HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 07/18/2011 PRESENTATION P rep tcut o vv -
•
x
Rip
�►''►' SONOMA COUNTY <CITY`SOLID WASTE ADVISORY GROUP
Is ti
:t o a ma , a ` g k
� S S s�
1. U p da te on SWAG Activities
June uy, 0 1
T C � - z �k � .. i
i
x a.i
T
1
Conceptu -al SWAG Strategic Goals and
Objectives - Approved February 28, 2011
® Waste. Diversion Objectives
▪ 80% diversion by 2015, focus on organ
and education
• .90 % diversion by 2020, identify how to get to
100%
• 100% diversion as a Tong -term goal (25 -50
yrs)
2
1
Conceptual SWAG Strategic Goals and
Objectives - Approved February 28, 2011
Economic Efficiencies
Develop upstream ,regional . fee system, or
other reasonable alternative which allows for
maximized diversion and minimized cost
• Reopen Central Landfill; provides revenues
for regional liabilities
® New Regional Compost. Facility; for
increased diversion of Organics
■ Central Landfill mining, may provide
additional revenues
3
Conceptual SWAG Strategic Goals and
Objectives - Approved February 28, 2011
® Local Control
® Evaluate different governance models
Develop 'Franchise Agreements that reflect
the Local (Regional) Priorities
® Identify and articulate the regional benefits of
jurisdictional flow commitment
4
2
Research Committee Formed
November 15, 2010
Work Scope
To recommend a short. List of options
which can feasibly meet SWAG's
objectives for:
is Increased diversion
® Economic efficiency
Local control
5
Diverse Committee Participation
® Membership ® Active Participants
■ Elected Officials ® Landfill Operators
■ City and County staff ■ Haulers
® Regulatory ®Recyclers
■ Environmental
■ C &D Processors
Community ® Composting
■ Business Community ® Public
6
3
Project Approach
El Define disposal volumes & trends .
Identify in- county processing capacity
Evaluate waste characterization & dvertibility
Capacity vs. needs — gap analysis
Identify processing options — traditional &
emerging technologies
® Findings and recommendations
7
Sonoma County
Current Waste Stream
z y
rx �� M 2/3
Diverted,
Landfilled
r z
8
4
I
Current Volumes & Recent Trends
Comparison — 2006 vs. 2010
•
• I -1200
1,200 v
J
[ i
1.000 - 0' sa= � 867 I
• 800
1,/' .1 er . * 14 l'
x
6a0 ( 477 i .
i s N 1 . 364 337 1 362
aog '
It �'
q ' 166
200 q „ a-r 1 3 t. '.. 11 l ttMl'+ i1
Total Residential Commercial Self Haul
Li Tons Per Day 2006 1 4 Tons Per Day 2010 .
9
Existing In- County Capra city
i. IS . W ., i ¢ il 1 kk ': I11� ,41 1 ”. =Future Capacity
9D% �'� /^ i ° Y L M6' ! Ui- � ' � - (pending PemEll)
Tg% ,/ S r 1 I ? ask
�� ' Il r n ' l i 6 11 �� &� r�i
509S - %� � , � , lh� � , S i t ll 1P � p i �b r I I
/ �h 61 `,, rE v
r , � r i ■Cutrenlly Available
i� ° IC 51 �1'P I. y I
30.5 -" ,,. I f 6 r I .' ` z i z'y u"r i. 6 1 -
ra.b
- - r • Current Actual
Transfer/Processing Recycling/CDI Compost Facilities Recycling - Source ' Average Dally
Facilities & Landfill Separated Only Throughput
10
•
•
5
Waste Composition
Divertibility.rAnalysis
Waste Characterization Divertibility
• Special Waste, Mixed Residue,
1.7% 3.1% Other Divertible
Hazardous '& E- „ Materials Materials
waste 1.4% f Peper,163% 302 25:4%
CaisuvWon & C
lass, 2.6 %+*''"'
DemofAron
27 4% r Ira Plashe' 7.4% L ; nu ”
.. , s �. .. Metal, 3.9%
v h ' ` } r iy ` potentially
`' Divertitite
•`'`� �'` `' ,�. Malerials
s
123%
Compostabte
Organics, Materiab
.32:1% ,.
11
•
Identify Future Needs —
Capacity Gap Analysis
Waste Characterization — County Overall
Material Type Percent Tonnage Range- Tons per Day
Organics 36.3 %, 315, —.435
C & D 27.4 % 237 — <329
Paper 16.3 % 141. -195
Plastic 7.4 % 64 — 89
Metal . 3.9 % 34 — 47
'Mixed Residue , 3.1 % 27 — 37
Glass 2.6 % '22 -31
Special Waste 1.7 % 15 — 20
Hazardous & E-Waste 1.4 % 12 - 17
Total Waste-Stream 100 % 867 - 1200
12
•
• 6
Findings & •Recomniendations
Finding The existing infrastructure for single
stream , recYclingr and construction and
demolition debris recycling (C & 'D) has capacity
which is currently underutilized. The waste
disposed of still contains significant quantities of
thesedivertible ,materials.
13
Findings& Recornniendations
Recommendation #1:
A. IncreaselWasteReduction and Diversion Education
'• r thrOugh,cloor-to-door outreachioCused commercial '
and C&D waste generators (level of effort = one-full
•time position)
• a Increase education efforts at schools and institutions
(level of effort = one half-time position)
C. Adopta 1VIodel Countywide Mandatory Commercial
Recycling Ordinance
D. Adopt a Model Countywide C & D Recycling Ordinance
14
7
Findings & Recolintnendations
'Findincr42: Organics is the'largest fraction of
the waste stream that is still being landfill
disposed. Food waste is the largestfraction of
this organic waste •stream. Current'
infrastructure capacity does not exist to address
this volume.
