Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAG agenda 1104151 Agenda Solid Waste Advisory Group November 4, 2015 - 6:00 p.m. Southern Human Services Center 1. Call to Order— Chair 2. Approve Meeting Summary from September 24, 2015 — Chair, Attachment 3. Options for Food Waste Diversion — Janine Ralph, Senior Environmental Planning Manager, HDR Corporation, Richmond Hill, Ontario (approx. 2 hours) 4. Pending Matters a. Smoke Detector Disposal Public Education — Attachment b. Household Hazardous Waste Survey Results - Attachment c. Shred -a -thon Survey Results— Attachment d. Preliminary State Per Capita Waste Reduction Percentage for FY 2014/15 5. Public Comment— Chair 6. Next Meeting — SWAG — December 10, 6:OOpm at Solid Waste Operations Center Assembly of Governments — November 19 7. Adjourn -Chair Dinner will be provided 0 Memorandum To: Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) From: Orange County Solid Waste Staff Subject: Smoke Detector and Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Recycling Date: October 19, 2015 Below is information regarding proper recycling procedures for smoke detectors as well as compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) including safety information for handling these materials. The SWAG had inquired about the items at the September meeting. SMOKE DETECTORS or SMOKE ALARMS There are two types of smoke detectors available for households: ionization detectors and photoelectric detectors. Ionization detectors contain a small amount of Americium -241, a radioactive element. There are no solid waste regulations that prevent a resident from throwing an old unwanted ionization detector in their regular garbage because the amount of radioactivity is low, and it is encased inside the detector. However, these detectors cannot be taken to either one of the Household Hazardous Waste collection facilities because these facilities are not permitted to accept any radioactive waste of any kind— not even the small amount found in a household smoke detector. Instead of discarding them in the garbage, smoke detectors can be recycled by sending them back to the original manufacturer (name and address should be stamped on the underside of the unit). Please be aware that shipping and handling is paid by the sender, not the recipient. Here are a few resources: Kidde brand –1- 800 - 880 -6788 –will send a pre -paid label for you to ship their brand back to them. • First Alert brand – 1- 800 - 323 -9005 Curie Services -- http: / /www.curieservices.com/ smoke - alarm - recycling /curiepack/ - a third party vendor offering recycling services for all brands of smoke detectors. Unwanted photoelectric detectors can be disposed of in the household trash with no issue -just remove and recycle the battery first. Batteries can be recycled at all five Waste and Recycling Centers and the Household Hazardous Waste collection facilities in Orange County. All three Weaver Street Market locations, Whole Foods and True Value Hardware stores in Chapel Hill accept batteries for recycling as well. In addition, it is recommended to place a strip of masking tape across the terminals of 9 -volt batteries before you recycle them to reduce fire risk. If two 9 -volt batteries containing even a residual charge touch terminals it can create a spark which could lead to a fire. 5 COMPACT FLUORESCENT LAMPS (CFL) AND FLUORESCENT TUBES: Fluorescent bulbs include compact fluorescent (aka 'twirly') lights also known as CFL's, circular fluorescent bulbs and fluorescent tubes and ballasts. All of these contain mercury, a hazardous material that may not be disposed in the trash. Even the reduced - mercury- content fluorescent lamps, typically with green metal ends, must be recovered for recycling. As CFLs are hazardous waste, they should be taken to the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility located at 1514 Eubanks Road, Chapel Hill, or the HHW facility located at the Walnut Grove Waste & Recycling Center, 3605 Walnut Grove Church Rd, Hillsborough. If someone plans to bring more than 20 bulbs, they should contact the Solid Waste Administration Office at 919 - 968 -2788 to make an appointment. Businesses in Orange County are also able to utilize this service. Businesses and other private institutions are required by law to recycle fluorescent lamps if they produce more than a certain amount per year. Care should be taken to not break fluorescent tubes during transport to the HHW facility. Bulbs should be placed in a cardboard box or taped together to ensure safety. In the event of a CFL breaking, the following actions are recommended by the US EPA to reduce exposure to mercury vapor: 1. Before cleanup: a. Have people and pets leave the room. b. Air out the room for 5 -10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment. c. Shut off the central forced air heating /air conditioning (H &AC) system, if you have one. d. Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb. 2. During cleanup: a. Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder. b. Place cleanup materials in a sealable container. 3. After cleanup: a. Promptly place all bulb debris and clean up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors. b. For several hours, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the H &AC system shut off. I Memnrandum To: Solid Waste Advisory Group From: Gayle Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Director Subject: Results of User Surveys at Shred- A -Thons Date: October 23, 2015 On October 8`h Orange County Solid Waste and the Chapel Hill Police Department conducted the first half of its semi - annual fall shredding event for confidential paper at University Place (formerly University Mall). On October 101h at the recycling site behind Home Depot in Hillsborough, Orange County Solid Waste conducted the second half of the fall semi - annual Shred- A -Thon with help from the Hillsborough Police Department. At the SWAG's request, service users at each event were queried about the location from where the paper was brought and those responses were recorded on site by staff and volunteers. Each participant provided the address and the address and jurisdiction were verified by office staff later using GIS based data. Results are presented below and graphically on the reverse side along with results of a second question about how the users learned about the event. Approximately 1,000 people came to the two Shred A Thons, 614 to University Place and 385 to Hampton Pointe. Of those, 981 were surveyed. The less than 2% discrepancy between the total count of users shown on the mechanical hand held counters and number of surveys recorded could be attributed to the fast pace of the event, the rainy weather on Saturday, some users entering from other than the official event entry points and human error. Of the 981 surveyed, fifty eight percent were from within Town limits of the three Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill (including the part within Durham County) and Hillsborough. None surveyed reported being from the portion of the City of Mebane within Orange County. Thirty -two percent reported being from outside town limits, but within Orange County. Seven percent reported being from outside Orange County, including possibly some who worked for one of the four local governments or had a business in Orange County but did not live here. Two percent were of unknown origin or refused to answer. See charts 1 -3 next page. All paper was accepted resulting in over 21 tons recovered for recycling into tissue products. Results on how people learned of the event are shown below and were divided among many modes with no single mode predominating. Newspaper and radio advertising and articles were 27 %. Fifteen percent saw banners placed at all Waste and Recycling Centers, some recycling sites and two key intersections in Carrboro. Internet searches were reported by 19% and the three electronic newsletters from Solid Waste, Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County Sheriffs' Department as well as other emails from e.g. HOAs totaled 14 %. "Other" means of communications totaled 25% of users. See chart 4, next page. The conclusion is that it is effective to continue to use a broad range of media to reach the public. Oct. 2015 Shred -A -Thons Total Users by Jurisdiction Out of County Carrborc 7% � " 12% s Outside Town limits 32% Hillsborough 5% Carrboro Chapel Hill • Hillsborough • Out of Town Out of County Unknown Chapel Hill 41% Oct. 10 Hampton Pointe Shred- A -Thon Users by Jurisdiction Out of County "".. 