Solid Waste Management Plan

Document Sample
Solid Waste Management Plan Powered By Docstoc
					SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

YAMHILL COUNTY

April 2004

Prepared by:

111 S.W. Columbia, Suite 900 Portland, Oregon 97201-5814 52-00082004.00

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter One Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Preface...................................................................................................... 1-1 Plan Purpose and Goals ........................................................................... 1-1 County’s Role in Solid Waste Planning................................................... 1-3 Regulatory Review................................................................................... 1-3 1.4.1 Federal Regulation ....................................................................... 1-3 1.4.2 State Regulations ......................................................................... 1-5 1.4.2.1 The 1991 Recycling Act (SB66)................................... 1-7 1.4.2.2 HB 3456 ........................................................................ 1-8 1.4.2.3 Statewide Planning Goals ............................................. 1-8 1.4.2.4 State of Oregon Solid Waste Management Plan........... 1-9 Plan Organization..................................................................................... 1-9 Introduction.............................................................................................. 2-1 Characterization of the Planning Area..................................................... 2-1 Description of the Solid Waste System ................................................... 2-3 2.3.1 Refuse Collection......................................................................... 2-3 2.3.2 Transfer Stations .......................................................................... 2-3 2.3.3 Disposal Facilities........................................................................ 2-4 2.3.4 Recycling Facilities...................................................................... 2-4 Projected Waste Stream Quantities and Composition ............................. 2-6 2.4.1 Definitions.................................................................................... 2-7 2.4.2 Waste Stream Composition.......................................................... 2-8 2.4.3 Waste Stream Generation Forecast ............................................ 2-13 Introduction.............................................................................................. 3-1 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................ 3-2 3.2.1 Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 459 and 459A – Waste Management Priorities and Waste Diversion Requirements ....... 3-2 3.2.2 HB 3744 (2001) – New County Recovery Rate Goals for 2005 and 2009.............................................................................. 3-4 3.2.3 HB 3456 (1997) – 2% Recovery Credit Programs ...................... 3-4 Public and Private Sector Roles............................................................... 3-5 Overview of Recovery Rate..................................................................... 3-7 3.4.1 2001 Recovery Rate for Yamhill County .................................... 3-7 3.4.2 2002 Recovery Data..................................................................... 3-7 3.4.3 Composition and Components of Material Recovery Tonnage and Rate ........................................................................ 3-8 Promotion, Education, Information Activities....................................... 3-10 3.5.1 Overview.................................................................................... 3-10 3.5.2 Yamhill County Solid Waste Division ...................................... 3-11 3.5.3 Western Oregon Waste and Newberg Garbage Service ............ 3-13
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

1.5 Chapter Two 2.1 2.2 2.3

Background and Waste Stream Analysis ..................................................................... 2-1

2.4

Chapter Three Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting................................................................... 3-1 3.1 3.2

3.3 3.4

3.5

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.5.4 Oregon Green Schools ............................................................... 3-14 3.5.5 “Yamhill County Businesses Reducing Our Waste Now” Program...................................................................................... 3-15 Recycling Activities............................................................................... 3-17 3.6.1 Introduction................................................................................ 3-17 3.6.2 Recycling Drop-Off Depots....................................................... 3-18 3.6.3 Newberg Garbage Service Recycling Programs........................ 3-19 3.6.4 Newberg Garbage Service Recovery Data ................................ 3-21 3.6.5 Western Oregon Waste Recycling Programs............................. 3-22 3.6.6 Western Oregon Waste Recovery Data ..................................... 3-24 3.6.7 Northwest Greenlands Composting Program ............................ 3-24 Analysis of Issues, Needs, and Opportunities........................................ 3-25 Alternatives ............................................................................................ 3-28 3.8.1 Adopt More Ambitious Recovery Goals ................................... 3-29 3.8.2 Adopt Recycling Requirements for Designated Businesses, Institutions, Apartment Buildings, and Construction/ Demolition Projects ................................................................... 3-29 3.8.3 Institute a Ban on Burning Yard Debris for All Incorporated Cities .......................................................................................... 3-29 3.8.4 Ban the Disposal of Certain Materials by Designated Residential and Commercial Generators ................................... 3-30 3.8.5 Implement Commingled Residential Curbside Collection of Recyclables for All Incorporation Jurisdictions ........................ 3-30 3.8.6 Implement Curbside Collection of Yard Waste for All Residences that Have Curbside Collection of Recyclables ....... 3-30 3.8.7 Add Yard Waste Storage Containers to Community Recycling Drop-Off Centers Where Logistically Feasible ......................... 3-30 3.8.8 Increase the Rate Differential Between Service Levels for Residential and Commercial Customers to Provide Further Economic Incentives for Waste Reduction/Recycling .............. 3-31 3.8.9 Set a Target for Involvement in the Three Levels of the Oregon Green Schools Program ............................................................. 3-31 3.8.10 Aggressively Promote and expand the YC Brown Program and Consider Similar Program for the Residential Sector................ 3-31 3.8.11 Set Up a Cooperative County/City Organization for the Joint Purchasing of Recycled-Contents Products ............................... 3-32 3.8.12 Undertake Activities to Qualify for the 2% Reuse Program Credit from ODEQ..................................................................... 3-32 3.8.13 Establish a Waste Reduciton/Recycling Resource Center Display with Materials Available in Every Library in the County........................................................................................ 3-32 3.8.14 Support Establishment of Transfer Station and Expanded MRF Processing Capability by Western Oregon Waste ..................... 3-33 3.8.15 Carry-On Promotion/Education and Diversion Service Activities to Insure Receiving 2% Recovery Credits Annually from ODEQ................................................................................ 3-33
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3.6

3.7 3.8

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.9 4.1 4.2 Evaluation of Options and Recommendations....................................... 3-33 Introduction.............................................................................................. 4-1 Background and Existing Conditions ...................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4-1 4.2.2 Existing Collection Services ........................................................ 4-3 4.2.3 Franchise Agreements.................................................................. 4-5 4.2.4 Existing Receiving Facilities ....................................................... 4-6 Needs and Opportunities.......................................................................... 4-8 Alternatives and Evaluation..................................................................... 4-9 4.4.1 Expansion of Transfer Services ................................................... 4-9 4.4.1.1 Develop new transfer station capacity in conjunction with long term disposal alternative ............................... 4-9 4.4.2 Expansion of Collection Services .............................................. 4-11 Introduction.............................................................................................. 5-1 Background and Existing Conditions ...................................................... 5-1 5.2.1 Background .................................................................................. 5-1 5.2.2 Current Disposal Practices........................................................... 5-2 5.2.2.1 Riverbend Landfill ........................................................ 5-2 5.2.2.2 Disposal of Other Waste Streams ................................. 5-4 Disposal Agreement................................................................................. 5-6 Waste Stream Projections ........................................................................ 5-7 5.4.1 Waste Disposal Projections.......................................................... 5-7 Needs and Opportunities........................................................................ 5-10 Alternatives and Evaluation................................................................... 5-10 5.6.1 Alternatives for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Disposal ........ 5-11 Evaluation and Recommendations......................................................... 5-15 5.7.1 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) ................................................. 5-16 Introduction.............................................................................................. 6-1 Regulatory Background ........................................................................... 6-2 Oregon HHW Programs........................................................................... 6-3 6.3.1 State HHW Contractor................................................................. 6-3 6.3.2 Permanent HHW Facility Grants ................................................. 6-4 Wastes to Target and Accept ................................................................... 6-4 6.4.1 Waste Types to Collect ................................................................ 6-5 6.4.2 Wastes to Exclude........................................................................ 6-5 Yamhill County HHW System ................................................................ 6-6 6.5.1 County Hazardous Waste Recycling Program............................. 6-7 6.5.2 Existing Collection Events........................................................... 6-8 6.5.3 1998 HHW Survey..................................................................... 6-11 6.5.4 Latex Paint Collection Program................................................. 6-11
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

Chapter Four Waste Collection and Transfer ...................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 4.4

Chapter Five

Solid Waste Disposal ..................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 5.2

5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Chapter Six

Household Hazardous Waste ........................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 6.2 6.3

6.4

6.5

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.6 6.7 Needs...................................................................................................... 6-12 6.6.1 HHW Service Options ............................................................... 6-13 Management Alternatives for HHW/CESQG Waste............................. 6-14 6.7.1 Management of HHW Program ................................................. 6-14 6.7.1.1 Promotion and Education............................................ 6-15 6.7.2 Collection Alternatives .............................................................. 6-16 6.7.2.1 Continue Special Collection Events............................ 6-16 6.7.2.2 Construct a Permanent HHW Facility ........................ 6-17 6.7.2.3 Mobile Collection Vehicle and Events ....................... 6-19 6.7.2.3 Mobile Collection Vehicle and Events – Shared Services ....................................................................... 6-19 6.7.3 Evaluation of Collection Alternatives........................................ 6-20 HHW/CESQG Program Funding Options ............................................. 6-23 6.8.1 Yamhill County Solid Waste Funds/Franchise Fees ................. 6-23 6.8.2 CESQG User Fees...................................................................... 6-24 6.8.3 Add Services to Franchised Collection Rates............................ 6-24 6.8.4 Add Fees To Disposal Charges.................................................. 6-25 6.8.5 Wastewater System Surcharges ................................................. 6-25 6.8.6 DEQ Grants................................................................................ 6-25 Evaluation and Recommendations......................................................... 6-26 Introduction.............................................................................................. 7-1 Background and Existing Conditions ...................................................... 7-1 7.2.1 Existing Solid Waste Administrative Agencies........................... 7-1 7.2.1.1 Solid Waste Management Ordinance (No. 578) ........... 7-1 7.2.1.2 Yamhill County, Department of Planning and Community Services..................................................... 7-2 7.2.1.3 Cities ............................................................................. 7-4 7.2.1.4 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 7-4 7.2.1.5 Yamhill County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) ........................................................................ 7-5 7.2.1.6 Financial Resources for Solid Waste Program ............. 7-6 7.2.1.7 Environmental Liabilities / Emergency Fund ............... 7-8 Needs and Opportunities........................................................................ 7-10 7.3.1 Solid Waste Administration / Enforcement ............................... 7-10 Alternatives and Evaluation................................................................... 7-11 7.4.1 Continue Basic Services ............................................................ 7-11 7.4.2 Expansion of YCSW Programs ................................................. 7-12

6.8

6.9 7.1 7.2

Chapter Seven Administration and Enforcement .................................................................................. 7-1

7.3 7.4

Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................................... G-1 Tables Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 2000 Population of Incorporated Cities in Yamhill County .................... 2-2 Yamhill County Waste Stream for 2001................................................ 2-10 Yamhill County Waste Stream for 2002................................................ 2-11
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 2-4 Table 2-5 Table 2-6 Table 3-1 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 5-4 Table 6-1 Table 6-2 Table 6-3 Table 6-4 Figures Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 4-1 Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Ordinance 578 – Regarding Riverbend Landfill Agreement Ordinance 4544 – Annual Report for Collection Rates Collection Franchise Agreements • City Sanitary Service and Subsidiary, West County Sanitary Service, Inc.(formerly known as CSS now known as Western Oregon Waste (WOW)) • Newberg Garbage Service, Inc. (NGS) Landfill Rate Schedule Yamhill County Recovery Rates ............................................................. 2-8 Comparison of Recovery Rates for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 ........... 2-12 Project Location Map............................................................................... 4-4 Summary of Historic Waste Stream Data for Yamhill County Between 1997 and 2002 (in tons) .......................................................... 2-12 Historical and Projected Yamhill County Population Data ................... 2-13 Yamhill County Waste Stream Projections ........................................... 2-13 Recovered Materials Composition, Yamhill County, 2002 (In Tons)..... 3-9 Yamhill County Collection Services and Residential Rates.................... 4-5 Yamhill County Rates for Public Delivery of Waste to the Newberg Transfer & Recycling Center ................................................................... 4-7 Rates for Disposal of Material at Riverbend Landfill.............................. 4-7 Waste Disposed at Riverbend Landfill .................................................... 5-3 Sources of Waste Disposed at Riverbend Landfill from Yamhill County........................................................................................ 5-3 Yamhill County Waste Stream Projections – 45% .................................. 5-8 Yamhill County Waste Stream Projections – 55% .................................. 5-9 Yamhill County Waste Stream Projections ............................................. 6-7 Yamhill County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Events Participation/Costs ................................................................................... 6-9 Yamhill County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Amounts, Newberg 2001........................................................................................ 6-10 Qualitative Evaluation of Alternatives for Yamhill County .................. 6-22

Appendix D

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
The 2004 Yamhill County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) was prepared to review the existing solid waste system that has evolved over the last 20 years and to provide a direction as to what facilities and programs will be needed over the next 10 years. This represents the first comprehensive evaluation of the solid waste system in Yamhill County. The plan considers each part or element of the solid waste services and programs being provided. This includes: 1. Waste Prevention/Reduction 2. Reuse and recycling 3. Collection and transfer stations 4. Disposal 5. Household hazardous waste management 6. Administrative and enforcement For each of these service elements, the plan completes a review of the existing programs for meeting State mandates, for providing equitable level service and for delivering cost-effective services to all constituents. After examining the existing conditions, the SWMP identifies the needs and opportunities for services and facilities. The SWMP then evaluates alternatives for meeting these needs and makes specific recommendations to continue the development of an integrated and coordinated approach for managing solid waste in the future. This includes what facilities are needed in the future to meet the requirements of handling solid waste in a costefficient manner. The 2004 SWMP contains information and alternatives to be used in assisting the County and service providers in its future decision-making processes. As specific recommendations are considered and implemented, more detailed study and analysis may be needed to ensure the County’s overall goals are obtained. This plan is a tool to be used in guiding the County, the Cities and service providers in continuing the proper management of solid waste.

BACKGROUND
Over the last 20 years, there have been many changes to the regulations that effect the way solid waste is managed. New state and federal regulations place the emphasis on consumers to reduce waste and recycle more and depend less on landfilling. Yamhill County, like many jurisdictions in the State of Oregon, found themselves reacting to these regulations by adopting new programs for reducing waste and recovering more materials to be recycled. The County and local jurisdictions worked cooperatively with the two primary service providers, Newberg Garbage Service (NGS) and Western Oregon Waste (WOW), formerly City Sanitary Service, to implement a successful waste reduction and recycling program.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Another key change in solid waste management relates to the development and operation of landfill disposal sites. As such, landfills like the Whiteson Landfill and the Newberg Landfill were closed in order to comply with these new regulations. As a result of these new regulations, many communities faced the prospect of transporting garbage to landfills in eastern Oregon. Yamhill County was fortunate that within its jurisdiction, the Riverbend Landfill was able to implement new environmental controls and meet Federal and State standards. As such, this landfill became a long-term disposal solution for managing solid waste in Yamhill County. As neighboring communities experienced the impacts of new regulations by having disposal sites closed, more and more communities looked to using the Riverbend Landfill as a regional disposal solution. Since 1996, Yamhill County has served as a regional disposal site for these neighboring counties to provide a cost-efficient solution to their disposal needs. Yamhill County has benefited from the regional landfill by generating host community fees. These fees have been used to pay for services and programs for citizens of Yamhill County. Over the last 8 years, the County, the Cities and the service providers have continued to develop programs and services to reduce waste and collect recycling. The programs have been fairly successful such that in 2002, Yamhill County recorded a recovery rate of 54 percent, which represents the highest in the State of Oregon. There are two key components that contribute to the success of the program. The first is due to the success of collection programs to recycle traditional materials such as old corrugated cardboard, newspaper, metals, glass and plastics. However, a second factor that significantly contributes to achieving this goal is the fact that large amounts of wood waste and yard debris are recycled. The two major outlets for this yard debris and wood waste are the SP plant in Newberg and NW Greenlands in McMinnville. SP uses wood waste as hog fuel that provides additional market support for these recycling efforts. NW Greenlands processes yard debris and woody waste and compost the material to make soil amendment and mulch. In summary, Yamhill County generated almost 150,000 tons of solid waste in the year 2002. Through the efforts of the County, the cities, the service providers, volunteer agencies and individual companies, 81,000 tons or 54 percent of this waste was recycled. The remaining 67,600 tons were disposed in the landfill at Riverbend. The focus of this plan has been to examine the success of these programs and determine what steps the County and its constituents can, where necessary, make improvements to continue this success.

THE PLANNING PROCESS
The preparation of the 2004 SWMP was guided through a Countywide public involvement process. The focus or central participation of this public involvement process has been the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). This group includes citizens, businesses and service representatives from the solid waste industry. ES-2

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assisting the County in preparing the SWMP was URS Corporation, a solid waste consulting/engineering firm. In preparing the SWMP, URS obtained data and information regarding the existing system from the various agencies and service providers. As information was developed by the consultant under each element of the SWMP, it was reviewed with the SWAC. The SWAC would take under advisement the information presented, conduct discussions of the alternatives, and review recommendations to help formulate a strategy for the future. Each of the meetings conducted by the SWAC was advertised and open to the public for comment. In addition to meetings with the SWAC, the County conducted meetings with individual cities. First, at the beginning of the planning process, meetings were held with Newberg, Sheridan and McMinnville. During the preparation of the plan, draft chapters were submitted to all local jurisdictions for review and comment. Once the plan was substantially completed in draft form, individual meetings were conducted with each of these cities to obtain their feedback on the proposed recommendations. In addition to these meetings, the County maintained a comprehensive mailing list where each section or draft chapter of the SWMP was sent. Every effort was made to make sure that individuals that had interest or was a stakeholder in the SWMP were advised as to the progress of its completion.

PLAN OBJECTIVES AND GOALS
Solid waste management services and programs for Yamhill County need to be consistent with overall policies and values for the community. Ordinance 578 (Amended 1994) provides the legal authority and policy direction for managing solid waste in Yamhill County. It stipulates the County shall regulate the accumulation, collection and disposal of waste and solid waste and the creation and operation of disposal sites to: a. Provide for safe and sanitary accumulation, storage, collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste. b. Prohibit and provide for abatement of accumulation of waste, or solid waste, on private property in a manner that would create a public nuisance, a hazard to health, or a condition of unsightliness. c. Develop a regional long-range plan to provide adequate disposal sites and disposal facilities to meet future demands. d. Provide a coordinated countywide program of control of solid waste in cooperation with federal, state, and local agencies responsible for the prevention, control, or abatement of air, water, and ground pollution.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
e. Provide for and encourage research, studies, surveys, and demonstration projects on developing more sanitary, efficient, and economical solid waste disposal systems and programs. f. Provide for a coordinated solid waste disposal program with cities within Yamhill County and with other counties or cities, should regional programs be developed. g. Provide for cooperation and agreements between Yamhill County and other counties involving joint or regional franchising or licensing of solid waste collection or disposal. h. Provide minimum standards for location and operation of disposal sites to protect adjacent or nearby residents. With these basic policies in place Yamhill County has worked cooperatively with private service providers to deliver waste reduction, recycling, collection and disposal services. These services are provided for through franchise agreements with private operators. Throughout the past years there have been certain guiding principles that have been embraced in delivery of services. These are the guiding principles are summarized as follows: 1. Yamhill County and local jurisdictions rely on the private sector service providers to not only carry out basic services but to proactively respond to recycling initiatives. 2. Yamhill County in its relationship with the Riverbend Landfill has endorsed a regional approach for providing disposal services. 3. The system provides uniform level of services to all constituents as long as it is cost effective to deliver such services, considering the diversity of the county. 4. Rates have been established to encourage participation and utilization of services. 5. Rates are based on a cost of services and minimize subsidies by any one user class. 6. The County is responsive to illegal dumping and excessive accumulation of waste materials on private sites that might pose environmental or health impacts. 7. The County has assumed the responsibility to monitor old landfills and to ensure they do not create an environmental liability. 8. The County and service providers have supported cost effective approaches to encourage waste reduction and recycle materials. These goals and objectives provide the guiding force for developing this SWMP and formulating a strategy for the future.

KEY ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE 2004 SWMP
In preparing the 2004 Solid Waste Management Plan, there were several key issues to be addressed. The fact that this was the first comprehensive SWMP prepared for the County was in itself an opportunity to assemble baseline data and existing conditions such that a clear
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
description of the system was provided. With that background, the 2004 SWMP sought to address these issues: 1. Provide a list of the comprehensive services being provided by the counties, cities and service providers. 2. Provide the status of these existing waste reduction and recycling programs and identify where additional opportunities to recycle more materials may be channeled.

3. The Riverbend Landfill has been providing disposal services to Yamhill County since 1983. How long can Yamhill County depend on Riverbend Landfill to meet its disposal needs? 4. What is the status of current technology and other disposal alternatives available to Yamhill County? 5. There is a need to develop a strategy for establishing a household hazardous waste collection program. What are the options for providing these services in the future? 6. Define the administrative management and enforcement functions of the County and determine if additional resources are necessary to meet the goals of the solid waste program. To address these issues, the 2004 SWMP looked at each component of the solid waste system, including waste reduction, recycling collection, transfer and disposal. Discussion of the issues and alternatives are presented in the corresponding chapters in the plan. The result is a document that can be used to guide the solid waste management decisions for the next ten years. It would be desirable to update the SWMP every five to seven years.

