HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-01-2001-5ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Dafe: October 1, 2001
Action Agentla
Item No. 5
SUBJECT: Other Bolitl Waste Matters-Informational Reports
DEPARTMENT: Solitl Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENTS):
Proposed Scope of Work with RRSI INFORMATION CONTACT:
9I1 ]I015WAB Memo Gayle Wilson 988-2885
9/5!01 Staff Memo re'. Informational
Reports TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Hillsborough ]33.8161
Chapel HIII 868-6501
Durham 688-1331
Mebane 336-22T-2031
PURPOSE: To receive beef informational reports from staff regaNing a variety of solid waste
management programs and ac[Wities; and to consider approval of wnsu8ing suppotl for the
Solid Waste Atlvisdry Boats.
BACKGROUND: the accompanying stall memo provides updates for the BOCC onthe
following topics
• SWAB Subcommittee on Solitl Waste Financing Alternatives
• SWAB Future Priorities
• Cartborc Plaza Recycling Center
• Hillsborough Commercial 5olitl Waste COllectlon
Retuning Solitl Waeta Contracts
• Toxicity Retluction Improvement Program Proposal
Preliminary Concept Analysis-Cooperation of Transfer Sia6on and CUrtent Mixed Solitl
Waste Lantlfill; LantlClearing antl Inert Gebris Recycling Center
• CamPOSting
To the e#ent wodc session time permits, staff will respontl to Commissioner questions antl/or
highlight key points regaNinq any or all of the subjects listetl.
With regartl to the frst topic, the SWAB has requestetl that the Board approve the use of
Resource RecyGing Systems. Ina (RRSI) of Ann Arbor. Michigan tc provitle solid waste
consulting services far the Alternative Financing Committee including:
z
• re-evaluation of recycling collection economics comparing current methods with commingled
methods
. a review of materials recovery facilities
provision ofadddional technical assistance regaNing ownership, operation, impacts and
• costs of various Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) sizes antl confgurations
As explelnetl in the accompanying request from the SWAB Chair and Alternative Finance
Committee Chair, [his Information will ba used fo assistMe SWAB in evaluating [ha Solitl Waste
Management Plan and future solltl waste fund revenue requirements so that alfemative
fnancing recommentlations may be made to fhe Soartl of Commissioners early in 2002.
In oNer accurately to assess future solid waste costs, the SWAB needs to revlai[ elements of
the approved Solid Waste Management Plan, given the aignificanf wsls associated wtth the
Plait Of particular interest are quea[ione relatetl to the Materials Recovery Facility and
motlificatlon/enhancement of recydables collection methotlologies from existing practices.
Following the approval of the oaunty-wide solid waste management plan in 1997, the Solitl
Waste Management Oeparment was authorizetl to acquire conaul[ing services to tletermine the
parameters for building a materials recovery facility to serve Orange Countys recycling neetls.
RRSI of Ann Arbor, Michigan was retalnetl In 1888 b provide a scope of services that inclutletl:
'mtrodutlory and background presentations about MRFs
key issues analysis Nat evaluatetl cost, sizing and ownership opficns fora MRF that mould
serve Oange County's recycling neetls
development of a workplan to acquire the professional services to tlesign antl build a MRF
RRSI completed a substantial amount of work, but reached an ongoing hiatus that was primarily
tlue [c [he change of focus in 1999 among the LOG member governments bresplving solitl
waste organizational mattere. No decisions have been made to this point by Ne BOCC
regaNing whether a MRF will be pureustl. If a MRF is fo be considered at some point in [he
future, BOCC tlaciaions will be requiretl Is[er regaNing a site, type of ownership antl financing,
issuance of an RFO and RFP for a MRF designer/builtler, or selection of designers or builders.
For now, however, the SWAB requeate that the BOGC authorize the use of consulting expetlise
to revisit and examine the validity of assumptions usetl in earlier alternative fnancing analysis
ceMatl out by the LOG.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The ultimate Flnanclelimpad of some of these topics, parflculetly [hose
relatetl fo alternative financing and implementation of the Integrated Solitl Waste Management
Plan, cannot be accurately forecast at this point Financial implications of some of the other
topics ere addressed briefly in Ne staff memo. Soliq Waste Management staff will be preparetl
to respontl to any apecifc questions the BoaN may have regartling fhe fiscal Impact of any of
these topics:
W ith rogaN to the proposetl services fmm RRBI, it should be noted that their previous etforts
were suepentletl with a contract in place to mmplefe the necessary work, although that contrec[
and its funding have since lapsed. Stall recommantls that the BOaN approve the expenddure
of an amount not to exceed $10,000 [o accomplish the wont elements outlinetl above antl in the
accompanying scope of work. Atlequatefundingtc cover this wntract is available in the FV
2001-02 Solid Waste Department budget No butl9ef amendment would be required.
3
RECOMMENOATION(9): The Manager recommends that the Board:
i) eu[horize staff to negotiate a contact with RR51, in an amount not to exceetl $95,000, that
reflects subsfentislly the accompanying scope of work
2) authorize the Purchasing Oiredor to execute me mnfact aiW associated paperwork with
RRSI
3) receive the other reports for information only et this time.
Orange County
Solid Waste Managamen! Department
Proposed Scope of Work wtth RR31
MRF Analysis antl InPormedonal Presentations
weparoa sepremeerss, xost
Task L
• Provitle an on-site presentation, tlirected M the SWAB, on materiels recovery fecildies
(MRF) that is an update of the presentation RRSI matle previously to the public, elected
officials antl staff in Orange County during their work evaluating MRF options for Orange
County.
This would involve a development of draft of presentation materiels, review of presentation
antl protluction of final tlocument, on-sde meeting with SWAB antl debriegng session.
Estimaetl cost $2,500, including travel expenses.
Task 2.
• Provitle uptletetl re-analyses wmparing recycling collecllon methotls from the torten[
source-separated systems for urban curbsitle, rwal curbside, antl multifamily recycling to a
completely wmmingletl or two-stream (paper/other recyclables),
This would include review of current program cost and pedormance date, development of
inputs and assumptions far RRSI analysis motlels, review of assumptions with staff,
performance of analyses. review and repoding results Further analyses would be
consideretl based on initial results of motlel.
Estimated cost not fo exceed: $6.000
Task 3.
Provitle atldilionel technical assistance regaNing ownership, operation, impacts antl costs of
various MRF sizes antl configuralicns M assist the SWAB in determining a recommended
configuration, if any, for such efacility.
This would Involve RRSI providing profiles of options tlevelaped in past work, discussion of
Moss profiles with staff, iden[Aicatlon of up to three new ownership/operation aranados,
analysis, repotl and presenMtion to the SWAB, BOCC antl the public on those scenarios.
Requiretl follow-up analysis.
Estimated cost not to exceetl: $6,500.
5
Memnraaaam
To: Steve Halltiotis, Chair
Bomd of Orange County Commissioners;
(.i
From: Aogcr Bart, Cbair Solid WasR Adv&aryBOetd lam'
tan Sazcamav, Chan, Ntemativa Finance Commiuee
Bubje is Acgwring ConsWdng Servicesm AVSwm QuWtiena egarding the SOtid
Waz~e Ylan
Deh: Scptemba 1], 2001
Thn ALemab Pinanoe CorvrWam of the Solid Waste Adviwry Bond (SWAB) M1az bew
examining the proposed county-wide solid waste plan previously adopted and reaff ed
by We local govemmrn[s az part of its prcfimwary financial analysis related m future
financing. The COmmiaee has dcmnWved,.nth sniff ossislmca, that there arc xeverel
key questivvs for which we aced tecbNvW assistance befas we can oBec the BOCC e
and mcommendatlon about Ne plan and means iV potentially finance its
implemenmtion. Solid Woste Mmmgemmt s1WfM1az informed ve that the faohvlcal
nmplexity of these questions ra4wm some mnsWSiv6 eaeinavice m answer these
gnastions sfltisScmdly.