2% AilChapel H 18% Hillsborough Outside Town 13% limts 56% N14W • Carrboro • Chapel Hill • Hillsborough • Out of Town Out of County Unknown Oct. 8 University Place (mail) Shred -A -thon Users by Jurisdiction Unknown 3% Out of County Carrboro 13% 11% Outside Town PAI,, limits 18% Hillsborough <1% pel Hill 55% w Carrboro Chapel Hill Hillsborough Out of Town Out of County Unknown How OC Residents Learned About Fall 2015 Shred -A -Thons Email 14% (newsletters Newspaper 23% Other 14% ner 15 Phone Call 1% Word of Mouth 10% Radio Ad 4% • Newspaper Ad 23% • Banner 15% ■ Radio Ad 4% ■ Internet Search 19% PJ u Memnrandum To: Solid Waste Advisory Group From: Gayle Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Director Subject: Results of User Surveys at Hazardous Household Waste Collections Date: October 23, 2015 Beginning on August 10, 2015 and running through September 30, 2015, Orange County Solid Waste had surveys conducted at both the Eubanks Road and Walnut Grove Household Hazardous Waste collection sites. At the Solid Waste Advisory Group's request, service users at each site were queried about their address location and those responses were recorded on site by staff and volunteers. Each participant provided the address and the address and jurisdiction were later verified as to jurisdiction by office staff using GIS based data. Results are presented below and graphically on the attached. Approximately 1,734 persons used the two sites during the survey period, 1,037 used the Eubanks Road location and 697 used the Walnut Grove HHW site. Of those, identifiable address data was gathered from approximately 1,604 users. The discrepancy between the total count of users and number of surveys recorded included addresses that could not be located, user's refusal to provide the information and human error. The Eubanks Road HHW facility served 1,037 users during the survey period. Of those approximately 613 users were town residents, 352 Orange County residents outside municipal boundaries, 36 from outside County boundaries and 36 of unknown locale. During the months of August and September approximately 41,323 pounds of household hazardous waste was processed from the Eubanks Road site. The Walnut Grove HHW site served 697 users of which 23 were municipal residents, 572 were Orange County residents from outside municipal boundaries, 8 from outside Orange County lines and 94 of unknown locale. During the months of August and September approximately 18,882 pounds of household hazardous waste was processed from the Walnut Grove site. Of the combined 1,734 users, approximately 37 percent were from within Town limits of the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill (including the part within Durham County), Hillsborough and the Orange County portion of Mebane. Approximately 53 percent reported being from outside town limits, but within Orange County and 2.5 percent reported being from outside Orange County. Approximately 7.5 percent were unknown, missed or refused to provide the requested address. Collectively the two sites collected 60,205 pounds of household hazardous waste for processing. For FY 2015/16, $215,000 was budgeted for the county -wide Household Hazardous Waste collection programs. This amount includes only the direct contract costs for the private vendor, Clean Harbors, to provide certified labor to staff each site as well as collection, processing, shipping, reporting and recycling /disposal costs. Clean Harbors was selected following a competitive bidding process and has a five -year term contract. It costs, on average, approximately $0.56 per pound to collect and process hazardous waste received from each facility. The Eubanks Road facility is open for 44 hours per week 7 and the Walnut Grove facility is open for 59 hours per week. Indirect costs, such as program review, education and outreach, contract management, staff responses to inquiries, and state permitting and annual reporting requirements have not been factored in. HHW User Survey 1- Carrboro 2- Chapel Hill 3- Hillsborough 4- Mebane 5 -Out of Town (OC) 6 -Out of Co. 7- Unknown Total ER 179 408 24 2 352 36 36 1,037.00 WG 2 1 20 572 8 94 697 TOTAL 181 409 44 2 924 44 130 1,734.00 Percentage 10.449/o 23.59% 2.549/o 0.12% 53.29% 2.54% 7.50% 100.00% 7.50% 10.44% 2.54% ■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 N ■6 2.54% E 0.12% IM)l © 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. O General Status of Organics Diversion 02 Key Drivers - Why Consider a Program asResidential Organics Programs M4Organics Processing Technologies 0 Organics Diversion in Orange County GENE L STATUS NICS DIVERSI GENERAL STATUS • European Union (EU) • Common practice reflecting directive that organics cannot be disposed in landfill • Over 200 operating Anaerobic Digester (AD) plants at commercial scale, majority using organic fraction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) as feedstock • AD supported by EU directives PLUS renewable energy interests • Canada — Growing since late 1990's 0 2.64 million tons composted annually as of 2008 o Large metropolitan areas with programs — incl. Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver o In Ontario, 80% of large municipalities have curbside food waste diversion, serving over 9 million residents, 2.4 million homes o Most materials are composted (aerobic processing), more AD facilities are being developed GENERAL STATUS • U.S. is in early `growth' part of the curve • 36 million tons of food waste generated /year (2012) • less than 1 million tons composted 2009 (2 %) — less than 2 million tons composted 2012 (5 %) • As of 2012 150 curbside food organics programs, across 16 states, majority in California, Washington, Minnesota • Large metropolitan areas with residential programs — incl. San Francisco, Seattle • Large metropolitan areas considering programs — incl. NYC, Boston, Baltimore..... • State initiatives: Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut ERS - NSIDER KEY DRIVER - DISPOSAL • Per capita waste generation rates increasing from 3.66 Ibs /capita /day 1980 to 4.43 Ibs /capita /day 2010 • 54% of total MSW is currently disposed (2010), 135 million tons per annum • Depending on the state /region long -term availability of capacity may be an issue (Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Georgia, Florida etc.) • Improved landfill practices and recycling extend landfill life • Major service providers own fewer but larger landfills: • Waste Management: reported average landfill life of 28 years (2006) • Allied Waste Industries: reported average landfill life of 50 years (2006) • Republic Services: reported average landfill life of 27 years (2006) • Cost for landfill disposal around Orange County is low $28 to $60 /ton • Around 30 years of NC landfill capacity remains PROTECTED TOTAL LANDFILL CAPACITY IN MASSACHUSETTS f1n(r;d4000(fWU) 2.1 2.1 million tons 2.2 i.5 1 45 o— — — — — — — 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SOLACE: Sam Deprmw d lrwwaxout FlaaiKe KEY DRIVER - FOOD WASTE QUANTITY AND QUALITY • 34 million tons per annum `available' across US • Has 3X methane production potential of biosolids • Some portions more energy rich than others (fats, oils, greases) • Residential generators: municipalities have ability to gather and direct `steady' stream of food residuals to processing • Commercial generators: large scale generators in the food and beverage industry, smaller scale `local' generators (e.g. breweries) • Institutional generators: hospitals, educational institutions etc. • Quality varies depending on WHERE materials generated and HOW materials are diverted /collected • Quantity varies depending on how EASY the program is to use KEY DRIVER - ORGANICS BANS / REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS • States and local jurisdictions are taking an increasing role in regulating /requiring organics diversion • States /jurisdictions with bans /regulations /ordinances in effect: • Massachusetts: ban commercial food waste, large generators (1 ton or more per week) as of July 1, 2014 • Connecticut: ban commercial food from landfill 2011 (generators of 2 tons or more per week) • Vermont: escalating ban, large generators in 2012, all food by 2020 • Seattle: mandatory food scrap composting — 2009 • Honolulu: commercial food waste ban - 1997 • San Francisco • Portland • Jurisdictions in planning stages: o New York, New York City KEY DRIVER - DIVERSION & RECYCLING TARGETS / INCENTIVES • Diversion /recycling targets: • Florida, California: 75% recycling by 2020 • Massachusetts: 80% waste reduction by 2050 • NYC: 75% diversion from landfill by 2030 • Orange County: solid waste reduction goal of 61 % per capita — currently at 63% • Incentives: o Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) grants of up to % of project cost and loan guarantees of up to $25 M — intended to increase use of AD to 1,300 farms by 2020 KEY DRIVER - RENEWABLE FUELS • Clean energy