KEY PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS/HIGHLIGHTS
Each chapter of the plan contains recommendations for advancing the management of solid waste in a comprehensive and coordinated approach. The recommendations are designed to build upon the existing infrastructure and to establish a framework for implementing specific programs. The County’s commitment to implement these programs will be essential to maintain the success achieved to date and to continue the progress. To implement all aspects of the solid waste plan and those defined in the HHW Plan require the County add additional resources. These are discussed in the Chapter 7 administrative and enforcement chapter. One key feature of the SWMP was to evaluate the options for collection HHW. Chapter 6 provides the options for providing collection of HHW. It includes a detailed analysis of alternatives and recommends a program to provide these services. In the following section, we have provided a summary of the recommendations contained in each chapter of the plan. Each recommendation includes the rationale for the recommendation made. This information is being provided so that decision-makers are provided with the background
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
information needed to understand the purpose of the recommendation. The Executive Summary also includes an implementation schedule that identifies a timeframe for implementing programs and making decisions.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER 3 – WASTE REDUCTION, RECYCLING, COMPOSTING
Recommendation 3.1: Adopt a Goal for Increasing the Percentage of Materials Recycled Rationale for Recommendation: The County’s total recovered tonnage in 2001 of 63,023 tons consisted of: 25,083 tons of mainly wood waste burned for energy, or 40% of the total; 14,403 tons of yard debris processed into compost, or 23% of the total; and 23,535 tons of residential and commercial recyclables, or 37% of the total. The total recovered tonnage in 2002 was 80,791 tons, which consisted of: 39,268 tons (49%) for energy recovery; 16,775 tons (21%) processed into compost; and 24,745 tons (31%) of recyclables. The County, with input from stakeholders, should adopt a goal to increase the percentage of the total recovery that is due to recycling, and a timeframe for achievement of this goal. The goal and timeframe should be based on existing and anticipated recycling programs as well as processing facility advancements. Adoption of such a goal or standard would allow Yamhill County to stay well ahead of the overall 2005 and 2009 recovery rates stipulated for the County by HB 3744. A suggested goal might be to increase the amount of material recycled including composting, but excluding energy recovery, by 2% per year over the next five years. Implementation Timeframe: Six months Recommendation 3.2: Expand Existing Promotion Education Activities Aimed at Preventing and Reducing Waste and Recycling Rationale for Recommendation: It is essential that the County and service providers continue their high level of cooperation and coordination in communicating to residents and businesses through various methods and media about the importance of waste reduction and recycling. This unified approach to regularly expressing a consistent message underscores that waste reduction and recycling are priorities in Yamhill County. Included as part of this recommendation are those promotion/education activities necessary to insure that the County continues to annually receive from ODEQ the 2% recovery credit allocations for waste prevention and home composting. The County will need to maintain a minimum of $35,00 to $40,000 for promotion/ education activities. The County should also undertake promotion/education and service activities, in cooperation with NGS and WOW, to qualify for the 2% Reuse Program Credit from ODEQ. Once received, this credit should be maintained on an annual basis. The County could also consider establishing a Waste Reduction/Recycling Resource Center Display with a common set of materials available in every library in the County (see Section 3.8.13).
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of this recommendation, consideration should also be given to setting a target for involvement in the three levels of the Oregon Green Schools Program, as discussed in Section 3.8.9. Setting up a cooperative county/city organization for the joint purchasing of recycledcontent products (see Section 3.8.11) could also be investigated under this recommendation. Implementation Timeframe: One year Recommendation 3.3: Increase Targeted Promotion/Education and Incentive Programs for Residential and Commercial Recycling Participation Rationale for Recommendation: Expanding the YC Brown Program and initiation of a similar awards/recognition program for the residential sector (see Section 3.8.10) are ways of focusing attention on commendable waste reduction/recycling behavior of businesses, institutions, and families. More frequent distribution of the County’s recently introduced tabloid publication on waste reduction/recycling to quarterly issues and/or other direct mailings and reminders emphasizing the reduce – reuse – recycle message should be considered. The County budgeted about $35,000 in 2002-2003 for promotion and education. This budget should be increased to correspond to an expanded program aimed at increasing participation in existing services. As well, the County, NGS and WOW should assemble information on the status of waste reduction/recycling at largest businesses and institutions in the County (based on number of employees, square footage, or quantity of waste disposed) to determine potential targets for direct outreach. Similarly, the involved parties should agree upon a method to regularly track and calculate setout rates and participation rates for curbside residential recycling in the incorporated jurisdictions to determine areas requiring specialized outreach. Implementation Timeframe: Three years Recommendation 3.4: Implement Commingled Residential Curbside Collection of Recyclables for All Incorporated Jurisdictions. Rationale for Recommendation: Data from the City of Newberg commingled residential recycling program operated by NGS increases the convenience of participation and yields greater materials recovery. An increase of 20 to 30 percent in the quantity of materials recovered through curbside recycling could be realized on a countywide basis if the Newberg model is implemented, including the addition of mixed waste paper and the designation of glass as a depot-only material. A separate but related program for countywide collection of yard debris based on the Newberg experience, or the addition of yard waste containers at community dropoff centers, should also be assessed for implementation along with commingled residential recycling. Implementation Timeframe: Three to five years Recommendation 3.5: Support Expansion of In-County Commercial Materials Processing Capabilities
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rationale for Recommendation: The County should work with the franchised service providers to enlarge or renovate existing facilities for the removal and processing of increased quantities of commercially generated recyclables, including recyclables from construction/demolition debris. Waste composition data developed in this Plan indicates there are materials presently being disposed in conventional commercial waste and construction/demolition debris that can be diverted from landfilling. This should be a County priority, and the County could offer assistance by formally supporting the expansion plans of NGS and WOW and related permitting processes at both the state and municipal levels. Implementation Timeframe: Three to five years Recommendation 3.6: Continue to Monitor State Legislative Developments and the County’s Recovery Rate to Evaluate the Role of Additional Measures, Policies, and Programs Rationale for Recommendation: The County should continue to monitor policy discussions and directives from ODEQ, proposed state legislation, and fluctuations in the County’s recovery rate as a whole or in markets critical to maintaining the recovery rate, to assess the relevance of more aggressive waste management interventions for diverting materials from disposal. Such measures, policies, and programs may include the following: • • • • Adopt Recycling Requirements for Designated Businesses, Institutions, Apartment Buildings, and Construction/Demolition Projects (see Section 3.8.2). Institute a Ban on Burning Yard Debris for All Incorporated Cities (see Section 3.8.3). Ban the Disposal of Certain Materials by Designated Residential and Commercial Generators (see Section 3.8.4).

Increase the Rate Differential Between Service Levels for Residential and Commercial Customers to Provide Further Economic Incentives for Waste Reduction/Recycling (see Section 3.8.8). Implementation Timeframe: Ongoing

CHAPTER 4 – WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
Collection Services Recommendation 4.1 – The County should continue to monitor collection services on an annual basis as part of the process of reviewing the collection rates. Rational for Recommendation – The County currently performs an annual review of the collection services and this practice should continue particularly in light of changes to recycling programs and the introduction of new services. Implementation Timeframe: Ongoing

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation 4.2 – The County working in conjunction with the franchise haulers should evaluate options for collecting bulky waste items. Rational for Recommendation – There is not an immediate need to add services for collection of bulky waste items. However, as the County continues to become more urbanized the need for such services should be evaluated as a method to collect larger items that can not be collected on the regular routes. Implementation Timeframe: Two to four years Transfer Stations Recommendation 4.3 – The County should evaluate the need for additional transfer stations by the year 2010. This evaluation should be conducted as part of the evaluation of disposal options to be performed by 2010. Rational for Recommendation – The County has an agreement with Riverbend Landfill to dispose of waste until 2010. If the landfill discontinues accepting waste after that date the County is faced with a decision of where waste will be disposed of beyond 2010. One alternative will be to transport waste to an existing landfill outside the County. A new transfer station would be needed to serve McMinnville and the western portion of Yamhill County. An evaluation of the alternatives could be conducted as part of a comprehensive study of the disposal alternatives. Implementation Timeframe: FY 2008/2009

CHAPTER 5 – SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Recommendation 5.1: The County should continue to work closely with operators of Riverbend Landfill to ensure it provides the highest level of services to its constituents. Over the next six years the County should monitor the operation and continue dialog with Waste Management and franchised collection companies about the future of Riverbend beyond 2014. Rationale for Recommendation: The County has little control over the future of Riverbend Landfill beyond the year 2014. They have historically worked cooperatively with the owners and the franchised collection companies to make sure the County’s interest are considered. With continued dialogue and maintaining the spirit of considering what is best solution for providing cost effective disposal services, the longer-term solution (beyond 2014) can be evaluated. Implementation Timeframe: 2004 - 2010 Recommendation 5.2: The County should review its current land use and zoning code to identify the proper zones where disposal sites should be located. Rationale for Recommendation: All jurisdictions should identify within their zoning code the areas to be designated or areas best suited for public service operations. Yamhill County should make sure their zoning code properly identifies areas that may be suitable for future disposal sites. This action does not suggest the County or a private entity should site a new disposal K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .docES-10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
facility in the County, but it properly identifies which zones can accommodate such development. Implementation Timeframe: 2004 - 2010 Recommendation 5.3: The County should continue to monitor the progress of alternative technologies that may be emerging. Such options as gasification, bioreactors, and food waste composting are under development and in testing. In the future an evaluation of alternative technologies may be considered. Rationale for Recommendation: Over the past 15 years there have been many changes in the way solid waste is managed. With fewer landfills and higher transportation costs, private companies and communities are continuing to examine alternatives for reducing waste that is disposed in landfills. Yamhill County does not need to forge new ground by researching or testing these alternatives. But they should continue to monitor progress of these technologies through participation in industry organizations such as the Solid Waste Management Association of North America (SWANA). Implementation Timeframe: Ongoing Recommendation 5.4: The County should conduct a comprehensive evaluation of disposal alternatives in FY 2008/09. Rationale for Recommendation: The County will need to make an informed decision on what options to pursue for provisional long-term disposal for solid waste by 2010. A decision in 2010 is necessary to allow sufficient time to site a new landfill, permit a new cell at the Riverbend Landfill, permit and build a new transfer station, or implement any other disposal alternative. By evaluating the disposal alternatives in FY 2008/09 the County will have the information necessary to make the decision. Implementation Timeframe: FY 2008/2009

CHAPTER 6 –HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
Recommendation 6.1: The County, in cooperation with NGS and WOW, should proceed with the latex paint collection program and disposal agreement with Metro. Rationale for Recommendation: This would be an effective method to possibly reduce costs of the HHW program by eliminating the disposal of a material that is not a hazardous waste. Since the latex paint would be collected separately and sent to Metro, the volume of latex paint that is collected at the HHW events would be reduced. Additionally, with this agreement in place, any latex paint that is collected at the events could then be separated and sent to Metro instead of being disposed of by the TSD contractor. It will also increase the overall waste recovery rate. Implementation Timeline: Start in 2004 – Ongoing

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation 6.2: The County should consider developing an agreement with Marion and/or Polk Counties for the purchase and use of a common mobile HHW collection vehicle. Rationale for Recommendation: The mobile collection unit could be used to stage collection events in Newberg and McMinnville, as well as allowing the county to cost effectively offer HHW collection in more remote areas traditionally not served by collection events. Since the HHW collection events would typically occur on a three to six month schedule in any of the jurisdictions, the collection unit and staff for the events could very easily be shared. Additionally, a common mobile HHW collection vehicle will allow the counties to jointly fund the program, instead of individually supporting their own programs. Implementation Timeline: Startup by 2005 - Ongoing Recommendation 6.3: The County should continue to schedule collection events in the county at least twice per year until the mobile program is established. Rationale for Recommendation: By establishing a regular collection schedule, even twice a year, residents will know when to look for the advertising of the event, and public awareness of the program will increase. Irregular schedules tend to lead to more confusion on the part of the public and less participation. Also, by holding the event on a regular basis, residents will become more educated about what materials are and are not considered HHW. Implementation Timeline: Two years (2005) Recommendation 6.4: The County should work with cities, Riverbend Landfill and franchised collection companies to establish an appropriate fee to support the latex paint and HHW collection programs. This new fee can be part of the collection rates or collected as part of the disposal rate. Rationale for Recommendation: By adding a nominal amount to monthly collection bills, $0.30 to $0.60 per month, the county could generate $110,000 to 220,000 per year to support the latex paint and HHW programs. A survey of residents showed that the majority is willing to support the HHW program, even if they were not currently using the program. Another benefit of adding a fee to monthly bills is that it would generate more awareness of the program and increase participation. The funds can either be collected through disposal tipping fees or by altering collection rates. Implementation Timeline: One to two years (2004 –05) Recommendation 6.5: The County should develop an ongoing promotion and education program for proper management of HHW and CESQG waste. Rationale for Recommendation: The County and service providers have already developed a formal promotion and education program for waste reduction and recycling services. Additionally, the County has developed information that has been distributed to educate households on alternatives to using products that may contain low amounts of toxic ingredients.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A minimal amount of funds should be budgeted to support this effort. These monies can either be funding from current resources or be part of developing a permanent funding source for the collection program. However, it is important that the County ensure the message is delivered on a consistent basis. Implementation Timeline: Ongoing

CHAPTER 7 – ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Recommendation 7.1: The County should increase current staff and resources to meet the demands of expanding waste reduction and recycling programs and to manage the HHW collection program. Rational for Recommendation – Current responsibilities of YCSW require dedication of 4.15 FTEs. Whereas the SWMP does not recommend significant changes to current responsibilities it does recognize the need for some additional resources to implement specific targeted programs aimed at reducing waste and recycling more materials. Although the County has met its recycling goals the analysis indicates that there are opportunities to increase the amount without making major investments in new collection programs but by providing additional advertisement and promotions of existing collection services and programs. This represents the most cost-effective way to stabilize current recycling rates as well as to increase the amount recycled. It also provides additional resources needed to implement HHW collection events on a regular schedule. Implementation Timeframe: FY 2004-2005 and ongoing Recommendation 7.2: The County should reassess the post closure funds and environmental liabilities associated with the Whiteson and Newberg Landfills in 2006 to determine the status and evaluate whether the program is adequate funded. Rational for Recommendation – The County should continue to place monies in reserve to fund contingent environmental liabilities. However, as these closed landfills become stable and assuming there are no detected contamination to groundwater or surface water or other impacts the amount of funds required may lessen. The most recent assessment was completed in January 2003. Updating this assessment in three years should be performed to ensure whether the amount of funds accumulated is adequate. Implementation Timeframe: FY 2005-2006 and ongoing Recommendation 7.3: The County should develop a mechanism to coordinate with cities the process used to review financial information and rates proposed by franchised collection companies. Rational for Recommendation – Both the County and the cities are independently conducting rate review processes. This requires resources from the public agencies as well as time and
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
expense from the franchise collection companies. In most instances the financial information submitted is the same. Using a joint review process would help streamline the process and perhaps be more efficient. Implementation Timeframe: 2004-2005 Recommendation 7.4: The County should use excess monies that may result from adjustments to the environmental liability funds to establish a rate stability fund for solid waste activities. Rational for Recommendation – The total amount of money collected for environmental liability associated with the two closed landfills may be adjusted in future years. If it is determined that these resources can be modified in future years and funds exceed estimated requirements, it would be desirable to begin to set up a rate stabilization or solid waste reserve fund. Such a fund could be used in future years to offset changes the cost of services or used to fund certain programs. Implementation Timeframe: 2006 and ongoing

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-14

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Update 2004
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
2004 Chapter 3 – Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting
3.1 Adopt Goal for Increasing % of Recyclable Materials 3.2 Expand Education/Promotion Aimed at Waste Prevention and Recycling 3.3 Increase Targeted Residential & Commercial Recycling Program 3.4 Implement Commingled Residential Recyclables Collection 3.5 Expand Commercial Materials Processing Capabilities 3.6 Monitor State Legislative Developments

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Chapter 4 – Waste Collection and Transfer
4.1 Continue to Monitor Collections Services Annually 4.2 Evaluate Options for Collecting Bulky Waste Items 4.3 Evaluate Need for Additional Transfer Stations

Chapter 5 – Solid Waste Disposal
5.1 Coordinate Disposal Services with Riverbend Landfill 5.2 Review Current Land Use & Zoning Code and Identify Zones for Solid Waste Facilities 5.3 Monitor Progress of Alternative Technologies 5.4 Conduct Comprehensive Evaluation of Disposal Alternatives Planning Implementation On-going
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-15

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Update 2004
2004 Chapter 6 – Hazardous Household Waste
6.1 Proceed with Latex Paint Collection Program 6.2 Coordinate Mobile HHW Collection Events with Neighboring Jurisdictions 6.3 Schedule Collection Events 6.4 Establish Fees for HHW Collection Services 6.5 Develop Promotion & Education for Management of HHW

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Chapter 7 – Administration and Enforcement
7.1 Increase Current Staff & Resources 7.2 Reassess Post Closure Funds and Environmental Liabilities 7.3 Develop Mechanisms for Coordinated Financial Information & Rates 7.4 Establish Rate Stability Fund for Solid Waste Activities

Planning Implementation On-going
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

ES-16

CHAPTERONE
1.1 PREFACE

Introduction

Over the past ten years new state and federal regulations have dramatically changed the way solid waste is managed. Yamhill County and service providers have adapted to these changes by implementing new programs aimed at reducing waste and recycling certain materials from the waste stream. At the same time these requirements have placed additional financial burden on generators and local governments, to ensure waste reduction, recycling and solid waste services are provided, and to meet environmental compliance standards. Another significant change has been the impact of new regulations governing landfill disposal. These regulations caused many landfills to close and others to install new environmental controls that have impacted cost to dispose of solid waste. As a result many smaller landfills were closed while others consolidated waste flows to form regional disposal sites. Such is the case of the Riverbend Landfill in Yamhill County. These new regulations have brought about several changes over the past several years. In preparing this Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), Yamhill County has the opportunity to examine the current system, review the performance of existing programs and to look forward at what opportunities or changes to the system may be needed. The SWMP offers that opportunity to develop a comprehensive and integrated approach to meet future needs of the County. The plan recommends a direction for providing future services under a coordinated strategy in cooperation with cities, citizens, businesses and service providers.

1.2

PLAN PURPOSE AND GOALS

Solid waste management services and programs for Yamhill County need to be consistent with overall policies and values for the community. Ordinance 578 (Amended 1994) provides the legal authority and policy direction for managing solid waste in Yamhill County. It stipulates the County shall regulate the accumulation, collection and disposal of waste and solid waste and the creation and operation of disposal sites to: a. Provide for safe and sanitary accumulation, storage, collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste. b. Prohibit and provide for abatement of accumulation of waste, or solid waste, on private property in a manner that would create a public nuisance, a hazard to health, or a condition of unsightliness. c. Develop a regional long-range plan to provide adequate disposal sites and disposal facilities to meet future demands.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

1-1

CHAPTERONE

Introduction

d. Provide a coordinated countywide program of control of solid waste in cooperation with federal, state, and local agencies responsible for the prevention, control, or abatement of air, water, and ground pollution. e. Provide for and encourage research, studies, surveys, and demonstration projects on developing more sanitary, efficient, and economical solid waste disposal systems and programs. f. Provide for a coordinated solid waste disposal program with cities within Yamhill County and with other counties or cities, should regional programs be developed. g. Provide for cooperation and agreements between Yamhill County and other counties involving joint or regional franchising or licensing of solid waste collection or disposal. h. Provide minimum standards for location and operation of disposal sites to protect adjacent or nearby residents. With these basic policies in place Yamhill County has worked cooperatively with private service providers to deliver waste reduction, recycling, collection and disposal services. These services are provided for through franchise agreements with private operators. Throughout the past years there have been certain guiding principles that have been embraced in delivery of services. These guiding principles are summarized as follows: 1. Yamhill County and local jurisdictions rely on the private sector service providers to not only carry out basic services but to proactively respond to recycling initiatives. 2. Yamhill County in its relationship with the Riverbend Landfill has endorsed a regional approach for providing disposal services. 3. The system provides uniform level of services to all constituents as long as it is cost effective to deliver such services, considering the diversity of the county. 4. Rates have been established to encourage participation and utilization of services. 5. Rates are based on a cost of services and minimize subsidies by any one user class. 6. The County is responsive to illegal dumping and excessive accumulation of waste materials on private sites that might pose environmental or health impacts. 7. The County has assumed the responsibility to monitor old landfills and to ensure they do not create an environmental liability. 8. The County and service providers have supported cost effective approaches to encourage waste reduction and recycle materials. The SWMP is designed to set priorities and provide guidance for managing the County’s solid waste over the next ten years. These guiding principles provide direction to decision-makers for implementing the recommended programs and services. It should be recognized that solid waste
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

1-2

CHAPTERONE

Introduction

practices, regulations, and technologies are dynamic in nature and will result in a need to update and revise the SWMP routinely (about every five to seven years).

1.3

COUNTY’S ROLE IN SOLID WASTE PLANNING

The Board of Commissioners is responsible to ensure the provisions of Ordinance 578 are enforced. Under the current organization the Department of Planning and Community Development is responsible for administering the programs and policies directives adopted by the Board. Day-to-day functions are carried out by the Solid Waste Division and other support staff within the department. The Solid Waste Ordinance declares it to be public policy for the County to regulate solid waste management and to “develop a regional long-range plan to provide adequate disposal sites and disposal facilities to meet future demand.” It further stipulates the County to “Provide a coordinated county-wide solid waste management plan in cooperation with federal, state and local agencies responsible for the prevention, control, or abatement of air, water and ground pollution.” It is important therefore that a comprehensive SWMP be prepared to provide for developing a coordinated and integrated approach to meeting the requirements stated in the Ordinance. It can be used to guide the development of future programs and a tool for planning the necessary resources to ensure the provisions of the Ordinance are enforced.