We believe Nat Rcsamce Recycling Systems, Inc. (RRSI), the eoasWting firm previously
empleyad m provide information and analysis of Na materials recovery facility (MRI>),
woWd be asnmW choice m assul Ne SlVA6 in Ne following ways:
Provide Ne S WA6 anon-siee presenmtion on materials recovery facviries (MRF) Nat
an update of the presentation they made previously to Ne public, elecced officials
[and staff in Orange County during [heir work evaluetivg MRF optiom' for Orange
Ccuvty and respond m myuiries from the SWAB,
• Provide updamd analyses ofthe impacts of cluugW%rccyding collection methods
from the tumor somco-ecpamtetl seams for urban curbside, rmW cmBVde, and
multifamily recydWg m a commingled or hvoaaenm (paper/other recydables),
• provide updaced additional teclwcW assisrenhe regatdWg ownership, operation,
impede and costs ofvmious MRF sizes arW car~Bgumtionc ro assist Ne SWAB iv
dmemining arccommended oordigmetlon, hang far such a femlily
Vle request that Ne BoaM ofOrange Cowty Commissiomrs authorize Ne Solid Waste
Manegemem Oepanmmt w expurd Ne nmcseary funds, nano exceed SIS,OOq based on
scope nfwork (summetiud above) rcquesced by the SWAB Alternative Finance
Commiacc. The BOCC is enNUSipstieelly invilW to the proposed presentmiav by RRSL
The SNAB haw developed a timeline for it3 sltemadve 6n~nce work.
• August 111 ~ Creation of Altemativa Fivmce Covwittcc
December 0l-Comminee Recommendation toSWAB
• lanaary/Febrvary Ol-SWAB Recommendations [o 6000
Given the demmding schedule the Camminee needs mpmwed expeditiouay. Please
consider our requert at your earfies[ opportunity so tbat we can ob*sinthe nacseary
technical iNOrmationm proceetl with our analysis and to echedule RRSI to make Iheic
presentation.
Plene let me know if yuu bane any question.
MBmoRAnnuM
To: John Link,Mmagtt
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
Subjece Other Solid Waste Matters~Tn(ormmionW Reports
Date: 3eplember 5, 2001
(updated Sryrembnr 29, 3001)
Tha following wformabon is provitletlto inform Ne epartl of Commissioners of solid waste
related issues of current wtaem. Board feedback or oddifidnal wgwries aze welcomed.
a) SWAB Snbwmmittee ov 6otid Waste FSnavewg Altemafivee
The Solid Wvs[e Advisory BnaNfins appointed an Altvnatire Finmmin5 Suhwmmittee to work
wrN staffin coMucting Ne detWl~ auWyeis necessary for the SWAB b Nomuglily exemwe
alternative Noticing strategioe IDr futmceolid was[c actlvitica Ja¢Saesamav, Al Vickua,
Jvcquie Cist end Remus Smith havebcen appointed. The Committee is scheduled to report back
m NeSWAB wDecmnber with recomm®detions azW findings.
b) SWAB PUfurc PriorPoes
The Board of COwWSSionem has informally assi~ed to the SWAB fhe pricdry took o£
evaluating wlid waste sltemative Gnanewg options andmakwg aceconuneWadonm Ne Bomd
in time(or consideration wiNinthe contutof Ne FY 3003-03 bud5etpmcess. As staRpoinmd
cot during the 2001-02 bodge[ work seesions, it will be criricW that Ne BOCC ceavidu and
make decisions next Spdng Nat will allow implamcmatlon aPwhatever additloval 6vmcioy
mechanism(s) ix/me approved by the-omd to wderwrite next fiwsl year's bud5et.
w ardor to tarty am this Wtcmativc Pvavcwg weluatim asdgvmevt, it will Wao be veceeeary for
the SWAG to exvmine the Solid Waste Management Plan approved by the-OCC and
vanamined to the Stetew Septembs2000, along with the cpontywes[e redaction goale. The
SWAB wishes m wnfirm Wal ezamioatim~ o[optiooe tc generate supplemental inwme fr the
wlid waste enmtprisa fimdisamP Priority. Given the sensitive and complicated namrc efthia
aseigmvrnt, it w likely to «cupymost afthe SW'AB'S warklead far Ne ve t sevaetmwtha.
c) Carrbom Plaza Recycling Center
The devnbpmen[ of a recycling cmlar at Cnrrboro Plaza is on course frr wmpladan Nis fiscal
year. The pmjed woo delayed exlavaPoely as areaW[ofvanatmetiov related tc Ne park and ride
lot tit Carrbmo Plaza and cost and design issues related to Ne proposed recycling center, but
staffbelieves Nose have now bwn resolvedm the pawl Nat the ptnjmt canpmceed. The
esrimazM cast ofthis projmt has risen somewhnr recently due to OWASA'e Wenti&cation o(Ne
Head to ralpw[e a wazor Iwo to a firs hydrant Na[ waWd havebcenparl[ally coveted by the
crde p:ut. SIaRFavejusb receivi OWASA's approval onerelocation plan arW aze prepared
m [eke Ne enfve pmjw[ to bid_ It is possible that a bid rewmmendatien could bemedy fnr
Bond approvN in OCmbttwith conswefion beginningin November. As previously nerd in
smf£repode, a budget mrmdmevt N appmprieve I'uvd balance ftOVi Na Solid Waategavdfill
Operations F,nmrprise Fwd will be required N fund meprojedbecausc appropnetione approved
in provious f el years nave lapsetl and reverend m rood balance.
The Houd of Comnussinnem alNmved a no fee base ageemmt this past spring and we aze now
abteto proceed wfN executlon. Opevmg ofthis recycling center has been a tdgh priority fvt ma
Cazrboro Hoard ofNdermen. They and Ca¢boro smffhave workal cvllaburativelywim me
Counq~romove this pxojcd elovg. Upfront consttuc[ion costs for the projwt are new estimated
to be $50,000-$b5,00U. Wien the l0 year site use agrcemen[approved by the BOCC, staff
believes mat me amortaed capiml costs represent a good invesmtevt iv a site that is likely to
tmyclmg converdeme formmy County residents, increase pettieipohon m avmall
rccrease
tychugvomme, ma reant~ some of me oyuaow tnat;a nccesi0nally expedmtea at omen
recycling NopoH'silw.
a> xmsnomngh commareial sous wrote couecdou
The Hillebomogh Tovn BoW voted in lanuery 2001 m cease provision ofdempetcr service in
ttidsbOrough by ]Wy 1, 2002. Hosed initially ov conwms rdamd to Intttlacal Agreement
regtdremmts Nat the Town's solid waste be delivnedto Caunly solid waste system facilities,
s[afl opened diacusvons with Ne Tvvm Mvtager and sNffregaNivg how the Town might beet
ore vM1e vovtinued flow of solid wrote to the COmty system One eovcaptxaisM is tnaz the
Solid Wane Mmag®mt Oepadmmt could take over commetoial collection sernoos, aseumwg
Tovm and cowry Board vpproval, aM not only continue to cflptme the wastes ww being
dellvaodm synma{acilities, but to implemmigfre bve~wmmaolW Collodion program and
gevemte additional tcc for service revenues forme enterprise fund m well.
Absent 6000 diroction to Ne wnrcmy, stall'will continue to discuss ibis matter vnN the Town
smf(ptthaps resulting inaformalproposalN take over mia whecdon ettvice. SmRbeGeves
both the TOWN mdtha enterprise [u¢d tanbmefi[. if mdwhm amubrally agreeable
azrengemwrt is idmdfied i[ will be submived to ibe Hoard far consideration.
eJ Rcmrrlvg 6olia Waste Cantrage{eoe atNehmmt#1)
When the Comty assumed aaponsibility in Apri12000 for evemll solid waste management, the
Board requestM and received a list of retorting contracts Nat at one point or amNerwbuld
reyuire BOazd approval. Av updated list of each wn¢ams ispmvitled simply fm the Board's
ivfonnvtion. Nduded on mia tin aze two commode cwrontty scheduled £or Hoard conaideraficv
al Nc September 18 regolaz meeting. The N-House GovemmmNl building Recycling Commact
is m'scussed in agenda itemp4above The MWti-Pamily Recyaling Con¢aot is erenewal Ofm
cxieting agreemeW wiN vo mbstanfive chmges.
D Toxicity Reduction Improvesvent Program Prapveal (see atmcM1menl k2)
StfltEwishes m introduce a pmposvl Nat combines exielivg and proposal mxicity reduction
progrema/activitles iutoatoxicity raduvtionpublic campaiev. The objective is to mvkc the
concept of mxicity reaudian more visible and Wtimatety reduce the patmdal forpollurtav from
wastes generated aMmanaged in Orange County. Staff is inlecested in Bomd feedback on this
proposal.
g) Preliminary COVCCp[Analysis-Co-opemnon ofhensfer slanon end Current Mixetl
Solid W sale LandlilVLantldeuing aotl Inert Debris R«ydivg Center (see anaehmevl
#3)
At solid waste Advisory BOUd meetings Ws past aprwg, quetiona uoec regarding the concept
afproaeding to devdop atravsfer stanan while the mixed solid waste Imdfll was still w
operation. sta[£exarvined the issue and delermitred Nat because oCexie[ing apace covelminls,
this notion would be most logical if the iransf« station was located in the northern part of
Orange Cowry.