regulations: • Renewable fuel standard (RFS2) and Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) • Biogas Investment Tax act, 30% investment tax credit (ITC) for qualifying biogas technologies • Production Tax Credit for biogas projects generating electricity • If 50% of food waste generated annually went to AD could satisfy electricity needs of 2.5 million homes per annum o California: Assembly Bill (AB) 1900 — defines biomethane as a renewable fuel, authorizes California Energy Commission to establish certification process for biogas energy content and purity • Continued growth in renewable energy consumption is predicted by many authorities KEY DRIVER - CARBON AND CLIMATE CHANGE • Clean Development Mechanism in the Kyoto protocols allow emission - reduction projects to earn carbon creel its • Avoided emissions due to composting are accepted • No system is yet in effect in the U.S. — debate on cap - 'a and -trade versus carbon tax 50 • US EPA has performed an economic analysis of ACES Q 40 - (American Clean Energy and Security Act) and made 31 predictions regarding future carbon allowances 10 • Implementation of ACES is estimated to create an incentive for food waste diversion of $7 /Mg initially to over $11 /Mg in ten years a_ I 0 5 10 15 vs3's Regression of ER allowance prices RESIDENTI NICS PR RESIDENTIAL ORGANICS COLLECTION IN CANADA • Started on the east coast (Maritimes) in early 1990's, due to bans on disposal of organics in landfill • Primarily large automated carts, combining yard and food waste • Diversion progress stagnated at between 45 and 50 %, organics capture < 60% • Began in Ontario in late 1990's, with combined yard and food waste collection • Started in BC in the 2000's • Programs have evolved to separate food and yard materials, and some include expanded organics (pet waste, sanitary paper and diapers) • Majority curbside — rarely have depots RESIDENTIAL ORGANICS COLLECTION IN CANADA Drivers: • Landfill capacity constraints — PRIMARY ISSUE • Landfill environmental and siting issues • Longer term costs for disposal projected as higher than diversion cost • Advanced diversion targets • GHG emission reduction targets RESIDENTIAL ORGANICS COLLECTION: PROGRAM VARIATIONS • Type of organics ranges: yard waste, food waste, compostable paper fiber, pet waste, diapers, sanitary products • Size of curbside container: 12 gallons to 50 gallons • Type of kitchen container: aerated /non- aerated • Allow /not allow liners: film plastic or compostable bags • Year -round weekly collection, sometimes less frequent collection in winter months • Automated or manual collection • Co- collection: picking up organics in a split truck with other materials (garbage or recycling) • Restrict garbage quantities or pick up every other week ONTARIO ORGANICS PERFORMANCE 2013 Municipality (all 2013 Garbage Key Elements of Organic Program Lbslcapitalyear Contamination over 500,000 pop) Diversion Collection organics diverted Rate Rate Frequency Durham Region Every other Weekly Green Bin: food, paper fibre 181 total, 95 food 5% week Separate yard waste Halton Region 55% Every other Weekly Green Bin: food, paper fibre 249 total, 121 food NA week Separate_yard waste City of Hamilton 48% Weekly Weekly Green Bin: food, paper fibre, yard waste 203 total, 128 food 4% largely collected with Green Bin City of Ottawa 47% Every other Weekly Green Bin: food, paper fibre, yard waste. 201 total 2% week Does not allow compostable bags Peel Region 44% Weekly Weekly Green Bin: food, paper fibre 137 total, 51 food 1% Separate yard waste City of Toronto 53% Every other Weekly Green Bin: food, diapers, pet waste, paper 194 total, 108 food+ 20 to 25% week fibre, Separate yard waste, allows plastic bags York Region 59% Every other Weekly Green Bin: food, diapers, pet waste, paper 223 total, 145 food+ 17%+ week fibre, Separate yard waste RESIDENTIAL ORGANICS COLLECTION: PERFORMANCE • Organics capture rates: • Up to 95% yard waste • Up to 65% food • Up to 40% compostable fiber • Up to 40% pet waste & diapers • Highest food capture rates with programs that: • collect weekly organics separate from yard waste • collect garbage every other week • provide curbside cart and in -home container • allow compostable bags ar A � '� s T RESIDENTIAL ORGANICS COLLECTION - ISSUES - Participation rates level off at 70 %+ - Organics still remain in waste stream - Difficult to