiently to route and
vehicle problems, special collections requests, and monitor driver performance. Furthermore,
the electronic data is valuable when analyzing collections routes.
The cost for Mobile 311 is $60 per month per field user excluding the purchase cost of a
smartphone and monthly mobile phone contract. SCS estimates a total monthly cost of
approximately $2,700, assuming $100 per month for each mobile phone contract, based on 17
users under the current residential and commercial collection configuration. There is a one-time
services setup fee of $500 and training is available for $125/hour. There may be some additional
administrative and program costs for such a program, which is beyond the scope of this study,
but it is believed to be negligible compared to the monthly operational costs. If the Town wishes
to add additional users, the price costs would adjust accordingly.
Seven (7) residential collection vehicles;
Two (2) commercial collection vehicles;
One (1) vehicle for bulky waste;
One (1) knuckleboom truck;
Two (2) scooter trucks;
Two (2) supervisors;
One (1) inspector; and,
One (1) backup.
4.1.2 C ommercial
Similar to SCS’s residential collections system observations, SCS evaluated the Town’s
commercial collections systems for both commercial-business and commercial-multi-family
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 46 10/22/12
customers. Commercial collections customers also include numerous public entities: schools,
Town offices, parks and recreation, etc. Commercial service customers are generally described
as an entity which maintains one or more bulk solid waste containers (i.e., dumpster) collected
weekly by the Town front loader vehicles. The Town provides service to these customers 5 days
per week as requested in accordance with a published fee schedule. Collections have been
historically managed daily among two (2) separate routes with a collection vehicle assigned to
each route. Like the residential collections, these routes have been established over time without
the benefit of a technical routing evaluation. In addition to these customers with bulk containers,
commercial collections include approximately 16 customers that use residential roll-carts
serviced by the Town’s rear loader collection vehicles.
4.1.2.1 Routing Software
Several software companies offer routing services and software that could benefit the residential
and commercial collections routes. A technical routing evaluation, utilizing GIS data and route
modeling iterations would promote increased collection efficiencies, lower collections costs, and
would likely improve customer satisfaction. The goal of such evaluation would be to maximize
collection volumes while compressing on-route total traveling distances. Furthermore routing
software will allow new customers to be easily integrated into the existing routes. The estimated
cost of commercial routing software is about $15,000 to $25,000 for the software. Periodic
updates are required as the software is enhanced or if the service area changes substantially. It is
expected that staff time to maintain the routing software will be minimal.
4.1.2.2 Collections Route Start Time
SCS observed that each of the two (2) commercial collections routes initiated their route at 5:30
a.m. The route drivers typically work a 5 to 6 hour day and make two (2) trips to the Orange
County Landfill. The commercial route drivers indicated that the current collections schedule is
impacted by daily routine traffic congestion, primarily in the business district. Starting the
commercial collection routes earlier in the day, and targeting the downtown business district
first, would allow vehicles to collect containers more efficiently in these urban areas where
traffic and parked vehicles can cause delays later in the day. Furthermore, an earlier start would
benefit the driver’s direct hauling a longer distance to a transfer station by mitigating congestion
delays.
Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances, Chapter 11, Article 3, Section 11-40(o) provides a noise
exemption for sanitation and recycling services operating between the hours of 5:30 a.m. and
11:00 p.m. with approval by the Town Manager. Authorizing an earlier start time would require
modification of the Town ordinance and approval from the Town Manager.
The downtown business district is a concentrated commercial area subject to minimal residential
noise impact. Based on several commercial collection noise studies for other SCS clients
involving similar waste containers and collection vehicles, SCS has concluded that the greatest
noise level generated during a tipping event is caused by the shifting and dumping of the waste
in the container and not the vehicle or raising of the container itself. In general, the results of
studies near active commercial areas determined that the noise generated during a collection
event is not much greater than background from traffic and other commercial activity (i.e.,
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 47 10/22/12
deliveries, emergency vehicles, etc.). The results of these analyses would support a petition to
modify the Town ordinance in concentrated commercial areas to accommodate an earlier
collection time. SCS would note however, that containers at multi-family buildings or near
residential areas should be avoided early in the morning in order to reduce noise complaints.
4.1.2.3 Pickup Days
As previously stated, the Town currently provides commercial collection services 5 days per
week. A cursory review of Town commercial collection data determined that the collection
locations and frequency is generally equally distributed across the 5-day collection schedule,
resulting in the Town servicing between 70 and 80 customers each day. Furthermore, the
analysis identified only approximately 40 customers receiving collections 3 to 5 days per week.
SCS recommends that Town SWSD staff work directly with these select customers to accurately
evaluate their required collection frequency. In addition, collaborating on waste reduction
strategies for these customers would likely reduce their needed collection frequency, resulting in
fewer trips, and adding to the commercial collection crew’s available off-route travel time. This
targeted analysis would help these customers maximize container volume, improve Town
collection efficiency, and reduce on-route collections travel time. SCS recognizes that such
transition would involve customer outreach to the impacted customers. With fewer collection
events, SCS anticipates the collection staff may recognize sufficient gains in off-route time to
enable two (2) trips to a targeted further disposal facility; however, the Town would also lose
revenue associated with the reduction in collection events.
A formal routing analysis and maximizing container capacities may result in further routing
consolidation, perhaps even supporting a 4-day collection schedule. By consolidating collection
days, the waste containers would maximize their volume capacity, collection vehicles may more
efficiently achieve load capacity along fewer trips to these customers, and the Town would
recognize a savings in fuel and equipment usage charges attributed to this extra collection day.
However, when consolidating collection days and maximizing container capacities, these
analyses must take into consideration the need for contingent waste capacity needed to manage
excess volume in the event Town collection vehicles break down, or during peak disposal
periods coinciding with the school calendar.
4.1.2.4 Customer Service System
Similar to residential waste collection, the Town commercial collections system could benefit
from a customer service system such as Mobile 311 described above in Section 4.1.1.5.
4.1.2.5 Reconfiguration of Commercial Collection Services
With this comprehensive review of the Town’s solid waste collection and disposal services, SCS
prepared a detailed financial analysis of the existing commercial collection services and the
projected impacts of specific program modifications to these services to include:
Adjusting the commercial collection fee structure;
Eliminating commercial-private sector collection service while retaining commercial-
multi-family collections using Town resources; and,
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 48 10/22/12
Eliminating Town commercial collection services entirely.
Using the Town’s FY 2012-13 budget, SWSD staff assignments, waste disposal data, and other
Town records, SCS appropriately allocated SWSD costs between residential and commercial
services. With these allocated costs, SCS employed the pro forma scenario modeling to assess
the projected impacts to the Town budget for each of the scenarios listed above. A detailed
discussion of this analysis, results, and recommendations is presented in Appendix A.
4.1.2.6 Grease Management
The Town maintains a “grease corral” downtown for restaurants and other food service providers
to dispose of used grease. Collection from the grease corral is provided by third party collection
vendors contracted by the restaurants. Revenues from the sale of grease is returned to the
restaurant and not presently shared with the Town. Collection vendors are to provide scheduled
cleaning maintenance; however this maintenance is often insufficient or on an irregular schedule
to sufficiently address the corral’s cleaning needs, thus Town staff are often left to perform the
cleaning services to avoid environmental hazards and a general public nuisance. Furthermore the
inherent turnover of temporary staff presents a challenge to restaurant owners in property
training its employees on the use and maintenance of the corral.
To reduce the workload on its staff, avoid environmental risk, and mitigate the potential of this
public nuisance, the Town should require that each restaurant manage its own grease through a
private grease collection firm at the point of generation and cease operation of the grease corral.
4.1.3 Y ard W aste
As described in Section 2, the Town currently provides one-time, weekly, curbside yard waste
collections along the 14 established residential collections routes. Dedicated yard waste roll-
carts are available for purchase from the Town for $47 each; however, residents may also
prepare yard waste for collection per the following methods:
Rigid container – less than 40 gallons and less than 60 pounds;
Paper yard waste bags;
Bundled limbs and twigs, etc. – less than 50 pounds, less than 4 feet in length, and
less than 24 inches in diameter; and,
Loose piles at the curb – brush and twigs less than 3 cubic yards.
The Town takes the collected yard waste to the Orange County Landfill to be mulched and sold
to County residents. Orange County charges $25 for a 3 cubic yard scoop of mulch for residents
providing their own hauling, and delivers larger volumes of mulch using County resources for a
bulk fee equivalent to approximately $10 per cy.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 49 10/22/12
4.1.3.1 Collaborate With UNC for Yard Waste Processing
SCS determined that UNC owns and operates a tub grinder to process storm debris, limbs, brush,
and yard waste gathered from around its campus. The resulting mulch is used on campus and
off-sets mulch costs otherwise incurred for landscaping. During discussions with UNC staff,
SCS understands the UNC tub grinding process is currently operating under an exemption from
NCDENR permit conditions, equivalent to a small-scale farm-use exemption. UNC’s operations
reportedly process an estimated 100 to 200 tons per month, approximately equal to the annual
quantity of yard waste collected and disposed from the Town.
During preliminary meetings with UNC staff, SCS understands the UNC process has the
capacity to grind (mulch) the Town’s yard waste from its residential collection. Furthermore,
most recently the UNC process has not generated enough mulch to satisfy landscaping demand
and the university was required to purchase mulch. Thus, UNC staff would welcome Town
collaboration to meet this demand. These preliminary discussions indicated that the operating
footprint of the current UNC operation would likely need to be expanded by moving perimeter
fencing to accommodate the projected additional material contributed by the Town.
Furthermore, by including the Town’s yard waste with their operation, the mulching operation
may become subject to NCDENR permitting since it is accepting material generated off-site.
However, the university has indicated an interest in considering a partnership with the Town for
processing yard waste and is interested in discussing projected volumes and potential processing
fees.
4.1.3.2 Containers
Based on field observations, yard waste piles often do not conform to the Town collection rules.
Most often, waste collections staff is left to manage non-conforming piles of loose branches and
brush by hand which requires a lot of manual labor per collection stop. SCS recommends
requiring households to containerize yard waste curbside in the Town provided carts capable of
being mechanically tipped by the Town’s residential collection, rear loader vehicles. Enforcing
this practice would reduce the physical labor required to collect the waste and the possibility of
collection-related injuries. Containerizing the yard waste would also greatly reduce the time
spent per stop and decrease overall route time. For the purposes of easing the impacts of
transition of service, SCS recommends that the Town purchase yard waste collection carts for its
residents and factor the cost of providing carts in annual SWSD budget.
Based on recent Orange County solicitation data, the carts are anticipated to cost approximately
$50 each. Purchase of 11,500, carts at $50/per cart would cost approximately $575,000. This
would add about $0.51/household/month to the collection costs for the additional carts, assuming
a 10-year amortization period at 4% interest. Assuming an $18/ton disposal fee for yard waste,
the Town could consider charging an additional $1.5 to $2/cart per pickup (or something less if it
so chooses) for each additional cart to cover the additional disposal costs. Implementing this
change would likely require 6 months to a year to implement, and require public education and
notification.
When recognized, the Town does not collect large piles of tree removal debris set out by
contractors. The Town should engage in education and public outreach with residents and
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 50 10/22/12
contractors to ensure that the contractor hired by the resident for significant yard clearing and
tree removal is held responsible for collection. Requiring yard waste containers may mitigate
collection system abuse by tree removal contractors.
Similarly, these yard waste containers could also be utilized for food waste if the Town were to
implement a program to collect food waste for composting or an anaerobic digestion process as
discussed below in Section 4.3.2.
4.1.3.3 Seasonal Loose Leaf Collection
As described in Section 2.0, seasonal loose leaf collection is currently provided by the Town’s
Streets Division utilizing Town vacuum truck services. These analyses support that such
vacuum service is the most efficient means by which the Town should manage the large volume
of loose leaves generated during the Fall months. SCS suspects that the projected volume would
inundate routine yard waste collection capacity should the Town manage loose leaves using yard
waste carts.
In the event the Town decides to implement its own yard waste processing facility for
composting, mulching, or other waste conversion technology, the loose leaves may provide
marginal value to these operations. By nature of the dried leaves, little organic value is added to
any of these processes; however, the material provides bulk.
4.1.3.4 Knuckleboom
The Town’s knuckleboom truck is mainly used to collect large piles of brush and branches that
are difficult to otherwise collect manually. Currently the Town does not operate a system to
identify, in advance of collections, where these bulk piles are located. Most often the rear loader
collection truck operator will call the knuckleboom operator to inform them of the location of
large yard waste piles along their designated route. This random notification system promotes
inherent inefficiencies in bulky collections.
Utilizing a customer service system, on-board communications and tracking system, and GPS
system (or any combination thereof) would dramatically improve the Town’s efficiencies in
scheduling and collecting bulky yard waste piles. Furthermore, these systems would allow the
Town to more accurately track and account for bulky collection fees should the Town decide to
implement fees for yard waste collection that does not comply with new container requirements.
By implementing a mandatory yard waste cart policy, the Town can anticipate that residents will
periodically have need for bulk yard waste collection utilizing the knuckleboom truck for which
an additional fee may be charged.
4.1.3.5 Re-Education, Notice, and Enforcement of Setout Requirements
Currently the Town setout requirements such as bundling branches/sticks and the 3 cubic yard
maximum are not strictly enforced. SCS recommends enhanced public communication and
education efforts for the purposes of reiterating and re-educating residents of the Town regarding
yard waste set out requirements. With these communication efforts, advance notice of enhanced
enforcement when these Town policies are violated may be disseminated to the public.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 51 10/22/12
Furthermore, a requirement to utilize yard waste carts creates a program that is easier for
residents to regularly comply with the Town policies.
4.1.4 B ulky W aste C ollections
4.1.4.1 Operations Improvements
Bulky wastes and dead animals throughout the Town are collected during the week according to
a consistent schedule but on a random route depending on where the bulky waste and dead
animals are located. This route is staffed by a single equipment operator and a flatbed truck
equipped with a lift gate. The Town maintains a bulky waste fee schedule and requests that
Town residents schedule collections accordingly with SWSD. While these practices still occur
as scheduled, this bulky waste flatbed truck often drives randomly around the town with no
particular route, looking for bulky items that have been left on the curb. When these random
items are identified and collected the Town has no means of identifying the customer or
assessing for associated collection fees. Understandably, these random collection practices
promote inequality among paying and non-paying customers and encourage the continued
practice by residents of failing to notify SWSD of bulky collection requests. SCS understands
bulky waste collections are further complicated by the high ratio and transient nature of the
university population.
SCS recognizes that significant accountability improvements can be made in identifying,
scheduling, tracking and billing for bulky waste collections. Furthermore, customers who set out
bulky items randomly without a scheduled appointment and/or posting payment should be
assessed a fine or penalty. More efficient operations would result in the flatbed truck and
operator deploying fewer days per week, thus saving wages, fuel, and equipment usage charges.
Electronic reporting systems, (i.e., GPS system and on-board reporting system) as described in
the section above, would enable SWSD staff to quickly locate bulky items at curbside, report
these locations to a central dispatch, schedule efficient collections routes accordingly, assess
billing and accountability, and track resulting collections.
Billing should ideally be performed and collected prior to scheduled collection; however, the on-
board reporting system would provide the Town better resources to close these accounting gaps.
Once non-scheduled bulky waste is identified, the Town may quickly identify it, provide a
maximum of 1 week to bill and collect before proceeding with collection in-lieu of receiving
payment. The account can then be turned over to collections. If the responsible party cannot be
determined the Town may elect to bill the property owner. However the Town should maintain a
budget to account for costs associated with illegal dumping and delinquent collections.
By sponsoring designated bulk collection days corresponding with the university calendar (e.g.,
move-in and move-out) and offered at a discount rate or even free, the Town may better staff and
respond to these times of typically higher bulky waste volume, thus thwarting associated illegal
dumping and billing issues.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 52 10/22/12
4.2 R EVIEW OF TOWN SOLID WASTE ORDINANCES
Town ordinances concerning the management of its solid waste collection and disposal are
promulgated in the Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 8: Garbage, Trash,
and Refuse. Article I provides the general code. Article II presents regulations governing
collection and disposal practices, and Article III provides landfill regulations pursuant to
participation with the Orange County Landfill. SCS’s analysis of current collection practices and
policies included a review of these Town ordinances and the impacts recommended solid waste
program modifications may have on the Town code and vice versa.
4.2.1 Article I - General Solid Waste Code
With review of this article, the Town would potentially need to amend Section 8-5, “Garbage
and Household Waste Cans”. As currently authored, this code section:
Does not limit the number of waste cans residents may set out;
Specifies a 32-gallon can or less or provides the option to use the Town-issued carts;
and,
Does not limit the variability of can configuration (i.e., metal, plastic, varying height,
width, etc.).
In the event the Town decides to prescribe a standard Town cart to promote collection efficiency
using its current labor and equipment resources or implement automated collections, this section
would need to be revised to specify these waste cart requirements.
Furthermore, Section 8-5 describes the Town’s curbside collection exemption policy to include
age and health-related exemptions. Based on this analysis, and the more than 900 exemptions
granted by the Town, this article warrants revision to include a routine annual review/renewal of
exemptions and ongoing proof supporting the reasons for exemption. Likewise the exemption
policy as written in the code does not address exemptions currently afforded to households with
challenging access (e.g., long driveways, tight turns, etc.).
Section 8-6, “Additional Garbage Storage Facilities” allows residents to set out additional waste
without any definitive requirements. If the Town decides to implement a prescribed Town cart
policy, the limits of this requirement would be better described within this code section.
Furthermore, if the Town decides to implement a modified PAYT program to manage excess
waste placed curbside for collection, the prescribed options for these PAYT practices may be
defined in this code section.
4.2.2 Article II - Regulations for Collection and Disposal
4.2.2.1 Section 8-21: Definitions
A review of Section 8-21, “Definitions”, concluded that the definitions of “Household Refuse”
(i), “Refuse Receptacles” (m), and Yard Waste Container” (r) would require revisions of the
described waste containers should the Town elect to implement a prescribed waste cart policy for
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 53 10/22/12
typical collections or implementing automated collection. In each of these current definitions,
the waste cart is defined as a 32-gallon can of varying specifications or a Town-issued cart.
Furthermore the yard waste container, as defined, is limited to a 40-gallon can; however, this
Study has recommended requiring a Town-issued, 95-gallon can for yard waste collection.
4.2.2.2 Section 8-24.1: Brush Disposal
A review of Section 8-24.1, “Brush Disposal”, concluded that item (b) currently provides well
defined limits to the manner in which yard waste materials are to be prepared for collection;
however, no restriction is provided for the quantity of material placed curbside for collection.
Establishing a weekly maximum quantity for curbside collection would promote improved route
efficiencies. Furthermore, this analysis has recommended limiting the Town’s management of
loose piles by requiring a Town-issued yard waste cart. If agreed, the inclusion of the Town-
issued cart and exclusion of loose piles may be addressed in this Section.
4.2.2.3 Section 8-24.3: Limitations on Service
A review of Section 8-24.3, “Limitations on Service”, concluded that item (d) does not
sufficiently exclude contractor-generated yard waste from applicability to curbside collection. If
the Town wishes to enforce potential abuse of the Town-provided service by commercial,
private-sector contractors, the limitations as described in this section must be better defined.
4.2.2.4 Commercial Collections
Contingent upon the Town’s decisions regarding commercial collections and potential
outsourcing, or privatization of these services or portion thereof, numerous code sections
relevant to the management and disposal of bulk containers would warrant revisions and/or
deletion.
4.2.2.5 Section 8-35: Bulk Containers for Multiple Residential Units
Chapel Hill code currently requires bulk containers (i.e., commercial collection) for new
multi-family properties consisting of six (6) or more units per lot, unless a special waiver is
granted by the Town Manager or Town Council. Waivers are considered for units constructed
before 1973 and for properties where bulk service would create a public safety or health concern.
Through this Study, SCS recognized this article is particularly contentious based on the Town
requirement of a prescribed service level (i.e., bulk collection versus roll-cart collection). A
separate analysis further evaluating such prescribed service level is provided in Appendix B.
Contingent on decisions by the Town Manager or Town Council, this article may warrant
revision.
4.3 IMPLEMENTING WASTE C OLLECTION TECHNOLOGI ES
The Town could benefit from implementing the following waste collection technologies
described below. Our assessment includes the cost for deployment of these technologies, the
resulting data that can be obtained from their use, and the program enhancements that can be
realized.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 54 10/22/12
4.3.1 Transition to Fully -Automated Collections
The Town currently employs semi-automated (i.e., hydraulic cart tippers) collection along each
of its residential waste collection routes. A driver plus two (2) Town employees are used on
each of its waste collection routes. Waste collection carts are placed on the hydraulic cart tippers
to empty the cart’s waste into the collection vehicle and then the Town employee returns the cart
back to the curb. A benefit of semi-automated collection over manual collection is improved
worker safety and decrease in workers compensation costs.
Fully-automated collection vehicles use a single driver and a collection vehicle outfitted with an
arm capable of picking up the waste cart and emptying its contents into the vehicle. One of the
benefits of automated collection is a decrease in personnel necessary to collect the waste. Fully-
automated collection requires a single driver that can collect from 800 to 1,000 households per
day. Semi-automated collection requires a crew of three (a driver and two loaders) to service
between 600 and 800 households per day. Variables that affect the additional number of
households gained by full automation include: density of residences, distance to landfill, and
capacity of the collection vehicle. When transitioning to full-automation, most municipalities
must re-evaluate collections routes as the automated vehicle is limited to servicing only one side
of the street at a time, most often from the right side of the vehicle, thus requiring predominant
right-hand turn routing.
According to “The Benchmarking of Residential Solid Waste Collection Services: FY 2008
Report” by SWANA, semi-automated collection practices typically decreases worker injuries
but semi-automation does not significantly improve the number of households served per hour.
SWANA concluded that the process of hooking a cart to the cart tippers and executing the
automated tipping function takes some time. Exhibit 4-1 below depicts the average number of
residential units served by each standard waste collection method.
Exhibit 4 -1. Number of Residential Units Serviced Per Hour by
Collection Method
Collection Method
No. of
Residential
Units Served
per Hour
Fully-Automated 139
Semi-Automated 118
Manual 136
Average for all Methods 132
Advantages and disadvantages between semi- and fully-automated collection systems are
presented in Exhibit 4-2.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 55 10/22/12
Exhibit 4 -2. Advantages and Disadvantages Associated With
Semi -Automated and Fully -Automated Collection
Collection
Method Advantages Disadvantages
Fully-Automated Maximize productivity
Significantly reduce worker injuries
Municipality can match the productivity
of the private sector
Problems with on-street parking
Problems with one-way streets
Problems with low wires
Set out must be limited
New rules and requirements for
customers
Specialized driver training to adjust to
larger collection vehicles and right-hand
driving.
Cost of replacement trucks is higher
More costly and challenging vehicle
maintenance
Semi-Automated On-street parking and low wires are not
a problem
Allows for flexibility and allows collection
personnel to still manually load
Existing fleet can be retrofitted
Cost of trucks and maintenance lower
Workers exposure to injuries still exist
Not a large productivity gain
Observations of the Towns waste collection observations indicate that fully-automated waste
collection could be implemented in many of the currently established routes. Exhibit 4-3
presents an assessment of each collection route’s potential for utilizing fully-automated waste
collection vehicles. This assessment is based jointly on SCS’s observations and the Town’s
judgment through interviews with a route supervisor. The Town should conduct a routing study
that incorporates the ability to collect using full automation. Routes that do not support
automation 100% can be split so that the portion that can be automated is combined into another
route. Households that do not support automation can be aggregated into separate routes.
For applicable solid waste collection and disposal option scenarios, SCS’s pro forma modeling
tool includes life-cycle cost analysis of implementing a phased transition to automated
collections along select residential collection routes, beginning with a pilot-phase study of a few
routes in FY 2014-15. These analyses depict the fiscal impacts over a 30-year period of both a
partial transition and full transition to automated collection. These analyses are specifically
discussed in Sections 6 and 10, direct hauling of Town solid waste to a transfer station and a
landfill respectively. For each of the other scenarios, the pro forma modeling tool allows the
capability to quickly forecast the financial impacts of implementing automated collection along
with the programmatic changes relevant to the specific waste management scenario being
considered.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 56 10/22/12
Exhibit 4 -3. Residential Rou te Potential for Fully -Automated Waste
Collection
Route
Percentage of
Route that
Could Support
Fully-Automated
Collections
204 Monday 100%
Tuesday 100%
207 Monday 100%
Tuesday 100%
208 Monday 0%
Tuesday 100%
209 Monday 80%
Tuesday 75%
210 Monday 75%
Tuesday 75%
216 Monday 100%
Tuesday 100%
232 Monday 100%
Tuesday 100%
Planning efforts and preliminary action items that will be necessary to enable implementation of
a pilot-phase program to transition to automated collections for even a single residential route are
noted below. SCS believes a realistic timeframe to initiate the pilot-phase program is two years
and the timeframe for implementation of a full automation program is four years.
The existing routes will need to be evaluated and the most appropriate route will need
to be identified and selected;
A new automated collection vehicle will need to be purchased and a maintenance
plan will need to be developed;
Select SWSD staff will need to be trained on the proper operation of the new
automated collection vehicle;
Each household within the route will need to be equipped with the proper Town-
issued cart; and,
An outreach and education campaign will need to commence in order to engage
residents on the goals and protocols associated with the pilot-phase program.
4.3.2 Organics Diversion (Food Waste)
As described in Section 2, the Town currently provides for separate collection of residential
waste (i.e., MSW), yard waste, and recyclables. The SWSD staff and several Town residents
have expressed an interest in developing an organics diversion program in effort to improve
performance against the Towns waste reduction goals, and to lower MSW volume and related
cost. Organics diversion programs that include food waste from residential and commercial
customers have been implemented by various communities, businesses, and institutional entities
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 57 10/22/12
(e.g., universities and correctional facilities) throughout the United States. Of particular note, the
University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (UNC) operates a robust organics diversion program
on its campus with cooperation from Orange County and Brooks Contractors.
4.3.2.1 Summary of Organics Diversion Process
By design, organics diversion programs reduce the quantity of waste that is disposed in landfills
at the source of generation, and generally makes beneficial use of source separated organics
through composting or anaerobic digestion. The end product of composting is a humus-like
material that can be used as a soil amendment. The end product of anaerobic digestion is
methane gas and residual solids that can be further processed through composting and used as a
soil amendment. Methane gas generated from anaerobic digestion processes typically is a
medium BTU gas (500 MMBTU per cubic foot) and can be used to generate electricity (vendors
have quoted SCS 200 kWh/ton), used as a fuel substitute in various other combustion processes
(e.g., boilers), or further treated to produce a high-BTU fuel product that can be either directly
injected into natural gas pipelines or used as an alternative vehicle fuel (compressed natural gas
or liquefied natural gas).
4.3.2.2 Estimated Material Volume
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), approximately 14%
of the total municipal waste stream consists of food waste3. The 2010 Waste Composition
Study4 performed for Orange County, which included Chapel Hill, indicated that food waste in
Town represented 26% of the total waste stream. According to annual recycling data gathered
by UNC, during the 2010-11 reporting year, their organics diversion program recovered 538 tons
of organic materials for composting at Brooks Contractors. This represents 17% of the 37%
recycling achievement.
Various studies5,6 indicate that per household generation of food waste ranges from 5 to 10
pounds per household per month. Using these two data points, Exhibit 4-4 provides an estimate
of the total potential food waste generation and projected recovery from the Town’s residential
waste stream assuming an average 50% participation (or setout) rate. The exhibit also provides
an estimate of the organics that might be captured from the commercial waste stream as well;
however, for the purpose of this analysis, only the curbside residential customers are considered.
3 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd-basic.htm
4 SCS Engineers, Orange County Waste Composition Study, Summary of April 2010 Results, Prepared for Solid
Waste Management Department, Orange County, North Carolina, June 15, 2010.
5 Econservation Institute, Best Management Practices in Food Scrap Programs, Prepared for U. S. EPA Region 5.
6 SWANA Applied Research Foundation, Curbside Residential Food Waste, Research Memorandum, December
2008.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 58 10/22/12
Exhibit 4 -4. Organics Diversion Calculation, Town of Chapel Hill
4.3.2.3 Key Elements of an Organics Diversion Program
Organics diversion programs commonly involve the following elements:
Educational Programs. As with other recycling efforts, an effective separate food
waste organics collection program, whether residential and/or commercial, involves
significant public education and communication. If the Town were to elect to
implement curbside collection of food wastes, significant public education would be
needed to communicate the objectives, schedule, and procedures for storing and
collecting this waste stream so as to not create health concerns or nuisances such as
odors, insects, or rodents. The Town has experience with public education programs
associated with its existing yard waste and recycling programs, and there are
resources available from communities which have implemented separate organics
diversion programs.
Collection. Typically, residential and/or commercial food waste needs to be collected
separately from the other waste streams, although yard waste and food waste
collection can sometimes be combined. For example, the City of Toronto has
recently implemented a program that collects yard waste and food waste together.
The additional costs resulting from the separate curbside collection of food waste is
one of the major barriers to implementing a residential organics diversion program.
Additional collection costs would include new collection vehicles (amortized costs,
Calculation Methodology, Town of Chapel Hill, NC
Organics Diversion Scenario
Residential
Method No. 1 - Based on Waste Composition
Food Waste %
Residential Waste 6500 tons/year 26% 1,690 tons/year
Method No. 2 - Based on Per Household Generation
Low 5 lbs/HH/week 11,500 Households 1,495 tons/year
High 10 lbs/HH/week 11,500 Households 2,990 tons/year
Potential food waste generation: 1495-2990 tons/year
For Pro Forma (only include residential)
8 lbs/HH/week 11500 Households 2,392 tons/year
Capture rate 50%
1,200 tons/year
Commercial (potential additional recovery)
8,590 tons 26.00% 2,233 tons
Capture rate 25%
600 tons/year
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 59 10/22/12
maintenance and repair, and fuel), additional collection staff, and collection
carts/bins. The decision on the configuration of the collection system is a function of
the location (i.e., travel distance) and requirements of the organics processing facility.
Published information on the cost for separate curbside collection of organics varies
widely. A report to EPA Region 5 indicated that collection program rates depended
on whether the fees charged include processing fees, whether the community has
implemented a PAYT program, whether the program is mandatory, and whether other
charges are included in the fee to fund other activities7. The EPA further reported:
- The average rate “charged” to households for organics collection, including food
and yard waste was $7.70 per month per household ($/month/HH);
- reported costs ranged from $7.50 to $9.95/month/HH); and,
- The average “cost to provide” the service was reported to be $5.40/month/HH.
SCS also reviewed recent published rates from Waste Management, Inc. for separate
collection of organics in King County, Washington (the Seattle area).
- The rates varied from $10.80/month/HH to $12.90/month/HH depending on the
size of the collection cart (35 to 96 gallon carts, once per week pickup).
To confirm these cost ranges, SCS prepared a conceptual level cost estimate for the
Town of Chapel Hill implementing a separate organics collection program. The
estimate is presented in Exhibit 4-5, and confirms that a $6.00/month/HH budgetary
cost estimate would be appropriate for the Town providing once per week organics
collection in addition to the other collection services currently provided. This
estimate does not include processing/treatment costs, or additional costs for transport
of the waste to a remote processing facility.
While SCS recognizes innumerable scenarios exist pursuant to configuring
collections staffing, routing, and equipment to implement a Town-operated organics
diversion program, the following analysis was developed as just one example. SCS
estimated that running six trucks, twice per week to the Dean Brooks Farm facility,
which is approximately 39 miles one-way from Chapel Hill, would cost close to
$120,000 per year in additional operation, maintenance, and fuel costs8. If labor were
to be included as well, we estimate additional costs of close to $38,000 per year
would result, assuming one driver at $26/hr.; however, this cost probably should not
be considered, since it is already built into the $6.00/month/HH collection costs.
7 Econservation Institute, Best Management Practices in Food Scrap Programs, Prepared for U. S. EPA Region 5.
Undated.
8 Assumes: Fuel price = $2.91/gallon diesel, Gas mileage = 3 mi/gal, O&M = $1.42/mi, 78 mile roundtrip, total trip
time, including tipping of 140 minutes (travel time per Google maps, and 20 minutes tipping allowance), 12 trips per
week or 624 trips per year.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 60 10/22/12
Exhibit 4 -5. Organics Diversion Collection Estimate
for the Town of Chapel Hill
Trucks
No. of vehicles 7 (6 operational, one spare)
Price per vehicle 230,000$ (conservative budget)
Subtotal, vehicles 1,610,000$ (six active, one spare)
Amortized, trucks, 7 years, 4%$268,000
Staffing
No. Drivers 6 drivers
Annual Salary (fully loaded)54,000$ /year/driver
Annual Staffing Costs 324,000$ /year/driver
Supervisor 64,803$ /year
Total Staffing 388,803$ /year
Maintenance, Repair, & Fuel
Fuel 7,589$ /truck/year (based on current statistics)
M&R 12,281$ /truck/year (based on current statistics)
Total Fuel+M&R 19,870$ /truck/year
Allocation 40%assumes current yard waste is 40% of the costs incurred with current vehicles
Allocate to Organics Diversion 8,000$ /truck/year
No. trucks 6$
Total M&R + Fuel 48,000$ /year
Carts
11,500 HH 50.00$ /cart 575,000$
Amortized, Carts, 7 years, 4%$96,000 /year
Annual Allocated Costs
Staff 388,803$ /year
Amortized vehicles 268,000$ /year
Amortized carts 96,000$ /year
M&R 48,000$ /year
Subtotal 800,803$ /year
Admin & Support, 5%40,040$
Totals 840,843$ /year
No. of Households 11,500
Totals 6.09$ /month/HH
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 61 10/22/12
Exhibit 4 -6. Type III and IV Compost Facilities
W ithin 60 Miles of Chapel Hill, NC
Compost
Waste
Type Permit Name Address
One-way
Distance
from
Chapel
Hill
Travel
Time
(Min)
Municipal/
Commercial/
Institutional
Type IV McGill Environmental Systems 634 Christian Chapel Church Road, New Hill 28 46 Commercial
Type III Sanford, City Of 601 N. 5th Street, Sanford 35 52 Municipal
Type III Dean Brooks Farm 1193 Beal Road, Goldston 39 60 Commercial
Type III Novozymes Of North
America
445 Old Smith Farm Road, Franklinton 46.1 66 Commercial
Type III NC Zoological Park 4401 Zoo Parkway, Asheboro 59 80 Institutional
(1) Type 1 facilities may receive yard and garden waste, silvicultural waste, untreated and unpainted wood waste or any combination thereof.
(2) Type 2 facilities may receive pre-consumer meat-free food processing waste, vegetative agricultural waste, source separated paper or other source
separated specialty wastes, which are low in pathogens and physical contaminants. Waste acceptable for a Type 1 facility may be composted at a Type 2
(3) Type 3 facilities may receive manures and other agricultural waste, meat, post consumer-source separated food wastes and other source separated
specialty wastes or any combination thereof that are relatively low in physical contaminants, but may have high levels of pathogens. Waste acceptable for
a consumer-source separated food wastes and other source separated specialty wastes or any combination thereof that are relatively low in physical
contaminants, but may have high levels of pathogens. Waste acceptable for a Type 1 or 2 facility may be composted at a Type 3 facility.
(4) Type 4 facilities may receive mixed municipal solid waste, post collection separated or processed waste, industrial solid waste, non-solid waste sludges
functioning as a nutrient source or other similar compostable organic wastes or any combination thereof. Waste acceptable for a Type 1, 2 or 3 facility may
be composted at a Type 4 facility.
Processing. The infrastructure in North Carolina and elsewhere for the collection and
processing of source separated organics from residential or commercial customers is
not mature. A list of Type III and IV compost facilities within 60 miles of the Town,
which are permitted to process post-consumer-source separated food wastes, is
provided above in Exhibit 4-6. The facilities are owned and operated by various
commercial, institutional, and municipal entities.
SCS contacted Dean Brooks Farms (Brooks Contractors) and requested information
regarding the organics collection and processing services they offer, tip fee rates, and
the types of organic wastes they accept. They indicated that they are under contract
with Orange County to process various source separated organic waste streams. They
also indicated that they provide similar services to several locations throughout
Chapel Hill. The Dean Brook Farms facility is permitted to process 75,000 tons/year;
however they believe that with recent improvements the capacity may be increased to
100,000 tons/year. This past fiscal year they accepted and composted about 62,000
tons (10,000 tons of food waste); therefore, they still have capacity to receive
additional material. They indicated that tip fees they charge for organic waste
delivered to their facility depend on the type of material (i.e., culled produce and
trimmings would be at a lower rate than household mixed compostables or “break
room” type waste/ post-consumer waste), but that a nominal tip fee of $24/ton could
be assumed for budgeting purposes.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 62 10/22/12
In Sections 12 and 13, a discussion is provided regarding constructing a new regional
anaerobic digestion organics processing facility. SCS estimates that tip fees for this
type of facility could range between $45 to $100/ton depending on the assumed
capacity of the facility, estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and
offsetting energy revenues. The wide range of tip fees is due to the uncertainty in the
documented facility construction and operation costs for such facilities, and the
relatively small-scale of the conceptual facility evaluated. These types of facilities
are much more capital intensive and complex than compost facilities; however, the
amount of land required for anaerobic digestion facilities is generally much less than
compost facilities.
4.3.2.4 Financial Analysis
Applying the tip fee differential of $18.50 per ton between the Durham Transfer Station and the
reported tip fee at the Dean Brooks Farm Facility (i.e., $42.50 to $24) to the estimated amount of
residential organics that could be diverted from the landfill through a curbside collection
program (1,200 tons/year), only a projected disposal savings of $22,000 (1,200 tons/year x
$18.50/ton) is estimated. However, significant additional collection costs of over $850,000/year
(11,500 x $6.00/month/HH) would be required to provide this service to the Town’s estimated
11,500 households. Some cost efficiencies could be realized by combining the yard waste and
organics collection services; however, even if the costs are reduced by 75%, the projected cost
savings would not offset the increased collection costs.
4.3.2.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
The current management approach of disposing of the Town’s organic food waste in a Subtitle D
landfill is a cost-effective and environmentally sound practice; therefore, implementing a
curbside organics collection program is not recommended at this time. However, the Town
should continue to evaluate this conclusion in light of future technology and regulatory changes
(e.g., bans on disposal of organics in landfills).
4.3.3 Employing Radio Frequency Identification Device
Technologies
Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFIDs) are being used by some municipalities to
monitor waste pickup. Waste collection vehicles that are equipped with RFID readers pick up
bins or carts marked with RFID tags. The readers then record the exact time and location of each
waste collection event allowing a higher degree of monitoring and control of the waste collection
process. More sophisticated systems can use RFID technology to relate the weight of the waste
collection container with other data such as customer name and address to enhance customer
billing and accountability functions.
The cost for the RFID tags can vary depending on the quantity purchased, level of protective
housing, and battery life. Waste collection carts can be purchased with an RFID tags embedded
for just about $1.00 additional per cart. The cost of retrofitting existing carts without RFID tags
is about $10 per cart. SCS understands the Town is currently systematically purchasing carts
equipped with RFID tags. These carts are being distributed into the waste collections systems as
existing residential carts are replaced due to damage, age, or new customers added to the system.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 63 10/22/12
Since the Town is not planning on charging its residential customers by individual pickup or by
the weight of refuse placed in the cart, it seems that the use of RFID technology will have little
benefit with billing or customer service since customers typically call to report missed pickups.
SCS recommends the Mobile 311 system and its GPS capability would be a better tool for
monitoring waste collection progress. However, RFID tags can be useful for inventory
maintenance and enforcement. It is recommended for the Town to invest in a RFID reader and
software that utilizes the RFID tag to track inventory and distribution of waste collection carts.
The software can also be used as an enforcement tool in disputes to assess the rightful user of
waste collection carts. SCS does not recommend retro-fitting existing waste carts as the stick-on
tags often become detached and the labor to maintain failing tags is an added cost.
4.3.4 On-Board Scales
To improve the daily collection activities and accountability of commercial solid waste
collection services, the Town may consider on-board scales. An on-board scale system would
assist the drivers in monitoring their load to maximize their truck volume, while maintaining
their gross weight within NCDOT regulations for transport longer distances to a transfer station.
GPS and/or RFID systems would assist route supervisors in scheduling collections, tracking
collection events, and responding efficiently to random collection requests.
These systems cost about $30,000 per truck and are used by large private haulers to audit their
customers. A single truck can be outfitted with the on-board scale system and rotated through
the various collection routes to monitor each business’s waste quantities.
4.3.5 Solar Powered Trash Compactor Receptacle s for Public
Areas
Solar powered trash compactors such as those manufactured by Big Belly Solar have been
installed in many towns, cities, and universities to replace traditional, sidewalk trashcans with
reported cost and energy saving results. Existing customers of these compactors include:
Philadelphia, PA; Albany, NY; Boston, MA; and, Kissimmee, FL. The capacity of the solar
compactors is roughly 5 times that of a normal trash can, allowing pickup frequency to be greatly
reduced. Installing solar trash compactors downtown and near Town bus stops would potentially
reduce collection frequency and related costs in these areas. The Big Belly brand of trash
compactors utilizes side-by-side trash and recycling containers which can also improve recycling
diversion rates. These solar compactors can relay information back to the Town Operations
Center, letting employees know when they have reached maximum capacity and collection is
required. The cost for a solar compactor is about $3,700 each. An example of a solar-powered
trash compactor is presented in Exhibit 4-7.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 64 10/22/12
Exhibit 4 -7. Example of Solar -Powered Trash Compactor
4.3.6 Monitoring and Locking Devices for Downtown Business
Waste Compactors
The Town maintains two waste compactors in the downtown area for use by commercial
businesses. The annual cost for use of these compactors ranges between $280 to $1,500 per
business depending on the volume of waste generated for disposal. The compactors are locked
to prevent unauthorized use. Businesses who have registered with the Town to use the waste
compactors are provided a key for access. The Town contracts with Waste Industries for the
weekly collection of the compactors.
Inefficiencies noted by Town staff and observed by SCS include unauthorized access of the
waste compactors and lack of education for businesses on the operation of the compactors. The
inventory of the keys issued by the Town to businesses that use the waste compactors has
become outdated. Some businesses have moved out of the area and the key for the waste
compactors is passed along to the new businesses. This allows the new business to use the waste
compactor; however, the Town’s records are not always updated and hence the Town does not
charge the new businesses for use of the waste compactor.
Other inefficiencies noted relate to the operation of the waste compactors. Often, users unlock
the waste compactor to dispose of waste but do not make sure the waste compactor is locked
when they are finished. This allows unauthorized waste disposal by users that are not registered
with the Town and who are not charged for use. Also, users do not cycle the compression
mechanism. This results in the dumpster appearing full and requiring service before it is truly
full.
The Town should consider changing the locks for the waste compactors and reassess users of the
waste compactors to confirm that all users are being properly charged. The new inventory and
registration process should include education through brochures or a flyer about the operation of
the waste compactors as is currently the practice. Additionally, the Town should install signage
in both English and Spanish on the operation of the waste compactors.
The Town should also consider using technology that limits use, records frequency of compactor
usage by business, and offers data retrieval for billings. An example is the Waste Edge 200 by
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 65 10/22/12
One Plus Corporation (http://onepluscorp.com/waste-edge-200) which can be installed on most
waste compactors. The Waste Edge 200 User allows users access by entering an ID number on
the monitor keypad shown in Exhibit 4-8. The monitor keypad stores information on usage by
business that can be downloaded periodically by the Town.
Exhibit 4 -8. Example of Waste Compactor Security and Monitoring
Device
The Waste Edge 200 has a one-time cost of $2,595 per compactor. Installation is straightforward
but would require a couple of hours by Town staff. Upgrades to this system are available that
allow remote access to data through an analog phone line. The cost for the upgraded system is
$2,757 per compactor and $1,675 for software. Upgrades can also include the use of TrashPass
keys which utilize a digital chip to allow access to the waste compactor. These provide an added
level of security since the keys cannot be duplicated and lost keys can be locked out.
4.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECO MMENDATIONS
A summary of recommendations for improving the Town’s existing solid waste collection
system are as follows:
Implement a partial transition to fully-automated residential waste collection for a
select route or routes in a pilot phase study planned for FY 2014-15. This would
require the purchase of at least one (and likely two) new automated collection
truck(s). SCS recommends the Town consider a 28-cubic yard capacity fully
automated collection vehicle. This type of vehicle costs approximately $250,000,
compared to the Town’s current 18 to 20-cubic yard semi-automated rear loading
vehicles, which have a budgeted replacement value of $139,000.Following this pilot
study, SCS believes the Town may transition most of the existing routes within 2 to 4
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 66 10/22/12
years with the replacement of collections fleet vehicles in accordance with the current
depreciation and vehicle schedule.
Require that residential MSW be placed in a Town-issued waste collection cart. SCS
suggests the Town provide one cart per household at no charge and, if requested by
residents, supply additional carts for an annual fee of $60 per cart. SCS understands
the Town believes many households already possess a Town-issued cart. If new carts
were purchased for all 11,500 residential households at a cost of $50 per cart, the cart
costs incurred by the Town would be approximately $575,000. Implementation will
likely require six months to a year and public notification along with a public
education campaign will be necessary.
Develop a collections infrastructure to collect excess residential waste that does not
fit into the Town-issued waste collection cart via a hybrid PAYT program (i.e.,
sticker or bag). Implementing such a modified PAYT program would introduce the
concept to Town residents while holding excess waste generators accountable for
incremental collections costs.
Limit residential special collection (exemptions and private driveway service) to
those who have mobility challenges. Charge an additional fee of $16.50 per month
for special collections associated with private driveway service where no mobility
challenge or medical disability exists.
Continue collecting and delivering white goods to the Orange County Landfill facility
for recycling.
Conduct a formal, technical residential routing study.
- Evaluate routing configuration of implementation of a 2-day, 3-day and 4-day per
week collection schedules.