Additionally, previous discussions by the CBd) Recycling Task Porce focusetl on a v«d m
usidec a laudcleariug end Wert debris recycling £eciVtybecause Neproposed Regulated
Recyclable Malenah Ordinance prohibits burwng of Imdcleazing debris and [here is curcrn[ly no
fiurctioml eltervatlve (or generators of[hese matMals. Staffbelieves drat Nis landscape
material couldba ground and sold esmitlch, comport err boiler fuel. ]Care appeue to be little
space on Eubanks Road to manage lavddcerivg debris, so altemazive areas ofNe cowry may
need to heoonsidered OurNmmore, staffbelieveaemadymukcl cziare for rocyrlcd N«I
materal and Nat Nis activity could be eo-avN alanddearing debris recycling facility. 9oth
have the potential to grnemte revenue for the mtcrpriec Nvd.
The attached report discusses in somedetail Ne concepts ofboth anoMem bansfu station and
lavdcleming and inert debris r«ydwg.
h) Compoadvg (s« amchmenis p4 vvtl #5)
In response m a Commissioner inyuiry about the role ofcompos[wg in Orange Couvry's solid
waste menagemrntplen, eteffprepered the accompanying memo outlining general wmposdng
appmacbes, Na co~ideration o[ewtre4zed wmpoetiv3 d,^-^g Ne 19Y6 WPSTON study, and
curtrnt and prospedive County pmgam ing and initiatives relamdm composting.
~_i -.~~
ooog~gooooa~
N~
_'~_°c°°c°ccc~88c~
~o_ o_o~ ~MM
`~~o~?~008000
~o~
v
o E= z
3 `odd ~+ E
FidE ~ ~co
_ U ~ o ~ 0
E ~ t U ai~
"~Hgymm°
8'~z o"~;vim ~a
ow°ow„-~m°oYN¢a
m~ m rn '0 3 c o °cr o U
c ~N~
~a~CS.O~~~oUK
a" w ~,w o o `s 3 e- E m
a
ro
- ~6
o= emm @
`m
E `.°~~ m Z ~`mo 2L+a ¢°f
s UQHw~yrcY~U?C}C~
C ~o m ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ w ~
~~~~.~~
~MO1tANIlUM
Tv: Iobn Link, Manager
Fmm~. Oayle Wilsog Solid Waste Management Director
SubjceL New Program Suggestion-fbxiciry Reduotiov improvement Program (TRIP)
Detc: Scptcmb¢5, 2001
Hmansa o(oar respovsibtityfvr local wastexmyclivg avid disposal op¢atiovs the Soid Wage
Menegetnevt Depmvnent is contirmelly imerca[ed iv minimizing Ne contamination pptemisl oftho
wades beivg maoagW within Ne Cowty. Based on This cumpellin8 mlerest slaRhas developed e
draft 6evaework ofe toxicityr~uction operaGOre plan Nat coWdbe endorsed by the Bo¢d of
Commissionem and vnplementwpcocpled wiN a wmprehmsive toxicity reduction educational
aniPeign. The plan world consistofanassembly of cnllectioq referral, mtd edviceGonW
camponmda whose primazy goals wanld be to'.
• educa[ethe residents msdbusinesws of Oren$e emmtyroiamt¢y carmin wades Nat bave be
ackmWl~$Bd potential t0 c0Pa20nVIIONnNtd1 fAn[anti93ti0n,
"m.rc [hctoxicitycfmat vials bring dispoacd iv Omv$c Cowry
•unPrcve/expand exisGn6 tpxicityrednevim Pragtwns/practices
• develop additional t¢geced toxicity reductive programs/practices
ediwata Iha reaidents and businesses oFOrmge County regarding Nevanous local pregrems
MatmangB taxi[ wastes
Sivice out propoml cormiata ofexislivg programs which can simply be erthmwed and programs
which bave bean fittly analyzed avid aremady fnr implementation, peMing HOCC final
authorization, the Toxicity Redncnon Improvement Play (TRIP) cav be raN¢ 9Wcklyuvptemevted
and aggressivelypromoted. To acertain ex[evt this new cmnpaign isarcpackaging ofpmgams
mad at limiting enviroruvenml comsminadon which will allow Na Cowry m more effacfively
promote Nem and Wtimately, make Nem more succeazful.
pxistin¢Pm¢ramx
• Waste screeWng at NC C&D and MSW disPOSal areas:
• N 'n[aiwg oexQGcd landfill inepectoas to mamine all loads delivered Ter disposal fnr
haraNOUS or potentially toxic matmals
Pmeide posinvefeedbackmbaulers ofundesirable wastemateriWS xgarding
• lawfuVpref¢red mamgementpmctices
The new carnpWgt would reinforce cxistw6 wep¢tiov activities andposnM1ly provide
Wspecrora with additional referral almmatives for certain wastes
• Household Hazardous Waste (EifiW)Collection Program
Currently offers monthly opportunity for COmtyxoaidmte to safoly diecurd potemially
hazerdnus wastes gcrnramd W dN home
Thenew campaignwouldezpand dte existing FIITW pmgammmore boors per month,
perhaps also heinK open the eridaypmt CO Ne $aNrday each month
• Wa[Call (aub)BattaY Collcceon Program
• CurenrlypmvidesCOr collection a[all COmry canvmimce centers nn tbmugb lbe FlliW
progam
• The new e¢mpaig¢would anmmtto increase awareacse ofthe pmgam
• Commercial COOking Crease/Oil Recycling
• Existing grease recyclingpmvided byprive[e sector
• Tlse new camp¢ign could focus educalioral efforts on restenrants and other food prmaratinn
catabhamrmh
• Greasz'cooking oils could be formally pmbibited firm dieposalmdwnpetwe yr mandated
by oNinance N be reeyclN
• Waste Automotive Oil and Oil Filters
• Bxietivg residmtiW waste oil and oil fitter recyohng progam opamtW by Connty ere Cowry
r ecawcrs
New campaign coWd focus aducatiovnl efforts vn promoting this pxgam
d D 1 VI P M'
• Hmtr®ca Itecyclmg
• Anticipated to manageavadcty of elechovic wash items
• Lnplementetiov pmdivg SnW HOCC approval
Bleclconiu recycling program could become oemetp[eoe ofthe new toxicity campaign
Program could be cOWled withmelecuonics dimoeal6aNmandarvryrxyclmg ordinance
• Small QrenGty Gcvcretor Crnnmemal Hazardous W¢ete COllectievs
• $elwhd busivcsece being surveyetl for interesi iv implemcnhtion ofthie type pmgam
• Overall effect ofnew campaign could bemestablishasmall quantity 6azardeus waste
progam and encourage small quantity gzner¢tors m panicipate
• Dry Call Baaery Recycling
hnlicipated to manvga a all known dry edl baztedes
lmplemmtetionpet>dNg final BOCC approval
Dry cell battery progam could elan bcwmeacen[erpieceoRbe new mxicity carnpeign
~a
Additional Proesma Which Could Be Considered
1TC following progama mould be developed as future elemwts efthe rozicity campaign:
• Programro recycle mawrythermometers ,
• Progam baeyclennti-haeez recyclinK atdmtwfisims
• Prog~ rormycle flomecevt Gpp[ballaets (eterters)
ImolemeoYafron Plau Proposal
Based on Ne sown rcquircmcm t r modifying an existing SUY of dre Eubmdte Road Imdfll
property, coupled with tM1e time necessary m bid, awed and consbud the electronics~battery stnrege
buildmg, it ie the opwion of sreffthat aMaroh tkick-off date is reasonable.
The clcctromce and bavery mcycWg programs are schedul d ro be discussed by the BOCC at the
solitl waste work session on September 11. Assuming these twu progama arx aulEorized, slat!
would suggest the following implvnm[atiov strategy:
FY Ul/o2
IWy- Sabmit SUP Modifcation Application
Scptwrber-Receive authotuatiori from BOW fa eleetrottirs/dry cell betlery program
October-Position rel¢ted m eledronics/baztery pmgam authomed in pa cannel ordinance
December- S~ ge building bid (asuming SLP Mod proceeding rontmely)
Ienuary-Storage building awW
March-TRIP Kickoff amanvcros<vt/publicirycampaign
Begin electronics avddry cell batteryprograms
-Consider additional rozicityreduction programs as pan of FY U2/U3 budgllpmcess (as
necessary)
-Srorage building wnstcucted
ApN-Jnve-Publicity cvmpeigt continues
Tpxlclm Rednetiav Imorovemen[Pm~nm CasYa
Existing Comty pmgvns arc tally fwdcd.