implement in multi - family locations - To control collection costs: can co- collect materials and /or move to every other week garbage pick -up - Some communities considering processing of mixed waste to extract organics fraction � ORGANICS L�_ PROCESSING - a � TECHNOLOGIES FUNDAMENTALS -" +� }" T Organics Processing-A f by _ -1 ]f� +✓I E - ' Match technology with type of organic► stream, ► -�. ,�,- • Match energy and organic products to available markets Consider integration with existing system co- processing with agricultural materials co- processing with commercial organics co- processing at waste water treatment plants Location — balance between proximity to markets and receptors (odor, ORGANICS PROGRAM DESIGN PROCESSING (AEROBIC, ANAEROBIC) ORGAN TECHNOLOGY SELECTION Key Issues • Feedstock quality /contaminant level • Potential for odors and odor management • Area /site size requirements • Utilities: power, water usage and wastewater • Potential permitting issues • Proven operations on similar feedstock • Ancillary cost: Chemicals, effluent • Maintenance, staffing, fuel, water, power requirements • By- product compatibility &aCNIG t I N I ROLU COSTS • Capital: up to $600 per annual ton of capacity • Operating: • Aerobic processing: $60 to $120 per ton (can be lower depending on local factors) • Anaerobic Digestion: $90 to $150 per ton • Range varies due to economies of scale, extent of odor control requirements, preprocessing requirements • Offsets for carbon credits, low carbon fuel, etc. can reduce cost —L ,WW- - -%� IMIIIIM REVENUES • Products and revenues: • Compost • Fertilizer (liquid, pellets) • Composted digestate • Tipping Fees: o Currently range from $30 to $50 per ton o Consider proximity to generator and potential savings in haul vs landfill when setting fee • Power Purchase: o "buy all / sell all ", "surplus sale ", "net metering" IMPLEMENTATION Lessons Learned to date ......... • Feedstock quality is key • Siting • Match technology to attributes of organic stream • Odors, odors, odors..... • Take the time to develop an appropriate plan v � f t i Dry Fermentation Anaerobic Digestion Photo courtesy of Zero Waste Energy Corp. NICS DIVERSI CURRENT PROGRAMS - COLLECTION • Split jurisdiction for waste services • County responsible for SS recycling collection (soon to all SF households), 95 gallon carts • Towns responsible for weekly cart collection of garbage and yard waste collection • More difficult to get to most efficient system for food waste collection • Options: • Town SF garbage /SSO co- collection • County SF recyclable /SSO co- collection (some or all of County) • Logistics for drop -off, material transfer CURRENT PROGRAMS - LANDFILL • Disposed (buried) in County (6,317 tpy 14- 15), out of County (63,121 tpy 14 -15) • In- County `landfill' primarily a waste recovery facility, 11,500 tpy recycled 14 -15 • MSW disposed: 56% Residential, 44% Non- residential • Landfill tip fees - $40 for C &D and $18 for yard waste Orange County, ranges up to $60 out of County (avg. $40 /ton) • Potential organics driver: availability /pricing of future out of County landfill capacity CURRENT PROGRAMS - DROP OFF PROGRAMS - 5 staffed solid waste & recycling sites — one with food waste collection • 5 un- staffed 24 hour drop off locations • 445,221 visitors per annum, averages just over 10 visits per household per year • Diversion through drop off (5,219 tons 14- 15), diversion through County curbside programs (7,509 tons 14 -15) CURRENT ORGANICS PROGRAMS-COUNTY • 9,724 tons of yard waste, clean wood, oyster shells diverted at County landfill • 1,622 tons of commercial food waste collected from 39 collection sites / 45 separate establishments, 3x per week • Sells backyard compost bins & provides composting support • Includes food waste collection from schools • Residential food waste drop -off at Walnut Grove, 5 tons in 2014/2015 • Also provides food waste collection services for public and private special events CURRENT ORGANICS PROGRAMS-OTHER • Chapel Hill • leaf and yard waste collection • grease corral for commercial generators, grease privately collected • Hillsborough o leaf and yard waste collection • Carrboro o leaf and yard waste collection • Leaf re -use diverted 2,039 tpy 14 -15 • Food waste diversion by Chapel Hill Carrboro Public Schools, primary and middle schools, 127 tons 14 -15 • UNC yard waste grinding and food waste