- Although this routing study could also evaluate the potential for residential MSW
collection on an every other week schedule, SCS believes the Town’s residents
would likely not embrace such a reduction in the level of solid waste collection
services currently being provided.
- If maintaining a 2-day per week collection schedule, evaluate consolidation of
routing maximize the number of households serviced by each route while
maintaining legal highway transportation weight limits.
- Pending the results of a routing study, divide residential waste collection routes
into two halves, a northern half and a southern half of town. Collection crews
would then collect from half of the town on one collection day and the alternate
half on the second collection day.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 67 10/22/12
- A routing and technology study would likely take 4 to 6 months to complete. A
budget of $50,000 to $70,000 is estimated to complete a routing and technology
study.
Invest in a customer service system, such as Mobile 311, for residential, commercial,
yard waste, and bulky collection services. The cost for Mobile 311 is $60 per month
per field user excluding the purchase cost of a smartphone and monthly mobile phone
contract. SCS estimates a total monthly cost of approximately $2,700, assuming
$100 per month for each mobile phone contract, based on 17 users under the current
residential and commercial collection configuration. There is a one-time services
setup fee of $500 and training is available for $125/hour. There may be some
additional administrative and program costs for such a program, which is beyond the
scope of this study, but it is believed to be negligible compared to the monthly
operational costs. If the Town wishes to add additional users, the price costs would
adjust accordingly. Implementation is suggested to occur in FY 2013-2014.
Allow commercial waste collection crews to begin waste collection as early as 4:30
a.m.
Further evaluate commercial collections routing, determine the most efficient
customer pick-up frequencies, and maximize container volumes such that the Town
may potentially reduce the number of days per week used for commercial waste
collection from five to four, or consolidate on-route time to accommodate the
additional transportation mileage to Durham.
Require yard waste be placed in a Town-issued yard waste cart for collection. SCS
suggests the Town provide one cart per household at no charge and, if requested by
residents, supply additional carts for an annual fee of $60 per cart. Purchase of
11,500, carts at $50/per cart would cost approximately $575,000. This would add
about $0.51/household/month to the collection costs for the additional carts, assuming
a 10-year amortization period at 4% interest. Assuming an $18/ton disposal fee for
yard waste, the Town could consider charging an additional $1.5 to $2/cart per pickup
(or something less if it so chooses) for each additional cart to cover the additional
disposal costs. Implementation will likely require 6 months to a year and public
notification along with a public education campaign will be necessary.
Require that residents schedule and pay for collection of large piles of yard waste (too
large for the cart). SCS suggests the Town charge a fee of $15 to collect a 3-cy pile
of yard waste.
Requiring that all MSW and yard waste be placed in Town-issued carts is anticipated
to improve collections efficiency and specifically reduce the time required for crews
to complete the collections route. Although it is difficult to quantify the time savings
that will be realized, SCS believes it is not unreasonable to expect that the route time
be reduced approximately 10% for MSW collections and 15 to 20% for yard waste.
Furthermore, this initiative accomplishes a critical preliminary step for a future hybrid
PAYT program and the proposed pilot study for automated collections.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 68 10/22/12
Purchase and use solar-powered trash compactors to replace traditional pedestrian,
sidewalk trashcans in typically congested public spaces and other public venues.
Change locks on existing downtown waste compactors and develop a current
inventory of all users. Purchase technology that limits access to registered users that
pay for use of the waste compactor.
The Town may consider clarifying its ordinance(s) regarding the management of
larger debris piles resulting from more extensive, non-routine landscaping activities.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 69 10/22/12
5.0 SOLID WASTE COLLECTI ONS PROGRAM
EVALUATION OF OUTSOU RCING
5.1 DECISION FACTORS
With increasing budgetary pressures, many municipalities like the Town of Chapel Hill are
evaluating potential solid waste program changes to reduce costs (e.g., elimination or changing
certain service levels, increasing service fees, or changing disposal locations) and the feasibility
and cost-effectiveness of outsourcing select functions such as solid waste collection. A review
of published resources describing municipal solid waste services throughout North Carolina
reveals a mix of both government-provided and outsourced solid waste collection services. The
decision to self-perform versus outsource solid waste collections is complex, and must consider
costs as well as the following intangible factors:
Continued level of service and control;
Impacts to Town employment;
Impacts to waste reduction and recycling goals;
Community pride and public perceptions;
Organizational values; and,
Ability to respond to technological, regulatory, and socio-economic changes.
Evaluating the changes to the Town’s cost structure from outsourcing or eliminating certain
services (e.g., commercial collection) is relatively straightforward. Various sections of this
report present economic analysis of the current solid waste program, and alternate scenarios
describing potential changes in service levels (e.g., 3-day versus 2-day per week residential
collection routing, commercial collection scenarios, PAYT, organics diversion, and direct
hauling to various transfer stations or landfills).
The Town maintains excellent historical records on the costs it incurs for providing solid waste
collection and disposal services, including salary and benefits, supplies, operational and
maintenance costs (e.g., fuel, oil, consumables, and repair), contracted and equipment
replacement costs, and annual capital requirements for new equipment. With each scenario, cost
changes to the system can be estimated and long-term cost impacts evaluated. However,
assessing how much a contractor would charge the Town to provide a similar level of services is
more difficult, and requires a public bid to entice a contractor to provide this information for
purposes of comparison.
Comparisons with other similar sized municipalities that have outsourced solid waste collection
services can be made, but each municipality is unique with respect to its geography, road
conditions, mix of single-family and multi-family residences, disposal market conditions, median
income levels, the types and levels of service provided, and how the solid waste system is funded
(i.e., fully funded by user fees, partially funded by user fees with balance through the general
fund, or whether the collection contractor bills residents directly; see Section 5.4).
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 70 10/22/12
The intangible factors noted can be just as important as the cost factors in making a decision to
outsource services or not. A discussion of the intangible factors that could affect the Town’s
decision to outsource solid waste collection services is provided below.
Level of Service and Control. The Town currently provides residential curbside
collection, multi-family and commercial collection, bulky waste pickup, and yard
waste collection services using in-house resources. Decisions regarding the staffing,
equipment, routing, and services provided are solely in the Town’s control, with the
exception of recycling services, which are provided by Orange County. The Town
could outsource all or part of the residential and commercial collection services it
currently provides (e.g., residential curbside collection or commercial collection, or
both). Providing solid waste collection services using in-house resources allows the
Town to: continue to provide exemplary service to its residents; respond directly,
promptly, and efficiently to residential and commercial needs; effectively manage
complaints; and, provide for special circumstances.
For example, the Town grants numerous exceptions for special pickup services
without having to refer to a contract scope of work as would be the case if these
services were outsourced. Under a contracted collection scenario, the costs for
responding to special needs and circumstances are more difficult and cumbersome to
manage. As such, continuing with in-house collection services provides the Town
maximum flexibility to respond to its residential and commercial customers, although
it may not be the most cost-efficient approach. In addition, current Town solid waste
staff can be reassigned to various other tasks on an as needed basis. In general, the
current level of service provided by the Town likely will be higher than if the services
are outsourced.
Impacts to Town Employment. Outsourcing of solid waste collection services would
likely result in some reduction in the Town’s SWS Division work force (salary and
benefits).When implementing outsourcing, some positions could be transferred to a
private contractor or reassigned within the Town. However, it is unlikely that all the
positions would transfer to a private company, nor would the benefits provided to the
Town’s staff necessarily be comparable to the pay and benefits currently provided by
the Town.
Impacts to Waste Reduction and Recycling Goals. The Town is ultimately
responsible for providing the infrastructure and municipal services to meet the State’s
and Town’s recycling goals. Under a municipally-operated program, the Town has
direct control over its progress towards these goals. However, under an outsourced
solid waste collections program, a contractor may have incentives that conflict with
these waste reduction goals, depending on the structure of a contract. For example, if
paid by the ton collected, a contractor may be incentivized to collect more waste for
disposal.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 71 10/22/12
Community Pride and Public Perceptions. Community pride and public perception is
difficult to gauge with respect to solid waste collection, except when there are
complaints pertaining to problems with the services being provided or inconsistencies
or changes in the level of service. Many of the Town’s waste collection staff are
known throughout the community. The Town’s solid waste staff take pride in the
services they provide in dealing with special circumstances such as late can set outs,
back-door service, or collecting from private driveways or properties that are difficult
to access. Outsourcing solid waste collection services could change public
perceptions although private companies also take pride in the quality of the services
they provide as well.
Organizational Values. In April 2011, the Senior Management Team of the Town
adopted a series of values that can be found on the Town’s website
(http://www.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us/index.aspx?page=1811). The Town’s solid waste
system is operated consistent with these values and for the benefit of the Town’s
residents and businesses (its ultimate shareholders). Private companies have values,
some of which may be consistent with the Town’s, but private businesses also operate
for the benefit of its shareholders (i.e., profit goals). The Town must provide a
service to its customers. A private contractor must provide a return to its
shareholders. Balancing the Town’s shareholder interest (i.e., residents) and a
contractor’s shareholder interest (i.e., profitability) is an ongoing challenge which
generally impacts level of service. The Town can make decisions with respect to the
level of service provided that a private business might not make because of these
differing organizational values.
Ability to Respond To Technological, Regulatory, and Socio-Economic Changes.
Private companies tend to respond quicker than municipal governments to changes in
technology (e.g., automated collection, single stream recycling), regulatory initiatives
(e.g., disposal bans), and socio-economic changes (e.g., downturn in the economy).
For example, most private companies are transitioning their fleets to automated
collection because doing so reduces labor costs and increases collection efficiency.
Sometimes implementing such changes in the public sector is more difficult because
the change could result in staffing reductions (e.g., automated trucks typically require
one operator compared to three for the Town’s current rear loader vehicles), and
significant capital expenditures. As such, potential staffing reductions which may
seem intuitively obvious have to be carefully evaluated in light of the other services
provided by the Town under the current staffing census. Often staff performs
multiple tasks, which if eliminated because of a programmatic or equipment changes
could result in reduced level of service elsewhere in the solid waste program.
Furthermore, a private sector contractor is likely not as invested in the impacts to its
customers (i.e., Town residents) as the public sector may be regarding the impacts of
programmatic changes to waste services.
When change requires capital investment (e.g., new collection vehicles), the private
sector is typically able to more quickly respond to these financial needs with access to
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 72 10/22/12
private capital versus public capital. Due to its nature, use of public capital is subject
to careful budgeting, planning, and the political process.
Municipal operations also have the added step of gaining consensus and approval of
their respective governing political bodies, such as Town Councils or County Boards,
before implementing major program changes. The political process can affect the
speed of change.
If the Town wishes to consider outsourcing of its collection services, we recommend the
following:
The Town should develop a document that provides a comprehensive description of
the types and level of service it provides, and clearly articulate the expectations it
would have of a contractor were it to outsource all or part of the services it currently
provides. This document could serve as the framework for a bid specification.
The Town should get input from the community and the private sector regarding the
service level descriptions and expectations.
The Town should develop and issue a request for bid, with the provision that the
Town’s SWS Division can also respond, and allow the Town the flexibility to award
or not award a contract depending on the results of the bids.
The results of the bids should be evaluated based on costs and the intangible factors
described above.
5.2 OUTSOURCING: CONTRAC T OR F RANCHISE?
Across the industry, privatization/outsourcing of solid waste collection and disposal services is
typically initiated by one of two methods:
A formal contract agreement for solid waste collections and disposal to a third-party,
private sector vendor; or,
A franchise agreement with a similar private sector entity.
5.2.1 Solid Waste Collections Contract
An illustration of a formal contract arrangement for solid waste collection and disposal services
would include:
A municipality advertising a formal request for proposal (RFP) for solid waste
collections and disposal services.
Selecting a qualified company through this open bid process.
The winning bidder and the municipality would then negotiate contractual details,
including fees and the duration of these contract services.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 73 10/22/12
Contract terms prescribe that the municipality pays the private company a contract fee
for collection and disposal. Reimbursement to the municipality, if sought, is assessed
through solid waste service fees applied to its residents and customers, or through tax
assessments.
5.2.2 Solid Waste Collections Franchise
A solid waste collections and disposal franchise arrangement is very similar to a contract
arrangement with the exception that the private sector contractor providing the service would
invoice and collect payments from the residents and business customers in the community for
solid waste services and pay the municipality a franchise fee. Costs for solid waste services are
thus removed from the municipal ledger. Accordingly, the corresponding tax assessment for
solid waste services would typically be adjusted. Compared to a contract arrangement, under the
franchise arrangement, municipal government is even further removed from the management of
solid waste services, thus having even less control over the service and value provided by the
vendor.
5.2.3 General and Town -Specific Contract Considerations
The structuring of an outsourcing contract can have broad implications towards the level of
service a contractor may provide, integrating a municipality’s values and goals with the
contractor’s services, and hedging challenges inherent to managing the contract. Examples of
typical contract terms and structure relevant to the Town are provided below for consideration
should the Town consider outsourcing its solid waste services.
Contract Term. Typically 5 to 10 year duration. Shorter durations typically result in
higher bid or negotiated costs.
Contract Renewal. Typically 1 to 3 years. An “Evergreen” term implements and
automatic renewal unless contract termination is specifically initiated by one (1) of
the parties.
Waste Diversion Requirements. Establishing a waste diversion goal in the contract,
potentially subject to a penalty or reduced fee, would assure the Town continues to
strive towards State and local mandated goals.
Performance Standards. Like the diversion requirement, establishing clear
performance standards, and relative penalties or liquidated damages will help the
Town manage and maintain the level of service its residents and Town management
may expect from a contractor.
Vehicle Requirements. Prescribing vehicle requirements (e.g., new vehicles,
maintenance schedules, etc.) attempt to offset service impacts from equipment failure.
In addition, prescribing well maintained vehicles promotes a shared commitment to
community pride. Furthermore, if applicable, requiring compressed natural gas
(CNG) vehicles or electric vehicles can promote a municipality’s commitment to
environmental/ “green” initiatives.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 74 10/22/12
Rate Adjustments. Careful consideration of annual rate adjustments must be made
along with the contract term. Typical adjustment structures are tied to national or
industry-specific indices (e.g., Consumer Price Index), capped at an established
maximum, or based on transparent cost analysis and agreed profit margins.
Non-Routine Collections. A contract structure must consider providing collection
and disposal services for the Town’s special events: sporting events, tournaments,
festivals, storms, and natural disasters.
Public Education and Outreach. Specific requirements to continue to engage and
educate the Town’s customers in waste reduction strategies, recycling, and potential
new service offerings.
Indemnification. The Town must be certain to indemnify itself from financial and
physical liabilities resulting from contractor misconduct or performance; regulatory
non-compliance; vehicle traffic and highway violations and fines; and environmental
issues.
Insurance and Bonds. Insurance limits typically range from $3 to $20 million
depending on the size of the contract. Performance and payment bonds are a
common requirement.
Assignment and Transition. These contract terms promote a continuance of service
and protect the Town from adjusting to new service providers throughout the term of
the contract.
5.3 SOLID WASTE COLLECTI ONS C OST A NALYSIS
The Pro Forma scenario model developed by SCS includes a module that allows the Town to
project the cost impacts of outsourcing all or part of its current solid waste collection services
compared to the annual budget. This outsourcing module allocates the budgeted and projected
SWS Division personnel and operational costs and revenues between residential and commercial
services in order to assess the cost of service by function. The commercial services are further
subdivided between commercial-multi-family and commercial-business services. The pro forma
model and allocation methodology are discussed in more detail in Section 14. A case study
evaluating outsourcing the Town’s commercial collection services is provided in Appendix A.
Exhibit 5-1 presents SCS’s estimate of the allocated residential and commercial solid waste
collection and disposal costs for FY 2012-13. A separate calculation also is provided estimating
the $/month/household costs of service for residential curbside collection (including bulky
waste), yard waste collection, recycling, and disposal.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 75 10/22/12
Exhibit 5 -1. Pro Forma Allocated Budget
Costs and Revenues for FY 2012 -13 (Status Quo)
Scenario: Current, No new route, Orange County LF, No Automate
Residential Scenario A
Annual Budget
Residential
Allocation
($)
Commercial
Allocation
($)
Commercial-
Multi-Family
($)
Commercial-
Business
($)
Total
($)
2013 2013 2013 2013 2013
Item 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013
TOWN SOLID WASTE BUDGET
Collection Personnel Services
Salaries - Full-Time (Including Benefits)1,408,600 223,800 119,100 104,700 1,632,400
Other Pay 1,900 - - - 1,900
Workers Comp Insurance 41,800 10,000 5,300 4,700 51,800
Subtotal, Collection Personnel Services 1,452,300 233,800 124,400 109,400 1,686,100
Collection Operating Expenses
Professional Services 400 100 100 - 500
Personnel Agency Payments 7,300 1,700 900 800 9,000
Business Meetings & Training 3,700 900 500 400 4,600
Career Development Training 900 200 100 100 1,100
Advertising 2,000 500 300 200 2,500
Uniform Rentals 10,100 2,400 1,300 1,100 12,500
Landfill Fines 1,100 1,400 700 700 2,500
Charges by Landfill 449,700 489,600 260,500 229,100 939,300
MSW 396,200 489,600 260,500 229,100 885,800
Yard Waste 53,500 - - - 53,500
Fleet Use Charges 166,400 34,000 - 34,000 200,400
Vehicle Replacement Charges 270,200 40,400 - 40,400 310,600
Misc. Contracted Services 4,800 17,300 8,600 8,600 22,000
Supplies 39,600 9,400 5,000 4,400 49,000
Fuel 93,600 27,600 - 27,600 121,200
Subtotal, Operation Expenses 1,049,800 625,500 278,000 347,400 1,675,200
TOTAL BUDGET, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 2,502,100 859,300 402,400 456,800 3,361,300
REVENUE
Garbage Collection Revenue (Commercial front load service)- 312,000 47,000 265,000 312,000
Special Trash Collection (bulky, white goods, yard waste, etc.)8,000 - - - 8,000
Compactor Fees (2 downtown compactors)- 40,000 - 40,000 40,000
Garbage Citations (Commercial and residential)1,300 1,700 700 1,000 3,000
Sales: Yard Waste Carts 3,000 - - - 3,000
Solid Waste Disposal Tax 9,400 11,600 6,200 5,400 21,000
Total, Revenue, $21,700 365,300 53,900 311,400 387,000
Net Costs (not including Capital Outlay) - Revenue 2,480,400 494,000 348,500 145,400 2,974,300
SCS Estimate of Allocation by Service Type
Yard Waste (2/5ths of major costs)(2/5ths of major costs)
Disposal 53,500$
Personnel 580,920
Operations 240,040
Revenue (8,680)
Total, Yard Waste, $/year 865,780$
6.27 /mn/HH (11,500 households)
Residential+Bulky Wastes Residential+Bulky Waste (3/5ths of major costs)
Disposal 396,200$
Personnel 871,380
Operations 360,060
Revenue (13,020)
Total, Residential Curbside, $/year 1,614,620$
11.70 /mn/HH (11,500 households)
Recycling 7.42$ /mn/HH (($37+$52)/year/12 months, not in budget)
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 76 10/22/12
5.4 SOLID WASTE COLLECTI ON AND SERVICE FEE
COMPARISONS
Exhibit 5-2 provides a comparison of solid waste collection program rates (Contracted and
Government-provided) for several North Carolina municipalities in close proximity to Chapel
Hill and/or of equivalent population size. In general, the types and levels of service provided by
these municipalities, or their contractor, are similar, and include once per week curbside
collection of residential waste, yard waste, bulky waste, and recyclables. However, as this
exhibit illustrates, a direct comparison of collection fees as a Town measuring stick can be a
misleading metric. Variations exist in the method of collection (automated versus manual
collection), backyard versus curbside collection, the scope of recycling services (single stream
versus source separated), yard waste services, bulky waste fees, and how the solid waste system
is funded as noted in the exhibit notes.
Several communities charge collection fees that do not fully cover the costs of the services
provided; therefore, comparison of the referenced rates assessed to residences by each
municipality cannot be directly made. The cost figures provided for Chapel Hill are based on the
cost estimates provided in Exhibit 5-1.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 77 10/22/12
Exhibit 5 -2. Summary of Comparable Solid Waste Programs
City Name Primary Collector and Published Rates1
Distance from
Chapel Hill
(miles)
Population
(Households)2
Chapel Hill Government: Residential + Bulky Waste ($11.70/mo./HH)
Commercial (Various rates), Yard Waste ($6.27/mo./HH)
Contract: Recycling ($7.42/mo./HH)3
N/A 57,432
(11,500)
Cary Government: Residential + Recycling ($14.00/mo./HH) 22 136,203
(43,637)
Apex Contract: Residential ($9.39-$9.64/mo./HH),
Bulky Waste (service fee),
Recycling ($2.25-$2.35/mo./HH)
Government: Yard Waste ($4/mo./HH)
25 37,749
(11,360)
Burlington Government: Residential +Yard Waste ($3.71/mo./HH)4,
Bulky Waste (free or service fee)
Contract: Recycling ($2.29/mo./HH)
31 50,475
(16,905)
Holly Springs Contract: Residential ($9.50/mo./HH),
Recycling ($4.25/mo./HH),
Yard Waste ($2.00/mo./HH)
37 24,838
(8,009)
Raleigh Government: Residential, Yard Waste, and Bulky Waste
($7.70/mo./HH)5
Recycling ($2.60/mo./HH)
33 406,709
(107,789)
Kannapolis Contract: Residential, Yard Waste, Bulky Waste, e-waste,
and Recycling (combined environmental fee of
$6.85/mo./HH
117 42,828
(16,128)
Notes:
1 Rates are generally obtained from annual solid waste budgets or Town/City/County websites.
2 Households estimated using number of housing units and applying housing units in multi-unit structures percentage
from US Census Bureau.
3 Estimated by SCS based on 2013 budget and simplified allocation of costs between various services (3/5th of
respective personnel and operations costs to residential and bulky waste pickup and disposal, and 2/5ths to yard
waste pickup and disposal. Recycling budget based on fees charged by Orange County @ $37/HH/Year basic
fee plus $52/HH/Year urban recycling collection fee. These are “full-cost” estimates of the costs of service,
compared to some of the reported fees from other jurisdictions which do not reflect the full costs of service.
4 This service fee does not appear to fund the entire system. The Town’s website refers to this as a solid waste
tipping fee.
5 This service fee does not appear to fund the entire system; the City’s FY 2012-13 annual budget indicates over
40% of the solid waste division funding ($12.8M) is through transfers from the general fund.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 78 10/22/12
6.0 DISPOSAL OPTION – DIRECT HAUL TO TRANS FER
STATI ON
Considering the pending closure of the MSW landfill unit at the Orange County Landfill
effective July 1, 2013, the Town, along with the other regional municipalities participating in the
Inter-Local Agreement must develop and implement a solution to continuing its solid waste
management services related to MSW for residents of the Town. A short-term solution is desired
to continue to provide the quality of service Town residents’ value, while the Solid Waste
Services Division (SWSD) and Town Council continue to evaluate their solid waste management
services in general.
The results of SCS’s analysis of MSW disposal options concluded that “direct haul” to an out-of-
county solid waste management/disposal facility is the preferred short-term solution for the
Town. In fact, this approach serves as the only viable short-term option since it is not feasible
for the Town to site, permit, and construct their own new solid waste management/disposal
facility in the timeframe necessary to commence operations by July 2013. In the context of this
Study, the term “direct haul” refers to transporting MSW using the Town’s solid waste collection
vehicles that serve the Town’s residential and commercial collections programs.
A review of solid waste industry and state published databases listing permitted public and
private solid waste management/disposal facilities in the vicinity of the Town identified a
number of viable disposal options, including several permitted solid waste transfer stations.
6.1 WHAT I S A T RANSFER S T ATION?
Solid waste transfer stations are designed to serve as an intermediate waste handling facility for
entities and municipalities that do not own and operate a landfill or other waste disposal facility,
and whose distances from these ultimate disposal facilities (e.g., landfills) present inherent
inefficiencies in direct hauling small volumes to such facility. At a transfer station, individual
waste collection vehicles unload their collected waste onto one or more temporary staging areas
or tipping floor. The tipping floor and accompanying operations are typically enclosed in a
building and covered by a roof.
Once waste is tipped onto the floor, various heavy equipment gather and consolidate the waste
into a larger portable container, usually a transfer trailer. These transfer trailers are typically
greater than 50 feet in length and the consolidated waste is typically compacted into the trailer by
mechanical means to reduce as much void space as possible before being transported to an
ultimate disposal facility, such as a landfill or WTE facility. Furthermore these trailers are
equipped with “walking” floors to assist in extracting the compacted waste from the trailer, or
the ultimate disposal facility may operate a trailer tipping station. Many transfer stations are
accessible by rail where bulk rail cars are loaded with consolidated and compacted waste for rail
transport to the ultimate landfill facility.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 79 10/22/12
6.2 IDENTIFIED TARGET TR ANSFER STATIONS
The Town engaged SCS to conduct this Study to evaluate the life cycle costs and impact to their
Solid Waste Management Program of direct hauling collected waste to various transfer stations.
With this evaluation, SCS considered the following variables and inputs to identify the lowest
cost option for MSW disposal at existing transfer stations:
Hauling distance;
Disposal tipping fees;
Average daily throughput of the facility;
Town collection fleet fuel and maintenance costs;
Fleet modifications or upgrades; and,
Labor and collections routing modifications.
SCS reviewed several published resources to develop a list of viable target transfer stations for
this direct haul evaluation including the “Directory of Non-hazardous Waste Sites-2011”
compiled by the Waste Business Journal and cross-referenced to the listing of solid waste
facilities currently permitted by NCDENR. The Waste Business Journal Directory provided an
electronically sortable list of facilities for North Carolina and surrounding states which included
pertinent information such as:
Facility type (i.e., landfill, transfer station, MRF, etc.);
Facility address;
Owner/Operator description (i.e., public or private);
Contact information;
Facility permit number;
Daily average throughput (tons per day);
Permitted and remaining capacities; and,
Tipping fees.
Using these references, a compilation of existing permitted transfer stations in North Carolina
and Virginia was developed along with the estimated driving distance to each facility from a
predetermined location presumed to be the geographic center of the Town, which coincides with
the intersection of East Franklin and Columbia Streets. A total of 31 MSW transfer stations were
identified within a radius of approximately 115 miles of the Town.
Using the current Town MSW collection and disposal quantities summarized in Section 2 for
both residential and commercial operations, and assuming an ongoing collection schedule of 2
days per week, the Town is anticipated to potentially contribute an additional 150 tons of MSW
throughput per day that would be required of a target transfer station to manage. Accordingly,
existing transfer stations exhibiting a daily average throughput of less than 150 tons were
excluded from consideration, since SCS suspects these facilities may not be designed, permitted,
or staffed to manage an additional 150 tons of daily throughput. Based on this criterion, SCS
identified a total of 12 existing MSW transfer stations within a 100 mile radius of the Town that
are considered to be qualified facilities: 7 publicly-owned facilities and 5 privately-owned
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 80 10/22/12
facilities. The locations of several of these facilities are depicted below in Exhibit 6-1 and the
inventory of all transfer stations considered is summarized in Exhibit 6-2.
Exhibit 6 -1. Target MSW Transfer Station Facilities
6.3 SCENARIO MODELING AN ALYSIS
The scenario modeling analyses of this short-term disposal option were structured to result in the
least impact to the current level of service that Town customers receive and the least disruption
to existing Town collections systems, personnel and equipment. The various scenarios anticipate
modifications that are made to reflect changes in equipment, personnel, and routing over time.
For this MSW disposal option of direct hauling to an existing transfer station, the analysis
incorporates the allocated equipment and labor waste collections resources provided in the
Town‘s FY 2012-13 budget.
The evaluation of the direct haul scenarios is structured to enable the residential and commercial
crews to avoid having to complete multiple trips to the target transfer stations. The relevant
assumptions are further discussed below.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disp osal Options
v2.1 81 10/22/12
Exhibit 6 -2. Summary of Target Solid Waste Transfer Stations
Facility Name
Ownership
(Public/
Private)City/County State
Average
Daily
Throughput
(Tons/Day)
Tipping Fees
($ per Ton
of MSW)
Distance from
Chapel Hill, NC
(Miles) Comments
Qualified Facilities
City of Durham Transfer Station Public Durham NC 587 42.50 17.5 Short Term Option Target TS
Waste Industries - Durham Transfer Station Private Durham NC 440 42.50 18 UNC Disposal - this site
WMI - Raleigh Transfer Station Private Morrisville NC 208 57.00 18 Waste Management, Inc. - Wake Co.
South Wake Transfer Station Public Apex NC TBD TBD 28 Permitted but Inactive; Negotiate w/Wake Co.
East Wake Transfer Station Public Raleigh NC 80 36.00 35 Target TS - Confirm Throughput
City of Greensboro Solid Waste Transfer Station Public Greensboro NC 768 41.00 50
Randolph County Transfer Station Public Randolph NC 189 44.00 53
Republic - Bishop Road Transfer Station Private Greensboro NC 570 35.58 56 Tip fee from 2011 Greensboro RFP
Vance County Transfer Station Public Henderson NC 156 60.00 58
Waste Industries - Black Creek Road Transfer Station Private Wilson NC 380 52.28 77 Other Waste Industries Facility closer
Waste Industries - Rocky Mount Transfer Station Private Rocky Mount NC 312 51.82 87 Other Waste Industries Facility closer
Halifax County Transfer Station Public Halifax NC 213 47.00 109
Notes:
1. Chapel Hill projected to collect an estimated 150 tons of MSW per day in FY2013 assuming both Residential and Commercial are collected during 2 days per week.
2. TBD - To Be Determined
3. NA - Not Applicable
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 82 10/22/12
6.3.1 Collections Fleet Modifications and Capital Expenditures
6.3.1.1 NCDOT Overweight Regulations
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) imposes weight limits on commercial
vehicles traveling on state highways, roadways, and bridges for the protection of the traveling
public, prevention of damage to this infrastructure, and to promote efficient operation of the
public transportation system. As described in the North Carolina General Statute 20-118, these
weight limits are determined by the gross weight transmitted to the road by a combination of the
vehicle’s axles. For the purposes of the Town’s collection vehicles, these combinations are
2-axles and 3-axles respectively. Gross weight is defined as the axle weight plus any load
carried by that axle, or distributed across a combination of axles.
The single-axle weight limit is 20,000 pounds (10 tons);
The tandem-axle weight limit is 38,000 pounds (19 tons); and,
The gross weight imposed on the highway by any axle group is determined by the
distance in feet between axles.
- 2-axle vehicles range between 38,000 and 40,000 pounds
- 3-axle vehicles range between 38,000 and 60,000 pounds
Under the current disposal practice involving Town collection vehicles transporting MSW to the
Orange County Landfill, these weight restrictions are rarely monitored and enforced due to the
limited travel on state roadways beyond the Town limits. However, these state-enforced weight
restrictions become more of a concern while transporting collected waste a longer distance to a
transfer station. Annual and trip-specific overweight permits are issued by NCDOT; however,
upon further discussions with NCDOT permitting staff, waste collection vehicles are not
applicable because their operation and loads are deemed to be potentially further divisible in
order to meet NCDOT weight limits.
A $500 fine may be levied for an overweight violation. Further civil penalties are assessed of
$0.04 per pound for the first 1,000 pounds; $0.06 per pound for the next 1,000 pounds; and $0.10
per pound for each additional pound.
6.3.1.2 Residential Collection Vehicles
The Town’s existing residential rear loader collection trucks have a rated capacity of 18 to 20
cubic yards (cy). According to data provided by the Town, the tare (i.e., empty) weights of these
single-axle and tandem-axle residential rear loader vehicles range between 20,000 and 28,000
pounds (10 to 14 tons). Based on the known tare weight of the Town’s collection vehicles and
their waste hauling capacities, several vehicles are subject to potential overweighting depending
upon their axle configuration and the load weight distributed across their axles. For example:
The average tare weight of a Town tandem axle vehicle is approx. 24,850 pounds;
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 83 10/22/12
Assuming a typical compaction density of 750 pounds per cy, the waste in a fully
loaded 19 cubic yard vehicle may weigh 14,250 pounds;
Thus the total gross weight of a loaded vehicle would equal 39,100 pounds;
Depending on the distribution of the total load between axles, the tandem axle weight
limit transmitted to the road (38,000 pounds) may be exceeded; and,
For the Town’s older single-axle collection vehicles, assuming 2/3rds of the total gross
load is distributed over a single rear axle, the single-axle weight limit (20,000
pounds) would be exceeded.
- 39,100 pounds * 0.66 = 25,806 pounds
6.3.1.3 Commercial Collection Vehicles
The Town’s existing commercial front loader collection trucks have a rated capacity of 28 cy.
According to data provided by the Town, the tare weights of these tandem-axle commercial front
loader vehicles range between 38,000 to 39,000 pounds (approx. 19 tons). Based on the known
tare weight of the Town’s collection vehicles and their waste hauling capacities, these
commercial vehicles are subject to potential overweighting depending upon their axle
configuration and the load weight distributed across their axles. For example:
Assuming a typical compaction density of 750 pounds per cy, the waste in a fully
loaded 28 cubic yard vehicle may weigh 21,000 pounds;
Thus the total gross weight of a loaded vehicle would equal approx. 59,000 pounds;
and,
Assuming two-thirds of the total gross load is distributed over the rear tandem axles,
the tandem axle weight limit transmitted to the road as determined by the distance
between axles (min. 38,000 pounds at 8 feet or less) may be exceeded.
- 59,000 pounds * 0.66 = 38,940 pounds
6.3.1.4 Fleet and Routing Modifications
Accordingly, fleet and routing modifications are necessary to:
Enable the Town’s existing single-axle residential trucks to comply with the NCDOT
weight limit;
Enable the Town’s existing tandem-axle commercial trucks to comply with the
NCDOT weight limit; and,
Accommodate for periodic use of single-axle residential collections vehicles.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 84 10/22/12
6.3.1.5 Existing Fleet Summary and Projected Replacement Schedule
As described in Section 4, presently the Town residential collections program maintains seven
(7) front line, tandem-axle, rear loader, compactor trucks and maintains four (4) single-axle, rear
loader, compactor trucks in a reserve fleet. For the current FY 2012-13, the SWSD is budgeted
to operate six (6) residential collections routes; however, the division has continue to operate
seven (7) residential routes as it has done in past years. This analysis notes that the current
resource allocation is a reduction from the previous fiscal year, FY 2011-12 when seven (7)
collection routes were budgeted. The budget reductions in FY 2012-13 were based on positions
being held vacant and the knowledge that a budget amendment would be needed ones collection
improvements were established based on results from this Study.
Review of the Town collection vehicle data indicates the Town has consistently replaced and
updated its front line (i.e., primary) residential fleet with tandem-axle vehicles, while
maintaining the older, single-axle vehicles to be engaged when any of the front line vehicles are
out-of-service.
The oldest tandem-axle truck was purchased in December 2005;
The next oldest truck in 2007;
Three (3) trucks were acquired in 2008; and,
The two (2) newest trucks were purchased in 2011.
For the purposes of projecting on-going capital expenditures for fleet replacement, the analysis
assumed that collection vehicles will be replaced on a 7-year operating schedule.
The Town commercial collections fleet is comprised of: two (2) front line, tandem-axle, front
loader compactor trucks purchased in 2010; and one (1) backup tandem-axle, front loader
compactor truck purchased in 2004. Similarly, SCS has assumed these commercial collections
vehicles will be replaced over a 7-year operating schedule.
6.3.1.6 Fleet Routing and Modifications
To accommodate the current residential collection volume, collection practices, routing
configuration, and Town resource allocation, as well as to enable compliance with the NCDOT
weight limits, while maintaining the same level of service to Town residents, SCS recommends
the Town conduct a formal routing study to thoroughly evaluate all of these factors and most
efficiently configure collections routing. SCS recognizes that an infinite number of routing and
resource scenarios may be considered; however for the purposes of this comprehensive study we
evaluated the following scenarios:
Seven (7) collection routes 2 days per week; or,
Six (6) collection routes 3 days per week.
A cursory analysis of the Town’s residential routing scenarios based on the most recent annual
residential MSW disposal (FY 2010-11) and current vehicle collection capacities presents the
projected minimum routing configurations for the referenced compacted load density depicted in
Exhibit 6-3.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 85 10/22/12
Exhibit 6 -3. Route Capacity Analysis
# Collection Days
(per week)
CY per Collection Route
(750 lb/cy)
CY per Collection Route
(1,000 lb/cy)
6 routes 7 routes 8 routes 6 routes 7 routes 8 routes
2 28.74 24.63 21.55 21.55 18.47 16.16
3 19.16 16.42 14.37 14.37 12.32 10.78
4 14.37 12.32 10.78 10.78 9.24 8.08
5 11.49 9.85 8.62 8.62 7.39 6.47
Notes:
1. Total annual residential MSW disposal = 6,725 tons.
2. SWANA resources support typical industry compaction density of in-truck waste ranges between 500
and 1,000 pounds per cy.
3. Each route anticipated to include one 19 cubic yard rear loader compaction vehicle making one trip
per collection day.
Adjusting the number of collection days or routes, is necessary to adequately distribute the daily
collection volume among the subject vehicles, thus enabling each collection route to make a
single trip to the transfer station during each collection day, while also mitigating the potential of
the residential collection vehicles exceeding their legal weight limit during the periodic use of
the single-axle trucks comprising the reserve fleet. This analysis highlights that understanding
the Town’s actual waste compaction density is critical to configuring the route distribution.
This analysis assumes that as the existing cubic yard single-axle fleet reaches the end of its
operating life (deemed to be 7 years), these vehicles will be replaced with new 18 to 20 cubic
tandem-axle vehicles and the older tandem-axle vehicles will become a backup piece of
equipment in the reserve fleet. Certainly the replacement vehicles purchased in the future could
be larger capacity, such as 25 cubic yards. Accordingly, these tandem-axle vehicles will further
enable the Town to meet its load capacity and NCDOT weight limits.
Furthermore, the analysis includes a separate scenario which evaluates phasing in automated
collection vehicles targeting appropriate areas of the Town which can accommodate automated
collection services. Refer to Section 4 for further discussion regarding introduction of automated
collections.
For this short-term, direct haul option, additional routing and scheduling modifications to the
commercial fleet are anticipated to accommodate the legal weight limits and multiple direct haul
trips to a transfer station. This analysis anticipates that implementing the commercial collections
recommendations, including a routing study, identified in Section 4 will promote collection
efficiencies that would likely allow the commercial collections vehicles to continue to make two
(2) daily trips to the target transfer station while evenly distributing the waste into highway legal
loads.
6.3.2 Fleet Fuel and Maintenance Costs
All Town collections vehicles are garaged, serviced, maintained, and fueled at the Public Works
facility. The vehicles dispatch from and return to this same location after each collection route.
The Town maintains a detailed maintenance, repair, and fuel consumption log for each vehicle
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 86 10/22/12
reported in units of cost and summarized for the current month, 12-month rolling total, and
vehicle life-to-date. In addition vehicle mileage is tracked and recorded in the same manner.
Using these actual data, the historical and projected fleet operational cost was computed on a per
mile basis and allocated accordingly by vehicle to residential and commercial sector operations.
As previously discussed in Section 2, Exhibit 6-4 summarizes these projected vehicle operations
costs. The scenario modeling analysis includes these costs as new vehicles are added to the fleet
in the projections according to their respective use (i.e., residential or commercial), which are
adjusted in accordance with inflation assumptions.
Exhibit 6 -4. Projected Town Vehicle O&M Cost
Vehicle Description
Maintenance &
Repair Cost
($$ per mile)
Total Cost
Including Fuel
($$ per mile)
Commercial Front Loader 1.43 2.35
Residential Rear Loader 1.38 2.28
Hooklift 1.45 1.74
Knuckleboom 0.91 1.60
Scooter Truck 0.37 0.66
Flat Bed 0.22 0.58
Pick-up/Passenger Car 0.08 0.23
The analysis assumes a cost of diesel fuel of $2.91 per gallon based on information provided by
the Town. This cost is the tax-exempt purchase price of fuel provided by the Town at the PW
garage facility.
6.3.3 Impacts to Task -Based Collections System Structure
As described above, this analysis concludes that routing modifications are necessary to
accommodate the projected waste disposal volume, corresponding NCDOT weight limits, and
additional transit and queuing time required to transport and dispose of waste at an existing
transfer station. A review of current collections schedules (7 residential routes 4 days per week,
2 commercial routes 5 days per week) and compensation structure indicates:
The average residential collection route (i.e., task) requires approximately 6 working
hours per day. The collections staff is typically free to leave each day upon the
completion of their task. Residential collections staff are currently compensated for
four (4) 10-hour days (i.e., 40-hours) per week with Wednesdays off.
The average commercial collection route requires 5 working hours per day.
Similarly, the collections staff is typically free to leave each day upon the completion
of their task. The commercial collections staff is compensated for five (5) 8-hour
days (i.e., 40 hours) per week.
Using the distance to each target transfer station and assuming average highway speeds
consistent with these distances, the off-route (i.e., transport and tip) time associated with each
transfer station location was estimated. For comparison, SCS calculated available off-route time
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 87 10/22/12
by subtracting the current total average route time incurred with transport to the Orange County
Landfill (including off-route time) from the current task compensation structure. For example:
Total Route Time = [(# of Routes) (Average Route Time)] + (Round Trip Travel Time)
+ (Load Tipping Time)
Where: Average Route Time = 6 hours
Round Trip Travel Time to Orange County = 12 miles at 35 mph
Assumed Tipping Time = 0.33 hours
Task Compensated Time = (# of Routes) (1 Trip per Route per day) (10 hours per day)
Additional Available Off-Route Time = (Task Compensated Time) – (Total Route Time)
Based on these analyses and the limited resource allocation scenarios evaluated SCS is
projecting that each residential collection crew may absorb between 1.53 and 3.81 hours per day
in off-route crew transport time. We assumed approximately 1.2 hours of additional off-route
time to drive to and from and unload at a transfer station in Durham.
Commercial collections manpower allocation can absorb an additional and estimated 4.34 hours
per crew of off-route transport time per day before additional labor costs are incurred by the
Town. In summary, sufficient flex time currently exists to account for the additional transport
and queuing time required for each route.
Understandably, changes to collections routing and resource allocation would potentially impact
the existing task-based collections structure. However, this routing and resource allocation
evaluation is necessary to meet the projected MSW transportation and disposal requirements
within current budgetary constraints modeled with this short-term, direct haul option, while
maintaining the current level of service to Town customers.
6.3.4 Other Scenario -Consistent Assumpti ons
The results of the scenario modeling for each transfer station disposal scenario factor in the
forfeiture of current transportation and disposal costs associated with using the Orange County
Landfill. As previously stated, the disposal tip fee at the Landfill is $57 per ton and the mileage
to the landfill was calculated to be 6 miles one-way. For each scenario the difference in tipping
fee and off-route travel time to the Orange County Landfill was included. In addition,
throughout the lifecycle cost, a 3% cost of inflation from the baseline year of 2012 was assumed.
Irrespective of the variable site-specific mileage and tip fee data for each transfer station location
input into the model, the following assumptions remained constant for each transfer station
modeling scenario:
Additional Collection Vehicles
- Baseline 2013 capital expenditure for previously purchased vehicles was provided
as $311,000
- 7-year depreciation schedule (i.e., projected to be replaced every 7 years)
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 88 10/22/12
- 4% financing rate
All scenarios include a 25% cost contingency for budgetary purposes
6.4 SCENARIO MODELING RE SULTS
The scenario modeling analysis provides a comparison of the Town’s current annual budget for
FY 2012-13 to projected budget expenditures for FY 2013-14. The evaluation of the lifecycle
costs to direct haul MSW to identified transfer stations within approximately 100 miles of the
Town concludes that the most cost-effective options are to contract disposal with either the City
of Durham transfer station (Permit No. 3212-T) or the Waste Industries transfer station (Permit
No. 3214-T) also located in Durham. Each of these locations is approximately 18 miles from the
Town and indicates a current gate rate tip fee of $42.50 and $41.00 per ton respectively. The
analysis indicates that disposal at the majority of other existing transfer stations that were
deemed qualified candidates demanded a higher tip fee and the few transfer stations identifying a
lower tip fee are located further away, causing the additional transportation costs to offset the
gains in disposal cost savings.
6.4.1 Summary Results
The analysis has evaluated the direct haul option using Town collection vehicles to transport
MSW to an existing transfer station beginning in FY 2013-14 in conjunction with the closure of
the Orange County Landfill (July 1, 2013). This analysis provides results for the residential
collections routing scenarios described above.
6.4.1.1 Results - Six Routes, 3 Days Per Week
In this analysis, projected capital expenditures include the replacement of one (1) rear loader
compactor truck with a new 18 to 20 cubic yard compacter truck in accordance with the Town’s
current budgeted capital expenditure assumptions. No additional labor costs are projected.