1.4

REGULATORY REVIEW

This section describes the federal, state, county and local laws and regulations that govern proper management of solid waste. These laws provide certain standards and guidelines for handling and disposal of waste. The discussion does not include descriptions of all existing laws, but rather provides an overview of relevant elements that affect solid waste management in Yamhill County.

1.4.1 Federal Regulation
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted by Congress in 1976 to address management of municipal, industrial and commercial waste in an environmentally acceptable manner. In 1984, RCRA was revised to address specific issues with solid and hazardous waste. The amendments broadened the requirements placed on generators and processors of hazardous waste. On October 9, 1991, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria, Final Rule (40 CFR Parts 257 and 258), Subtitle D.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

1-3

CHAPTERONE

Introduction

Subtitle D is the section of RCRA that has had the greatest impact regarding management of solid waste. The primary goal of Subtitle D is to maximize reuse of recoverable materials, to encourage resource conservation and to require solid waste management practices that are environmentally sound. As such, this section sets forth certain criteria that prescribe the proper location for landfills. It also establishes minimum standards for solid waste landfills that include standards for design and operation, requirements for monitoring groundwater, corrective action procedures and closure and post-closure requirements. Under this law, Congress assigned primary responsibility for regulating solid waste to state and local governments. In the state of Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for regulating solid waste. States are required to incorporate federal standards into their current state waste permitting programs. The regulations are provided for in subparts A through G. A brief summary of each subpart is provided below. Subpart A – General: Sets the specific dates and deadlines when landfills must comply with new regulations. Landfills can ask for an exemption based on tonnage, interruption of service, and annual rainfall, if the landfill can meet all three criteria. Subpart B – Locational Restrictions: Landfills are restricted from being located for the following reasons: • • • • • • • • • • • • • distance to airports fault areas floodplains seismic impact zones wetlands unstable areas

Subpart C – Operating Criteria are established for: access control excluding hazardous waste cover material run on/run off control air criteria surface water liquid restrictions
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

1-4

CHAPTERONE
• recordkeeping

Introduction

Subpart D – Design Criteria: Landfills are required to have a composite bottom liner to protect groundwater and a leachate collection system. Subpart E – Groundwater and Corrective Action: Groundwater monitoring is required during the active life of the landfill and for a period after the landfill closes. A corrective action program is established for landfills that do not comply with compliance standards. Subpart F – Closure and Post Closure: Closure and post closure plans for landfills are required to specify minimum cover design and actions for post closure care. Landfills that were in operation after October 9, 1991 are required to meet the landfill closure requirements. Subpart G – Financial Assurance: Owners and operators of landfills are required to prepare cost estimates for closure, post closure and corrective action, as needed. Once these financial requirements have been established, owners/operators must show they have a financial mechanism in place to fund these requirements. By establishing reserve funds, using a surety bond or letter of credit or an alternative financial mechanism, landfill owners/operators will have sufficient funds in place to pay the cost of post- closure maintenance and cleanups as needed. EPA requires that states adopt appropriate regulations consistent with Subtitle D. Oregon is an approved state, which means it has adopted standards and regulations necessary to implement Subtitle D. Waste Management of Oregon (WMO), operators of Riverbend, are affected by these regulations. They are responsible to ensure the Riverbend Landfill meets the conditions of the regulations that govern the operation of the landfill. Yamhill County has entered into an agreement that also provides conditions for meeting the closure and post closure requirements. The County has also assumed the responsibility for overseeing the post closure maintenance of two closed landfills. These landfills, known as Newberg and Whiteson Landfills were operated by private operators and were closed prior to 1991 when RCRA was reauthorized. Therefore, no funds were set aside during their operation to monitor and maintain the sites. The County collects monies from ratepayers that dispose at the Riverbend Landfill to fund the environmental monitoring of these two landfills.

1.4.2 State Regulations
The DEQ, pursuant to ORS 459.015, is responsible for assuring effective and environmentally sound solid waste programs are in place. This includes cooperation among local government units and coordination of solid waste programs. A large part of DEQ’s role is to provide technical and planning advisory services to local governments. The types of technical assistance include informational materials, workshops and seminars. In addition the DEQ initiates,

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

1-5

CHAPTERONE

Introduction

conducts and supports research, surveys and demonstration projects to encourage resource recovery (ORS 459.015(E)(f)). DEQ also is responsible for regulatory oversight and enforcement. Numerous regulations dictate the proper management of solid and hazardous waste under ORS Chapter 459. The regulatory authority includes permitting and enforcing rules for disposal and waste handling facilitates. Two Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) make the permitting of solid waste facilities contingent upon completion of solid waste management plans. The first, OAR 340-60-026, does not allow DEQ to issue a new solid waste permit unless the proposed facility is compatible with the adopted plan. A second rule, OAR 340-91–020, adopted in 1992, states that a waste reduction program approved by DEQ must be in place before a disposal facility is permitted. The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 459 gives counties the authority to establish a coordinated solid waste program. ORS also gives counties and cities the authority to grant franchises for solid waste collection. Specifically, counties have the authority to: • • • • • • Prescribe the quality and character of the solid waste collection service in unincorporated areas. Set rates for solid waste collection services. Divide the unincorporated portions of the county into service areas, grant franchises for solid waste collection, and collect fees from the franchises. Prescribe procedures for issuance, renewal, or denial of a solid waste collection franchise. Establish an agency to be responsible for investigation and inspections of a solid waste collection franchise. License disposal sites as an alternative of service.

The regulations also establish a priority in the methods for managing solid waste. The regulations state the priority management strategy should be: 1. To reduce the amount of waste generated. 2. To reuse material for the purpose for which it was originally intended. 3. To recycle material that cannot be reused. 4. To recover energy from solid waste that cannot be reused or recycled, so long as the energy recovery facility preserves the quality of the air, waste and land resources. 5. To dispose of solid waste that cannot be recovered by landfilling or other method approved by the department. Yamhill County needs to address these basic priorities in its SWMP.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

1-6

CHAPTERONE
1.4.2.1 The 1991 Recycling Act (SB66)

Introduction

Oregon's 1991 Recycling Act set a goal for Yamhill County to recycle 25% of all waste generated in the County by 1995. The recovery rate is calculated by dividing the total weight of materials recovered and marketed or reused by the total generated (weight of the waste disposed plus the weight recovered) for each wasteshed. Recovery rates account for all source-separated materials, materials recovered from processing facilities, and materials separated and reused. Yard debris that is recovered and converted to mulch, soil additives or compost also is included. Vehicles, parts of vehicles, recovered industrial scrap, and some metals not typically collected at a recycling depot may not be included in these calculations. SB66 expanded the Opportunity to Recycle Act of 1983, which requires monthly residential curbside collection of recyclable materials in cities over 4,000 in population. SB66 sets forth a statewide goal of 50% recovery of materials by the year 2000. To reach this goal, the Act identifies specific program choices to be implemented by each community. The program choices were provided so that each community can meet specific goals. Depending on their population, jurisdictions can develop their own programs as an alternative to selecting from DEQ’s list of standard elements. Selected programs need to be coordinated and developed into a strategy to meet the goals. SB66 requires local communities to implement a specified number of program elements listed in the rules. The list of program elements include: a. Curbside containers for all residential customers. b. Weekly collection of recyclables on the same day as garbage pickup. c. Expanded promotion and education program. d. Multifamily recycling service for all complexes of five or more units. e. Yard debris recycling program (home composting, monthly curbside collection or a collection depot for every 25,000 population). f. Commercial recycling program for businesses with ten or more employees. g. Expanded recycling depot opportunity. h. Rate incentives for residential recycling. Communities with a population between 4,000 and 10,000 must implement items a, b, and c from the list, or select any three program elements from this list, or an alternative method approved by DEQ. Communities with greater than 10,000 population must implement a, b and c from the list and one additional element, or implement five elements from the list, or an alternative method approved by DEQ. In Yamhill County, the cities of McMinnville and Newberg have populations of 10,000.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

1-7

CHAPTERONE
1.4.2.2 HB 3456

Introduction

In 1997, the State Legislature enacted a new law that adds several requirements and modifications for waste reduction and recycling. This law and its expected impacts are described in detail in Chapter 4. It offers counties the opportunity to gain 2 percent recovery rate credit for each of three public education efforts, regarding waste prevention, reuse and composting. HB3456 also requires public contracts for demolition and landscape maintenance to include recovery where feasible and cost effective. Finally, HB3456 requires new multifamily and commercial buildings to provide space and access for recycling storage and collection.

1.4.2.3 Statewide Planning Goals
The statewide planning goals include conditions for integrating solid waste management with local land use plans. Two goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) specifically address solid waste issues. Goal 6 deals with the quality of air, water, and land resources. Goal 11 addresses public facilities and services. The parts of these goals that mention solid waste issues are presented below. Goal 6 – Quality of Air, Water and Land Resources “To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.” • All waste and process discharges (including solid waste) from existing and future developments shall not violate applicable state or federal environmental quality statutes, rules and standards. Local comprehensive plans should designate alternative areas suitable for use in controlling pollution, including but not limited to wastewater treatment plants, solid waste disposal sites and sludge disposal sites. A management program that details the respective implementation roles and responsibilities for carrying out this goal should be established in the comprehensive plan.

•

•

Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services “To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.” • A provision for key facilities shall be included in each comprehensive plan. To meet current and long-range needs, a provision for solid waste disposal sites, including sites for inert waste, shall be included in each plan.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

1-8

CHAPTERONE
•

Introduction

Plan should provide for a detailed management program to assign respective implementation roles and responsibilities to those governmental bodies operating in the planning area and having interests in carrying out the goal.

1.4.2.4 State of Oregon Solid Waste Management Plan
As required by ORS 459A.020, DEQ is required to develop a statewide integrated solid waste management plan. In 1994, DEQ completed a SWMP to provide guidance for managing waste during the next ten years. This plan will be reviewed every two years and updated regularly to account for new information and management practices.

1.5

PLAN ORGANIZATION

This plan is organized to provide the reader with a background and information base prior to considering alternatives and making specific recommendations for solid waste management programs. It represents a progressive building-block approach for understanding issues and evaluating alternatives that meet established goals. This introductory chapter provides information as to the primary purpose of the SWMP. It presents overriding goals and policies that constitute the driving forces behind the management recommendations. Chapter 2, Background and Waste Stream Analysis, describes characteristics of the county and its existing solid waste system. It includes detailed discussion of the composition of solid waste in Yamhill County and other waste stream information. The remaining chapters address various components of the solid waste system including: waste reduction and recycling; materials processing and recovery; collection, transfer and disposal; Household hazardous waste (HHW); and administration and enforcement. Each component addressed in these chapters is presented in terms of the following elements: • • • • Describe existing conditions Identify needs and opportunities to be addressed Discuss and evaluate alternatives to address specific issues Make recommendations for implementation

A summary of the recommendations is provided along with a schedule for implementation.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

1-9

CHAPTERTWO
2.1 INTRODUCTION

Background and Waste Stream Analysis

This chapter provides information about the physical and economic characteristics of Yamhill County relating to the management of solid waste. The current solid waste management system is described in terms of the collection system, disposal facilities and waste reduction, recycling, and composting programs. An analysis of the current solid waste stream composition and trends in waste generation and recovery rates is also provided. The chapter concludes with a presentation of waste generation projections.

2.2

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PLANNING AREA

Yamhill County is located in northwest Oregon and comprises 718 square miles (Oregon Bluebook) bounded to the east by the Willamette River. Neighboring counties include Washington to the north, Polk to the south, Tillamook to the west, and Marion and Clackamas to the east. The county extends from about 15 miles southwesterly of Portland to within 11 miles of the Pacific Ocean. Drainage is predominantly easterly into streams and creeks that feed the Willamette River. Elevation range from 3,422 feet at Trask Mountain to less than 100 feet on the Willamette River. The Willamette River Valley is sheltered from extreme weather by the Coast Range and the maritime climate produces warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. Mountain ranges in the county include Parrott, Chehalem, and the Coast Range. Average annual precipitation in Yamhill County is 43.6 inches per year. The population of Yamhill County increased 29.7 percent between 1990 and 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2002). Yamhill County had a population of 84,992 in 2000. Approximately 72 percent of the county population is concentrated in cities and 28 percent is considered rural (Yamhill County 2002). The county population resides in a total of 30,270 housing units, with an average household size of 2.78 (U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000). There are 10 incorporated cities in Yamhill County ranging in population size from 794 in the City of Yamhill to 26,499 in McMinnville (Table 2-1). Most of the urbanized areas are located in the eastern half of the County along or near the major road corridors including State Highway 47, Highway 219, Highway 99W and Highway 18. McMinnville, the county seat and largest city in the county, is in the east-central part of the county at the confluence of Highways 47, 18 and 99W. Highway 47 is oriented in the north-south direction. Highway 219 parallels Highway 47, connects Yamhill County and Marion County, and passes through Newberg. Highway 99W travels from the northeast to the southwest through Newberg. Highway 99W meets Highway 18 in McMinnville at which point 99W turns toward the south. Highway 18 travels from McMinnville to the southwestern part of the county through Sheridan.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-1

CHAPTERTWO

Background and Waste Stream Analysis
Table 2-1

2000 Population of Incorporated Cities in Yamhill County Jurisdiction Amity Carlton Dayton Dundee Lafayette McMinnville Newberg Sheridan Willamina Yamhill Population 1,478 1,514 2,119 2,598 2,586 26,499 18,064 5,580* 1,844 794

Source: Yamhill County Population Data from Year 2000 Census * Population includes correctional institution

The temperature, climate, abundant rainfall, fertile alluvial soils in the Willamette River Valley, and the proximity to markets and transportation systems, have encouraged the development of agriculture. The Willamette River Valley is the most diverse agricultural region in Oregon, specializing in crops such as berries, vegetables, hazelnuts, hops, grass seed and nursery products. Yamhill County’s principal industries include agriculture, lumber, education, international aviation, dental equipment, manufactured homes, pulp and paper, and steel. The county ranks seventh out of the 36 counties in annual market value of agricultural production. A third of Yamhill County is covered with commercial timber. The principal economic base of the western part of the county is logging and timber-related products. The wine industry has emerged as a significant form of agricultural land use in Yamhill County. Nineteen wineries are located in the eastern half of Yamhill County, which is the largest concentration of wineries in any county in the state. The County’s unemployment rate was 5.9 percent in 2001 (most recent available year for economic indicators; Oregon Economic and Community Development Department 2002), lower than the state unemployment rate of 6.3 percent (Oregon Economic and Community
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-2

CHAPTERTWO

Background and Waste Stream Analysis

Development Department 2002). Manufacturing jobs comprise about 18 percent of the labor force in Yamhill County, and services make up the largest labor share at 28.3 percent.

2.3

DESCRIPTION OF THE SOLID WASTE SYSTEM

The solid waste system in Yamhill County consists of collection, transfer, waste recovery, recycling, composting and disposal facilities and services. The system is operated by private companies that hold franchise agreements with the county. This chapter provides a description of the major components of the solid waste management system in the county. A schematic map of the solid waste system is provided in Figure 2-1.

2.3.1 Refuse Collection
There are two private companies that provide collection of municipal solid waste from residences and commercial establishments in Yamhill County, Western Oregon Waste (WOW), formerly City Sanitary and Recycling Service, and Newberg Garbage and Recycling Service (NGS). These companies are franchised by the County to provide garbage collection throughout the County and curbside residential recycling in the incorporated cities under authority granted by ORS 459.085 and the Yamhill County Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Ordinance. Franchise agreements grant that each company has the sole right to collect solid waste and recyclables from a specified area. Waste haulers are contractually obligated to provide a regular schedule for collection of garbage in all areas of the County and recyclables in urbanized areas. Service charges by the waste haulers are regulated by cities and by Yamhill County. Garbage that is collected by WOW is hauled directly to Riverbend Landfill located on Highway 18, west of McMinnville. Western Oregon Waste provides service to the west and northern region of the county. The cities of Dayton, Lafayette, Amity, Yamhill, Carlton, Sheridan, Willamina, and McMinnville are included in their service area. Newberg Garbage and Recycling Service collects garbage and takes it to a transfer station in Newberg operated by the firm (see description in Section 2.3.2). NGS provides garbage and recycling service to the east side of the county, which includes the cities of Newberg and Dundee. NGS also collects solid waste from a small area in Washington County.

2.3.2 Transfer Stations
There is one transfer station that operates in Yamhill County. The Newberg Transfer and Recycling Center is located at 2904 S. Wynooski Street, just off of Highway 219 in Newberg, Oregon. The site is owned and operated by Newberg Transfer and Recycling Center, Inc., which has been granted the exclusive franchise to operate a solid waste recycling and transfer station by the County. The franchise agreement period extends until December 31, 2011, as per Board Order 01-109.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-3

CHAPTERTWO

Background and Waste Stream Analysis

In 2001, of the 98,000 tons of waste reported by NGS, approximately 37,600 tons of waste were hauled to the Newberg Transfer and Recycling Center, and approximately 61,000 tons of waste were hauled directly from SP Newsprint to Riverbend Landfill (Yamhill County, 2002). Municipal solid waste received at the transfer station is transferred in 20, 30 and 40 cubic yard containers to the Riverbend Landfill. Recyclables brought to the transfer site are source separated (primarily scrap metal, corrugated cardboard, and wood waste) and sent directly to market.

2.3.3 Disposal Facilities
Landfill disposal is an element of solid waste management systems. There are different types of landfill facilities that are designed and permitted to handle different waste streams. The primary type of landfill is one that is designed to dispose of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). In Yamhill County, the Riverbend Landfill is permitted to accept MSW as well as construction and demolition materials, non-hazardous special waste, and various types of recyclable materials. The two franchised haulers in Yamhill County transport all MSW to the Riverbend Landfill. The Riverbend Landfill opened in 1982 and is located on Highway 18, west of McMinnville. Waste Management of Oregon operates the landfill. Waste Management has contracted to provide disposal services to Yamhill County until 2014. Waste can be brought to the landfill by either franchised solid waste haulers or the public. Over the years the landfill has become a disposal facility that provides service to a larger area beyond Yamhill County including coastal communities and the three counties that make up the Metro region (Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties). The landfill received 434,991 tons of MSW in 2001, 0.1 percent of which came from outside the state.

2.3.4 Recycling Facilities
Western Oregon Waste and Newberg Garbage and Recycling Service currently collect recyclable materials within the boundaries of the incorporated cities and unincorporated County areas where they are franchised. Every incorporated city in the county has weekly residential curbside recycling pickup except Dundee and Newberg. In Dundee, residential recyclables are collected curbside on a monthly basis. In Newberg, curbside recovery of recyclables and yard waste is provided residences according to an alternating schedule – recyclables are picked up one week followed by yard waste the next week. Recycling drop-off depots are available for residents living in unincorporated County areas. There are many private firms and volunteer organizations that participate in programs to recycle materials from the waste stream. This section describes the primary facilities that receive, process, and market materials produced from collection services. The haulers and/or the county are not always notified of recycling activities by non-profit organizations unless these activities directly involve haulers or the county. In addition to the recycling efforts by the two private haulers in the county and some of the non-profits described below, a few organizations will
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-4

CHAPTERTWO

Background and Waste Stream Analysis

collect aluminum beverage cans, door-to-door. This is not a regularly scheduled activity but rather sporadic. Newberg Transfer Station and Recycling Center Newberg has an ODEQ approved alternative curbside residential recycling program inside their city limits and urban growth area. The recyclable materials are collected every other week. Yard debris is collected on the opposite week. Residents are given two 95-gallon roll carts for storing recyclables and yard debris. At the transfer station facility there are two areas for collection of recyclable materials - the Public Recycling Center and the Newberg Transfer Station. The Public Recycling Center accepts newspaper, magazines, scrap metal, corrugated cardboard, food cans, aluminum, glass bottles and jars sorted by color, used motor oil, bottleneck plastics, and phone books. The Newberg Transfer Station accepts yard debris, tires, and wood waste. There is a nonprofit organization that is responsible for cleaning and stacking the newspaper collection boxes that are currently in place at Newberg Thriftway (Boy Scouts), Bi-Mart (Cub Scouts), Fred Meyer (Kiwanis), and the Dundee Fire Department (fire department). NGS hauls and markets the newspaper, but income goes to the non-profit. SP Newsprint Depot SP Newsprint is part of the solid waste management and materials recovery system in Yamhill County since it utilizes wood and yard waste as a fuel source in its production processes. The company also maintains a recycling drop-off depot for the public at its plant that takes wood waste, milk jugs, newspaper, glass bottles and jars, tin cans, magazines, cardboard, and scrap metal free of charge. After the Christmas holiday many non-profit organizations will collect Christmas trees for a charge and take them to SP Newsprint. Dundee Depot Dundee has a recycling depot at Tenth and Maple Streets, behind Westnut. It is open 24 hours a day and accepts milk jugs, bottleneck plastics, newspaper, glass bottles and jars, tin cans, aluminum, motor oil, magazines, cardboard, and scrap metal. Far West Fibers Material Recovery Facility (MRF) In the City of Newberg, commingled residential recyclables are collected by NGS and taken to Far West Fibers MRF in Hillsboro, Oregon for processing, upgrading, and eventual sale. Valley Recovery Zone (VZR) The Valley Recovery Zone (VRZ) formerly known asYamhill Valley MRF is located in McMinnville off of Lafayette Avenue and is operated by WOW. A public recycling drop-off depot is part of this operation. Newspaper, magazines, corrugated cardboard, office paper, food cans, aluminum, glass bottles and jars sorted by color, used motor oil, bottleneck plastics, and phone books are accepted at the depot. VZR processes and bales materials to be transported to
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-5

CHAPTERTWO

Background and Waste Stream Analysis

market. This facility is adjacent to NW Greenlands and the new Resource Rescue program, both of which are described below. Western Oregon Waste (WOW) is formerly known as City Sanitary and Recycling Service and is the parent company of NW Greenlands. • Resource Rescue

Resource Rescue is the new recyclable materials collection area at the VRZ, which allows the public an opportunity to leave commingled waste and have certain recyclable materials segregated out at the facility. A number of items including computers and electronics, batteries, antifreeze, appliances, refrigerators/freezers, and tires are recycled at Resource Rescue for a fee. In addition, Resource Rescue also provides an opportunity to recycle wood, scrap metal, and cardboard from mixed loads of trash. • NW Greenlands

NW Greenlands is located adjacent to the VRZ facility and accepts yard debris for composting, including such materials as leaves, grass clippings, limbs, briers, prunings, yard and garden vegetation. Yard debris drop-off service is free for residents of McMinnville, Lafayette and Sheridan as part of their garbage rates. The general public can also bring yard debris to NW Greenlands at a charge of five dollars per cubic yard. Materials not accepted at NW Greenlands include rock, dirt, sod, stumps, animal waste, cat litter, glass, plastic, trash, trash bags, lumber, concrete, metal, wire, or plywood.