Elcctreaice oral Dry CeII Battery programs arc funded but no[ authorized.
Small gnanrity generator commercial hszarzloue waste collection pragam is self-finding.
FimKial amlysis ofpomntial future pmgmme wwmplete pending indicarion o£HOCC interest.
Publicitycempei~ lbr TRIP pcogrvn tobc fovded from cwregl Solid Wesro Maitagemont
Depar4nept adv¢rising/privting budget.
T ~
~~ 3
'I~
Memorantlum
l'o: lohn Link, Cowty MwaBm
Prom: Gayle Wilson, Solid Wazta Mwagemantllvector
Subject Pretimivary Melysis-CO-operatim ofe Trapsfer Station and Cunmt
Mucd Sold Waste landfill
Date: September 5, 2001
The propose of this memorandum is ro provide prclimivsry analysis aW raise key issues
pertaining m the wncept of constmcting and operazing a wlid waste hwsfm sfahon
wultanmusly With opmatiov oftM current Lavdfill. Asapmt Of 6tafP6lmag tam
cmuepmal solid wazteplasmhsg, avalysis ofdeveloping a trmsfer station idthe voMem
Orange County has been considered in mr~wcdon x$M1 a feciliry to recycle Imd oleadvg
mtl inert tlebns (LCID), as well as disastee debris ham 6[prm6 and Iloods. 11ds [sport
discussc6 a votthcm Orovgo Cowty transfer station from thisjowt ficihty pampstive
and hom a stand-alone facilitypersPedive.
Raekernuod
Earlier this year, the Board of QwBe Cowty Commissioners asksl smfflo examine the
ending the constructlon and opemtiw solid waste hma[tt 6mtiov priorro
closing the roman[ ImdNl. Staff has assumed the primary purpose ofupaalinK the
tlaosfm etafiov would be io extend the life oftha current solidwazla landfill, yrajeaed
new m be full in pY 2006-0]. There may also be othtt bmehts.
Duwasion
The key asswrptiou intlus report is that emh ton ofwaste transferred has the same
volume as a con now landfllled. Thus ifone quarter ofthe county's sohd waste xarc
hwsfeaed out of the wwry dm Wg thepaiod ofmalysis, land511 km would be extendW
b}' 23% ofthe time remawng onto the trmsCa station opened. The other keyverieble
woWd be when the vavsfa begns npvmiun.
This awlysu is based on w azsnmption that a trmaftt station to manage only span of
Yha courny's whd waztestream wuldba moll eRecvivdY sitwtednorth of]-SRethtt
than adjoining or on the cutratlandfi0 site. Arsenate site wevld be primarily for
serving the popWetipn mWboeinessce north of I-85 in Orange County, wNch cummtly
must travel m Eubanks Road for disposal. Sieff malysie show that about 13,000 tons per
yam ofMSW are genaamd from this pan of the cuumy which includes all ofCetlaz
Grove and Liule River mwnshfp5 end gmgmphicelly, 60 0 of Cheeks township, 90% of
Eno rowrehip, and 90°0 ofHilleborough toam6hip, including the town of klillsbomugh.
Is
There are a[ leazt three distinct eceverios far a waste management site north off-85
1. Trariafer 5[aeon Only
2. Transfer Smtion Co-located With LCID Recycling Opcmtioru
e. ccro xayTlmg Operaaon Dory
1.8rend-alone M$W Trnsfer 8tadon- Eeiiouted Casfa: $996,100
It is Pvssibla W wvshnc[ this Bite az e stavtl-stove traosfex elation for MSW only, wWeh
woWd roquim av estim¢tad fiveacree, mohtdntg ample buffos. The site could ba used to
a~mge other ancillarymaterials ench as scrap tires and appliances now managed a[ t6o
Orange County Landfill, however, Ws option assumes only a transfer statlon. Scrap tires,
appfian ea, yard waste and C&ia would continue m be managed et Ne cement IaMfi0
site. Recyclablas coWd also be co0caM at the pmpvsed ttanster vac as [hey cunendy
great existing wlid wazte wnveaiensx cevtcm.
• Lavd: 530000 (one time expense)
Land coam are difficult to pxdia and are sltc epeclficbazed upw location, topogmphg
em. For puryoses ofthia avalyeis weassume $5,000'scre for the minimum sim
erz of5 acres, plus additlonal funds foraamvey and appraisal.
• Trenefar Station Aacilities~$402500 (one time axparue)
incladoa 50'X60' bnildivg ($250,000), well and eeptie ($6j00), entrmw road and scale
pad (525,000), scales ($59,000), small gavel recycling grog ($),000), frontage fevcdgam
($9,000), roadway tmnlene (S1g0011), engivecriug and permitNvg ($35,000), sienege
($3,100), mvvivg offioa hailer from Fubavks Road (51,500)
Smffbalixvae Ihcecfacilities couldbedesiged, bid pomutted andbuilt in leas than two
years follawmg property u:quieilion.
Hwipmcnr $404.350(recmring mvMbntionro EOWpmrnt Replacementraserves of
about $95,OOWyear)
Inclvdce Tractor ($R0,000),'ll l¢s ($156,000), Ftel'hvck-used ($10,000), Pickup
($2zsoo), v/h i Loads (5333,4sok aoale nardwa~anftwme (511,960>, ana two-way
tamna ($z,4oo).
Pefeomol' 3122000 (rec rring axpewc)
mcludae -Driver ($30,x00), wpuror (S32,OW), Weip]wsamc ($30,000), PgWpmant
Operator (530,000). -
This leeel of naffing asumes rh¢t the facility would be oprn 40 hours pcr week.
Additional horns wotdd increase staffing ws[.
16
oneae<~: Say 6sb (~~nx exprnaea)
Inclndee feel (516,000), firWshlvge ($1,600), aupplioe (51,]00), phone (5350), alectriuity
($5,000), er~dmeintrnanca (515,(100). -
• Revenue~S55
II is assumM that the transfer sladon would munWin the same lipp~nx Fee as she landfill,
hOweveq wml land ie pucchaned and the design and wnstruction coem acekwwn it ie
dlRrcWLLO estimate tipping kas and revenue. Webelieve there mighv ba soma revrnue
generated beyond dtat regoved to fund operations mtd capitalivefion, however, it ie safe
to asaumelhat any smplua revenue would be aigr~ dy leas Wan that now generated
per tonby the landfill. CLnomers would gain savings in transportafion
wets/convctience; Mwevcr, these savings would vat be attributabl<ro the Sohd Wmte
Management Department Additional savings wouldresultfrom delay landfill dosvrc
and Eubanks Rd. hmafer station corehuc[ion and operation costs.
Possible Advmtaea
• Short¢travcl diNavec to disposal sikfor was[c haulers from the nosthzrn part ofNe
County,
Reduction oftruck vafficun l-dq old NC 86, old vnd new lIwy. 86 and the Eubanks
Read err
• Reduced wckteaffctluough doxmtown Hillsborough,
• There azelvWted waste sssavagemaMfatilitics in the uorthem end ofihe wunty now,
• Anortbem rcanslu Bite eoWd wntwueto operate Wror <loemo ottM cmrav[Imdfp
pmjwtW for FY 2006-0],
• Passible synergy with an ex¢tmg conv®iwce center site coultl redoes opamtlonW
oat by wmbining the two firvctions (depending on whma located),
• Perception ofmora equitable M1osling ofwlid waste Taulitias by Enb¢Nce Road
unity.
• Could delay IandEll closure and eswciazed costa for m edditienelbudgct year,
• Conld delay new EUbavka transfer station conbwcuon for an additional year,
Eomwmie Developmwt Dievict orPreswtlYOwned ComN Property such as Seven
• Mile Creek meYbe possible sitq
Wonld allow County to expedm®I mW become familiar with tramsPamng waste, and
• Could result inaslighdy arnalla rcausfu station au Eubanks AOed.