Compared to the current FY 2012-13 budget, the analysis projects an additional $88,300 dollars
would be incurred of the Town budget in FY 2013-14 to implement this option. Exhibit 6-5
summarizes the comparative cost analysis of the top five (5) identified transfer stations versus
current budgetary expenses.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 89 10/22/12
Exhibit 6 -5. Summary of Direct Hauling to Transfer Station
Scenarios (6 Routes, 3 D ays P er W eek)
Program Scenario A Current-FY2013 A B C D E F
DH to OCLF DH to TS DH to TS DH to TS DH to TS DH to TS DH to TS
Disposal Facility Name
Orange County
LF
City of Durham
TS
Waste Industries -
Durham Transfer
Station
WMI - Raleigh
Transfer Station
Siler City
Transfer Station
WCA Waste -
Raleigh Transfer
Station
East Wake
Transfer Station
Transfer Miles
Transfer Miles, one-way 6 42.5 42.5 57 45.35 47.28 36
Tansfer Miles, roundtrip 12 17.5 18 18 31 33 35
Average Transfer Speed, mph 35 2783 2783 2783 2783 2783 2783
2014 Budget Results- 2013 Budget Results
TOWN SOLID WASTE BUDGET
Collection Personnel Services
Salaries - Full-Time 1,632,400 49,000 49,000 49,000 49,000 49,000 49,000
Other Pay 1,900 100 100 100 100 100 100
Workers Comp Insurance 51,800 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Additional Labor From Direct Haul - - - - 12,700 23,200 33,600
Subtotal, Collection Personnel Services 1,686,100 50,600 50,600 50,600 63,300 73,800 84,200
- - - - - -
Collection Operating Expenses - - - - - -
Professional Services 500 - - - - - -
Personnel Agency Payments 9,000 300 300 300 300 300 300
Business Meetings & Training 4,600 100 100 100 100 100 100
Career Development Training 1,100 - - - - - -
Dues & Subscriptions - - - - - - -
Pagers - - - - - - -
Cellular Phones - - - - - - -
Advertising 2,500 100 100 100 100 100 100
Personnel Advertising - - - - - - -
Equipment Rentals - - - - - - -
Uniform Rentals 12,500 400 400 400 400 400 400
Landfill Fines 2,500 100 100 100 100 100 100
Charges by Landfill 939,300 (191,200) (190,900) 44,600 (145,100) (113,500) (296,800)
MSW 885,800 (193,600) (193,300) 42,200 (147,500) (115,900) (299,200)
Yard Waste 53,500 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400
Fleet Use Charges 200,400 99,700 103,900 103,900 209,900 226,400 241,900
Fleet Use Charges 200,400 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Additional Fleet Use Charges for Direct Haul - 93,700 97,900 97,900 203,900 220,400 235,900
Vehicle Replacement Charges 310,600 - - - - - -
County Budgeted Vehicle Replacement Charge 310,600 - - - - - -
Misc. Contracted Services 22,000 - - - - - -
Supplies 49,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Fuel 121,200 67,300 70,000 70,000 142,600 153,700 164,800
Vehicle Fuel 121,200 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Additional Fuel Charge for Direct Haul - 63,800 66,500 66,500 139,100 150,200 161,300
Subtotal, Operation Expenses 1,675,200 (21,700) (14,500) 221,000 209,900 269,100 112,400
- - - - - - -
TOTAL BUDGET, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 3,361,300 28,900 36,100 271,600 273,200 342,900 196,600
Contingency, 25% on Additional Collection Costs - 54,400 56,100 56,100 104,000 113,500 122,700
Total Potential Additional Costs (Savings)- 83,300 92,200 327,700 377,200 456,400 319,300
This Table calculates the difference between current practices and the various scenarios for FY 2014 and compared to current FY 2013 budget.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 90 10/22/12
6.4.1.2 Results – Current Operations with Seven Routes, 2 Days Per Week
Similarly, in this analysis, projected capital expenditures include the replacement of one (1) rear
loader compactor truck with a new 18 to 20 cubic yard compacter truck in accordance with the
Town’s current budgeted capital expenditure assumptions. However, additional salary expenses
are projected, but will be comparable to staffing expenditures in FY 2011-12. In FY 2012-13,
the staffing budget was reduced due to open positions being intentionally held vacant to allow
for organizational flexibility pending the results of this Study. To include three additional
fulltime employees for the residential collections crew along with the replacement of one rear
loader compactor truck, the analysis projects an additional $368,300 dollars would be incurred of
the Town budget in FY 2012-13 to implement this option. Exhibit 6-6 summarizes the
comparative cost analysis of the top five (5) identified transfer stations versus current budgetary
expenses.
Exhibit 6 -6. Summary of Direct Hauling to Transfer Station
Scenarios for Current Residential Route Configurations (7
Routes, 2 D ays P er W eek)
Program Scenario A Current-FY2013 A B C D F
DH to OCLF DH to TS DH to TS DH to TS DH to TS DH to TS
Disposal Facility Name
Orange County
LF
City of Durham
TS
Waste Industries -
Durham Transfer
Station
WMI - Raleigh
Transfer Station
Siler City
Transfer Station
East Wake
Transfer Station
Transfer Miles
Transfer Miles, one-way 6 42.5 42.5 57 45.35 36
Tansfer Miles, roundtrip 12 17.5 18 18 31 35
Average Transfer Speed, mph 35 2783 2783 2783 2783 2783
2014 Budget Results- 2013 Budget Results
TOWN SOLID WASTE BUDGET
Collection Personnel Services
Salaries - Full-Time 1,632,400 256,200 256,200 256,200 256,200 256,200
Other Pay 1,900 100 100 100 100 100
Workers Comp Insurance 51,800 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Additional Labor From Direct Haul - - - - 9,500 18,400
Subtotal, Collection Personnel Services 1,686,100 257,800 257,800 257,800 267,300 276,200
- - - - -
Collection Operating Expenses - - - - -
Professional Services 500 - - - - -
Personnel Agency Payments 9,000 300 300 300 300 300
Business Meetings & Training 4,600 100 100 100 100 100
Career Development Training 1,100 - - - - -
Dues & Subscriptions - - - - - -
Pagers - - - - - -
Cellular Phones - - - - - -
Advertising 2,500 100 100 100 100 100
Personnel Advertising - - - - - -
Equipment Rentals - - - - - -
Uniform Rentals 12,500 400 400 400 400 400
Landfill Fines 2,500 100 100 100 100 100
Charges by Landfill 939,300 (191,200) (190,900) 44,600 (145,100) (296,800)
MSW 885,800 (193,600) (193,300) 42,200 (147,500) (299,200)
Yard Waste 53,500 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400
Fleet Use Charges 200,400 112,700 116,900 116,900 221,900 254,900
Fleet Use Charges 200,400 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000
Additional Fleet Use Charges for Direct Haul - 93,700 97,900 97,900 202,900 235,900
Vehicle Replacement Charges 310,600 - - - - -
County Budgeted Vehicle Replacement Charge 310,600 - - - - -
Misc. Contracted Services 22,000 - - - - -
Supplies 49,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Fuel 121,200 75,100 77,800 77,800 150,100 172,300
Vehicle Fuel 121,200 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600
Additional Fuel Charge for Direct Haul - 63,500 66,200 66,200 138,500 160,700
Subtotal, Operation Expenses 1,675,200 (900) 6,300 241,800 229,400 132,900
- - - - - -
TOTAL BUDGET, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 3,361,300 256,900 264,100 499,600 496,700 409,100
Contingency, 25% on Additional Collection Costs - 111,400 113,100 113,100 159,800 175,900
Total Potential Additional Costs (Savings)- 368,300 377,200 612,700 656,500 585,000
This Table calculates the difference between current practices and the various scenarios for FY 2014 and compared to current FY 2013 budget.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 91 10/22/12
6.4.2 Net Present Value Evaluation
The financial modeling conducted under this evaluation provides the capability to project and
calculate the Town’s total SWSD program cost over a 30-year period while assuming the
implementation of the various disposal options evaluated. This analysis assumes a 5% discount
factor and includes year-over-year adjustments for inflation, capital expenditure schedule, salary
projections, and other Town and scenario-specific program assumptions. The total program
costs for each disposal option may then be compared in terms of present term, 2013 value.
When comparing the option of direct hauling to an existing transfer station located in Durham,
versus continuing disposal to the Orange County Landfill, over a 30-year period, the estimated
net present values are comparable: $66 million for a program direct hauling MSW to a Durham
transfer station and $68 million representing the status quo of disposal with Orange County, as
depicted below in Exhibit 6-7. This analysis projects a costs savings when transitioning the
Town’s existing seven (7) routes to six (6) residential collections routes on a 3-day collection
schedule.
Exhibit 6 -7. Net Present Value of Direct Hauling to Transfer Station
(6 R outes, 3 D ays P er W eek)
Comparatively, the current seven residential collection route configuration that operates 2-days
per week is projected to have a net present value of $71 million to transport waste to a transfer
station in Durham, as depicted in Exhibit 6-8.
$66 $66
$72 $71 $69
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Ne
t
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
V
a
l
u
e
,
$
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
30-year Net Present Value, $ at 5% Discount Factor
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 92 10/22/12
Exhibit 6 -8. Net Present Value of Direct Hauling to Transfer Station
for Current Residential Route Configurations
(7 Routes, 2 D ays P er W eek)
6.4.3 Recommendations
6.4.3.1 Solicit a Request for Quotes for Transfer Station Tipping Fee
Based on SCS recommendation the Town requested quotes from the City of Durham and Waste
Industries for the disposal of the Town’s MSW to be collected and transported by Town
resources. The City of Durham confirmed that it would accept the Town’s projected MSW
volume at their advertised tip fee rate of $42.50 per ton. Waste Industries provided a quote of
$41.00 per ton to the Town for a 5-year contract term.
6.4.3.2 Transition to a 3-day Per Week Collection Schedule
With this analysis, significant cost savings may be realized in transitioning the residential
collection routes to a 3-day collection schedule. The Town is currently budgeted to collect using
six (6) routes in FY 2012-13 to maintain some organizational flexibility, pending the results of
this Study; however, it is recognized that there are actually seven (7) routes currently being
dispatched using temporary personnel. Key parameters driving the results of this scenario are
that:
$71 $71
$77 $76 $74
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Ne
t
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
V
a
l
u
e
,
$
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
30-year Net Present Value, $ at 5% Discount Factor
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 93 10/22/12
The Town is currently budgeted to collect using six (6) routes. The Town utilizes
temporary labor to staff a seventh route and this matter is expected to be addressed
through a budget amendment at the October 29, 2012 meeting.
Collection crews appear to have the available off-route time to accommodate an
additional collection day within the current compensation assumptions; and,
Additional equipment and labor is not necessary.
This appears to be the least cost option to manage a transition to hauling waste to the Durham
transfer station. However, with this option the following additional items should be considered:
The routing and technology study may indicate alternate collection day options would
be optimal.
New routes must be delineated to implement this option.
Drivers must be trained and learn new collection routes.
Outreach efforts must be conducted to inform residents of collection day changes.
Implementation would need to be carefully planned and coordinated, allowing
sufficient time to properly implement change.
6.4.3.3 Capital Expenditures
Regardless of the routing option scenario, SCS recommends SWSD replace the oldest 18 or 20
cubic yard single-axle rear loader compactor truck with a new, 19 cubic yard tandem-axle
collection vehicle in accordance with the Town’s programmed capital expenditures for FY 2012-
13. cubic yard In addition to this programmed capital expense, SCS recommends the Town
procure one (1) new automated collection vehicle and implement one (1) automated collection
route, as described above, resulting in seven (7) residential collections routes. Refer to Section
4.3.1 for a discussion on the planning efforts and action items necessary prior to implementation
of an automated collection route.
6.4.3.4 Additional Collections Staff
Based on the timing of the closure of the Orange County Landfill in July 2013, continuing the
Town’s current operations with seven residential collections routes is recommended in the
short-term. This will require additional funding in the Division’s FY 2012-13 budget as the
Town has intentionally kept positions vacant and filled them with temporary employees to allow
for organizational flexibility, pending the results of this Study.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 94 10/22/12
6.4.3.5 When to Transition?
The impacts to this disposal scenario were evaluated with regard to the timing of accomplishing
the transition to an existing transfer station.
Should the Town continue with its current seven route operations and implement an immediate
transition to the Durham transfer station, the analysis suggests the Town would incur an
additional cost of $117,800 versus the cost of $368,300 if initiating this option on July 1, 2013 at
the close of the Orange County landfill.. SCS recommends the Town identify several dedicated
residential routes, regularly serviced by tandem-axle rear loader vehicles, and that will likely
conform to the NCDOT weight limit, to begin direct hauling to a transfer station selected through
a process as described in Section 6.4.3.1. In the event a truck is suspected of being overweight,
or if a vehicle is in repair and a single-axle vehicle must be deployed, these collection events
may be transported and disposed at the Orange County Landfill. Accordingly capital
investments may be incurred when planned and scheduled with the closure of the Orange County
Landfill for the FY 2013-14 budget year.
6.5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Apart from this analysis of impact to the SWSD budget, several other factors weigh into the
longer term evaluation of this disposal option of direct hauling to an existing transfer station.
These considerations are not as readily quantified with respect to fiscal impact since they relate
to risk management, environmental impacts, and socio-economic issues. However, these factors
have the potential to create financial implications and indeed resonate with the Town’s stated
values and goals and must be considered along with the financial evaluation. Several of the
more decisive factors include:
Safety of the Town solid waste collections staff hauling waste longer distances and
over more heavily traveled roadways;
Increased risk to other motorists due to hauling waste longer distances and over more
heavily traveled roadways;
Sustainability concerns with the consumption of more diesel fuel to transport waste
this longer distance;
An increase in greenhouse gas emissions related to waste collection trucks traveling
further distances;
A desire to manage Town-generated waste internally and not having to rely on a
neighboring disposal system, and a loss of control over ultimate disposal and costs;
A potential loss of focus on Town waste reduction goals; and,
Long-term job creation and retention impacts from a transition to automated
collections.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 95 10/22/12
7.0 DISPOSAL OPTION – SITE/ CONSTRUCT NEW
TRANSFER STATION
7.1 EVALUATE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW TOWN -ONLY OR
REGIONAL T RANSFER S TATI ON
SCS evaluated the feasibility of the Town developing a new municipal solid waste transfer
station, for Town-only use as well as considering the economic impacts of regional use. As
noted in the previous section, solid waste transfer stations are facilities where collection vehicles
unload waste onto a tipping floor where it is consolidated into a larger container, usually a
transfer trailer, before being transported to an ultimate disposal facility, such as a landfill or
WTE facility. The analysis provides the following:
Summary of the challenges and obstacles to siting a new transfer station in the Town
(e.g., economics, social justice, siting, permitting criteria, etc.).
Summary of the benefits of siting and operating a Town-owned transfer station in the
Town, either on its own or in conjunction with other regional municipal partners.
A cost estimate for the site selection, permitting, design, capital construction, and
operation for a Town-only or regional transfer station for a 20-year period in order to
evaluate this disposal option along with other solid waste management options.
This evaluation of a new transfer station presented below is general in nature and compliments
previously identified solid waste management options for the Town.
7.1.1 Transfer S tation Siting Challenges, Advantages , and
Disadvantages
Siting a new transfer station within the Town limits, or the surrounding area, would be
challenging regardless of whether it is planned to accept waste collected by the Town exclusively
or accept waste generated within other regional communities as well. Transfer station siting
efforts require extensive environmental, socio-economic, transportation studies, and public and
regulatory involvement. The process usually requires between 12 to 15 months to complete, but
can vary depending on the specific location and multiple factors. Historically, SCS is aware
there have been previous efforts to evaluate siting, permitting, and operating a transfer station,
both in the Town as well as in Orange County.
7.1.1.1 Summary of Historical Transfer Station Siting Efforts
During 2009, Orange County engaged in an extensive effort to identify and evaluate potential
parcels that were candidate sites for a transfer station. The historical record of these efforts is
well-documented on http://www.co.orange.nc.us/recycling/olver/index.html. The evaluation
applied exclusionary, technical, and community-specific criteria and ranked the potential parcels.
A short-list of 10 properties was developed for further consideration, and one additional site (Site
744, on Millhouse Road) was later added. Upon soliciting public comments, the list was
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 96 10/22/12
narrowed down to two candidate sites. Specific parcels that were identified and considered as
part of the evaluation, and parcel-specific siting activities that deserve mentioning include:
The County conducted a site evaluation for Site 056 (also termed the West 54 LLC or
Howell Property) and Site 759, owned by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority
(OWASA) and referred to as the OWASA property as documented in the report titled
“Site Investigation & Evaluation of West 54 LLC and OWASA Sites,” prepared by
Olver, Inc., and dated April 16, 2009.
The County performed an environmental assessment for Site 056 as documented in
the report titled “Environmental Assessment: Site 056,” prepared by Olver, Inc., and
dated February 2009. A draft environmental assessment was also prepared for Site
759.
The County conducted an environmental assessment on Site 669 (also termed the
Paydarfar site) as documented in the report titled “Environmental Assessment:
Paydarfar Site,” prepared by Olver, Inc., and dated September 2009.
The County considered Site 744 which is a portion of a 57-acre parcel located
between Millhouse Road and I-40, north of the Town Operations Center, as
documented in the report titled “Site Evaluation: Site 744 (Millhouse Road),”
prepared by Olver, Inc. and dated June 8, 2009. The portion of the parcel considered
for the transfer station was outside of the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area (JPA)
Transition Area and within the Rural Buffer, which restricts public utility services.
Other regional municipal partners have advocated for consideration of a 20-acre parcel at the
intersection of Interstate I-40 and Route 86 as a potential candidate site.
Upon conducting initial discussions with the Town, SCS became aware that another potential
candidate site is an 11-acre Town-owned parcel located southeast of the intersection of
Millhouse Road and the service road to the Transit parking lot, and positioned south of the Town
Operations Center complex parking lot and west of the Town’s Transportation Department
facility. This parcel is within the Chapel Hill JPA Transition Area and not located within the
Rural Buffer. The parcel is bisected by a stream and appears to be of adequate size to
accommodate a transfer station. As part of this analysis, SCS did not evaluate this site using
exclusionary, technical, or community-specific criteria similar to the County’s efforts.
7.1.1.2 Social Justice and Regulatory Concerns
As demonstrated, both The Town and Orange County have extensive experience regarding the
process of attempting to site a transfer station. We understand the decision to close the Orange
County Landfill was in part due to local community concerns with ongoing landfill operations
and social justice issues (Rogers-Eubank Community). Based on the public response to the
County’s previous transfer station siting efforts, renewed efforts by the Town to site a new
transfer station, within the Town’s planning jurisdictional limits, is likely to be contentious and
difficult, and would require strong political leadership, community relations, and resolve to be
successful.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 97 10/22/12
In addition, the availability of land within the Town’s limits that meets the regulatory siting
restrictions outlined in the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
solid waste regulations (15A NCAC 13B) and community criteria that would be developed is
limited. Additional studies would be needed to confirm availability of such land.
7.1.1.3 Advantages
Based on our experience, the following advantages are associated with developing a new transfer
station within the Town’s planning jurisdictional limits:
Reduced collections and disposal transportation costs and its associated consumption
of fossil fuels.
Ability to control the Town’s waste disposal, select an ultimate disposal facility, and
secure a long-term contract to provide increased stability with respect to future
landfill disposal costs.
Greater self-sufficiency as compared to direct haul scenarios involving facilities
owned and operated by others.
Ability to quickly respond to emergencies or other unanticipated conditions.
A regional transfer station would reduce the costs incurred by the Town, while
promoting collaboration, since a portion would be allocated to regional members.
7.1.1.4 Disadvantages
Based on our experience, the following disadvantages are associated with developing a new
transfer station within the Town’s planning jurisdictional limits:
Long-term commitment required (operational periods).
Community opposition and potential perceived impacts to communities surrounding
the transfer station (e.g., noise, vectors, odors, and traffic), although modern transfer
stations employ mitigation measures that can reduce or eliminate these impacts.
Increased responsibility for environmental stewardship resulting from a Town owned
and operated solid waste facility. For example: operations would include design and
implementation of environmental protection measures, environmental monitoring
requirements, and good housekeeping activities when compared to direct haul
scenarios. However, these environmental risks are manageable and notably fewer
liabilities are associated with a transfer station versus operating a Town landfill.
Significant capital investment required (see discussion below).
Developing a new transfer station could require 2 to 3 years to complete. As such, it
is not available as a short-term alternative to the Town in the near future.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 98 10/22/12
7.1.2 Projected 2 0 -Year Di sposal Needs
7.1.2.1 Population and Disposal Quantity Projections
SCS evaluated the projected MSW disposal requirements for a Town-only and regional transfer
station over the next 20 years. The projections take into account the projected changes in
population during this period. The projected population changes for the Town between now and
2035 are presented in Exhibit 7-1.
Exhibit 7 -1. Population Projections, Town of Chapel Hill
Year
Population
Estimates
% Change
Per Year*
2000 48,715
2010 57,233
2015 65,748 2.98%
2025 77,767 2.39%
2035 80,483 1.62%
Source: See Report Section 2.1.4.1
*Based on 2010
The MSW disposal rates were projected based on a 1.62% per year increase for both the Town-
only and the regional transfer station options. A further refinement on the regional population
growth trends could be considered, but for the purpose of this evaluation, the same growth rate
was used for the Town and Region analysis. The yearly projected MSW quantities for a Town-
only and regional transfer station beginning in FY 2014-15 and extending through FY 2033-34
are presented in Exhibit 7-2. This exhibit does not include solid waste program changes that
could ultimately reduce the quantity of MSW requiring delivery to a transfer station (and
transport to an ultimate disposal facility); therefore, the estimated disposal rates presented are
conservative.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 99 10/22/12
Exhibit 7 -2. 20-Year Disposal Quantity Projections
Projection
Year
Fiscal
Year
Town-Only
MSW Quantities
(tons)
Town-Only
MSW Throughput
(tons/day)
Regional
MSW Quantities
(tons)
Regional
MSW Throughput
(tons/day)
1 2015 15,810 76.0 22,450 107.9
2 2016 16,060 77.2 22,810 109.7
3 2017 16,310 78.4 23,160 111.3
4 2018 16,580 79.7 23,540 113.2
5 2019 16,860 81.1 23,940 115.1
6 2020 17,130 82.4 24,320 116.9
7 2021 17,400 83.7 24,710 118.8
8 2022 17,690 85.0 25,120 120.8
9 2023 17,980 86.4 25,530 122.7
10 2024 18,260 87.8 25,930 124.7
11 2025 18,580 89.3 26,380 126.8
12 2026 18,870 90.7 26,800 128.8
13 2027 19,170 92.2 27,220 130.9
14 2028 19,490 93.7 27,680 133.1
15 2029 19,800 95.2 28,120 135.2
16 2030 20,120 96.7 28,570 137.4
17 2031 20,450 98.3 29,040 139.6
18 2032 20,780 99.9 29,510 141.9
19 2033 21,110 101.5 29,980 144.1
20 2034 21,470 103.2 30,490 146.6
Totals 369,920 525,300
Note: Regional MSW Quantities reflect a 42 percent increase compared to Town-Only Quantities
and are intended to represent the Town of Chapel Hill combined with the Town of Carrboro.
7.1.2.2 Sizing an Appropriate Facility
Hypothetical transfer station dimensions and waste throughput quantities were developed based
on a number of assumptions regarding the maximum daily waste acceptance rate, facility
configuration, traffic flow patterns, and setbacks to the property line from the transfer station
building footprint.
Assuming MSW collection occurs 4 days per week, 52 weeks per year, the daily MSW
throughput quantities for a Town-only facility range from 75 tons per day (tpd) in FY 2014-15 to
approximately 100 tpd in FY 2033-34. Thus, a new transfer station anticipated to accommodate
the Town-only MSW generation for the next 20 years should be sized to manage 100 tpd. Based
on SCS's experience, a transfer station sized to handle 100 tpd of MSW would require a building
footprint in the 10,000 square foot (sf) range, situated on a site pad of at least 2 acres within a
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 100 10/22/12
total property parcel size equal to at least 4 acres to accommodate site access, truck queuing, and
turning radius.
As an example of one potential option involving regional cooperation, if the Town of Chapel Hill
decides to construct a transfer station to accommodate the Town of Carrboro plus their own
MSW generation for the next 20 years, the facility should be sized to manage 150 tpd. Based on
SCS’s experience, a transfer station sized to handle 150 tpd of MSW will require a building
footprint in the 13,500 sf range, situated on a site pad of at least 2.5 acres within a total property
parcel size equal to at least 5 acres.
With reference to traffic associated with the Town-only scenario, the existing collection vehicles
would be expected to visit the facility once per day when collections are occurring. Therefore,
incoming residential collection vehicle traffic is estimated to be approximately seven trucks, 2
days per week. Commercial collection vehicle traffic is estimated to be approximately two
trucks, 5 days per week. The outgoing transfer trailer vehicle traffic for this scenario is expected
to be one or two trailers per day, 5 days per week. If the facility was located on Millhouse Road,
this would equate to two to three additional trucks per day.
7.1.3 Estimated Transfer Station Development Costs
SCS prepared conceptual budget cost estimates for the construction and operation for both the
Town-only and regional transfer station scenarios. The construction cost estimates include costs
for siting, permitting, design, building construction, scalehouse and scales, maintenance
facilities, utilities, entrance roads, transfer trailer staging area, and ancillary support facilities.
The cost estimates do not assign any costs for land acquisition, which reflects an assumption that
the facility will be located on an existing Town-owned property. Should the Town need to
consider land acquisition costs in this analysis, these preliminary land acquisition costs are
described further in Section 11 for the consideration of developing a Town landfill. The cost
estimates also do not consider LEED Certified or green building standards. It is expected that
meeting LEED Certified or green building standards would increase the cost of constructing a
transfer station, but this analysis was not included in this report as only one transfer station on
the eastern seaboard was identified by SCS as meeting LEED standards.
The cost estimates are based on SCS’s experience working with municipal and private clients
throughout the region, and were prepared to provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of the
critical aspects of transfer station construction and operation. If the Town were to develop a
transfer station under either scenario, a more detailed estimate would need to be prepared based
on actual site information. Exhibit 7-3 and Exhibit 7-4 present a summary of the estimated pre-
development and capital construction costs to develop a new Town-only or regional transfer
station, respectively.
For conceptual cost estimating purposes, the capital costs for each scenario are amortized over
the 30-year projection period at 4% interest to estimate the yearly allocated capital expenditure
costs.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 101 10/22/12
Exhibit 7 -3. Estimated Cost to Develop a Town -Only Transfer
Station
LABOR
MATERIAL &
EQUIPMENT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL
PRE-DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Land Acquisition / Purchase ac 5 $0 $0
Permitting ls 1 $100,000 $100,000
Engineering, Legal, & Admin ls 1 $425,000 $425,000
$525,000
CONSTRUCTION
Mobilization/Demobilization ls 1 $70,000 $70,000
$70,000
EROSION CONTROL
Clearing and Grubbing ac 4 $6,000 $24,000
Erosion Control Measures ls 1 $15,000 $15,000
Site Restoration (seeding/mulching/vegetation)ls 1 $10,000 $10,000
$49,000
BUILDING COSTS
Site Work (Excavation, Grading, Paving, and Landscaping)sf 87,120 $6.50 $566,280
Utilities (Electrical, Water, Sewage, Storm water)sf 10,000 $2.00 $20,000
Structures (Concrete, Structural, Doors, Fire control, Lighting, Roof)sf 10,000 $35.00 $350,000
$936,280
OTHER SITE WORK
Maintenance Building ls 1 $10,000.00 $10,000
Scalehouse ls 1 $150,000.00 $150,000
Office Equipment (computer, supplies, telephone, etc.)ls 1 $7,500 $7,500
Truck Scales ls 2 $50,000.00 $100,000
Site Lighting sf 87,120 $0.50 $43,560
Signage, Locking gate, Fencing ls 1 $25,000 $25,000
Construction Quality Assurance & Certification (third-party)ls 1 $66,067 $66,067
$402,127
TOTAL $1,982,407
CONTINGENCY (20%)$396,481
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TOTAL $2,379,000
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 102 10/22/12
Exhibit 7 -4. Estimated Cost to Develop a Regional Transfer Station
for Town of Chapel Hill and Town of Carrboro
LABOR
MATERIAL &
EQUIPMENT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL
PRE-DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Land Acquisition / Purchase ac 5 $0 $0
Permitting ls 1 $100,000 $100,000
Engineering, Legal, & Admin ls 1 $425,000 $425,000
$525,000
CONSTRUCTION
Mobilization/Demobilization ls 1 $85,000 $85,000
$85,000
EROSION CONTROL
Clearing and Grubbing ac 5 $6,000 $30,000
Erosion Control Measures ls 1 $15,000 $15,000
Site Restoration (seeding/mulching/vegetation)ls 1 $10,000 $10,000
$55,000
BUILDING COSTS
Site Work (Excavation, Grading, Paving, and Landscaping)sf 108,900 $6.50 $707,850
Utilities (Electrical, Water, Sewage, Storm water)sf 13,600 $2.00 $27,200
Structures (Concrete, Structural, Doors, Fire control, Lighting, Roof)sf 13,600 $35.00 $476,000
$1,211,050
OTHER SITE WORK
Maintenance Building ls 1 $10,000.00 $10,000
Scalehouse ls 1 $150,000.00 $150,000
Office Equipment (computer, supplies, telephone, etc.)ls 1 $7,500 $7,500
Truck Scales ls 2 $50,000.00 $100,000
Site Lighting sf 108,900 $0.50 $54,450
Signage, Locking gate, Fencing ls 1 $30,000 $30,000
Construction Quality Assurance & Certification (third-party)ls 1 $80,900 $80,900
$432,850
TOTAL $2,308,900
CONTINGENCY (20%)$461,780
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TOTAL $2,771,000
7.1.4 Estimated Transfer Station Operations Costs
Exhibit 7-5 and Exhibit 7-6 present the estimated annual operation costs for the Town-only and
regional transfer station scenarios, respectively. The annual operational costs include personnel,
and equipment needed to operate a MSW transfer station. The annual operational costs also
include an annual permit renewal fee ($750).
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 103 10/22/12
Exhibit 7 -5. Estimated Annual O&M Cost for
Town Only Transfer Station Scenario
Engineer's Engineer's
No.Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Est.Total Estimate
1 Personnel Salaries 3 LS 40,000$ 120,000$
2 Personnel Benefits 3 LS 15,000$ 45,000$
3 Transfer Station Equipment Debt Service 2 LS 15,000$ 30,000$
4 Transfer Station Equipment Maintenance / Repair 2 LS 5,000$ 10,000$
5 Equipment - Lease/Rental 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
6 Vehicle Fuel 6,000 Gal 3.50$ 21,000$
7 Vehicle Supplies 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
8 Wastewater Treatment 200,000 Gal 0.03$ 6,000$
9 Paving / Concrete 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
10 Electricity & Heating 1 LS 7,500$ 7,500$
11 Water & Sewer 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$
12 Telecommunications / Information Technology 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
13 Vehicle Insurance 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$
14 General / Environmental Insurance 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
15 Engineering / Consulting Services 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
16 Environmental Monitoring Services 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
17 Legal Services 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
18 Mowing & Other Contracting Services 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
19 Dues & Association Fees 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$
20 Permit Fees 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
21 Office Supplies 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
22 Janitorial 1 LS 500$ 500$
23 Operations & Maintenance Supplies 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$
24 Uniforms 1 LS 500$ 500$
25 Miscellaneous Maintenance / Repair 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
-$
SUBTOTAL 285,000$
CONTINGENCY (20%)57,000$
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COST 342,000$
WASTE ACCEPTANCE RATE 100 tpd
ANNUAL OPERATING COST PER TON 21.63$
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 104 10/22/12
Exhibit 7 -6. Estimated Annual O&M Co st for
Regional Transfer Station Scenario for Town of Chapel Hill and
Town of Carrboro
Engineer's Engineer's
No.Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Est.Total Estimate
1 Personnel Salaries 4 LS 40,000$ 160,000$
2 Personnel Benefits 4 LS 15,000$ 60,000$
3 Transfer Station Equipment Debt Service 2 LS 15,000$ 30,000$
4 Transfer Station Equipment Maintenance / Repair 2 LS 5,000$ 10,000$
5 Equipment - Lease/Rental 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
6 Vehicle Fuel 9,000 Gal 3.50$ 31,500$
7 Vehicle Supplies 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
8 Wastewater Treatment 300,000 Gal 0.03$ 9,000$
9 Paving / Concrete 1 LS 7,500$ 7,500$
10 Electricity & Heating 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
11 Water & Sewer 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
12 Telecommunications / Information Technology 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
13 Vehicle Insurance 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$
14 General / Environmental Insurance 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
15 Engineering / Consulting Services 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
16 Environmental Monitoring Services 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
17 Legal Services 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
18 Mowing & Other Contracting Services 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
19 Dues & Association Fees 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$
20 Permit Fees 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$
21 Office Supplies 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$
22 Janitorial 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
23 Operations & Maintenance Supplies 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$
24 Uniforms 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
25 Miscellaneous Maintenance / Repair 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
-$
SUBTOTAL 372,000$
CONTINGENCY (20%)74,400$
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COST 446,400$
WASTE ACCEPTANCE RATE 150 tpd
ANNUAL OPERATING COST PER TON 19.88$
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 105 10/22/12
7.1.5 Summary of Transfer Station Development, Construction,
and Operations Costs
Exhibit 7-7 presents a summary of the estimated costs to develop, operate, close, and provide for
post-closure care for the Town-only and regional transfer station scenarios. This exhibit
demonstrates the importance of economies of scale in developing and operating a transfer
station. As depicted in the exhibit, operating a Town-only transfer station would be more costly
on a dollar per ton basis than operating a regional transfer station. This is attributed to the
economies of scale achieved by accepting greater waste quantities, while also sharing investment
of capital costs with a neighboring municipality or recovering a portion of the capital costs
through tip fees assessed to the neighboring municipality.
Note that Exhibit 7-5 and Exhibit 7-6 include the amortized costs for equipment as an annual
operating cost (refer to item 3 – Transfer Station Equipment Debt Service); whereas, Exhibit 7-7
itemizes the equipment debt service costs separately. Also, note that the total estimated annual
operating costs and per ton operating costs in Exhibit 7-5 and Exhibit 7-6 are presented in current
dollars whereas the values presented in Exhibit 7-7 are in FY 2014-15 dollars to coincide with
anticipated commencement of transfer station operations.
Exhibit 7 -7. Summary of Estimated Transfer Station Costs
Town-Only
Transfer Station
Regional
Transfer Station
Cost Item Estimate Annual Cost $/ton Estimate Annual Cost $/ton
Pre-Development Cost, $$630,000 $49,000 --$630,000 $49,000 --
Total Capital Construction Cost, $$1,749,000 $137,000 $11.76 $2,271,000 $167,000 $9.62
Equipment Cost, $$276,000 $49,000 $3.10 $276,000 $49,000 $2.18
Annual Operations Cost, $/year $325,000 $20.56 $442,000 $19.69
Annual Haul Costs, $$160,000 $10.12 $246,000 $10.96
Annual Disposal Costs, $$637,143 $40.30 $904,735 $40.30
Annual Costs, $$1,357,143 $85.84 $1,857,735 $82.75
Tonnage (2015)15,810 22,450
Break Even Tip Fee, $/ton $85.84 $82.75
7.1.6 Identified Target Destination Landfills
SCS reviewed several published resources to develop a list of viable target destination landfills
for the ultimate disposal of waste processed through this new transfer station evaluation
including the “Directory of Non-hazardous Waste Sites-2011” compiled by the Waste Business
Journal and cross-referenced to the listing of solid waste facilities currently permitted by
NCDENR. The Waste Business Journal Directory provided an electronically sortable list of
facilities for North Carolina and surrounding states which included pertinent information such as:
Facility type (i.e., landfill, transfer station, MRF, etc.);
Facility address;
Owner/operator description (i.e., public or private);
Contact information;
Facility permit number;
Daily average throughput (tons per day);
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 106 10/22/12
Permitted and remaining capacities; and,
Tipping fees.
Using these reference sources, a compilation of existing permitted landfills in North Carolina and
Virginia was developed along with the estimated driving distance to each facility from a
predetermined location presumed to be the geographic center of the Town, which coincides with
the intersection of East Franklin and Columbia Streets. Within a radius of approximately 160
miles, SCS identified 23 MSW landfill facilities for consideration as destination landfills for
waste accepted at a new transfer station.
SCS identified a total of 4 landfills within a 50 mile radius of the Town, another 9 landfills
within a 100 mile radius, and 10 additional landfill facilities greater than a 100 mile radius. Of
these 23 landfills, 9 are privately-owned facilities; however, 7 of these 9 private landfills are
located more than 100 miles from the Town. These individual facilities are discussed in Section
10.
As discussed in Section 10, the distance traveled to each target landfill along with the tipping
fees charged by each facility factor into the total cost analysis of operating a transfer station.
However, for the purposes of evaluating these landfill facilities within the context of operating a
transfer station, SCS’s scenario modeling includes the economies of scale recognized in transfer
costs using bulk tractor trailers versus direct haul using Town-owned collection vehicles.
7.2 SCENARIO MODELING RE SULTS
The scenario modeling analysis provides a comparison of the Town’s current annual budget for
FY 2012-13 to projected budget expenditures for FY 2014-15. The evaluation compares the
lifecycle costs to permit, construct, and operate a new MSW transfer station and haul the waste
in transfer trailers to various identified landfills within approximately 100 miles of the Town.
The evaluation concludes that the most cost-effective option is to contract hauling and disposal
with the Upper Piedmont Landfill (Permit No.73-04) located in Person County. This facility is
located approximately 46 miles from the Town and indicates a current gate rate tip fee of $32.67
per ton.
The analysis indicates that transfer to and disposal at the majority of other existing landfills that
were deemed qualified candidates demanded a higher tip fee and the few landfills identifying a
lower tip fee are located further away, causing the additional transportation costs to offset the
gains in disposal cost savings. The analysis identified two (2) public landfills, the Alamance
County - Austin Quarter Landfill and South Wake Landfill, within close traveling distance from
the Town; however, these landfill facilities were excluded from consideration at this time as each
is permitted by NCDENR for disposal of wastes generated exclusively within the counties.
However, discussion of regional collaboration may make one or more of these facilities a viable
option.
Consistent with the Town’s current operations, the routing configurations, labor, and equipment
are allocated such that each residential collections crew can collect along its dedicated route,
transport, and dispose 1 to 2 loads per day (or an average of 1 load per day) at the Orange
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 107 10/22/12
County Landfill. The commercial collections crew usually accomplishes disposal of two loads at
the Landfill per day. The evaluation of the new transfer station scenarios is structured to enable
the residential and commercial crews to complete the same number of trips to a hypothetical new
transfer station as they currently perform to the Orange County Landfill.
Relevant assumptions critical to this new transfer station disposal scenario analysis are
summarized below. More detailed discussions of these assumptions are presented previously in
Section 6, direct hauling MSW to a target transfer station facility.
Collections Fleet Modifications and Capital Expenditures
- Consider compliance with NCDOT Overweight Regulations a non-issue
- Systematic Replacement of Single-axle vehicles with Tandem-axle vehicles
- Assumed the Town’s 2013 budgeted annual capital expense for previously
purchased equipment as provided = $311,000 per year
Existing Fleet Summary and Projected Replacement Schedule
- Seven (7) Residential routes running 2 days per week
- Two (2) Commercial routes
- Seven (7) year vehicle replacement schedule initiating with existing vehicle age
Fleet Modifications
- No additional Residential rear loader collection vehicle is necessary
- Annual amortization cost according to a 7-year amortization schedule and 4%
financing rate
- No modifications to Commercial collections fleet
Routing Modifications
- No additional Residential route is necessary; seven Residential routes running 2
days per week
- No additional 3-man crew for residential route
- Analysis excluded consideration of automated collections route
Fleet Fuel and Maintenance Costs
- Determined from historical Town records
- Incremental savings resulting from traveling shorter distance to new transfer
station
- Includes incremental costs for replacement vehicle(s) on a year-over-year basis
Impacts to Task-Based Collections System Structure
- No modification of existing off-route time to transport MSW to new transfer
station
- Maintain available flex time currently awarded to collections staff
Other Assumptions
- Each modeling scenario includes the forfeiture of current transportation and
disposal costs associated with hauling to the Orange County Landfill but accounts
for the transportation and disposal costs associated with hauling waste in transfer
trailers to target destination landfill on facility-by-facility basis
- 3% cost of inflation
- Baseline fiscal year of FY 2012-13 for comparison purposes
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 108 10/22/12
While the scenario assumptions are similar to the direct haul scenario, a few distinct differences
are noted as related to collection routing and fleet modifications, and transportation-related
factors.
7.2.1 Summary Results
The analysis has evaluated the option to have Town collection vehicles deliver MSW to a new
transfer station located within the Town limits beginning in FY 2014-15 (July 1, 2014), where it
will be consolidated, loaded into transfer trailers, and transported to an existing landfill.
Accordingly, projected capital expenditures include the planned replacement of one (1) rear
loader compactor truck in accordance with the 7-year vehicle replacement schedule. Because the
Town collection vehicles travel distances and times traveling to a new transfer station within the
Town limits would be similar to their current travel associated with disposal at the Orange
County Landfill (and comparatively shorter distances and times than would be required under the
direct haul scenarios) no new residential routes or additional salary expenses for collections crew
is anticipated. Compared to the current FY 2012-13 budget, the analysis projects an additional
$592,000 dollars would be incurred of the Town budget in FY 2014-15 to implement this option.
Exhibit 7-8 summarizes the comparative cost analysis of the top identified destination landfills
versus current budgetary expenses.
7.2.2 Net Present Value Evaluation
The financial modeling conducted under this evaluation provides the capability to project and
calculate the Town’s total SWSD program cost over a 30-year period while assuming the
implementation of the various disposal options evaluated. This analysis assumes a 5% discount
factor and includes year-over-year adjustments for inflation, capital expenditure schedule, salary
projections, and other Town and scenario-specific program assumptions. The total program
costs for each disposal option may then be compared in terms of present term, 2013 value.
Comparing the option of permitting, constructing, and operating a new transfer station to accept
MSW collected by the Town exclusively and hauling the waste in transfer trailers to the Upper
Piedmont Landfill, versus continuing disposal to the Orange County Landfill, over a 30-year
period, the net present value for this scenario of $75 million is greater than the $68 million
associated with the status quo, as depicted below in Exhibit 7-9. This is expected considering the
additional expense incurred in permitting, design, construction, and operation of the transfer
station over the projected life cycle.
Considering the option for a regional transfer station presents some inherent advantages. The
pre-development, construction, and equipment costs are expected to be generally similar or
represent a relatively small increase compared to the Town-Only scenario. For example,
accepting the Town of Carrboro’s waste under a regional scenario, means these costs can be
amortized over the larger waste acceptance quantities and the Town would be able to allocate a
representative portion of the costs to the Town of Carrboro. Furthermore, by sharing the
up-front capital costs and risk promotes a stronger commitment from the involved regional
partners to continue participation throughout the facility’s life cycle. As shown in Exhibit 7-7,
this example of a regional approach yields a lower break-even tipping fee and, assuming
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 109 10/22/12
Exhibit 7 -8. Summary of New Transfer Station Scenarios
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 110 10/22/12
Exhibit 7 -9. Net Prese nt Value of Town -Only Transfer Station
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 111 10/22/12
approximately one-third of the costs are allocated to the Town of Carrboro, should enable the
Town of Chapel Hill to save over $100,000 per year.
7.3 CONCLUSION AND RECOM MENDATIONS
As noted above, siting and developing a new Town-only transfer station would be challenging
for a number of reasons and the scenarios reflecting direct haul to an existing transfer station
located in an adjacent municipality provide a lower cost option, in part due to economies of
scale. Developing a new regional transfer station provides for better economies of scale, but
would face the same difficulties. SCS recommends that the Town pursue further evaluation for
developing its own transfer station, and continue to participate in potential future regional
cooperative efforts in this regard.
7.3.1 Recommendations
7.3.1.1 Pursue Siting and Permitting a Transfer Station Within the Town
Two major reasons to engage in efforts to develop a transfer station within the Town is the
ability to control which facility the Town’s waste is transferred to and to guard against price
increases that could be imposed by neighboring transfer station facilities in the future.
Recognizing that Town values (e.g., sustainability, local control of destination and price, and
self-reliance, etc.) factor into these disposal option considerations, the scenarios that incorporate
a new transfer station are attractive even though they may not represent the absolute lowest-cost
option.
Another reason to engage in efforts to develop a transfer station is that future waste processing
and treatment technologies that may be developed and implemented for the Town or elsewhere
in the region will likely necessitate that the Town’s waste be delivered to a central location,
sorted in some manner, and transferred to larger trailers for transport to such future facilities.
Furthermore, WTE facilities will generate waste that must be transferred for final disposal and
this could act as a secondary backup to those facilities. Developing a transfer station now places
the Town in a preferable situation to capitalize on future opportunities for innovative waste
management and treatment techniques that may become available in the Town or in the
surrounding region.
As noted previously, the efforts to permit a transfer station will likely require significant work
over a multi-year period. SCS believes the Town would be well-served to commence
preliminary planning activities, perform a technical feasibility study on the potential candidate
sites (one being the Town-owned parcel located southeast of the intersection of Millhouse Road),
and solicit interest from other municipal partners, specifically Town of Carrboro. Also, it is
suggested that the Town staff and elected officials visit one or more existing transfer stations to
observe conditions and operations.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 112 10/22/12
7.3.1.2 When to Implement?
The impacts to this disposal scenario were evaluated with regard to the timing of accomplishing
the development of a new transfer station. The timeframes considered involved:
Immediately pursuing transfer station development implementation. This would
involve investing in the necessary pre-development and capital construction costs
now (during FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14); and,
Implementing a transfer station at some future date (well after the closure of the
Orange County Landfill in 2013).
As noted, the financial analysis suggests that the scenarios reflecting direct haul to an existing
transfer station located in an adjacent municipality provide a lower cost short-term option than
developing a new Town-Only transfer station. Furthermore, the timeframe constraints to
develop a new transfer station preclude it as a viable short-term option. However, several
important intangible factors warrant ongoing evaluation of this disposal scenario to determine its
value as a long-term option in the context of the Town’s values and planning.
