Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAG agenda 032818SWAG Meeting Agenda Location: Solid Waste Administrative Office Date: March 28, 2018 Time: 6:0o PM Proposed Agenda details: I. Call to Order II. Approval of Meeting Summary III. Introduction a. SWAG Board Members b. New Solid Waste Director • Vision for OCSWM IV. Update on SWAG projects a. Review of Solid Waste Priorities/ Goals b. Inter -local Agreement c. Eubanks Road Waste & Recycling Center d. SCS Engineers, PC • Set date to receive presentation - Regional planning, feasibility study and conceptual design for a regional Integrated Material Management Facility (IMMF) e. AGR, LLC • Set date to receive presentation- Solid Waste Plan f. Emergency Storm Debris Site Update V. Department Funding a. Recommendation to increase fee from $128 to $132 VI. Staff Information Items a. 2016 -2017 Data Report b. Government Building Waste Audit c. Waste Composition Study Results d. News & Observer Article: China doesn't want your recycling anymore. Here's what that means for you. http: / /www.newsobserver.com/ news /business /article2052o6704.html VII. Next Meeting VIII. Public Comment IX. Adjourn Page 2 Overview of Recycling FY 2016 -17 Compared With FY 2015 -16 Urban Curbside: Tons Set Out Rate Participation Rate Multifamily: Tons Commercial Collection: Tons Rural Curbside: UP 4% UP 11% CH T 10% CB T 3% H 21% UP 7% CH T 5% CB T 3% H 13% DOWN 3% CH 2% CB 0% H 3% DOWN 5% CH 16% CB 1% H 31% Tons UP 18% 24 Hour Drop -Off: Tons UP 4% Waste and Recycling Centers Tons DOWN 26% Annual Recycling Percentage from State: 62% 3120/2018 China's limits on recycling being felt in Triangle, North Carolina I News & Observer BUSINESS China doesn't want your recycling anymore. Here's what that means for you. BY RICHARD STRADLING rsfradling@newsobserverrom March 15,201812:42 PM RALEIGH — The Chinese no longer want the plastic bottles, milk jugs and junk mail you put in your recycling bin at home. The world's largest buyer of recycled materials declared last summer that it would no longer import mixed paper and many types of plastic starting Jan. 1. In some parts of the U.S., bales of unwanted plastics and paper are stacking up in warehouses and in some cases going into landfills. North Carolina is also feeling the effects of China's new aversion to what it calls "foreign garbage." While companies in the Southeast that reprocess recyclables and tarn them into new products are still buying, China's policies have created a glut of materials that has depressed prices everywhere, including the Triangle. Residential mixed paper that was worth between $85 and $100 a ton a year ago was eaming about $37 a ton this winter, said Rob Taylor, who until last month headed the recycling program at the state Department of Environmental Quality. NDVEUIaING http: /Aw .newsobsemer.mm/ news /business /atele205296704.htmi 1110 3120@018 China's limits on recycling being fell in Triangle, North Carolina I News & Observer OReplay "A paper mill in South Carolina that consumes mixed paper has a lot more paper to pick from," Taylor said. "It's going to pick the best, and it's going to pay less for it." Today's top news by email The local news you need to start your day Enter Email Address SIGN Up Many people recycle because they see it as a simple way to help the environment by reducing waste and saving energy. For local governments (and taxpayers), recycling is cheaper than paying to bury trash and helps extend the life of landfills Shat are difficult and expensive to replace. hffp: //vA".newsobs werwmin "wbusinesslartiele205296704.html 2110 3/2012018 China's limits on recycling being felt in Triangle, North Carolina I News & Observer Carlos Acevedo, center, sorts Incoming materials at the Sonoco Recycling facility in Raleigh. Casey Toth - loth @newsobserver ,an But recycling only works when there is someone willing to buy the materials people put in their bins. With China taking itself out of the market, "the recycling system is stressed right now," Taylor said. One measure of that stress is that local governments that collect recycling at the curb are now earning little if anything when they pass it on to recycling companies. The City of Raleigh sent 28,412 tons of recycling to the Sonoco Recycling plant on the east side of town in the year ending last June 30. Last June, the city received $9 per ton. "Last month, we received $0.00," city spokeswoman Terri Godwin Hyman wrote in an email. "According to Sonoco, this is likely to be the case for at least the foreseeable future." Sonoco and other companies that collect and prepare recyclables to be reused say residents can help. They say filling bins with only clean, acceptable materials makes them easier (and cheaper) to sort and get to market. Recyclables are all mixed together when they're collected, and places like the Sonoco plant on Rogers Road are where they're separated. The glass ends up in a pile outside, waiting to be taken to a plant in Wilson, while the other materials - paper, cardboard, aluminum, steel and different types of plastic - are baled and loaded on to trucks, mostly bound for factories in the Southeast. http:IAw .newsobsoNermWnews /business /anicle2O5296704.htmi 3/10 3120/2018 China's limits on recycling being felt in Triangle, North Carolina I News & Observer About 13 percent of what comes in to the building can't be recycled, says Sonoco plant manager Patrick McDonald. That includes Styrofoam, clothes, electronics, shoes, bubble wrap and plastic bags - materials that should not have been put in the bins in the first place. Recyclers call this "residue," and removing it is critical to producing bales that companies will want to buy. A freshly unloaded truck of recycling included a shoe which cannot be recycled. CaseyToth - cloth @nsmobserveccom As McDonald spoke, a Raleigh recycling truck disgorged its load on the ground just outside the Sonoco plant. At first glance, it looks like so much trash, all mixed and compacted. "That's a pretty good looking load, to be honest with you," McDonald said. But even then it wasn't hard to see items that will have to be pulled out. "There's a shoe. There's always a shoe," he said. "And those corduroys shouldn't be there." Sorting by hand hftp: /A�. newsobseNer. com/ n"sibusinamianiele205296704.h "l 4/10 3/20/2018 China's limits on recycling being felt In Triangle, North Carolina I News & Observer Front loaders scoop this pile onto the first of a series of conveyor belts that will carry recyclables through the plant. Machines do some of the separating work; one is a series of rollers that carry plastic and metal containers and paper up an incline, allowing the containers to fall through openings on the way up while the paper gets pushed over the top into a separate bin. But much of the work is done with human hands, as workers stand along the conveyor belts sorting different types of plastics or pulling out materials that shouldn't be there. To decrease the amount of residue in its finished bales, Sonoco has slowed down the speed of the conveyor belts and increased the number of workers, McDonald said. The Sonoco plant runs about 20 hours a day, separating recycling from Raleigh, Cary, Durham and Orange and Chatham counties, as well as numerous private haulers. Carlos Acevedo sorts Incoming materials at the Sonoco Recycling facility in Raleigh. Casey Toth - ctoth@newsobse"er.com It was not long ago that people were encouraged to keep their paper and cardboard separate from the plastic, glass, steel and aluminum cans and bottles. In Raleigh, city workers would grab each homeowner's open - topped green bin and sort the recyclables into separate sections of the truck. http: /An .newsobserver.wm/ news /businessianicle2O5296704.htmi 5/10 3120/2018 Chine's limits on recycling being felt in Triangle, North Carolina I News a Observer To make it easier for residents and the city, Raleigh went to larger, closed- topped blue recycling bins that a city employee can empty with a mechanical arm controlled from the cab of the truck. "Go-mingled" recycling is now the industry standard and is what gave rise to places like the Sonoco plant. But there was a tradeoff. where a city worker emptying a bin by hand might leave behind a shoe or a pair of pants, it all now goes into the truck. At Sonoco, the first people who see it are five men who stand on either side of the conveyor belt, pulling out the obvious offenders before the stream flows into machines that separate glass and corrugated cardboard. "People now have the opportunity to do more recycling, which is a good thing," McDonald said of the larger blue bins. "However, now there is no visibility on the material until these five gentlemen here see it, and by then it's too late. At that point, if it's residue, it's now our problem because it's already here." China changes course China apparently felt the same way. The country relied on recycling from around the world as raw materials for its factories, but came to find that too much of what it received was contaminated with garbage or even hazardous waste. Last year, the country announced new restrictions on the amount of contamination allowed in bales of corrugated cardboard and other materials - numbers so low that many American companies such as Sonoco have stopped sending cardboard to China for fear of it being rejected. Then last summer, China told the World Trade Organization that it would stop importing 24 types of waste, including different types of plastic and mixed paper, starting Jan. 1. "The big picture is that China is trying to clean up their own environment," said Taylor, the former state recycling program director. "And they're trying to grow domestic recycling in China and turn to their own waste stream instead of ours." China's restrictions are felt less keenly in the Southeast because the region is less dependent on exports for its recycling, said Will Sagar, executive director of the Southeast Recycling Development Council, a trade group that represents companies and governments in 11 states from Louisiana to Virginia. There are 360 manufacturing plants in that region that use recycled materials to make new products, according to the council, including 60 in North Carolina. Some like Envision Plastics in Reidsville turn detergent and shampoo bottles into resins to make new bottles, while others, such as Clear Path Recycling of Fayetteville, take plastics bottles and use them in new products, such as flooring or fibers. Sager says the Chinese crackdown on contamination will ultimately be good for the U.S. recycling industry, if it results in tighter controls on what goes out the door. "Our domestic markets don't like all the contamination either," he said. For that to happen, industry officials say, residents will need to be encouraged to do a better job at the front end. The people who run government recycling programs around the country are looking for ways to encourage people to do the right thing, said Scott Mouw of The Recycling Partnership, a national non -profit funded by companies such as Coke, Pepsi and Target. "What it boils down to if you're a homeowner and you've put the wrong stuff in your cart, the city should be giving you feedback on that," Mouw said. Mouw cited campaigns that urge residents not to put their recycling into plastic bags, which the recycling processors sometimes discard because they don't know what's inside. Two years ago, Cary surveyed people's recycling bins and screened for unwanted items, including bagged recyclables. Town workers left