2.4

PROJECTED WASTE STREAM QUANTITIES AND COMPOSITION

The waste stream analysis presented in this chapter provides a summary of current waste stream generation and composition in Yamhill County and forecasts future disposal and recycling levels. Yamhill County waste disposal trends and corresponding historical population data were used to produce a 20-year solid waste forecast (2001-2020). This forecast is used to project the amount and composition of waste generated, processed and disposed in the future. Projected waste flows are important in planning for new facilities and services or making modifications to existing ones. The SWMP assembles the best information available and compares it with data from other areas to portray a characterization of the waste from Yamhill County that will be generated, disposed, or recycled. The information can be used to examine areas where programs may be targeted to reduce waste and to recycle more materials. Results can also be used in planning the expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities. However, prior to making major investments in facilities or programs further evaluation of the waste stream may be required.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-6

CHAPTERTWO
2.4.1 Definitions

Background and Waste Stream Analysis

For the purposes of this projection, the total waste stream is defined as tons of solid waste generated in Yamhill County. Total waste generated is equal to the waste disposed and the waste recovered (reused/recycled), as follows: QUANTITY OF WASTE GENERATED = DISPOSED TONNAGE + RECOVERED TONNAGE. In Oregon, the recovered tonnage is defined as the combination of the quantities of material recycled, composted, and utilized as an energy source. Most types of solid waste are landfilled, while other wastes are reused, recycled, or disposed of in sites designated for a specific type of special waste. The largest component of the total waste stream is MSW. MSW consists of waste generated by residences, offices, institutions, commercial businesses and other waste generators not producing special wastes. The majority of Yamhill County’s MSW is disposed at Riverbend Landfill. Special wastes include industrial waste, hazardous waste, infectious wastes, sludges and septic tank pumpings, tires, household hazardous waste and recycled waste. Each special waste category has its own characteristics and handling requirements. All operators that collect and/or process wastes report to ODEQ annually the amount of materials that are recycled, composted, or converted to energy use. This includes specific generators that recycle their own waste, as well as all solid waste handling facilities. The result is an annual report, prepared by ODEQ, which summarizes the recovery rate for each county or wasteshed. Recovery rates for each county in Oregon from 1992 to 2002 are listed in ODEQ’s 2002 Material Recovery and Waste Generation Survey Report (ODEQ 2003). The recovery rate is calculated as follows: • Tons recovered (tonnage recycled, composted, and used for energy) ÷ tons generated = recovery rate as a %.

The recovery rate for a wasteshed or county as determined by the formula above can be supplemented by receiving “credits” from ODEQ for waste prevention, reuse, or home composting programs. Legislation enacted in 1997 allows wastesheds to apply for a 2% credit for each of these programs if the applicable certification criteria are satisfied. A 2001 amendment allows for greater than 2% credit for residential composting if quantitatively verified. For example, Yamhill County’s calculated recovery rate for 2001 according to the formula above was 49.2%. However, the County has obtained 2% credits for both waste prevention and home composting, thus yielding a total recovery rate of 53.2% in 2001. In 2002, these recovery rates increased to 54.4% calculated and 58.4% total. Since the calculated recovery rates of 49.2% and 54.4% are based on verifiable tonnage diverted from landfill disposal, those are the recovery rate values shown in the tables of this chapter unless otherwise stated.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-7

CHAPTERTWO

Background and Waste Stream Analysis

Estimates used in this SWMP Plan demonstrate a distinction between “disposed” quantities and “generated” quantities. As used in this SWMP, disposed solid waste is considered to be all county solid waste delivered to the Riverbend Landfill, or a landfill out of the County, and as reported to ODEQ by the operators. Waste generation is calculated by adding the total waste disposed and the materials that are recovered, as reported to ODEQ.

2.4.2 Waste Stream Composition
The composition of the waste stream is important because it provides the distribution of types and quantities of materials in the waste stream, including recyclable and compostable materials. Information was compiled from several sources to produce the waste stream composition that is summarized in Table 2-2 for 2001 and Table 2-3 for 2002. The percentage of total waste generated for each waste material type represents a composite of state and local industry statistics for waste stream composition in the State of Oregon. It provides a snap shot of the amounts for each waste material generated in Yamhill County. The tables also include the amount recycled for each of the materials generated as reported by DEQ. Using this data it is possible to calculate an estimated amount of materials that is discarded in landfills. The data can used to estimate the amount of materials that are recycled for each category. This data is summarized in Figure 2.2
FIGURE 2-1. YAMHILL COUNTY RECOVERY RATES
By Commodity

100% 90% 80% Recycling Percent 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% TOTAL PAPER 2001 2002 34% 26% TOTAL PLASTICS 8% 7% ORGANICS (Yard/Wood Waste) 77% 93%

GLASS 50% 47%

METALS 51% 69%

OTHER OTHER INORGANICS MATERIALS 0% 0% 81% 72%

TOTAL RECOVERY 49% 54%

Material Type

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-8

CHAPTERTWO
•

Background and Waste Stream Analysis

Trends observed include (percentage references are weight-based): The waste stream is largely composed of organic materials with paper, wood, and yard debris being the major sources of these organic materials (approximately 85% and 86% by weight in 2001 and 2002 respectively). Although inorganic materials such as construction/demolition debris are expected to contribute up to 8 % of the waste generated in the county, according the ODEQ recycling data, there is no record of construction/demolition waste being recycled in the county in 2001 and only 14 tons of gypsum/wall board being generated in 2002. The materials recovery efforts of WOW and NGS have included targeting yard debris, wood waste, and special wastes such as used motor oil, antifreeze, electronics, and batteries, for recycling, composting, and energy utilization. Rate of recovery of paper in Yamhill County in 2001 was equivalent to the paper recovery rate in Oregon. Rate of recovery of plastics in Yamhill County in 2001 (8%) exceeded the plastics recovery rate in Oregon (only 1%).

•

•

• •

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-9

CHAPTERTWO

Background and Waste Stream Analysis
Table 2-2 Yamhill County Waste Stream for 2001
Waste Generated (tons) 39,693 10,243 11,524 11,524 2,561 3,841 9,219 Waste Disposed (tons) 26,308 4,256 11,418 4,895 2,561 3,178 8,472 Waste Recycled2 (tons) % Recycled 13,385 34% 5,987 58% 106 1% 6,629 58% --663 17% 747 291 457 40,690 18,438 7,366 13,557 -1,329 1,796 5,404 611 335 4,458 0 ---1,039 697 245 98 63,021 8%

Material Generated (2001) TOTAL PAPER Cardboard/Brown Bags Mixed Waste Paper Newspaper Magazines High Grade Paper TOTAL PLASTICS Plastc Film Rigid Plastic Cont. ORGANICS Yard Debris Additional Yard Debris*** Wood Food Other Organics* GLASS METALS Aluminum Tin Cans Other OTHER INORGANICS Rock / Concrete / Brick Gypsum wallboard Other OTHER MATERIALS Motor Oil Batteries Other** TOTAL WASTE

% of Total Waste1 31% 8% 9% 9% 2% 3% 7%

% Disposed 66% 42% 99% 42% 100% 83% 92%

41% 16% -11% 4% 10% 3% 8% 1% 1% 6% 8% 6% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 100%

52,498 20,487 -14,085 5,122 12,599 3,585 10,500 1,280 640 7,042 10,628 7,683 1,280 1,280 1,280 1,255 96 32 128,043 actual

11,808 2,049 -528 5,122 11,270 1,789 5,096 669 306 2,584 10,628 ---241 558 -149 -66 65,022 64,341

22% 10% -4% 100% 89% 50% 49% 52% 48% 37% 100% ---19% 44% -155% -206% 51%

78% 90% 96% -11% 50% 51% 48% 52% 63% 0% ---81% 56% 255% 306% 49%

*Animal waste/grease, tires, carpet, and textiles **Antifreeze, fluorescent lamps, and electonics ***Additional Yard Debris - This represents an estimated amount of yard debris that is recycled in Yamhill County above the established amount typically generated in communities in Oregon.
1 2

Percentage of total waste generated is based on Waste Stream Characterization Study, Table 3-2, December 1987. Waste recycled by type as reported in 2001 Recovery Report Yamhill County, ODEQ.

Table 2-3
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-10

CHAPTERTWO

Background and Waste Stream Analysis
Yamhill County Waste Stream for 2002
Waste Generated (tons) 46,006 11,873 13,357 13,357 2,968 4,452 10,685 Waste Disposed (tons) 34,091 4,922 13,235 9,265 2,968 3,701 9,938 Waste Recycled2 (tons) % Recycled 11,916 26% 6,951 59% 122 1% 4,091 31% --752 17% 747 150 215 11 371 61,220 21,370 13,930 4,481 19,990 -1,449 1,953 1,949 3 8,345 611 382 7,352 14 -14 -1,076 733 239 104 80,791 7%

Material Generated (2002) TOTAL PAPER Cardboard/Brown Bags Mixed Waste Paper Newspaper Magazines High Grade Paper TOTAL PLASTICS Plastc Film Rigid Plastic Cont. Composite Plastic Plastic Other ORGANICS Yard Debris Additional Yard Debris*** Additional Wood Waste*** Wood Food Other Organics* GLASS Container Glass Glass Other METALS Aluminum Tin Cans Other OTHER INORGANICS Rock / Concrete / Brick Gypsum wallboard Other OTHER MATERIALS Motor Oil Batteries Other** TOTAL WASTE GENERATED

% of Total Waste1 31% 8% 9% 9% 2% 3% 7%

% Disposed 74% 41% 99% 69% 100% 83% 93%

41% 16%

60,847 23,745

-373 2,375

-1% 10%

101% 90%

11% 4% 10% 3%

16,325 5,936 14,603 4,155

-3,665 5,122 13,154 2,203

-22% 86% 90% 53%

122% -10% 47%

8% 1% 1% 6% 8% 6% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 100%

12,169 1,484 742 8,162 12,318 8,904 1,484 1,484 1,484 1,454 111 37 148,408 actual

3,824 873 360 810 12,303 ---409 721 -127 -67 67,617 62,395

31% 59% 49% 10% 100% ---28% 50% -114% -179% 46%

69% 41% 51% 90% 0% -1% -72% 50% 214% 279% 54%

*Animal waste/grease, tires, carpet, and textiles **Antifreeze, fluorescent lamps, and electonics ***Additional Yard Debris and Additional Wood Waste - This represents an estimated amount of yard debris and wood waste that is recycled in Yamhill County above the established amount typically generated in communities in Oregon.
1 2

Percentage of total waste generated is based on Waste Stream Characterization Study, Table 3-2, December 1987. Waste recycled by type as reported in 2002 Recovery Report Yamhill County, ODEQ.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-11

CHAPTERTWO

Background and Waste Stream Analysis

Table 2-4 provides a summary of generated, recovered, and disposed wastes over a five-year period between 1997 and 2002 for Yamhill County, based on data provided by ODEQ. Table 2-4 Summary of Historic Waste Stream Data for Yamhill County Between 1997 and 2002 (in tons) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 67,617 46% 80,791 54% 148,408

67,118 75% 68,901 69% 69,994 64% 67,141 56% 65,022 51% Disposed Recovered 21,880 25% 31,244 31% 38,842 36% 53,548 44% 63,021 49% Generated 88,998 100,145 108,836 120,689 128,043

Source: ODEQ 2002 Oregon Recovery and Waste Generation Report Note: Tons Generated = Tons Disposed + Tons Recovered`

A comparison of the amount of waste recovered by material type for Yamhill County in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 is provided in Figure 2-4. The most dramatic increase in recovery is in the organics category which includes yard debris, wood waste, animal waste/grease, textiles, and tires. The amount of paper recycled has fluctuated up and down over the three years. There has been no significant change in the other material type categories. Figure 2-2 Comparison of Recovery Rates for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002
60,000
1999 2000 2001 2002

50,000 Waste Recycled (tons)

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 TOTAL PAPER TOTAL PLASTICS ORGANICS GLASS Material Types METALS OTHER INORGANICS OTHER MATERIALS

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-12

CHAPTERTWO
2.4.3 Waste Stream Generation Forecast

Background and Waste Stream Analysis

Estimates of future waste generation levels, which are used in solid waste planning, can be calculated by multiplying forecasted population numbers by per capita waste generation. Population forecasts developed by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) assume average annual rates of increase of 1.5 percent to 1.8 percent in Yamhill County (OEA 2003). Table 2-5 displays projected population using the OEA figures, which are the universal projections, used in the state according to the Population Research Center. Table 2-5 Historical and Projected Yamhill County Population Data Year 2001 2005 2010 2015 2020
1

OEA Population Projections1 86,400 91,924 99,516 109,040 118,868

Average Annual Rate of Increase 1.5% 1.6% 1.8% 1.7%

Population projections from OEA 2003 for Yamhill County

Per capita waste generation rate was 2,940 pounds per person per year or 1.47 tons/person/year in Yamhill County in 2001 (ODEQ, 2001). Note that this generation rate is based on the Yamhill County population estimate for 2001 of 87,110, which is higher than the OEA’s county population estimate for 2001. Table 2-6 shows the predicted waste generation quantities for 2001 through 2020, which were calculated by multiplying the per capita generation rate by the population estimates from Table 2-5 and converting the values to tons. Table 2-6 Yamhill County Waste Stream Projections

Year
2001 2005 2010 2015 2020
1 2 3

Population1 86,400 91,924 99,516 109,040 118,868

Waste Generated (tons)2 128,0433 135,128 146,288 160,288 174,736

See data presented in Table 2-5. Based on a per capita waste generation rate of 2,940 lbs./year.

Actual waste generation per ODEQ 2002 Oregon Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

2-13

CHAPTERTHREE
3.1 INTRODUCTION

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

The purpose of this chapter of Yamhill County’s Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) is to describe and examine the programs, policies, and initiatives undertaken to divert materials from disposal. Waste reduction and reuse measures prevent materials from entering the waste stream, thus decreasing waste generation. This form of waste diversion is distinguished from techniques used to transform materials into products after they have been generated by residential, commercial, governmental, institutional, or industrial sources. In the State of Oregon three kinds of such transformation techniques have been identified and counted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) as contributing to a county’s recovery rate: recycling, composting, and energy/fuel use. The recovery rate is determined by the following formulas: • • • • Tons recovered = tons recycled + tons composted + tons converted to energy/fuel use Tons generated = tons disposed + tons recovered Calculated recovery rate (%) = tons recovered ÷ tons generated Total recovery rate (%) = calculated recovery rate + allowable recovery credits (see Sections 3.2 and 3.4 below)

The chapter reviews the general regulatory background for waste diversion in Oregon and portrays the contributions of public and private sector entities to the County’s waste diversion. These entities include Yamhill County Solid Waste (YCSW), a division of the County’s Building and Planning Department; the two franchised solid waste service providers, Newberg Garbage Service (NGS) and Western Oregon Waste (WOW); and NW Greenlands in McMinnville (NWG). SP Newsprint Company, a newsprint mill located in Newberg, also plays a significant role in the County’s waste diversion because it utilizes wood waste for fuel in its production processes. Chapter 3 analyzes and assesses the status of materials recovery in Yamhill County. Based on this evaluation the key strengths, potential areas of need, and opportunities for increased recovery of materials are defined. Alternatives are then proposed to address the areas of need and opportunity. Criteria for evaluating and determining those options most applicable and relevant to conditions in Yamhill County are offered. The selected alternatives are subsequently organized into a coherent strategy for implementation. It is important to note that, unless otherwise indicated, the contents of this chapter are based on data and information contained in two primary documents: the 2001 Material Recovery Survey Data assembled by ODEQ and available through ODEQ’s Solid Waste Policy and Program Development Section/Manager or at www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/solwaste/rsw.htm; and the report titled “Yamhill Wasteshed: Opportunity to Recycle Report, Year 2001” prepared by YCSW for
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-1

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

ODEQ. This represented the latest information available when the SWMP was initially prepared. In October 2003 DEQ released the 2002 Oregon Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report. This data has been incorporated into SWMP and has been considered in evaluating alternatives and developing recommendations.

3.2

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The regulatory framework and requirements for solid waste management and materials recovery have evolved over a period of several years. This section discusses some of the key features of relevant statutes and legislation currently in effect.

3.2.1 Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 459 and 459A – Waste Management Priorities and Waste Diversion Requirements
As expressed in ORS 459 and 459A, the State of Oregon’s preferred hierarchy for managing solid waste is listed in priority order below: • • • • • • Waste reduction Reuse Recycling Composting Energy recovery Landfill disposal

Oregon law thus views waste reduction and reuse as the most important waste management practices. ORS 459 and 459A require local governments, or their legally contracted agents, to undertake waste reduction education programs. Solid waste service providers must inform their residential and non-residential customers of available waste reduction/recycling options and opportunities. ORS 459 and 459A acknowledge that circumstances vary from one county/wasteshed to another and allow latitude in interpreting and implementing these legal requirements. County and city governments can communicate performance parameters, formulate and execute agreements with private refuse/recycling collection firms, and track contractor/franchisee compliance. In addition, Oregon law contains a “menu” of waste reduction/recycling services that cities with more than 4,000 in population must select from and implement. Counties carry the same responsibilities for urban growth areas outside the boundaries of incorporated municipalities. Recovery goal attainment is a joint responsibility of these designated entities.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-2

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

The annual recovery rate calculation can include materials used as an energy fuel source as long as those materials have been separated at the source from solid waste. Wood is an example of such a material. Further, land application of mulched or composted organic materials such as grass, food waste, and yard debris is allowed in the recovery rate calculation providing such material(s) have also been source separated from solid waste. As will be discussed in Section 3.4, these allowances are of particular importance and relevance to Yamhill County. In all cities with populations over 4,000, and their urban growth areas, it is a minimum requirement that monthly curbside residential recycling collection service for eleven primary recyclable materials be offered. Refuse and recyclables must be collected on the same day. A minimum of three services must also be implemented from a set of alternatives. Examples of those alternatives are described below: • Distribution of education/promotion materials: The materials must explain at a minimum the items collected for recycling, the collection schedule, preparation instructions for recyclables, and practical methods for waste reduction and reuse. Such materials are to be provided to all new residential and non-residential customers, and at least four times a year to existing customers. Education/promotion materials should also emphasize the economic and environmental benefits of waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. Provision of durable recycling bins: To facilitate participation in curbside residential recycling, at least one storage container should be provided to each targeted residence in the designated cities and urban growth areas. Expanded recycling drop-off centers: Depots should accept at least all the principal recyclable materials, have regular, convenient hours of operation, and be open on weekend days. Education/promotion materials and activities should focus, in part, on the availability of recycling depots. Multi-family recycling program: For apartment buildings containing five units or more there would be recovery of at least four principal recyclable materials and there would be periodic education/promotion efforts directed to building residents. Commercial/institutional recycling collection: Commercial and institutional generators are considered to be stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, and other non-manufacturing sites; industrial manufacturing plants and home businesses are not part of the commercial/institutional sector. Targeted commercial/institutional generators are those with a work force of ten or more persons in a location that is 1,000 square feet or more in size. Such generators should receive regular collection service for principal recyclable materials that are source separated. Residential yard debris collection/composting program: Such a program includes education/promotion for on-site home composting techniques; monthly or more frequent

•

•

•

•

•

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-3

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

residential yard debris collection with the material composted or processed into other useful products; or a network of yard debris collection depots conveniently located with each one open at least one day per week. • • More frequent residential recycling collection: Weekly pickup service in contrast to monthly or every-other-week. Residential service rates that reward waste reduction, reuse, and recycling: Rates should be based on the quantity of waste disposed, and on the number and size of containers dedicated to refuse. The more containers that are used, and the larger those containers are, the higher the rates should be. Use of one container (“mini-can”) with a volume of approximately 20 gallons would be the cheapest option. Rates should not decrease with increasing levels of refuse container usage. Rates should act as an incentive for waste reduction, reuse, and recycling by charging less for small containers.