7.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Apart from this analysis of the impact to the SWSD budget, several other factors weigh into the
longer term evaluation of developing a new transfer station. These considerations are not as
readily quantified with respect to fiscal impact since they relate to risk management,
environmental impacts, and socio-economic issues. However, these factors have the potential to
create financial implications and indeed resonate with the Town’s stated values and goals and
must be considered along with the financial evaluation. Several of the more decisive factors
include:
Improved safety of the Town solid waste collections staff hauling waste shorter
distances and over less heavily traveled roadways when compared to the direct haul
scenarios;
Similarly, with the shorter distances traveled compared to other waste disposal
options, less fossil fuel is consumed, likewise resulting in relatively lower greenhouse
gas emissions;
A desire to manage Town-generated waste internally and not having to rely on a
neighboring disposal system, thus maintaining control over ultimate disposal location
and costs;
Operating a Town-owned transfer station provides greater flexibility to evaluate and
pursue alternative waste disposal options (i.e., waste conversion, waste-to-energy) as
discussed in Section 12;
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 113 10/22/12
A Town-owned transfer station enhances opportunities to expand other solid waste
service offerings (i.e., Town-operated recycling, mulching/composting, organics
processing, etc.);
Compared to other options, a Town-operated transfer station provides greater control
in meeting and improving the Town’s waste reduction goals;
Environmental and social justice issues when siting a transfer station; and,
Long-term job creation and retention impacts with the development and operation of
a new transfer station.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 114 10/22/12
8.0 DISPOSAL OPTION – PAY -AS-YOU -THROW
Pay-As-You-Throw, commonly called PAYT, is a solid waste rate strategy that charges
households solid waste collection and disposal fees commensurate with the amount of waste they
place curbside for collection or transport to a disposal facility. Simply stated, the more waste a
household produces, the more the household must pay for service. Appropriately-priced PAYT
programs create a financial incentive for consumers to produce less waste, and thereby
promoting improved reduction, re-use, and recycling.
The amount of waste is typically measured and billed according to a volumetric measurement
(i.e., cubic yards, per bag, per bin); however, some PAYT programs measure waste by weight
(i.e., pounds or tons). A volumetric measurement is the most common measurement due to the
variation inherent to the weight of various waste streams, as this variability impacts capital cost
recovery from the program capital cost.
According to national statistics, PAYT programs have been implemented in more than 7,100
communities across the U.S.9 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) records more than 30 North Carolina communities participating in a
PAYT program. Notably, of these communities, only four counties in North Carolina use weight
of waste as a measurement for their PAYT program.10
8.1 PAYT APPRO ACHES
PAYT systems can take many forms. Rate structures and the type and size of containers are
often related, and combinations of techniques are often used.
8.1.1 Bag P rograms
Households purchase specially marked bags that must be used to set out waste on collection day
or for acceptance at the disposal facility. The annual cost to the resident is directly proportional
to the number of bags purchased and used. This approach is used by several North Carolina
counties for the collection of waste in unincorporated areas either through curbside collection or
drop-off programs at convenience centers. These PAYT bag programs are currently operated in:
Alamance County
Alexander County
Buncombe County
Catawba County
Mitchell County
Onslow County
Randolph County
Union County
Wilkes County
The advantages and disadvantages of PAYT bag programs are presented in Exhibit 8-1.
9 Ecoconservation Institute, http://www.paytnow.org.
12 NCDENR PAYT, http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/01/00365.pdf
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 115 10/22/12
Exhibit 8 -1. Advantages and Disadvantages of a PAYT Bag
Program 11
Advantages Disadvantages
Easy to understand. Greater revenue uncertainty. Fluctuation
based on bag sales.
Promote a stronger reduction incentive as fees
are based on smaller waste increments.
Additional labor and management expense
to sell bags.
Lower accounting and management cost as no
billing system is needed.
Customers may perceive bags as an
inconvenience. Purchase, storage, and
transition from cans.
Lower distribution, storage, and inventory cost. Bags are more expensive than tags or
stickers.
Collection is often faster than non-automated
collections.
Incompatible with automated and semi-
automated collection systems.
Bags can be used to accommodate payment for
bulky waste, white goods, etc. by attaching bags
to the item for collection.
Bags are more susceptible to damage,
tearing, etc.
Opportunities for capturing other revenue
through advertising.
Bags are not re-used, adding to disposal
volume.
Bags are subject to overstuffing which causes
tears, handling problems, and injury issues for
collection staff.
8.1.2 Sticker or T ag P rograms
PAYT sticker and tag programs are similar to the bag system in that residents purchase special
tags or stickers that are affixed to each can, bag, bundle, or bulky item to be collected or directly
disposed by the resident at the disposal facility. PAYT sticker and tag programs are currently
operated in:
Craven County
New Bern
Dover
Jones County
Madison County
Transylvania County
Yadkin County
The advantages and disadvantages of PAYT sticker/tag programs are presented in Exhibit 8-2.
11 “Analysis of Implementing a Pay-as-you-Throw”, R.W. Beck, May 11, 2005.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 116 10/22/12
Exhibit 8 -2.
Advantages and Disadvantages of a PAYT Tag/ Sticker Program 12
Advantages Disadvantages
Easy to understand and less expensive to
implement than bag or can programs.
Greater revenue uncertainty. Fluctuation
based on tag/sticker sales.
Promote a stronger reduction incentive as fees
are based on smaller waste increments.
Additional labor and management expense
to sell tags/stickers.
Lower accounting and management cost as no
billing system is needed.
Customers may perceive tags/stickers as an
inconvenience.
Lower distribution, storage, and inventory cost. Tags/stickers are subject to weather impacts
(e.g., adherence problems).
Customers have a choice to tag/sticker their
container of choice (i.e., bag or can).
With a choice of container size, clear limits
and rules for disposal (i.e., size, weight) must
be established and enforced.
Tags/stickers can be used to accommodate
payment for bulky waste, white goods, etc. by
attaching bags to the item for collection.
Collections are potentially slowed by
checking for tags/stickers and managing
enforcement.
Tags/stickers are susceptible to vandalism
and theft.
Tags/stickers are not as noticeable as other
PAYT methods.
8.1.3 Variable C an or S ubscribed C an Programs
In this system, households register for a specific size of container or number of containers in
which to place their household MSW depending on their estimated waste generation. Typical
container sizes are either 64 or 96 gallons. A collection and/or disposal fee is charged
commensurate with the container size or the number or containers. Under this scenario, the
household gains control in choosing the waste disposal volume (and related cost) that best suits
their historical disposal habits. Variable can programs are currently operated in:
Eden
Hendersonville
Wilmington
The advantages and disadvantages of PAYT can programs are presented in Exhibit 8-3.
12 “Analysis of Implementing a Pay-as-you-Throw”, R.W. Beck, May 11, 2005.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 117 10/22/12
Exhibit 8 -3.
Advantages and Disadvantages of PAYT Can Programs 13
Advantages Disadvantages
Program revenues are relatively stable and
easier to forecast.
Potentially higher implementation costs if
providing containers/cans.
Collection carts/cans are compatible with
automated and semi-automated collection
vehicles.
Less incentive to reduce waste disposal as
customers have already subscribed to a fixed
volume and are inclined to fill up.
Containers may be labeled, tagged, or installed
with RFID chips for tracking, inventory, billing,
and enforcement.
Billing and tracking systems are relatively
more complex to manage various container
sizes.
Existing containers may be applicable for use. Storage and inventory systems and
infrastructure necessary to manage cans.
Can programs do not transition as easily to
manage bulky waste and white goods.
Customers may have difficulty selecting an
appropriate subscription level.
Challenges with the number of containers a
customer may use and set-out for collection.
8.1.4 Hybrid P rograms
This is an approach to PAYT that typically blends any of the above rate structures. In this
system, households only pay for waste beyond a specified “base” set out volume. They pay a
fixed bill or a tax bill that entitles them to a first container, can, or bag (or set number of bags).
Then, additional waste is charged on a per bag, per sticker, or per cart system as described above.
The advantages and disadvantages of hybrid PAYT programs are presented in Exhibit 8-4.
13 “Analysis of Implementing a Pay-as-you-Throw”, R.W. Beck, May 11, 2005.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 118 10/22/12
Exhibit 8 -4.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Hybrid PAYT Programs 14
Advantages Disadvantages
Helpful in transition from a traditional rate
structure to a variable rate structure.
Least incentive for waste reduction.
Mitigates revenue risk by retaining some
traditional financing methods.
Full costs of waste collection and disposal
program may not be entirely reflected on
customers.
Allows more time for customers and implementers
to get familiarized with variable systems.
Potential confusion may be created in
variable billing methods (e.g., per can and
per bag).
Customers and implementers are not committed
to a specific system.
Relatively quick implementation and readily
modified or replaced with other variable
methods.
No new billing systems may be needed.
Allows time for planning and data collection.
8.2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS – PAYT RATES
A PAYT module was developed as part of the Pro Forma model to assist in the evaluation of
potential cost savings and various collections and disposal rate structures that could result from
implementation of PAYT.
8.2.1 Calculation of Baseline Collection and Disposal Cost
SCS analyzed the Town’s solid waste management costs and tonnages based on the budget
information provided. Within this analysis, cost and corresponding waste tonnage was allocated
to either residential or commercial operations. From these data, SCS estimated the baseline
residential collection and disposal cost per household, assuming that 11,500 households are
served by the Town as described in Section 2. For the purposes of this evaluation, the residential
collection and disposal cost per household includes both the current MSW and yard waste
programs (i.e., one MSW collection and one yard waste collection per week), but does not
include the costs to implement a recycling program alternate from the services currently
provided by Orange County. Based on the information provided, the estimated monthly
collection and disposal cost, per household, is $16.60 as presented in Exhibit 8-5.
14 “Analysis of Implementing a Pay-as-you-Throw”, R.W. Beck, May 11, 2005.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 119 10/22/12
Exhibit 8 -5. Collection and Disposal Cost P er Household
Description Cost
Personnel Services $1,297,192
Operating Expenses $1,016,414
Capital Outlay $0
Revenues ($23,369)
Total $2,290,238
Residential Costs:
Waste Collection Cost/Household
Annual $199.15
Monthly $16.60
Waste Collection Cost/Ton $234.90
SCS used the PAYT Pro Forma module and this baseline cost to evaluate three (3) separate
PAYT scenarios deemed most applicable to the Town’s solid waste systems.
8.2.2 Option A – Variable Can Program
Residential customers receive a base level of service of one 64-gallon cart, along with yard waste
collection and County-provided recycling. Smaller and larger cart sizes may be made available
(e.g., 32 and 96-gallon). The billing rates proposed for these alternative subscription levels are
based on the anticipated disposal costs of the reduced or excess volume of waste.
8.2.3 Option B – Modified Subscribed Can Program
Residential customers receive a base level of service of one 64-gallon cart, along with yard waste
collection and County-provided recycling. Smaller and larger cart sizes may be made available
(e.g., 32 and 96-gallon). The rates for the alternative subscription levels are based on the
calculated ratio of the 64-gallon cart against alternative cart sizes. In other words, a 96-gallon
cart holds 33% more waste volume than a 64-gallon cart, therefore, the subscription rate is 33%
higher. The PAYT Pro Forma module allows, however, for the user to input any cost allocation
as desired for the variable sizes.
8.2.4 Option C – Hybrid Program: Subscribed Can and Bag
Residential customers receive a base level of service of one 64-gallon cart, along with yard waste
collection and County-provided recycling. A per-bag (or tag/sticker) fee is charged for
additional bags generated above the base 64-gallon service. This per bag fee of $1.00, for the
purposes of modeling, is based on review of several EPA and NCDENR studies15 and includes
15 http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/payt/pdf/payasyou.pdf
http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/01/00365.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/payt/pdf/sera06.pdf
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 120 10/22/12
the cost of the bag itself and the costs for disposal of its contents. The Pro Forma module allows
the user to set this value at any level desired.
Exhibit 8-6 summarizes the PAYT scenarios developed using the module.
Exhibit 8 -6. PAYT Scenarios
Monthly Subscription Option A Option B Option C
Description of
Scenario
Residential customers
pay a monthly fee
and receive one 64-
gallon cart.
Customers pay a
monthly fee
depending on the
cart size selected.
Monthly fee is based
on the disposal costs
of additional (or
reduced) volume
generated.
Customers pay a
monthly fee
depending on the
cart size selected.
Monthly fee is based
on a selected ratio
of alternative cart
size to the base cart
size.
Residential customers
pay a monthly fee
and receive one 64-
gallon cart. A per-
bag fee is charged
for additional bags.
Monthly Base Rate
per Household ($)
$16.50 32-gal: $13.69
64-gal: $16.58
96-gal: $19.57
32-gal: $11.14
64-gal: $16.58
96-gal: $22.12
$16.58
Annual Fee per
Household ($)
$198.00 32-gal: $164.28
64-gal: $198.96
96-gal: $234.84
32-gal: $133.68
64-gal: $198.96
96-gal: $265.44
$198.96
Per-Bag Fee ($) N/A N/A N/A $1.00
Assumed Number of
Customers(1)
11,500 32-gal: 1,060
64-gal: 8,480
96-gal: 1,060
32-gal: 1,060
64-gal: 8,480
96-gal: 1,060
11,500
Total Bags Sold per
Year (assumed)
N/A N/A N/A 11,500
Notes:
1. Customer participation is calculated by: (Total # of Households – Collection Exemptions) * 10% at 32 gal., 80% at 64
gal., and 10% at 96 gal. Assume 900 household exemptions.
8.2.5 Financial Modeling Assumptions
The PAYT Pro Forma module allows the Town to modify many of the assumptions used and
develop revised rates as the PAYT program matures. Assumptions used for the above modeling
includes:
8.2.5.1 Waste Reduction
Data from more than 1,000 communities around the country was used to identify the impacts of
PAYT above and beyond any other recycling or yard waste program differences, demographics,
and other factors. The research showed the following impacts on residential solid waste:16
MSW disposal tonnages typically decrease by 16 to 17%. This decrease is generally
comprised of the following components:
16 Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) 2006, Pay As You Throw (PAYT) In The US: 2006
Update And Analyses, http://www.paytnow.org/PAYT_EPA_SERA_Report2006G.pdf.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 121 10/22/12
- Gains in the solid waste recycling ratio of 5 to 6 percentage points or 5 to 6% of
residential waste generation;
- Increases in yard waste diversion of about 4 to 5 percentage points; and,
- Source reduction of about 6% of generation.
For this module, a 17% reduction in waste was assumed from the implementation of PAYT.
Accordingly, recycling was assumed to increase 5.53%, yard waste diversion was assumed to
increase 5.53%, and source reduction was assumed to increase 5.95%. As seen in the data from
these communities, gains in each of these metrics are attributed to the customer recognizing their
disposal habits, once they are required to pay for these services, and diverting waste to
established recovery programs (i.e., recycling, yard waste, etc.) that they would have otherwise
thrown away at no cost.
8.2.5.2 Levels of Service
It is difficult to predict how many households will choose a particular level of service and often
households will change service levels as the program matures. Often the waste collections entity
(public or private) will allow one service-level change for “free,” and limit future changes to an
annual basis while charging a fee to do so. For this level of modeling, SCS has assumed that 900
of the 11,500 Town households maintain a collections exemption and the remaining 10,600
residential customers would choose the following levels of service:
Percentage of customers choosing smaller can (i.e., 32-gallon): 10%.
Percentage of customers choosing larger can (i.e., 96-gallon): 10%.
The remaining 8,480 customers would select the base level of service (i.e., 64-
gallon).
These service-level assumptions can be changed in the Pro Forma module for additional
modeling scenarios.
8.2.5.3 Cart Costs
SCS assumed that the Town would be required to purchase additional carts for those residential
customers selecting an alternative level of service. For the purposes of modeling these scenarios,
SCS assumed that the new cart costs would average $50 per cart and would be amortized at 4%
for 7 years. Again, these baseline assumptions can be changed accordingly.
8.2.5.4 PAYT Coordinator
Communities that have implemented PAYT have often designated or hired a program
coordinator to:
Communicate with the public (e.g., program publicity, community outreach, hearing
complaints, and coordinating subscription changes).
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 122 10/22/12
Track waste disposal tonnage results and costs.
Coordinate with existing waste collection and recycling programs.
Order and distribute carts.
Implement and manage bag programs, as necessary (e.g., order bags, sell bags,
coordinate with retailers).
For the sake of conservatism and for the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the Town
would hire a PAYT coordinator. Associated salary and FTE assumptions have been included in
the Pro Forma module and can be adjusted by the Town accordingly.
8.2.5.5 Bag Set Out Levels
The revenue associated from bag set outs is difficult to predict. It was assumed that 10% of
homes would set out 1 additional bag per week, 10% of homes would set out 2 additional bags
per week, 10% of homes would set out 3 additional bags per week, and 10% of homes would set
out 4 additional bags per week. These set outs can be modified by the Town.
8.2.5.6 Revenues
PAYT programs, because they depend on customer behavior choices, will inherently lead to
more volatile revenue streams than systems with fixed bills. Revenues are no longer based on a
stable number like households, but rather on the number of individual bags or levels of cart
services selected by homeowners. The number of bags disposed can vary month-to-month and
week-to-week. The PAYT module attempts to define the amount of revenue required to operate
the Town’s base program and offers an estimate of the revenue excess/shortfall created by the
particular PAYT scenario.
8.3 IMPLEMENTATION – LESSONS LEARNED
Based on interviews with hundreds of communities nationwide that have implemented PAYT,
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA), and the Econservation Institute (Institute)
have assembled the following tips that the Town may wish to consider:17
Pilot test. Consider implementing the program in one area of the Town first, and then
spread to other areas. Learning lessons about subscriptions, set outs, containers, and
other problems in a limited part of the Town can provide important information prior
to full implementation.
Billing. Billing for solid waste services jointly with other municipal-provided
services, if possible, can provide strong advantages. If the ordinance is arranged so
that partial payments are assigned to solid waste first, then non-payments for solid
17 Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D., Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA), found at:
http://www.paytnow.org/PAYT_CO_faqpaytSERA_v6.pdf
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 123 10/22/12
waste services can lead to impacts or even temporary termination of these other
services, a strong payment incentive. Bad debt is quite low under these systems.
Involve others in design. Assembling a citizen or stakeholder committee to help
assess and design the program can help sell the program to elected officials, and can
make sure that the program addresses concerns of major stakeholders. Although this
process may appear to slow down the decision-making, it can often speed it in later
steps and can bring support for the program when it is most needed. Related Town
departments, including financial, billing, enforcement, customer service, police, and
others that may be affected by PAYT changes should be included in discussions.
Don’t pile on other costs. The Institute cautions against implementing PAYT along
with other major program changes (e.g., major renovation to transfer stations or other
upgrades that are not invisible to residents). The increased costs, whether or not they
are due to PAYT, will most likely be blamed on PAYT and will potentially
undermine the buy-in for the program.
Determine whether to make changes at once or more slowly and design education
accordingly. Some communities argue that implementing many changes at one time
confuses citizens and makes the education process difficult. Others argue that
customers don’t want to have to make decisions about solid waste in a piecemeal
manner, and want to “deal with it once.”
Education and outreach. None of the communities interviewed during SERA’s
research wished they had done less education. Education and community outreach is
a crucial component of a successful PAYT program.
Keep constant for one year. If at all possible, keep the system and rates constant for
at least one year to help build confidence in the program. After evaluation of this
initial year of service, the rates and program can be refined to account for unexpected
outcomes.
Tracking/Revising. It is important to track key indicators related to the program and
its performance to assure that the PAYT program is achieving its objectives and that
the program is sustainable. Key metrics and indicators to track include:
- Container subscriptions, or sales of bags and/or tags
- Program enforcement issues
- Program revenues and costs
- Time spent by various program staff
- Waste tonnage changes by programs, etc.
The Town may use this valuable information to gauge program progress,
cost-effectiveness, and to provide advance notice for needed programmatic changes.
Keep key groups informed. Provide regular feedback to program staff, elected
officials, and others to keep them informed about program momentum and successes,
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 124 10/22/12
including the monitoring statistics referenced above. Note problems and corrective
actions, to demonstrate the program staff has a handle on the program and are making
sure it is on track and as efficient and effective as possible.
8.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECO MMENDATIONS
During review and analysis of the Town budget for this Comprehensive Study, these analyses
indicated the Town currently does not directly charge its residents for solid waste disposal.
Reimbursement to the Town for SWSD costs incurred for residential solid waste management is
understood to be included in the Town’s general tax base. However, some direct revenue is
allocated to the SWSD program through Commercial collections, collection cart sales, bulk
waste and white goods collection, and customer fines. With the results of this PAYT analysis,
the Town may begin to consider allocating the costs of its SWSD residential waste collection
services, or a portion thereof, directly to its customers in accordance with the above suggested
rates.
In consideration of the current SWSD management structure, existing collections equipment and
resources, collections practices, and an understanding of the Town culture; if the Town is
inclined to reallocate these costs from the general tax base directly to its residents, this analysis
indicates that a hybrid PAYT program would likely be the most appropriate approach. In
consideration of a hybrid program, a Subscribed Can and Bag, or Subscribed Can and Tag
program are most applicable to the Town for the following reasons:
Of all the PAYT program options, a hybrid program presents the easiest transition to
PAYT programs from more traditional solid waste financing methods.
The majority of Town residents currently use appropriate cans (i.e., 64-gallon carts)
and the Town maintains an existing inventory, maintenance, replacement, and billing
system to issue new cans and/or replace damaged cans.
The Town currently utilizes semi-automatic collection vehicles to service the cans.
Thus implementation of a dedicated bag or tag only system is not appropriate.
Robust recycling and yard waste programs are currently engaged throughout the
Town program and accordingly the Town currently achieves commendable solid
waste diversion statistics. Thus the inherent incentives towards greater diversion
promoted by other PAYT methods are not deemed to be a significant driver for
PAYT implementation.
The Town currently shares a majority of the costs to implementing solid waste
services without directly encumbering its residents. Similarly, Town residents
appreciate the solid waste service they receive and if asked, are likely willing to pay
directly for a portion of this service if it would not impact the level of service. A
hybrid PAYT method would promote a smoother transition to such cost sharing
versus other methods.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 125 10/22/12
A bag or tag program would assist the Town in assessing appropriate billing for bulky
waste collection and white good collection. Bags or tags may be purchased in
accordance with the current published fee structure for these programs. For example:
- $10 for three (3) tags or three (3) bags;
- $5 for each additional tag or bag; and,
- Bulky waste and white goods would be tagged or tied with a bag to indicate
payment is received and authorized for collection. SCS suggests a fee of $10 per
bulky item sticker.
Transitioning to a PAYT program in this manner introduces the program subtly.
Subsequently, the Town may begin to employ a bag or tag requirement for excess
waste placed alongside the Town-issued cart.
Development of an enhanced billing system for cans, bags, and/or tags is not
immediately necessary, but SCS recommends the Town evaluate options to
accommodate billing and recovery activities associated with the PAYT program. The
Town may continue to provide residential can collections utilizing the existing tax
structure, while charging customers for bags/tags purchased at municipal offices,
other retail locations, via internet, etc.
The Town should consider hiring or assigning a PAYT coordinator (assumed to
represent a cost of $45,000 per year).
SCS estimates that an additional 2,100 carts would need to be purchased at an
average cost of $50/cart (mix of 32-gallon and 96-gallon carts) to accommodate lower
and higher generators, for a capital cost of $106,000.
A phased transition to PAYT allows the Town time to further evaluate other solid waste program
changes, continue to gather data, and familiarize itself with these programs while affording the
least service disruption to its customers.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 126 10/22/12
9.0 DISPOSAL OPTION – SITE/ CONSTRUCT A NEW
MATERIAL RECOVERY FA CILITY
9.1 EVALUATE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW M ATERIALS
R ECOVERY F ACILITY
SCS evaluated the feasibility and assessed the potential benefits of the Town developing a new
Town-only materials recovery facility (MRF). A MRF is generally described as a facility that
accepts source-separated materials for purposes of recovering recyclable materials which will be
transported to secondary markets for reclamation or processing. Waste collection vehicles
unload recyclables or select wastes that are believed to have some reclamation value onto a
tipping floor where they are sorted and segregated. For further distinction, a “dirty” MRF is a
transfer station that receives nonsegregated solid waste, sorts and separates the waste into
recoverable and disposable materials, and processes these materials accordingly.
The analysis provides the following:
Summary of the challenges and obstacles to siting a new MRF in the Town.
Summary of the benefits of siting and operating a MRF in the Town (e.g., potential
increase in materials that can be recycled and the decrease in disposal costs).
A cost estimate for the site selection, permitting, design, capital construction, and
operation for a Town-operated MRF.
9.1.1 MRF Siting Challenges, Advantages, and Disadvantages
SCS and the Town recognize that there are two major obstacles to the construction and operation
of a stand-alone MRF in order to receive and sort the waste materials generated within the Town
that are suitable for recycling. The first is related to the costs associated with a MRF and the
scale of operations necessary to achieve economic viability. Based on SCS’s experience, a MRF
typically requires an investment of several million dollars (even small MRFs usually cost in
excess of $3 million). Typical minimum, stationary equipment required for a MRF include a
conveyor, a mechanical materials sorter, various mechanical separators, and baler. An example
schematic depicting a typical MRF operation and applicable equipment is presented in Exhibit 9-
1.
9.1.1.1 Summary Economy of Scale
As documented in Section 2, the current recycling material quantities attributed to being
generated within the Town is approximately 7,500 tons per year, of which approximately 41%
(3,100 tons) comprises the urban curbside collection program and multi-family contribution, and
22% comprises the commercial food waste program. Another 20% of the Town’s recycling
material is collected at the remote drop-off sites and convenience centers and separate from the
dedicated Orange County curbside collections; while another 10% comprises the commercial
recycling contribution.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 127 10/22/12
Exhibit 9 -1. Example Schematic of a Typical MRF Operation
Recognizing that the commercial food waste portion is unlikely to be delivered to a MRF for
sorting at this time, and participating residents using the current drop locations and convenience
centers may not utilize the Town MRF location, this yields a potential throughput for a MRF in
the range of 60 to 75 tons per week depending on participation, or approximately 20 to 25 tons
per day (tpd) assuming materials are delivered only 3 days per week. The rationale for assuming
delivery of recyclables 3 days per week is that this schedule correlates to using 4 dedicated
routes per day averaging 5 tons per route to collect the 60 tons per week of recyclables that
represents the urban curbside collection program and multi-family contribution. Recognizing
that commercial sources contribute an additional 15 tons of recyclables per week, a total of 5
dedicated routes per day averaging 5 tons per route would be necessary to collect 75 tons per
week, which represents traditional recyclables but excludes organic wastes that may be diverted.
Over a 20-year period, the Town’s recycling material quantities (assuming a consistent per capita
rate) are anticipated to increase to nearly 10,000 tpy, of which about 2,500 tons (25%) could
potentially represent the commercial food waste portion. The remaining 7,500 tons per year is
equivalent to 145 tons per week, or approximately 45 tpd assuming a 3-day per week schedule.
These relatively small quantities do not facilitate economic viability of a stand-alone MRF to
manage the Town’s existing recyclable materials. As described in Section 2, for comparison,
Orange County recently earned approximately $750,000 annual revenue from resale of its
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 128 10/22/12
marketable recyclables, equivalent to more than twice the quantity projected to be generated by
the Town.
9.1.1.2 Competition from Current Orange County Recycling Program
The second obstacle is related to the existing recycling program that Orange County administers
in which the Town currently participates. As described in Section 3, the current service level
provided by the County is generally accepted to be above average and the current recycling
programs are considered to be quite successful. The County has existing contracts with several
entities to purchase recyclables and has implemented curbside single-stream recycling for
residential customers in the Town that requires little to no sorting and processing that is typically
associated with the need for a MRF.
The concept for a stand-alone MRF, owned and operated by the Town, would appear to
necessitate that the Town assume control of its own curbside collections program in order that
the collected recyclables are delivered to this facility, or reach some agreement with the County
to deliver the recyclable materials to this new Town facility. However, the Town currently
benefits from participation in the recycling programs administered by the County without the
need for a stand-alone MRF. Furthermore, as presented in Section 3, the costs to implement a
Town-only recycling collections program, excluding the materials processing and marketing
costs attributed to a Town MRF, is approximately equivalent to the “total program” costs
currently allocated to the Town by the Orange County program.
9.1.1.3 Advantages
Based on our experience, the following advantages are associated with developing a new stand-
alone MRF within the Town’s planning jurisdictional limits:
1. Potential to increase recycling rates and improve waste diversion rates of waste currently
being managed at a disposal facility (i.e., landfill).
2. Accordingly, the Town would potentially recognize a reduction in waste disposal costs
resulting from a reduced disposal volume and accompanying tip fees.
3. Opportunity to add new solid waste services or waste management practices dependent
on segregated materials (e.g., mulching, composting, waste conversion technologies,
etc.).
4. Opportunity to gain control over the ultimate disposition of Town-generated recoverable
materials (i.e., where materials are taken, what materials are used for, and what market
price these materials demand, etc.).
5. Potential to collaborate with neighboring municipalities, expand operations, and promote
regional waste diversion goals, while potentially earning greater revenue.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 129 10/22/12
9.1.1.4 Disadvantages
Based on our experience, the following disadvantages are associated with developing a new
stand-alone MRF within the Town’s planning jurisdictional limits:
1. Requires the Town to implement new policies and programs in order to direct recyclable
materials collected by the current program to the new MRF. Operating a MRF without
participation from neighboring municipalities, including Orange County, would
potentially be counterproductive towards regional collaboration.
2. Economies of scale for a viable operation are dependent upon regional partners to
commit delivery of recyclables to the new MRF in order to deliver a marginal return on
investment at best. The Town and other regional partners would need to address the
challenge of attempting to secure flow control of recyclables through passing multiple
ordinances. The efforts associated with such collaboration would likely involve
demonstrating to regional partners that the Town has established contract terms, purchase
prices, and durations for sale of reclaimed materials within the secondary markets.
3. The recyclable materials market is a commodity market subject to potentially volatile
fluctuations. Again, the risks associated with market volatility must be managed through
strategic contract negotiations and attentive materials management.
4. Community opposition and potential perceived impacts to communities surrounding the
MRF (e.g., noise and traffic), although modern MRFs employ mitigation measures that
can reduce or eliminate these impacts. Siting a new stand-alone MRF within the Town
limits, or the surrounding area, would be challenging, but is believed to be generally less
contentious than a landfill.
5. Significant capital investment is required (see discussion below).
6. The Town will incur professional salary expenses and/or temporary labor expenses to
hire and supervise personnel to operate the MRF.
7. Developing a new stand-alone MRF could require 2 to 3 years to complete. As such, it is
not available as a short-term alternative to the Town in the near future.
9.1.2 Co-Locating MRF or Composting Facility W ith a New
Transfer Station
SCS recommends that the Town consider the concept of co-locating a MRF in conjunction with
a new transfer station as an alternative to a stand-alone MRF. Essentially, this concept is to plan
and design a new transfer station to include capabilities for sorting incoming wastes and handling
recyclable materials in designated areas of the facility. The Town is continuing to develop
programs and services that embrace solid waste as a resource and enabling a new transfer station
to be configured and equipped to sort incoming wastes for the purpose of diverting materials that
have a recycling or reclamation value would appear to be more attractive than a stand-alone
MRF or traditional MSW transfer station. Furthermore, another primary objective of a co-
located facility would be to segregate materials from incoming wastes that are not currently
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 130 10/22/12
being recycled under the County’s existing and planned recycling programs and thereby increase
the quantities of waste that are required to be transferred to disposal facilities.
In the same manner, it is recommended that the Town also consider the concept of co-locating a
composting facility in conjunction with a new transfer station that could be utilized to increase
organics diversion rates.
Examples of existing MSW transfer station facilities that having some degree of recycling or
composting capabilities (in other words, a standard MSW transfer station that is essentially “co-
located” with a composting/vegetative waste facility or has “MRF-like” capabilities such as a
baler, sorter, or anything else to enable recovery and processing of recyclables) are noted below:
Recology Hay Road Composting/MRF in Dixon, CA
Recology Yubb-Sutter Composting/MRF in Marysville, CA
Community Waste Disposal in Dallas, TX
Frederick County, MD
Ocean City, MD
Island County, WA
9.1.2.1 Sizing an Appropriate Facility
Hypothetical transfer station MRF and transfer station/composting facility dimensions and waste
throughput quantities were developed based on a number of assumptions regarding the maximum
daily waste acceptance rates for MSW, recyclables, and vegetative wastes, facility configuration,
traffic flow patterns, and setbacks to the property line from the transfer station building footprint.
As noted in Section 7, assuming MSW collection occurs 4 days per week, 52 weeks per year, the
daily MSW throughput quantities for a Town-only facility range from 75 tons per day (tpd) in
FY 2014-15 to approximately 100 tpd in FY 2033-34.
If the Town of Chapel Hill decides to construct a transfer station that incorporates a
MRF to accommodate their MSW generation plus an area for processing and storing
recyclables for the next 20 years, the facility should be sized to manage 150 tpd.
Based on SCS’s experience, a transfer station/MRF sized to handle 150 tpd of MSW
and recyclables will require a building footprint in the 13,500 sf range, situated on a
site pad of at least 2.5 acres within a total property parcel size equal to 5 acres to
accommodate site access, truck queuing, and turning radius.
The Town currently collects approximately 2,500 tons per year of yard waste, which is
anticipated to escalate to nearly 3,400 tons per year over the next 20 years.
If the Town of Chapel Hill decides to construct a transfer station that incorporates a
vegetative waste composting facility to accommodate their MSW generation plus an
area for processing and composting organic wastes for the next 20 years, the facility
should be sized to manage 140 tpd.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 131 10/22/12
Based on SCS’s experience, a transfer station/compost facility sized to handle 140 tpd
of MSW and organic wastes (yard waste and food waste) will require a building
footprint in the 12,000 sf range, situated on a site pad of at least 4 acres within a total
property parcel size equal to 6 acres.
A facility that serves as a transfer station/MRF/compost facility sized to handle 200
tpd of MSW, recyclables, and organic wastes (yard waste and food waste) will
require a building footprint in the 15,000 sf range, situated on a site pad of at least 5
acres within a total property parcel size equal to 7 acres.
9.1.3 Estimated Development Costs for Co -Located MRF or
Composting Facility W ith a New Transfer Station
SCS prepared conceptual budget cost estimates for the construction and operation for both the
transfer station/MRF and the transfer station/compost facility scenarios. The construction cost
estimates include costs for siting, permitting, design, building construction, scalehouse and
scales, sorting and separating equipment, maintenance facilities, utilities, entrance roads, transfer
trailer staging area, and ancillary support facilities. The cost estimates do not assign any costs
for land acquisition, which reflects an assumption that the facility will be located on an existing
Town-owned property. Should the Town need to consider land acquisition costs in this analysis,
these preliminary land acquisition costs are described further in Section 11 for the consideration
of developing a Town landfill.
The cost estimates are based on SCS’s experience working with municipal and private clients
throughout the region, and were prepared to provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of the
critical aspects of construction and operation of a transfer station that is specifically planned to
enable aggressive efforts for recovering recyclable materials and/or organic materials from the
incoming waste stream. If the Town were to develop a transfer station under either scenario, a
more detailed estimate would need to be prepared based on actual site information. Exhibit 9-2
and Exhibit 9-3 present a summary of the estimated pre-development and capital construction
costs to develop a new transfer station/MRF and transfer station/compost facility, respectively.
For conceptual cost estimating purposes, the capital costs for each scenario are amortized over
the 30-year projection period at 4% interest to estimate the yearly allocated capital expenditure
costs.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 132 10/22/12
Exhibit 9 -2. Estimated Cost to Develop a New Transfer Station/
Materials Recovery Facility
LABOR
MATERIAL &
EQUIPMENT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL
PRE-DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Land Acquisition / Purchase ac 5 $0 $0
Permitting ls 1 $150,000 $150,000
Engineering, Legal, & Admin ls 1 $475,000 $475,000
$625,000
CONSTRUCTION
Mobilization/Demobilization ls 1 $101,000 $101,000
$101,000
EROSION CONTROL
Clearing and Grubbing ac 5 $6,000 $30,000
Erosion Control Measures ls 1 $15,000 $15,000
Site Restoration (seeding/mulching/vegetation)ls 1 $10,000 $10,000
$55,000
BUILDING COSTS
Site Work (Excavation, Grading, Paving, and Landscaping)sf 108,900 $6.50 $707,850
Utilities (Electrical, Water, Sewage, Storm water)sf 13,600 $2.00 $27,200
Structures (Concrete, Structural, Doors, Fire control, Lighting, Roof)sf 13,600 $35.00 $476,000
$1,211,050
EQUIPMENT COSTS
Conveyor & Sorter ls 1 $125,000 $125,000
Separator ls 1 $40,000 $40,000
Baler ls 1 $150,000 $150,000
$315,000
OTHER SITE WORK
Maintenance Building ls 1 $15,000.00 $15,000
Scalehouse ls 1 $150,000.00 $150,000
Office Equipment (computer, supplies, telephone, etc.)ls 1 $7,500 $7,500
Truck Scales ls 2 $50,000.00 $100,000
Site Lighting sf 108,900 $0.50 $54,450
Signage, Locking gate, Fencing ls 1 $30,000 $30,000
Construction Quality Assurance & Certification (third-party)ls 1 $81,150 $81,150
$438,100
TOTAL $2,745,150
CONTINGENCY (20%)$549,030
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TOTAL $3,294,000
Compared to the estimated cost to develop a Town-Only transfer station, as presented in Section
7, the incremental cost to include MRF capability is estimated to be approximately $915,000.
The majority of this incremental cost is attributed to additional equipment costs for materials
processing, along with building costs for a larger building footprint necessary to process and
manage the recoverable materials.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 133 10/22/12
Exhibit 9 -3. Estimated Cost to Develop a New Transfer Station/
Compost Facility
LABOR
MATERIAL &
EQUIPMENT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL
PRE-DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Land Acquisition / Purchase ac 5 $0 $0
Permitting ls 1 $150,000 $150,000
Engineering, Legal, & Admin ls 1 $475,000 $475,000
$625,000
CONSTRUCTION
Mobilization/Demobilization ls 1 $106,000 $106,000
$106,000
EROSION CONTROL
Clearing and Grubbing ac 6 $6,000 $36,000
Erosion Control Measures ls 1 $20,000 $20,000
Site Restoration (seeding/mulching/vegetation)ls 1 $15,000 $15,000
$71,000
BUILDING COSTS
Site Work (Excavation, Grading, Paving, and Landscaping)sf 174,280 $6.50 $1,132,820
Utilities (Electrical, Water, Sewage, Storm water)sf 12,000 $2.00 $24,000
Structures (Concrete, Structural, Doors, Fire control, Lighting, Roof)sf 12,000 $35.00 $420,000
$1,576,820
OTHER SITE WORK
Maintenance Building ls 1 $25,000.00 $25,000
Scalehouse ls 1 $150,000.00 $150,000
Office Equipment (computer, supplies, telephone, etc.)ls 1 $7,500 $7,500
Truck Scales ls 2 $50,000.00 $100,000
Site Lighting sf 174,280 $0.25 $43,570
Signage, Locking gate, Fencing ls 1 $35,000 $35,000
Construction Quality Assurance & Certification (third-party)ls 1 $100,445 $100,445
$461,515
TOTAL $2,840,335
CONTINGENCY (20%)$568,067
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TOTAL $3,408,000
Compared with Exhibit 9-2, the incremental costs to develop a co-located compost facility,
rather than a MRF is estimated to be approximately $114,000. While developing a compost
facility does not require capital investment in mechanical equipment, the additional acreage, site
work, landscaping, and material handling equipment necessary to operate a composting
operation offsets these capital expenditures.
9.1.4 Estimated Transfer Station / MRF and Transfer Station/
Compost Facility Operations Costs
Exhibit 9-4 and Exhibit 9-5 present the estimated annual operation costs for the co-located
transfer station/MRF scenarios and transfer station/compost facilities, respectively. The annual
operational costs include personnel, and equipment needed to operate a transfer station/MRF and
transfer station/compost facility. The annual operational costs also include an annual permit
renewal fee ($1,500).
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 134 10/22/12
Exhibit 9 -4. Estimated Annual O&M Cost for
New Transfer Station/ Materials Recovery Facility Scenario
Engineer's Engineer's
No.Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Est.Total Estimate
1 Personnel Salaries 4 LS 40,000$ 160,000$
2 Personnel Benefits 4 LS 15,000$ 60,000$
3 Transfer Station Equipment Debt Service 4 LS 15,000$ 60,000$
4 Transfer Station Equipment Maintenance / Repair 4 LS 5,000$ 20,000$
5 Equipment - Lease/Rental 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
6 Vehicle Fuel 10,000 Gal 3.50$ 35,000$
7 Vehicle Supplies 1 LS 7,500$ 7,500$
8 Wastewater Treatment 200,000 Gal 0.03$ 6,000$
9 Paving / Concrete 1 LS 7,500$ 7,500$
10 Electricity & Heating 1 LS 12,500$ 12,500$
11 Water & Sewer 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
12 Telecommunications / Information Technology 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
13 Vehicle Insurance 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
14 General / Environmental Insurance 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
15 Engineering / Consulting Services 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
16 Environmental Monitoring Services 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
17 Legal Services 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
18 Mowing & Other Contracting Services 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
19 Dues & Association Fees 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$
20 Permit Fees 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$
21 Office Supplies 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$
22 Janitorial 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
23 Operations & Maintenance Supplies 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$
24 Uniforms 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
25 Miscellaneous Maintenance / Repair 1 LS 7,500$ 7,500$
-$
SUBTOTAL 420,500$
CONTINGENCY (20%)84,100$
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COST 504,600$
WASTE ACCEPTANCE RATE 150 tpd
ANNUAL OPERATING COST PER TON 16.17$
Compared to the estimated annual cost to operate a Town-Only transfer station, as presented in
Section 7, the incremental cost to operate a MRF in addition to traditional transfer station
operations is estimated to be approximately $162,600 per year. This incremental cost is
attributed to the need for one (1) additional staff to assist in processing materials, annual debt
service and maintenance costs for the additional equipment used in materials processing.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 135 10/22/12
Exhibit 9 -5. Estimated Annual O&M Cost for
New Transfer Station/ Compost Facility Scenario
Engineer's Engineer's
No.Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Est.Total Estimate
1 Personnel Salaries 4 LS 40,000$ 160,000$
2 Personnel Benefits 4 LS 15,000$ 60,000$
3 Transfer Station Equipment Debt Service 4 LS 20,000$ 80,000$
4 Transfer Station Equipment Maintenance / Repair 4 LS 10,000$ 40,000$
5 Equipment - Lease/Rental 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
6 Vehicle Fuel 12,000 Gal 3.50$ 42,000$
7 Vehicle Supplies 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
8 Wastewater Treatment 200,000 Gal 0.03$ 6,000$
9 Paving / Concrete 1 LS 7,500$ 7,500$
10 Electricity & Heating 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
11 Water & Sewer 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$
12 Telecommunications / Information Technology 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
13 Vehicle Insurance 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$
14 General / Environmental Insurance 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
15 Engineering / Consulting Services 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
16 Environmental Monitoring Services 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
17 Legal Services 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
18 Mowing & Other Contracting Services 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
19 Dues & Association Fees 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$
20 Permit Fees 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$
21 Office Supplies 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$
22 Janitorial 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
23 Operations & Maintenance Supplies 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$
24 Uniforms 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
25 Miscellaneous Maintenance / Repair 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
-$
SUBTOTAL 454,000$
CONTINGENCY (20%)90,800$
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COST 544,800$
WASTE ACCEPTANCE RATE 140 tpd
ANNUAL OPERATING COST PER TON 18.71$
Similar to operating a co-located MRF, compared to the estimated annual cost to operate a
Town-only transfer station, as presented in Section 7, the incremental cost to operate a compost
facility in addition to traditional transfer station operations is estimated to be approximately
$202,800. This incremental cost is attributed to one (1) additional staff position to process these
vegetative materials in addition to the staff dedicated to the transfer station operation as well as
increase in the annual equipment debt service and maintenance for these operations.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 136 10/22/12
9.2 CONCLUSION AND RECOM MENDATIONS
As noted above, siting and developing a new stand-alone MRF is not considered to be a
productive or economically viable endeavor due to prohibitive costs arising from insufficient
material quantities (yielding infeasible economies of scale). Competition from ongoing
successful regional recycling operations (i.e., Orange County), and the policy challenges that
would arise from the need to divert the materials currently collected by Orange County under the
County’s existing recycling programs to such a facility serve as further disincentives.
Developing a new transfer station which is designed and constructed to include capabilities for
sorting incoming wastes and handling recyclable materials or vegetative and organic wastes for
composting or emerging waste conversion technologies (e.g., anaerobic digestion) is suggested
as the preferred approach.
Consistent with Town values and ongoing sustainability efforts, should the Town decide to
pursue a new Town transfer station as a long-term waste management option, the incremental
cost to expand this design and develop a co-located MRF or co-located composting facility
would provide several tangible and intangible benefits. These include:
An ability to capture and divert additional recoverable materials from the waste
stream, before its ultimate bulk transfer for landfill disposal, thus promoting
continued improvement towards the region’s 61% waste diversion goal.
Accordingly, such additional diversion reduces waste disposal costs (i.e., tip fees) and
improves the efficiency of a Town transfer station option.
Designing MRF capability into a transfer station preserves ability for the Town to
capitalize on one or more emerging waste conversion technologies as they develop in
the future.
Developing potential new waste processing capabilities within the Town presents
possible new opportunities for regional collaboration and additional program revenue.
Furthermore, developing a transfer station with MRF and other material processing
capabilities promotes the Town’s values of environmental stewardship/sustainability,
and responsibility.
SCS recommends that the Town not engage in development of a stand-alone MRF at this time
for the following reasons: 1) Siting and developing a new stand-alone MRF is not considered to
be a productive or an economically viable operation due to prohibitive costs arising from
insufficient material quantities (yielding infeasible economies of scale); and, 2) it would have a
negative impact on the current regional cooperative recycling strategy with Orange County.
However, in the event the Town pursues development of its own transfer station, SCS
recommends the Town consider potential adaptation of the facility to include additional
equipment and capabilities to enable recovery and processing of yard waste, recyclables and
possibly organic wastes. The concept of a co-located MRF and/or vegetative waste composting
facility in conjunction with a transfer station could be further refined in conjunction with future
siting and design efforts, as appropriate.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 137 10/22/12
10.0 DISPOSAL OPTION – DIRECT HAUL TO OUT -OF-
COUNTY LANDFILL
Similar to the disposal option scenario of direct hauling Town-generated MSW to an existing
transfer station as discussed in Section 6 above, SCS evaluated the option of direct hauling
Town-generated MSW to an existing landfill facility for disposal using the Town-owned
collection vehicles. Like the transfer station option, this scenario was deemed to be one of the
more reasonable options for short-term implementation if determined to be economically viable.