behind notes explaining why some items were left in the bin and reminding residents to "keep it loose in the cart' and not use bags. hftp: /Aw .newsobs Nerwm/ newslbusiness /arUole2O5296704.htmi 6110 3/20/2018 China's limits on recycling being fell in Triangle, North Carolina I News & Observer How to help • Consult your city or town's recycling program to see what items they accept and most importantly which ones they do not. See a list of links below. Some common items that should not be in your recycling bin include food waste, styrofoam, electronics, shoes, appliances, greasy pizza boxes and clothing. • Leave out items that can gum up the machinery in the recycling plant, including plastic bags, garden hoses, strings of Christmas lights and old VHS tapes. Many grocery stores will take back the plastic grocery bags, which can be recycled. Put items in your bin loose, not in a plastic trash or kitchen garbage bag. The recycling plant operators don't know what's inside those bags, and don't always take the time to rip them open. Wake County residents can take all sorts of items, from propane tanks, paint, cellphones and appliances to VHS tapes and oyster shells, to the county's two recycling drop -off sites. For the complete list, and where you can take them, go to maps .wakegov.com /sw /index.html #/. In addition, Raleigh residents can take advantage of the city's new program for recycling shoes and clothing. For information about what to put in the recycling bins in your community, go to: Apex: www.apemc.org /552 /Residential- Recycling Cary: http: //nando.com /50s Chapel Hill /Carrboro: http: / /mndo.com/50t Chatham County: http: //nando.com /50u Clayton: http: / /nando.com /50v City of Durham: durhamnc.gov /862/Recycling Durham County: http: / /nmdo.com/wd Fuquay- Varina: www.fugmy- varina.org /397 /Recycling - Collection- Service _ Garner: http: //nando.wm /50w Holly Springs: www.hollyspringsnc.us /69 /Garbage - Recycling Johnston County: www. johnstonnc .cam/recycling/recwaste.cfm Knightdale: http: / /nando.com /50z Morrisville: http: //hmdo.com /50x Orange County: http: //nando.com /50t Raleigh: www.raleighnc.gov /recycling Rolesville: http: / /mndo.com /50y Wake Forest: www .wakeforestnc.gov/recycling.aspx http:IAw ..namobsemer.wm/ news /business/adicie205298704.html 7/10 3/2012018 China's limits on recycling being felt In Triangle, North Carolina I News & Observer Richard Sozidling. 919- 829 -4739, (ORStradling OTHER RECYCLING OPTIONS You don't have to rely on the city for recycling large Items. Many non - profit thrift stores in the area take furniture and clothing and use the proceeds to further their mission. These include the Green Chair Project, Habitat for Humanity, A -Z Thrift Shop and Retails Thrift Shop, all in Raleigh. The Scrap Exchange in Durham excepts numerous items including Christmas lights, toys, cloth and shoes. There's also the Give Back Box program. Re -use your boxes from Amazon to donate clothing or other goods to Goodwill. Amazon allows you to printout a free shipping label on Its website and the box will ship free to Goodwill Industries. For electronics, consider: • Kramden Institute: Accepts computer equipment at no charge. 4915 Prospectus Drive, Durham, 919 - 293 -1133, kramclen.org • Triangle Ecycling: Accepts computer equipment at no charge. Other a -waste (such as TVs) recycled for $1 1pound. 905 E. Jackie Robinson Drive, Durham, 919 - 414.3041, triangleecycling.com • Anything with a Plug: TVs and computer monitors (except for those with tubes or projection), appliances, etc. and the cords and plugs. 1008 Hammell Drive, Raleigh, www .anythingwithaplugrecycling.com Raleigh Metal Recycling: Buys laptops, PCs, towers, servers, main frames, printers, copiers, microwaves but not computer monitors. 2310 Garner Road, Raleigh, 919 - 828 -5426, www. raleighscrapmetalrecycling.com / P COMMENTS A 1 Comment Sort by Top Add a comment _ Bruce Lightner Small wonder China no longer wants our garbage. They have ah plenty of their own I Like Reply • 1 • is Faceco Commenla Pluan httpJA+ .. newsobsoNerwndnews /businessianicle2o5290704.hbnl 8/10 ti l''I SPONSOREDCONTENT How SMBs Can Increase Office Productivity ByWtndatream- httpJA+ .. newsobsoNerwndnews /businessianicle2o5290704.hbnl 8/10 URBAN RECYCLING PROGRAM SUMMARY BY JURISDICTION* TOTAL URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM ** MUTLI- FAMILY COLLECTION * ** COMMERCIAL COLLECTION * ** .ARRBOR TONS TONS TONS TONS FY 16/17 % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU PARTICIP ATION RATE PARTICPA TION RATE* PARTICPA TION RATE PARTICPA TION RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU TONS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU TONS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15 /16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 .st Quarter st Quarter 359 329 361 10% 81% 50% 37% 48% 32% - 85% 66% 87% 31% 95 90 85 92 8% 46 55 48 50 47 d Quarter d Quarter 358 378 361 -4% 79% 50% 43% 49% 14% - 85% 77% 83% 7% 94 86 87 90 3% 52 54 53 47 -127 rd Quarter rd Quarter 350 362 364 1% 76% 51% 50% 48% -2% - 84% 83% 81% -3% 86 81 84 82 -2% 49 54 52 45 -13% th Quarter quarter 347 351 332 -6% 80% 48% 43% 32% -26% - 85% 82% 68% -17% 94 86 94 87 -8% 49 57 44 52 18% Annual It' Annual 1,413 1,420 1,420 0% 79% 50% 43% 44% 3% - 85% 77% 80% 3% 368 344 350 350 0% 196 220 197 195 -1% TOTAL URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM ** MUTLI- FAMILY COLLECTION * ** COMMERCIAL COLLECTION * ** HAPEL hill TONS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU PARTICIP ATION RATE PARTICPA TION RATE PARTICPA TION RATE PARTICPA TION RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU TONS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU TONS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 