3.2.2 HB 3744 (2001) – New County Recovery Rate Goals for 2005 and 2009
HB 3744 (2001) established revised statewide and individual county/wasteshed material recovery goals in Oregon. The statewide goals are to reach a 45% material recovery rate by 2005 and a 50% material recovery rate by 2009. For Yamhill County, HB 3744 mandated a 2005 recovery rate of 39% and a 2009 recovery rate of 45%. SB 66 (1991) set initial recovery goals for counties/wastesheds in the state that were to be achieved in 1995. The 1995 recovery rate goal for Yamhill County was 30%. HB 3744 replaced this goal with new ones for the years 2005 (39%) and 2009 (45%). HB 3744 also added an additional statewide standard intended to reduce overall waste generation in contrast to increasing material recovery. From 2005 to 2009, HB 3744 calls for no increase in annual per capita waste generation. After 2009 the legislation calls for no increase in total annual waste generation for every subsequent year. There is a clear connection between these two standards – assuming there is no dramatic population loss, but population remains stable or increases, then the total tons of waste generated annually can only be stabilized or decreased if annual per capita waste generation is similarly stabilized or decreased.

3.2.3 HB 3456 (1997) – 2% Recovery Credit Programs
HB 3456 (1997) enacted provisions allowing each county/wasteshed to apply for 2% credits toward the recovery rate for certified programs in waste prevention, home composting, and reuse. HB 3744 referenced above allows for credits beyond 2% for residential composting if the quantities of material diverted by this method can be documented and verified. These earned credit increments are added to the calculated recovery rate to yield the total recovery rate for the year(s) in which the programs are implemented (see bullet points under 3.1 above).

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-4

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

To receive credit in any of the three programs a county/wasteshed must implement a minimum of three elements for each program. The required element is an education or promotion campaign. Two additional elements are then selected from a menu of options specific to a given program. For example, a Reuse Program would consist of a Reuse Promotion Campaign and two of the following options: • • • • • • Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Salvage Program Promotion of Reuse Program White Goods Take-Back Program Waste Exchange Programs Reuse at Transfer Stations or Landfills Sidewalk Pickup or Community Fair Program

Information related to applying for the 2% Credit Programs is submitted by a county/wasteshed with its annual Opportunity to Recycle Report. HB 3456 attempted to remove some barriers to waste diversion as well. While allowing the application of broad criteria of feasibility and cost-effectiveness, the legislation directs public agencies contracting for demolition to require contractors to salvage or recycle construction and demolition debris. In a similar manner, agencies contracting for lawn and landscape maintenance services shall require companies to arrange for the composting or mulching of yard waste at a permitted facility operated for such purposes. Requests-for-proposals, requests-forbids, and contractual agreements shall express and reflect these requirements. Space for placement of containers for storing recyclable materials, and reasonable access to such containers, have typically not been part of the planning or permitting process for buildings at the municipal or county level. HB 3456 stipulates that new multi-family residential structures with ten units or more must dedicate adequate space for, and access to, recycling storage containers as well as those containing solid waste. These same broad standards are also applied to specified commercial and institutional buildings. Building plans must identify such space/access and jurisdictional review of permit submissions must incorporate evaluation of this factor as part of the approval process.

3.3

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR ROLES

Traditionally in Yamhill County solid waste management operations have been conducted by the private sector, notably two firms: Newberg Garbage Service and WOW. NGS has operated in the County for 62 years; WOW has operated in the County for 75 years. Currently NGS and WOW are the exclusive, franchised refuse and recycling service providers for the incorporated municipalities and unincorporated areas in the County. The County and the cities do not directly
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-5

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

operate any aspect of the County’s solid waste management system, including recycling collection, recyclables processing, and composting. NGS serves the northeastern portion of the County including the jurisdictions of Dundee and Newberg. WOW serves the central and southwestern portions of the County including the jurisdictions of Amity, Carlton, Dayton, Lafayette, McMinnville, Sheridan, Willamina, and Yamhill. There are separate franchise agreements between each municipality and its respective service provider, and also separate franchise agreements between the County and each service provider. These agreements mean that residential and commercial recycling collection, handling, and marketing is performed by NGS and WOW. Even though McMinnville, Newberg, and Sheridan are the only cities with populations over 4,000, all cities in the County are offered curbside residential recycling collection service, thus exceeding regulatory requirements. Dundee has monthly curbside residential recycling collection. Newberg has an alternating schedule of curbside residential recycling collection one week followed by yard waste collection the next week, typically resulting in two residential recyclable collections and two yard waste collections per month. The remaining eight jurisdictions have weekly curbside residential recycling service. County residents living in the area between the Urban Growth Boundary and the jurisdictional limits of a city are also offered the same recycling services as are available to residents living within a city’s jurisdictional limits. Both WOW and NGS maintain one full-time staff person dedicated to waste reduction and recycling while Yamhill County Solid Waste has a part-time (three days per week) Solid Waste Management Analyst who is also dedicated to waste reduction and recycling. The YCSW Analyst is responsible for: • • Ensuring that the County is complying with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements regarding provision of waste reduction/recycling services. Assuring the availability and distribution of related promotion/education/information materials and/or collateral communication/publicity/outreach related to waste reduction, recycling, reuse, and composting. Ensuring that WOW, NGS, and the cities of McMinnville, Newberg, and Sheridan are maintaining the records and data necessary for documenting the types and quantities of materials recovered. Preparing the County’s annual Opportunity to Recycle Report for review by ODEQ. Maintaining, modifying, or expanding activities to qualify for the elements of the 2% Credit Programs in waste prevention, home composting, and reuse (see Section 3.2.3 above).

•

• •

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-6

CHAPTERTHREE
• •

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

Achieving or exceeding the ODEQ-mandated materials recovery goal for the Yamhill (County) Wasteshed. Keeping management of YCSW and the Building and Planning Department, as well as the County Commissioners, advised of the status of the above-noted topics, as requested.

The YCSW Analyst and the two Waste Reduction/Recycling Coordinators from WOW and NGS work closely together, meeting regularly every two weeks to plan, organize, and monitor promotion/education/information efforts; maintain the data on recovered material types and quantities necessary for submission of the annual Opportunity to Recycle Report by the County to ODEQ; and exchange ideas on how to improve diversion programs, practices, and outreach, with particular focus on waste prevention.

3.4

OVERVIEW OF RECOVERY RATE

For the majority of the timeframe for preparing the SWMP the latest information available was the 2001 Waste Recovery Survey, compiled by DEQ. This data has been the primary information used to evaluate programs and alternatives. As the SWMP was being finalized, data for 2002 was released by DEQ. The 2002 data has been incorporated into the following information for discussion purposes. It has been used to confirm the recommended strategies as presented in this Chapter.

3.4.1 2001 Recovery Rate for Yamhill County
ODEQ approved Yamhill County’s 2001 Opportunity to Recycle Report and found the County and the municipalities of McMinnville, Newberg, and Sheridan were in full compliance with all stipulations of ORS 459A.005 and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-90-040. Yamhill County’s calculated materials recovery rate in 2001 was 49.2%, the second highest in the State (Table 1, 2001 Material Recovery Survey Data, ODEQ). The documented tons recovered, disposed, and generated for 2001 were: 63,023 tons recovered + 65,022 tons disposed = 128,045 tons generated In addition, the County satisfied the criteria for being allocated 4% of supplemental recovery under the 2% Credit Programs for waste prevention (2%) and residential composting (2%). Thus the County's total recovery rate is 53.2%, the third highest in the State. The County’s recovery rate is therefore considerably above the levels required by HB 3744 for 2005 (39%) and 2009 (45%).

3.4.2 2002 Recovery Data
The 2002 statewide waste recovery data was released in October 2003. It contained information related to Yamhill County’s recycling rate stating that in 2002 there were 80,791 tons recovered.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-7

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

The amount of waste disposed was 67,617 tons. DEQ reported Yamhill County had achieved a recycling rate of 54.4%. When adding the 4% credit for waste reduction programs the overall recovery rate is 58.4 %. This was the highest recovery rate in the State for 2002 and well above the 2005 goal of 39% as well as the 45% goal for 2009. This represents an increase of almost 14,000 tons over the previous year. However, the majority of the increase, about 95%, is in two categories. Wood waste increased by 6,433 tons and yard debris increased by 9,536 tons. Although Yamhill County receives credit for this material it is not certain that all of this material is generated in Yamhill County, since most of the material is recycled at the SP Newsprint Plant. When comparing all other materials recycled in 2002 to the 2001 figures the actual quantities are very similar.

3.4.3 Composition and Components of Material Recovery Tonnage and Rate
In ODEQ’s 2001 and 2002 Material Recovery Survey Data there is information for each county/wasteshed portraying the composition by material type and quantity of the recovered tonnage. The information for each county/wasteshed has been documented and accepted by ODEQ and represents the final data used to measure the results of the waste reduction and recycling programs. This information is then submitted as part of the annual report to the Environmental Quality Commission and to the legislature. Table 3-1 presents that information for Yamhill County.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-8

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

Table 3-1: Recovered Materials Composition, Yamhill County, 2002 (In Tons) MATERIALS Aluminum Animal Waste/Grease Antifreeze Cardboard/Brown Bags Carpeting Composite Plastic Construction/Demolition Container Glass Electronics Fluorescent Lamps Gypsum Wallboard High-Grade Paper Lead Acid Batteries Magazines Mixed Plastic Mixed Waste Paper Newspaper NiCad Batteries Other Scrap Metals Plastic Film Phone Books Rigid Plastic Containers Textiles Tin/Aluminum Tires Used Motor Oil Wood Waste Yard Debris #1 PET Containers #2 HDPE Milk Jugs #2 HDPE Other #4 LDPE #6 Polystyrene Other Plastics TOTAL TONS
* Plastic from Agricultural

1999 524.1 730.6 1 4988.1 -1.4 9.8 1116.3 -0.3 -712.2 21.1 288.4 101.1 65.3 3955 0.1 4511.6 -46.5 -46.7 215.6 442.9 650.9 4526.5 15259.6 126.5 32.5 7.1 220.5 9.9 -38,611.6

2000 614.6 843.8 13.7 4919.8 8.4 --1625.2 ---568.4 28.5 49.0 -165.2 10699.2 -3297.1 110.5 -688.2 50.0 748.9 214.0 1104.9 11846.7 15951.4 ------53,547.5

2001 611.0 866.2 46.4 5987.1 30.6 --1795.8 50.0 1.6 -663.2 244.4 --106.2 6628.7 0.2 4458.3 290.6 -456.8 64.5 334.5 367.7 696.8 13556.8 25765.4 ------63,022.5

2002 611.1 913.9 46.3 6950.8 12.8 11.2 -1949.3 56.5 0.8 14.4 751.7 238.5 --121.9 4091.2 0.2 7352.2 150.3 -214.7 77.0 382.0 445.6 733.2 19,990.0 35,300.5 -----371* 80,791.0

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-9

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

Of the total recovered material in 2001 (63,023 tons), 39,322 tons were accounted for by wood waste and yard debris combined. In 2002, these materials represent 55,290 tons or 70% of the materials recovered. The various grades of waste paper (newspaper, cardboard/brown bags, high-grade paper, and mixed waste paper) accounted for 13,385 tons of the total recovered tonnage in 2001. In 2002 these same commodities represented 11,915 tons or a decrease of 1,400 tons. The slight decrease may be attributed to a coding error in 2001 related to the amount of newspaper. Wood waste and yard debris quantities were at 55,290 tons and represent 68% of all recycled materials for 2002. The numbers for 2001 and 2002 for all materials other than wood waste and yard debris are virtually the same. Table 9 from ODEQ’s Material Recovery Survey Data shows how much of each county’s/wasteshed’s recovered tonnage was attributed to recycling, composting, and energy/fuel use. For Yamhill County those figures (rounded off) are: 2001 Data • • • Recycling: Composting: Energy/Fuel Use: 23,535 tons, or 37% 14,403 tons, or 23% 25,083 tons, or 40% 2002 Data 24,745 tons, or 30% 16,775 tons, or 21% 39,268 tons, or 49%

Of the County’s recovered tonnage, composting and energy/fuel use accounted for 63% and 70% respectively in 2001 and 2002. For this same period recycling contributed 37% and 30% of that tonnage. The data on the composition of the County’s recovered tonnage and the components of the County’s recovery rate clearly reflects the in-County presence of two major end-use markets for wood waste and yard debris. Those markets are, respectively, SP Newsprint Company in Newberg and Northwest Greenlands in McMinnville. The existence of these conveniently located markets supports the collection and processing of wood waste/yard debris to a more significant level than is found in most other counties/wastesheds in the state. Interpretations of the data presented in this section, and the implications for program/policy recommendations concerning waste reduction, recycling, and composting, are considered in Sections 3.7 and 3.9 below.

3.5

PROMOTION, EDUCATION, INFORMATION ACTIVITIES

3.5.1 Overview
Planning and carrying out promotion/education/information activities to explain and encourage involvement with waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting is a primary role for the
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-10

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

County’s Solid Waste Management Analyst and the two Waste Reduction/Recycling Coordinators from NGS and WOW. There is a cooperative and collaborative working relationship between these three individuals that results in efficient use of their personal strengths and organizational resources. As an example, all three give out written materials on the availability of bins for backyard composting and giving “how to” instructions for this waste reduction method. However, the bins are sold at cost and distributed to residents by the franchised collectors. YCSW, NGS, and WOW coordinate backyard composting demonstrations and bin sales at certain retail stores in the County on a periodic basis. In general, the County’s Analyst deals mainly with the print and electronic media and does not go out into the hauler’s service areas to directly interact with residential or commercial customers, city officials, or community groups. The NGS/WOW Waste Reduction/Recycling Coordinators represent the companies providing waste diversion programs. They are, in this capacity, actively engaged in responding to customer questions about how to reduce waste and recycle, in attending public events, and in making presentations at schools or to meetings of civic and special interest associations.

3.5.2 Yamhill County Solid Waste Division
The Analyst maintains a Web page for the Yamhill County Solid Waste Division (www.ycsw.org), which incorporates several links to such topics as Recycling Depots, Buying Recycled Products, Composting, Waste Reduction Tips, and Household Hazardous Waste. The content of the Web page’s main portion changes periodically and is usually focused on one message, idea, or practice for diverting waste. For example, in the springtime the focus is on backyard composting techniques presented in an easily understood, step-by-step manner. Maintaining contact with newspapers throughout the County is another important function of the Solid Waste Management Analyst. The Analyst arranges for newspaper coverage by providing reporters with suggestions for stories and the relevant background information to help write them. Arranging and providing material for newspaper inserts and for promotional announcements or “spots” on cable television stations and at movie theaters is also done by this person. YCSW maintains, periodically updates, and distributes brochures on grasscycling, home composting, stopping junk mail delivery, alternatives to household products that are hazardous, and other waste prevention/recovery subjects. Due to the regular communication between the YCSW Analyst and the two Waste Reduction/Recycling Coordinators, the Analyst is knowledgeable about the options and opportunities offered by the WOW/NGS for waste reduction practices such as backyard composting, curbside residential recycling, yard debris recycling, multi-family recycling, commercial and institutional recycling, and management/recovery of special materials such as electronics, wood waste, and white goods/appliances (Section 3.6 describes these options and opportunities).
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-11

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

Starting in 2001 and continuing thereafter, waste prevention and residential composting have been priority focal points for the promotion/education/information activities and materials of YCSW. This enabled the County to qualify for a total of 4% in additional recovery credits in 2001, 2% for the waste prevention program and 2% for the residential composting program. Examples of program elements are portrayed below. Waste Prevention • As part of the County’s Earth Day events on April 18, 2001, brochures on waste prevention topics such as grasscycling, home composting, and reducing junk mail were mailed to every resident in the County with a cover letter explaining the environmental benefits of waste reduction. WOW and NGS emphasized waste reduction, prevention, and reuse methods in their classroom presentations to students. On April 21 and 22, 2001, during a household hazardous waste collection event, participants were given the ODEQ handbook on Alternatives to Household Hazardous Waste. A mercury thermometer exchange was also conducted with digital thermometers supplied by ODEQ. Volunteers were present to answer questions about products that could be substituted for those containing household hazardous waste.

• •

Residential Composting • In July 2001 a residential composting promotion/information campaign began lasting one year. Five commercials were aired daily on cable television channels. The commercials emphasized how to compost at home, the varieties of backyard composters, how and why to use the finished product, and to call YCSW for a free brochure (“Home Composting Made Easy”). The availability of compost bins at cost through the County’s franchised haulers was also promoted. Ads in the form of cartoons that promoted home composting were published weekly in three newspapers (Newberg Graphic, News Register, Sheridan Sun) as well as monthly tips on home composting. There were feature stories in the gardening sections of each newspaper on home composting that generated requests for the brochure noted above. Another aspect of the residential composting promotion program was the publication of several ads and articles on the advantages of grasscycling that also discouraged the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Newberg’s Mt. View Middle School established a compost demonstration area containing two commercial composters and four types of “make-it-yourself” home composting arrangements. This project actually started in September 2000 with the assistance of NGS. Yard clippings from Newberg public schools are taken to SP Newsprint, mixed with wood waste, and used as a fuel source at the mill.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

•

•

•

3-12

CHAPTERTHREE
•

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

Edwards Elementary School in Newberg installed several worm bins built by students at Newberg High School. NGS assisted with obtaining the worms and initial bedding material. Edwards Elementary School students take food scraps and coffee grounds to the worm bins and maintain them as part of their science instruction. Subsequently a science class at Mt. View Middle School also set up a vermiculture project. George Fox University and Linfield College each manage their own composting areas supplied by internally generated leaves, grass, and other clippings. The compost is then used around shrubs and in flowerbeds at each property. George Fox University informed neighboring public and private schools that the University would compost their clippings as well.

•

Ongoing Commitment to Waste Reduction and Prevention YCSW has contracted with a public relations firm to plan and implement three promotion/education/information campaigns centered around waste prevention behaviors, home composting methods, and materials/product reuse outlets and opportunities in the County. These campaigns are designed to insure that the County continues to qualify annually for ODEQ’s 2% recovery credits regarding waste prevention and residential composting and also meets the criteria for a reuse program. The goal is to obtain the most recovery credits possible through ODEQ’s 2% Credit Programs. The outreach tools used in the campaigns include: • • • • • • • Bi-annual tabloid Newspaper ads Cable television ads Movie theatre “slides” Media releases Brochures Resource guides

In addition to reinforcing the messages and efforts for waste prevention and residential composting described above, a separate campaign focuses on reuse. Citizens and businesses will be encouraged to use local thrift shops, resale stores, and refurbishers (particularly those that repair appliances, computers, and photocopiers) as destinations for reusable items rather than dispose of them.

3.5.3 Western Oregon Waste and Newberg Garbage Service
Both WOW and NGS maintain, periodically revise, and regularly distribute a comprehensive set of printed materials on waste reduction, recycling, reuse, and composting. This literature 3-13

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

includes a detailed customer service guide and individualized brochures/flyers that cover all waste prevention options and opportunities offered by the companies (described in Sections 3.6 and 3.7), including those at the Newberg Transfer Station and Recycling Center and the Yamhill Valley MRF (Materials Recovery Facility). The Newberg Transfer Station and Recycling Center is operated in Newberg by NGS and the Yamhill Valley MRF is operated in McMinnville by WOW. These printed materials provide service information and participation instructions for the following programs and sites: • • • • • • • • • • Residential waste reduction Commercial/institutional waste reduction Curbside residential recycling Multi-family recycling Community recycling drop-off depots Composting at home or through in-County facilities Wood waste recovery Recovery of special items such as electronics, appliances, and selected household hazardous wastes Outlets that accept reusable materials, products, and items Newberg Transfer Station and Recycling Center and Yamhill Valley MRF

The Waste Reduction/Recycling Coordinators for WOW and NGS share a common set of responsibilities concerning the implementation of promotion/education/information activities. These include selling backyard composting bins; making presentations in schools and at community group meetings; providing teachers with information and materials for classroom use or display; organizing annual poster, writing, and sculpture contests for students at various grade levels; performing commercial waste audits; assisting employers in setting up recycling programs and educating employees; conducting tours of their respective facilities and interacting with citizens who bring in recyclables; stimulating participation in the YC Brown Program; helping write and design informational brochures, billing inserts, press releases, posters, and signs; and working closely with customer and account representatives resolving problems and clarifying operational guidelines related to site-specific waste reduction/recycling programs.

3.5.4 Oregon Green Schools Program (OGS)
The Oregon Green Schools Program is a statewide effort to instruct K-12 students about the economic and environmental benefits of waste reduction/recycling by directly involving them in

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-14

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

practical projects at their schools. OGS sponsors include local refuse/recycling collectors, teachers and other school district personnel, and public sector waste management/recycling staff. Typical school projects are using both sides of paper rather than just one side; making notepads out of smaller pieces of paper; recycling of paper used in classrooms and administrative offices; on-site composting of yard and/or food waste; and worm bin/vermi-composting areas to demonstrate how worms transform food scraps into a useful soil amendment. An OGS Summit is held annually where delegations from schools across the state exchange ideas and information about their waste reduction/recycling projects. There are three levels of Green School Certification that a school can obtain based on the combination and status of waste reduction/recycling projects achieved at a particular school: Oregon Green School, OGS Merit Level, and OGS Premier Level. In Yamhill County three Newberg schools have been certified, as follows: Newberg High School – Oregon Green School; Mountain View Middle School – Merit Level; and, Edwards Elementary School – Merit Level. Newberg Garbage Service has worked closely with teachers and students at these three schools in carrying out the projects that certify them as part of the OGS Program. NGS has also been involved in establishing and participating in the Newberg School District’s Green Team, a group of district staff that meets monthly to discuss ways of increasing conservation efforts at their schools. Finally, NGS’s Waste Reduction/Recycling Coordinator worked with an AmeriCorps member to create the School Resource Efficiency Guide, which was distributed to all schools in the Newberg School District. The Guide includes information on local recycling opportunities, grants, available, how to handle hazardous waste, how to do a waste audit, local field trips available, and tips to improve school recycling programs.