Possible Dieatlvavtaaes
• Siting any sotidwana facilitycm ba difScWt and opposition can be asswned,
• WoWd result in nagligble opare~ional savings az Eubanks Roed landfill, and
ToNI ooats for operating n lwdfill and tsansfer station will exoeed the ws[ for only e
• landfill.
d Fnvslm Stati¢p Cambiaetl Wlth LClD evdF eageney Oiaasfer Debris
MavngemmtFacility-FStimn[ed Cnib: 51,385,300
It is ¢ISD possible to ivmgete Na transfer etefi0v wiN a site for mcy0lNg of inert dabds
and lwdclearing rnatenvts (stumps and tree uunka) aawell as dlsesar debris. 9veh a alts
mighty awre from 45 to 50 acres for all Eunmions including mWchwg, recycling and
hmafesnng. 'Fns Solid Waste Mvtagemar[ ata(Ehae developed a conceptual plw Lar
such a site (Figure 10}
Such a site would create Ne advanmges nomd above for an MSN nwsfar statiev, bat
also create a new location for handling Ne IGID, Iwd cleating and inert debris, a portion
ofthe wvete eheem Nat is not currently managed in Ocvtge Cowry. It is assvmetl Na
passage ofthe regWated re¢yclcd material ordinance woWd ere&e ahigh demand for
managing lendclearNg debris because of NC barring prohibition. Due to our tigh
tipping face at Na lazWfill, most O£the heavy inert debris each ar eovmete, btlck, esphalq
stone end stumps is huckadlo private, chcapm, out of cowry NeposW factiQas, primedly
in ChflNam Covnry. It is likely Na[ soma amount ofmaterial ie being improperly
managed.
Moat offiis material ie umcvdy Imd811uL No use is made ofitapotmtiW rcaonme vales
ee etushed aggegate suFSdmtes for stone/grovel, mulch 8om stump Binding and
potmtiat othec uses ofboN ina[ debis and wood wastes. Farthtt, my pOtmtial revenue
Prom Publlcmmagmnmt aflheeemaredWs is foregone by vv[ loving an LCID
mmagemmtfeeility. Hurry yuck trafficis ineresaed ttvoughout the CVwryas lend
developers dI1VC longer Netvrices m take advantage of chcapm disposal.
A Imther pOtenBW advntage of such a fciliry is Nat it could handle Ne debris Nat
might begmeret¢d inwant otalarge-aeale disaster mch as flood, hwlome, fire, etc.
Themrtmt M9W ImdGll wd propoeedsmw CffiD landfill have very limited life vW use
of the space for laodflling disaster debris woWd be costly at cartmt rotes and coWd
reduce Ne volume o£space needed CO menage everyday waste. I[a storm ofthe
magiltude ofHUrricme Fran were ro occur todvy, Ne EubaWsa Road landfill would be
severely challenged to manage Ne mazmal, given ammt apace wnehaivts.
Orange COwty s,t„ngmey Mwagemm[Dventm Nmk Waters rwoginzes Ne need Nr
pre-approved dorm debris managenmt areas and has sfatM his support of Solid Waste in
Ne idmfification of Nose ypc feci8ries. OOT, llNC, wd oNer agmcica/vtilities are also
supportive. Additionally, NC Deparwm[of Fnviromnm[mtl Natural Resources ie
urging Cowry Solid Waste Dircctars m identify storm debris mmngemmt areas in order
N be prepared ro respond m nntuml disasters.
The costs of adding LCID recycling facilitica N the wsls itlentificd above for n vansfrr
era relatively moderate. Staffhas idm88a1 NeadNtimW posts to he
land: 231000 (van-rcmrivg expense)
I$
S[aHbclieves approximately 45 additloltat xrce (depending on Bite chaac[crisdw) world
be required, az an estimmed cost of$d.000/per acre. it is possiM1le the cost per acre would
Icse drm $5.000.
• Proaessine FacHtlcs: $OD
x0 facilities ara vxessary, asaumivg thcinf'sawctwcmqu'vW &r tho trenef station
s already presrnt. LCID pmcessing would mks plow on open gromd and could
commence awost immediazely npon acquisition and pemdtting ofthe property.
Lauipmmc $155 000 (ttcurrin%contribu[ion [o Equipment Replacemmtreserves of
about 330,000/year)
Includes Track Load¢ (SI55,000)
P¢somaT $Op
Gvm expected tomages a[ hmsf¢ station emffeslimatee no additioml staff g
scary This su%ng level corresponds to a LCm processing racihty operating 40
ha rs/week.
op¢mlona: $g.wo (r.aarfg emmaea7
maladea Ertel 1$go0o>, el~pnr [$aoo>,,naN[mmoe ($aspo), two-war aam (sl,2ooj
Revenue:
Inert Debris-Estimates afNmages are rot available m this time making it difficult to
estimate potential avenue Iucrt Ivnt¢iele would be abckpilW and croshod every few
yevm. Rough eafimazes ofinmming inert material mnnages Per Yeer could reach 20,000
tons, which at$2.50/wn would generate $50,000 amually. Sale ofervehal corns may
generate sufficient revenue to pay Car Ibe croshivg contract.
LaMClearing Debris- Iacomwg romagca have rot bccv cstfatcd vor tipping fees
projecte~howaver,atippingf of$5/mn with 20,000 wns/year ofimoming material
could mice $100,000 armuelly. It is bkely Met the ground wood bmler foal product
e, net of dehvary to dre market, would be zero. DBOma ground woad ie preparcd
for Imdscaplvg mulch, moderate at4litioval revenue mWd bereaAz~.
Staff believes the LCm facility has the potential m <aaly break either even or generate a
modest surplus on m amualiz~ basis, once the LCID gmam[ors ara aware the PunGty u
opmvtieval. Over time staRtn'n4e this fazitiry mold make sig,ti6cavt covnibuNOVS N
the ewecprise fiord.
1lmtsf¢stafian-see#1
Iq
3. etmd-atone LClD Recycling evd Rmergeney Disaster Debris Management
Feoility-S6]fi,950
The total wst oftne LCID recycling facility evd the vocthem Orange havsf¢ etefiov is
estimamd at SI 395,2110_ IClhe tmvafu smdon is not developed, It is es[imakd That e
stand-alone LCm rmyctivgf lily would wst appeoxfmvtaly$636,850.
Key Issues
9uu vin¢a
A tranafertazilityty handle MSW genereted north ofl-85 would receive an estimated
13,000 tons a year, assuming alt the waste we believe is geverat~ mthis section ofthe
ovnryis aalivemim Wie site. That seprasmis about 22%oPihaamuW GQ,000 tom of
MSW cuamily landfilled. Thus Cor each year the Iravs[a s[adon Is operated and waste is
diven~ Gum the emrmt landfill, we would save the equivalent of 2.6 months oflandhll
sPaue.
The table below demonstrates Ne amowt oftimc Ne life ofthe existing landfill would be
exiwdW wda [area development scenarios for wmpletivn ofthc transfer station sad
mee the curtuu M$W IendfiU would be CWI W Lone 2009 et plojecb3 mvee o[usa.
These sceneries wWd mange depending uPOn the assumptiora about waste transfetred
oat ofihc wmty:
Annual MSW Landfill Space Savivge Using NoMem Orange Transfer Station
Year Trmsfer
Station cum lased lone 2000 love 2005 Swe2VOfi
.4momt oflmd511 39,000 taus 26,000 taus 13,000 tone
axed
Number ofmonsne Smondts Svwv[hs Z.6 months
existing landfill HLe
extended
Sitirte
It is always difficvluo situ aware managementfaziliry v£any type anywhere. TWs
efYbn wanN be vo different. While the largaz colnbived LCID/transfer station faciliry has
more revmve-grneralion potential and rovers a greyter array of Countyneeds, swff
believes the mWug wevld be more dif£rcult then a simple LCID Processing evd storm
debris management facility. Doe to the preliminary conceptualmmre ofthis report,
abswt any clear gNdmw from the BOCQ elnffhss notcovenlted Ne Plemivg
Dopermuvt ar to ionine,tend use spaifics.
Timing
Whet tb<ataffb<li<v<a to b<ab<st cos<xrnario-d<velopmrnt in two }tars - sav<a an
estimated aighl mavlM1s o[IandGll space aI1M1e cuaevt MSW facility. Had a u-ensfer
atationbem coaaidaM earlier in Ne solid waste plarmin~ pmcess~ perbaps more apaz<
savings could have been realized thus yore stronglyjustifying Ne effort. Mthe opinion
of staff, only a aubstmtial cancmea effort by the BOCC and ataffwanld sperm site
ut«Fiov, permifiwg, design and covnmctiov ofThe transfer station and adtl additional
weeks of saved land&It capacity to the EubaWCS Roed Imdfill.
Reeommevdatlov
SmB'r«ommends that tM1e Bo;ud of Comvtissiovers consider the above memmandum
and provide fuM« gwdmce to etaffregarding:
ao
• construction ofa nortM1em fuilitYbmavage LC[D and disaster debris
• pnstr«OOn o(a vor[M1em MSW'transfer station
• preliminaryanalysis ofw-operation oftM1e lavdLR ands Vavsf station both totaled
on Eubanks Aoad
mwrporation of a vprthem solid waste mamgement facility into the Pacititiee Meets
• Plan
~o
LLa
p7
~ mQ
N
~~ OFr
O m(9 ~yy ~Ny~ Q
ly] W vVS Z fWl w O
W~~ R O~ ¢K
Qaa 0~
z~ -
0
F
Y
W J W Vi N
~ ~ N
g}
p
~
Srypt ~ gLL N ~LL
p
w
W
Oa p
U ¢
<
< Q
¢¢
Oq
p a
~ ~m
6 ~pN
rF
5~
°~w
~_~
LL~w
OU
ZW
F N
KQ
z3
0
N
~11
u
Intl:
,.,
i"
11~
,:c ~,,. ~ r„ ~, ,!.