14/16 FY 14/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 st Quarter - 893 869 902 4% 64% 45% 36% 48% 35% - 79% 65% 81% 24% 190 181 181 184 2% 163 196 168 224 33% d Quarter - 882 933 961 3% 65% 44% 40% 47% 19% - 78% 71% 81% 14% 187 172 185 186 0% 185 194 184 208 13% rd Quarter - 870 893 937 5% 70% 31% 43% 46% 6% - 78% 76% 77% 1% 171 162 177 167 -6% 174 192 189 195 3% quarter - 842 936 941 1% 59% 48% 40% 32% -18% - 77% 75% 64% -16% 188 173 180 174 -3% 177 202 190 218 15% It' Annual - 3,486 3,631 3,741 3% 64% 42% 40% 43% 10% - 78% 72% 76% 5% 737 688 724 711 -2% 698 783 731 845 16% TOTAL URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM ** MUTLI- FAMILY COLLECTION * ** COMMERCIAL COLLECTION- LSBOROU TONS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU PARTICIP ATION RATE PARTICPA TION RATE PARTICPA TION RATE PARTICPA TION RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU TONS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU TONS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 st Quarter - 166 168 176 5% 55% 41% 31% 46% 48% - 76% 65% 78% 20% 27 25 5 6 12% 32 39 35 62 77% d Quarter - 170 171 193 13% 53% 43% 35% 46% 30% - 78% 67% 80% 19% 26 24 5.70 6.183 8% 36 38 39 55 417 rd Quarter - 165 167 200 20% 48% 43% 39% 46% 17% - 76% 72% 79% 10% 24 23 5 5 -2% 34 38 41 50 23% th Quarter - 163 175 226 29% 60% 43% 38% 36% -5% - 77% 70% 73% 4% 26 24 6 5 -57 35 40 53 52 -2% Annual - 664 681 794 17% 54% 43% 36% 43% 21% - 77% 69% 77% 13% 103 97 22 23 3% 138 155 168 219 31% TOTAL URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM ** MUTLI- FAMILY COLLECTION * ** COMMERCIAL COLLECTION * ** SINGLE- STREAM COLLECTI ON TONS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU PARTICIP ATION RATE PARTICPA TION RATE PARTICPA TION RATE PARTICPA TION RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU TONS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU TONS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOU FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 st Quarter 1,098 1,418 1,366 1,439 5% 67% 46% 35% 48% 38% - 80% 65% 82% 25% 312 297 271 276 2% 241 289 252 274 9% d Quarter 1,237 1,410 1,481 1,515 2% 66% 45% 39% 47% 20% - 80% 72% 81% 13% 307 282 279 276 -1% 273 287 277 255 -87 rd Quarter 1,198 1,384 1,422 1,502 6% 65% 42% 44% 47% 6% - 79% 77% 79% 3% 281 266 266 249 -7% 257 284 283 240 -15% th Quarter 1,163 1,351 1,490 1,543 4% 66% 46% 40% 33% -17% - 80% 76% 68% -10% 308 283 279 261 -7% 261 298 287 271 -6% Annual 4,696 5,563 5,760 5,999 4% 66% 45% 40% 44% 11% - 80% 73% 78% 7% 1,208 1,128 1,096 1,061 -3% 1,031 1,157 1,098 1,040 -5% * Due to the integrated nature of recycling collection operations throughout the county which helps to ensure efficient and optimal collection services, there is some minor overlap of collection services by program areas, e.g. The commercial recycling route collects some multi - family locations. To the extent possible, these variations in service collection are apportioned to each specific program accordingly. ** The total tons byjurisdiction in the Urban Curbside Collection program is apportioned according to the participation rate and number of homes by jurisdiction. This assumes that each cart collected at the curb has the same average weight when collected. * ** Tons are apportioned in the Multi - Family and Commercial programs based on the average number of carts collected in each jurisdiction at each MF /Commercial site for that quarter. This assumes that each cart collected at each site has the same average weight when collected. NOTES: Participation Rate - the proportion of households served that take part in the curbside collection program at least once per month. Setout Rate - the proportion of households that set out their recycling cart in any given week. OTHER COLLECTION PROGRAMS GZ�IL1��Iill �9II��L�I����ii[�PIJZ�Z�I7_�►ll RURAL CURBSIDE COLLECTI TONS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE % CHANGE FROM FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 stQuarter 435 422 588 712 21% 38% 41% 44% 45% 2% d Quarter 486 451 607 741 22% 35% 44% 44% 50% 14% rd Quarter 396 484 615 675 10% 35% 40% 44% 41% -7% th Quarter 442 590 601 728 21% 40% 42% 44% 48% 9% Annuall 1,7591 1,947 24111 2856 18% 37% 42% 44% 46% 5% NOTE: it is not possible given current data collection constraints to gather particpation rates in the 24 -HOUR DROP -OFF SITES - SINGLE STREAM* * Corrugated cardboard is not included in the single- stream tonnage. Cardboard is collected separetely from single stream in an integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries and is included in the annual report. TOTAL SINGLE - STREAM FOR ALL DROP -OFF SITES TOTAL FOR FY TOTAL I FOR FY TOTAL FOR FY TOTAL FOR FY % CHANGE st Quarter 501 448 308 336 9% d Quarter 551 434 363 350 -3% rd Quarter 490 351 333 341 2% th Quarter 506 331 350 384 10% Annual 2,048 1,563 1,353 1,412 4% 43 -24% 09 77 79 3% 88 105 70 67 -4% 75 79 52 CHANGE -14% 44 114 93 65 CHANGE d Quarter 56 71 63 CHANGE -31% U464395 04 75 CHANGE -10% 94 108 82 CHANGE -23% 81 77 58 FROM -25% 44 112 98 73 FROM rd Quarter 52 60 54 FROM HAMPTON POINT (HOME 4 FROM 47 -42% 87 80 FROM 58 -14% 66 63 PREVIOU 41 CARRBORO PLAZA 95 87 PREVIOU CEDAR FALLS 55 63 PREVIOU 45 DEPOT) 7 PREVIOU MEADOWMONT -100% 92 79 PREVIOU UNIVERSITY MALL 77 63 5 YEAR 48 5 YEAR S YEAR 5 YEAR S YEAR 72 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15 /16 FY16 /17 FY13 /14 FY14 /15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY13 /14 FY14 /15 FY15/16 FY16 /17 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY13 /14 FY14 /15 FY15 /16 FY16 /17 st Quarter 121 108 92 99 8% 61 49 26 29 11% 130 129 80 91 14% 50 39 30 41 38% 138 123 80 75 -6% d Quarter 115 119 107 91 -15% 68 44 28 29 3% 