15
Findings :8 Recommeridations
Recommendation #2:
A. SuppOrt„„the efforts of the SOWMA to develop new
composting capacity in Sonoma County and'
encourage the facility design to include food waste
composting
lc B. Determine' the feasibility of SRLWWTPF playing
a role in the re-use °flood Waste
c. Once a full food waste diversion program is
available, do focused one-time education outreach
to. generators to maximize its Use
16
8
. „
Findings & Recommendations
Finding #3: Even with effective. efforts to
maximize use of existing single stream
recycling infrastructure in order to meet higher
_ diVersion 'goals such as 90%, a mixed waste
processing facility will likely be needed to
remove ,recyclables from the commercial' and
• multi - family waste streams ,
17
Findings & Recomnendations
Recornme'ndation #3:
S tud dd e g
p Mixed 1Naste Processing �'
A. y � " " to ment of a Mi
Facility that targets the. Mufti - Family Comrnercial
Waste Stream -
g Flexibility into the system for Emerging
s: Deli n Fle
Technologies
18
9
tl �w 1 I i Ij
a 1.
•m ,
Findings & Recommendations
Fin,dinq ##4: In order to achieve the highest
diversion goals, it will be necessary to address
the "remainder /composite ", "mixed residue" and
"Other" Materia'ls within the waste 1Stream.
Technologies such as anerobi'c digestion and
thermal conversion could address this waste
stream and 'create renewable 'energy.'' These
technologies are expensive.. 19
Findings 1& ,Recommendations
ReCciminelidation
A. Irripleme t° further analysis — after first measuring
the success of implementation of the other
measures
B: Adopt a policy to support, innovative emerging
technologies that may be proposed by the private
sector within the region
20
1'
10
•
Summary of Recommendations and Cost and
Diversion Impacts
Z+1",<.W : Est
Recommendation ° " a m P TO Monthly
Res o
lyvt 4 ` Rate Impact
1. Maximize A. &B. Increased Education Efforts
Existing Capacity C. C &D Ordinance $0.06 3 % - 6%
D. Mandatory, commercial recycling
•
2. Additional A. Support'existing site selection &
Compost Capacity permitting proce $0.16 6 % - 10%
B. Determine feasibility of food -waste
at LTP
C. Education for Food Waste
3. Mixed Waste A. Develop mixed -waste facility
Processing Facility targeting multi - family comm $1.50 4 % -
waste stream
B. Design flexibility for emerging
technologies
4. Emerging A. Implement further analysis TBD 4 % -
Technologies B. Support emerging technologies
within the. community
21
Report Conclusion
® The RC developed the cost summary only as a
tool for the SWAG members to get a relative
feel for cost benefit of the options.
® The RC understood that there are different
methods to achieve the recommendations.
mi The RC anticipated that a consultant will be
hired to perform an independent analysis of the
options
22
11
•
Other On-going SWAG activities
After discussion with the SWAG, on March
31, 2011, the County submitted applications
toRg
e ,ulatory Agencies to;perrnit'the Central T
Landfill for Long -term Disposal
SWAG formed a Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) of City and County
Managers and Attorneys to work ,on
settlement of liabilities, fun'ding
governance recommendations
23
Next Steps in SWAG' Process
h Completion of Planning Phase
® Get feedback from jurisdictions for`SWAG , „ a „
SWAG'' twill be requested to vote on
c nceptual.direction
Analysis Phase
Third party consultant to analyze options
t be Life. cycle, c
Cos vs , nefit � cost
Sensitivi analysis Reliability analysis
24
12
9 y �d n .� � i s - �:.'', F .
i
SO N O MA COUN /CITY S OLID W ADVISORY GROUP
a
4. £
'uestiojns `� Fedba
.,,
25-
•
.
a
'I
13
AGENDA .1
Sonoma City/County Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
, 4
Accept report ProViding ,an update SWAG activities, Presenting the recommendations from
the SWAG Research Committee Report and the next steps in SWAG. process. Provide
feedback on Research ReportrecomMendations and directiurisclittion SWAG member to vote
to proceed with a consultant study of the recommendations.
BACKGROUND:
On December 8, 2009, the CoUnty Board bf Supervisorsapprdvechthe formation of a regional
advisory group for the purpose of developing 'a long-term Solid Waste strategy. , :rOn
December 17, 2009, the Board Chair'sent letters to eachdtthe'eity mayors inviting their
participation and asking, each Council tb appoint a representative and an alternate Member.
The purpose of the Sonoma County/City Solid Waste AcivisoryGr011p is to make
recommendations on solid waste system planning and operations, such as, appropriate
regional solid waste projects, , priorities,' schedules and funding] sources to be cohsidered the
Member JurisdiCtions.
The first meeting, of the 'SWAG was held on February 24, 2010 . The meetings are chaired by
Board ,Supervisor Shirlee Zane and are Co-Chaired by COUritilrnernber John Sawyer, Santa
Rosa, and Steve .Barbose, Sonoma.
The current voting mernber and include:
County,Of'Sbnoma L Supervisor SriiribelZane
County of Sonoma — Supervisor David Babbitt City ofsonOrna — Councilmember Steve Barbose, Alt. Mayor Laurie Gallian
City of Healdsburg — Councilmember Jim Wood, all council members serve as alternates
City of Santa Rosa — Councilmember John Sawyer, Alt Gary Wysocky
City of Cotati Vice Mayor Susan Harvey, Alt. Mark Landman
City of,Rohnert Park 7,Councilmember Pam Stafford, Alt. Mayor Gina BelfOrte
City of Cloverdale:— Vice. Mayor' Bob Cox, Alt. Joe' Palla
Town &Windsor — Vice Mayor Deborah Fudge, Alt Sam Salmon
City of Sebastopol Mayor Guy Wilson, Alt. Sarah Glade Gurney
City of Petaluma — Councilmember Tiffany Renee, Alt. Gabe Kearney
In October and November of 2010, staff to the SWAG, met with all member jurisdictions to
provide them with an Overview on the SWAG, results of a facilitated discussion on SWAG
goals and objectives, an timeline of proposed future SWAG activities.
1
The purpose of this agenda item is to update the mernber jurisdictions on actions and activities
of the SWAG that have taken place since the prior presentation and to get feedback to bring
back to the SWAG.