MEDIORANDUM ' ' "-
a
ro: mnn unm, roomy Manager
Rrom: Gayle Wilsoq Solid WaztcMmegemw[Dnectar
Subject Cmtalued COmpostin6 by Orange County
Dote: Septmibm 29, 2001
the kllowuag memo explains the basic¢ ofemtratized wmmemial wmpos[ing of organic wastes;
Orange County's consideration of cmvalaed composting Nus faz, the Cvwty's acfive composting
programrinng, artlprospe<ts frr expve tan ofthe Cowry's wmposting effort.
A Brief ExolasmtfaD of the Mechanics of CcntraEzed ComnostinE
CmtralizM composting of sepamt l organic matuisls ormixed solid waste eve be conducted using
everiety ofinetbnds and feedstocks. Cmhali>.almmposting is distinguished Gom backyazd or
other vuall-scale, on-site composbng by the scale, the fad that in a cenbalized system, materials
generally are hmugbt in Corm othtt sites and Neary equipment is required to create the wmpost and
prepazeit for mazkd wdsell i[ Development ofacmfrallzed composdng facility involves:
• state pmmihivg ofNe facitiry
• dhighmlevel afmarugemem wdcovtrol of ivpu[e, processing and outputs [hen
xyuir<d in stockyard .rystem
• significant investrnOR m v Gdl(ty/xgvipmm[
• siting ism
• development ofa cnmprehmsive mga:GCS Collective pmgmm
in centralised wmposting, feedstocks may include a vmicty of ocgerde waahe including yard
wastes, God, woad clilps, law-g[edepaper, biosolidc (sewage sludge), egdwlvmm, baNwl4mul
rvas[es and indvsrtial wutes.'fhere is same debate in the solid waste pmfesaion about Now much
paper to ivcorpmate ivto composang systems, as much of it (notably cardboard, newspaper wd
oRCe papa) has mosvalveas reeyolGtg fedsmck tbw wbm aced in wmpost. Siang a
omposting system to accept Imge amawte ofpaper eamd reduce the effeetivmees ofothm
rnyding approaches in order to'Ceed' Ibe compostn6 fanilitY adequarely.
m Orange Cowry, the primary feedstocks could be sovrcrseparmed organics from both the MSW
ana CffiD waste streams, as well as IINC'a opemtlom. Ffowevm, with the cxecpfion o[drywell,
existing mpmposed meat recycling programs already menage yr will aYlress moat major cmegones
oforgmic material. there is wmparatively little orgatuc industrial ov agrimltuml wash pmdvc~
in O[avge Covvry, such as stivJtt result Gom food pmdudion plants, large sawmills, or extensive
cordined mwal miring operations.
Centralized cmmposing mdhods ruv be gmemllydessifiad az windrow, lv-vessel or smtlcpile.
Typically fie windrow method is used where space is inexpensive and odor control is not a
as
signiGCant issue, such as an agricWhrtel operation. in-vevsel is [be most capital-ivimsive, but
typically ryoircs the lean space and is used where Imd is a[ a premium end odorwnhol is
importmt. Some W-vessel syetmsa have attempted to inwmomle not oNy eowoe-separated
m'gmics but also mixed solid w¢cte( caw waste). Static pile methods are¢wmpromise ivterme
ofboth capital aquipmmt and laM requiremmrs batwem the Grct two appcoeehes. Compos+sblc
materials ere placed iu a pile, wiN a biological based flmr for m odor wnbol and usuWlycovered
with a pemimmt roof systav to cegWate moisture avd temperature. A conaolled sir anemr is
blowy ttwugh thepiles mtil compost ie made
NExed waste pmae emg (aaitities M1ave gmerelly been msuwessfal either teclurically, mazkM-wise
orboth, although IwMUlogy is impmvm6 the product iu the new gmemdon of facidtles. TTme arc
ongoing concave abort and-market uses ofmixed waste compost Where these syncros
esefblly produce a pmdact its psee are typically limimd to mginnerivg applications such as
NMSII wvar or erasion wntmL but not agrlmlmrW ar hortleulnnW oPPlicetlons.
Nlhvugh there ma composting aucccee s[oriaa vationally, in recent yeas sevavl large-ecalq
cmnnllzed compostvg facilities have hem closed. These mcluda Agi-Pen'e windrow facility in
Dade County, Florida, ¢ publicly-owned facility in Pembroke Pmes, Florida, a Portlmd Oregon
hcility buW ov the Dmo in-vessel teclvalogy and mother one m Wright Couvty, Mimesom.
Those drat failed were primarily desi~ad orbWlt farmixed waste composting. mhos have failed
to be sited due m concems about potential odors, flnmdW ursenaimydue to lack of flow cvmml
combined with compefition tram cbe~er Imdfille, aM concems about anbome 1WerobiW diseases
raring from the composting opastiovs. Same facilities that have closed were built Car courts
sepazntM Orgmics. Thus there is some techvical,f racial and roarket risk ivvolved Nanmmdngm
site or buildafmiGty fm cmtr¢lized wmposting. Covecqucutly, the mixed wane approach fast
e ofthe composting melhodoingies examined) has not m W s pointbem seriously considered for
prongs Comty doe to the questionableprodvct goelity and gmaal lock ofsuccess elsmvhue in this
ountry. Other composting epprmches using source-sepazated waste were considered but other
waste reduction strategee wam Wtimataly seleciN far mclusiav in tba Ormga County Solid Waste
Mavagcmmt Plm.
1996 WESTON Study
Cmtralized composdng of We "wet" vs orgatde fi¢etion o£waste was evaluated es part of one oftlte
flues solid waaro management plm optioria wdally evaluated by K2STON, the crosulting fine
used to develop the semazioe from which the LandfE Ovmere Group seleet~ the solid waste plm
in 1996 (see "Systems Evaluation" excerpt Gom the Apri1199fi WGSTON report). A diffurot
sceratlo was chosen and mdors iby member governments ofthe Landfill Owners Group, with
input Gam the Citizens Solid Waste Advisory Committee. l'he mncrynW system eeleMed was less
costly and involved less potential ttthnicW risk, bothad a somewhat lower divemiov pomndW, then
the system thaz woWd have NCWdM cmtrWiart compostine. TM selected system combined We
frllowingmeasures:
• reel, cornningled recycling wlleGivnpmdam,
• materials recovery facility and
• strmgtheved education, ontreaeh end recycling incentive programs.
a4
AdditienWly, in the adoped plan. the cuvent yard waste mulching program was r<[aivM.
The adopted plan contains aggrr_ssive gaols of 05 % per capita waste mdudiev in 2001 (we coached
about 37%) and fit % pm oepita by2006. AoWevingthese goals will challenge ell of Orange
Covet to vwximize its waste reduction eROds. If Ne axiatWg solid waste plan is implemented end
a IvIRF is developed, vvivcreel mcycliag is implemented, and the incendves are in place, the Coumy
mould subsequently evaluate use of cmnWized compostng andntherme[hoda m address diversion
ofadditimW parts ofthe waste stream.
Under [he WDSTON stntl$ largascile wmposUng was wtially wpsidercA mm part oCSyslem 2.
Tks would have involved a'aveWry' wllAion system in which all discards from all seotms oftbe
Cowry w rc m be eened wto 1) a dry component of cans, bonles, usable pepx, tex[des, steep metal
etc and 2) a wet 5ectim that would wnsiet ofl'oodwazte, wet papas other orgaWGcompostable
mamriW. Due tU the twv stream natwe of Ibis concept, either [he wet m the dry sneamwoWd be
sentially'garbage' (i.e. the defaWt sucmv where all We uvrecycleble ox unwmpoeteble materials
would eM up aM regvh'e sigWfioant Cprtber pmmssing w bemmketable m usable us feedstocks fnr
anypmcess). Odors from comainera ororgaNCS stared et homes and bvswesses for awcck at a
Nme on Wse a concern is the wntml NortF Carolina climate.