SCS’s methodology, assumptions, and analysis are presented as follows.
SCS conducted a survey of permitted public and private landfill facilities in the vicinity of the
Town and identified appropriate target facilities within a reasonable distance from the Town.
With this evaluation, SCS considered the following variables and inputs to determine the lowest
cost disposal option:
Type of facility (i.e., MSW, CDD, yard waste, etc.);
Hauling distance;
Disposal tipping fees;
Average daily throughput of the facility;
Collection and transportation fleet fuel and maintenance costs;
Fleet modifications or upgrades; and,
Labor and collections routing modifications.
10.1 IDENTIFIED TARGET LA NDFILL FACILITIES
SCS reviewed several published resources to develop a list of viable target landfills for this
direct haul evaluation including the “Directory of Non-hazardous Waste Sites-2011” compiled
by the Waste Business Journal and cross-referenced to the listing of solid waste facilities
currently permitted by NCDENR. The Waste Business Journal Directory provided an
electronically sortable list of facilities for North Carolina and surrounding states which included
pertinent information such as:
Facility type (i.e., landfill, transfer station, MRF, etc.);
Facility address;
Owner/Operator description (i.e., public or private);
Contact information;
Facility permit number;
Daily average throughput (tons per day);
Permitted and remaining capacities; and,
Tipping fees.
Using these reference sources, a compilation of existing permitted landfills in North Carolina and
Virginia was developed along with the estimated driving distance to each facility from a
predetermined location presumed to be the geographic center of the Town, which coincides with
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 138 10/22/12
the intersection of East Franklin and Columbia Streets. Within a radius of approximately 160
miles, SCS identified 23 MSW landfill facilities for disposal consideration.
Using the current Town MSW collection and disposal quantities summarized in Section 2 for
both residential and commercial operations, and assuming an ongoing collection schedule of 2
days per week, the Town’s contribution of additional throughput is approximately 150 tons per
day that would be required for a landfill to manage the Town’s MSW. As expected, based on
SCS knowledge of typical landfill design capacities, all landfill facilities identified exhibited
capable capacity. SCS identified a total of 4 landfills within a 50 mile radius of the Town,
another 9 landfills within a 100 mile radius, and 10 additional landfill facilities greater than a 100
mile radius. Of these 23 landfills, 9 are privately-owned facilities; however, 7 of these 9 private
landfills are located more than 100 miles from the Town. These individual facilities are depicted
below in Exhibit 10-1 and tabulated in Exhibit 10-2.
Exhibit 10 -1. Target Landfill Facilities
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 139 10/22/12
Exhibit 10 -2. Summary of Target Solid Waste Landfill Facilities
Facility Name
Type of
Facility City State
Average
Daily
Throughput
(Tons/Day)
Tipping Fees
(Per Ton
of MSW)
Distance from
Chapel Hill, NC
(Miles) Comments
Qualified Facilities
Orange County Landfill Public Chapel Hill NC 177 57.00 5
Austin Quarter SW Management Facility / Alamance County Public Grahm NC 265 38.00 18 Exclusive, County waste only - Not Open to Public
South Wake Landfill Public Apex NC 306 30.00 40 Exclusive, County waste only - Not Open to Public
Republic Services - Upper Piedmont Environmental Landfill Private Rougemont NC 1493 32.67 46
Johnston County Landfill Public Smithfield NC 363 33.00 60 Exclusive, County waste only - Not Open to Public
Pittsylvania County Landfill Public Dry Fork VA 163 60.00 72 Exclusive, County waste only - Not Open to Public
Rockingham County Landfill Public Madison NC 287 36.00 75 Open to Public
Southside Regional Landfill Public Chase City VA 262 35.50 78 Open to Public
Uwharrie - Montgomery Landfill Public Mount Gelad NC 31.00 85
Hanes Mill Road Landfill Public Winston-Salem NC 803 34.00 85
Wayne County Landfill Public Dudley NC 446 30.00 93 Exclusive, County waste only - Not Open to Public
Scotland County Landfill Public Laurinburg NC 179 95 No posted tip fee. Facilities within similar distance.
Albemarle Landfill Public Albemarle NC 146 28.00 96 Open to Public
Waste Industries - Sampson Co. Landfill Private Roseboro NC 3442 29.79 100
Lenoir County Landfill Public La Grange NC 162 60.00 101 Exclusive, County waste only - Not Open to Public
Edgecombe County Landfill Public Tarboro NC 269.13 46.50 103 Exclusive, County waste only - Not Open to Public
Franklin County Landfill Public Rocky Mount VA 112 32.00 105 Open to Public
Republic Services - Brunswick Waste Management Facility Private Lawrencevill VA 387 36.00 107
Lunenburg County Landfill Public Luenenburg VA 25 29.00 109 Low Throuput per Day
Chambers Development Landfill Private Polkton NC 115 No posted tip fee. Facilities within similar distance.
Republic Services - BFI Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill Private Concord NC 3846 44.00 130
Waste Management - Maplewood Landfill Private Jetesrville VA 702 45.00 133
Republic Services - East Carolina Regional Landfill Private Aulander NC 1640 60.46 140
Shoosmith Sanitary Landfill Private Chester VA 1634 40.00 155
Atlantic Waste Disposal Landfill Private Waverly VA 5020 47.00 160
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 140 10/22/12
10.2 SCENARIO MODELING AN ALYSIS
Like the short-term disposal option of direct hauling to a transfer station, the scenario modeling
analyses of this short-term disposal option were structured to result in the least impact to the
current level of service that Town customers receive and the least disruption to existing Town
collections systems, personnel and equipment; while also providing sufficient collection capacity
to enable Town vehicles to make a single trip to the target landfill per day. Furthermore, the
various scenarios within this analysis include program modifications that are anticipated to
reflect changes in equipment, personnel, and routing over time (e.g., scheduled fleet replacement,
inflation, and population growth, etc.).
For this MSW disposal option of direct hauling to an existing transfer station, the analysis
incorporates the allocated equipment and labor waste collections resources provided in the
Town‘s FY 2012-13 budget. The routing configurations, labor, and equipment are allocated such
that each residential collections crew can collect along its dedicated route, transport, and
generally dispose one (1) load at the Orange County Landfill within the workday. This analysis
recognized that a few Town vehicles make a second trip along a limited number of routes. The
commercial collections crew usually accomplishes disposal of two loads at the Landfill per day.
The evaluation of the direct haul scenarios is structured to enable the residential and commercial
crews to avoid having to complete multiple trips to the target landfills.
Other relevant assumptions critical to this direct haul to a landfill analysis are identical to those
made with SCS’s evaluation of direct hauling MSW to a target transfer station facility. Detailed
discussions of these assumptions are presented in Section 6 and include:
Collections Fleet Modifications and Capital Expenditures
- Compliance with NCDOT Overweight Regulations
- Systematic Replacement of Single-axle vehicles with Tandem-axle vehicles
- Assumed the Town’s budgeted annual capital expense for previous equipment
replacement as provided = $311,000 per year
Existing Fleet Summary and Projected Replacement Schedule
- Seven (7) Residential routes
- Two (2) Commercial routes
- Seven (7) year vehicle replacement schedule initiating with existing vehicle age
Fleet Modifications
- Scheduled replacement of existing Residential rear loader vehicles with
tandem-axle 18 to 20 cubic yard vehicles according to the 7-year schedule.
Larger capacity vehicles (25 cubic yard) can be utilized as well. Next scheduled
replacement FY 2012-13.
- Annual amortization cost according to a 7-year amortization schedule and 4%
financing rate
- No modifications to Commercial collections fleet
Routing Modifications
- Evaluated adding one (1) additional Residential route, resulting in a total of seven
(7) routes. Equipped with an existing, stand-by collection vehicle.
- One (1) additional 3-man crew for this seventh route
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 141 10/22/12
- Separate analysis evaluated a phased implementation of automated collections
along one (1) of the existing routes in both the six (6) route and seven (7) route
options
Fleet Fuel and Maintenance Costs
- Determined from historical Town records
- Incremental costs resulting from traveling further distance to target landfills on a
facility-by-facility basis
- Includes incremental costs for replacement vehicle(s) on a year-over-year basis
Impacts to Task-Based Collections System Structure
- Calculation of additional off-route time to transport MSW to target landfill
facilities on a facility-by-facility basis
- Comparison to available flex time currently awarded to collections staff under the
seven (7) route 2-day collections option
Other Assumptions
- Each modeling scenario includes the forfeiture of current transportation and
disposal costs associated with hauling to the Orange County Landfill
- 3% cost of inflation
- Baseline fiscal year of FY 2012-13 for comparison purposes
10.3 SCENARIO MODELING RE SULTS
The scenario modeling analysis provides a comparison of the Town’s current annual budget for
FY 2012-13 to projected budget expenditures for FY 2013-14. The evaluation of the lifecycle
costs to direct haul MSW to identified landfills within approximately 160 miles of the Town
concludes that these landfill options do not present greater economic benefit compared to the
analysis of direct hauling to existing transfer stations. Direct hauling of MSW to either the City
of Durham transfer station (Permit No. 3212-T) or the Waste Industries transfer station (Permit
No. 3214-T), also located in Durham, represents the most economically attractive short-term
disposal option.
One (1) public landfill, the Alamance County - Austin Quarter Landfill was identified within the
same general traveling distance from the Town as the City of Durham transfer stations (i.e., 17.5
miles); however, this landfill facility is reserved for disposal of wastes generated exclusively
within Alamance County. The analysis indicates that the estimated costs to transport and dispose
Town MSW at this facility are lower than the direct haul to transfer station estimated costs. But
SCS and the Town must recognize the challenges to gaining acceptance of the Town’s waste for
disposal at this exclusive municipal landfill, unless more regional collaboration can be generated.
The analysis concludes that, while exhibiting lower tip fees, the distances to the remaining
qualified landfill facilities cause the additional transportation costs to offset the gains in disposal
cost savings.
10.3.1 Results – Current Seven R outes 2 D ays P er W eek
In this analysis, projected capital expenditures include the replacement of one (1) rear loader
compactor truck with a new tandem-axle 18 to 20 cubic yard or larger capacity compactor truck
in accordance with the Town’s current budgeted capital expenditure assumptions. As noted
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 142 10/22/12
previously, the four existing single-axle vehicles should be replaced as well. However,
additional salary expenses are, but will be comparable to staffing expenditures in FY 2011-12. In
FY 2012-13, the staffing budget was reduced due to open positions being intentionally held
vacant to allow for organizational flexibility pending the results of this Study. To include three
additional full-time employees for the residential collections crew along with the replacement of
one rear loader compactor truck, the analysis projects an additional $783,300 dollars would be
incurred of the Town budget in FY 2012-13 if MSW is direct hauled to the Upper Piedmont
Environmental Landfill.
The Pro Forma modeling concludes that the transfer station disposal option remains the preferred
short-term disposal recommendation. As identified above, one (1) public landfill facility exists
within similar distance from the Town as the Durham transfer stations; however, the facility is
reserved for the exclusive use of Alamance County. A second public landfill facility was
identified within reasonable proximity, the South Wake Landfill; but similarly this landfill is
reserved for disposal of solid waste generated exclusively within Wake County. Furthermore the
Pro Forma modeling analysis concluded that the potential gains in disposal tip fee costs are
offset by the additional mileage (i.e., 28 miles versus 18 miles) incurred traveling to this
neighboring facility. SCS recognizes that the Town may petition Alamance County or Wake
County to accept its MSW; however, SCS understands such action would require county
government to modify their ordinances and facility permit from NCDENR. Therefore, these
options do not appear politically viable as short-term disposal options even though they are
economically competitive with the transfer station options.
The comparative cost analysis of the direct hauling MSW to target transfer stations versus direct
hauling MSW to these identified landfills assuming seven (7) routes and 2-day per week
collections is summarized in Exhibit 10-3. Other routing scenarios may be viable and should be
evaluated further as part of a routing and technology analysis.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 143 10/22/12
10.3.2 Net Present Value Evaluation
Like the previous disposal option analyses, the financial modeling conducted under this
evaluation provides the capability to project and calculate the Town’s total Solid Waste Services
Division (SWSD) program cost over a 30-year period while assuming the implementation of the
various disposal options evaluated. This analysis assumes a 5% discount factor and includes
year-over-year adjustments for inflation, capital expenditure schedule, salary projections, and
other Town and scenario-specific program assumptions. The total program costs for each
disposal option may then be compared in terms of present term, 2013 value.
When comparing the option of direct hauling to identified target landfills, versus direct hauling
to identified target transfer stations, over a 30-year period, the net present value of the options
immediately available to the Town, specifically excluding the Alamance and South Wake
County landfill facilities, is greater than each of the viable transfer station options. This financial
analysis supports the recommendation to direct haul MSW to an existing transfer station.
Exhibit 10 -3. Net Present Value Comparison: Transfer Station to
Landfill (7 Routes 2 Days Per Week)
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 144 10/22/12
10.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
10.4.1 Long -T erm Tip Fee and Mileage Analysis
With this particular disposal option analysis, SCS has identified the majority of public and
private landfill facilities in the region and summarized their respective disposal fees and
distances from the Town. With these data and algorithms inherent to the Pro Forma modeling
tool, SCS and the Town may easily and efficiently assess the various long-haul disposal options
applicable to a number of other disposal option scenarios being evaluated with this Study. Most
notably, should the Town consider siting and constructing a Town-operated transfer station or
MRF, thus consolidating the Town waste for bulk shipment out-of-county to one of these
identified facilities, this analysis is readily implemented to assess the full, life-cycle cost of the
various ultimate landfill disposal options.
10.4.2 Disposal Option Sustainability Analysis
Like the alternate short-term disposal option evaluated of direct hauling MSW to a transfer
station, several other factors weigh into the longer term evaluation of this disposal option of
direct hauling to a landfill. These considerations are not as readily quantified with respect to
fiscal impact since they relate to risk management, environmental impacts, and socio-economic
issues. However, these factors have the potential to create financial implications and indeed
resonate with the Town’s stated values and goals and must be considered along with the financial
evaluation. Several of the more decisive factors include:
Safety of the Town solid waste collections staff hauling waste even longer distances
and over more heavily traveled roadways compared to the distance to Durham;
Increased risk to other motorists due to hauling waste longer distances and over more
heavily traveled roadways;
A desire to manage Town-generated waste internally and not having to rely on a
neighboring disposal system, and a loss of control over ultimate disposal and costs;
and,
A potential loss of focus on Town waste reduction goals.
10.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECO M M ENDATIONS
The results of SCS’s analysis of this disposal option concluded that direct haul to available
existing landfill facilities did not provide any economic advantages over direct hauling to
identified existing transfer station facilities. Therefore, in consideration of short-term disposal
option analysis, direct haul to a transfer station facility remains the recommended solution for the
Town.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 145 10/22/12
11.0 DISPOSAL OPTION – SITE/ CONSTRUCT A NEW
LANDFILL
11.1 EVALUATE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW TOWN -ONLY OR
REGIONAL LANDFILL
SCS evaluated the feasibility of the Town developing a new municipal solid waste landfill. The
analysis provides the following:
Summary of the challenges and obstacles to siting a new landfill in the Town (e.g.,
economics, social justice, siting, permitting criteria, etc.).
Summary of the benefits of siting and operating a Town-owned landfill in the region,
either on its own or in conjunction with other regional municipal partners.
An order of magnitude cost estimate for the permitting, capital construction,
operation, maintenance, closure, and post-closure care for a Town-only or regional
landfill for a 30-year period in order to compare it with other solid waste management
options.
The landfill evaluation presented below is general in nature and compliments previously
identified solid waste management options for the Town.
11.1.1 Landfill Siting Challenges
Siting a new landfill would be difficult regardless of whether it was a Town-only or regional
landfill. Landfill siting efforts require extensive environmental, socio-economic, and
transportation studies, and public and regulatory involvement. The process can take 5 to 10
years to complete. For example, the State’s Solid Waste Management Act of 2007 (S1492)
significantly changed the state’s solid waste laws, and put in place limits on the size of new
landfills, provided additional protections for scenic rivers, fisheries, sensitive wetlands, and
endangered species, and included provisions for protecting minority communities from the
negative impacts of solid waste disposal sites. The law also provided additional setbacks
restricting the development of landfills within 2 miles of state parks and 5 miles from national
wildlife refuges.
The Town and Orange County have extensive experience with the current County-owned and
operated Orange County Landfill, located at 1514 Eubanks Road, Chapel Hill, NC. The MSW
landfill unit of the Orange County Landfill is scheduled to be closed at the end of June 2013
before it reaches its ultimate disposal capacity. We understand the decision to close the Orange
County Landfill was in part due to local community concerns and social justice issues (Rogers-
Eubank Community).
The decision to close the MSW landfill unit before it reaches its ultimate capacity indicates that
siting a new landfill within the Town limits would be contentious and difficult, and would
require strong political leadership and resolve to be successful. In addition, the availability of
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 146 10/22/12
land within the Town’s limits that meets the regulatory siting restrictions outlined in the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources solid waste regulations (15A
NCAC 13B) and community criteria that would be developed may be limited. However,
additional studies would be needed to confirm this. In addition, as will be demonstrated below,
the cost for a Town-only landfill would likely be prohibitive, although a new regional landfill
could likely be developed at a tip fee rate similar to what the Town currently pays.
11.1.1.1 Advantages
The following advantages can be associated with developing a new regional landfill within the
Town or close to the Town:
Reduced transportation costs and consumption of fossil fuels.
Relatively predictable and stable future landfill disposal costs.
Self-sufficiency.
Ability to quickly respond to emergencies or other unanticipated conditions.
A regional landfill would reduce the costs allocated to regional members.
Landfill gas utilization (limited development potential for a Town-only landfill, but
may be of value relative to a regional landfill).
11.1.1.2 Disadvantages
The following disadvantages can be associated with developing a new regional landfill within
the Town or close to the Town:
Long-term commitment required (operational and post-closure care periods).
Community opposition and potential impacts to communities surrounding the landfill
(noise, vectors, odors, and traffic), although mitigation measures can reduce or
eliminate these impacts.
Potential long-term liabilities associated with groundwater, surface water, and air
quality.
Significant capital investment required (see discussion below).
Developing a new landfill could require 5 to 10 years to complete. As such, it is not
available as a short-term alternative to the Town in the near future.
11.1.2 Projected 30 -Year Disposal Needs
SCS evaluated the projected MSW disposal requirements for a Town-only and regional landfill
over the next 30 years. The projections take into account the projected changes in population
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 147 10/22/12
during that period. The projected population changes for the Town between now and 2035 are
presented in Exhibit 11-1.
Exhibit 11 -1. Population Projections, Town of Chapel Hill
Year
Population
Estimates
% Change
Per Year*
2000 48,715
2010 57,233
2015 65,748 2.98%
2025 77,767 2.39%
2035 80,483 1.62%
Source: See Section 2.1.4.1
*Based on 2010
The disposal rates were projected based on a 1.62% per year increase for both the Town-only
and the regional landfill options. A further refinement on the regional population growth trends
could be considered, but for the purpose of this evaluation, the same growth rate was used for the
Town and Region. The yearly projected MSW disposal quantities for a Town-only and regional
landfill are presented in Exhibit 11-2. This exhibit does not include solid waste program changes
that could ultimately reduce the quantity of MSW requiring disposal in a landfill; therefore, the
estimated disposal rates presented are conservative.
The hypothetical landfill dimensions and disposal capacities presented in Exhibit 11-3 are based
on a number of assumptions regarding the allowable maximum slopes (33%), benching,
maximum fill height, top deck configuration, and setbacks to property line from the landfill
footprint. A setback of 1,000 feet from the landfill waste footprint was assumed to provide for
visual buffers, regulatory setback, ancillary facilities (stormwater, maintenance, leachate storage,
fueling, and other solid waste facilities), and borrow areas.
Obviously with larger landfill footprints, higher fill heights could be achieved than shown in the
exhibit. Constructing a landfill to higher fill heights would provide for more disposal capacity
than shown in the exhibit. However, for the relatively small landfill footprints for both the
Town-only and regional landfill scenarios, a maximum elevation of 100 feet above grade was
selected. The net volume shown in the exhibit represents the total calculated airspace volume
minus the estimated volume for a 3-foot-thick final cover system. For the purposes of this
evaluation, Exhibit 11-4 summarizes the landfill footprint and total land areas that would be
required for a Town-only and regional landfill to provide disposal capacity for the next 30 years.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 148 10/22/12
Exhibit 11 -2. 30-Year Disposal Quantity Projections
Projection
Year
Fiscal
Year
Town-Only
Landfill
(tons)
Regional
Landfill
(tons)
1 2013 15,300 65,000
2 2014 15,540 66,100
3 2015 15,810 67,200
4 2016 16,060 68,300
5 2017 16,310 69,400
6 2018 16,580 70,500
7 2019 16,860 71,600
8 2020 17,130 72,800
9 2021 17,400 74,000
10 2022 17,690 75,200
11 2023 17,980 76,400
12 2024 18,260 77,600
13 2025 18,580 78,900
14 2026 18,870 80,200
15 2027 19,170 81,500
16 2028 19,490 82,800
17 2029 19,800 84,100
18 2030 20,120 85,500
19 2031 20,450 86,900
20 2032 20,780 88,300
21 2033 21,110 89,700
22 2034 21,470 91,200
23 2035 21,820 92,700
24 2036 22,180 94,200
25 2037 22,530 95,700
26 2038 22,890 97,300
27 2039 23,260 98,900
28 2040 23,630 100,500
29 2041 24,040 102,100
30 2042 24,410 103,800
Totals 585,520 2,488,400
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 149 10/22/12
Exhibit 11 -3. Disposal Capacity and Total Property Area as a
Function of Landfill Footprint Area
Landfill
Footprint
(Acres)
Total
Property
Area
(Acres)
Design
Height
h1
Net
Volume
(cy)
Density
(tons/cy)
Capacity
(tons)
10 63 77 456,000 0.75 342,000
20 86 100 1,256,000 0.75 942,000
30 105 100 2,095,000 0.75 1,571,000
40 124 100 3,019,000 0.75 2,264,000
50 141 100 4,015,000 0.75 3,011,000
100 219 100 9,541,000 0.75 7,156,000
200 359 100 22,564,000 0.75 16,923,000
300 489 100 37,512,000 0.75 28,134,000
400 615 100 53,408,000 0.75 40,056,000
500 737 100 70,987,000 0.75 53,240,000
Town-only Landfill
Regional Landfill
Exhibit 11 -4. Summary of Landfill Sizing Requirement s
Landfill Scenario Landfill Footprint Area
(Acres)
Total Landfill Property
Area
(Acres)
Town-Only Facility 15 – 20 75-86
Regional Facility 45 – 50 132 – 141
11.1.3 Estimated Landfill Development Costs
SCS prepared conceptual budget cost estimates for the construction and operation for both
landfill scenarios. The construction cost estimates include costs for siting, permitting, design,
land acquisition, cell development, stormwater management, leachate management, landfill gas
management, scalehouse and scales, maintenance facilities, access roads, and ancillary support
facilities. The estimates are based on SCS’s experience working with municipal and private
clients throughout the region, and were prepared to provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of
the critical aspects of landfill construction and operation. The land acquisition cost of $20,000
per acre was assumed based on a cursory review of current rural property listings in the Town.18
18http://www.landandfarm.com/search/NC/Chapel-Hill-land-for-sale/#/search/NC/Chapel-Hill-land-for-
sale/?CurrentPage=2
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 150 10/22/12
If the Town were to develop a landfill under either scenario, more detailed estimates would need
to be prepared based on actual site information. Exhibit 11-5 and Exhibit 11-6 present a
summary of the estimated capital construction costs to develop a new Town-only or regional
landfill, respectively.
Exhibit 11 -5. Estimated Cost to Develop a Town -Only Landfill
Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Subtotal Total
Land Acquisition ac 86 $20,000 1,720,000 $1,720,000
Site Access ls $474,000
Stormwater $117,000
Cell Development ac 20 $250,000 $5,000,000
Support Facilities ls $714,000
LFG System ls $588,000
Total 8,613,000
Contingency (20%)$1,723,000
Subtotal $10,336,000
Engineering, Permitting, CQA %15%$6,893,000 $1,033,950.00
Total $11,369,950
Amortized Cost, 30 years, 4%, $/year $658,000
Exhibit 11 -6. Estimated Cost to De velop a Regional Landfill
Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Subtotal Total
Land Acquisition ac 141 $20,000 2,820,000 $2,820,000
Site Access ls $717,000
Stormwater $181,000
Cell Development ac 50 $250,000 $12,500,000
Support Facilities ls $990,000
LFG System ls $702,000
Total 17,910,000
Contingency (20%)$3,582,000
Subtotal $21,492,000
Engineering, Permitting, CQA %15%$15,090,000 $2,263,500
Total $23,755,500
Amortized Cost, 30 years, 4%, $/year $1,374,000
For conceptual cost estimating purposes, the capital costs for each scenario are amortized over
the 30-year projection period at 4% interest to estimate the yearly allocated capital expenditure
costs.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 151 10/22/12
11.1.4 Estimated Land fill Operations Costs
Exhibit 11-7 and Exhibit 11-8 present the estimated annual operation costs for the Town-only
and regional landfill scenarios, respectively. The annual operational costs include personnel,
equipment, and materials needed to operate a landfill. The annual operational costs also include
an annual permit renewal fee ($3,500) and the excise tax owed on a per ton basis using the
current tax rate of $2 per ton.
Exhibit 11 -7. Estimated Annual O&M Cost for
Town Only Landfill Scenario
Engineer's Engineer's
No.Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Est.Total Estimate
1 Personnel Salaries 5 LS 50,000$ 250,000$
2 Personnel Benefits 5 LS 15,000$ 75,000$
3 Landfill Equipment Debt Service 4 LS 40,000$ 160,000$
4 Landfill Equipment Maintenance / Repair 4 LS 7,500$ 30,000$
5 Equipment - Lease/Rental 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
6 Vehicle Fuel 20,000 Gal 3.50$ 70,000$
7 Vehicle Supplies 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
8 Leachate Treatment 2,000,000 Gal 0.03$ 60,000$
9 Landfill Gas Operations 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$
10 Erosion Control / Seeding 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$
11 Stone 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
12 Soil Cover and ADC 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$
13 Electricity & Heating 1 LS 12,500$ 12,500$
14 Water & Sewer 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
15 Telecommunications / Information Technology 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
16 Vehicle Insurance 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
17 General / Environmental Insurance 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
18 Engineering / Consulting Services 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$
19 Environmental Monitoring Services 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$
20 Legal Services 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
21 Mowing & Other Contracting Services 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
22 Dues & Association Fees 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
23 Permit Fees and Excise Tax 1 LS 35,000$ 35,000$
24 Office Supplies 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
25 Janitorial 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
26 Operations & Maintenance Supplies 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
27 Uniforms 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$
28 Miscellaneous Maintenance / Repair 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
-$
SUBTOTAL 928,000$
CONTINGENCY (20%)185,600$
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COST 1,113,600$
WASTE ACCEPTANCE RATE (Average Annual)15,540 tpy
ANNUAL OPERATING COST PER TON 71.66$
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 152 10/22/12
Exhibit 11 -8. Estimated Annual O&M Cost for
Regional Landfill Scenario
1 Personnel Salaries 8 LS 50,000$ 400,000$
2 Personnel Benefits 8 LS 15,000$ 120,000$
3 Landfill Equipment Debt Service 7 LS 40,000$ 280,000$
4 Landfill Equipment Maintenance/ Repair 7 LS 7,500$ 52,500$
5 Equipment - Lease/ Rental 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$
6 Vehicle Fuel 40,000 Gal 3.50$ 140,000$
7 Vehicle Supplies 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
8 Leachate Treatment 3,000,000 Gal 0.03$ 90,000$
9 Landfill Gas Operations 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$
10 Erosion Control/ Seeding 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$
11 Stone 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$
12 Soil Cover and ADC 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$
13 Electricity & Heating 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$
14 Water & Sewer 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$
15 Telecommunications/ Information Technology 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
16 Vehicle Insurance 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
17 General/ Environmental Insurance 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
18 Engineering/ Consulting Services 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$
19 Environmental Monitoring Services 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$
20 Legal Services 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$
21 Mowing & Other Contracting Services 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$
22 Dues & Association Fees 1 LS 3,000$ 3,000$
23 Permit Fees & Excise Tax 1 LS 135,000$ 135,000$
24 Office Supplies 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$
25 Janitorial 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$
26 Operations & Maintenance Supplies 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$
27 Uniforms 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$
28 Miscellaneous Maintenance/ Repair 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$
-$
SUBTOTAL 1,599,000$
CONTINGENCY (20%)319,800$
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COST 1,918,800$
WASTE ACCEPTANCE RATE (Average Annual)65,000 tpy
ANNUAL OPERATING COST PER TON 29.52$
No.Item Description Quantity Unit
Engineer's
Unit Price Est.
Engineer's
Total Estimate
11.1.5 Closure and Post -Closure Care Cost Estimates
Closure and post-closure care costs would need to be accrued on an annual basis to fund the
closure and post-closure care requirements. Closure costs include the costs to close the entire
landfill upon achievement of final grades. Typically, landfills are closed on a phased basis, but
for the purpose of this analysis, SCS estimated the total closure costs and amortized these costs
over the 30-year projected life of the landfill. The closure costs were developed based on
estimated costs to construct a composite final cover system (low permeability soil and
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 153 10/22/12
geomembrane final cover), including final cover vegetation. The analysis assumed an average
closure cost of approximately $126,000/acre for both scenarios. The estimated closure costs for
a 20-acre, Town-only landfill would be approximately $2.5 million, and for the 50-acre regional
landfill of $6.3 million. Amortized over 30 years at 4%, these capital costs would represent an
annual cost of $146,000/year and $364,000, respectively.
The annual post-closure care costs for the two landfill scenarios were estimated. Post-closure
would be required for a minimum of 30 years. SCS estimated the 30-year post-closure care costs
to the two scenarios to be $3.6 million and $5.2 million, respectively, with an estimated annual
accrual of approximately $120,000 and $172,000, respectively. The post-closure care activities
include maintaining the final cover system and other environmental control systems (landfill gas,
leachate, and stormwater), and environmental monitoring.
11.1.6 Summary of Landfill Development, Operations, Closure,
and Post -Closure Costs
Exhibit 11-9 presents a summary of the estimated costs to develop, operate, close, and provide
for post-closure care for the Town-only and regional landfill scenarios. This exhibit
demonstrates the importance of economies of scale in developing and operating a landfill. As
depicted in the exhibit, operating a Town-only landfill would be cost prohibitive on a dollar per
ton basis, while the total estimated cost for the regional landfill scenario is similar on a dollar per
ton basis to what the Town currently is paying for disposal at the Orange County Landfill.
Exhibit 11 -9. Summary of Estimated Landfill Costs
Town-Only
Landfill
Regional
Landfill
Cost Item Estimate Annual Cost $/ton Estimate Annual Cost $/ton
Total Capital Construction Cost, $$11,369,950 $658,000 $42.34 $23,755,500 $1,374,000 $21.14
Annual Operations Cost, $/year $1,113,600 $1,114,000 $71.69 $1,918,800 $1,919,000 $29.52
Total Closure Cost, $$2,520,000 $146,000 $9.40 $6,300,000 $364,000 $5.60
Annual Post Closure Cost, $/yr $119,700 $119,700 $7.70 $171,600 $171,600 $2.64
Annual Costs, $$2,037,700 $131.13 $3,828,600 $58.90
Tonnage (2013)15,540 65,000
Break Even Tip Fee, $/ton $131.13 $58.90
11.1.7 Conclusion and Recommendations
As noted above, siting and developing a new Town-only landfill would be difficult for a number
of reasons and cost prohibitive due to economies of scale. Developing a new regional landfill
provides for better economies of scale, but would face the same difficulties regardless of where it
is located in the region. SCS does not recommend that the Town pursue developing its own
landfill, but continue to participate in potential future regional cooperative efforts in this regard.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 154 10/22/12
12.0 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLO GIES – TOWN OF
CHAPEL HILL BENCHMAR K
The objective of this task was to review the Town and regional solid waste systems and known
waste-to-energy (WTE) and waste conversion (WC) technologies to establish a long-term
strategy and benchmark system requirements necessary to engage identified feasible
technologies. This section of the report identifies key system and technology metrics by which
the Town may best position itself to take full advantage of WTE and WC technologies as they
may emerge.
During the course of our study, SCS relied on recent information and data collected by Orange
County, North Carolina in its solid waste master plan19, an alternative energy analysis conducted
by the University of North Carolina20, and a recent summary report of waste conversion
technologies by the Applied Research Foundation of the Solid Waste Association of North
America21. In addition, SCS has been monitoring the progress of WTE and WC technologies
over the past few years through a series of presentations, trade journal articles, and books22.
Thus, much of the initial discussion in this section is briefly focused on background, history, and
the current status of these technologies. This is then followed by a benchmarking of the Town
against the current status of these technologies and recent developments.
12.1 REASONS TO SELECT A WTE OR WC TECHNOLOGY
One of the first questions the Town must answer is what technology will be chosen to convert its
solid waste into energy. This includes consideration of factors (which will be discussed later)
such as: available energy and materials markets; the size of the Town’s waste flow; site
availability and location; capital and operating costs; ownership and financing considerations;
and the level of risk to be assumed by the Town or the facility operator.
In evaluating whether or not one technology better suits its needs than another, the Town may
often discover conflicting goals and values within both the community and within the target
WTE/WC project. For example:
A particular technology may produce the greatest amount of energy for the Town’s
waste, albeit at high projected capital and operating costs.
Engaging in WTE or WC technology may impact historical success in other recycling
or waste diversion practices (i.e., directing organics from a composting operation to a
digester technology).
19 GBB, Alternative Waste Processing Technologies Assessment, August, 2008.
20 Affiliated Engineers, Alternative Energy Analysis, July 2010.
21 Applied Research Foundation, Solid Waste Association of North America, Waste Conversion Technologies,
December 2011.
22 Marc J. Rogoff and Francois Screve, Waste-to-Energy Technologies and Project Implementation, Elsevier, June
2011; Marc J. Rogoff, Bruce Clark and Amanda Moore, “Solid Waste Déjà vu: Waste-to-Energy Plant Technologies
Break New Ground”, APWA Reporter, March 2009.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 155 10/22/12
A refuse-derived fuel (RDF) technology may impact waste generation minimization
efforts with the need to generate more waste for fuel.
The selection of a technology, therefore, is not a simple one, but one which can require tradeoffs
between one goal with others. Since the risks associated with WTE and WC technology can be
substantial, it is critical that the Town recognize and minimize these risks as best it can. The
following criteria can be utilized to assess the relative risk of a particular WTE or WC
technology:
Degree and Scale of Operating Experience. The technology must be proven. Most
existing technologies, other than conventional mass-burn technology, have only been
proven in pilot or laboratory operations, or with raw materials other than municipal
solid waste. Other technologies have only been commercially operated in small
facilities and the scale up to larger sized plants may result in unforeseen problems.
Reliability to Dispose of Municipal Solid Waste. The technology selected must be
capable to dispose of solid waste in a reliable manner without frequent mechanical
downtimes resulting in diversion of such waste to landfills.
Energy and Material Market Compatibility. The technology must be capable of
recovering energy and materials for which markets are available and viable.
Environmental Acceptance. The technology must meet all permitted environmental
requirements established by regulatory agencies.
Cost to the Town. The technology must dispose of the Town’s solid waste at a price
it is willing to pay given alternative means of disposal.
12.2 CLASSIFICATION OF TE CHNOLOGIES
For the purpose of this report, SCS has divided the processes for disposal of municipal solid
waste into two main categories:
Conventional WTE Technology
Alternative WC Technologies
The conventional WTE technologies include mass-burn incineration and smaller, modular units
where unprocessed MSW is fired in a boiler or chamber where the heat is recovered in a series of
tubes filled with water or in a heat recovery boiler where the heat is recovered in the form of
steam or electricity. Alternatively, shredded MSW with some form of metals recovery can be
fired in a chamber either in a dedicated boiler made of water tubes or on a fluidized bed of sand
with the energy recovery in the form of steam or converted to electricity.
Alternative conversion technologies can be defined as:
Alternatives to landfills and standard combustion-based WTE plants
Potential to produce by-products and chemicals that could be useful
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 156 10/22/12
Compatible with municipal recycling activities
Potential for less environmental impact
12.3 CONVENTIONAL WTE TEC HNOLOGY
12.3.1 Basic Combustion System
The combustion of solid waste is accomplished in a furnace equipped with grates. A solid waste
combustion system with energy recovery includes:
Some type of structure to house the furnace and its appurtenances;
A "tipping floor" where the solid waste from collection and transfer vehicles is
deposited;
A storage pit or floor to store the solid waste delivered (solid waste combustion is a 7
days per week, 24 hours per day operation; storage space is provided to enable this
continuous operation);
A charging system (normally overhead cranes) which mixes the various solid wastes
received to develop a somewhat uniform material and then lifts it from the storage pit
or floor and feeds (charges)the furnace;
One or more furnace subsystems (sometimes referred to as combustion trains), which
receive and burn the solid waste;
A grate unit to move the solid waste through the furnaces; the most common grate
designs are:
- Reciprocating Grate. This grate design resembles stairs with moving grate
sections which push the solid waste through the furnace.
- Rocking Grate. This grate design has pivoted or rocking grate sections which
produce an upward and/or forward motion to move the solid waste through the
furnace.
- Roller Grate. This grate design has a series of rotating steep drums or rollers
which agitate and move the solid waste through the furnace.
Air pollution control subsystems to clean up the combustion gases; and,
An ash handling subsystem to manage the fly ash and bottom ash produced from the
combustion of solid waste.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 157 10/22/12
12.3.1.1 Stages of Combustion
Solid waste normally has a moisture content of 20 to 25% by weight. In order to successfully
burn solid waste in a furnace, this moisture must be evaporated. Generally, most solid waste
combustion units have three stages of reaction:
Drying. Moisture driven off.
Ignition. Solid waste ignited.
Burnout. Solid waste is gradually moved through the furnace by the grate subsystem
where the combustible organic fraction of the solid waste is burned out.
Successful combustion of solid waste is accomplished by controlling the “3 Ts of Combustion"-
Time, Temperature and Turbulence.
Time. The period taken for solid waste to pass from the charging hopper until the
bottom ash is discharged at the end of the grate subsystem (usually 45 to 60 minutes).
Temperature. Usually exceeds 1,800F (980C) within the furnace and is directly
proportional to the residence time. If there is insufficient time in the furnace, the
combustion reaction cannot proceed to completion and temperature declines.
Turbulence. Provided by the grate subsystem moving the solid waste downward
through the furnace to expose it to and mix it with air.
Normally, solid waste combustors reduce the original weight of the solid waste by 75+% and the
volume by 85 to 90%.
Combustion is aided by the introduction of air at two locations in the furnace. Air is introduced
underneath the grates (underfire air) to increase the agitation and turbulence within the furnace
and help cool the grates. Air is also introduced above the burning solid waste (overfire air).
Overfire air ensures that there is adequate oxygen available to completely oxidize and burn the
entire combustible fraction of the solid waste. Overfire air also aids mixing of the combustion
gases thereby ensuring complete oxidation and destruction. Combustion gases (also called flue
gases) move from the furnace through the flues and the air pollution control systems and are
eventually discharged out the stack into the atmosphere.
12.3.1.2 Waste-to-Energy Solid Waste Combustors
In a WTE solid waste combustor, the energy released from combustion in the form of heat is
used to generate steam in a boiler. The common method of capturing this released energy is
either through refractory or waterwall furnace systems. The major difference between these two
designs is the location of the boiler.
Refractory Units. This design consists of boilers located downstream of the
combustion (furnace) chamber. The hot combustion gases pass through the boiler
tubes to create steam.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 158 10/22/12
Waterwall Units. This design has the furnace constructed with water tube membrane
walls to recover the heat energy directly from the furnace unit. Waterwall designs are
more commonly used because their thermal efficiency is higher than refractory units.
Boilers convert the heat released to steam, which can be used to either generate electricity or for
industrial steam applications (if a customer is nearby). Turbine-driven generators driven by the
steam generate electricity.
12.3.1.3 Products of Combustion
Other than the release of energy in the form of heat, the products of combustion of solid waste
are fly ash and bottom ash. Each of these byproducts of combustion, air emissions, and ash,
present further environmental permitting, handling, and disposal challenges for the WTE
technology.
Fly ash is carried in the combustion gas, which also contains a number of contaminants,
including acid gases, and other products of incomplete combustion. The gases are passed
through a variety of air pollution control devices for cleanup before being discharged out of the
stack into the atmosphere.
Bottom ash is the non-combusted material, which is discharged at the end of the grate subsystem.
The bottom ash, as it is discharged from the grates, is still burning and is normally quenched by
water. In the United States, the two ash streams, fly ash and bottom ash, are normally combined
for management and disposal in a permitted MSW or industrial landfill. The two combined ash
streams are commonly referred to as solid waste combustor ash, or just ash. In Europe, these two
ash streams are not usually combined and are normally managed separately.
12.3.2 Mass Burning
“Mass-burning” refers to the generic name for the type of technology used to incinerate
unprocessed solid waste, and thereby releasing its heat energy. The thermal reduction of solid
waste through mass-burning has been a common procedure throughout the world. There are
decades of experience in constructing and operating some 500 mass burn facilities in the United
States and Europe. Such facilities were in operation as early as 1896 in Hamburg, Germany,
converting solid waste into electricity.
12.3.2.1 Process Description
An illustration of a typical mass-fired, WTE facility is shown in Exhibit 12-1. Solid waste
collection and transfer vehicles proceed into a tipping area where their waste is discharged into a
large storage pit, which is usually sized to allow two to three days storage or stockpiling of
refuse so that plant operations can continue over weekends and holidays when deliveries will not
be accepted. There are some facilities which differ in design by utilizing a tipping floor with a
front loader and belt conveyor system as their form of storage and feed system. In almost all
facilities, however, the refuse is fed into the furnaces by means of overhead cranes manipulated
by a crane operator. Much of the success of the operation depends upon the skill of the crane
operator to remove large or unusual objects in the waste stream that would otherwise prove to be
a problem if fed into the boiler. The operator is also responsible to observe the nature of the
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 159 10/22/12
incoming waste so that materials with different moisture contents are gradually intermixed to try
to get uniform moisture content.
Exhibit 12 -1. Cross -Section of Typical Mass -Fired Waterwall
Facility
The refuse is then discharged into refuse feed hoppers, which meter out the refuse into the
combustion chamber, either by gravity feeding or by a hydraulic feeding device. In a majority of
systems, the waste is then pushed onto an inclined, step-like, mechanical grate system which
continuously rocks, tumbles, and agitates the refuse bed by forcing burning refuse underneath
newly fed refuse. Generally, most systems have three zones of activity along the grates: drying,
ignition, and burnout. Holes in each grate bar allow underfire air to pass through the grates
resulting in cooling and, thus, preventing thermal damage to the grate system. The width of the
grate and the number of grate steps is dependent not only upon the manufacturer's specifications,
but also on the overall size of the WTE system. There are five basic moving grate designs:
Reciprocating Grate. This grate resembles stairs with alternating fixed or moving
grate sections. The pushing action may be in the direction of waste flow or in an
upward motion against the waste flow.
Rocking Grate. Pivoted or rocked grate sections produce an upward or forward
motion, advancing the waste down the grate.
Roller Grate. A series of rotating stepped drums or rollers agitate the waste and move
it down the grate.
Circular Grate. A rotating annular hearth or cone agitates the waste.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 160 10/22/12
Rotary Kiln. As an inclined cylinder rotates, it causes a tumbling action to expose
unburned material and advance the waste down the length of the kiln.
Mass burn incineration produces ash resides amounting to 15 to 30% by weight and 5 to 10% by
volume of the incoming municipal solid waste. Most facilities can produce an ash product that
has less than 5% combustible material and 0.2% putrescible matter.
Recovery of ferrous and non-ferrous materials from the ash residue is possible in mass-burn
systems. Many facilities have successfully utilized magnetic separators (with or without
trommels) to recover ferrous material from the ash. Some systems have attempted to recover the
remaining non-magnetic fraction in the ash, such as aluminum and glass, using various
trommels, screens, jigs and fluid separators.
12.3.2.2 Operations Experience
Mass burning incinerators have been used in Europe and Japan for municipal solid waste
disposal for nearly 30 years where their acceptance has been rapid and widespread. With over
500 facilities in operation worldwide in sizes ranging from 60 to 3,000 tons per day, mass fired
incineration is the most thoroughly demonstrated technology in the WTE field at this time.
This technology was introduced into the United States in 1967 at the U.S. Naval Station in
Norfolk, Virginia with the construction of a 360 ton per day waterwall plant to produce process
energy for the Naval Shipyard. This plant was designed in America and equipped with
American equipment. Later plants, which were constructed, were almost entirely designed using
state-of-the-art European mass incineration technology. The National Resource Recovery
Association publishes a semi-annual update of WTE activities in the United States. At the time
of this comprehensive report, there are 98 WTE facilities using mass incineration technology.
Based on our experience with these plants, SCS assumes that an experienced staff of more than
12 people, spread over three shifts per day, is required to continuously operate a mass burn plant
of the size potentially applicable to the Town or region.