DISCUSSION:
Update on SWAG Activities
At the November 15, 2010 SWAG meeting staff gave an update on the presentations to Cities
and the County on the preliminary SWAG goals and objectives. Also, the SWAG authorized
the formation of the Research Committee.
On February 28, 2011, following feedback from the jurisdictional presentations as well as
further discussion of the SWAG, the SWAG adopted the following goals and objectives:
Waste Diversion Objectives
■ 80% diversion by 2015, focus on organics and education
90% diversion by. 2020, identify how to get to 100%
® 100% diversion as a long -term goal (25-50 yrs)
Economic Efficiencies •
® Develop upstream regional fee system, or other reasonable alternative
allows for maximized diversion and minimized cost
® Reopen Central .Landfill; provides revenues for regional liabilities.
New Regional Compost Facility; for increased diversion of Organics
® Central Landfill mining, may provide additional revenues
Local Control
Evaluate different: governance models
■ Develop Franchise Agreements that reflect the Local (Regional) Priorities
® Identify and articulate the regional benefits of jurisdictional flow commitment
The SWAG Research Committee (RC) was directed to recommend a short list of options which
could feasibly meet the SWAG's goals and objectives. The recommendations from the
Research Committee' "Report, dated May 11, 2011, were presented to the SWAG at their May
16, 2011 meeting and are summarized below.
SWAG Research Committee Report
The RC's scope of work was to recommend a short list of options which can feasibly meet
SWAG's objectives for increased diversion, economic efficiency and local control. The SWAG
focused on creating 'a diverse membership on the RC, with none of the committee members
having a business interest in the outcome. That being said the .RC encouraged active
participation from the stakeholders during preparation of the report. The committee
representation and the participant representation are shown below.
2
Id.
Committee
Me'mkiership Active Committee Participants
Elected Officials 01 Landfill Operators
L; City and County" staff ' Haulers
Regulatory Recyclers
, Environmental Community o`, C &D Processors
111,1 Business Community iii Composting
Public
The RC built their recommendation on a foundation of reliable,existing data. Their overall
approach was based on the consensus assumption that itwou'Id be most cost effective to
maximize use of existing waste collection, processing and .recycling infrastructure, before
p any :new infrasneas r the'following steps were
used to de� elop their findings and ;recom�tructur e. Therefore, uctur
• Define landfill waste disposal volumes & trends
® Identify existing in- county processing and diversion infrastructure capacity
®. Evaluate landfill waste characterization (what types of materials make up the waste that
is still oin to a landfill for disposal) and want materials'are divertible (i.e. canto be re-
g, g�,
used or recycled)
o Compare existing infrastructure capacity vs. the quantity of remaining divertible
materials in the waste stream — identify gaps
® Identify' processing options to address gaps — :traditional & emerging technologies
® Develop findings and recommendations to maximize ,uS:0 :of existing infrastructure as
well as address new infrastructure needs if any.
xecutive sumrnary of the 'SWAG Research Committee Report ; dated May 11, 20
The 'Executive � 11 is
included herein 'as Attachment, A. The full report is available on the SWAG webpage at..
http: / /www.sonoma
county .orq /tpw /pdf /integrated waste /advisory group /swag research committee final report
20110511.pdf. The findings and recommendations are summarized below :.
' demolition debris'recycli g (C & D) has capacity which is currently Finding #1 The existing infrastructure for single stream reCyCling and
unde n ructi The waste 1 H
going mmen il l i on #f:
A. contains significant quantities of these divertible materials. '
A. Increase Waste Reduction and Diversion Education through door -to -door (face -to -face
visits:) outreach focused at commercial and C&D waste generators (level of effort = one
educat' on efforts at schools and institutions level
full tiim a osition
B. '' Increase" ( of effort = one half -time
position)
C. Adopta Model Countywide Mandatory Commercial Recycling Ordinance
D. Adopt a Model Countywide C & D Recycling Ordinance
It should be noted; that SWAG members pointed out that' in some cases face to face visits with
Commercial and Multi .family units, are included in their existing franchise collection
3
AI.
agreements Attachrrient'B shows a summary of the current education efforts required by the
jurisdictions to be provided by their waste collector.
Finding #2 Organics is the ( fraction of the waste stream that is still being landfill
disposed. Food waste. is the largest. fraction of the organic: waste stream. Current infrastructure
capacity does notexist to address this volume.
A. Su p - o the current .effort`s of the Sonoma County W
Recommendation
� pp ' y aste , Management Agency
(SCWMA) to develop_ new cornposting capacity in Sonoma County and encourage the
facility design -to include food P waste composting
B. Determine the feasibility of the Santa Rosa Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant
playing a role in the re-use of"food waste
e diversion program is available, provide focused one -time
C. Once a full food vast '
education outreach to generators for maximizing use.
Finding #3: Even with effective efforts to maximize use of existing single stream recycling
infrastructure in order to meet higher diversion goals such as 90 %, a mixed waste processing
facility will likely be needed to remove recyclables from the commercial and multi-family waste
streams.
Recommendation #3:
A. Study' development of a Miixed`Waste Processing Facility that targets the Multi - Family
and Commercial' Waste Stream
B emerging Design Flexibility into system for emer in technologies
Finding #4;, I order to achieve the highest diversion goals, it will be necessary to address
,� i «
� I s wit could address stream
Within the w
g, der /composite mixed gesidue and Other matenaon co ast I '
this w e
Technologies such as anaerobic digestion estion and. thermal comers,,,,,, , ,
the remain waste I
sn roven d create, renewable, energy These technologies are, �' rently, l
stream ..p ex e
tream and create p nsiue and car
p in California' for use with munici al solid waste at the, scale that would' be required.
Recommendation A
lm 'further ana --after
p lysis first measuring the success of implementation of the
other' measures
B. .Adopt a 'policy to support innovative emerging technologies that may be proposed by
the private sector within the region
", � ry i on page 7 of Executive Summary, only as a
The RC developed the,cost summa included � �� I
tool for-the SWAG
members to get �a relative feel, for cost/,benefit,lof the recommended options.