The weVdry system also M1atl fie greatest cost vflhe Ihme approaches exavtived. Tlds system was
not ¢elected bythe ]avdFll Oanxs Group member govemmmts, although it had, accordingmthe
ovsWmnt's amlysis, the gearost pctenfisl fo[ waste divttsiov (Eom 42% minimum to T
um). The adoP[ed system (g}rsfem 1) waz estima[d to produce waste reduction W fhe range,
of35%m GO%, and includes v much smalls wale centralized composting operation as a
supplement to acovuWlrgtcd materials recovery (aci4ty. The highercos[s of[he weUdry system
cwpled with tmhnimVopera4imW iasucs and same wmartainty abw[ lha mazkalebility of a
ompast product derivWg 5om such asyatem were sigpi5cmtimpedimmts. FYvther, Nere were
ms about facility siting. Finally, Nc risks of[he systemwerejudged to ezcad the potevtiffi
benefim.
Composfiog ofwurce-separated organics was notindwled az part of tM1e adopted planner was a
epcciftc methodology frr managing eomtrvedon and demolitlm was[ac. iamefimre, and
presumably following implemmtatien af[hc 9alid Wee[e btenagcmcnt Pls¢ approved by the BOCC
iv Ivve 199J fm submission m the State and affirmed in September 2000 , acme memos of
addresshrg orgevica would be veccesarym achieve maximum wazte rMucrion in Omnge County.
Current Publicly Overated Comoostine EIIorts
At present, Ormge Covet has scvcrW successful effom to divert orgmics from ImWfilling:
Yartl Waste Mvlchivg: Our yard wale nmlehing program has been in operation since 1993 in
accoNmecwith emslaw prolilbidng landfilling oFymd wazte. We have sold or pmduetlvely used
everybitnf yard waste, averaging over 6,000~ons per year lm lhepaxt five years not including
1996 when Hurricme fYav gavems a litnal windfall ofmateriaL TMs pmgam continues its
popularity and Nc demand [or Ws product is outsvippir~g supply.
CommerGal FOOd Waste: Weconvac[foroollcGion ot[UCd wasm from 131ocW esiabliahmcuta
for private composting in GOldstov, NOrth Cazolme. TNS modesiprogam diverts about 800 tone
per yeaz of food waste, oe vt estimated 30%ofwhat we helieve would be Mc rcaMly available
emnmercial food waste in Orange County, where readily available is considered one-halfthe 3,900
mns of food waste discarded awuapy from [his sector. A doubling o[Me level ofexpcnMnve for
the avrrnt coatrected prog¢m, might produce arwMer 400 to 600 ions amuat food waste divemien
as the high volume establishments are generally aln:ady in the system. ]fie uWt cost of Mvertwg the
next increment ofcommercial organic waste woWd Idrely be covrdembly ffieater Man [ba Damn[
$75 par toq as themosa'pwdactivd and willing sites arc already generally M tlae program.
Bukvsrd Compost BMS: Avnually, Orange Cowry Solid Waste Menegemem conducts a sale of
Fackyard mmpwt bws ro enwwege Mehome composting ofboM food wd yard waste. Om sales
are steady at about 3006ivs per yeaz. We e9timatq based on surveys ofbin-buyers, that abou[nuc
half of local campwters include frod waste in their bma roar diverts en estimated t50 pounds Per
householdper year, assuming 50%offood waste is composted. We also maivtaiv Or support fow
omposl demonsva[iw sites and cpnsmntly conduct school-based pmgams that include both
wnv®dwzl composdug and vermi-compeetivg vsingwovns.
Indmtrlnl Wood Wmmle for Colore4 Mulch: M the spring v[2001, the landfill began a diversion
project ro remove covsruetlov and indusVlat wood waste from the wrote stream for producfion of
colored mulch. W a are now YenivarketingMot product. We estimate t11aI ea much of20°/o of0e
onsrmdion wd danolitionwaste m up to 6,000 tons per year is wpaivted wtrwsed wood. Ovice
the maker test is complete on the caloredmulch, ow diversion effort will increase wd be made part
of any larger C&D recycling effort. AMmre CffiD recycliag ordinwce }vill ino[eose tba share of
the 6,000 twsthat is diverted [or productive ranee. Some of this wood wWd beuecdW
applications oMa~bw colored mulch. $mtl'betieves mos[of this clcav wood waste can be
converted ivto mulch and sold. If Orwge Cowry eLSO implements a landcleatlng debris-rmycling
pmffinm, corvsiduable edditiovW (eedsmckswould potentially be available for oornposting.
Conclusions
Solid Waste smRbelieves that a Mtum effort to inemase diversion of orgwlc waste kom eftlw the
MS W stream or the C@- stream Meuldbe Momughly c vsidered following imptemcnmtien ofthe
adopted solid waste plw. The plan now adopted has beenpreviovsly wdossed by ¢II the
govermnenta iu the Covoty and well reviewed bytedmical azsd citizens' committees prior ro initial
adopdoq Staff beliwce it is well worthwhile ro examine the additiorul wane divesiov drat coWd
emtre hnm centralized organire pmceaeing, once prOgrees towards the redue[ievs envisioned under
the mechmisms chasm in the Cowry a existing solid wasm plan is well wdaway.
Webelleve Met rhea fe potcutiel to divert m npmdYive wmponivg operafion many mnterlWe Mat
have little [o m market value. Thcec could include 1wtlcleazMg debris, food waetq drvwWl, low-
grade papoq msd evev biosolids from the eewegeke¢tment plants u Ma Connty_ A sepamtc
eolleoaw wdpmoeesing effort for mgaWo ¢nd cmnposmble materials is a sigvifiewt oommitmevt
requiring more epeeiepzed egvipmenq asite, wdtwMical knowledge. State composting ml<s are
now vtflux and posl.ed for pubhe review. Permitting may be diffialt. Local oppositionma
omposl operation at Me currem landfld site or oNrr location can reavmably be anticipated.
.4dditionalty, existing end propoecd programs seem to aheady adequately m¢nage won ogavics.
a~
In the shore-term, we believe Iha4 m aMmnud 6ous on orgawos divomion w the noM l8 menthe,
could wclude the following:
• eoPopm20 more[ovs permon[h(m about SlS/ron)in 4he con4raG COllemion of
cial food wuteto pwmi[ addition a&nare reamamma and inetimeans u we we now
at 0e maximum ow FUdget and mnlrwt ullowa„
• further mrtmtiu-house efforts in divxrsion of C&D woadmproductive reuse Nmugh the
implementation ofthe ltegWated Rwytlable Ordiven ,
con[inoa ro hold the annual backyard compose bin sale and prnmolu home compostng
• through edwetion, ow fora dawns[ranon si¢s and Me scbonl pro$ams we now rapport
tlvoupJlou[Ihe Cowry,
• wnsidwin&imPlanmtation ofelavdcleazivg (aud inert debris)xecycling program
The smffis willing to pursue n more active appmacM1 In evaluating composting should the 6000
pmferromove inihie direr[ion. Wehave ideMfiM Several key issues [haz may needrobe
addressed m ordu ro pursue a siemficant tows on ccohalized composting:
Daenmvafion ofwhe[hm omposting iambs the pmnary wade reduction methodology(rather
• than what is in the curtmt adopted Solid Waste Management Plen), or whether it would be
pwsued m supplemrnt existing or proposed pmgrama. Ifcomposting was chosen u e primary
tool, Ne existing Solid Waste Manag®mt Plan would regohe modification, indvdmg the
possible adjustment ofwaste r~tim goals consistent withanew wage reductiorvrecycf g
shategy.
• [dmtificatiov afthe specific argavesrobe composted,
• [dentiGcatian ofthc most suitablo camposYiug methodology,
• Review aM eelediov ofveceesary mllactioNsource separation malhodologias;
Determine capital end opemtiocol costa ofsuchesya[cm wnlodwg collootioq promsemg and
markeliny
Evaluate all issues surroundingthe siting, permitting, design, cons[maion operation, and
• funding ofacmhalized composting fatifity,
• Determine polentid markels fur compost products. The cursmt raycfing markets are, by
con[rsst well amFlisFed and staM1le. Compost is arelativelynew product for our area and its
makcta arc uvkvawa
Staff is prcpazM to pursue whazeva route mamgemmt methods arc idmfified bythe Boazd of
Conuwssioncrs or metro rccoavumdatioms based upon stated goals and objcctivcs.
]/01 1JIJ1 $9I991PP900 ~, 9LI0 Rv9(TE RCY .u OC WNAGRR ®OOB
„'], a7
sP.c1TON a
SYH'd'N.9[H &VAL-ATION
4.1 CrJ AAND SYBTEAfB xl'1'RD
WH$TGN Presented the reulta of the evaluadw of opdau. -urivg tWs meadnB and et a
sub:equate meetieP, potentiJ systems (combwng waste prevestiaR wbeman, cad pwuahig
options) aM sYS1em avahwion miteria wrrc dirwseed WGSTON P~~ methods for
formulatin6 these Potential rynems end mitetu u slmcnbad in AppmWu C. Tire Eiscedom
ruuhed'm tba IAG aelertiPe three sysems for evaluation TM criteria aedami by the LO6 for
evaluation oftbetlvee solidwaele system assisted of.