147 125 99 91 -7% 53 37 34 35 3% 169 109 94 103 9% rd Quarter 119 70 96 86 -10% 58 42 31 38 22% 124 105 81 90 11% 52 37 35 36 5% 137 98 91 92 1% th Quarter 115 102 101 97 -4% 62 33 32 72 122% 125 79 90 81 -11% 55 33 38 33 -13% 149 84 89 101 15% Annual 469 398 395 373 -6% 249 168 118 168 43% 527 439 350 353 1% 210 145 137 146 7% 593 413 354 372 5% * Corrugated cardboard is not included in the single- stream tonnage. Cardboard is collected separetely from single stream in an integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries and is included in the annual report. TOTAL SINGLE - STREAM FOR ALL DROP -OFF SITES WASTE & RECYCLING CENTERS RECYCLING - SINGLE - STREAM* TOTAL FOR FY TOTAL I FOR FY TOTAL FOR FY TOTAL FOR FY % CHANGE st Quarter 501 448 308 336 9% d Quarter 551 434 363 350 -3% rd Quarter 490 351 333 341 2% th Quarter 506 331 350 384 10% Annual 2,048 1,563 1,353 1,412 4% WASTE & RECYCLING CENTERS RECYCLING - SINGLE - STREAM* * Corrugated cardboard is not included in the single- stream tonnage. Cardboard is collected in an integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries and is included in the annual report. TOTAL SINGLE - STREAM FOR ALL WASTE & RECYCLING CENTERS BRADSHAW QUARRY CHANGE EUBANKS RD TOTAL FOR FY CHANGE FERGUSON RD CHANGE HIGH ROCK CHANGE WALNUT GROVE FY13 /14 FY14 /15 FY15 /16 FY16 /17 CHANGE FY13 /14 FY14 /15 FY15 /16 FY16 /17 291 -23% 4 /15 FY15 /16 FY16 /17 350 FY13 /14 FY14 /15 FY15 /16 FY16 /17 387 FY13 /14 FY14 /15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 1,517 st Quarter 53 64 56 43 -24% 09 77 79 3% 88 105 70 67 -4% 75 79 52 44 -14% 44 114 93 65 -30% d Quarter 56 71 63 43 -31% U464395 04 75 68 -10% 94 108 82 63 -23% 81 77 58 44 -25% 44 112 98 73 -25% rd Quarter 52 60 54 36 -35% 4 82 47 -42% 87 80 67 58 -14% 66 63 60 41 -31% 41 95 87 69 -20% th Quarter 55 63 60 45 -24% 7 82 0 -100% 92 79 78 67 -14% 77 63 57 48 -16% 48 95 96 72 -25% Annual 215 258 233 167 -28% 316 194 -39% 362 372 297 255 -14% 299 282 226 177 -22% 177 415 374 279 -25% * Corrugated cardboard is not included in the single- stream tonnage. Cardboard is collected in an integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries and is included in the annual report. TOTAL SINGLE - STREAM FOR ALL WASTE & RECYCLING CENTERS TOTAL FOR FY I TOTAL FOR FY TOTAL FOR FY TOTAL FOR FY % CHANGE st Quarter 372 470 348 298 -14% d Quarter 399 474 376 291 -23% rd Quarter 356 391 350 252 -28% th Quarter 390 387 372 232 -38% Annual 1,517 1,723 1,447 1,073 -26% DRAFT Solid Waste Advisory Group Meeting Summary DATE: March 23, 2017 LOCATION: Solid Waste Administration Training Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Carrboro Mayor Lydia Lavelle, Carrboro Alderman Randee Haven - O'Donnell, Chapel Hill Mayor Pam Hemminger, Chapel Hill Councilmember Michael Parker, Hillsborough Commissioner Mark Bell, UNC- Chapel Hill Representative Brad Ives, UNC - Healthcare Representative Mel Hurston, Orange County Commissioner Barry Jacobs, Orange County Commissioner Penny Rich MEMBERS ABSENT: Hillsborough Commissioner Brian Lowen, UNC - Chapel Hill Representative Matt Fajack STAFF PRESENT: Carrboro Public Works Director JD Freeman, Chapel Hill Solid Waste Wendy Simmons, Chapel Hill Public Works Director Lance Norris, Hillsborough Public Works Director Ken Hines, UNC -CH Solid Waste Program Manager BJ Tipton, Orange County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, OC Solid Waste Management Director Gayle Wilson, OC Solid Waste staff: Gordon Dively, Allison Lohrenz, Blair Pollock, Cheryl Young, Kristina Witosky, and Kate Glass Call to Order Meeting Summary approval • January 30 2017, Meeting Sun • No changes to the Agenda pre Financial Plan — Solid Waste Program Fee Options & Recommendations — Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager a) Hammersley indicated she had met with Town Managers about the fee and they had deferred to county. She will be recommending the $128 program fee for FY17 -18 to the Board. This rate will sustain current programs. The Towns do need to approve the increase so the County can implement the change to that County representatives will be available for any town meetings. b) Hammersley responded to several questions about using the solid waste fund balance upfront. Hammersley indicated that the County is confident that the balance will be maintained. The recommendation is based on a 5 -year outlook with 1 -year recommendations and includes annual fund review and allows for an increase if necessary. c) In response to questions about the mechanism for monitoring this fund and fee, Hammersley advised that the interlocal agreement establishes internal oversight and frequent meetings of the managers to monitor budget issues and to make recommendations to their respective governing boards after annual evaluations of funds. d) The goal is for the program fee to take effect on July 1, 2017. Hemminger joined our group after this discussion and Jacobs asked for her opinion on this issue. Hemminger advocating for a higher fee based on declining recyclables markets and forecast for continued decline and strongly recommends that we consider higher fees now and better protection of the fund. Hammersley responded that the $128 assumes $750,000 contribution from SW fund balance with goal to have 17% reserve. Hammersley further advised after FY17/18 we will still have 28 % reserve in the SW fund and it will take 5 years to get down to 17 %. Hammersley is confident funds available to maintain minimum 17% reserve in FY17/18. Plus County conducts annual review. Hemminger asked if the fee decision based on assumptions the recycling DRAFT market will not change and Hammersley responded it is based on no change to current recycling market and the County will do what it needs