The introduction of European technology into the United States has not been without difficulties
and several of the earlier constructed plants encountered some mechanical problems. These
highly reliable and rugged European systems had been designed to burn solid waste that was
somewhat different in composition than American wastes. Consequently, systems that had been
designed for European conditions required designers to make adjustments in the grate areas and
furnace heat release rates of American plants. In addition, the higher chloride corrosion of the
superheaters in American plants meant that designers needed to change the metallurgy of these
boiler tubes, as well as limiting the upper stream pressures and temperatures to minimize tube
corrosion. Scale-up problems also had to be overcome since many of the European unites were
designed for the 300 to 500 tons per day range. These problems have been corrected, and most
mass-burn systems that have been constructed are still in operation today.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 161 10/22/12
12.3.3 Modular Combustion
A modular incinerator is a type of mass-burning, WTE unit which is prefabricated on a
standardized modular basis in a factory Such units are shipped to the site in modules, ranging in
design capacity from 10 to 200 tons per day, where they are installed. Several modules can be
grouped together at a single location. These “off the shelf” units can often be less costly to
fabricate than the larger mass-burn facilities which require more costly field erection. Modular
plants can also typically be constructed in some 15 to 20 months.
Modular incinerators have been designed and constructed in the United States with different
process configurations. Some units have been designed to incinerate solid waste under excess air
conditions with either refractory furnaces or waste heat boilers or with waterwall boilers. A
majority of most units, however, have been designed to operate under starved air conditions with
refractory furnaces and waste heat boilers.
A cross-section view of a typical modular combustion unit is illustrated in Exhibit 12-2. A
majority of modular facilities have a tipping floor and utilize a front loader for simplicity in
waste storage and feeding. Combusting takes place in either two or three stages. First, solid
waste, which is delivered to the facility, is fed into the initial combustion chamber using a ram-
type feeder. A moving ram slides back and forth over fixed steps within the chamber, causing
the waste to tumble down one fixed section of the grate to the next fixed section. The waste is
then transformed into a low-Btu gas which is then combusted in the secondary chamber, where
auxiliary fuel is often fired under excess air conditions. A discharge ram on the back end of the
combustion chamber feeds this incinerated waste into an ash quench bath.
Exhibit 12 -2. Cross -Section of Typical Modular Facility
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 162 10/22/12
The low-Btu gases produced by the combustion process in the first chamber are typically
introduced into a secondary chamber where they are burned at temperatures ranging from 1,800
to 2,000F. Heat energy is recovered by convection in waste heat boilers in this secondary
chamber, although waterwall boiler units for the primary and secondary chambers have been
constructed.
In recent years, several manufacturers have entered the modular plant marketplace using a batch
oxidation process (BOS – Exhibit 12-3). The batch process integrates slow gasification and long
exposure time at moderate temperatures followed by turbulent oxidation of gases at high
temperature. After the waste is loaded into the primary chamber and sealed tight, an auxiliary
burner is ignited to raise temperatures to about 200C. The interior temperature is then
monitored with controls and maintained by allowing sub-stoichiometric amounts of air into the
chamber during the gasification process. The combination of relatively low temperatures and
only sub-stoichiometric amounts of air in the primary chamber during gasification do not disturb
the gasification bed, which is said to minimize particulate emissions, heavy metals, and many
combustion gasses. Depending on the waste type and system layout, the waste reduction process
in the primary chamber will take approximately 10 to 15 hours.
Exhibit 12 -3. Cross -Section of Batch Oxidation System, Modular
Facility
Source: Waste2Energy, Inc., 2009
Emissions produced during the gasification process pass through to the preheated secondary
chamber also called an “afterburner” where these emissions are thermally treated. As the gasses
from the primary chamber enter a preheated secondary chamber, auxiliary burners and excess
oxygen create a very turbulent high temperature environment (typically between 850C and
1,200C). For most applications within the European Union (EU) 850C is the required
minimum, though 1,100C is required for halogenated wastes, and in North America, 982C is
usually required. Additionally, residence time in the secondary chamber is important for proper
destruction of emissions from the primary chamber. In both the EU and North America, a
minimum residence time of 2 seconds is required. Operation of these units is subject to stringent
Primary Chambers
Secondary Combustion Chamber
Boiler
Air Emissions Control
System
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 163 10/22/12
USEPA and state air emission regulatory standards and permitting. Operating permit conditions
typically require continuous air monitoring and routine reporting to demonstrate compliance.
There have been many more modular WTE incinerators constructed in the United States than
either the mass-burn or refuse-derived fuel systems. In 1977, the first modular incinerator began
operations in North Little Rock, Arkansas to produce steam for the Koppers Industry’s Forest
Products Division. Since that time, some 50 modular systems have been built in the United
States (Exhibit 12-4), almost exclusively to produce process steam for neighboring industries.
Some of these systems, for example, a plant in Fosston, Minnesota, have utilized the
community’s solid waste as a fuel to produce steam to a district heating loop during the winter,
and electricity during the summer. Many of the newer facilities have incorporated electric
production capability.
Exhibit 12 -4. Comparison of Active Modular Combustion Facilities
Location
Startup
Design
Capacity
(tons/day)
Energy
Generation
Capital
Cost
($ millions)
Auburn, ME 1992 200 Steam 4.0
Joppa, MD 1988 360 Steam 10.0
Pittsfield, MA 1981 360 Steam 10.8
Alexandria, MN 1987 80 Steam/Electric
(0.5 MW)
4.2
Fosston., MN 1988 80 Steam 4.5
Perham, MN 1986/2002 116 Steam/Electric
(2.5 MW)
6.0
Red Wing, MN 1982 90 Steam 2.5
Fulton, NY 1985 200 Steam/Electric
(4 MW)
14.5
Almena, WI 1986 100 Steam/Electric
(0.27 MW)
2.7
Husavik Municipality,
Iceland
2006 20 Steam 3.5
Scotget, Scotland 2009 180 Electricity 40.0
Turks and Caicos Island 2008 4 None 1.0
U.S. Air Force, Wake Island 2009 1.5 None 0.5
U.S. Department of
Defense, Kwajalein Atoll
2007 32 None 5.0
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 164 10/22/12
Modular combustion units offer a lower capital cost and simplicity than the larger field-erected
mass-burning systems for communities considering WTE systems. These systems are generally
reliable and are backed by many years of successful operating experience. The newer batch
oxidation systems (BOS) appear to offer substantially lower costs of operations and
maintenance. For example, the manpower required to operate these systems is generally
minimal with one worker required to load the primary chamber and discharge the ash stream
within an hour. Many suppliers claim nearly complete burn out between energy recovery and
recycling. The ash remaining is reported to be about 3 to 8% of the original volume (depending
on waste composition). Lastly, these systems are modular and can be easily increased or
decreased in size.
Based on our experience with similar modular plants, SCS would anticipate that an experienced
staff of six (6) to nine (9) people, spread over three shifts per day, is required to continuously
operate a plant of the size potentially applicable to the Town or region.
12.3.4 Refuse -Derived Fuel Systems
Several American corporations have developed technologies that pre-process solid waste to
varying degrees to separate the non-combustibles from the waste stream. By undergoing
processing steps of hammering, shredding, or hydropulping, the combustible fraction of the
waste is transformed into a fuel, which can then be fired in a boiler unit specifically dedicated for
this type of refuse-derived fuel (RDF), or co-fired with another fuel, such as coal, shredded tires,
or wood chips. The fuel produced can thus be utilized in equipment that can have higher
efficiencies than mass-fired units resulting in greater electricity or steam output. However, the
front-end processing of the solid waste into a fuel has been one of the problem areas of this type
of refuse disposal technology.
Since the early 1970's, there have been several dozen facilities which have been constructed in
the United States to process solid waste into a RDF through the use of dry processing systems.
Such dry processing systems are classified according to the type of products that can be
produced: fluff RDF, densified RDF, and powdered RDF. A cross-section of a typical RDF
system is illustrated in Exhibit 12-5.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 165 10/22/12
Exhibit 12 -5. Cross -Secti on of Typical RDF System
Somewhat associated with RDF facilities are materials processing facilities, which include size
reduction, screening and recovery systems, and then additional equipment to reduce the moisture
in the resulting RDF to improve its heating quality. For example, in the Chemtex-Entsorga
HEBIOT process (“high efficiency biological treatment”) an aerobic digestion module is utilized
to drive off the moisture from waste that has been shredded. This volume reduction technique
reported reduced the incoming waste by 80% with the remaining 20% being disposed of in a
landfill. In essence, except for this latter function, this process is very similar to “dirty”
materials processing facilities used for volume reduction at many front-end processing facilities
at RDF facilities. In Europe, there is a substantial market for such mechanical biological
treatment plants offered by Ensorga, which has been driven by the European Union’s Landfill
directive that restricts the landfilling of biodegradable waste and stipulates a pre-treatment of
MSW. Many of these facilities are co-located with cement mills, RDF power plants, or even
coal-fired power plants.
Common disadvantages associated with such mechanical biological treatment plants include:
Noise and odor associated with the dirty MRF processing;
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 166 10/22/12
Air emissions from burning the RDF product;
Concerns with contamination and quality of the resulting biological compost product;
and,
The need for additional infrastructure to utilize the generated power.
12.4 ALTERNATIVE WC TECHN OLOGIES
The alternative waste conversion technologies are numerous and can be grouped many ways, but
for this discussion, SCS has grouped technologies by three major processes that include:
Thermal
Biological
Bio-Chemical
Within these groups are many methods and technologies that have been developed to extract
different benefits from the processed waste stream including;
Gases for power production;
Gases for feedstock for vehicular fuels;
Basic chemicals for use as a raw feedstock;
Compost/ soil amendments; and,
Slag for use an alternative building material.
A brief description of the main technologies in each of the three groups is presented below with
discussion as to potential relevancy to the Town and region, benefits, estimated costs, and
potential advantages and disadvantages.
12.4.1 Thermal
The thermal technologies are based on taking the solid waste and processing it under moderate to
very high temperatures in a closed reactor vessel, sometimes under pressure and with or without
the introduction of air or steam. Depending on the particular process, traditional recyclables may
be removed at the front end of the process or during the process stages. The predominant
processes are pyrolysis-gasification and autoclaving.
12.4.1.1 Pyrolysis - Gasification
In a pyrolysis process air is excluded from the reactor vessel and results in the waste
decomposing into certain gases (methane, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide), liquids
(oils/tar), and solid materials (char). The proportions are determined by operating temperature,
pressure, oxygen content, and other conditions. Because there is little to no air or oxygen, the
waste does not combust as it breaks down (there are no flames).
When the amount of air in the process is less than that required to support combustion, but
greater than in a pyrolysis process, the process is termed gasification. This process is typically
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 167 10/22/12
used to achieve a different balance of the gaseous by-products, mainly the production of a
hydrogen (H)-rich gas with smaller quantities of carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4) and
carbon dioxide (CO2). The refined gas, primarily H and CO, is termed syngas and has many
direct applications such as powering a turbine to produce electricity and potentially for use as a
feedstock to produce alternative vehicular fuel (ethanol), or other chemical compounds. Most of
these processes require an external heat source under normal operating conditions. This is
usually hot, clean air that captures heat from the downstream gas combustion process.
A basic gasification process is shown in Exhibit 12-6. Gasification processes have attracted
much interest because the process is inherently more efficient than a combustion-based process,
the syngas is a relatively clean energy source and the plant may generate less troublesome air
emissions overall.
Exhibit 12 -6. Basic Gasification Process
A relatively recent development for solid waste conversion using the gasification process, that
employs a unique heating source, is known as a plasma arc converter. Although there are many
variations, a typical plasma arc converter uses an array of plasma torches to generate
temperatures in the reactor of more than 5,000C. This extremely high temperature, coupled
with a gasification environment has shown potential in small laboratory test units to achieve a
very high efficiency in decomposing the organic fraction of the waste to syngas, while
generating a slag material from the inert fraction. The slag has potential for use as a substitute
ingredient in potentially many building materials, including concrete structural elements (e.g.,
wall panels and blocks, etc.) and asphalt.
A plasma is an ionized gas that results when a basic gas, such as nitrogen or air is passed through
an electrical arc struck between two electrodes. The electrodes are constructed into a torch that
directs the plasma arc. The intense heat created by the arc can be used to treat many materials,
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 168 10/22/12
including MSW. Plasma arcs were commercialized in the metallurgical industry where the high
temperatures produced in the reactor vessel (potentially up to 10,000C) are used to create
special alloys. Some of the electric power generated by the plant is siphoned off to power the
torches. The basic plasma arc process is shown in Exhibit 12-7.
Exhibit 12 -7. Basic Plasma Gasification Process
12.4.1.2 Autoclave
The basic autoclave process has been in commercial use for decades, primarily in the medical
field for sterilizing instruments, some manufacturing uses and in the sterilizing of medical
wastes. In an autoclave process for solid waste, mixed MSW is fed into a reactor vessel where it
is subjected to heat, pressure and agitation. The reactor conditions cause the organic fraction of
the waste (i.e., food scraps, fiber/paper products and vegetation) to break down into a pulp-like
substance that potentially has reuse applications depending on the degree of post-processing
selected.
The pulp has been demonstrated with a few systems to be a useful soil conditioner and also is
being tested for use as feedstock for the production of ethanol, an alternative vehicle fuel and in
the production of a RDF for combustion in power plants. The process also claims to provide a
higher quality recyclable product. Plastic recyclable materials are softened and occupy less
volume downstream. Product labels on glass, plastics and metals are totally removed and these
materials also are cleaned and sterilized. A basic autoclave process is shown in Exhibit 12-8.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 169 10/22/12
Exhibit 12 -8. Basic Autoclave Process
12.4.2 Biological
There are two types of biological processes being utilized for WC. These include the anaerobic
and aerobic process technologies. The following paragraphs briefly describe these technologies.
12.4.2.1 Anaerobic Process
Anaerobic digestion is the bacterial breakdown of organic materials in the absence of oxygen.
This biological process produces a gas, sometimes called biogas, principally composed of
methane and carbon dioxide. The anaerobic process is often used to treat organic wastes other
than nonsegregated MSW, and that is where it is used the most. This anaerobic process is used
to digest sewage sludge (i.e., biosolids – produced from treated sanitary sewage), yard
vegetation, agricultural wastes (both animal and plant) and some industrial waste sludge. The
number of plants processing these materials is currently in the thousands worldwide.
The anaerobic digestion process occurs in three steps:
1. Decomposition of plant or animal matter by bacteria into molecules such as sugar.
2. Conversion of decomposed matter to organic acids.
3. Organic acid conversion to methane gas.
Depending on the waste feedstock and the system design, biogas is typically 55 to 75% methane.
A basic anaerobic process is shown in Exhibit 12-9.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 170 10/22/12
Exhibit 12 -9. Basic Anaerobic Process
12.4.2.2 Aerobic Process
The aerobic process relies on a continuous supply of air to be mixed in with the waste material.
Again, the waste is ground up into pieces. Recyclable materials are removed before this process.
In a typical plant the waste is ground up and formed on an outdoor pad into long piles called
windrows. The windrows are agitated a few times per week to allow all parts of the pile to be
exposed to air. The agitation and aerating process can also be conducted in a vessel into which
air is forced. The aerobic environment supports a different, but also common microorganism
that, like the anaerobic process, feeds on the organic fraction of the waste. The waste is
converted to by-products that include CO2, water vapor and compost. Typically a site had to be
located in a rural area; otherwise, the odors from the process could become a nuisance.
12.4.3 Bio-Chemical
The bio-chemical process is based on breaking down the cellulosic part of the organic fraction of
the waste stream. This would include certain foods (e.g., vegetables, fruits), paper products and
yard vegetation. Biosolids can also be added as a waste material. All other materials in the
waste stream should be removed prior to the process.
In the process, following drying and shredding of the waste, the prepared waste stream is mixed
with water and sulfuric acid in a closed reactor vessel. This causes a reaction that in conjunction
with common bacteria already in the waste, breaks down the material into sugar compounds and
a by-product known as lignin. There are some companies that are testing natural enzymes,
instead of the strong acid chemical, to initiate this reaction.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 171 10/22/12
The resulting sugar compounds and water are sent to a fermentation unit where yeast is added.
The yeast reacts with the sugars to convert them to alcohol. The alcohol mixture is then heated
and distilled to remove the solids. The resulting distilled alcohol (grain alcohol or ethanol) can
be used as fuel. The lignin by-product is sent to a gasifier where it is used to produce heat for the
drying process or can potentially be further processed for use as a fuel substitute in power plants.
A basic bio-chemical process is shown in Exhibit 12-10.
Exhibit 12 -10. Basic Bio -Chemical Process
12.5 STATUS OF COMMERCIAL OPERATING WTE AND WC
FACILITIES
12.5.1 Waste -to-Energy
At the time of this report, there are about 1,300 WTE facilities worldwide. Large numbers are
located in Europe (440) primarily because of the European Union’s directive that requires a 65%
reduction in the landfilling of biodegradable MSW. Asian countries (Japan, Taiwan, Singapore,
and China) have the largest number (764) of WTE facilities worldwide. All of these countries
face limited open space issues for the siting of landfills and have large urban populations. One
of the largest current markets for WTE plant construction is in China, which is currently the
fourth largest user of WTE worldwide.
In the U.S., there are currently 89 WTE plants (Exhibit 12-11) operating in 25 states managing
about 7% of the nation’s MSW, or about 85,000 tons per day. This is equivalent of a base load
electrical generation of approximately 2,700 megawatts to meet the needs of more than two
million homes, while servicing the waste disposal needs of more than 35 million people.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 172 10/22/12
Exhibit 12 -11. U.S. WTE Plants b y Technology
Technology Operating Plants Daily Design Capacity
(Tons per day)
Annual Capacity
(Million tons)
Mass Burn 65 71,354 22.1
Modular 9 1,342 0.4
RDF – Processing and
Combustion
10 15,428 4.8
RDF – Processing Only 5 6,075 1.9
RDF – Combustion Only(1) 5 4,592 1.4
Total U.S. Plants 94 98,791 30.6
WTE Facilities 89 92,716 28.7
(1) Plants that do not generate power onsite.
Source: Integrated Waste Management Services Association, 2010.
12.5.2 Waste Conversion
The following sections summarize existing information on commercial operating WC plants
worldwide.
12.5.2.1 Plasma Arc Gasification
As shown in Exhibit 12-12, there are four operating plants utilizing MSW as feedstock. Only
one of these, the Utashinai City plant, can be considered commercial; the others have been only
operated as pilots or intermediately operated for testing purposes. A pilot plant in Ottawa,
Canada is currently being tested by Plasco Energy and has only been intermediately operated
with a maximum continuous runtime of 36 hours using a pre-sorted, post-consumer waste stream
as feedstock. Plasco is currently in the process of converting this plant to commercial
operations, having successfully negotiated an operating contract with the City of Ottawa.
Exhibit 12 -12. Commercial Operating Plasma Arc Gasification
Facilities
Location Throughput
(Tons per day)
Owner/
Operator
Technology
Supplier
Start of
Operation
Feedstock
Yoshi, Japan 25 Hitachi Metals,
Ltd.
Westinghouse
Plasma Corp.
1999 MSW
Utashinai City,
Japan
200 Hitachi Metals,
Ltd.
Westinghouse
Plasma Corp.
2003 MSW
Mihami-Mikata,
Japan
22 Hitachi Metals,
Ltd.
Westinghouse
Plasma Corp.
2002 MSW
Biosolids
Ottawa, Canada 94 Plasco Energy Plasco Energy 2007 Shredded MSW
Shredded Plastics
Source: SWANA, Waste Conversion Technologies, 2011; SCS files.
12.5.2.2 Pyrolysis Plants
As shown in Exhibit 12-13, the use of pyrolysis technologies to process MSW has occurred
mainly in Japan and Germany where these plants reportedly process about two million tons of
materials per year.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 173 10/22/12
Exhibit 12 -13. Commercial Operating Pyrolysis Facilities Using
MSW
Location Throughput
(Tons per Day)
Technology Supplier Start of Operation
Toyohashi City, Japan 440
77 (Bulky Waste)
Mitsui Babcock 2002
Hamm, Germany 353 Techtrade 2002
Koga Seibu, Japan 286 (MSW and Biosolids) Mitsui Babcock 2003
Yame Seibu, Japan 242
55 (Bulky Waste)
Mitsui Babcock 2002
Izumo, Japan 70,000 TPY Thidde/Hitachi 2003
Nishiburi, Japan 210
63 (Bulky Waste)
Mitsui Babcock 2003
Kokubu, Japan 178 Takuma 2003
Kyouhoku, Japan 176 Mitsui Babcock 2003
Ebetsu City, Japan 154
38 (Bulky Waste)
Mitsui Babcock 2002
Oshima, Japan 132 Takuma 2003
Burgau, Germany 154 Techtrade 1987
Itoigawa, Japan 25,000 TPY Thidde/Hitachi 2002
Source: SWANA, Waste Conversion Technologies, 2011; U.S. Department of Energy, 2011, “Draft
Environmental Assessment for Oneida Seven Generation Corporation, Energy Recovery Project, Green Bay, WI.
There are no commercially operated facilities in the U.S., although a pilot facility was operated
in Green Bay, WI using American Combustion Technology pyrolytic systems for testing
purposes. Oneida Seven Generations, Inc. has plans to construct a pyrolysis facility using 148
tons per day of MSW and 61 tons per day of plastic waste in Green Bay, WI.
There were a number of full-scale MSW pyrolysis demonstration plants, which were constructed
in the U.S. during the late 1970s and early 1980s by Monsanto and Union Carbide. These
facilities were not commercially successful and were eventually shut down. Similarly, a 91 TPD
MSW pyrolysis facility was constructed in New South Wales, Australia in 2001 by Brightstar
Environmental. This facility incorporated the use of an autoclave process where the organic
fraction was dried before being sent to a pyrolysis vessel. This facility operated for only 6
months and was shut down due to its failure to meet permitted conditions.
12.5.2.3 Anaerobic Digesters
There are nearly 240 anaerobic digesters (AD) facilities around the world with operating
capacities greater than 2,500 tons per year. These plants process not only the organic fraction of
the MSW waste stream but also organic waste from food industries and animal manure. Europe
leads in the number of AD plants and total installed capacity principally due to the European
Union Directive that requires member states to reduce the amount of landfilled organics by 65%
by 2020. As shown in Exhibit 12-14, there are more than 120 plants processing the organic
fraction of MSW in Europe of about 4.6 million tons per year. The principal technologies used
around the world are provided by the following companies: Dranco, Kompogas, Linde, RosRoca,
Valorga, BTA, and Cites.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 174 10/22/12
Exhibit 12 -14. European Countries With AD Facilities
Country No. of Plants Country Capacity
(Tons per year)
Germany 55 1,250,000
Spain 23 1,800,000
Switzerland 13 130,000
France 6 400,000
Netherlands 5 300,000
Belgium 5 200,000
Italy 5 160,000
Austria 4 70,000
Sweden 3 35,000
Portugal 3 100,000
United Kingdom 2 100,000
Denmark 2 40,000
Poland 1 20,000
Total 127 4,605,000
Source: Levis, J.W., et. al., “Assessment of the State of Food Waste
Treatment in the U.S. and Canada,” Waste Management 2010 August-
September 30 (8-9) 1486-94.
Currently, there is only one commercially operated AD facility in the U.S, which is located on
the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. It processes about 6,000 tons of yard and
food wastes per year. Further, an AD facility digesting source-separated organics has been
commercially operating in Toronto, Canada for a number of years processing about 90,000 tons
per year. A second AD facility is currently under construction in Toronto and should be
operating within a year. Similar AD facilities have been authorized by Quebec City and
Montreal with additional facilities funded in the Province of Quebec.
Based on our understanding of the AD process and results of numerous feasibility and pilot
studies, SCS understands an AD operation of the size required to process the Town’s waste
would require as few as three (3) to four (4) staff.
12.6 BENCHMARK METRICS
12.6.1 Summary of Current Town Solid Waste Statistics
As described in Section 2, at the writing of this report, the Town generates and disposes
approximately 17,000 to 18,000 tons per year of MSW and yard waste. Based on census data,
population projections, and current disposal practices, this volume is anticipated to reach
approximately 21,500 tons in 15 years and 27,400 tons in 30 years. These current and future
generation and disposal statistics equate to a design operating range of 55 to 90 tons per day,
assuming 6 days per week operations, while allowing 1 day per week for maintenance, repair,
and residuals management. As described, the Town has historically paid a tip fee of $57 per ton
to the Orange County Landfill, and anticipates lower tip fees with consideration of other disposal
options.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 175 10/22/12
12.6.2 M inimum Waste Throughput Processing Capacity
12.6.2.1 Waste-to-Energy
As depicted in Exhibit 12-2 in Section 12.3.3 above, WTE facilities require significant waste
throughput to be economically viable. For traditional WTE technologies, SCS typically projects
a daily throughput capacity of at least 100 to 300 tons per day required to substantiate siting a
new WTE facility. Such a facility would most likely consist of multiple, smaller capacity
modules, on the order of 250 to 100 tons per day or, several smaller facilities located in different
areas, and in both cases providing an aggregate capacity. Collaboration and regionalization is a
must to support such technologies.
12.6.2.2 Waste Conversion
Based on SCS experience, typical WC technologies, including thermal, biological, and
bio-chemical are represented to operate on a comparatively smaller scale. Between these types,
generally, thermal technologies require more significant waste throughput to be economically
viable. Due to lesser equipment and energy requirements, biological technologies can generally
support smaller waste throughput.
12.6.2.2.1 Thermal
By a wide margin, the greatest amount of recent activity in WC technology is with the thermal
technologies, dominated by the plasma arc conversion process. This is mainly due to its
potential for large power production and overall reduced air emissions.
The lack of an operational track record for both large-scale and small-scale WC technologies
suggests to SCS that a WC technology plant should more likely be planned initially as a small
pilot-plant. A pilot plant, in SCS’s opinion, based on proven laboratory and mini-pilot scale
technology, would be no more than about 100 tons per day with the potential for scale-up should
the technology be proven at the pilot stage and with regional collaboration.
The point here being, based on SCS’s experience, the scalability of thermal WC technologies
may never exceed pilot scale without regional collaboration and population growth in Chapel
Hill.
12.6.2.2.2 Anaerobic Facilities
In Europe, the anaerobic process has been used successfully to process MSW. The sizes of these
plants reportedly range from 3,000 tons per year (TPY) to 182,000 TPY. Converted to a daily
capacity, and assuming a 6-day per week processing schedule, these capacities range from 10
tons per day to 580 tons per day.
As noted in the paragraphs above, there are several operating AD facilities in North America in
the size range potentially generated by the Town. These facilities are successfully processing
from about 15 to 250 tons per day of food and yard wastes diverted from residences, restaurants
and businesses and converted into methane that is used to produce power.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 176 10/22/12
12.6.3 Summary of Readiness for Commercial Operations
Some, but not all of the alternative WC technologies are ready for commercial operation.
Exhibit 12-15 summarizes the technologies discussed herein and whether, in SCS’s opinion, they
are ready for pilot plant or commercial operation on a scale necessary to serve the Town or
Region.
Exhibit 12 -15. Summary of Main Processes
Process Pre-Processing By-Product
Primary
Product
Pilot Plant
Readiness
Commercial
Readiness
Pyrolysis High Ash Syngas/Oil Yes No
Gasification Medium Ash/Slag Syngas/Char Yes No
Autoclave Low None/Recyclables Pulp Yes Yes
Anaerobic Digestion Medium/High Filtrate Water Biogas/Compost Yes Yes
Hydrolysis High Waste Water/Ash Ethanol Yes No
Aerobic Digestion Medium/High None Compost Yes Yes
Plasma Gasification Claims Low/High Slag Syngas Yes No
As depicted, each of the seven technologies have demonstrated pilot plant readiness either
nationally or internationally; however, only three of the technologies appear ready for
commercial scale operations. These three technologies are the biological processes and the
Autoclave process. With the exception of the autoclave, each of these technologies requires pre-
processing requirements to remove potential contaminants from the incoming waste stream.
12.6.4 Capital and Operatin g Costs
As described, due to the relatively recent development of the alternative WC technologies, there
are few, if any, full-scale operational plants in the U.S. Thus, there are not reliable figures
readily available for capital and operating costs.
Two large, relatively recent studies were conducted as part of a detailed review of alternative
waste conversion technologies in the U.S. The on-going studies were sponsored by Los Angeles
County California, as continuation of that region’s program initiated in 2003 to further address
the regions acute problems with energy pricing and availability, air quality, traffic congestion
and reliance on landfills that had limited useful life. The original study screened 27 technologies
in the initial phase (2005) and reduced the list to 5 “finalists” technologies in the subsequent
2007 report. The finalists are planning to build small-scale demonstration plants to prove their
respective technologies.
Although there have been other large alternative technology screening/evaluation studies
conducted (i.e., New York City, 2004), the L.A. County studies seem to have the most detailed
information on projected U.S.-based plant costs and economics. Exhibit 12-16 summarizes the
project economics for five finalist biological and thermal alternative WC technologies that were
developed as part of the L.A. County study in 2007.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 177 10/22/12
Exhibit 12 -16. Summary of Project Economics for
Thermal and Biological Conversion Technologies(1)
Technology
(2)Annual
Throughput
(TPY)
Projected
Design
Capacity
(TPD)
Capital
Cost
($)
Capital
Cost
Per Ton
($/ton)
(3)O&M
Costs
($)
Total
Costs
($)
Estimated
Annual
Revenue
($)
Estimated
Net
Costs
($)
Calculated
Tipping
Fee
($/ton)
Tipping
Fee
Variation
($/ton)
Adjusted
Tipping
Fee
($/ton)
Biological
(Anaerobic)
100,000 300 21,000,000 70,000 4,900,000 8,170,000 3,000,000 5,170,000 52 6 58
Thermal
(autoclave)
51,100 200 35,000,000 175,000 9,000,000 13,100,000 8,400,000 4,700,000 92 0 92
Thermal
(Pyrolysis
Gasification)
80,000 242 30,140,000 125,000 5,580,000 7,740,000 3,280,000 4,460,000 56 2 58
Thermal
(Gasification)
97,000 312 75,200,000 241,000 11,000,000 20,700,000 8,000,000 12,700,000 131 1 132
Thermal
(Gasification)
138,000 413 56,600,000 137,000 8,260,000 14,200,000 6,300,000 7,900,000 57 12 69
(1)Excerpted and Summarized from the L.A. County, California Conversion Technology Evaluation Report, Phase II Assessment, dated October 2007.
(2)Tons per year (TPY), demonstration plant only.
(3)1st year costs only, does not include annual debt service.
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 178 10/22/12
The costs and economic summaries were provided by the selected technology vendors, using
some pricing assumptions for specific items provided by the planning committee and applicable
to southern California only. The consultant retained by L.A. County conducted an independent
review of the costs and economics provided by the vendors and concluded that the figures
provided were, in general, reasonable estimates that matched with the independent assessment’s
conclusions.
12.6.5 Tipping Fee Survey
Exhibit 12-17 compiles costs from the 2005 and previously discussed 2007 L.A. County studies.
The middle column are tipping fees summarized from the economic projections rendered in the
2005 study, which had similar pricing and cost assumptions as in the 2007 follow-on study.
Tipping fees in the 2005 study ranged from $61 to $197 per ton for the eight vendors. Two
plants exhibited tipping fees in the $50 to $70 per ton range, while six were higher than that.
Exhibit 12 -17. Summary of Economic Data(1)
Technology
(2)Projected
Design Capacity
(TPD)
(1)Calculated
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
(3)Calculated
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Biological (Anaerobic) 100 93 58
Biological (Anaerobic) 100 67 --
Biological (Anaerobic) 100 197 --
Thermal (Autoclave) -- -- 92
Thermal (Plasma-Arc) 100 172 --
Thermal (Gasification) 150 61 58
Thermal (Gasification) 300 186 132
Thermal (Pyrolysis-Gasification) 100 129 69
(1)Excerpted and Summarized from the L.A. County, California Conversion Technology Evaluation Report,
Phase I Assessment.
(2)Tons per year (TPY), demonstration plant only.
(3)Adjusted Tipping Fee from Exhibit 12-16, based on Phase II Study.
L.A. County considered a tipping fee in the range of $50 to $70 per ton, to be competitive with
the tipping fees charged by the large regional landfills serving the area. Exhibit 12-17 indicates
that two of the four thermal technologies and one anaerobic technology, provided costs that
indicated the plant could offer a tipping fee in the $50 to $70 per ton range.
The difference in tipping fees from 2005 to 2007 probably reflects some differences in the
pricing assumptions in individual studies including: proposed plant capacities were larger in
2007, and purchase pricing structure for the power produced was revised. It is also assumed that
the market conditions for the development of these plants from 2005 to 2007 likely became more
favorable as basic energy costs in the U.S. continued escalating.
12.6.6 Comparison to WTE Fees
Because conventional WTE plant technology has been in existence for decades, with hundreds of
plants operating in the U.S. and abroad, comparative cost information is more established;
although a completely new WTE plant has not been constructed in the U.S. in more than 10
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 1 79 10/22/12
years. Exhibit 12-18 presents a visual summary comparison of the tipping fees estimated for the
alternative WC technologies in the L.A. County studies and the tipping fees for operating WTE
plants. The graph shows that the appropriate “average” tipping fee for a WTE plant is about $60
per ton. The estimated “low” and “high” range is estimated to be from about $35 to $80 per ton,
respectively.
Exhibit 12 -18. Summary of Tipping Fee Range for Technologies
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Ti
p
p
i
n
g
F
e
e
R
a
n
g
e
(
$
/
t
o
n
)
Thermal(1)
(WTE only)
Thermal(2)
(Alternative Processes)
Biological(2)
(Anaerobic)
Technology
(1) Existing operating plants.
(2) Proposed demonstration, small-scale
plants only. (8 plants total)
Legend
Low end
High end
The tipping fee ranges for alternative technologies are provided as a crude comparison to the
WTE tipping fee. A large tipping fee range, from low to high, is evident. These plots reflect
expected uncertainties and risks at the time of the studies, which would not be unusual for
technology that is still in the development or pilot plant stages. Most WTE plants in the U.S.
have a capacity anywhere from 500 to about 4,000 tons per day and this affords them a valuable
“economy of scale” over the much smaller proposed alternative technologies.
Such a large range of tipping fees for alternative WC technologies may not actually be the case if
a study were done today. Projected tipping fees are a function of many regional cost factors,
including:
Power production/ quality and quantity of syngas;
Air emissions and treatment;
Market for by-products;
Downtime/ equipment reliability;
Pre-processing requirements (sorting equipment, MRF, etc.);
Operator experience;
Financial contributions by vendor;
Approx. national
average $60/ton
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 180 10/22/12
Ancillary costs (transmission line, etc.); and,
Contractual obligations.
However in SCS’s opinion, these summary costs for alternative WC technologies suggest that
tipping fee ranges are likely to be somewhat higher than a WTE plant, until enough of the plants
are operating and hard costs are generated to validate that they can operate at a tipping fee
comparable to a WTE plant.
12.6.7 Advantages and D isadvantages
All of the alternative WC technologies have some potential benefits and disadvantages. The
over-riding aspect of all of the alternative WC technologies is that they are relatively new and
thus do not have a “track record” from which one can derive hard conclusions related to actual,
proven benefits and disadvantages. So, SCS can only postulate what the actual advantages,
disadvantages, and economics might be. This exercise is based on assessing the information
available from vendors, review of operational history for some very small-scale pilot plant
facilities that may have operated intermittently, and evaluation of these technologies that are
processing waste streams other than a normal mixed municipal solid waste.
Exhibit 12-19 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative technologies and
the WTE technology. We offer the following generalized conclusions, in addition to the
comments in the table, about the viability of the technologies:
Biological (anaerobic). Commercial scale proven at smaller capacities (i.e., 200 to
300 tons per day) in Europe. Developing a consistent market for the compost by-
product is a major challenge and affects the operating economics. Only a few small
scale plants are currently planned in the U.S.
Thermal. Generally unproven at a commercial scale. One small pilot facility (85 tons
per day) is operating in Canada. A complex process that must be optimized to
provide the desired high-quality synfuel. There is much planning activity in the
industry and in the next 5 years there will likely be some operational plants to better
demonstrate the potential scalability and viability of these technologies.
Bio-Chemical. Unproven at a commercial scale. A few plants have been planned, but
have been delayed. Tied to the dynamic market for ethanol and competition with
many other processes that do not use MSW.
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 181 10/22/12
Exhibit 12 -19. Advantages and D isadvantages to Waste Processing
Technologies
Process Advantages Disadvantages
Thermal – Pyrolysis /
Gasification
Potential for high power production, high
conversion
Untested, possibly high O&M costs,
ash disposal
Thermal – Autoclave Provide higher quality recyclables Lack of market for compost
Biological – Aerobic Proven, “low” tech. Emissions less of a
concern.
Some odor; Lack of market for
compost, low conversion
Biological – Anaerobic Low emissions, low odor Lack of market for compost
Plasma Gasification Potential for high power production, high
conversion
Untested, possibly high O&M costs,
safety concerns, slag market (?)
Bio-Chemical (Hydrolysis) Fuel production, biosolids processing Untested, treats only cellulosic part of
waste
WTE Plant Proven large-scale technology Large volumes of unusable ash, costly
air emission control systems
12.7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO P OSITION THE TOWN FOR
POTENTIAL WTE AND WC TECHNOLOGIES
As the Town moves forward on its strategic planning initiative, SCS makes the following
recommendations to help position the Town with relation to WTE and WC technologies:
Many of the WTE and WC (thermal) technologies appear to be cost prohibitive with
the current and projected MSW waste flow of the Town. The capital and pre-
processing costs of these technologies, at the current time, appear to be cost
prohibitive to reasonably recover the initial necessary investments compared to other
solid waste management alternatives. It is our opinion, therefore, that regional efforts
will be necessary to secure the desired waste flow to provide economies of scale for
these technologies.
Consequently, we would recommend that the Town implement a “wait and see
approach” as for WTE and WC (Thermal) technologies offered in the U.S.
marketplace. As noted in this report, many of these technologies are currently
unproven on the commercial scale in the United States. However, firms like
Entsorga, Harvest Power, and Plasco are rapidly progressing in finalizing plans to
commercialize their technology. Construction and subsequent observation of these
plants will provide much needed detailed capital and operating information to support
the Town’s decision making.
Based on its projected economy of scale and initial investment requirements, the WC
technology that may be most applicable to the Town, at this time, would be anaerobic
digestion. This technology has proven to be successful in the processing of organics
and MSW both in Europe, and now in North America at the waste flow level
generated by the Town. The technology allows for scalability if other neighboring
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 182 10/22/12
localities decide to collaborate on the project in the future. The biogas produced
could provide a valuable energy asset for Town facilities.
Capital needs required to construct and operate an anaerobic digester operations
include: an organics receiving area(s), reactor chamber(s) (i.e., enclosed vessel), and
processing equipment (i.e., wheel loader or conveyors). One initial challenge to
implement this technology; however, is that the Town would need to initiate some
form of separate organics collection, or post collection segregation, similar to what
has been instituted by the City of Toronto. For example, under its “Green Bin
Program,” the City allows participants (residential and multi-family residents) to
place organics (e.g., food wastes, soiled paper towels and food packaging, coffee
grounds, etc.) out for separate collection along with refuse and recycling. The City
provides roll-carts for residential customers while multi-family complexes are
provided either bulk bins or roll-carts with residents given in-unit organics containers
to collect their organics. The City has provided an extensive public education and
outreach program. Should the Town consider a similar organics program, it is
expected that organic wastes collection be carefully considered for its application
towards and anaerobic digester operation.
It is SCS’s recommendation that the Town continue to pursue potential synergies
between innovative technology vendors, local institutions of higher education, and
professional associations to attract interest in fostering further feasibility studies
and/or development of pilot studies. This recommendation is more fully discussed in
the following section of the Report.
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 183 10/22/12
13.0 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLO GIES – COLLABORATION
WITH AREA INSTITUTIO NS
13.1 UNIVERSITIES
Another waste management option for the Town is to pursue the implementation of Waste
Conversion (WC) technologies in collaboration with area universities. Chapel Hill is located in
the Research Triangle, so named in 1959 with the creation of Research Triangle Park, a research
park between Durham and Raleigh. "The Triangle" is anchored by Duke University (Duke),
North Carolina State University (NCSU), and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(UNC). Each university has its distinctive character and long-term sustainability program.
The following section briefly includes a general summary of current sustainability and solid
waste management programs at the three universities and initial discussions with their
sustainability directors to gauge the level of interest in collaborating with the Town on WC
technologies. Several of the projects described below provide flagship examples of the
possibilities that may spring from successful collaboration between WC technology vendors,
university research resources, and private industry. Particularly, SCS believes collaborative
resources within the Town are optimal for development of anaerobic digestion of organic waste
with cooperation from UNC Chapel Hill, based on recent collaborative success in this
technology by Duke.
13.1.1 Duke Uni versity
Duke has developed a Climate Action Plan that will guide the University towards carbon
neutrality by 2024. As part of that effort, Duke University established The Duke Carbon Offsets
Initiative (DCOI) to help meet the University’s carbon neutrality commitment. The DCOI’s
mission is to develop local, state, and regional carbon offset projects that yield significant
benefits beyond greenhouse gas emission reductions. Benefits the DCOI looks for in projects are
additional environmental and public health protection, job creation opportunities, energy savings,
and habitat protection.
For example, Duke University and Duke Energy have partnered to pilot an innovative system for
managing hog waste that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, generate renewable energy, and
substantially eliminate a host of pollutants and issues associated with the waste from swine
farms, including odors, ammonia, nutrients and pathogens. This system is located at Loyd Ray
Farms, an 8,600-head swine finishing facility in Yadkin County, NC 23. It is intended to serve as
a model for other hog farms seeking to manage waste and develop on-farm renewable power.
The project involves the capture of methane generated by the hog waste. Hog waste generated at
the farm is directed into a lagoon which acts as an anaerobic digester. The decomposing hog
waste generates methane gas which is captured and collected under a plastic cover over the
lagoon/anaerobic digester. The gas collected under the digester cover is used to power a 65-kW
microturbine, the electricity from which is used to support the operation of the innovative waste
23 http://sustainability.duke.edu/carbon_offsets/Projects/loydray.html
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 184 10/22/12
management system. Any electricity not needed to power the anaerobic digester operations is
kept on the farm to support normal farm operations. Like a traditional waste lagoon, the
remaining liquid waste flows to an aeration basin which treats the water to address ammonia and
other residual pollutants so that it can be re-used for irrigation and barn-flushing.
The project is also creating carbon offset credits through the documented and verified destruction
of the methane gas. These carbon offset credits are shared by Duke University and Google. The
project also produces renewable energy credits (RECs) which Duke Energy counts towards its
NC Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (REPS) requirements for the
generation of electricity from swine waste.
Discussions with Ms. Tavey McDaniel, the University’s Sustainability Director indicated that
they would welcome discussions with the town on potential collaborative research on waste-to-
energy (WTE) and WC technologies.
13.1.2 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
SCS met with representatives of UNC to review their current solid waste programs and
initiatives, and to identify possible areas of collaboration with the Town. In 2010, UNC initiated
a study team to evaluate alternative energy technologies and make recommendations of viable
options. As part of a long-term Climate Action Plan (CAP), the University has committed to end
the use of coal on campus by 2020, and is evaluating the switch to biomass and natural gas.
13.1.2.1 Landfill Gas
Currently, UNC is partnering with Orange County to utilize landfill gas (LFG) supplied from the
County’s landfill. The initial phase of this project in 2010-2011 constructed a pipeline from the
landfill to the power plant and modified UNC’s existing boilers to co-fire coal and LFG. In
future phases of this project, as part of upgrades to the University’s power supply system, the
University is constructing a new campus power plant to burn LFG with the gas transported via an
extension of this pipeline from the landfill.
13.1.2.2 Biomass Feedstock Implementation
Furthermore, UNC has conducted pilot studies with their boilers to co-fire biomass in the form of
torrefied wood pellets. The goal of these studies is to evaluate various feedstock, integrating the
biomass processing and handling with boiler operations, and resulting energy potential. The
results of these studies are under consideration and further studies are in discussion.
Based on these ongoing initiatives at UNC and the current state of many of the WTE and
alternative WC technologies summarized in Section 12, collaboration with the Town to initiate
another large-scale strategy (e.g., mass burn, or other thermal gasification technology) is in the
near term unlikely. Furthermore, the University’s existing boilers represent a useful life to the
year 2040, at which time another technology may become feasible for consideration.
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 185 10/22/12
13.1.2.3 Anaerobic Digestion Potential
SCS initiated discussions with UNC staff to see if future collaboration opportunities would make
sense for the Town. UNC staff confirmed UNC’s desire to end its use of coal on campus and to
move to renewable energy supplies. The current effort to burn LFG is one move in that
direction. UNC is interested in looking at the feasibility of anaerobic digestion to process the
university’s food waste and biomass requiring disposal. They recognize a significant advantage
of anaerobic digestion in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the coal-fired boilers as well
as providing renewable energy supplies.
Food waste is currently collected by Orange County at four campus locations (e.g., dining
facilities) and hauled off campus to Brooks Contracting where it is composted in windrow piles.
This existing operation is a key development towards a successful digester project in that source
separation of organics and food waste is presently occurring and these operations do not need
development. Furthermore, with the proven operations of firing LFG in the campus boilers,
biogas generated by an anaerobic digestion operation may simply be fed into and blended with
LFG in the existing pipeline, thereby reducing the need for a separate conversion unit associated
with the anaerobic digestion unit. However, SCS’s discussions with UNC staff recognized that
siting an anaerobic digester operation at the landfill, near the campus power plant, or elsewhere
on campus would likely present challenges. SCS recognizes that the development of the new
Carolina North campus and construction of a second power plant to support this campus while
utilizing the LFG presents a unique collaborative opportunity to include anaerobic digestion in
the design of this infrastructure and its utilities.
UNC staff has noted that a few other academic communities have successfully implemented (or
are evaluating) anaerobic digestion systems to manage their food wastes, and thus supporting
sustainable, green campus operations to include: the University of Wisconsin and Michigan State
University. Therefore, the interest in developing this technology is high. University staff
believes other neighboring communities could partner on such a project. While implementing an
anaerobic digester project to manage campus and Town organic and food waste would impact
the current aerobic composting operations, UNC staff also recognize the addition of many other
sustainable benefits including greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, generating RECs and carbon
offset credits, and promoting safety by eliminating long hauling.