3.5.5 “Yamhill County Businesses Reducing Our Waste Now” Program
The “Yamhill County Businesses Reducing Our Waste Now” Program, or YC Brown, evolved in 2002 out of discussions between YCSW, NGS and WOW about how to boost waste diversion in the commercial sector. YC Brown is a countywide recognition and award program for businesses and institutions that engage in a variety of waste reduction/recycling practices. Publicity and awards are offered annually to four companies, two each from the respective service areas of NGS and WOW. YCSW assists in arranging publicity for the selected companies, and for the recognition/awards events themselves. The three sponsors of YC Brown – YCSW, WOW and NGS – envision that YC Brown will, over time, become an ongoing organization of firms committed to waste prevention. These firms can serve as role models and “mentors” in helping other companies implement waste 3-15

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

reduction/recycling initiatives suited to their specific circumstances. The theme of YC Brown is “Waste Less”. There are two “membership” levels for YC Brown: • Basic Member − Recycles regularly − Prevents waste with at least three ongoing activities − Consistently buys some recycled products or shares waste prevention information • Distinguished Member − Recycles all prevalent materials regularly − Prevents waste with at least six ongoing activities − Consistently buys several recycled products − Shares waste prevention information with at least two other businesses/institutions YC Brown recognition/award applications may be submitted to either of the three program sponsors. The application form requests information that yields a profile of a generator’s waste prevention behavior emphasizes the wide range of generators that can apply, and reflects the priorities of the three program sponsors. A business or institution first indicates which of the following twenty materials it regularly recycles: aluminum cans or foil, antifreeze, batteries, cardboard, film plastic, glass bottles/jars, grease and cooking oil, magazines and catalogues, motor oil, newspapers, office paper, plastic bottles/jugs, scrap metal (ferrous or non-ferrous), scrap plastic, steel cans, solvents, tires, toner cartridges, wood or pallets, and yard debris. Another section of the application requests the applicant to indicate which products with recycled content are regularly purchased, such as: • • Paper products and office supplies – business cards, copier/printer paper, envelopes, letterhead, notepads, napkins, toilet paper, paper towels, boxes, file folders, toner cartridges. Other items – building materials, compost, packaging materials, re-refined motor oil, retread tires.

The third part of the application asks the applicant to identify what waste prevention activities are regularly conducted, such as: • • • • Make copies on both sides of a sheet of paper. Use reusable interoffice envelopes. Buy materials in bulk. Request reduced or reused packaging from suppliers.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-16

CHAPTERTHREE
• • • • • •

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

Store files exclusively on computer instead of in paper form. Reuse boxes as packaging or storage containers. Remove your name from junk mail lists. Minimize pages in standard forms. Have a policy to avoid printing hard copies of e-mail messages. Use permanent dishware, cups, and utensils.

The last portion of the application reveals the extent to which the applicant has voluntarily publicized or communicated its waste reduction/recycling actions to colleagues, business partners, or the broader community in which it is located. The applicant is supposed to “check the activities that your business has conducted to share information about its waste prevention activities” such as: • • • • • • • • Printed the recycling symbol on your recycled-content business cards and letterhead. Created a company purchasing policy that includes recycled products. Organized a waste prevention challenge among your employees. Informed employees and customers of your successful waste prevention efforts. Posted your recycling accomplishments on a regular basis for all to see. Told your vendors that your purchasing preference is for recycled products. Posted signs in your workplace stating that you buy recycled products. Printed company brochures and flyers on recycled paper and printed the recycled paper symbol on these materials.

The YC Brown application form thus offers a detailed inventory of the kinds of waste reduction/recycling practices and procedures for commercial businesses and institutions that YCSW, WOW, and NGS are cooperatively supporting and promoting.

3.6

RECYCLING ACTIVITIES

3.6.1 Introduction
Eight of the ten incorporated municipalities in the County have weekly curbside residential recycling collection service. In Newberg, residential recyclables and yard waste are picked up curbside according to an alternating, every-other-week schedule. Dundee has monthly curbside recycling service.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-17

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

Based on the 2001 Yamhill Wasteshed Opportunity to Recycle Report, the three cities with populations of over 4,000 – McMinnville, Newberg, and Sheridan – have fulfilled the regulatory requirements for recycling program implementation as stipulated by ORS 459A.005 and OAR 340-90-040. Each jurisdiction has a recycling drop-off depot and is offered weekly residential curbside collection of recyclables, multi-family dwelling recycling collection, and commercial/institutional recycling collection by their respective franchised service providers (NGS for Newberg and WOW for McMinnville and Sheridan).

3.6.2 Recycling Drop-Off Depots
As documented in the 2001 Yamhill Wasteshed Opportunity to Recycle Report, the recycling drop-off centers located in the County and materials accepted at each one are listed below (exceptions noted for two glass recycling depots in Newberg): • Newberg Transfer Station – Ferrous metals/white goods, non-ferrous metals, motor oil, newspapers, glass containers, aluminum, cardboard, tin cans, high-grade paper, magazines, phone books, lead-acid batteries, wood waste, tires, milk jugs, plastic bottles # 1 – 7, yard debris. Riverbend Landfill, McMinnville – Ferrous metals/white goods, non-ferrous metals, motor oil, newspapers, glass containers, aluminum, cardboard, tin cans, magazines, lead-acid batteries, tires, milk jugs, plastic bottles # 1 – 7. Yamhill Valley Material Recovery Facility, McMinnville – Ferrous metals/white goods, nonferrous metals, motor oil, newspapers, glass containers, aluminum, cardboard, tin cans, highgrade paper, magazines, phone books, lead-acid batteries, wood waste, milk jugs, plastic bottles # 1 – 7, yard debris. Dayton School – Motor oil, newspapers, glass containers, aluminum, cardboard, tin cans, magazines, phone books, milk jugs, plastic bottles # 1 –7. IGA Naps Thriftway, Newberg – Newspapers, glass containers (glass added in 2002). City of Dundee – Ferrous metals/white goods, non-ferrous metals, motor oil, newspapers, glass containers, aluminum, cardboard, tin cans, milk jugs, plastic bottles # 1 – 7. SP Newsprint Company, Newberg – Ferrous metals/white goods, non-ferrous metals, motor oil, newspapers, glass containers, aluminum, cardboard, tin cans, magazines, phone books, wood waste, milk jugs, plastic bottles # 1 – 7, yard debris. Newberg Fred Meyer Store – Newspapers, phone books. Newberg Bi-Mart Store – Newspapers.

•

•

• • • •

• •

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-18

CHAPTERTHREE
• • •

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

(Former) Newberg Century 21 Real Estate Office – Newspapers, glass containers (glass added in 2003). City of Sheridan – Yard debris. City of Yamhill – Non-ferrous metals, newspapers, glass containers, aluminum, cardboard, magazines, plastic bottles # 1 – 7.

3.6.3 Newberg Garbage Service Recycling Programs
Curbside Residential Recycling Service NGS offers monthly curbside residential recycling service in Dundee for aluminum cans/foil, tin cans, aerosol cans, glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles, motor oil, newspaper, cardboard/brown paper bags, and glossy magazines/catalogues. Residents are requested to separate these materials into the following categories for collection: cardboard, newspapers, magazines, motor oil, plastic bottles, tin and aluminum cans, clear glass, colored glass. During the actual materials collection process, all materials with the exception of glass and motor oil are commingled together by the collector as they are loaded into the collection vehicle. This procedure was undertaken in March 2003 within Dundee to improve recycling collection operations and efficiency. In April 2002 residential recycling services offered by NGS in the City of Newberg changed dramatically. Prior to that point in time residents were asked to source separate their recyclables (see Dundee description above) for weekly pickup. The initiation of automated residential refuse and commingled recyclables collection in Newberg began in April 2002. At that same time curbside residential yard waste recovery started, scrap/mixed paper was added to curbside recycling and glass containers were eliminated. Collection frequency changed also as recyclables and yard waste were collected in alternate weeks, with recyclables and yard waste each recovered at least twice per month. Two differently colored, 95-gallon roll carts were provided residences for storage of recyclables and yard waste respectively. Under this new program all recyclables with the exception of motor oil can be commingled in the larger 95-gallon cart. With the permission of ODEQ, glass was eliminated from Newberg’s curbside recycling program because in a commingled collection system it may break and contaminate the other materials. As discussed above and in Section 3.6.2, glass may still be recycled at four depots in Newberg (the Transfer Station and Recycling Center, SP Newsprint, Naps Thriftway and the former site of the Century 21 Real Estate Office). The elimination of glass would normally reduce the quantity of materials recovered through curbside recycling. However, the addition of scrap/mixed paper compensated for this reduction because of the range of products brought into the program: food and beverage boxes, junk mail and envelopes, phone books, paperback books, shoe boxes, paper egg cartons, paper bags, milk and juice cartons and drink boxes. 3-19

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

NGS has maintained data on the performance of curbside, residential recycling in Newberg prior to and after the commingled approach and other service changes described above were implemented in April, 2002. Performance has been measured in two basic ways: number of setouts/set-out rate, and tons of material collected. A set-out is an actual recycling collection performed and counted by NGS personnel. The set-out rate is the percentage of recycling collections performed based on the total set-outs possible if all eligible residences put recyclables out for pickup 100% of the time such service was available. During 2000 and 2001 Newberg had a weekly, source separated curbside residential recycling program. In 2000 the number of set-outs was 74,217 and in 2001 it was 76,010. The average monthly set-out rate for these two years was 35%. For the period April, 2002 to March, 2003 the average monthly setout rate for every-other-week collection of commingled recyclables was 55%. For the same period the average monthly set-out rate for every-other-week collection of yard debris was 39%. Higher set-out rates would be expected after the new system was operating because there are fewer opportunities to participate in recycling than under the weekly collection program. The most valid way to compare the two approaches is to consider the commingled recyclables/yard debris recovery as one recycling system with between four and five set-out opportunities per month. The pre-April 2002 program collected recyclables only between four and five times per month. The combined, average monthly setout rate for collection of commingled recyclables and yard for April 2002 through March 2003 was 47%. This is substantially higher than the 35% average monthly set-out rate for the pre-April 2002 program noted above. It appears that the convenience of being able to commingle recyclables and have yard waste collected curbside is producing greater program involvement on the part of residents. NGS also tracks tons of residential recyclables collected through curbside recycling in Newberg and Dundee. In 2001, total curbside recycling tons from these two communities was 564. In 2002 the figure was 842 tons (does not include yard debris; does include pre-April, 2002 tonnage under weekly, source separated program for January to March and commingled tonnage for April to December). Since Dundee’s program did not change, it is reasonable to assume that the 33% increase in tonnage between 2001 and 2002 is due to the commingled program in Newberg that also added mixed waste paper. In addition to the new recovered yard waste tonnage, the commingled program in Newberg has clearly increased the quantity of residential recyclables recovered by NGS. Commercial Recycling Service A variety of recycling service options are offered by NGS to commercial businesses and institutions in the company’s franchised collection area. These include the following:

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-20

CHAPTERTHREE
•

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

Provision of 65-gallon roll carts for recovery of magazines, newspapers, plastic bottles, glass bottles and jars, and aluminum and tin cans. For storage of large quantities of plastic bottles, “bag and stand” stations are available. Totes are available to wineries for storage of glass. Provision of 1½ to 6 cubic yard metal containers for recovery of cardboard; these containers are also available to vineyards. Provision of 65-gallon roll carts or 1½ to 2 cubic yard lidded containers for storage of office paper; these containers are available to schools as well. “Bag and stand” arrangements are also available for office paper storage that are somewhat smaller than the similar stations used for storage of plastic bottles. In November 2003, NGS began offering curbside services for commercial customers. Their goal is to increase participation 50% by 2004.

• •

•

Transfer Station and Recycling Center Newberg Garbage Service operates the Newberg Transfer Station and Recycling Center at 2904 South Wynooski Road in Newberg. This facility is open to the public Monday through Saturday from 8 am to 5 pm. NGS owns approximately 24 acres at its Newberg site. Thirteen acres are currently in use for the Transfer Station, Recycling Center, equipment maintenance area, materials and equipment storage, and company administrative offices. Certain materials are manually removed from waste brought to the Transfer Station for recycling when it is operationally feasible to do so. These include cardboard, wood, and scrap metals. Removal of tires and automotive batteries from incoming waste is a priority in the Transfer Station operations. Appliances are accepted for recycling free-of-charge as long as they do not contain motors or freon. Appliances with motors and/or freon are recycled for a fee. Source separated wood, tires, and yard debris can also be recycled for a fee. The Recycling Depot operated by NGS (see Section 3.6.2 above) also accepts scrap metals as well as motor oil, aluminum cans/foil, tin cans, glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles, cardboard/brown bags, phone books, office paper, scrap/mixed paper, glossy magazines/catalogues, and newspapers. Glass containers may also be recycled at three other locations in Newberg, as noted in Section 3.6.2 above (SP Newsprint, Naps Thriftway, and former site of the Century 21 Real Estate Office).

3.6.4 Newberg Garbage Service Recovery Data

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-21

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

For 2001, NGS reported the following quantities of material recovered by program type or material sector, as documented in the County’s Opportunity to Recycle Report for Year 2001 submitted to ODEQ (data has been rounded off): • • • • • • Curbside residential: Commercial: Disposal site(s)/ Transfer station(s) Multi-family: Other depots/ Special events: Construction & Demolition: Total: 563 tons – 11% of total 636 tons – 13% of total 2,983 tons – 59% of total 63 tons – 1% of total 810 tons – 16% of total 10 tons − less than 1% 5,065 tons

3.6.5 Western Oregon Waste Recycling Programs
Curbside Residential Recycling Service WOW offers its residential customers in the eight incorporated jurisdictions where it is franchised (Amity, Carlton, Dayton, Lafayette, McMinnville, Sheridan, Willamina, and Yamhill) weekly curbside collection of the following recyclable materials: cardboard, newspaper, glossy magazine/catalogues, phone books, plastic bottles, glass bottles and jars, tin cans/aerosol cans, aluminum food and drink cans/aluminum foil, scrap metal, and motor oil. Residents are requested to set their materials out in a source separated manner with glass sorted by color, flattened cardboard, containerized motor oil, and bagged scrap metal placed next to the recycling bin(s), and the other materials (newspaper, magazine/catalogues, phone books, plastic bottles, glass bottles and jars, and tin/aluminum) placed in brown paper bags. The source separated method of materials preparation/collection should be distinguished from the commingled approach used by NGS. At the present time WOW does not provide curbside yard debris collection. Instead, Northwest Greenlands, WOW’s affiliated company, operates a composting/mulching site at 2200 N.E. Orchard Avenue in McMinnville where residents from McMinnville, Lafayette, and Sheridan may drop off yard debris for recovery free-of-charge. There is a yard debris drop-off fee for other WOW customers. NW Greenlands is discussed in Section 3.6.7 below. Commercial Recycling Service

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-22

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

WOW offers a full range of commercial recycling opportunities to customers. WOW has staff dedicated to working with both management and employees to plan and implement recycling based on site-specific circumstances. Program planning and implementation support provided by WOW includes: • • • • • Performing waste audits to determine the types and quantities of readily recyclable materials available at a business or institution. Presentations and demonstrations on how to separate and store recyclables and what items are considered contaminants. Informational and explanatory brochures, flyers, and “how-to-recycle” instructions. Internal and external material storage containers such as desk-side or desk-top bins and boxes, “bag-and-rack” arrangements, and roll carts. Organizing activities for program initiation and start-up and making modifications in materials collection logistics and frequency.

Valley Recovery Zone (VRZ) and Recycling Depot The VRZ depot is located in McMinnville at 2200 NE Orchard Lafayette Avenue. There are three primary areas that make up the MRF: a recycling drop-off center for the public, Resource Rescue, and the materials processing/storage operation. • Recycling Depot

The recycling depot accepts the following materials: office paper (white and light-colored papers/envelopes; no dark or fluorescent colors), newspaper, cardboard, magazines (slick, shiny, coated paper only), plastic bottles, glass bottles and jars (color separated), aluminum cans/foil, tin cans/aerosol cans, scrap metal, and motor oil. • Resource Rescue

Resource Rescue is a recently implemented, fee-based, innovative recycling opportunity at VRZ. It is set up to accept loads of mixed waste and items not typically recovered through WOW’s residential or commercial recycling collection services. Materials targeted by Resource Rescue include: computers and electronics (monitors, printers, accessories, VCRs, cell phones, rechargeable batteries, stereo equipment; no TVs, copiers, or microwaves), automotive/lead acid batteries, antifreeze, appliances (washers, dryers, hot water heaters, and dishwashers), refrigerators/freezers, tires. Wood, scrap metal, and cardboard are removed from mixed waste loads for recycling as well. Some types of construction/demolition debris is also accepted through Resource Rescue such as concrete, dirt, sheetrock, asphalt, shingles, and rock. However, arrangements and acceptance of these materials must be approved by WOW prior to their delivery. Approximately 60% by
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-23

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

weight of the items and materials brought by public self-haulers to Resource Rescue are being recovered for reuse and recycling. • Materials Processing/Storage Operation

WOW’s existing materials processing operation is designed primarily to prepare recyclables that have already been separated into different categories by residential or commercial customers for shipment and sale to markets. With the exception of certain loads of mixed commercial waste that contain a high percentage of recoverable waste paper such as cardboard, office paper, and newspaper, WOW is not set up to handle recover and process materials from commingled residential or commercial recyclables, construction/demolition debris, or most mixed loads of commercial waste. However, the firm is moving ahead with plans to construct a transfer station and more mechanized material recovery facility on its property that will give it these capabilities. Permit approval for such expansion is being sought from ODEQ and the City of McMinnville. The transfer station and additional processing capability at the MRF will enable WOW to focus, in part, on recycling materials now being disposed and identified in Table 2 – 2 as the most promising targets for further recovery – paper products and construction/demolition debris. The additional processing capability is specifically intended to recover materials from construction/demolition debris, process commingled residential recyclables, and process a wider range of mixed commercial waste loads.

3.6.6 Western Oregon Waste Recovery Data
Internal records maintained by WOW document that the company has steadily increased its recovery of materials from Yamhill County during the period 1996 through 2002. Considering the total quantity of waste generated in Yamhill County that is handled by WOW, the estimated recovery rates for that period are as follows: 1996 – 22.6%; 1997 – 28.5%; 1998 – 35%; 1999 – 38.7%; 2000 – 41.9%; 2001 – 42.5%; 2002 – 42.7%. In 2002 a total of 58,468 tons of material were collected by WOW and brought to either VRZ or NW Greenlands. 24,970 tons of this material was recovered through recycling, composting, or conversion to a fuel source. The largest category of material was yard debris at 15,469 tons or 62% of the total materials recovered. For 2001, WOW reported the following quantities of materials recovered by program type or material sector, as documented in the County’s Opportunity to Recycle Report for Year 2001 submitted to ODEQ (data has been rounded off): • • Curbside residential: Commercial: 2,010 tons – 7.5% of total 3,162 tons – 12% of total

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-24

CHAPTERTHREE
• • • • Disposal site(s)/ Transfer station(s): Multi-family: Other depots/ Special events: Construction & Demolition: Total:

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

15,887 tons* – 61% of total 455 tons – 1.5% of total 3,052 tons – 12% of total 1,592 tons** − 6% of total 26,158 tons

* Includes 14,196 tons of yard debris ** Wood/lumber

3.6.7 NW Greenlands Composting Program
NW Greenlands is a composting operation and landscape supply company located on approximately 8 acres out of the 25 total acres owned by WOW in McMinnville. Materials accepted and processed into a variety of products include leaves, grass clippings, limbs, briers, prunings, and yard and garden vegetation. Materials that are not accepted include rock, dirt, sod, stumps, animal waste, cat litter, glass, plastic, trash, trash bags, lumber, concrete, metal, wire, or plywood. Some of the garden and landscaping products resulting from yard waste processing operations at NW Greenlands include compost, fir barkdust, hemlock barkdust, cedar wood chips, pea gravel, sand, topsoil, decorative rock, and blended soils. Wood waste that is brought to NW Greenlands or VRZ is ground up and sold as hog fuel.

3.7

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES

Yamhill County has already exceeded the 2005 and 2009 material recovery rate goals established for the County by HB 3744 (2001). The calculated recovery rate in the County, not counting 4% in allowable recovery credits for waste prevention and home composting programs, was 49% in 2001 and 54% in 2002. By contrast, the HB 3744 recovery goals for the County are 39% in 2005 and 45% in 2009. Yamhill County’s total recovery rate for 2002, as documented by ODEQ, was 58% (54% calculated rate + 4% in recovery credits). At some point between 2003 and 2009 the calculated and total recovery rates may decrease somewhat given the following assumptions: • No new or expanded recovery activities are undertaken by the County, WOW or NGS, including qualifying for further recovery credits of 2% or more.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-25

CHAPTERTHREE
• • • •

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

WOW and NGS do not reduce their recovery efforts. SP Newsprint Company continues to utilize wood/yard waste as a fuel source consistent with its utilization level in 2001 and 2002. Population growth in the County continues at its current rate. Disposed waste quantities increase due to growth and the absence of new or expanded recovery initiatives.