to do by balancing expenditures and revenues. Hemminger restated recycling markets are unstable and we should start at a higher rate and be prepared for a shift in the recyclables market. Lavelle agreed with Hemminger's concerns and that the changing economic landscape and we should be cautious setting the fee. Parker asked if there were any abilities to "test" this fee against decreasing recycling markets to evaluate the risk and improve our understanding of our vulnerability. Hammersley reiterated the Finance office supports this fee and that Donaldson will respond to concerns at next meeting. She will be presenting the $128 fee to the Board of Commissioner and they make the final decision. Regional Waste Management Framework Opportunities Assessment Update and Integrated Materials Management Facility (Waste Transfer Station) Preliminary Assessment — Bob Dick, Project Manager, SCS Engineers, PC Dick provided a PowerPoint presentation "Regional Planning Framework & Preliminary IMM Facility Feasibility Study" to the group. This presentation summarized efforts to date to explore options for a regional integrated materials management (IMM) facility or other joint ventures. Primary goal of the study is to identify an efficient and sustainable option for Orange County solid waste. Other jurisdictions and institutions, including the City of Durham, are included in the study.. The need for a local facility has been established and documented with TOCH and OC. Note: Regional does not mean the facility will necessarily be located in OC and no site or parcel has been identified for a facility. a) Lavelle requested several changes to the "Executive Summary Needs Assessment — Regional Integrated Materials Management Facility" report provided to the group. These were identified during the course of the meeting and SCS will make changes to the report as requested and resubmit for review. b) Parker requested the study look beyond "landfilling" and consider other options. Dick indicated primary intent of IMM facility will be to enhance recycling and provide cost- effective, efficient, aggregation and transfer with a reduction in emissions. They are considering other options, delivery to a Waste -to- Energy (WTE) facility closer to Raleigh. Jacobs wanted to know the status of the report and process. Dick responded they will make revisions to report based on today's comments and will provide an update to GW for feedback with a goal of final product by May 2017. Dick summarized the concept of a local facility that will be sensitive to siting, environmental impact, sustainability, and economic factors. Two funding options presented: 1) OC owns /operates the facility, provides initial capital costs and charges a tipping fee to customers /users; or, 2) The facility is operated as a partnership; partners share the capital costs and operating costs proportionally between the partners. There would be no tipping fees for the partners. There would be direct haul cost avoidance for partners. a) Revenues based on waste acceptance quantity and tipping fees. b) Long haul fees need to be considered. Jacobs requested that living wage being used in any calculations for costs. SWAG Priority Update — Gayle Wilson, County Solid Waste Director Suggested updates to the 9/2016 list of priorities with 3/2017 updates: • #2 at request of Hammersley revise dates and steps for concluding interlocal agreement by 7/17 (Jacobs suggested changing July to June); • #4 alter completion date and incorporate the regional plan framework; DRAFT • # 7 this is ongoing process with reviews and revisions as needed but would mark as completed with ongoing review and revisions as necessary; • #8 combine #8, 9, 12 & 13 as discussed with conclusion of comprehensive long -term waste reduction and recycling study to begin this summer. Materials Recovery Facility Tour — Muriel Williman, Education & Outreach Coordinator A tour of the Sonoco MRF is scheduled for 4/21/17 at 1 PM. Patrick McDonald plant manager and their procurement rep will be there. Arrangements to be made via emails with Williman. Information Items — General Staff Update — a) Eubanks Road Waste and Recycling Facilities Improvement Update Several questions asked about the status of this project. Wilson indicated they are removing stumps, have built a sediment basin, and will be hauling dirt for a couple of weeks to achieve the construction grade. He indicated the number of customers using the temporary site is not as high as the Eubanks road site but there have been no complaints. Public Comment - Ms. Amanda Fairley, Sustainability Manager, Waste Ma committee. Next Meet Meeting ac Name of IV ment, introduced herself to the group and Agenda Solid Waste Advisory Group March 23, 2017 — 5:30 p.m. Solid Waste Oaerations Center 1. Call to Order— Chair 2. Approve Meeting Summary January 30, 2017 — Chair, Attachment 3. Financial Plan: Solid Waste Programs Fee Options & Recommendations - Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager and Gary Donaldson, County Chief Financial Officer 4. Regional Waste Management Framework Opportunities Assessment Update and Integrated Materials Management Facility (Waste Transfer Station) Preliminary Assessment — Bob Dick, Project Manager, SCS Engineers, PC, Attachment 5. SWAG Priority Update —Gayle Wilson, County Solid Waste Director, Attachment 6. Materials Recovery Facility Tour — Muriel Williman, Education & Outreach Coordinator and Allison Lohrenz, Recycling Programs Manager 7. Information Items: a. General Staff Update Memo, Attachment a. C &D Landfill Business Practice Evaluation b. Emergency Storm Debris Management Site Search Update c. Government Building Waste Audits Update d. Telling Business Recycling Success Stories e. Long Term Recycling & Waste