13.1.3 North Carolina State University
NCSU houses a department of Waste Reduction and Recycling (WRR) which is also the name of
one of the eight key focus areas for the Campus Environmental Sustainability Team (CEST).
The goal of WRR is to divert university waste from the landfill through education, efficient
processes and operational endeavors. Since establishing the office in 2001, NC State has seen
WRR’s efforts make tremendous improvements to the campus solid waste management
program. As of 2010, the University has reportedly achieved a 45.45% diversion rate. The
University has set a goal of 65% diversion rate by 2015, as outlined in the Sustainability
Strategic Plan.
NCSU has a had a long history of solid waste recycling going back to 1975 when the University
began hand sorting of campus recyclables. A campus-wide curbside recycling program was
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 186 10/22/12
initiated in 1988, which involved a residence hall pilot program beginning in 1990 and yard
waste recycling a few years after that. Currently, NCSU’s organic materials (i.e., dining hall
food waste, animal bedding, yard waste, etc.) are collected and composted by Brooks
Contracting like UNC.
In January, 2011, NCSU broke ground on a $61 million performance contract with Ameresco,
Inc., part of which will install an 11 Megawatt (MW) Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system
in Cates Utility Plant. The CHP system, also called cogeneration, will pay for itself through
energy savings over 17 years. The upgrade at Cates Utility Plant is expected to be completed in
summer 2012.
Initial discussions with NCSU’s Sustainability Director, Ms. Tracy Dixon, suggested that NCSU
would be interested in partnering with the Town to consider and solicit applicable research grant
and educational funding to initiate feasibility studies to involve the development of a WTE or
WC technology (e.g., anaerobic digestion) in the region.
13.2 OTHER AVAILABLE AREA RESOURCES, PROJECTS, AND
FUNDING
13.2.1 Environmental Research and Education Foundation
The Environmental Research and Education Foundation (EREF) is located in Raleigh, North
Carolina. The purpose of EREF is to fund and direct scientific research and educational
initiatives for waste management practices to benefit industry participants and the communities
they serve. Discussions with Mr. Bryan Staley, President, indicated that EREF is currently
completing an in-house study on various aspects of WTE and WC technologies. Mr. Staley
indicated that he would entertain future opportunities to collaborate with the Town on feasibility
aspects. Importantly, EREF has an ongoing grant program to conduct research studies, usually
in collaboration with university researchers.
Researchers are invited to submit proposals on solid waste management issues contained in
EREF’s Strategic Research Plan or on educational projects. EREF routinely assesses research
needs within the solid waste field via the EREF’s Council, a committee comprised of industry
stakeholders and academia. General and/or targeted requests for proposals (RFPs) are generated
at the request of the Council by EREF staff and posted on EREF’s website (www.erefdn.org) and
advertised in other media. Other unsolicited proposals (e.g., educational projects) are equally
welcome for EREF consideration. Descriptions of ongoing and previously completed grants and
projects may also be found on EREF’s website. Previously awarded grants have ranged from
$15,000 to over $500,000 with the average grant amount being $100,000.
Submissions of scientific research proposals related to sustainable solid waste management
practices are invited in the following areas:
Waste minimization.
Recycling.
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 187 10/22/12
Waste conversion to energy, biofuels, chemicals or other useful products. This
includes, but is not limited to, the following technologies:
- Waste-to-energy
- Pyrolysis/Gasification
- Oxidation
- Anaerobic digestion
- Composting
Strategies to promote diversion from landfills (e.g., separating organics, market
analysis, optimized material management, logistics, etc.).
There are two annual deadlines for solicited proposal submissions: January 5 and July 15 of each
year. Similarly, the two annual deadlines for unsolicited proposal submissions are: October 1
and May 21 of each year.24
The Town should consider collaborating with one of the area universities, specifically targeting
an anaerobic digestion feasibility study or pilot project and/or organics diversion project.
13.2.2 Southern Research Institute
The Southern Research Institute has developed a small scale (i.e., 2 tons per day) MSW
gasification plant in operation in nearby Durham, North Carolina. This facility is a pilot
demonstration plant, which is being funded under several grants. The throughput capacity and
purpose for this facility will not support a contribution of MSW feedstock from the Town.
However, SCS recommends that Town staff and Council coordinate a tour of this operation to
evaluate potential facility siting issues regarding alternative WC technologies and processes.
13.2.3 North Carolina Biofuel s Center
The long-term task of the Biofuels Center of North Carolina (Center) is to develop a statewide
biofuels industry sector to reduce the state's dependence on imported petroleum. The Center's
mandate to do so is from the North Carolina General Assembly and the framework for doing so
is provided by North Carolina's Strategic Plan for Biofuels Leadership. To achieve the goal of
having 10% of North Carolina’s liquid fuels grown, produced, and sold in-state within 10 years,
the Biofuels Center of North Carolina has awarded funds to academic institutions, economic
development organizations, nonprofit corporations and other entities across the state through a
competitive awards process. Biofuels Center grants and contracts are designed to identify and
bridge gaps in knowledge and information, speed the development of technology to industry, and
create a seamless continuum from agriculture to transportation fuels.25
The Center has an annual competitive grants program. In fiscal year 2011-2012, the Biofuels
Center of North Carolina awarded $1,479,949 through its grants program. The program awards
grants to nonprofit organizations and academic institutions across the state to help develop the
biofuels sector. Current funding for the 2011 and 2012 application period is closed; however,
24 www.erefdn.org/index.php/grants/proposal
25 www.biofuelscenter.org/index.php/grants
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 188 10/22/12
the Town could collaborate with an area university to prepare and apply for a grant pending in
2013. SCS’s review of past awards described on the Center’s website (www.biofuelscenter.org)
suggests that grant funds may be applied for the study of converting MSW into biofuel. An
example project may include anaerobic digestion of MSW and delivering biogas to supplement
the LFG collected from the Orange County Landfill and being combusted by UNC Chapel Hill.
13.2.4 USDA Rural Energy for America Program
The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) provides assistance to agricultural producers
and rural small businesses to complete a variety of projects. Offering both loan guarantees and
grants, the REAP program helps eligible applicants install renewable energy systems such as
anaerobic digesters or solar panels, and to conduct feasibility studies researching these systems.
Based on the program guidelines, the Town is likely not directly eligible as the program targets
agricultural producers directly engaged in the production of agricultural products (i.e., crops,
livestock, forestry products, hydroponics, nursery, and aquaculture) whereby 50% + or greater of
their gross income is derived from the operations. However, strategic collaboration with such
identified small businesses, along with the neighboring universities’ educational research
resources, to utilize the Town’s waste to contribute to a renewable energy project would present
an eligible project.
The maximum amount of a REAP Guaranteed Loan is $25 million per loan request. The
minimum loan amount is $5,000. Up to 75% of total eligible project costs can be covered
through the REAP Guaranteed Loan Program. The minimum Renewable Energy System Grant
request is $2,500 up to a maximum of 25% of eligible project costs or $500,000, whichever is
less. More information on these USDA programs may be found on their website
(www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Reap).
13.3 R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR F URTHER COLLA BORATION
EFFORTS
Based on our initial discussions with potential WC feasibility partners in the vicinity of the town,
SCS recommends that more, in-depth discussions take place with UNC to collaborate on an
anaerobic digestion project to manage the University and Town-generated organic waste. Firm
support for successful collaboration on such a project is demonstrated by:
The University appears to have a firm desire to become more “carbon neutral” by
employing more sustainable technologies to solve its solid waste management issues,
while, at the same time, provide more renewable energy supplies to replace coal.
Similarly, the Town’s newly adopted Comprehensive Plan outlines goals for reducing
community greenhouse gas emissions.
Boiler modifications have been completed to co-fire biogas and coal, and gas
transmission pipeline infrastructure has been constructed.
Source segregation of food waste has already been successfully demonstrated by
UNC, presenting a ready feedstock for a pilot project without encumbering additional
cost.
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 189 10/22/12
UNC operates successful yard waste processing and paper recycling operations on
campus which would further provide feedstock.
The Town generates a comparable volume of yard waste to contribute to the process
and can represent significant further gains in organic waste segregation from its
general population.
Many universities, such as the University of Wisconsin and Michigan State
University, are moving ahead with anaerobic digestion projects for their organic
materials.
To gain a more firm understanding of the technical and economic requirements to support such a
project, SCS recommends that the Town and UNC secure grant funding for an engineering
feasibility study for this project. SCS is aware of available funding through the North Carolina
Biofuels Center for the upcoming budget year. Exhibit 13-1 lists a contact summary for
collaboration efforts.
Exhibit 13 -1. Collaboration Contact Summary
Institution/Organization Contact Name Title/Role Contact Info
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill
Ms. B. J. Tipton Solid Waste Program
Manager
(919) 962-7251
btipton@fac.unc.edu
Mr. Eric Ripley Greenhouse Gas Specialist
Energy Services Dept.
(919) 843-7572
Eric.ripley@energy.unc.edu
Mr. Ray Dubuse Director
Energy Services Dept.
(919) 966-4100
Ray.DuBose@energy.unc.edu
Mr. Phil Barner Assistant Director
Energy Services Dept.
(919) 843-8305
Philip.Barner@energy.unc.edu
North Carolina State
University
Ms. Tracey Dixon University Sustainability
Director
(919) 513-0211
tadixon@ncsu.edu
Mr. Mort Barlaz Dept. of Civil Engineering (919) 515-7676
barlaz@unity.ncsu.edu
www4.ncsu.edu/~barlaz
Mr. Jack Colby Asst. Vice Chancellor for
Facilities Operation
(919) 515-2967
Jack_colby@ncsu.edu
Duke University Ms. Tavey McDaniel Sustainability Director (919) 660-1434
tavey.mcdaniel@duke.edu
Environmental Research and
Education Foundation
Mr. Brian Staley President (919) 861-6876
bstaley@erefdn.org
www.erefdn.org
Southern Research Institute Mr. Tim Hansen Director (919) 282-1050
(919) 282-1052
hansen@southernresearch.org
www.southernresearch.org
Biofuels Center of North
Carolina
(919) 693-3000
www.biofuelscenter.org
www.ncbiofuels.net
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 190 10/22/12
14.0 PRO FORMA EVALUATION
14.1 PURPOSE OF PRO FORMA
SCS developed a Pro Forma Model specifically for this Study to provide preliminary, planning-
level cost estimates and revenue projections to compare the alternative collection, disposal,
recycling, and other solid waste program scenarios considered for the Town during the course of
this Study. This section presents the structure, details, and sample results of the Pro Forma
Model and economic analyses. Full printouts of the pro forma model can be supplied to the
Town; however, due to the size of the pro forma output printouts and number of scenarios
considered in the analysis, this report only provides the summary tables for presentation
purposes. A 30-year planning period was selected to estimate the net present values of the
alternative scenarios considered.
The Pro Forma Model is a spreadsheet program that projects annual costs to construct, operate,
administer, and maintain the Town’s existing and hypothetical future solid waste collection,
processing, recycling, and disposal infrastructure. The model uses decision tree-type logic to
modify waste projections, collection and disposal costs and revenues estimates, select disposal
location (e.g., direct haul to an existing transfer station, construct a new transfer station, or direct
haul to a new or existing landfill), and schedule when certain program modifications are
implemented. The model addresses major capital and an operational cost to operate the Town’s
solid waste system under various assumptions and configurations as described in more detail
below.
The model is fairly complex. Various assumptions are made regarding annual solid waste
quantities, population projections, escalation rates for waste growth and costs, administration
costs, transportation costs, and landfill, waste-to-energy, and conversion technology processing
and disposal costs. The output from the model is an estimate of the net present value (NPV) of
each alternative strategy or scenario. NPV costs are calculated for each alternative scenario for
the 30-year planning period to allow for comparison of the scenarios from a cost perspective.
NPV is the current value of one or more future cash payments and offsetting revenues discounted
at an assumed interest rate. A NPV analysis is a useful tool in evaluating alternatives involving
complex cash flows. For this analysis, a lower NPV represents a more favorable scenario from
an overall cost perspective.
14.2 MAJOR COMPONENTS OF PRO FORMA MODEL
The structure and major assumptions of the Pro Forma Model are summarized below:
Model Structure. The Pro Forma Model is an excel spreadsheet that performs various
decision tree, cost allocation, and forecasting functions.
Waste Generation Estimates. As presented in Exhibit 14-1, waste generation
estimates were prepared based on historical data from the Town, including MSW
quantities collected from residential and commercial customers, and the quantities of
vegetative waste (i.e., yard waste), and bulky waste.
Comprehensive Revie w of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 191 10/22/12
- The waste generation scenarios modeled include the base case (status quo), and
implementing PAYT and/or an organics diversion programs (see Sections 7 and
Section 3, respectively). The scenarios demonstrate the theoretical decrease in
quantity of waste requiring transferring and landfilling if PAYT or organics
diversion programs are implemented.
- The waste generation and disposal quantities are escalated based on the projected
growth rates of 1.62% (projected average growth rate between now and 2035, see
Section 2.1.4). The projections associated with the baseline, PAYT, and organics
diversion scenarios are presented in Exhibit 14-1, Exhibit 14-2, and Exhibit 14-3
for fiscal years 2013 through 2022 (first 10 years) for illustrative purposes. These
estimates are input into other program elements in the Pro Forma Model
depending on the program scenario selected.
- For the organics diversion scenario, the assumption is made that the commercial
sector would also participate in the program. Achieving these reductions would
require substantial changes in the collection system, significant public education,
and development of a new facility or contract with an existing organics processing
facility as part of implementation.
Town Budget. The Town’s draft FY 2012-13 budget was initially used to structure
the pro forma model. The model inputs have updated to reflect the final approved
budget. However, there are some minor variances in the pro forma model compared
to the approved budget (about a $3000 variance) due to the assumed solid waste
disposal quantities and rounding. As a comparison, the pro forma budget used in
SCS’s analysis shows a total budget of $2.97 million compared to $2.98 million in the
approved budget.
- The budgets include the operational budget and capital expenditure budgets
proposed for FY 2012-13. The pro forma budget for FY 2012-13 is presented in
Exhibit 14-4. The Town’s budget was used to establish baseline functional costs
for collection and disposal services provided by the Town.
- The Town budget as reflected in the Pro Forma Model also includes additional
line item costs that address budget impacts from implementing potential new
programs considered as a part of this Study (e.g., constructing a new transfer
station, materials recovery facility, or organics processing facility, implementing a
PAYT program, direct hauling to an existing transfer station or landfill, or
modifying commercial collection practices). The Town’s budget is based on
funding for six residential collection routes. Additional discussions of the Town’s
residential and commercial collection system and options are provided in Sections
2, 4, and 5.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 192 10/22/12
Exhibit 14 -1. Solid Waste Projections, Town of Chapel Hill
Status Quo Scenario, FY 2012 - 2022
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Waste Type 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022
Total Solid Waste Collected By Town 18,220 18,510 18,830 19,120 19,420 19,750 20,080 20,400 20,720 21,070 21,410
Residential-MSW 6,670 6,780 6,890 7,000 7,110 7,230 7,350 7,470 7,580 7,710 7,840
Commercial-MSW 8,460 8,590 8,740 8,880 9,020 9,170 9,320 9,470 9,630 9,780 9,940
Commercial-Residential 4,500 4,570 4,650 4,720 4,800 4,880 4,960 5,040 5,120 5,200 5,290
Commercial-Business 3,960 4,020 4,090 4,160 4,220 4,290 4,360 4,430 4,510 4,580 4,650
Bulky Waste 170 170 180 180 180 180 190 190 190 200 200
Veg Waste 2,920 2,970 3,020 3,060 3,110 3,170 3,220 3,270 3,320 3,380 3,430
PAYT Changes
Residential MSW (inlcuding bulky waste, total reduction)- - - - - - - - - -
Yard Waste - - - - - - - - - -
Recycling - - - - - - - - - -
Reduction - - - - - - - - - -
Organics Diversion - - - - - - - - - -
Residential - - - - - - - - - -
Commercial - - - - - - - - - -
Total Solid Waste/Recycling 20,890 21,220 21,590 21,920 22,270 22,640 23,020 23,390 23,760 24,160 24,550
Landfilled 15,300 15,540 15,810 16,060 16,310 16,580 16,860 17,130 17,400 17,690 17,980
Residential 6,840 6,950 7,070 7,180 7,290 7,410 7,540 7,660 7,770 7,910 8,040
Commercial 8,460 8,590 8,740 8,880 9,020 9,170 9,320 9,470 9,630 9,780 9,940
Veg Waste 2,920 2,970 3,020 3,060 3,110 3,170 3,220 3,270 3,320 3,380 3,430
Curbside Recycling 2,670 2,710 2,760 2,800 2,850 2,890 2,940 2,990 3,040 3,090 3,140
1. All values are in units of tons.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 193 10/22/12
Exhibit 14 -2. Solid Waste Projections, Town of Chapel Hill
Implement PAYT Program, FY 2012 - 2 022
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Waste Type 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022
Total Solid Waste Collected By Town 18,220 18,510 18,040 18,310 18,610 18,920 19,230 19,550 19,850 20,180 20,510
Residential-MSW 6,670 6,780 5,720 5,800 5,910 6,000 6,090 6,210 6,290 6,390 6,510
Commercial-MSW 8,460 8,590 8,740 8,880 9,020 9,170 9,320 9,470 9,630 9,780 9,940
Commercial-Residential 4,500 4,570 4,650 4,720 4,800 4,880 4,960 5,040 5,120 5,200 5,290
Commercial-Business 3,960 4,020 4,090 4,160 4,220 4,290 4,360 4,430 4,510 4,580 4,650
Bulky Waste 170 170 180 180 180 180 190 190 190 200 200
Veg Waste 2,920 2,970 3,400 3,450 3,500 3,570 3,630 3,680 3,740 3,810 3,860
PAYT Changes
Residential MSW (inlcuding bulky waste, total reduction)- (1,170) (1,200) (1,200) (1,230) (1,260) (1,260) (1,290) (1,320) (1,330)
Yard Waste - 380 390 390 400 410 410 420 430 430
Recycling - 380 390 390 400 410 410 420 430 430
Reduction - (410) (420) (420) (430) (440) (440) (450) (460) (470)
Organics Diversion - - - - - - - - - -
Residential - - - - - - - - - -
Commercial - - - - - - - - - -
Total Solid Waste/Recycling 20,890 21,220 20,010 20,300 20,650 20,980 21,320 21,690 22,020 22,380 22,750
Landfilled 15,300 15,540 13,470 13,660 13,910 14,120 14,340 14,610 14,820 15,050 15,320
Residential 6,840 6,950 5,900 5,980 6,090 6,180 6,280 6,400 6,480 6,590 6,710
Commercial 8,460 8,590 8,740 8,880 9,020 9,170 9,320 9,470 9,630 9,780 9,940
Veg Waste 2,920 2,970 3,400 3,450 3,500 3,570 3,630 3,680 3,740 3,810 3,860
Curbside Recycling 2,670 2,710 3,140 3,190 3,240 3,290 3,350 3,400 3,460 3,520 3,570
1. All values are in units of tons.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 194 10/22/12
Exhibit 14 -3. Solid Waste Projections, Town of Chapel Hill
Implement Organics Diversion and PAYT Program, FY 2012 - 2022
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Waste Type 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022
Total Solid Waste Collected By Town 18,220 18,510 18,040 18,310 18,610 18,920 19,230 19,550 19,850 20,180 20,510
Residential-MSW 6,670 6,780 5,720 5,800 5,910 6,000 6,090 6,210 6,290 6,390 6,510
Commercial-MSW 8,460 8,590 8,740 8,880 9,020 9,170 9,320 9,470 9,630 9,780 9,940
Commercial-Residential 4,500 4,570 4,650 4,720 4,800 4,880 4,960 5,040 5,120 5,200 5,290
Commercial-Business 3,960 4,020 4,090 4,160 4,220 4,290 4,360 4,430 4,510 4,580 4,650
Bulky Waste 170 170 180 180 180 180 190 190 190 200 200
Veg Waste 2,920 2,970 3,400 3,450 3,500 3,570 3,630 3,680 3,740 3,810 3,860
PAYT Changes
Residential MSW (inlcuding bulky waste, total reduction)- (1,170) (1,200) (1,200) (1,230) (1,260) (1,260) (1,290) (1,320) (1,330)
Yard Waste - 380 390 390 400 410 410 420 430 430
Recycling - 380 390 390 400 410 410 420 430 430
Reduction - (410) (420) (420) (430) (440) (440) (450) (460) (470)
Organics Diversion - 1,240 1,260 1,280 1,300 1,320 1,340 1,370 1,390 1,410
Residential - 1,240 1,260 1,280 1,300 1,320 1,340 1,370 1,390 1,410
Commercial - - - - - - - - - -
Total Solid Waste/Recycling 20,890 21,220 20,010 20,300 20,650 20,980 21,320 21,690 22,020 22,380 22,750
Landfilled 15,300 15,540 12,230 12,400 12,630 12,820 13,020 13,270 13,450 13,660 13,910
Residential 6,840 6,950 4,660 4,720 4,810 4,880 4,960 5,060 5,110 5,200 5,300
Commercial 8,460 8,590 8,740 8,880 9,020 9,170 9,320 9,470 9,630 9,780 9,940
Veg Waste 2,920 2,970 3,400 3,450 3,500 3,570 3,630 3,680 3,740 3,810 3,860
Curbside Recycling 2,670 2,710 3,140 3,190 3,240 3,290 3,350 3,400 3,460 3,520 3,570
1. All values are in units of tons.
Comprehensive Review of
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 195 10/22/12
Exhibit 14 -4. Pro Forma Budget Summary for FY 2012 -13
Scenario: A, New route, City of Durham TS, No Automate
Residential Scenario A
Annual Budget
Total
($)Annual Budget
Total
($)Annual Budget
Total
($)
2013 2013 2013
Item 6/30/2013 Item 6/30/2013 Item 6/30/2013
TOWN SOLID WASTE BUDGET
Collection Personnel Services Collection Operating Expenses NEW PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES -
Salaries - Full-Time 1,632,400 Professional Services 500 -
Other Pay 1,900 Personnel Agency Payments 9,000 PAYT -
Salaries - Temporary - Business Meetings & Training 4,600 Transfer Station & Hauling -
Workers Comp Insurance 51,800 Career Development Training 1,100 Transfer Station -
Additional Labor From Direct Haul - Dues & Subscriptions - Hauling Operations -
Subtotal, Collection Personnel Services 1,686,100 Pagers - Yard Waste Processing Facility -
Cellular Phones - New Landfill (Included in Charges by Landfill above)-
Advertising 2,500 Organics Diversion -
Personnel Advertising - Collection -
Equipment Rentals - Disposal -
Uniform Rentals 12,500 Subtotal, New Program Alternatives -
Landfill Fines 2,500
Charges by Landfill 939,300 TOTAL BUDGET, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 3,361,300
Collection Scenario Allocation Percentages By Function FY 2013 MSW 885,800 Capital Outlay
Residential A Yard Waste 53,500 Collection Vehicles 20,000
Commercial A Fleet Use Charges 200,400 Transfer Station -
Cost Allocation %Fleet Use Charges 200,400 Transfer Station -
Tonnage Additional Fleet Use Charges for Direct Haul - Transfer Hauling Equipmeent -
Residential 44.7%Vehicle Replacement Charges 310,600 New Landfill (Included as Tip Fee Above under disposal)-
Commercial 55.3%County Budgeted Vehicle Replacement Charge 310,600 Landfill Equipment -
Commercial-Residential (multi-family)29.4%New Vehicle for new route - Landfill Construction -
Commercial-Business 25.9%Automatic carts, 95 gallon - Vegetative Waste Processing Facility -
Staff #Misc. Contracted Services 22,000 Organics Processing Facility (private: not owned by Town)-
Residential 80.8%Supplies 49,000 New Automated Collection Carts -
Commercial 19.2%Fuel 121,200 PAYT - Trash Cans -
Commercial-Residential (multi-family)10.2%Vehicle Fuel 121,200 Subtotal Capital Outlay 20,000
Commercial-Business 9.0%Additional Fuel Charge for Direct Haul - REVENUE -
Truck Fuel & OM Costs Subtotal, Operation Expenses 1,675,200 Garbage Collection Revenue (Commercial front load service)312,000
Residential 87%Special Trash Collection (bulky, white goods, yard waste, etc.)8,000
Commercial 13%Compactor Fees (2 downtown compactors)40,000
Commercial-Residential (multi-family)0%Garbage Citations (Commercial and residential)3,000
Commercial-Business 13%Sales: Yard Waste Carts 3,000
Miscellaneous Contract Services Solid Waste Disposal Tax 21,000
Residential 22%Total, Revenue, $387,000
Commercial 78%-
Commercial-Residential (multi-family)39%Net Costs (not including Capital Outlay) - Revenue 2,974,300
Commercial-Business 39%
Notes:
1. Residential Scenario “A” is status quo
2. Commercial Sceanrio “A” is status quo
3. Percentages may vary by year depending on scenario being evaluated.
1. Residential Scenario “A” is status quo.
2. Commercial Scenario “A” is status quo.
3. Percentages may vary by year depending on scenarios
being evaluated
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 196 10/22/12
Cost Allocation by Function. The Town’s budget is allocated between residential and
commercial collection services. The color highlighted areas in Exhibit 14-4 show the
groupings used by the Town to allocate costs to commercial or residential functions
either by personnel count, equipment count or some other basis. SCS reviewed the
allocation methodology used by the Town. The allocation methodology appears
reasonable. We made some slight modifications associated with maintenance costs.
The current methodology allocates these costs between residential and commercial
services as a function of the number of trucks assigned to each service. We used the
actual historical O&M cost data provided by the Town for each vehicle to allocate the
O&M costs. The Town provided guidance on the assignment of personnel to
residential or commercial functions. A summary of the allocation percentages
between residential and commercial services is provided in Exhibit 14-4.
Fleet Usage, Fuel Costs (Operation and Maintenance), and Equipment Capital Cost.
The Town maintains records on the maintenance costs for the solid waste collection
vehicles, including fuel, maintenance and mileage statistics on a year-to-date and
cumulative basis. As fuel prices fluctuate and for this analysis, a rate of $2.91 per
gallon for diesel fuel was used. The Town’s records also include the date of purchase
and the purchase value for the collection equipment. SCS assumed that vehicles
would be replaced on a 7-year cycle, and those costs amortized over a 7-year period.
No salvage value was assigned to equipment as a part of this economic analysis.
Including salvage value would reduce estimated capital expenditures and amortized
costs; therefore, the capital expenditure and amortized cost projections provided
herein are conservative.
Capital Costs. The Pro Forma Model keeps track of the major capital expenditures
associated with the various program scenarios evaluated. The amortized expenses for
the various capital expenditures are included in the budget based on an interest rate of
4% (a variable which can be adjusted). The amortization period varies depending on
the asset. For heavy equipment, a 7 year amortization period is assumed in most
cases. For large facility expenses such as development of a transfer station or new
landfill, 20 to 30 year amortization periods are selected.
Revenue. The Town receives revenue from various sources as shown in Exhibit 14-
6. The largest revenue source is fees from commercial collection services. A more
detailed discussion on revenue sources is provided in Section 2.3. In addition, an
evaluation of the commercial collection services, rates, and the changes in revenue
that could occur if commercial services were modified or eliminated is presented in
Appendix A.
Market Assumptions for Alternative Disposal Facilities. SCS conducted a survey of
available transfer stations and landfills within a 200-mile radius of the Town. The
reported tip fees (see Section 2.2) ranged from $28 to $60 per ton. We understand
that the reported market tip fees may vary for a given site depending on the owner of
the facility, its relationship with those using the facility, the quantity of waste being
disposed, and market conditions at any given time. However, the tip fees seem
consistent with current market conditions encountered by SCS in the region. The
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 197 10/22/12
reported tip fees and estimated travel distances to these facilities were used to
calculate total disposal costs and transfer costs for the alternative disposal facilities in
close proximity to the Town (see Section 2.2, Section 6, and Section 10).
Escalation Rate. SCS assumed a 3% inflation rate for projecting future costs. Over
the last 22 years, the change in the Consumer Price Index, as reported by the Bureau
of Labor and Statistics, has ranged from -0.4% (2009) to 4.2% (1990), with an
average of 2.6% and median of 2.8%. A 3% escalation is within the range of
historical inflation rates (Bureau of Labor and Statistics, U.S. Consumer Price Index
Tables 1912-2011).
Interest and Discount Rates
- Borrow/Financing Rate: 4%
- Discount Rate: 5%. The discount rate is used to estimate the net present value of
the Town’s potential future solid waste scenarios in order to compare alternatives
with varying yearly expenditures.
Dollar Basis. Calendar Year 2012
14.3 PROGRAM COST MODULES
The following program cost modules were developed and incorporated into the Pro Forma
Model (see referenced sections below for more detailed information on specific technologies and
facilities evaluated):
Disposal
- Direct Haul to Transfer Station (see Section 6)
- Direct Haul to Landfill (see Section 10)
- New Transfer Station (Town-only or Regional) (see Section 7)
- New Material Recovery Facility (see Section 9, not included in pro forma
summary options)
- Landfill (Town-only or Regional) (see Section 11)
- Organics Management (see Section 4)
- Yard Waste Management
- Waste-to-Energy (evaluated but not included in cost model due to high cost and
other impediments to practical implementation)
Collection
- Status quo
- Automated collection
- Additional requirements for direct hauling to landfill or transfer station
- Commercial collection options: Status Quo, keep multi-family collection,
eliminate commercial collection.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 198 10/22/12
PAYT
Organics diversion and conversion technologies
Capital, operation and maintenance costs were estimated for various program scenarios
considered. In addition, fuel consumption was also calculated for the transfer alternatives to
provide a comparison of the consumption on non-renewable fossil fuel resources. Tip fees were
estimated for Town-only facilities and market conditions assumed for other transfer and landfill
facilities. A net annual cost and NPV calculation was estimated for each program scenario over
a 30-year period, and the results compared.
14.4 PRO FORMA RESULTS
The pro forma cost analysis results are included and discussed in the report sections as
applicable. The Pro Forma Model allows for the assessment of the Town’s projected budgetary
costs as a function of various program decisions, and through NPV calculations, the ability to
compare the financial implications of complex program decisions over an extended period (e.g.,
30 years). An example listing of “Program Scenarios” and program decision inputs into the Pro
Forma Model is provided in Exhibit 14-5.
The Pro Forma Model considers each of these program decisions inputs, calculates staffing
changes and costs, equipment changes and costs, inputs new program or facility costs as
appropriate (e.g., direct haul to a landfill or transfer station, construction of a new transfer
station, implementing a PAYT program), accounts for whether solid waste will be disposed at an
existing transfer station or another private or municipal landfill, and schedules these changes
based on assumptions regarding the year a given change will be implemented (e.g., when a new
transfer station would be constructed, if a regional landfill was constructed, when it might be
available). The Pro Forma Model automatically varies the potential disposal locations and
adjusts costs accordingly (see Sections 6, 7, 10, and 11).
Example outputs of the Pro Forma Model and the NPV summary calculations are provided in
Exhibit 14-6 and Exhibit 14-7, respectively. From the summary NPV table, general conclusions
can be inferred as to what course of action might be the most cost-effective. In this example, the
following conclusions could be considered based on a review of the summary NPV calculations
for the scenarios evaluated:
Direct Hauling to either the City of Durham Transfer Station or Austin Quarter SW
Management Facility (Alamance County) appears to be the most cost-effective short-
term disposal options. Direct hauling to the Waste Industries transfer station in
Durham or to the South Wake Landfill are other options that yield similarly cost-
effective results. However, both the Wake County and Alamance County landfills are
currently designated exclusively for waste generated within those counties only.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 199 10/22/12
Exhibit 14 -5. Example Program Scenarios and Decision Inputs
Program Choices
Live
Input Program Choices Scenarios
A A B C D E F G H I
Inputs to Assumptions Worksheet
Commercial Collection
Keep Commercial-Business (Yes/No?)Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Keep Multi-Family Collection (Yes/No?)Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Year if Privatize Commercial 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014
Automation
Begin Phase I Purchase of Automation, (Yes/No?)No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Begin Phase I Purchase of Automation, Year 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014
Begin Phase II Automation (Yes/No?)No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Begin Phase II Automation Year 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
PAYT
PAYT Program? (Yes/No?)No No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes
PAYT MSW Reduction, %0.17 17%17%17%17%17%17%17%17%17%
Fiscal Year to Implement PAYT 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
Organics Diversion
Organics Diversion Program? (Yes/No?)No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes
Organics Diversion Program Begin, Year 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
New Landfill
New Landfill, Town Only No No No No No No No No No No
New Landfill, Regional No No No No No No No No Yes Yes
Year to Construct 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018
Year to Operate 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019
Residential Collection Days
3-Day Per Week Residential Yes
2-Day Per Week Residential No Note: The Program Scenario designations of “A”-“I” are used as placeholders/markers in the pro forma model and represent distinct groupings of major system
assumptions that affect a given program scenario.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 200 10/22/12
Exhibit 14 -6. Example Pro Forma Output FY 2013 - 2022
Scenario: A, New route, City of Durham TS, No Automate Residential
Scenario A Full Costs
Annual Budget 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Item 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022
TOWN SOLID WASTE BUDGET
Collection Personnel Services
Salaries - Full-Time (Includes Benefits)1,632,400 1,681,400 1,731,800 1,783,800 1,837,300 1,892,400 1,949,200 2,007,600 2,067,900 2,129,900
Other Pay 1,900 2,000 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,400 2,500
Workers Comp Insurance 51,800 53,300 54,900 56,600 58,300 60,000 61,800 63,700 65,600 67,500
Additional Labor From Direct Haul - - - - - - - - - -
Subtotal, Collection Personnel Services 1,686,100 1,736,700 1,788,700 1,842,500 1,897,800 1,954,600 2,013,300 2,073,700 2,135,900 2,199,900
Collection Operating Expenses
Professional Services 500 500 500 500 600 600 600 600 600 700
Personnel Agency Payments 9,000 9,300 9,500 9,800 10,100 10,400 10,700 11,100 11,400 11,700
Business Meetings & Training 4,600 4,700 4,900 5,000 5,200 5,300 5,500 5,700 5,800 6,000
Career Development Training 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,200 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,400
Advertising 2,500 2,600 2,700 2,700 2,800 2,900 3,000 3,100 3,200 3,300
Uniform Rentals 12,500 12,900 13,300 13,700 14,100 14,500 14,900 15,400 15,800 16,300
Landfill Fines 2,500 2,600 2,700 2,700 2,800 2,900 3,000 3,100 3,200 3,300
Charges by Landfill 939,300 748,100 782,500 818,700 857,400 898,000 939,600 982,900 1,029,500 1,077,600
MSW 885,800 692,200 724,100 757,400 793,000 830,700 869,300 909,500 952,400 997,000
Yard Waste 53,500 55,900 58,400 61,300 64,400 67,300 70,300 73,400 77,100 80,600
Fleet Use Charges 200,400 300,100 309,300 318,400 328,200 338,000 348,200 358,400 369,800 380,600
Vehicle Replacement Charges 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600
County Budgeted Vehicle Replacement Charge 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600 310,600
New Vehicle for new route - - - - - - - - - -
Automatic carts, 95 gallon - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Contracted Services 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000
Supplies 49,000 50,500 52,000 53,500 55,100 56,800 58,500 60,300 62,100 63,900
Fuel 121,200 188,500 194,400 200,100 206,100 212,300 218,800 225,200 231,700 238,800
Vehicle Fuel 121,200 124,700 128,600 132,400 136,300 140,400 144,800 149,000 153,200 157,900
Additional Fuel Charge for Direct Haul - 63,800 65,800 67,700 69,800 71,900 74,000 76,200 78,500 80,900
Subtotal, Operation Expenses 1,675,200 1,653,500 1,705,500 1,758,800 1,816,200 1,875,500 1,936,700 1,999,700 2,067,000 2,136,200
NEW PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
PAYT - - - - - - - - - -
Transfer Station & Hauling - - - - - - - - - -
Yard Waste Processing Facility - - - - - - - - - -
New Landfill (Included in Charges by Landfill above)
Organics Diversion - - - - - - - - - -
Subtotal, New Program Alternatives - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL BUDGET, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 3,361,300 3,390,200 3,494,200 3,601,300 3,714,000 3,830,100 3,950,000 4,073,400 4,202,900 4,336,100
REVENUE
Garbage Collection Revenue (Commercial front load service)312,000 322,000 331,000 342,000 352,000 362,000 373,000 384,000 396,000 408,000
Special Trash Collection (bulky, white goods, yard waste, etc.)8,000 8,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 11,000
Compactor Fees (2 downtown compactors)40,000 41,000 43,000 44,000 45,000 47,000 48,000 49,000 51,000 52,000
Garbage Citations (Commercial and residential)3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 4,000
Sales: Yard Waste Carts 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Solid Waste Disposal Tax 21,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 25,000 26,000 27,000
Total, Revenue, $387,000 398,000 411,000 424,000 435,000 450,000 463,000 475,000 491,000 506,000
Net Costs (not including Capital Outlay) - Revenue 2,974,300 2,992,200 3,083,200 3,177,300 3,279,000 3,380,100 3,487,000 3,598,400 3,711,900 3,830,100
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 201 10/22/12
Exhibit 14 -7. Example Output Summary F rom Pro Forma Model, Net Present Value of Program Scenario
3 -day Per Week and 2 -day P er Week Pickup Schedules
Disposal Options (NPV in $Million, Discount Factor of 5% over 30 years)
DH to TS DH to TS DH to TS DH to TS DH to TS
New TS:TS to
LF
New TS:TS to
LF
New TS:TS to
LF
New TS:TS to
LF
New TS:TS to
LF
New TS:TS to
LF
New TS:TS to
LF Direct to LF Direct to LF Direct to LF Direct to LF Direct to LF Direct to LF Direct to LF
Program
Scenario
Initial LF/TS City of
Durham TS
Waste
Industries -
Durham
Transfer
Station
WMI - Raleigh
Transfer
Station
Siler City
Transfer
Station
East Wake
Transfer
Station
Austin
Quarter SW
Management
Facility /
Alamance
County
South Wake
Landfill
Upper
Piedmont
Environmental
Landfill
Rockingham
County
Landfill
Southside
Regional
Landfill
Uwharrie -
Montgomery
Hanes Mill
Road LF
Austin
Quarter SW
Management
Facility /
Alamance
County
South Wake
Landfill
Upper
Piedmont
Environmental
Landfill
Rockingham
County
Landfill
Southside
Regional
Landfill
Uwharrie -
Montgomery
Hanes Mill
Road LF
Collection Scenario: 3 Day Per Week Pickup
A No New Program, No Automation, Keep
Commercial $66.2 $65.7 $72.3 $71.4 $69.1 $75.0 $71.3 $72.5 $74.1 $73.8 $71.8 $73.2 $64.4 $68.6 $72.0 $84.6 $85.6 $86.6 $87.8
B No New Programs, Eliminate Commercial-
Business, Keep Multi-Family $66.0 $65.7 $70.5 $70.7 $69.3 $75.0 $72.3 $73.2 $74.3 $74.2 $72.6 $73.6 $64.6 $69.3 $72.3 $84.0 $85.0 $86.4 $87.3
C No New Programs, Eliminate All Commercial $55.8 $55.6 $58.5 $59.2 $58.7 $66.0 $64.3 $64.9 $65.6 $65.5 $64.5 $65.2 $54.9 $59.1 $61.5 $70.9 $71.7 $73.0 $73.6
D Automate Residential Collection, Keep
Commercial $57.3 $56.8 $63.4 $62.2 $59.8 $66.3 $62.7 $63.9 $65.4 $65.2 $63.1 $64.5 $55.4 $59.0 $62.1 $73.4 $74.2 $74.9 $76.1
E Automate Residential Collection, PAYT, Keep
Commercial $55.8 $55.4 $61.0 $60.6 $58.7 $64.8 $61.7 $62.7 $64.1 $63.9 $62.1 $63.3 $54.2 $58.2 $61.2 $72.3 $73.2 $74.1 $75.2
F Automate Residential Collection, No PATY,
Organics Diversion, Keep Commercial $75.4 $74.9 $81.0 $80.2 $78.0 $84.4 $81.0 $82.1 $83.6 $83.4 $81.4 $82.7 $73.7 $77.5 $80.5 $91.6 $92.5 $93.3 $94.5
G Automate Residential Collection, PAYT,
Organics Diversion, Keep Commercial $73.9 $73.6 $78.7 $78.6 $77.0 $83.0 $80.1 $81.0 $82.2 $82.1 $80.4 $81.5 $72.5 $76.7 $79.6 $90.6 $91.5 $92.5 $93.5
H New Regional Landfill, Automation, Keep
Commercial, No PAYT, No Organics Diversion $57.3 $56.8 $63.4 $62.2 $59.8 $67.3 $66.7 $66.9 $67.2 $67.1 $66.8 $67.0 $56.8 $63.0 $65.2 $75.4 $76.4 $78.6 $78.8
I New Regional Landfill, Automation, Keep
Commercial, PAYT, Organics Diversion $73.9 $73.6 $78.7 $78.6 $77.0 $83.7 $83.2 $83.4 $83.6 $83.6 $83.3 $83.5 $73.5 $79.8 $82.0 $92.1 $93.1 $95.4 $95.6
Collection Scenario: 2 Day Per Week Pickup
A No New Program, No Automation, Keep
Commercial $71.1 $70.6 $77.2 $76.2 $73.7 $79.9 $76.2 $77.4 $78.9 $78.7 $76.6 $78.0 $69.2 $73.0 $76.4 $88.9 $89.9 $90.9 $92.1
B No New Programs, Eliminate Commercial-
Business, Keep Multi-Family $71.1 $70.8 $75.7 $75.7 $74.1 $80.1 $77.4 $78.3 $79.4 $79.3 $77.7 $78.7 $69.7 $74.0 $77.0 $88.7 $89.7 $91.1 $92.0
C No New Programs, Eliminate All Commercial $60.8 $60.6 $63.5 $64.1 $63.4 $71.0 $69.3 $69.9 $70.6 $70.5 $69.5 $70.2 $59.9 $63.7 $66.0 $75.4 $76.2 $77.5 $78.1
D Automate Residential Collection, Keep
Commercial $64.5 $64.0 $70.5 $69.4 $66.8 $73.3 $69.7 $70.9 $72.4 $72.2 $70.1 $71.5 $62.4 $65.5 $68.4 $79.4 $80.2 $80.8 $82.0
E Automate Residential Collection, PAYT, Keep
Commercial $63.0 $62.6 $68.2 $67.8 $65.7 $71.8 $68.7 $69.7 $71.1 $70.9 $69.1 $70.3 $61.2 $64.7 $67.5 $78.3 $79.2 $80.0 $81.1
F Automate Residential Collection, No PATY,
Organics Diversion, Keep Commercial $82.6 $82.1 $88.2 $87.4 $85.1 $91.4 $88.0 $89.2 $90.6 $90.4 $88.4 $89.7 $80.6 $83.9 $86.8 $97.7 $98.5 $99.3 $100.4
G Automate Residential Collection, PAYT,
Organics Diversion, Keep Commercial $81.1 $80.8 $85.9 $85.8 $84.0 $90.0 $87.1 $88.0 $89.2 $89.1 $87.4 $88.5 $79.4 $83.2 $85.9 $96.6 $97.5 $98.5 $99.4
H New Regional Landfill, Automation, Keep
Commercial, No PAYT, No Organics Diversion $64.5 $64.0 $70.5 $69.4 $66.8 $74.3 $73.7 $73.9 $74.2 $74.1 $73.8 $74.0 $63.7 $69.5 $71.5 $81.4 $82.4 $84.5 $84.7
I New Regional Landfill, Automation, Keep
Commercial, PAYT, Organics Diversion $81.1 $80.8 $85.9 $85.8 $84.0 $90.7 $90.2 $90.4 $90.6 $90.6 $90.3 $90.5 $80.4 $86.3 $88.3 $98.1 $99.1 $101.3 $101.5
Long-term TS/LF
City of
Durham TS
Waste
Industries -
Durham
Transfer
Station
WMI - Raleigh
Transfer
Station
Siler City
Transfer
Station
East Wake
Transfer
Station
Austin
Quarter SW
Management
Facility /
Alamance
County
South Wake
Landfill
Upper
Piedmont
Environmental
Landfill
Rockingham
County
Landfill
Southside
Regional
Landfill
Uwharrie -
Montgomery
Hanes Mill
Road LF
Austin
Quarter SW
Management
Facility /
Alamance
County
South Wake
Landfill
Upper
Piedmont
Environmental
Landfill
Rockingham
County
Landfill
Southside
Regional
Landfill
Uwharrie -
Montgomery
Hanes Mill
Road LF
Notes:
DH to TS = Direct Haul to Transfer Station
New TS: TS to LF = Construct new Transfer Station and transfer to landfill.
Direct to LF = Direct haul to a landfill outside of the Town and Orange County.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Dispos al Options
v2.1 202 10/22/12
Changing the residential collection schedule could provide cost savings to the Town
and provide for better utilization of personnel and equipment. Changing the
collection days would require rescheduling and re-routing for MSW and yard waste
collections. More detailed routing studies are needed to assess the current
performance of the residential collection system to develop an optimized routing
network.
Automating the Town’s collection fleet appears to provide long-term potential cost
savings, primarily through reduction in staffing costs (automated trucks require fewer
people than the Town’s current manual rear loader collection fleet).
Implementing a PAYT program could potentially reduce the amount of waste
requiring disposal and reduce long-term costs to the Town. The PAYT program costs
include additional administrative support costs and the capital requirements for the
purchase of collection containers and periodic replacement of these containers.