Even given this static scenario, it is highly unlikely the County’s overall recovery rate (calculated rate + continuation of 4% in recovery credits) will fall below the levels mandated by HB 3744 for 2005 and 2009. This means, in essence, that there is no immediate, pressing regulatory rationale for allocating public sector resources to additional recovery activities over the short-term. A decision to maintain the present resource allocation level, including ongoing County interaction and cooperation with WOW and NGS, would be sufficient to meet the County’s recovery obligations through 2009, assuming WOW, NGS, and SP Newsprint do not reduce their own recovery efforts. However, such a situation does present the County, WOW and NGS with the opportunity to proactively establish new, independent recovery goals for 2005 and 2009 that are separate from and exceed those set by HB 3744. This would position the working alliance between the three entities as a leadership model for the public and private sectors in other Oregon counties/wastesheds. An analysis would then be done to determine which generator types and material categories should be targeted for diversion to most efficiently and effectively achieve the new goals. Tables 2-2 and 2-3, which show the Yamhill County Waste Stream for 2001 and 2002, respectively, provide some preliminary guidance in this regard. Table 2-3 indicates that approximately 74% by weight of the various waste paper grades (such as cardboard/brown bags, mixed waste paper, newspaper, magazines, high-grade paper) were disposed in 2002, and nearly all of the construction and demolition debris (categorized under “Other Inorganics” in the table) generated in the County for the same year was also disposed. These two groups of materials are the most obvious targets for recovery through expansion of existing activities or development of new ones, including enhancement of materials handling/processing capabilities by WOW and/or NGS. Another consideration is the fact that 40% of the total tonnage recovered in the County for 2001 (25,083 tons out of 63,023 tons) was accounted for by wood/yard waste being used for fuel at SP Newsprint Company. Should the mill close, eliminate its use of wood/yard waste as fuel source, or sharply curtail such use, the impact on the County’s recovery rate would be significant. A worse case scenario would assume that none of the 25,083 tons of wood/yard waste were utilized for energy conversion at the mill or otherwise recycled or composted in 2001. Instead,
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-26

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

this material would still be part of the total generated waste stream in the County but be counted as disposed waste. Under such a worse case scenario the County’s recovery rate for 2001 drops to 34% (30% calculated rate + 4% in credits). This is 5% less than the 39% recovery rate stipulated for Yamhill County by HB 3744. The mill’s utilization level of wood/yard waste is not directly impacted by County solid waste management decision-making. Instead it is subject to a host of private sector and market factors that are largely outside County influence such as the cost and availability of other fuel sources; fluctuations in demand and pricing for the mill’s product(s); fluctuations in demand and pricing for virgin and recycled materials used as feedstock at the mill; operating needs and efficiencies of the mill’s paper-making technology; and the mill’s overall profitability, status, and role from a corporate perspective. What is clear is that SP Newsprint has a direct effect on the County’s recovery rate through its current use of wood/yard waste. In order to address potential future uncertainties surrounding this use, there may be a need for the County and its private sector partners (WOW, NGS) to pursue supplemental promotion and services for recovery as contingency measures. These actions would target wood/yard waste since there is already a composting/mulching operation in the County (Northwest Greenlands, affiliated with WOW) processing these materials into marketable products. Other material targets would be paper and construction/demolition debris presently being disposed, as noted above in the discussion about Tables 2-2 and 2-3. Finally, the County’s current solid waste management system is characterized by a healthy and productive balance of authority and responsibility between the key public and private sector entities. The Riverbend Landfill is operated by Waste Management of Oregon (WMO), yet WMO operates no other solid waste facilities or services in the County. The ten municipalities and the County have exercised their authority to enter into exclusive solid waste service franchises/contracts to meet their statutory obligations for implementing Oregon’s waste management hierarchy (Section 3.2.1) and to ensure that materials which cannot be reduced, reused, recycled, composted, or transformed into energy are collected and disposed of in a manner that complies with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations. The two franchised service providers are comparatively small, local companies with long operational histories in the County. They regularly communicate with the County and cities to maintain positive working relationships and are active in community improvement and charitable projects. Between them, NGS and WOW operate two conveniently located facilities – the Newberg Transfer Station and Recycling Center (NGS) and the VRZ recycling depot (WOW) – as well as other recycling depots, services, and options described under Section 3.6.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-27

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

The issue of vertical integration – one firm owning and operating all solid waste management facilities and services in an area with a minimal public sector role and no other private companies involved in the area’s solid waste management system – has not arisen yet in Yamhill County. This is an industry trend that should be monitored in Yamhill County because it could disrupt the balanced approach and division of authority/responsibility that has developed in the County and functioned well for many years. Riverbend Landfill is located within Yamhill County, and this in-County location contributes to the comparatively low costs of transporting and disposing of refuse relative to other larger, regional landfills serving the tri-county Portland metropolitan region and other portions of the northern Willamette Valley. Higher refuse transportation/disposal costs could act as an economic incentive for NGS and WOW to augment waste reduction/recycling programs. However, exclusive, long-term franchise agreements are in place and have typically been renewed. This allows adequate timeframes for the amortization of capital purchases. There is also an inherent self-interest on the part of both companies to control the flow of their respective waste streams and maximize the economic value of those materials through reuse, recycling, composting/mulching, and energy transformation. If materials can be diverted from landfilling and converted through various forms of recovery into useful products, then disposal costs are avoided. Under the current system, neither franchisee derives substantial economic benefit from disposal of waste at the Riverbend Landfill. These factors in themselves are strong incentives for NGS and WOW to invest in infrastructure for waste recovery, recycling, and reuse. There is clear evidence of such developments. For example, NGS’ implementation of automated residential refuse collection, commingled curbside/residential recycling collection, and curbside/residential yard debris pickup in Newberg have increased recovery of materials in that city. WOW is planning to expand its materials handling/recycling capability by constructing a transfer station and investing in more mechanized material processing equipment. This will occur on the 25 acres of property owned by WOW in McMinnville where VRZ is now located. Once these elements are on line, WOW will be in a position to process commingled residential recyclables, construction/demolition debris, commingled commercial recyclables, and additional loads of dry, mixed commercial waste. As well, the establishment of WOW’s related company, NW Greenlands, next to VRZ in McMinnville, has provided Yamhill County with a locally owned/operated composting and landscape product supply company based on recovery of yard waste generated in the County (see Section 3.6.7). As discussed earlier, Tables 2-2 and 2-3 shows clearly that the most significant opportunities for increased recovery of materials are from the paper and construction/demolition debris categories. The initiatives undertaken by NGS and WOW described above can result in more recycling of
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-28

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

these materials. These initiatives have been undertaken prior to, and separate from, the preparation of this Solid Waste Management Plan. The Plan’s data and findings about what materials should be targeted for additional recovery support the program and facility modification decisions made by NGS and WOW. The alternatives presented below are, in part, based on recovering more paper products from the residential and commercial sectors by expanding current programs/facilities and on developing new recovery infrastructure for focusing on construction/demolition waste.

3.8

ALTERNATIVES

The waste reduction/recycling alternatives outlined below have been formulated based on the policy analysis framework in Section 3.7. That analysis indicates there are three distinct courses of action the County, in coordination and cooperation with the incorporated cities, WOW, NGS, and other stakeholders as deemed appropriate, can consider: • Maintenance Position: Continue with the current level of recovery activities on the assumption that WOW, NGS, and SP Newsprint Company will not diminish their waste reduction/recycling programs. Moderate Position: Assumes that existing activities, programs, and services will be maintained at current levels. Increases recovery rate moderately by extending promotion/education, services, and infrastructure to target recoverable materials presently being disposed. Pursuing the moderate position could also be viewed as a way of responding to or offsetting the possibility that SP Newsprint Company may curtail or eliminate their use of wood/yard waste in the future. Such a course of action serves to control the waste disposal impacts of anticipated growth as well.

•

• Aggressive Position: Clearly and proactively place Yamhill County at the forefront of waste reduction/recycling in Oregon through the exercise of progressive leadership that strives to achieve recovery goals exceeding those set by HB 3744. The final set of alternatives will constitute the recovery program to be implemented by the various involved parties through common determination by the County/Yamhill County Solid Waste Division, WOW, NGS, and the cities. The elements of the program are guided by the selected policy position and consideration of the evaluation in Section 3.9 below. The alternatives are summarized in the points that follow.

3.8.1 Adopt More Ambitious Recovery Goals
Recovery goals for 2005 and 2009 could be adopted that exceed those established for Yamhill County by HB 3744 (39% in 2005 and 45% in 2009). Further analysis could estimate the relative contributions (in tons and percentage) required from the residential and commercial
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-29

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

sectors to reach the new goals compared to existing contribution levels. This data offers a way to measure progress that highlights what materials and programs need to be emphasized.

3.8.2 Adopt Recycling Requirements for Designated Businesses, Institutions, Apartment Buildings, and Construction/Demolition Projects
Criteria would be defined for these various subsectors of the broader commercial sector specifying what generators would be targeted by the requirements. The criteria can be based on square footage and number of employees for businesses/institutions; number of units for apartment buildings (considered part of the commercial sector because typically commercial refuse collection routes incorporate both businesses/institutions and multi-family complexes); and square footage and dollar value for construction/demolition projects. Criteria would also be defined specifying the minimum number and type of materials to be recovered, related periodic reporting guidelines, and program implementation responsibilities of the generators and franchised service providers.

3.8.3 Institute a Ban on Burning Yard Debris for All Incorporated Cities
The terms of the relevant ordinance presently in effect for McMinnville may be used as a model by the other jurisdictions, along with related exceptions to the ban and permit terms. Burning yard debris effectively prevents this material from being collected, processed, mulched, composted, or used for fuel, and thus counted as recovered tonnage. Prohibiting the burning of yard debris, coupled with Alternatives 3.8.6 and/or 3.8.7 will support Alternative 3.8.1.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-30

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

3.8.4 Ban the Disposal of Certain Materials by Designated Residential and Commercial Generators
This is intended as a companion measure to Alternative 3.8.2, with both providing impetus for implementation of new or expanded diversion activities necessary for accomplishing Alternative 3.8.1. The targeted generators would be the same as those identified under Alternative 3.8.2, plus single-family residences. Targeted materials would include the primary materials now recovered as well as those recyclable items being disposed in significant quantities.

3.8.5 Implement Commingled Residential Curbside Collection of Recyclables for All Incorporated Jurisdictions
The program implemented by NGS in the City of Newberg could be referred to as a model for this alternative and Alternative 3.8.6 (every-other-week pickup of recyclables and yard waste; elimination of glass and recovery of scrap/mixed paper from curbside residential recycling). WOW has indicated it intends to develop processing capability for commingled residential recyclables as part of the facility expansion/upgrading of VRZ. NW Greenlands is an already available processing/marketing operation for recovered yard waste.

3.8.6 Implement Curbside Collection of Yard Waste for All Residences That Have Curbside Collection of Recyclables
See comments for Alternative 3.8.5.

3.8.7 Add Yard Waste Storage Containers to Community Recycling Drop-Off Centers Where Logistically Feasible
Yard debris may currently be dropped off for recovery at the City of Sheridan recycling depot, SP Newsprint Company recycling depot, the Newberg Transfer Station/Recycling Center (fee charged), and NW Greenlands (free for WOW customers in McMinnville, Lafayette, and Sheridan; fee charged otherwise). To provide supplemental support for Alternatives 3.8.1, 3.8.3 – 3.8.4, and 3.8.6, yard waste storage containers could be placed at other community recycling centers (listed in Section 3.6.2) where logistically feasible. This would offer a yard debris recycling opportunity particularly for those generators who do not have regular refuse/recycling collection service.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-31

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

3.8.8 Increase the Rate Differential Between Service Levels for Residential and Commercial Customers to Provide Further Economic Incentives for Waste Reduction/Recycling
Service rates that vary according to the size/number of containers used and collection frequency are presently in effect throughout the County. Rates could be restructured to reflect even greater disparity between high and low levels of service usage. The intention is to provide greater financial incentives for waste prevention behavior by generators and correspondingly higher costs for disposal of waste.

3.8.9 Set a Target for Involvement in the Three Levels of the Oregon Green Schools Program
At the present time there are only three schools in the County certified as participants in the OGS Program. OGS is a way to directly increase student exposure to various waste reduction/recycling techniques, and there is ample opportunity for increased program involvement by schools in the County based on experience elsewhere in the State. Representatives of YCSW, NGS, and WOW could meet with school district administrators and teachers to assess what barriers need to be overcome to increase involvement with the OGS Program, and to establish objectives and a schedule for how many schools at which grade levels should be certified at the three achievement “tiers” of the Program.

3.8.10 Aggressively Promote and Expand the YC Brown Program and Consider Similar Program for the Residential Sector
The YC Brown Program – Yamhill County Businesses Reducing Our Waste Now (see Section 3.5.5) – was launched in 2002 by YCSW, WOW and NGS to focus attention on commercial sector waste reduction/recycling through annual awards events and related media publicity. Two businesses/institutions from WOW’s and NGS’s service areas respectively are recognized in separate events for a total of four annual awards countywide. The involved entities could consider conducting awards events semi-annually and establish a range of achievement levels similar to the Oregon Green Schools Program. This would serve to increase opportunities for more businesses/institutions to engage in and be recognized for waste reduction/recycling practices and more opportunities for the media to publicize such activities and the YC Brown Program in general. In addition, an awards and recognition program for participants in curbside residential recycling could be set up based on information from NGS and WOW recycling collection crews about which households are the most frequent, regular participants. A monthly feature story in local

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-32

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

newspapers could profile one “Recycler of the Month” from each company’s service area. The stories would describe the waste reduction/recycling methods used by families and discuss how they have been able to cut back on their waste generation. Monthly winners would also be invited to attend the YC Brown Program awards events where they receive a recognition certificate. The possibility of a modest financial reward for “Recycler of the Month” winners should be explored by the County, NGS, and WOW.

3.8.11 Set Up a Cooperative County/City Organization for the Joint Purchasing of RecycledContent Products
The County and cities could evaluate the status and extent of existing procurement initiatives for recycled-content products to determine the obstacles and opportunities for cooperative purchasing of such products. While this alternative will not impact the County's recovery rate it does demonstrate commitment to a form of local market development for recovered commodities by “closing the recycling loop” through buying items made partially or completely of recycled material. There are numerous examples of recycled-content procurement policies, standards, and terms available from the State of Oregon, Marion County, Lane County, Portland Metro, and the City of Portland that can be modified to circumstances in Yamhill County.

3.8.12 Undertake Activities to Qualify for the 2% Reuse Program Credit from ODEQ
The County has qualified in 2002 for the 2% recovery credit available in the Waste Prevention and Residential Composting program categories, and has re-applied for these same credits in 2003. Extending the joint promotion/education and diversion service efforts of YCSW/WOW/NGS to meet the Reuse Program criteria would be a comparatively low cost way to increase the County’s recovery rate to counter the waste disposal impacts of continued growth. The County would then re-apply annually for the full 6% recovery credit allotment, as proposed by Alternative 3.8.15, based on continued involvement with WOW and NGS in conducting the activities necessary to obtain the 2% credit for each of the three program areas.

3.8.13 Establish a Waste Reduction/Recycling Resource Center Display with Materials Available in Every Library in the County
Discussions with representatives of McMinnville, Newberg, and Sheridan revealed a belief that libraries in the County are an under-utilized communication and outreach resource for conveying to the public waste reduction/recycling information and suggestions. This alternative entails the preparation of a standardized materials display located in a prominent, visible place in each library. The display would be sponsored by YCSW/WOW/NGS and contain the full range of

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-33

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

printed materials on waste reduction and recycling topics distributed by each entity, along with a notice on how to access the YCSW Internet site.

3.8.14 Support Establishment of Transfer Station and Expanded MRF Processing Capability by Western Oregon Waste
As discussed in Sections 3.6.5 and 3.7 above, WOW is in the process of receiving permit approval from ODEQ and the City of McMinnville for a transfer station and a more mechanized MRF to expand recycling processing capabilities at its site in McMinnville. This is a private sector capital and operations investment that will result in greater diversion in Yamhill County, thus benefiting the County’s recovery rate. The County should strongly and formally support and facilitate this investment and, once implemented, cooperate in promoting its services to the residential and commercial sectors.

3.8.15 Carry-On Promotion/Education and Diversion Service Activities to Insure Receiving 2% Recovery Credits Annually from ODEQ
See comments for Alternative 3.8.12.

3.9

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Key features that characterize the status of waste reduction, recycling, and composting in Yamhill County have been documented in previous sections of this chapter and may be summarized as follows: • • The County has already exceeded its recovery goals for 2005 and 2009 as set by HB 3744. The County, Western Oregon Waste, and Newberg Garbage Service have cooperated closely and successfully with each other in developing, coordinating, and carrying out a wide range of promotion/education activities. There are end use markets in the County for wood waste (used as a fuel source at SP Newsprint Company, Newberg) and yard debris (processed into compost and various other landscape products at Northwest Greenlands, McMinnville). NGS has implemented a model program for commingled residential recyclables collection and yard debris recovery in Newberg and maintains an ongoing recycling operation at its Transfer Station and adjoining Recycling Center. NGS’s Waste Reduction/Recycling Coordinator was instrumental in the development of the YC Brown Program. NGS is also reviewing residential recycling collection options with the City of Dundee and monitors the performance of curbside recycling and yard debris recovery in Newberg on a monthly basis.

•

•

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-34

CHAPTERTHREE
•

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

WOW’s Materials Recovery Facility and the adjacent Northwest Greenlands offer recycling opportunities for a diverse array of materials. The company is in the process of being permitted to undertake a major expansion of its materials processing capability at the MRF to handle construction/demolition debris and additional commercial waste streams. It is also understood that WOW is currently conducting an internal feasibility review for implementing commingled residential recycling and possibly yard debris recovery in its service area within the next three to five years.

Section 3.8 outlined three different policy positions or courses of action open to the County that would influence the combination of alternatives to be recommended: maintenance position, moderate position, and aggressive position. The aggressive position would be justified if the County’s recovery rate were markedly below the required 2005 level of 39%, if waste reduction promotion/education were minimal, and if the infrastructure for recycling, composting, and energy use were poorly developed in the County. This is clearly not the case. Instead, the public/private partnership between the County, NGS and WOW, and the innovations either implemented or planned by both service providers, have made the County a leader in waste reduction, recycling, and composting throughout Oregon. On the other end of the spectrum the status quo or maintenance position would be inconsistent with such a leadership role and with the history and ongoing activities of the County, NGS, and WOW in waste reduction, recycling, and composting. The most logical strategy is the moderate position because it insures the involved parties will continue to build on previous achievements and make steady progress forward in advancing waste prevention and recycling materials now being disposed. The focus of the moderate strategy recommendations is therefore on preserving what has been accomplished, increasing participation in existing programs, and expanding materials collection, processing, and marketing operations. In the residential sector there is room for growth by identifying households or areas that are not regularly using the available curbside recycling services. These generators should be targeted for special outreach and communications to motivate their involvement. The countywide implementation of commingled residential recycling collection, potentially in coordination with yard waste recovery, will facilitate such involvement. In the commercial sector there is room for growth by recycling greater amounts of the major types of waste paper, by systematically determining which commercial businesses and institutions should be targeted, and by undertaking efforts to remove recyclables from construction/demolition waste. The extension and improvement of current manual and mechanical methods for materials processing at both NGS’s Transfer Station and WOW’s Materials Recovery Facility will support these objectives.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-35

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

A moderate recovery rate growth strategy is proposed as the most cost-effective way to maintain steady advancement in the adoption of waste prevention techniques and in recycling additional materials from the residential and commercial waste streams. The following represent recommendations consistent with this approach: Recommendation 3.1: Adopt a Goal for Increasing the Percentage of Materials Recycled Rationale for Recommendation: The County’s total recovered tonnage in 2001 of 63,023 tons consisted of: 25,083 tons of mainly wood waste burned for energy, or 40% of the total; 14,403 tons of yard debris processed into compost, or 23% of the total; and 23,535 tons of residential and commercial recyclables, or 37% of the total. The total recovered tonnage in 2002 was 80,791 tons, which consisted of: 39,268 tons (49%) for energy recovery; 16,775 tons (21%) processed into compost; and 24,745 tons (31%) of recyclables. The County, with input from stakeholders, should adopt a goal to increase the percentage of the total recovery that is due to recycling, and a timeframe for achievement of this goal. The goal and timeframe should be based on existing and anticipated recycling programs as well as processing facility advancements. Adoption of such a goal or standard would allow Yamhill County to stay well ahead of the overall 2005 and 2009 recovery rates stipulated for the County by HB 3744. A suggested goal might be to increase the amount of material recycled including composting, but excluding energy recovery, by 2% per year over the next five years. Implementation Timeframe: Six months Recommendation 3.2: Expand Existing Promotion Education Activities Aimed at Preventing and Reducing Waste and Recycling Rationale for Recommendation: It is essential that the County and service providers continue their high level of cooperation and coordination in communicating to residents and businesses through various methods and media about the importance of waste reduction and recycling. This unified approach to regularly expressing a consistent message underscores that waste reduction and recycling are priorities in Yamhill County. Included as part of this recommendation are those promotion/education activities necessary to insure that the County continues to annually receive from ODEQ the 2% recovery credit allocations for waste prevention and home composting. The County will need to maintain a minimum of $35,00 to $40,000 for promotion/ education activities. The County should also undertake promotion/education and service activities, in cooperation with NGS and WOW, to qualify for the 2% Reuse Program Credit from ODEQ. Once received, this credit should be maintained on an annual basis. The County could also consider establishing a Waste Reduction/Recycling Resource Center Display with a common set of materials available in every library in the County (see Section 3.8.13).
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-36