The RC understands that there are different methods to achieve the° recommendations. The
RC ;anticipated that a consultant would be hired to perform an independent analysis of the
options presented in theResearch Committee Report.
Other SWAG activities that are on -going include:
„[ On 'Regional Water Quality Control
th
On March 30, 2001 the County submitted application to the Re
Board, CalRecycle and the Local Enforcement Agency totperrnitithe full development of e
4
Central Disposal Site. The regulatory agencies are reviewing the application for
"completeness" once it is deemed complete they will commence their review.
The SWAG also identified the need to form a technical advisory committee (TAC) of County
and City staff and counsel's to work on such issues as governance, system funding options,
and settlement of liabilities. The TAC has been meeting since December with the goal of
coming to consensus on some basic principles to be addressed by a settlement agreement. In
addition, the TAC has been begun working with a consultant to address funding structure
options. The TAC also recently provided an update to the SWAG on how the passage of
Proposition 26 may impact the discussions related to system funding structure.
Next Steps in SWAG Process
In July 2010, the SWAG directed staff proceed based upon a Vision Statement that outlined
the process by which the SWAG would develop its recommendations for the long -term regional
waste solution. It is enclosed as Attachment C. Consistent with the process as outlined the
following next steps are planned.
Completion of Planning Phase
The next step in the planning phase is to check -in with each of the jurisdictions to get feedback
on the recommendations in the SWAG Research Committee Report and the SWAG's
conceptual next steps in the process. Once each city has provided feedback to their SWAG
representative, the SWAG representatives will be asked to vote on the conceptual direction.
Analysis Phase
With the conceptual selection of the waste diversion option(s), the next phase will involve a
third party detailed feasibility analysis The first step in the Analysis Phase will be to
commission a third party consultant to analyze the short list of options, which will include cost-
benefit, life cycle cost, sensitivity analysis and reliability analysis. In particular, the reliability
analysis will involve the consultant independently developing the estimated costs of the options
as well as independently estimating the diversion potential of each option. The scope of this
analysis will include analysis of full system costs, and the cost- benefit of the landfill disposal at
the Central Landfill versus out-haul of remaining waste to out -of- county landfills for disposal,
with and without the potential increases in diversion that may be accomplished under the
proposed options. A preliminary outline of the consultant's scope of work is attached at
Attachment D. This will, be present to and finalized with the SWAG in the future, after they
receive the jurisdictional feedback resulting from these presentations.
The third party analysis report will be reviewed by the TAC consisting of the City and County
managers, counsel and staff, prior to being brought back to the SWAG for their consideration.
The TAC will have also completed analysis of governance options as well as a construct in
moving revenue collections upstream. Upon the completion of analysis, the TAC will be
recommending to the SWAG a waste diversion strategy, a governance model and a
methodology with schedule for moving revenue collection upstream. The SWAG will be asked
5
i
to select the long-term solid waste strategy with another check -in with each of the individual
jurisdictions to make sure they concur with the SWAG direction.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Executive Summary of the SWAG Research Committee , Report
Attachment B - Education by Garbage Franchise Agreement
Attachment C - Vision for the -SWAG' to Develop a Long - Terris 1 Regional Solid Waste resource
Solution
Attachment D - Preliminary Scope of Consultant Analysis
U r
6
,
ATTACHMENT A.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final Research Committee Report
For ' the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste-
Advisory Group
The SWAG Research .Committee: was formed by action of the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste
Advisory Group (SWAG) on November 15, 20 10. The duties or 'objectives outlined for the
Research Committee (RC) have been.stated as:
"To recommend a short list of regional solid waste system options for SWAG
consideration whach,:ca
n feasibly meet SWAG's objectives for increased' diversion, •
economic efficiency.and local control.
Sonoma County has done a great job of implementing recycling 'and waste diversion programs
that have contributed to recovering .almost two thirds of the waste 'stream for beneficial use. The
RC's recommendations focus ,on,options to reduce, recycle and/or process.' the remaining one
third of the waste stream that 'IS still being disposed in local and „regional landfills.
The RC at their initial meeting had a discussion and reached consensus ns nsus "that the research and
recommended options should focus on the following activity areas; Waste Reduction, Waste
Diversion, 'Education, Legislation, Enforcement, and Transfer /Processing Infrastructure.
The following report provides an overview of the work of the RC along with our findings,
recornme and e costs relating to wast
enforcement and faeht infrmated; a "stru g e reduction, education, legislative, '
ndations
y ; policy options the RC believes can feasibly meet � ;
SWAG' s
'objectives for increased diversion, uh economic efficiency and local control.
•
The RC wishes the reader to note that it was not within the scope of "the RC's work to develop'
strategies, for the system funding structure. The RC was also not charged with quantifying the
impact that implementation of these recommendations may have ;on reducing other system costs
and meetinwcl'imate protection gdals. The RC acknowledges that all of these items are
significant and ' future more detailed analysis 'which will beaccomplished by
riy consultant. The RC st f
will be addressed i
, I a;third pa � ands..ready to assist with this 'process.
Project Approach
' hericluded a oal. of building out recommendations on a. foundation'
of reliable datat that Was' e g, W e
also The s n
either istin or readily developable',within a short time frame. W
�u
agreed p y rtwould �be most appropriate to maximize . p utilization of Sonoma Countys
exist n ca ac t
mizea the
' for ddiversion before recommending the development 'anew infrastructure.
The RC also incorporated the valuable Work of others. Our initial steps included review of a
number of'reports :including':the Organic Disposal Alternatives in Sonoma County report created
by the AB 939 LocaLTask Force, (LTF), the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency Waste
Characte the Plannin r or ~ Zero Waste in Sonoma County Discussion Paper prepared by the
LTF.
