new refuse contract discussion

20
1 NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION October 1, 2013 Erik Grabowsky Department of Environmental Services Solid Waste Bureau

Upload: lumina

Post on 25-Feb-2016

50 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION. October 1, 2013 Erik Grabowsky Department of Environmental Services Solid Waste Bureau. Participation Leadership and Civic Engagement (PLACE). The Opportunity. Bates refuse contract expires on June 30, 2014 : Routes 1,2,3,9,10 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

1

NEW REFUSE CONTRACTDISCUSSION

October 1, 2013

Erik Grabowsky

Department of Environmental Services

Solid Waste Bureau

Page 2: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Participation Leadership and Civic Engagement (PLACE)

2

Page 3: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

The Opportunity

Bates refuse contract expires on June 30, 2014: Routes 1,2,3,9,10

kmG refuse contract expires on June 30, 2014: Routes 4,5,6,7,8

3

Page 4: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Background on the County’s Integrated Solid Waste Management System

• In 2004 the County Board adopted the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP). This 20-year planning document laid the foundation for the continued enhancement of the County’s solid waste management system and presented a plan for further development of the County’s solid waste services.

• SWMP states, “Arlington County wants to be a leader in solid waste reduction and recycling in the Commonwealth.”

• The SWMP outlines the introduction of year-round yard waste and food waste collection to the already comprehensive list of services provided.

• The 2004 SWMP’s goals for the County’s recycling rate are:– 37% by 2014– 42% by 2019– 47% by 2024

• The Solid Waste Committee’s proposed revisions to the recycling rate goals:– 50% by 2015– 55% by 2020– 60 % by 2025

4

Page 5: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Integrated Solid Waste Management System

MRF – Materials Recovery Facility EPRY – Earth Products Recycling Yard WTE – Waste to Energy

Product Stewardship

Change in Package

Design/ProductManufacturing

Change in Purchasing

Habits

Change in Donation/

Reuse Habits

Improve RecyclingParticipation & Generation

Consumer Purchase Source Reduction

Was

te R

educ

tion

Consumer Diversion

Municipal Solid WasteMinimize Disposal

Domestic/InternationalProduction

(Manufacturing & Packaging)

WTE(Residuals)

Landfill Ash(Monofill)

WTE(Recovery

for Combustion)

EPRYLeaves, Brush

Inert Materials

TrashDisposal

Recovery for Recycling

Expanded recyclingmaterials as tech.

improves

100% reuse of materials generated

within the County

CompostingGrasscycling Reuse

E-WasteComputersTelevisionsElectronics

MRFPlastics, Metal

Paper, Glass

Landfill(Residuals)

Curbside RecyclingProgram

Landfill Ash(Monofill)

Ferrous MetalRecovery

Ferrous Metal RecoveryMunicipal Solid Waste

CompostingYard Waste

Food WasteMetal

White goodsMetal items

Page 6: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Household Solid Waste Rate

• Refuse collection• Refuse disposal• Recycling collection• Brush collection• Metal/white goods

collection• Electronics Collection• Battery collection

• Backdoor collection• Spring yard waste collection• Leaf collection• Refuse/recycling carts• Earth products recycling

yard• Call center• Administration

6

FY14 = $293.76

Page 7: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Regional HSWRs

7City of A

lexandria

Arlington County*

City of F

airfax

Fairf

ax County*

City of F

alls Church

*

Prince

George's County

$0.00$50.00

$100.00$150.00$200.00$250.00$300.00$350.00$400.00 $336.00

$293.92$355.48 $345.00 $345.00 $334.82

FY12/13 Annual Rate

*FY13 Rates

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$350.00

$400.00

-20.00%

-15.00%

-10.00%

-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

$260.36$295.80$306.56

$325.68$344.24

$325.72$293.92$293.76

14%

4%6% 6%

-5%

-15%

0%

HSWR

HSWRHSWR % change

JurisdictionYear-Round Yard Waste

Program

VirginiaCity of Alexandria NoArlington County NoCity of Fairfax YesFairfax County YesCity of Falls Church YesTown of Leesburg Yes

MarylandCity of Bowie NoCity of College Park YesCity of Frederick YesFrederick County YesMontgomery County YesPrince George's County Yes

Page 8: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

2012 Waste Audit ResultsResidential Refuse Toter Contents

8

RecyclablesNot Diverted

16.5%

MixedWastes24.2%

Yard Waste35.8%

Food Waste& Soiled Paper

23.5%

Note: Average of 4 waste audits in 2012 totaling 9,988 pounds or almost 5 tons of curbside refuse.