1. Diveaebv POfaaJ.Derange efditmsiwHrm deposal LYelY toseeuk8vmearlteyslan.
2. Cost lSa rerige ofinel endpamnwpiW and aavW OpauN6wm Pot each syvws
3. Impact w wvirovmwt evd PobGC huNk The ~ ~ mW P~ Mz1~M1 imam
muce[d w.thmeh sy>m
4. TcLniral riekTM exptsimee, re[ubyty aM eammacal evuLbi&y °[ any Waobgy
eaeoaatdwEhthe aYswn
5. likely oPPodtioa TMpotmdal opporitionfo elwmae o[dre eyetw, bad w mpviaux ut
in~pknmwion eleewlca aM wmmme San tlm public am the 6RVAC tluoughoia gre
Proles.
Ha don de reWU ofshe Dptiom eveluatioq u dmmbed'm the paesiws suvm, ettl pubtiu vWm:'"
the LOGfonnuletedthan syst®s[meWUaricausLgeD mTeblm 41.41, end 43.
alwn as-
DiHSevEYLOffiIIPm -'lla~aelCWfCdn¢P[NEW •t~' maNR
('NW.aaa Bea • and MWNl~~ra(a9... a 4arpPd~6
pID•mmttym)
VdfiableFa~ w.~r.Nn.n ga~ayy
IMIi[HAd16T rmM1w•rt-
m,rw.vwwaTVmaa 41 a ~mJrw
OB/P]/O1 19:9P $B1RB9PP800 SOUR WA6f9 RCY +_+ OC tlANACEN
. as
~N
SummaryefE>mm)
• UIQU®tiillandfiYFas • EdbtivL 6riRem(vmEl°R • ~'~~~
xf#e~~eWmm • h4YmW EedEN
Vm1eWe Eau= emetlde)
P~IDlic Edecmlvn ~ $xp~e4Ge'mm°at
Nvermv®ic Wmu~ee SevevCmwviae:CmveaoC
•
Sevin Dmpo65ita
sums seW~dlaeadem
abW
4.3 ~ T
e eralurtd hued w6ve mirctu mlmd M the IAG. The
l
Fsch oftlm Uvee solid wEe<e mu wv
BYt
B~ Wt inch w6aioEete pmuided'm Tablo 4-0,
in
tid
resehc o4ehe ev+hretian ofeh ay
wa
elhRee se
FS, uW 4fi.
lYpleH
Sume•ry N9yrtsm]EWVVtim
oeizvov ~a:u eavaaazzaoo soon aesse scr ... oc xw+ncea
Tables
®ooa
ay
lybkLS
g®mpof5ymn18~~®
o9Ri/91 13:11 bp91993]39ra soLtu Mn5T0 RCY +++ OC HMPG6R
avaJabie markns have been mrdudvl (6ir rsmaPk 9sn Pima m glue orbs then beverage
wnuinas).
gysan 2 k est'ummd m base dIP)dN grsta oveaa8 diwsslm pc¢umY tlon System 1. gysm? 3 has
mrne?Nu[ Iowa rGvavm pIXeNd tlmn atlc of mae aysalu. It eMWd be mad that when
diva¢m inausev, aaas[e m be IudfiOed dmmv.
Coikcdm male arc ProvNad forme vabu secure. Thee msn reprmrt P~aG k+rl estlmaee
Thews serge msrrspond m the varietim mtorm6ge baweml rho mimwml and mmwnum diversion
esumaes N mma mars, b~ua waste prevendm re6Wts m less emaiale m be master and
promised, rasa N dm mexvmms tree are Irsethen the mininevn use 1[ should be mmi mm
CnIIe'11011 meb R d41CI1dOC all IlC mllllba Of pl~~ 6 wa6 6 mNNga 811d metefaR I6 rql
necesOrilYad'vwemlrelmiovbmwemredumironvaRSaMsoduced mKS
Wrsm pmvble, vaiaGOm m on@ axta sevlemg frmn emnondu aisule between the mhdmnun entl
rnapmwn divvsim cuss ere ircluded. hbwev¢, typically, eM1e siege ofmw u bored more renge of
soeuge epptied m m avaaga arm ms. For esev@le, hued on limmisa seamrcp our mpaimm with
e'uNla pmjecm, em bcal 'vdarrnation peovidad 6y ma IAG, m avenge sink ms m apante a
comndgJv ed b4tP given me mngf oftomagrs isdudad'm tle ambae u appmainutely Sd6 Per ran.
This mrit mat wdl ~Y depmldaa m &alility dedgq rmdlod of operation, aM labor acse.
Additiom8y, [he IAG mry dm m uN've en edawlg local fLyity m regioul fmiVtY. grace three
Raon wJl aHea the carat mst to a®eata oamcmmw mommiu ofeWe asmoamd whh tomsage
diHexncu bemem mvmmvn avd mmdmun Aa9osu4 me rmlge oCwad providd is immded m
represmtareaeutehle PVr^dn6lexleeumve.
As canbe LmM1 Syamn ] eM gyatts2 ePa=da& ores erewry OiRUler-between ~1 and 885 per tan.
Sysrml3 aPa%dag cove are somavhm Imm-approunm[dy SI<m S]e pa ran If me emmptiou
regadin6 nmka[s for papaie gysem i (m diemeeW m Worbmg Paper #I) avxrt made aimbam me
~mptiomfor SYaum7, system I's mss wauldbe seducedby eppaapmefelY gdfluooom 5!20,000
(m S6 m 39 per ran). 17ds Iedmdm m me¢ is b~¢ me nmtaiela would not have m by "double-
Mndled"ateha69eFmdmmpaeYmBfwaity
gysan oral wsa are based on dw tom! amwal oPem'ug W m®rdmerme mrta mar the [rgai
gslwted waste scum. C6Pial more "udude r¢w cquipnrcm (wohmd accoa~g Ar me sale M
equipment mat u nor nWN m the Proposal ayaan) era 18dlvieYROPFaala: The'uw
feditiu and pro~mn'mpitd mm ere not emordRN mtl mchsded.N mo 6nml msr,'aumtized
•mpiml mr wga$msbquipniv¢uvRL~dedbezaw ofinetypid uedfm replawnalt
The mmperarive mnuud ofine mra ronemmg evamadm a¢eria 4 rat ell mdmaire but rather ie
in?~dad m hipJdip~t e~uR dmtmcu hnaem dm mree aystana. Woddng Paper HB. AvWa
deevmee Nmla LLenbueeePtlie rynees Nnwraeueed'm etoWatiggtlluewi[sia.
oeueew.rm6a~awum.eec 44 w6~w.w.w
II9/3]/OI 13: 30 $91999$1900 SeLID RASTR RCV ~« OC tlANA®R ®Y01
31
43 SY6TCM CfEO
p prcnmation ofdw eyetm eveluasiw wea provided at apublic hearing w Novembu 15, 1995.
h wbayswnt vmatirl~ and dievessi9vs with
']hrvu
995
g
.
end a IAG matig4 ov November 16, 1
LOG Aa$ the LOG ealeckd a fwl ryatun far unplemerNrivn. 'fAe systav aekued Por further
wnsitleretiw is eeamaellY Synem 1 xith amre revieiovs. cable 4] desraibdehe eY%eam sekued
6rfisrthu wvsiduatien for'unPlemmration
LWe4T
]AGbtlreea 6aeen
y B,
• UiHwaetiellovd611 Sea • Oti~lmab®u6 xwtlY
wttmimtme~cul+oa
~nRJm matmai¢rxwy'
feclk'P~~17withnaatlgp.
(bllecYUnGUa. ieLtl®title~. awR mvRemattrletc
• Vdumelu¢dfrn (m~ieW< ~ 'og1MwIW1®~ f~a4mlarPdaw~n~^8
'We), , ~M9tceoeom nhmdleMRFmlxe]WPe
• Pob4ceduenon mmoe+aaltWee. io[lwliaBWwt6ryewuC w~
INSwnvamk incNlVm ~ Ymaxtleavdta~teA spmwbtaommecvl w9Cu
rnYeNrmSea(
.plofl~agfgttitymaavNe Y+b
.y~~®~ mdx W w'¢
pus6iCFex NOU ]6]1 2~ v F S
1SSe-Y