1
From this basis the subcommittees outlined our work plan and implemented the following
general scope of work:
® Defined current disposal volumes and recent trends
o Identified existing processing capacity in the County
® Evaluated waste' characterization & divertibility analysis
e Reviewed existing capacity vs. needs — gap analysis
® Developed program and infrastructure options both traditional & emerging
technologies that maximize the use of existing' programs and infrastructure and then
address the remaining, gaps, in capacity
® Developed findings and recommendations
Presented in this Executive Summary is an overview of the research, analysis and project
approach that has led the RC to develop our specific recommendations for SWAG's
consideration.
Findings and Recommendations:
Our recommendations are offered as a phased approach and include suggested points in the
process where the results from initial actions can be assessed and subsequent steps can build
upon actual results from the previous accomplishments. It is important to allow for some
flexibility in the planning process, especially for the longer -term objectives to accommodate
changes in the waste stream and the'evolution of emerging technologies. Our detailed
recommendations can be summarized within the four following broad areas:
• Maximize the use of existing diversion facilities in the County
• Diligently pursue additional composting capacity for the organic fraction of the waste
stream including food waste using current technology of aerobic aerated static pile
composting.
• Develop new mixed waste processing capability, (resource recovery, facility).
• Consider the development of emerging technologies, such as anaerobic digestion and/or
thermal conversion facilities, based on future analysis.
Existing Diversion Capacity
Findingl: The inventory of existing permitted solid waste processing facilities, (listed in Table 2
within the main bodyof the report), demonstrates that the County as a whole has a significant
amount of underutilized diversion process capacity. The categories of facilities: that have the
ability to handle additional volumes of material include:
• Transfer Processing
• Construction and Demolition Debris
• Source Separated Processing facilities
In addition, the waste disposed of currently in landfills, still has a significant amount of
divertible materials that can be recovered through these types of existing facilities. The
2
,
combination of the composition of the waste stream matching with the capabilities of the existing
facilities in the County offers the most cost effective .first opportunity to achieve additional
diversion with little or no new ,capital investment.
hI Rec art of d a G' nl: Maximize,Existing Capacity
As s work to :accomplish the stated objectives of increased diversion, economic
efficiency and local control, the RC 'recommends the consideration Of policy which emphasizes
the benefits of maximizing the use of the existing diversion infrastructure in Sonoma County.
This policy should focus on both waste reduction and diversion. The implementation of this
policy may include action by the SWAG or individual jurisdictions and should include further
study of the following options
1A: Increase edu
cation efforts on waste- reduction. and diversion by funding one
full -time position; with equipment and supplies for outreach materials
specifically focused on door -to -door outreach with Commercial and C & D
waste generators.
1B: Increase educatio byfund waste reduction and
diversion ng q i
.� � ne'
rt half-time position with equipment and supplies.
1C: Adopt a Model' Countywide Mandatory Commercial Recycling Ordinance
1D: Adopt a Model Countywide C & D Recycling Ordinance
Additional 'Compost`Capacity & Food Waste
Finding 2: Organics `is° the largest fraction, (36%), of Sonoma County's waste stream that is still
being disposed in landfills: 'Food waste is part: of the. organics :component and represents the
biggest volume of'any single material at 21 percent of the total waste. stream.,' Translatingthis to
nge''of 315 435 tons per day= of Organics being disposed. While
this
tonnage g q p represents a t good ossible�ra
handle this volume. The , Count it s corn o tind� diversion,
has 36 p acify does not ot exist to
p g pp Y - targeted ,
y' p „ g facility y tons per day of remaining
capacity. It is also important to understand that the existing method of "wind row" composting
has limited capacity for food waste.
The Sonoma County'Waste'Management Agency, (SCWMA), is in the process of working
towardS � co
ent of a new in ostin operation
terms oft olume and possilily the ability to incorporate larger volum additional
es and types of food waste
along with the,current' green waste material. New regulations relating to air impactsfrom
composting will necessitate a change in the method for composting in the County. While this
may present some new challenges it also represents an opportunityto incorporate a facility
design which���can.accorn
gn modate the beneficial reuse of food waste, the single largest component
currently going to landfill disposal.
Many communities in California. are looking to address the beneficial use of food waste as a
diversion strategy. As our recycling programs have removed a significant percentage of other
material, food waste continues to become a larger and larger component of what is left in the
disposal stream. Santa Rosa's Laguna Wastewater TreatmentPlant and its biosolids management
3
infrastructure may have the capability to play a role in the beneficial reuse of food waste here in
Sonoma County. The concept of adding a percentage of food waste in the digesters at wastewater
,!„ treatment facilities is being considered by a number of communities.
Recommendation 2: Additional Compost Capacity
The RC recommends the following options be studied further to support increased diversion of
organics:
2A: Support** efforts Of t 1VIA to develop new composting capacity in
Sonoma Count ecifica 1
y and specifically p y encourage thatthe new facility design
incorporate the ability to include food waste as part of the acceptable
feedstock for the composting process.
asibility of the Santa Wastewater Treatment
2B: Determine, ,
methefe a RosaLaguna
Plant in playingha role in the beneficial reuse of food waste in Sonoma
County.
2C: Once a full food waste diversion system is available, establish a one- time
focused educational outreach effort to inform commercial and residential
generators to ensure maximum use of the food waste and composting •
programs:
New and Finding 3: Even with effective, efforts ante areas of maximizing the use of the existing
g g
processing infrastructure an. d..developing additional composting capacity in the County,:new'
types of facilities will need p 90% o diversion goal
identified by SWAG. For exo be developed in order to meet the to nger term
y ample; while source separated recycling programs''havebeen very
successfix'l, fo r single -
- y ; eS , there have been some ehallen�ges to replicate the same level
i ,,
of success for the multi-- family and some. of the commercial waste' :: sector customers. ,Factors Such
as the high turn-over at multifamily facilities have had an impact on customer education and
participation rates and space constraints for additional bins have inhibited recycling opportunities
for certain sectors of the business •community. One of the effective ways to recover this material
can be through the development of a mixed waste processing facility.