Page 9: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Organics Management Today

• Promote grasscycling and composting

• Yard Waste - Recycled into Mulch- Weekly curbside brush collection- Leaf Collection: November-January- Spring Yard Waste: March-April

• Food Waste - Trash

9

Page 10: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Urban Agriculture Task Force Report

• 9 Recommended Priorities– D. Implement an environmentally sound and

effective food waste and recycling system while increasing healthy soils.

• 9. Initiate a municipal composting system to ensure an effective and ecologically appropriate disposal, reuse, and recycling system for food scraps, yard waste and other organic materials.

10

Page 11: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Recycling Rate Impacts

11

10% 25% 33% 50% 75% 100%45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

52.1%54.8%

56.2%59.2%

63.7%

68.1%

53.3%

57.7%60.1%

65.1%

72.4%

79.8%

Potential Residential Recycling Rate with Organics Diversion(2012 Residential Recycle Rate = 50.3%)

Yard Waste Only

Yard Waste & Food Waste (SSO)

Additional Diversion of Organics from MSW Stream

Estim

ated

Rec

yclin

g R

ate

CY03 CY04 CY05 CY06* CY07* CY08* CY09 CY10 CY11 CY12

Residential 34.3% 34.8% 36.6% 37.3% 41.3% 42.0% 44.3% 48.0% 50.2% 50.3%

CY03 CY04 CY05 CY06* CY07* CY08* CY09 CY10 CY11 CY12

Residential 34.3% 34.8% 36.6% 37.3% 41.3% 42.0% 44.3% 48.0% 50.2% 50.3%

Page 12: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

12

Composting Facilities nearArlington County

Page 13: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Greenhouse Gas Impacts

The EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM) shows that taking organic waste to a composting facility generates less GHG emissions than taking it to the WTE/incinerator.

13

*Based on EPA WARM model results for 12,953 tons of yard waste and 21,455 tons of single-stream organics (SSO). MTCO2E=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; MTCE=metric tons carbon equivalent

YARD WASTE YARD & FOOD WASTE (SSO)

to Loudoun Composting

Loudoun County, VAto PG Co. Compost Facility

Prince George's County, MD

GHG Emissions (MTCO2E) -375 -1008

GHG Emissions (MTCE) -102 -275

GHG Savings from 100% Diversion of Residential Organics from WTE*:

For YARD WASTE, this is equivalent to…• Removing annual emissions from 74 Passenger Vehicles• Conserving 42,074 Gallons of Gasoline• Conserving 15,637 Cylinders of Propane Used for Home Barbeques• Conserving 2 Railway Cars of Coal

For YARD WASTE and FOOD WASTE, this is equivalent to…• Removing annual emissions from 198 Passenger Vehicles• Conserving 112,954 Gallons of Gasoline• Conserving 41,981 Cylinders of Propane Used for Home Barbeques• Conserving 5 Railway Cars of Coal

Page 14: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Organic Waste Program Options

1. Bag System: – Self Purchased– County Provided

2. Cart System

3. Bag & Cart Option-Bags now for yard waste and add 3rd cart when food waste collection is implemented

14

Yard waste = leaves, grass, weeds, brush, plants, shrubs, branches

Page 15: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

What the Community is Telling Us(Survey Data)

• 496 survey responses

• Which of the following program and operational changes for the county’s Solid Waste Management System would you support?

– Additional curbside yard waste and food waste pickup in the same cart, 70.1%, 337 responses

– Additional curbside yard waste pickup only , 23.5%, 113 responses

– Additional curbside food waste pickup only, 6.4%, 31 responses

15

http://www.peakdemocracy.com/p/105 We've developed a brief informational presentation and a quick survey to find out if, and how, Arlington residents would like to see their curb-side recycling services expanded

Page 16: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

In House Management Options

16

Page 17: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

17

Three Cart Option

The future could look like this . . .

Page 18: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Budget Decision

• RFP process will move forward.• Negotiated RFP pricing and programs will be

evaluated as part of the budget process. Staff will make a recommendation.

• County Manager will consider options as part of her budget proposal.

• County Board will adopt budget.

18

Page 19: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Questions

19

Page 20: NEW REFUSE CONTRACT DISCUSSION

Thank You!

20