Constructing a new transfer station within the Town limits and contracting with a
landfill for disposal appears to yield only slightly higher costs to the Town when
compared to direct hauling the MSW to other landfills as a long-term solution.
Given the relatively low quantities of waste generated by the Town, implementing an
organics diversion program (residential and/or commercial) would likely increase the
Town’s solid waste management costs; however, this conclusion would need to be
reviewed periodically as new organic processing facilities are developed in the
region. The costs included in the organics diversion analysis include additional costs
for the separate collection of organics and processing costs. The Town should also
consider public private partnerships that might improve the financial feasibility of
organics diversion.
Other non-quantitative factors (such as those related to risk management, environmental impacts,
socio-economic issues, sustainability, etc.) also need to be considered before a final decision is
made regarding the “best” scenario for the Town.
Comprehensiv e Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
Appendix A
Commercial Collections Evaluation
Comprehensiv e Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -1 10/22/12
EVALUATION OF THE TO WN’S COMMERCIAL SOLI D
W ASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
The pro forma model developed by SCS to evaluate the various solid waste program options for
the Town also provides an estimate of the allocated costs for residential and commercial
collection. The pro forma model further allocates the commercial collection costs between
commercial-multi-family and commercial-business. The cost allocations were developed in
conjunction with Town staff taking into account personnel and equipment assignments between
residential and commercial collection functions. With this allocation, the cost of each service the
Town provides can be compared against alternative delivery options such as contracting out,
modifying, or eliminating services (e.g., commercial-business, commercial-multi-family, or
both). A discussion of the methodology used to allocate the residential and commercial costs is
provided below. In addition, commentary is provided on the Town’s current commercial
collection rates. The impact of either completely eliminating commercial collection services, or
just providing commercial-multi-family collection services also is discussed.
SUMMARY O F TOWN COMMERCIAL WA STE COLLECTION
SERVICES
As previously described in Section 2 of this Study, the Town currently provides both residential
and commercial collection services. The Residential Collection service includes only single
family residences and select multi-family complexes provided with roll-cart waste receptacles.
The Commercial Collection service includes multi-family complexes, governmental buildings,
schools, and commercial businesses; who primarily maintain front loader capable bulk
dumpsters. In addition, a number of commercial customers, who either represent low disposal
volumes or where dumpster space is limited, utilize roll-cart service similar to the residential
collections. MSW collections from these customers are serviced by rear loader collection
vehicles; therefore, these customers are not included in this analysis.
Single-family residential collection is provided once per week for each residence, performed
over two (2) days, and is indirectly funded through the Town’s annual tax rates. Similarly,
multi-family residences, utilizing the Town dumpster services, are provided one collection per
week through the commercial collection network. Additional pickups for multi-family
customers, beyond the allocated once per week rate, are paid for separately in accordance with
the Town’s published rate structure. Respectively, the Town’s true, commercial customers pay
for collection and disposal service in accordance with this published rate structure. In all
commercial sector scenarios, the customer owns or rents their dumpster receptacle from the
private sector (e.g., Waste Industries, Waste Management, etc.). The Town does not engage in
container sales or rental.
COMMERCIAL COLLECTIO N SERVICES FINANCIAL EVALUATION
Evaluation Method ology
SCS evaluated the Commercial Collections system, costs, and rate structure that the Town
currently charges commercial businesses for collection and disposal of municipal solid waste.
Comprehensiv e Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -2 10/22/12
The Town’s current commercial rates are presented in Exhibit A-1. The rates are structured as a
function of the size of container and the frequency of pickup.
The methodology used by SCS to evaluate the Town’s commercial collections system costs and
rate structure is summarized below:
1. SCS prepared an annual budget estimate for residential and commercial solid waste
services for FY 2012-13, based on the Town’s budget structure (see Exhibit A-2). SCS
pro forma budget has very minor differences from the Town’s draft FY 2012-13 budget
because of differing assumptions on waste quantities, and other minor adjustments;
however, these differences are not material.
2. SCS then allocated personnel salaries and budget line item costs to their respective
residential and commercial functions based on our understanding of the Town’s Solid
Waste Services Division organization. Exhibit A-3 shows the assumed top-level
residential and commercial cost allocations.
3. SCS then further subdivided the allocated commercial sector costs by allocating these
commercial costs into two (2) separate categories: commercial-multi-family customers
and commercial-businesses customers based on estimated volumes of waste collected
from each commercial category (e.g., multi-family, businesses, schools, etc.) (see Exhibit
A-5 and Exhibit A-6).
4. SCS evaluated the Town’s commercial customer database and compiled the projected
theoretical collection capacity per year in cubic yards and tons for each account type
(e.g., business, restaurant, multi-family, etc.). The total collection capacity for each
account type was calculated by adding the total number of containers of each size (i.e., 2,
4, 6, and 8 cy) for all collections accounts and including the collection frequency (i.e., 1
to 4 days per week). SCS calculated a total collection capacity of 6,038 cubic yards per
week.
5. Using these collections data and the Town’s projected Commercial Collections costs,
SCS calculated the cost to pick each container and a cost per cubic yard for collection and
disposal, as a function of container size and collection frequency. From these data, SCS
developed a pro forma Commercial Collections rate table for comparison to the Town’s
existing rate structure (see Exhibit A-7).
6. Next, SCS assessed the “theoretical collection capacity” of the total number of dumpsters
dispatched compared to the actual quantities of waste collected (in tons) to assess
utilization factor of collection capacity (see bottom section of Exhibit A-5).
7. SCS estimated the rate for collecting a single dumpster to be based on allocated costs and
the assumption that the dumpster is 70% full (see Exhibit A-8).
Comprehensiv e Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -3 10/22/12
Exhibit A -1. Town of Chapel Hill Commercial Collection Fees,
FY 2012 -13
Source: http://www.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us/index.aspx?page=1142
Comprehensiv e Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -4 10/22/12
Exhibit A -2. Projected FY 2012 -13 Solid Waste Budget
Scenario: Current, No new route, Orange County LF, No Automate
Residential Scenario A
Annual Budget
Residential
Allocation
($)
Commercial
Allocation
($)
Commercial-
Multi-Family
($)
Commercial-
Business
($)
Total
($)
2013 2013 2013 2013 2013
Item 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013
TOWN SOLID WASTE BUDGET
Collection Personnel Services
Salaries - Full-Time (Including Benefits)1,408,600 223,800 119,100 104,700 1,632,400
Other Pay 1,900 - - - 1,900
Workers Comp Insurance 41,800 10,000 5,300 4,700 51,800
Subtotal, Collection Personnel Services 1,452,300 233,800 124,400 109,400 1,686,100
Collection Operating Expenses
Professional Services 400 100 100 - 500
Personnel Agency Payments 7,300 1,700 900 800 9,000
Business Meetings & Training 3,700 900 500 400 4,600
Career Development Training 900 200 100 100 1,100
Advertising 2,000 500 300 200 2,500
Uniform Rentals 10,100 2,400 1,300 1,100 12,500
Landfill Fines 1,100 1,400 700 700 2,500
Charges by Landfill 449,700 489,600 260,500 229,100 939,300
MSW 396,200 489,600 260,500 229,100 885,800
Yard Waste 53,500 - - - 53,500
Fleet Use Charges 166,400 34,000 - 34,000 200,400
Vehicle Replacement Charges 270,200 40,400 - 40,400 310,600
Misc. Contracted Services 4,800 17,300 8,600 8,600 22,000
Supplies 39,600 9,400 5,000 4,400 49,000
Fuel 93,600 27,600 - 27,600 121,200
Subtotal, Operation Expenses 1,049,800 625,500 278,000 347,400 1,675,200
TOTAL BUDGET, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 2,502,100 859,300 402,400 456,800 3,361,300
REVENUE
Garbage Collection Revenue (Commercial front load service)- 312,000 47,000 265,000 312,000
Special Trash Collection (bulky, white goods, yard waste, etc.)8,000 - - - 8,000
Compactor Fees (2 downtown compactors)- 40,000 - 40,000 40,000
Garbage Citations (Commercial and residential)1,300 1,700 700 1,000 3,000
Sales: Yard Waste Carts 3,000 - - - 3,000
Solid Waste Disposal Tax 9,400 11,600 6,200 5,400 21,000
Total, Revenue, $21,700 365,300 53,900 311,400 387,000
Net Costs (not including Capital Outlay) - Revenue 2,480,400 494,000 348,500 145,400 2,974,300
Note:
The line items in Red are inputs from the pro forma analysis prepared by SCS. This budget reflects the “status quo”
scenario.
Comprehensiv e Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -5 10/22/12
Exhibit A -3. Residential and Commercial Cost All ocations
Operating Expenses Allocation
Residential
Allocation, %
Commercial
Allocation, %
FY 2013 2013
Year Ending 6/30/2013 6/30/2013
Professional Services 81%19%
Personnel Agency Payments 81%19%
Business Meetings & Training 81%19%
Career Development Training 81%19%
Dues & Subscriptions 81%19%
Pagers 81%19%
Cellular Phones 81%19%
Advertising 81%19%
Personnel Advertising 81%19%
Equipment Rentals 81%19%
Uniform Rentals 81%19%
Landfill Fines 45%55%
Charges by Landfill 45%55%
Fleet Use Charges 87%13%
Vehicle Replacement Charges 87%13%
Misc. Contracted Services 22%78%
Supplies 81%19%
Vehicle Fuel 87%13%
Comprehensiv e Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -6 10/22/12
Exhibit A -4. Residential and C ommercial
Allocation:
Multi -Family and Business Accounts
Collection Scenario FY 2013
Residential A
Commercial A
Cost Allocation %
Tonnage
Residential 44.7%
Commercial 55.3%
Commercial-Residential (multi-family)29.4%
Commercial-Business 25.9%
Staff #
Residential 80.8%
Commercial 19.2%
Commercial-Residential (multi-family)10.2%
Commercial-Business 9.0%
Truck Fuel & OM Costs
Residential 87%
Commercial 13%
Commercial-Residential (multi-family)0%
Commercial-Business 13%
Miscellaneous Contract Services
Residential 22%
Commercial 78%
Commercial-Residential (multi-family)39%
Commercial-Business 39%
Notes:
1. Residential Scenario “A” is status quo
2. Commercial Scenario “A” is status quo
3. Percentages may vary by year depending on scenario being
evaluated
Comprehensiv e Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -7 10/22/12
Exhibit A -5. Commercial Collection By Account Type
Container Size, Cubic Yards
Commercial Account Type
Collection
Frequency
(x per
week)2 4 6 8
Total
(CY/Week)
Number of Accounts
BUSINESS (Total)4 72 102 1,568 1,746
1 4 56 36 504 600
2 - 16 48 560 624
3 - - 18 312 330
4 - - - 192 192
BUSINESS,RESTAURANT (Total)- - - 64 64
4 - - - 64 64
GOVERNMENT (Total)- - - 72 72
1 - - - 8 8
2 - - - 64 64
MULTI-FAMILY GOVERNMENT (Total)- - - 32 32
1 - - - 16 16
2 - - - 16 16
MULTI-FAMILY (Total)- - 42 2,784 2,826
1 - - 42 1,384 1,426
2 - - - 1,216 1,216
3 - - - 24 24
4 - - - 160 160
RESTAURANT (Total)- - 24 432 456
1 - - 12 48 60
2 - - 12 144 156
3 - - - 72 72
4 - - - 128 128
5 - - - 40 40
SCHOOL (Total)- - 18 824 842
1 - - 18 24 42
2 - - - 32 32
3 - - - 768 768
Grand Total 4 72 186 5,776 6,038
Multi-Family Allocation based on collection volume capacity 47%
Theoretical collection capacity calculation:
Disposal Capacity, cy/week 6,038 cy/week
52 weeks
Disposal Capacity, cy/year 313,976 cy/year
Density (lbs/cy)300 lbs/cy
Disposal Capacity, tons 47,096 tons/year
Projected Commercial Collection FY 2013, tons/year 8,590 tons/year
Utilization factor 18%
Note: Commercial Account Type names are taken directly from Town’s database.
Comprehensiv e Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -8 10/22/12
Exhibit A -6. Summary of Commercial Accounts By Type
Category
Sum of
Days
Collected
Account
Designat
ion
BUSINESS 182 Business
BUSINESS,RESTARAUNT 4 Business
GOVERNMENT 5 Town
MULTI-FAMILY GOVERNMENT 4 Town
MULTI-FAMILY 125 Town
RESTARAUNT 55 Business
SCHOOL 50 Business
Grand Total 425
Business Accounts, number 291
Town Accounts, number 0
Business 68%
Town1,2 0%
3. Category names per Town's database.
1. Used to calculate reduction factor if business-commercial is
eliminated (fuel usage)
2. Town accounts refer to accounts where one pickup per
week is provided without additional charge
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -9 10/22/12
Exhibit A -7. Pro Forma Rate Schedule for
Commercial -Business Collection
Rational for Commercial Pricing FY 2013
1.Commercial Collected Capacity, cubic yards/year 313,976 cy
Commercial-Residential (Multi-Family)148,616 cy/year
Commercial-Business 165,360 cy/year
2.Commercial Collected, tons/year 8,590 tons
Commercial-Residential (Multi-Family)4,570 tons 53%
Commercial-Business 4,020 tons 47%
Total Collection Disposal
3.Commercial Costs, $/year 859,200$ 369,600$ 489,600$
Commercial-Residential (Multi-Family)402,400$ 141,900$ 260,500$
Commercial-Business 456,800$ 227,700$ 229,100$
4.Allocation Statistics Picks/Year CY/Year
Commercial 40,196 313,976
Commercial-Residential (Multi-Family)18,668 148,616
Commercial-Business 21,528 165,360
Total/CY $/pick $/CY
5.Commercial Rates 2.74$ 9.19 $1.56
Commercial-Residential (Multi-Family)2.71$ 7.6 $1.75
Commercial-Business 2.76$ 10.58 $1.39
6.Projected Rate Table Based on Actual/Projected Costs and Collection Capacity
Projected tip Fee Rate ($/ton)$57.00
a. Frequency of Pickup Frequency of Pickup/Week
1 2 3 4 5
Picks/Year 52 104 156 208 260
b. Collection Costs Frequency of Pickup/Week
Container
Size $/Pick 1 2 3 4 5
2 cy 9.19 $478 $956 $1,434 $1,912 $2,389
4 cy 9.19 $478 $956 $1,434 $1,912 $2,389
6 cy 9.19 $478 $956 $1,434 $1,912 $2,389
8 cy 9.19 $478 $956 $1,434 $1,912 $2,389
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -10 10/22/12
Exhibit A -7. Pro Forma Rate Schedule for
Commercial -Business Collection
c. Disposal Frequency of Pickup/Week
Container
Size $/CY 1 2 3 4 5
2 cy 1.56 $162 $324 $487 $649 $811
4 cy 1.56 $324 $649 $973 $1,297 $1,622
6 cy 1.56 $487 $973 $1,460 $1,946 $2,433
8 cy 1.56 $649 $1,297 $1,946 $2,595 $3,243
d. Collection + Disposal Frequency of Pickup/Week
Container
Size 1 2 3 4 5
Single
Pickup*
2 cy $640 $1,280 $1,921 $2,561 $3,200 $18
4 cy $802 $1,605 $2,407 $3,209 $4,011 $28
6 cy $965 $1,929 $2,894 $3,858 $4,822 $37
8 cy $1,127 $2,253 $3,380 $4,507 $5,632 $46
* Single pickup based on collection cost plus disposal fee assuming 70% full container.
Frequency of pickup per week
e. Town's Current Rates, $/year
Container
Size 1 2 3 4 5
Single
Pickup*
2 cy $375 $725 $1,075 $1,775 $2,225 $50
4 cy $550 $900 $1,225 $1,950 $2,400 $50
6 cy $725 $1,075 $1,400 $2,125 $2,575 $50
8 cy $900 $1,250 $1,575 $2,300 $2,750 $50
f. Comparison of Calculated Rates to Town's Current Rates, $/year
2 cy ($265)($555)($846)($786)($975)$32
4 cy ($252)($705)($1,182)($1,259)($1,611)$22
6 cy ($240)($854)($1,494)($1,733)($2,247)$13
8 cy ($227)($1,003)($1,805)($2,207)($2,882)$4
g. Ratio of Current Town Rates/SCS Assessment of Allocated Costs of Service, %
2 cy 59%57%56%69%70%278%
4 cy 69%56%51%61%60%179%
6 cy 75%56%48%55%53%135%
8 cy 80%55%47%51%49%109%
Conclusion: The Town's budgeted commercial rates appear below the projected cost for the service
provided based on the allocation methodolgy shown above.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -11 10/22/12
Exhibit A -8. Sin gle Pickup Rate Analysis
Percent Full>>>70%Rate $57.00 /ton
Container
Size
Density
(lbs/cy)
Weight
Per
Pickup
(tons)
Collection
($)
Disposal
($)
Single
Pickup
2 cy 300 0.21 $9.19 $9.19 $18.38
4 cy 300 0.42 $9.19 $18.39 $27.58
6 cy 300 0.63 $9.19 $27.58 $36.77
8 cy 300 0.84 $9.19 $36.78 $45.97
Findings
The following observations are provided regarding the Town’s current commercial-business
collection rate fee schedule:
The Town has the capacity (assuming the dumpsters were 100% full each time they
were emptied) to collect approximately 314,000 cubic yards of commercial waste per
year based on the current census of dumpsters and scheduled pickup frequency (i.e.,
number of times collected per week). If this capacity were fully utilized, the Town
could collect approximately 47,000 tons per year of commercial waste, assuming a
commercial waste density of 300 pounds per cubic yard. The Town currently collects
approximately 8,590 tons per year of commercial municipal solid waste, which
represents an 18% utilization factor. This utilization factor is likely influenced by the
fluctuation in population and waste generation caused by the college academic
calendar, practical logistics associated with servicing dumpsters for highly variable
waste generation customers (e.g., larger dumpsters are typically deployed at multi-
family apartments, such that the peak demand from the university population may be
met), and the relatively inexpensive rates currently charged for the larger size
dumpsters.
SCS’s analysis of the current dumpster service rates for commercial-business
customers suggests that the rates charged by the Town do not cover the cost for the
service provided. However, the rates appear to cover the Town’s tipping fee incurred
for most levels of service, with the exception of the 8 cubic yard dumpster service
(see Exhibit A-7, Items 7d vs. 7e, which breaks out the estimated disposal charges as
a function of the level of service and the current utilization factor of 18%). Item 7f in
Exhibit A-7 shows the increase in rates that would be needed to fully cover the
allocated costs.
SCS performed a preliminary review of the Town’s commercial customer database.
The database includes a list of all the customers, the number and capacity of the
collection containers (e.g., 2, 4, 6, or 8 cubic yard), the frequency of pick-up per week
(1 to 5 times per week), and the “invoice” amount. The database shows the paying
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -12 10/22/12
and non-paying customers. The paying customers are the commercial businesses in
the Town that use the service. The “non-paying” customers include commercial-
multi-family accounts (with the provision of one “free” pickup per week, with
additional pickups paid at the published rates), and other governmental entities. The
invoice amount shown in the database generally tracks the Town’s published
collection rates; however, there are numerous exceptions and variances that were
noted. SCS understands the Town has audited these accounts to correct
inconsistencies and gaps.
Recommendations
Conduct a service audit of the current commercial-business and commercial-multi-
family accounts to assess the adequacy of the current service levels in terms of the
size and number of the containers, utilization rate of the container, and the frequency
of pickup. Some efficiency in service could potentially be realized based on the
estimated current utilization factor of 18%. Recognizing the Town does not have
control over the size of container provided by private sector firms, adjustments to the
collection frequency by the Town would balance this utilization factor. For example,
if an account is utilizing multiple collection days during the week, however the
container is routinely less than full; the Town may adjust the collection frequency
downward, thus resulting in a more efficient use of Town collections resources.
However, in adjusting collection frequency the Town must also consider the potential
downside risk associated with the excess capacity actually being used, which could
increase its disposal costs, without any increase in revenues.
Consider adjustment to the commercial-business fee structure to increase revenues to
more closely reflect the allocated costs for this service. We understand that the
current rates charged by commercial haulers must also be considered in any
adjustments. Additional revenues also may be recognized with the recent the audit of
the commercial accounts.
COMMERCIAL COLLECTIO N SCENARIO -SPECIFIC ANALYSIS
AND RESU LTS
SCS evaluated the following service modifications to the Commercial Collections system:
Elimination of all Commercial Collections services, including commercial-business
and commercial-multi-family;
Elimination of just the commercial-business service, while the Town continues to
provide commercial-multi-family collections service; and,
Evaluation of the value of a subsidy the Town may choose to support private-sector
collections of the commercial-multi-family customers currently served by the Town.
The projected costs and revenues associated with the status quo and the two commercial
collection service scenarios considered are in Exhibit A-2 above (Status Quo), Exhibit A-9
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -13 10/22/12
(eliminate all commercial collection), and Exhibit A-10 (keep commercial-multi-family and
eliminate commercial-business).
Exhibit A -9. Pro Forma Allocated Budget Costs and Revenues
FY 2012 -13
(Keep Commercial -Multi-Family, Eliminate Commercial -Business)
[A][B]=[C]+[D][C][D][E]=[A]+[B]
Scenario: Current, No new route, Orange County LF, No Automate
Residential Scenario A, Commercial: Eliminate All Commercial
Annual Budget
Residential
Allocation
($)
Commercial
Allocation
($)
Commercial-
Multi-Family
($)
Commercial-
Business
($)
Total
($)
2013 2013 2013 2013 2013
Item 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013
TOWN SOLID WASTE BUDGET
Collection Personnel Services
Salaries - Full-Time (Including Benefits)1,440,200 - - - 1,440,200
Other Pay 1,900 - - - 1,900
Workers Comp Insurance 51,800 - - - 51,800
Subtotal, Collection Personnel Services 1,493,900 - - - 1,493,900
Collection Operating Expenses
Professional Services 400 - - - 400
Personnel Agency Payments 7,300 - - - 7,300
Business Meetings & Training 3,700 - - - 3,700
Career Development Training 800 - - - 800
Advertising 2,000 - - - 2,000
Uniform Rentals 10,100 - - - 10,100
Landfill Fines 2,500 - - - 2,500
Charges by Landfill 449,700 - - - 449,700
MSW 396,200 - - - 396,200
Yard Waste 53,500 - - - 53,500
Fleet Use Charges 166,400 - - - 166,400
Vehicle Replacement Charges 242,400 - - - 242,400
Misc. Contracted Services - - - - -
Supplies 39,600 - - - 39,600
Fuel 93,600 - - - 93,600
Subtotal, Operation Expenses 1,018,500 - - - 1,018,500
TOTAL BUDGET, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 2,512,400 - - - 2,512,400
REVENUE
Garbage Collection Revenue (Commercial front load service)- - - - -
Special Trash Collection (bulky, white goods, yard waste, etc.)8,000 - - - 8,000
Compactor Fees (2 downtown compactors)- - - - -
Garbage Citations (Commercial and residential)- - - - -
Sales: Yard Waste Carts 3,000 - - - 3,000
Solid Waste Disposal Tax - - - - -
Total, Revenue, $11,000 - - - 11,000
Net Costs (not including Capital Outlay) - Revenue 2,501,400 - - - 2,501,400
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -14 10/22/12
Exhibit A -10. Pro Forma Allocated Budget Costs and Revenues
FY 2012 -13
(Eliminate All Commercial -Collection)
[A][B]=[C]+[D][C][D][E]=[A]+[B]
Scenario: Current, No new route, Orange County LF, No Automate
Residential Scenario A, Commercial: Eliminate Commerical-
Business Only, Keep Multi-Family
Annual Budget
Residential
Allocation
($)
Commercial
Allocation
($)
Commercial-
Multi-Family
($)
Commercial-
Business
($)
Total
($)
2013 2013 2013 2013 2013
Item 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013
TOWN SOLID WASTE BUDGET
Collection Personnel Services
Salaries - Full-Time (Including Benefits)1,483,600 104,200 104,200 - 1,587,800
Other Pay 1,900 - - - 1,900
Workers Comp Insurance 51,800 - - - 51,800
Subtotal, Collection Personnel Services 1,537,300 104,200 104,200 - 1,641,500
Collection Operating Expenses
Professional Services 400 100 100 - 500
Personnel Agency Payments 7,300 1,100 1,100 - 8,400
Business Meetings & Training 3,700 600 600 - 4,300
Career Development Training 800 100 100 - 900
Advertising 2,000 300 300 - 2,300
Uniform Rentals 10,100 1,500 1,500 - 11,600
Landfill Fines 1,500 1,000 1,000 - 2,500
Charges by Landfill 449,600 260,500 260,500 - 710,100
MSW 396,100 260,500 260,500 - 656,600
Yard Waste 53,500 - - - 53,500
Fleet Use Charges 166,400 34,000 34,000 - 200,400
Vehicle Replacement Charges 277,400 33,200 33,200 - 310,600
Misc. Contracted Services 1,000 3,800 3,700 - 4,700
Supplies 39,600 - - - 39,600
Fuel 93,600 - - - 93,600
Subtotal, Operation Expenses 1,053,400 336,200 336,100 - 1,389,500
TOTAL BUDGET, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 2,590,700 440,400 440,300 - 3,031,000
REVENUE
Garbage Collection Revenue (Commercial front load service)- 47,000 47,000 - 47,000
Special Trash Collection (bulky, white goods, yard waste, etc.)8,000 - - - 8,000
Compactor Fees (2 downtown compactors)- - - - -
Garbage Citations (Commercial and residential)- - - - -
Sales: Yard Waste Carts 3,000 - - - 3,000
Solid Waste Disposal Tax 12,700 8,300 8,300 - 21,000
Total, Revenue, $23,700 55,300 55,300 - 79,000
Net Costs (not including Capital Outlay) - Revenue 2,567,000 385,100 385,000 - 2,952,000
Eliminate All Commercial Collection Services
SCS evaluated the costs and revenue changes that would occur if the Town were to eliminate all
Commercial Collection services, If the Town were to cease all commercial services, the
following changes to the Town’s budget would likely occur:
Staffing and Staffing Related Expenses. SCS assumed that the Town’s collection
staffing would change if the commercial collection service was eliminated. Under
this scenario, the three (3) equipment operator staff allocated to commercial
collections services would be removed from the Town payroll. The projected
budgetary staffing impact for this scenario is presented below in Exhibit A-11,
Collection Scenario C. A potential negative consequence of eliminating these
positions is that we understand that these staff also operate other equipment and work
on other tasks within the Department of Solid Waste Services (e.g., knuckleboom
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -15 10/22/12
truck for bulky waste pickup). This would have to be considered prior to any
decision to eliminate staff positions.
Fleet Usage/Maintenance Charges. SCS assumed the fleet use charges associated
with the front loader collection vehicles would be eliminated from the budget with the
elimination of Commercial Collections services.
Fuel. SCS assumed a significant reduction in fuel charges, proportional to the two (2)
front loader vehicles not operating.
Vehicle Replacement Cost. SCS assumed that the vehicle replacement costs
allocated in the budget would be eliminated if the Commercial Collection services
were eliminated.
Tip Fees. SCS assumed the Town would no longer be responsible for paying tip fees
for all commercial accounts.
If the Town were to entirely eliminate the Commercial Collection services, SCS estimates that
the Town could realize approximately $849,000/year in reduced costs; however, approximately
$376,000/year in revenues would be lost, for a net savings of approximately $473,000/year (see
Exhibit A-12).
Furthermore, SCS would note that with the elimination of these Commercial Collections
services, the Town would need to consider these cost impacts to its public sector customers (i.e.,
public housing, parks and recreation, government offices,, etc.) and allocate these costs to these
departments accordingly.
Eliminate Commercial -Business Collection Services
Similarly, SCS evaluated the costs and revenue changes that would occur if the Town were to
eliminate the commercial-business collection services, but maintain the multi-family collection.
Exhibit A -11. Estimation of Staff Costs for
Comm ercial Collection Scenarios
Collection Scenario Item 2013
A Residential 1,408,565
Commercial 223,833
Total 1,632,398
B Residential 1,483,565$
Commercial 104,238$
Total 1,587,803
C Residential 1,440,239$
Commercial -$
Total 1,440,239
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -16 10/22/12
If the Town were to stop providing collection to commercial-businesses customers, the following
changes to the Town’s budget would likely occur:
Staffing and Staffing Related Expenses. SCS assumed that the Town’s collection
staffing would change if the commercial-business collection service was eliminated.
Under this scenario, one (1) of the three (3) equipment operator staff allocated to
commercial collections services would be removed from the Solid Waste Services
Division’s payroll (and potentially reassigned elsewhere in the Town if position were
available) The remaining two (2) equipment operators would continue to collect
weekly from the commercial-multi-family customers using the two (2) front loader
trucks. The projected budgetary staffing impact for this scenario is presented above
in Exhibit A-11, Collection Scenario B.
Fleet Usage/Maintenance Charges. SCS assumed no change in fleet use charges,
since both of the commercial vehicles would likely still be used and require the same
degree of maintenance. This is a conservative assumption, since some reduction in
maintenance likely would result if the commercial-business accounts were no longer
serviced.
Fuel. SCS assumed a 68% reduction in fuel charges, which is based on the
proportional distribution of pickups between “Town” and “Commercial-Business”
accounts (see Exhibit A-6). In other words, commercial-business pickups represent
68% of the total commercial pickups serviced by the Town in a given week.
Vehicle Replacement Cost. SCS assumed that the vehicle replacement costs would
be reduced if the commercial collection services were eliminated. The current
vehicle replacement cost budget was reduced by the 7-year amortization rate of the
commercial collection vehicles (4% interest).
Tip Fees. SCS assumed the Town would no longer be responsible for paying tip fees
for commercial-business accounts, except for waste collected at Town-owned
properties.
If the Town were to eliminate the commercial-business collection services (keeping multi-
family), SCS estimates that the Town could realize approximately $330,000/year in reduced
costs; however, approximately $308,000/year in revenues would be lost, for a net savings of
approximately $22,000/year (see Exhibit A-12). This probably represents a wash given the
assumptions associated with the cost allocations between commercial-business and commercial-
multi-family operations and the uncertainties inherent in these types of cost projection and
allocation models.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -17 10/22/12
Exhibit A -12. Pro Forma Analysis, Summary of Commercial
Collection Service Scenarios
Status Quo
Eliminate
All
Commercial
Eliminate
Commercial-
Business Only
Annual Budget
Total
($)
Total
($)
Total
($)
2013 2013 Change
($)2013 Change
($)
Item 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 6/30/2013
TOWN SOLID WASTE BUDGET
Collection Personnel Services
Salaries - Full-Time (Including Benefits)1,632,400 1,440,200 192,200 1,587,800 44,600
Other Pay 1,900 1,900 - 1,900 -
Salaries - Overtime - - - - -
Salaries - Temporary - - - - -
FICA - - - - -
Retirement - - - - -
Group Insurance - - - - -
Retiree Medical - - - - -
Workers Comp Insurance 51,800 51,800 - 51,800 -
Additional Labor From Direct Haul - - - - -
Subtotal, Collection Personnel Services 1,686,100 1,493,900 192,200 1,641,500 44,600
- -
Collection Operating Expenses - -
Professional Services 500 400 100 500 -
Personnel Agency Payments 9,000 7,300 1,700 8,400 600
Business Meetings & Training 4,600 3,700 900 4,300 300
Career Development Training 1,100 800 300 900 200
Dues & Subscriptions - - - - -
Pagers - - - - -
Cellular Phones - - - - -
Advertising 2,500 2,000 500 2,300 200
Personnel Advertising - - - - -
Equipment Rentals - - - - -
Uniform Rentals 12,500 10,100 2,400 11,600 900
Landfill Fines 2,500 2,500 - 2,500 -
Charges by Landfill 939,300 449,700 489,600 710,100 229,200
MSW 885,800 396,200 489,600 656,600 229,200
Yard Waste 53,500 53,500 - 53,500 -
Fleet Use Charges 200,400 166,400 34,000 200,400 -
Fleet Use Charges 200,400 166,400 34,000 200,400 -
Additional Fleet Use Charges for Direct Haul - - - - -
Vehicle Replacement Charges 310,600 242,400 68,200 310,600 -
County Budgeted Vehicle Replacement Charge 310,600 242,400 68,200 310,600 -
New Vehicle for new route - - - - -
Automatic carts, 95 gallon - - - - -
Misc. Contracted Services 22,000 - 22,000 4,700 17,300
Supplies 49,000 39,600 9,400 39,600 9,400
Fuel 121,200 93,600 27,600 93,600 27,600
Vehicle Fuel 121,200 93,600 27,600 93,600 27,600
Additional Fuel Charge for Direct Haul - - - - -
Subtotal, Operation Expenses 1,675,200 1,018,500 656,700 1,389,500 285,700
TOTAL BUDGET, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 3,361,300 2,512,400 848,900 3,031,000 330,300
REVENUE - -
Garbage Collection Revenue (Commercial front load service)312,000 - 312,000 47,000 265,000
Special Trash Collection (bulky, white goods, yard waste, etc.)8,000 8,000 - 8,000 -
Compactor Fees (2 downtown compactors)40,000 - 40,000 - 40,000
Garbage Citations (Commercial and residential)3,000 - 3,000 - 3,000
Sales: Yard Waste Carts 3,000 3,000 - 3,000 -
Solid Waste Disposal Tax 21,000 - 21,000 21,000 -
Total, Revenue, $387,000 11,000 376,000 79,000 308,000
- -
Net Costs (not including Capital Outlay) - Revenue 2,974,300 2,501,400 472,900 2,952,000 22,300
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -18 10/22/12
Subsidize Private -Sector Commercial -Multi -Family Collections
Using these analyses, SCS was able to estimate the value of providing commercial-multi-family
collections according to the level of service the Town is currently providing. SCS estimates the
cost for the Town to provide collection for multi-family accounts is approximately
$402,400/year, with offsetting revenues of $54,000/year, for a net cost of $349,000 /year (see
Exhibit A-2). Using these data, the Town may evaluate how it may subsidize the cost of
privatized commercial-multi-family collections if it so chooses.
Based on SCS’s experience in the industry, subsidizing such collection services for private,
multi-family housing is rare. However, SCS is aware a decision to either provide or forego a
subsidy involves other intangible metrics in addition to this financial analysis, such as: the
Town’s values, level of service expectations, citizen equality, and private development.
Separating A partment C omplexes from C ondos/T ownhomes
SCS evaluated what the impact would be if the commercial-multi-family collections from only
Townhomes and Condominiums were given the discounted rates (i.e., one collection per week at
no fee), while apartments and other multi-family establishments that aren’t so categorized were
charged the full rates for all collections. A preliminary analysis of the revenue impact of
modifying the Town’s billing practices to charge non-townhomes and condominium customers
the full rates without discount was prepared. There may be other establishments that in a more
extensive analysis would also be granted the discounted rates. The net revenue increase the
Town might expect is about $135,000 per year.
SCS did not analyze the option of the Town only collection from the condos and townhomes, but
suspect the Town would lose significant revenue but still have the basic labor and equipment
costs, although operational costs would reduce somewhat (fuel, maintenance), as would the
respective disposal costs.
Conclusions and Recommendations Regarding Commercial
Collection
A summary comparison of each of the commercial collection scenarios evaluated is presented in
Exhibit A-12. No significant economic benefit would be achieved by simply eliminating the
Town’s commercial-business collection program. SCS’s analysis suggests that only a nominal
savings of $22,000/year could be achieved; however, given the number of variables and
assumptions associated with the cost allocations between commercial and residential collection
programs and the commercial-business and commercial-multi-family functions, the projected
savings are well within the margin of error of the analysis.
Another scenario that was considered is to continue collection to residential properties (e.g.,
townhomes and condos), eliminate large multi-family collections (e.g., multiplex apartments)
and commercial account collections. Financial analysis of this specific scenario was not
performed. Because there would be some further reduction in costs, but no additional revenue,
the ballpark estimated savings is believed to be in the $50,000 to $75,000 per year range.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 A -19 10/22/12
Eliminating the commercial collection program entirely would reduce the Town’s costs by
approximately $473,000/ year; however, this likely would be offset by a reduction in tax revenue
derived from multi-family units since the once-per-week collection service and benefit
(approximately $349,000/year) would no longer be provided. However, even considering this
factor, a savings likely could be realized.
In summary, SCS recommends the Town continue commercial bulk collections.
Commercial -Business Collection Revenue Compared to Costs
SCS’s analysis suggests that the Town’s current commercial collection revenues do not offset its
costs for the service provided. We estimate the deficit is approximately $145,000 per year (see
Exhibit A-2). However, this deficit is based on the allocation methodology described above,
which could be changed to allocate more of the base costs for this service to the multi-family
collection function; thereby reducing or eliminating this projected deficit. The Town annually
evaluates its commercial rates and compares them against private sector rates and makes
adjustments accordingly. Overall, providing services to commercial businesses helps offset
costs; however, the most significant risk is the percent utilization of the disposal capacity
available in the collection containers currently deployed, which if fully utilized could result in a
substantial increase in disposal costs.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 10/22/12
Appendix B
Evaluation of Multi -Family Waste Collection
and Disposal Service Levels
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 B -1 10/22/12
E VALUATION OF M ULTI -F AMILY W ASTE C OLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SERVICE L EVELS
B ULK C ONTAINER S ERVICE V S. R OLL-C ART S ERVICE
With this comprehensive review of soil waste collection and disposal options, the Town
requested a case study analysis of its current multi-family collection service and policies. The
purpose of this analysis is to aid in determining an appropriate service level for when residential
roll-cart collection service may be warranted for multi-family units in lieu of the Town’s bulk
container service currently provided by commercial collections staff.
SUMMARY OF T OWN M ULTI -F AMILY W ASTE C OLLECTION
S ERVICES
As previously described in Section 2 of this Study, multi-family properties throughout the Town
rent, lease, or purchase bulk container(s) provided by a private-sector vendor. The Town
provides the associated collection and disposal services. Based on Town collection records,
multi-family collection includes approximately 265 total bulk containers of either 6 or 8 cubic
yard capacities. The combined maximum capacity of these containers is calculated 2,858 cy,
representing approximately 47% of the Town’s total commercial collection program. A
summary of the Town’s commercial accounts is provided in Exhibit B-1 below.
As defined by Town ordinance, multi-family properties consisting of six (6) or more units per lot
are prescribed bulk commercial waste collection service. Furthermore, Town policies and
practices for multi-family customers are designed to assume one (1) bulk container per every 25
housing units. Collection from these containers is provided by the Town at a minimum of once
per week at no cost. Additional weekly collection events for any container are scheduled and
provided in accordance with the Town’s bulk container collection fee schedule, based on the
container size and frequency of collection. Collections from these multi-family properties are
performed by the Town’s Commercial operations utilizing front loader trucks.
The Town ordinance does allow for special waivers granted by the Town Manager or Town
Council. Waivers are considered for units constructed before 1973, when this ordinance was
promulgated, and for properties where bulk service would create a public safety or health
concern.
When the Town discontinued side loading collection services for multi-family properties a
number of waivers were also granted for properties that could not reasonably accommodate front
loading service. As a result, these waivers present collection scenarios where similar properties
receive different collection services, and some of these multi-family property owners have
requested to have a choice in the type of service offered (i.e., that residential roll-cart service be
provided).
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 B -2 10/22/12
Exhibit B -1. Commercial Collection by Account Type
Container Size, Cubic Yards
Commercial Account Type
Collection
Frequency
(x per
week)2 4 6 8
Total
(CY/Week)
Number of Accounts
BUSINESS (Total)4 72 102 1,568 1,746
1 4 56 36 504 600
2 - 16 48 560 624
3 - - 18 312 330
4 - - - 192 192
BUSINESS,RESTAURANT (Total)- - - 64 64
4 - - - 64 64
GOVERNMENT (Total)- - - 72 72
1 - - - 8 8
2 - - - 64 64
MULTI-FAMILY GOVERNMENT (Total)- - - 32 32
1 - - - 16 16
2 - - - 16 16
MULTI-FAMILY (Total)- - 42 2,784 2,826
1 - - 42 1,384 1,426
2 - - - 1,216 1,216
3 - - - 24 24
4 - - - 160 160
RESTAURANT (Total)- - 24 432 456
1 - - 12 48 60
2 - - 12 144 156
3 - - - 72 72
4 - - - 128 128
5 - - - 40 40
SCHOOL (Total)- - 18 824 842
1 - - 18 24 42
2 - - - 32 32
3 - - - 768 768
Grand Total 4 72 186 5,776 6,038
Multi-Family Allocation based on collection volume capacity 47%
Theoretical collection capacity calculation:
Disposal Capacity, cy/week 6,038 cy/week
52 weeks
Disposal Capacity, cy/year 313,976 cy/year
Density (lbs/cy)300 lbs/cy
Disposal Capacity, tons 47,096 tons/year
Projected Commercial Collection FY 2013, tons/year 8,590 tons/year
Utilization factor 18%
Note: Commercial Account Type names are taken directly from Town’s database.
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 B -3 10/22/12
To make the eligibility criteria for the waiver process more consistent, we recommend that
specific standards be established for approving future requests. We believe the eligibility criteria
for multi-family properties requesting residential roll-cart service should include:
1. All units have frontage on a public street that is constructed to Town standards; and,
2. All units have driveways or other clearly defined curbside locations where roll-carts can
be serviced along the public street from behind the curb without blocking sidewalks for
each individual unit.
If these eligibility criteria are accepted, we believe that two existing multi-family properties that
have previously requested roll-cart service may now be granted waivers. These properties are
Vineyard Square with 191 units and Franklin Grove with 41 units, for a total of 232 units.
M ULTI -F AMILY C OLLECTION S ERVICES F INANCIAL E VALUATION
Residential Roll -Cart Collection and Disposal Cost
As presented in Section 7 of this Study, SCS calculated the Town’s per household cost for
residential waste collection and disposal on a per roll-cart basis. Based on the Town budget,
SCS allocated costs between residential and commercial collection services as consistently
established throughout this Study. Also as described in this Study, the Town represents 11,500
households as reported by census data and other public demographic reports. The unit cost for
residential roll-cart collection service which includes all residential solid waste services (e.g.,
yard waste collection, bulky item collection, weekly trash collection, etc.), assuming one (1) 64-
gallon roll-cart per household with collections twice per week for MSW and yard waste is
estimated $16.60 per month per household:
Allocated Residential Collection Cost/ # of Households
Householdperyear.$households,
tcoscollectionlresidentiaannualallocated,,$1511950011
2382902
Householdpermonth.$months
householdpertcosannual.$601612
15119
tonper.$yearpertons,
tcoscollectionlresidentiaannualallocated,,$902347509
2382902
Commercial Bulk Container Collection and Disposal Cost
As described in Appendix A of this Study, SCS allocated the Town’s solid waste collection and
disposal costs into Residential and Commercial programs based on staffing and equipment
assignments. From this point the Commercial collections program was further subdivided into
Commercial Multi-Family and Commercial Business accounts based on the Town’s list of
Comprehensive Review of
S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 B -4 10/22/12
commercial accounts. These analyses estimated collection and disposal costs of $402,400 per
year may be allocated to the commercial multi-family service. Based on the Town’s chart of
accounts, this analysis identified 265 bulk containers serving the Town’s multi-family
developments. This equates to a cost of $126.50 per month/per container.
Allocated Multi-Family Collection Cost/ # of Bulk Containers
containerbulkperyearcontainersbulk
tcollectionfamilymultiannualallocated 518,1$265
cos400,402$
containerbulkpermonthmonths
containerbulkpertannual 50.126$12
cos518,1$
HouseholdpermonthhouseholdsetedT
tcollectionfamilymultiannualallocated 06.5$25arg
cos50.126$
Break -Even Household Utilization
By comparing the monthly cost for the Town to provide bulk container service versus the unit
cost for residential roll-cart service, this financial analysis concludes the break-even point at
which it becomes more cost-efficient to provide bulk container service is estimated 7.6
households. Notably this is reasonably consistent with the current Town ordinance.
Bulk Container Cost/ Unit Roll-Cart Cost
containerbulkperhouseholdshouseholdpertcartrollunit
tcontainerbulk 6.7cos60.16$
cos50.126$
BULK CONTAINER UTILI ZATION ANALYSIS
While this analysis concludes that 7.6 households is the break-even point at which bulk container
service becomes more efficient than residential roll-cart collections, certainly cost-efficiencies
may be gained by serving additional households for each bulk container. The Town’s practices
designed to provide service for 25 households per container appears reasonable and may even be
lowered.
Chapel Hill Data
For each 8 cubic yard bulk container, assuming a lose density of 300 pounds per cy, equates to
an estimated maximum capacity of 2,400 pounds per container. Based on our analysis of the
utilization of the Town’s commercial waste service, SCS estimated that 18% of the Town’s
commercial collection capacity is being used; therefore, each 8 cubic yard container may contain
only 432 pounds of waste during an average week.
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
v2.1 B-5 10/22/12
From historical disposal records, the Town disposes approximately 6,780 tons of residential
MSW per year. Assuming 11,500 residential households, this equates to 1,179 pounds of MSW
per Household per year, or 22.68 pounds per week. Using these data, SCS projects that
approximately 19 households may be serviced by a single 8 cubic yard bulk container per week.
Utilized Container Capacity (pounds)/Household MSW Generation (pounds)
weekperhouseholds.weekperhouseholdperlbs.
capacitycontainerlb 04196822
432
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this limited evaluation of the Town’s multi-family waste collection and disposal
service, SCS makes the following recommendations.
Town Ordinance Modifications
Revise the Town ordinance to include additional eligibility criteria for multi-family property
owners requesting special waivers for residential roll-cart waste collection service. These
additional criteria should include:
1. All units have frontage on a public street that is constructed to Town standards; and,
2. All units have driveways or other clearly defined curbside locations where roll-carts can
be serviced along the public street from behind the curb without blocking sidewalks for
each individual unit.
Bulk Container Target Utilization
Based on industry statistics, SCS believes the Town’s current practice of allocating one 8 cubic
yard dumpster to a target of 25 households is reasonable.