]By,using'.a combination of human sorting, and mechanical techniques iou.components of
weight, magnetic separation etc. operators have looked t o segregate g the
the waste stream for recyclables, organics and possible. refuse °derived fuel resources. Through
the evolution of these, efforts the current sorting equipment technology has advanced
a li "cations. This is not a situation where C "one size can, and should be, designed for specific
significantly. '
pp ixe „ it;will be
important •to assess the. s ecificineeds for material `recover ' nor. to desi and " County,
p y p ' gri implementation
of a mixed waste processing; facility. This is an instance where it will be prudent to analyze the
results of the prior diversion efforts of the community beforemoving forward with a significant
capital investment. It will be critical to design a. facility based on what is left in the waste stream
g ding of the type of feedstock
in
along with a clear understan " the facility will be expected to
produce from the waste material input.
4
With the understanding that the specific design will need lo be developed based on the future
,.i results of the next phase' bf diversion efforts in the County, it is the consensus of the RC that a
mixed waste processing facility will be a feasible component' of an integrated plan to achieve
SWAG's diversion goals.
Recommendation 3: Mixed Waste Processing Facility
The RC recommends that the SWAG'S policy and planning• efforts include the development of a
mixed waste processing facility as a.feasible option for further feasibility study and development.
Additionally, the further analysis should include designing flexibility in the facility for it to
support future emerging technologies.
3A: Develop Mixed Waste .Facility that targets Multi- Family Commercial Waste
Stream
3B: Design Flexibility for Emerging Technologies
Emerging Technology
Finding 4: As, the County moves towards higher levels of diversion the remaining waste stream -
will be comprised of materials ,that p hat have been identified in the Cascadia Report using terms such
as; "Remainder/Composite", "Mixed Residue" and "Other ". These materials by their nature will
not lend themselves to recovery through the traditional programs for recycling and composting .
Some of these materials can be separated through the specific design of a:mixed waste
processing facility as described previously. The current thinking in the industry related to the
remainder of the waste stream is to focus on separation of'material into groups based on organics
and energy recovery potential.
The organic fraction of the remaining .material can be considered for both energy recovery and
soil amendment applications through anaerobic digestion. Other constituents like mixed non -
for renewable energy
recovery through paper ugh a variettyof thermal. conversion B
ersion poces es. The design of these emerging
thermal processes differs, from, traditional waste to energy combustion and has been promoted as
having low emissions and significant carbon reduction potential. These types of processes have
been developed primarily in other countries or through smaller scale projects here in the United
sc %ntifi theory behind many of these g c swell founded :arid worth fute the u
scale projects g country,
��� p gr approach p is the hi her e
study and consideration a's art of an irate ated a roach to accom hin li'
g g levels' of
diversion identified through the SWAG objectives.
Recommendation 4 ,Emerging Technologies
gies
We recommend that th
d e SWAG s policy a l p y nd planning efforts include the consideration of
�
emerging technologies, such as anaerobic digestion and low `emission thermal conversion, as part
a comprehensive and integrated' approach to achieving the stated - diversion goal objectives. Our
recommendation includes the future study of these technologies however, because of the
potentialhigh cost of these technologies, prior to implementation a study should be completed to
measure the success': Our research identified that there are already smaller scale innovative
technologies beingproposed within the region to address specific waste streams, the RC
5
Vii,
recommends a policy to support those efforts within the community.
4A: Implement Further Analysis
4B. Adopt a policy to support emerging technologies within the community.
Conclusions:
This report is offered to SWAG with great appreciation for the effort that is being put forth on
the part of the City and County elected representatives to come together and develop a consensus
for solid waste and diversion policy and planning measures on behalf of the Sonoma County
Community. The RC developed their recommendations with the input of a diverse range of
knowledgeable individuals representing just about every solid waste and recycling stakeholder
interest in the county. We have worked diligently to find the common ground that we all can
agree on We have endeavored to offer sound public policy options regarding diversion
processing and facility development strategies for S WAG's consideration.
Beyond the written report, the work of the RC has included extensive discussion and healthy
debate of each of the presented areas. While we have suggested the need for addition study in
certain areas, we have provided.SWAG with the specific recommendations for further detailed
study for which we have a high degree of confidence will represent cost effective solutions to
meet the stated objectives for diversion, economic efficiency and local control. To that end,
included in the full report is :a summary table which attempts to quantify the range of potential
cost /rate impacts and potential additional diversion that could be achieved through
implementation of the various options.
The RC has estimated based upon our research that Recommendations #1 -3 should all be able to
be implemented for less than an additional $2.00 /month impact to a typical residential collection
bill. It should be noted that this table estimates rate impacts to residential customers to
implement these waste reduction and diversion efforts, as if they are full add -ons to the existing
system costs. However, should diversion goals be achieved there will be a significant reduction
in remaining tonnage going to landfill disposal, which should result in offsetting 'savings. We
expect.that when the consultant study is performed which takes into account all system costs,
that these potential offsetting savings will be analyzed.
6
p !�
416/44%. soy
Education F Garba
n , - Collectors
. % t o,,,, %1 '
tnpiie ,.