Reduction Planning Update f. Solid Waste Programs Fee - Public Assistance g. Eubanks Road Waste & Recycling Facilities Improvements Update h. Second Quarter FY 2016/17 Solid Waste Program Data Report i. Destination of Waste Delivered to the City of Durham Waste Transfer Station j. Difference in Interest Income Between Fee Option Scenarios 1 and 2 k. County Tax Administrator Presentation to Towns I. Landfill Gas Production and Revenue S. Public Comment —Chair 9. Adjourn —Chair Next Meeting —There are no additional meetings scheduled. Dinner will be provided P.O. Box 17177 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 -7177 (919) 968 -2885 FAX (919) 932 -2900 www.co.orange.nc.us /recyclins "0; Orange County Solid Waste Management Orange County Landfill (919) 932 -2989 Memorandum To: Solid Waste Advisory Group From: Orange County Solid Waste Staff Subject: Results of 2016 -17 Waste Composition Study Date: December 4, 2017 Attachments: Five Orange Community Recycling (919) 968 -2788 A $ This memo summarizes work over the past year on internal government recycling and waste reduction program investigation, education and improvements within the four local governments within Orange County. Background Every few years the County conducts waste composition audits of the major County and Town buildings to measure progress in recycling by analyzing how much recycling remains in the trash. Throughout fiscal year 2016 -2017, Solid Waste staff, primarily intern Alex Gottschalk, conducted a series of these waste composition studies or audits of trash from major government buildings in the County (Attachment 1) and all three Towns (Attachments 2 - 4), the first since 2008. For County buildings the amount of recyclables found in the trash by weight dropped from 28% in 2008 to 18 %, a decline of 33% which represents significant progress. Similar comparative data was not available for the various Towns. Following the audits, Solid Waste staff conducted a series of follow up face -to -face surveys (Attachment 5, survey blank form) and building walk - throughs with County Department heads, and Town of Chapel Hill Department heads to clarify their the role of recycling and waste reduction activities in their respective Departments and point towards future improvements. Only the County report contains analysis of the survey results and delves more deeply into detailed findings as a result. Similar surveys and walk- throughs are pending with the Towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough. This memo summarizes the results and process of those audits and describes the process County staff used for identifying possible improvements to current recycling and waste reduction activities throughout local government. Auditing Process The four attached memos detail the results for each of the individual governments. Below is a summary of the attached information. Because the previous waste audits were conducted in 2008 enough time had gone by to assess progress by government employees and staff. Unannounced, Solid Waste staff sequestered a load of trash from each major building in each government throughout late 2016 and early 2017. Where multiple Departments occupied a single building, every effort was made to separate trash by Department. Loads were then sorted and paper, cans and bottles, electronics, hazardous waste (like batteries) and reusable items (like mugs or clothing) were weighed separately. Those buildings with low occupancy or small in size were not included. Waste from public parks was not included either. The table below summarizes the percentages by weight of recyclable materials found in the trash, totaled for each government's buildings. Each of the attachments contains the audit details for the individual government and provides an overall summary with building -by- building findings. This weight - of- recyclables-in- the -trash metric is a surrogate for the success of the internal recycling efforts by the various governments. While it was just a single day's trash from each major building, the collective metric represents a reasonable estimate of ongoing performance. Government % recyclables in the trash 2016 -17 Orange County 19% Town of Carrboro 18% Town of Chapel Hill 18% Town of Hillsborough 39% County Solid Waste staff then contacted individual Department heads and conducted an in- person survey focused on waste reduction and recycling activity and messaging in each Department. Along with the survey, Solid Waste staff conducted a building (or Department) walk- through primarily to identify the need for additional recycling bins and for ensuring that all the waste bins were paired with recycling bins for convenient recycling. County staff followed up by delivering and placing recycling bins where needed. Following that activity, each Department head was given a copy of the survey results and their particular Department's waste audit results. At that point, each Department head was offered training opportunities for furtherance of waste reduction and recycling. Most County and Town of Chapel Hill Departments have taken advantage of training opportunities or are planning to schedule them. The Town of Chapel Hill is working with the County to incorporate recycling training into their New Employee Orientation (NEO) similar to the County's current NEO protocol. Next Steps Town of Carrboro Departments will be surveyed in the coming month or two, as the Department heads' schedules permit. Town of Hillsborough surveys are slated for early in 2018. Following the surveys, County staff may conduct a second round of waste audits for all governments to determine if any further progress in waste reduction and recycling has been made and if various Departments need any further assistance in improving