collection diverted 2,297 tons 14 -15 CURRENT ORGANICS PROCESSING • County mulches yard waste, not permitted to process food waste or large amounts of leaves • Brooks Contractor composts collected commercial materials at their facility • Other Type III and IV operating compost facilities in the area: • McGill Environmental Systems • Novozymes of North America WASTE COMPOSITION: ORGANIC FRACTION IN MSW Sector Food Waste Yard Waste Portion of `Other Paper' Other Organics Single Family 21% 2.6% 9.2% 17% Multi Family 22.5% 3.9% 8.8% 17% Commercial 25.5% 2.7% 14.5% 9% Estimated Tons 11,400 tons 1,700 tons 51100 tons 8,500 tons • Based on County waste composition study 2010 and 2014 -2015 tons reported • % of food waste and other organics has increased significantly since 1995 • Small increase in % of yard waste • % of `other paper' has decreased • Waste generation rate is approximately 0.6 tons /urban HHD /year CURRENT PROGRAMS - OBSERVATIONS • Achieve economies of scale with current recycling system — need similar approach for economies of scale with organics • Any Town or County changes in collection services should be coordinated to provide greatest benefit /minimize risks • Implementing organics collection is compatible with PAYT (should that proceed), offers option to residents to reduce garbage • Every other week garbage may be a useful tool in lieu of PAYT — however has implications • Can be easier /faster to implement changes in collection with pubic collection forces (not bound by contract dates) • Future consideration of new Transfer Station(s) could allow for transfer of organics out of County • Projected population increase anticipated to increase tons of waste disposed over time • Current yard waste collection (collection approach, processing) not suitable for inclusion of food waste ORGANICS COLLECTION OPTIONS • Residents used to carts for garbage and recycling • Rate of use of carts for yard waste unknown, not an easy `add' on to include food in yard waste • Need to address collection efficiency and transfer • Residential Options: • Town SF garbage /SSO co- collection • County SF recyclable /SSO co- collection (some or all of County) o Expand food drop -off locations • Commercial Options: • Continue and expand current voluntary program • Expand school food waste diversion • Transition to mandatory organics diversion for large food waste generators PROCESSING OPTIONS • Current in- County options are limited • Could seek permit to co- compost food waste at County landfill • A number of out -of- County processing options, may require transfer for efficiency • Costs for processing at existing facilities in the area ranges based on published information, nominal fee (low end) of $24 /ton, but ranges higher ($45 +) • Economies of scale for development of new composting or AD facility unlikely • Estimate less than 10,000 tpy of additional organics diverted from residential /commercial program allowing all organic materials, likely range from 3,000 to 5,000 tpy • Could seek to establish partnership /long term arrangement with private sector or others (UNC) to develop capacity PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS AND COSTS • One -time roll -out costs for carts, kitchen containers, promotion, $30 or more per household • Cost to provide collection service reported in other jurisdictions ranging from $5.40 /month /HHD to $12.90 /month /H H D • However, most of these have `separate' collection service, costs can be reduced • Program costs will vary based on: • Configuration of collection system (separate versus co- collection) • Cost /requirement to transfer materials • Processing option • Could consider pilot program or staged roll -out to investigate options for collection, public response and program performance... PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS - PILOT - When is a pilot reasonable: • Need to compare functionally different options, use pilot to collect data • Where there are concerns regarding public response to program, use pilot to roll -out organic program to trouble -shoot issues • When a full program is not feasible, but phasing in a program is possible • When there is a level of commitment /interest in proceeding with a program but potential program performance needs to be assessed against other major constraints like costs - Is a pilot reasonable in Orange County..... To be discussed