a, .� [ e d I f 1n! 'r na n: 'n
RESIDENTIAL ,, v ., a C OMMERCIAL ....r MULTIFAMI S CHOOLS
I® CLOVERDALE: General outreach. includes newsletters 2x /year, holiday bill insert + annual visit to city buildings + information to new accounts
Redwood Required g 21 xm4 Annual bill Insert Annual bill.insert Quarterly cont
N �f�� �� �� � „ t � "'° ' � t act
Em
Empire 2 s - � Approxim 2 5 vi ° A p p roximate l y r:;-..';,:,11..,-.--
0 vis P resentations b y requ
Disposal (RED) E x t ras*,�0 Y
'4h,� b r ,. 33 ' ,.. t £ ', I.r i 7 &,
�...z 1,:..RM �.,, a��',�. �.1;.m.r. �. r,... . °.'.YeartJIllt '�, 1 �. t �„ r. m
. COTATI: Tabling at public events (Cotati Kids Day, Farmers, Market, etc.), newsletters 2 /year, holiday bill insert + information to new accounts
Redwood Required �, ,��_ `` p 4 (or MFU visits / yea r 1 •, 40 (or Co m era a l) A nn u a l cont
r P - n! t' 2 1 1 41 7 i I -. 4 j ?.. f� :
Empire I e „
. .. i p air x)24 3 ,w - � l VISltslyear s l .. 1 ” . a
Disposal (RED) Extras: n,
Extras , :_; t_,. M k 1{x ,_. x .V,A0. .. - ' `f R � " ,..,: _.; Presentations by reques t
® HEALDSBURG: Tabling at•public events, newslett 2 /year, holidaynotice (counts as'1 of 4 req. inserts): +annual •visit to city buildings +
information to new accounts
Redwood Required: BIII inserts 4 / ' i &Annual bill:insert ' Annual bill insert An cont
E m Ire .&"`K, r �ax^4 w � sy „ e i Y n t i w ' at t/
Disposal (RED)
P A roximatel 25 visits /year Approx 10 Visits /yeast Quarter) conac Extras: > ftIt�� y
����� �� r . .�`..� � ��. � .,�� . } k � � � ' ,��� . � ' a I ' �P s e nt a tions <bykrequ`est
► PETALUMA: Cleanup flyers, holiday insert, tabling at public events (chamber expo, etc.),. newsletters 2/year + information to new accounts
Petaluma Refuse Required a � � „ } ,, s r I" , ,L — ? i '_ _
t
&Recycling xz nV,V v /yearn; Appr 20 visit Annual contact /,
Extras
Presentations!b re uesst °t
g�.�:..., .�A,�'�If �� � t, ;a°iosa� µ i �1� ;��Year� � ;,; i;I . .. -.y q
► ROHNERT PARK: Holiday flyer, public fair events JEarth Day Farmers Market chamber expo etc.) + information to new accounts
Rohnert Park Required: 2 *bill inserts /year r t , 100 visits /year 4 4 m 100 visits/ ear
Disposal Extras Bp i a, f e : 4 t " I w .} ,, r'> g ks Y rF I A n al
�,u Presentations re uest
®SANTA,ROSA: Yearly outreach campaign* (includes. newsletters 2 /year) holiday flyer, public fair tabling events (Earth Day- Farmers Market, etc.)
Santa Rosa R equ i re d : .' ,R.• j ,t -: M � N .� v „6,-. r ,. .
Recycling & E x t ras Q ,, ,A , . .` q , o, re q . A
Visits as re ues or recommen Visrts as re or, nnual con
Collectioh t ,, - ' — '""Vi - 2: 57,0 '4' v , ( 25 vi s i ts /year ] q l "re commended ' , 11 " ; - P resen t at ions by r •
SEBASTOPOL: Public fair tabling (chamber expo, etc.), newsletters 2 /year, holiday insert + information'to new accounts
{; g e Annual bill insert ' '? › Annual bit insert ; ' A nn u a l contac ' ' .
Redwood Required ` ���(,
Empire r �` - v 37 c r f I '
Extras K 4 � 1 Vi si t s as req u e ste d or r ecommen d e d P resentations b y re
Disposal V x . ,w , (Approximatel )25 visits /year)" ,SS' ytl f' � J " . "a .,
. ) Information to new accounts
h > yt } 4 Y $ C e d'Y �'T�k�� �.M�n 1:
Sonoma Collectors Garbage RequiredNewsletters 2 /year �> �_ t • �" z $f F
. o Al 5� ry�Z 0 ;a uL iq a 1 q NF ILI1141iIII ir 7r %$ , 4 1 "N
Extras �g ek : by request, x _ Presentations b y request , Presentations b y 6 request l
UNINCORPORATED AREA :,New 2 /year, holiday insert + information to new accounts
T /0 % g Visits b r u 24,01,„,61,1, � n
RED Required n � �,� � ▪ "�` Y q _, . _ " .,. • Sonoma Extras: , { 5 `M V k 4 � i i Pres b y request
Collectors z ^w. °+c a.! rz 3 T: '`.. .� 'ni�.c i, '� , a' &,, .,� a a t . i i a "a ,_.a c
, ® WINDSOR: Yearly outreach campaign *.(includes newsletters 2 /year), holiday insert, cleanup flyers 2/year + city building visits 2x /year + information
to new•accounts
Windsor Refuse Re uired '" } ' _ j 10 visits %quarter Biannual contact
q �. �, � .�..�.�..�.10 visits /quarter� �.�.� :. I �:,,: �, ,:rr
& Recycling o f f ;: t� f s « s 1 ' c ,,
Extras3 ' Q u arter l y co ntac t /
� ,,� ' i k , ` t� � } � Pres by reque
*Outreach' campaigns consist of 4 projects, approved by the city. 2 are always newsletters (as theyare not required by'the city). The other 2 are targeted on certain
problem areas or goals. 2011 Outreach Campaigns Santa Rosa consist of downtown focused :outreach and multi - family outreach with certain goals.
Windsor's campaigns are summer event recycling and green can audits /veggie waste education.
STAFFING: North Bay Corporation dedicates 2 staff people to serve 131,200 customers; Sonoma Garbage Collector does not have a dedicated staff person to
serve its 5,470 customers
Date: May 25, 2011
Based upon SWAG direction July, 2010
•
AttaChMent C
VSOP/FOrTHErSWAG TO DEVELOP A 'LONG-TERM
REGIONAL SOLID WASTE RESOURCE SOLUTION
March, 2010 1), PHASE I — SWAG; STRUCTURE, RULES OF
GOVERNANCE, GUIDING PRINCIPLES
a SWAG Guidirig'Printiple— already adopted as part of the
Rules of GOvernarke
1) Local Control (i.e. public Vs. private.ownership)
ii) Regional Services
iii) Waste Diversion
iv) Economic Efficiencies
. v.) Reliability
vi) Flexibility
vii) Climate Protection
b) SWAG Rules of Governance —adopted, establishing
Membership, and voting
[6-12months] 2) :PHASE 2- PLANNING
Timelines — presented
l EdikatiOn and Awareness ofIssue s and Options
i) Financial Overview —"Expenses 'and Funding Structure.-
presented
ii) Facility Tours — [July 'arid' August]
iii) Presentations on Technologies and Educatioh and
Enforcement Strategies [July through Septerdber]
,
c) - Fatilitated.Discussion with SWAG of Guiding prinCiPleS to
'Develop Measurable Objectives [September and/or
October SWAG Meeting]
i) Assign Priority i.e. which. Principles 'are the most
important which are the least?
ii) Eliminate Options the SWAG is not interested in if there
are' any
iii) Define Measurable Objectives for the Principles Le....