these efforts. Efforts will focus not only on reducing recyclables in the trash, but also on reducing waste in the first place as illustrated by the techniques shown in the survey. P.O. Box 17177 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 -7177 (919) 968 -2885 FAX (919) 932 -2900 www.co.orange.nc.us /recyclins "0; Orange County Solid Waste Management Orange County Landfill (919) 932 -2989 Memorandum A $ To: Solid Waste Advisory Group From: Orange County Solid Waste Staff Subject: Results of 2016 -17 Waste Composition Study Date: December 4, 2017 Attachments: 2 Orange Community Recycling (919) 968 -2788 This memorandum includes a description of the most recent waste composition study conducted in Orange County in 2016 -17. Background Approximately every five years since 1990, Orange County has conducted a waste composition study by sector including single family residential; multi -unit housing and commercial; by jurisdiction including each of the three towns; unincorporated County and UNC. This memorandum summarizes results of the most recent study conducted in 2016 -17 and makes a few comparisons with past studies' data to examine some trends. A composition study for the County is attached and includes trend analyses going back to the 1995 study. The 1990 results were not comparable enough to include. A separate report is included for UNC as they have a different breakdown among the types of buildings served. Discussion A total of one - hundred -one samples from all sectors including single family residential, multi -unit housing (MUH) and commercial (non - residential) were taken over the two season sort in October 2016 and April 2017. The samples were proportionally distributed by jurisdiction and sector based on the estimated tonnages coming from each. The amount of curbside recyclable material (cans, bottles, paper and some plastics) remaining in the waste was 21% by weight, other recyclables including plastic bags, textiles, scrap metal, hazardous waste and electronics was 10% . Compostable waste including food, low grade paper and some yard waste was 47 %. Thus less than 25% of waste was not recoverable using current technologies and markets. (figure 3 -1, page 12). Results from UNC (att. 2) were similar, showing 21% readily recyclable on campus and another 6% recoverable in conventional markets. (table 4 -1 p.22) with a possible 51% compostable, leaving less than 25% not recoverable using current means. Previously, data from the 1995 waste composition study helped the County set its waste reduction goal of 61% in 1997, based on the potential to reduce or divert 50% of recyclables and some (backyard) compostables from the waste stream. Over time the studies have also enabled us to assess effectiveness of policies such as the implementation of the initial ban on landfilling non - residential cardboard in 1996 and the subsequent ban on residential cardboard in 2005. Both bans resulted in a significant decline in cardboard landfilled as seen in the waste composition study conducted following the ban, summarized in the table below. NOTE: The single family sector shows a two -part slightly slower decline, as the residential ban was not fully implemented until the 2005 -2006 year was complete. This single policy was calculated to have saved over a year of landfill space in Orange County and also diverted thousands of tons back to productive reuse. Staff estimates at an average 20 year market value of around $100 per ton, the cardboard ban alone yielded about $6 million in revenues. Impact of cardboard ban on percent of corrugated cardboard in Orange County NC Waste 1995 -2017 Sector % cardboard in % cardboard in % cardboard in %2010 %2016 garbage 1995. garbage 2000 garbage 2005 (Landfill Ban (ban in place (Landfill ban implemented in for MUH & implemented 1996 for MUH & commercial) in residential Commercial) 2005 -06 and cardboard added to curbside program) Residential 4.5% 4.7% 2.4% 1.8% 1.6% Multi -Unit Housing 7.2% 2.8% 1.6% 1.6% 2.3% Commercial (all other 10.7% 3.5% 3.1% 2.6% 3.6% not in above sectors) The waste composition studies have also enabled Orange County to view success of its recycling programs and offer a look at how changing technologies and packaging trends may affect our future solid waste planning. In general, recyclables found in the waste in 2016 -17 that could be collected at the curb, MUH and drop -off sites have declined to about 21% overall from about 30% in 1995. Along with increased local recycling efforts driving down that percentage, as metal cans and plastic bottles become lighter, pouches of food replace cans, and physical newspapers and magazines are replaced by electronic versions, the waste stream overall changes. Thus past emphasis on a material such as paper may become less important (except cardboard) while we need to find more effective ways to manage textiles, plastic bags and film, and food waste. Details broken down and available in the attached reports. The main pie graphs showing waste composition overall and by sector are found on pages: 12, 16, 20 and 24 of the main report. UNC report is a separate attachment with similar results from the campus waste stream. The main conclusion is that while recyclables as a percentage of waste have declined, there is still over thirty percent of Orange County waste that could be captured using current markets and current processing technologies. Overall the waste composition studies provide a valuable snapshot of our waste and the potential to reduce it via a combination of conventional recycling, composting (both backyard and large- scale) and reducing or reusing materials. As in the past, the data from this waste composition study will be an integral component of the pending solid waste planning process.