(1) What level of diversion defines success?
(2) What level of GHG reduction defines success?
Based upon SWAG direction July, 2010
(3) What is the definition of economically efficient?
What is the range of fiscal constraint?
(4) What level of risk in technology is acceptable?
(5) Etc....
d) 3Full Council /Board .4report presentxObjectives and get
feedback'[Octoberior N'ovember]
f) Determine a list of acceptable Options that address
Objectives
i) Establish a Research Committee (RC) of public, industry,
business, environmental, county and city managers /staff
ii) Report results of RC analysis of feasible options back to
SWAG
g) Determine Short -List of Options to Analyze
i) SWAG discussion to reach consensus on a short list of
Options
h) Full Council /Board''�R to getl�F the short
� i�,� i rt
Iistlof� Options 1 [Spring 2011]
[6 -9 Months]
3) PHASE 3 — ANALYSIS — DETAILED TECHNICAL
FEASIBILITY
a) Detailed third-party analysis of the short list of Feasible
Options
i) Cost- benefit
Life cycle cost
„ I iii) 'Sensitivity analysis — participation, generations economy
etc.
iv) Reliability /Proven technology
b) Review and Critique of preliminary analysis by a Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of City:a'nd:County
managers, counsel, and staff
c) Finalize Analysis
d) Consider how liabilities might be addressed under each
option (on -going discussions between County and Cities —
Managers and Attorneys groups)
. .
•
• a•Sed upon SWAG direction July, 2010
. 4) PHASE 4 SWAG SELECTION OF REGIONAL SOLUTION
[2-3 months]
a) Presentation of Analysis to SWAG
13) SWAG Discussion' (Facilitated) to develop consensus on a
recommended regiOnal
c) Fufl Council/Board Reports to present recommended
solution and get feedback
5) PHASE 5— DEVELOP FRAMEWORK FOR
[6-9 months],
IMPLEMENTATION OF REGIONAL SOLUTION
a).°. TAC to develop recommendations on:
i) A Governance IVIodet7-livhb implements? (_oun new
or 'existing1PA, privateSettor owner or operator?
ii) Resolution tO'RernaMing
ii) A Sustainable Fundin"gMethantsm
iv) Participation Framework (flow commitment?)
v) Implementation Profess/Steps
b) Present Preliminary TACRecommendationsAo SWAG for
Input
Full Council/Board R to get Feed on
riiTPI;MeAiliii3614
. .
6) PHASE 6— IMPLEMENT ,F
[dependent
upon,
solution]
Attachment D
Preliminary Scope of Consultant Analysis
The SWAG Research Committee (RC) was directed to recommend a;short list of
regional solid waste system options for SWAG consideration which can feasibly
meet the SWAG's objectives for increased waste diversion, economic efficiencies,
and local control.
The next step in the SWAG process is to have an independent consultant review
the work of the research committee. The objectives of the third party assessment
will be to review and validate the findings and analyze each of the short list of
recommended options in the Research Committee Report. The consultant may
also recommend other action steps which feasibly can meet the SWAG's goals
and objectives. The consultant's analysis will include the following:
1. Cost /benefit — volume of waste, diverted versus cost of diversion program
or infrastructure
2. Life cycle cost — education programs, start-up versus on -going costs, life
cycle related to new infrastructure, including the landfill
3. Sensitivity., analysis — how sensitive are the recommended options to cost
changes due to waste reduction, levels of participation of the jurisdictions,
economic conditions, regulatory changes, fuel prices, etc.
4. Reliability analysis - The reliability analysis will involve the consultant
independently developing both the estimated cost of the options as well as,
the diversion potential of 'each option and then estimating the reliability of
what they have done.
The consultants scope of work will include the analysis of full system costs and
the cost /benefit of the landfill disposal at the Central Landfill versus out -haul of
remaining waste to out -of- county landfills for disposal, with and without the
potential increases in diversion that may be accomplished, under the proposed
options. Full system costs will be presented in terms of gate fees for the time
being, until such time as another regional system fee structure is proposed.
1
Attachment D
The consultants' scope of work will be to address:
® Education - Need to maximize participation in existing Commercial Single
Stream and Construction Demolition Debris recycling programs - Identify
best practices for educating, these sectors of the waste generators to get
best cost /benefit and lasting results. Is a face to face program based upon
visits to generators the best approach? Is it best done through the Sonoma
County Waste Management Agency or Jurisdictions' Franchise Collectors?
Public employees vs. private?
® Mandatory Commercial Recycling Ordinance — Latest regulatory status?
Best practices for early.implementation? Best practices related to
enforcement? Costs? Which approach is best.for ordinance development a
County wide approach or an individual jurisdiction approach?
® Construction Demolition Debris Ordinance - Best practices for
implementation? Best practices related to enforcement? Costs? Which
approach is best for ordinance: developrnent a County wide approach or an
individual jurisdiction approach?
Organics Infrastructure — Composting of green waste and food waste? Best
practices? Best location? Is there a role for regional treatment plant(s) to
help dispose of food waste? Cost/benefit t /benefit and other considerations
o Mixed Waste Processing Facility — assess specific processing lines needed,
and include the cost/benefit, including Iifecy,cle and on -going operation and
maintenance costs
® Are there additional diversion opportunities at the Regional Transfer
Stations — whaf could be done? What
is the cost /benefit? Low tech. or
high tech programs?
e Waste Reduction Programs Best practices to achieve actual waste
reduction, instead of dealing with the material after it is discarded. Are
there any reduction programs that have quantifiable cost /benefits?
2
I it