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

As part of this recommendation, consideration should also be given to setting a target for involvement in the three levels of the Oregon Green Schools Program, as discussed in Section 3.8.9 above. Setting up a cooperative county/city organization for the joint purchasing of recycled-content products (see Section 3.8.11) could also be investigated under this recommendation. Implementation Timeframe: One year Recommendation 3.3: Increase Targeted Promotion/Education and Incentive Programs for Residential and Commercial Recycling Participation Rationale for Recommendation: Expanding the YC Brown Program and initiation of a similar awards/recognition program for the residential sector (see Section 3.8.10) are ways of focusing attention on commendable waste reduction/recycling behavior of businesses, institutions, and families. More frequent distribution of the County’s recently introduced tabloid publication on waste reduction/recycling to quarterly issues and/or other direct mailings and reminders emphasizing the reduce – reuse – recycle message should be considered. The County budgeted about $35,000 in 2002-2003 for promotion and education. This budget should be increased to correspond to an expanded program aimed at increasing participation in existing services. As well, the County, NGS and WOW should assemble information on the status of waste reduction/recycling at largest businesses and institutions in the County (based on number of employees, square footage, or quantity of waste disposed) to determine potential targets for direct outreach. Similarly, the involved parties should agree upon a method to regularly track and calculate setout rates and participation rates for curbside residential recycling in the incorporated jurisdictions to determine areas requiring specialized outreach. Implementation Timeframe: Three years Recommendation 3.4: Implement Commingled Residential Curbside Collection of Recyclables for All Incorporated Jurisdictions. Rationale for Recommendation: Data from the City of Newberg commingled residential recycling program operated by NGS increases the convenience of participation and yields greater materials recovery. An increase of 20 to 30 percent in the quantity of materials recovered through curbside recycling could be realized on a countywide basis if the Newberg model is implemented, including the addition of mixed waste paper and the designation of glass as a depot-only material. A separate but related program for countywide collection of yard debris based on the Newberg experience, or the addition of yard waste containers at community drop-off centers, should also be assessed for implementation along with commingled residential recycling. Implementation Timeframe: Three to five years
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-37

CHAPTERTHREE

Waste Reduction, Recycling, Composting

Recommendation 3.5: Support Expansion of In-County Commercial Materials Processing Capabilities Rationale for Recommendation: The County should work with the franchised service providers to enlarge or renovate existing facilities for the removal and processing of increased quantities of commercially generated recyclables, including recyclables from construction/demolition debris. Waste composition data developed in this Plan indicates there are materials presently being disposed in conventional commercial waste and construction/demolition debris that can be diverted from landfilling. This should be a County priority, and the County could offer assistance by formally supporting the expansion plans of NGS and WOW and related permitting processes at both the state and municipal levels. Implementation Timeframe: Three to five years Recommendation 3.6: Continue to Monitor State Legislative Developments and the County’s Recovery Rate to Evaluate the Role of Additional Measures, Policies, and Programs Rationale for Recommendation: The County should continue to monitor policy discussions and directives from ODEQ, proposed state legislation, and fluctuations in the County’s recovery rate as a whole or in markets critical to maintaining the recovery rate, to assess the relevance of more aggressive waste management interventions for diverting materials from disposal. Such measures, policies, and programs may include the following: • • • • Adopt Recycling Requirements for Designated Businesses, Institutions, Apartment Buildings, and Construction/Demolition Projects (see Section 3.8.2). Institute a Ban on Burning Yard Debris for All Incorporated Cities (see Section 3.8.3). Ban the Disposal of Certain Materials by Designated Residential and Commercial Generators (see Section 3.8.4). Increase the Rate Differential Between Service Levels for Residential and Commercial Customers to Provide Further Economic Incentives for Waste Reduction/Recycling (see Section 3.8.8).

Implementation Timeframe: Ongoing

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

3-38

CHAPTERFOUR
4.1 INTRODUCTION

Waste Collection and Transfer

This chapter discusses the current waste collection services and receiving and transfer facilities in Yamhill County. It presents the regulatory framework within which the municipalities are authorized to provide waste collection services. For purposes of this SWMP, waste transfer will refer to waste transport (by individuals or collection vehicles) to a receiving facility, with subsequent transport of the waste to a disposal site. Throughout this chapter needs and opportunities for providing the collection and transfer services in the County are described. The chapter concludes with an evaluation of alternatives for meeting these needs, along with recommended actions for improving the collection and transfer system. The existing waste collection and transfer system is evaluated in terms of its ability to meet existing and projected needs and the following objectives: • • To provide a base level of service that meets the diverse needs of businesses and residences in urban and rural communities and that is both effective and fair to all users. To provide fair and equitable rates and collection services to residences and businesses.

Section 4.2 provides background information on how solid waste handling is regulated and describes existing collection services and existing receiving and transfer facilities. Following this, needs and opportunities in waste collection and transfer are addressed, and various future alternatives are explored.

4.2

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

In Oregon, both the County and cities have been granted the authority to provide collection and transfer of solid waste to residents and businesses. The County regulates waste collection in unincorporated areas of Yamhill County and each city regulates waste collection within their jurisdictional limits. Regulatory authority and jurisdiction are described below, and existing collection services and transfer facilities provided by the municipalities are described later in this section.

4.2.1 Regulatory Framework
The regulatory authority to provide for the collection of refuse from residences and businesses is granted by state law. Under 1999 Oregon Revised Statutes, local administrations (cities or counties) have the authority to enter into agreements “for joint local franchising of service or the franchising or licensing of disposal sites.” (ORS 459.065). Yamhill County and the incorporated cities are authorized to “Regulate, license, franchise and certify disposal, transfer and material or energy recovery sites or facilities; establish, maintain,
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

4-1

CHAPTERFOUR

Waste Collection and Transfer

and amend rates charged by disposal, transfer and material or energy recovery sites or facilities; establish and collect license or franchise fees; and otherwise control and regulate the establishment and operation of all public or private disposal, transfer and material or energy recovery sites or facilities located within the County.” (ORS 459.125). Under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 459.085), for the areas outside cities’ jurisdictional limits, the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners may, by ordinance or by regulation or order adopted pursuant thereto: • • Prescribe the quality and character of and rates for solid waste collection services, and the minimum requirements to guarantee maintenance of service. Divide the unincorporated area into service areas, grant franchises to persons for solid waste collection service within service areas and establish and collect fees from persons holding franchises. Prescribe a procedure for issuance, renewal, or denial of a franchise to a person providing or proposing to provide solid waste collection services.

•

Furthermore ORS 459.200 explains the authorities of both cities and the County for issuing franchises and creating the opportunity to recycle. It declares that a city or county may displace competition with a system of regulated collection service by issuing franchises, which may be exclusive, if service areas are allocated. The city or county may recognize an existing collection service. A city or county may award or renew a franchise for collection service with our without bids or responses for proposal. ORS 459.200 explains the authority of a city and county to carry out on behalf of the state, the solid waste management plan. As stipulated by these provisions, a private solid waste collection company must apply to the County or appropriate city for a franchise to operate in the specified areas. The County or city has the authority to review cost of services and operating revenues in order to set rates or act upon request for changes in rates. Typically these franchises have terms and conditions attached which may be revoked or amended after a hearing is held by the County or city. Yamhill County and the incorporated cities have chosen franchise agreements as the vehicle for contracting with private companies to provide waste collection and transfer services to the County residents and businesses. These franchise agreements typically include terms and conditions that: • • • • Establish the level of service for various customer categories. Define the service area for each franchise company. Set rates for various services. Identify a process for making adjustments to services and rates.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

4-2

CHAPTERFOUR
4.2.2 Existing Collection Services

Waste Collection and Transfer

The County has franchise agreements with two private collection companies, Newberg Garbage and Recycling Service, Inc. (NGS) and Western Oregon Waste (WOW). Under the franchise agreements, the County determines the territory in which collection companies will operate and the services they will provide. NGS provides solid waste collection service to the eastern portion of the county (east of Highway 47). WOW provides solid collection to the western portion of the county (west of Highway 47). In the incorporated areas, each city franchises collection services from these waste collection companies (unless the municipalities choose to defer this authority to the County). The franchise agreements are similar to those used by the County in the unincorporated areas. Waste collection service areas for Yamhill County are shown in Figure 5-1. All areas within the County are provided with the opportunity to subscribe to collection services. The County approves collection rates for the unincorporated areas. Each of the cities approves rates for service provided within the urban growth boundaries for their respective cities. The County and cities approve rates on an annual basis or as required. Franchised collection companies operate independently of the County, provided they adhere to guidelines. The County may also manage waste operations in areas where the municipalities choose not to regulate refuse collection. Typical residential collection service includes weekly curbside collection. Most residences subscribe to one can per week, but both NGS and WOW offer various service options. Commercial business collection service typically includes weekly pickup of containers. The size of the container can vary from one can to larger containers such as one and two yard boxes. Some commercial accounts may require larger drop boxes. Table 5-1 provides rates for the urban and unincorporated areas of the county serviced by WOW and by NGS. As shown in Tables 5-1, collection costs increase relative to the number of cans collected at each pick-up, the frequency of pick-up and the container size, and to some extent the location. The difference in rate between collection service in the regular unincorporated County and the mountain top range served by NGS for one can per week is just over one dollar. These rate schedules generally provide some incentive for customers to reduce waste and recycle. For comparison, Table A-1 in the Appendix lists collection rates for a variety of municipalities in Oregon.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

4-3

CHAPTERFOUR

Waste Collection and Transfer

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

4-4

CHAPTERFOUR

Waste Collection and Transfer

Table 4-1 Yamhill County collection services and residential rates
Unincorporated County West1 WOW City of McMinnville WOW Unincorporated County East NGS City of Newberg NGS

Service Residential (Monthly Rate) 1 can per week 2 cans per week 1 can per month Each additional can 32 gallon cart weekly 90 gallon cart weekly Commercial 1 can per week 2 cans per week

Service

$13.61 $23.25 $4.78 $9.59 $13.61 $20.00

$16.36 $27.97 $5.73 $11.51 $16.36 $24.06

1 can per week 2 cans per week 1 can per month Each add’l can 65 gallon cart 95 gallon cart

$12.45 $23.48 $6.87 $11.03 $16.35 $19.88

$16.72 $26.58 $12.24 $9.86 $20.57 $22.60

$14.70 $24.34

$15.97 $26.45 $10.39 $18.65 $23.67

Each additional $9.59 can 32 gallon cart $16.07 per week 90 gallon cart $21.81 per week 1 Current rates effective July 1, 2002.

1 yard per week 2 yards per week Add’l 1 yard stop

$70.31 $121.83 $53.16

$68.75 $119.16 $--

4.2.3 Franchise Agreements
The franchise agreements are the legal instruments used to define the level of services to be provided by each collection company. They contain provisions for standards, terms and requirements of services to be provided. They also define the area to be served by each collection company. The existing franchise agreements have been in place since November of 1993. The terms for these agreements were ten years. However, each franchise agreement contains provisions for extension. In 1997 these agreements were extended for an additional. The franchise agreements that the County has with the private haulers are scheduled to expire as follows: • • Newberg Garbage and Recycling Service, Inc. - December 31, 2010 Newberg Transfer and Recycling Center, Inc. - December 31, 2011
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

4-5

CHAPTERFOUR
• Western Oregon Waste - January 1, 2008

Waste Collection and Transfer

The specific services to be provided are included in the franchise agreements. However, if there are additional services to be considered the agreements provide a mechanism to amend the level of services as needed. The agreements also provide a mechanism to adjust the rates charged for services. It requires the franchisee to submit monthly and annual reports regarding the services and fees for such services. The County can conduct audits as needed to verify the cost of services.

4.2.4 Existing Receiving Facilities
There are two primary facilities in Yamhill County that accept solid waste from the public or from collection trucks: the Riverbend Landfill and the Newberg Transfer Station and Recycling Center. The Newberg Transfer Station is the only transfer facility operating in the County. There are no other transfer stations in Yamhill County partly because Riverbend Landfill is centrally located, and transfer facilities are not as critical to the efficiency of waste transport in the County. Riverbend Landfill has a projected capacity of 15 years under its current permit. The primary waste facilities in the County allow waste drop-off from the public, thereby augmenting the collection system. In addition, WOW has dedicated a portion of its collection facility, the VRZ, to providing limited pre-processing services for local customers with mixed waste. This service is called Resource Rescue. See Figure 4-1 for approximate locations of these facilities. Newberg Transfer Station The Newberg Transfer Station is owned and operated by Newberg Transfer and Recycling Center, Inc., which has been granted the exclusive franchise to operate a solid waste recycling and transfer station by the County. The Newberg Transfer and Recycling Center receives waste from in county residents that is collected and hauled to the transfer facility by NGS. County residents can also deliver waste and recyclable material directly to the transfer facility. Rates for delivery of waste to the transfer station by the public are provided in Table 5-2. Materials accepted at the transfer facility include mixed garbage, yard debris, wood waste, tires, and other recyclable materials. Municipal waste received at the facility is transferred to 20, 30, and 40 cubic yard containers to be transported to the Riverbend Landfill, approximately 18 miles from the Newberg Transfer site.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

4-6

CHAPTERFOUR

Waste Collection and Transfer

Table 4-2 Yamhill County rates for public delivery of waste to the Newberg Transfer & Recycling Center lbs/Yard Current Rates ($ per yard)1

Public Loose – First Yard 300 $11.60 Public Loose – Each Additional Yard 300 $11.00 Commercial Loose 300 $10.35 Compacted 600 $16.80 Extra-Heavy 900 $22.80 Yard Debris $8.60 1 Current rates effective July 1, 2002 The Newberg Transfer Station provides a convenient location for County residents to take bulky waste and recyclable materials. Riverbend Landfill Individuals and businesses that wish to haul their own material can also take it to the Riverbend Landfill. Most customers who use the landfill are disposing of bulky waste items and materials that are not picked up with the regular collection services. The rates at the landfill are summarized in Table 4-3 Table 4-3 Rates for disposal of material at Riverbend Landfill Amount of material 1 yard 2 yards 3 yards 4 yards 5 yards 6 yards or more Source: Yamhill County Rates $10.00 (minimum fee) $17.14 $25.71 $34.28 $42.85 $42.85 (minimum fee) and $28/ton over 6 yards

The landfill, as it relates to waste disposal, will be discussed in greater detail in another Chapter of this SWMP. Valley Recovery Zone (VRZ) Western Oregon Waste currently operates the VRZ facility in McMinnville. The primary function of this facility is to serve as a receiving station for source separated recyclable materials collected at the curb. It also serves as a recycling depot for source separated materials delivered by the general public. WOW will accept refuse delivered by the general public as part of their Resource Rescue program. Under this program individuals can bring waste to a specified
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

4-7

CHAPTERFOUR

Waste Collection and Transfer

location where they can segregate or recover recyclable materials from their loads and discard waste. The waste material is placed in a drop box and hauled to the landfill. For this service they pay slightly more than the rates at the Riverbend Landfill. WOW has sufficient space to expand the material recovery operations or possibly introduce a receiving and transfer station at this site. However, the Riverbend Landfill is located less than 5 miles from the City of McMinnville and it is not be cost effective to transfer from this location at this time.

4.3

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The services offered by the franchised collection companies are available to all parts of the County. Therefore, each and every household or business can subscribe to the collection service. Even the rural areas are well served by the franchised collection companies. Although, both WOW and NGS offer collection services for bulky waste items some people may elect to haul their own waste. In Yamhill County there are several convenient locations where self haulers can take their wastes. In fact a majority of the population reside within 10 miles of either the Newberg Transfer and Recycling Station or the Riverbend Landfill. And, for residences and businesses located north of the City of McMinnville, on Highway 47, they have access to the Forest Grove Transfer Station in Washington County. Under the system there are no apparent deficiencies in either collection or receiving and transfer station facilities. The need to construct additional facilities will be largely dictated by the availability of a local disposal site. The Riverbend Landfill has a permitted capacity for about 11 years, under the current waste flow projections. Also the owner has a provision in their agreement to provide disposal service to Yamhill County until 2014. Depending on when the landfill closes the County would need to decide whether to locate another disposal facility or to haul to a regional landfill located in another jurisdiction. Any decision to expand the transfer station would be based on the individual collection companies decisions to improve efficiencies or to modify services. Private collection companies operating under franchise agreements with the county and cities provide collection services. The term of these agreements are until at least 2008 and can be extended. There is no immediate need to modify the current agreements nor are their deficiencies in the collection services. There may be need from time to time to amend the agreements to modify services, but there are provisions to do so contained in the agreements.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

4-8

CHAPTERFOUR
4.4 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION

Waste Collection and Transfer

4.4.1 Expansion of Transfer Services
As long as the Riverbend Landfill is open to accept waste from Yamhill County there is no need to consider building additional transfer stations. Therefore, the conditions in which additional transfer capacity is built will be a result of certain conditions. First, within five years of closing the landfill, planning and permitting should begin on a new facility to serve the McMinnville urbanized area and the western portion of Yamhill County. Second, requirements to process waste to recover more materials or to improve to cost to transport waste might result in additional transfer station or material recovery capacity. A third condition might be to consider a transfer station in certain rural areas.

4.4.1.1 Develop new transfer station capacity in conjunction with long term disposal alternative
The agreement with the Riverbend Landfill includes providing disposal of solid waste until 2014. Assuming no additional cells are permitted the landfill could be closed (See Chapter 5). Unless a new disposal site is located in Yamhill County solid waste would need to be transported to a landfill outside the County. There are several regional landfills located in the State. A transfer station would need to be constructed to reload waste into larger trucks to cost effectively haul to one or more disposal site. The Newberg Station would continue to serve the eastern portion of the County but a facility would be needed to serve the western portion including the City of McMinnville. The amount of waste generated in this portion of the County is between 35,000 and 50,000 tons per year. A transfer station would require a minimum site of between 6 and 10 acres and may include some additional space to accommodate material recovery operations. There are several options for locating transfer station to serve this area. One would be to expand current facilities operated by WOW. Currently, WOW operates a recycling processing facility, a compost yard, and provides space to store recyclable material. WOW owns more than 25 acres and only 8 are currently built out. There are 17 acres available in which to expand on. Also, the WOW property is located close to a rail spur, which could provide a more cost effective transportation mode in future years. This option is attractive since WOW has the current franchise agreement to serve this area. WOW already has a site and is franchised to collect recyclables and solid waste. Another option would be to site new transfer station located on industrial property in the McMinnville area. To do so the County or a private company would need to conduct a formal

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

4-9

CHAPTERFOUR

Waste Collection and Transfer

siting study to locate property that is conveniently located in close proximity to where waste is generated. It must have good transportation access and preferably be located near a rail spur. Any transfer station site would also include a material recovery building to process and sort recyclable materials. The cost to site and purchase a new transfer station site might be between $300,000 and $500,000 depending on the cost of the land. It can take two to three years to site, permit and construct a new transfer station. A new building would be built that can accommodate material recovery and transfer operations would need to be constructed. The construction cost is estimated to be about $2.5 million (2003 $). The County has several options for building a new transfer station as the system develops. However, the decision to add these facilities is tied directly to when the Riverbend Landfill ceases to accept waste. The landfill has the capacity to accept waste until 2014 or possibly longer depending on the amount of waste delivered to the site. Additional landfill cells could be permitted but it has not been determined by the owner whether future landfill cells will be developed. A new transfer station constructed at either the WOW site or a new site will not be required in the immediate future. However, it may be desirable to expand material recovery operations in conjunction with providing opportunities to recycle. If this is pursued planning for a future transfer station should be considered. Construct rural transfer stations Several counties in the state, such as Deschutes and Klamath Counties, provide transfer station to serve more rural or remote locations. These facilities are provided primarily because it is not cost effective to serve these areas with conventional collection service. The transfer stations are simple structures that provide a cover and a series of drop boxes or transfer trailers in which people can discard their waste. Containers to place source separated recyclable materials are often provided. In addition to providing a method to collect waste from these areas they can offset illegal dumping that can occur in rural areas. Cost to build and operate rural transfer stations can vary from $50 to as much as $150 per ton. They can be very expensive to operate. Most facilities are only open a certain number of days to keep the cost at a reasonable level. For instance, in Deschutes County, which operates three rural transfer stations, the facilities are only open from four days per week. These facilities have attendants. Some communities elect to keep sites open without having an attendant. Although this may save on cost a fair system of payment must be developed. Although Yamhill County has some areas that are fairly rural the entire County is provided with collection service. In the northeastern portion of the County residents have several options if they need to haul their own waste. The Newberg transfer station is centrally located and people can deliver waste directly to Riverbend Landfill. In the north part of the County near Yamhill and
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

4-10

CHAPTERFOUR

Waste Collection and Transfer

Cove Orchard they can also drive to Forrest Grove where there is transfer station that accepts waste from the public. The western portion of the County is more rural and further from the landfill. However, WOW offers collection services to these areas. Also, whereas illegal dumping does occur, just as it does in all areas of the state, there are no significant deficiencies in service.

4.4.2 Expansion of Collection Services
The collection services provided by each of the franchised collection companies is fairly comprehensive and typical of other service providers. They provide for collection of garbage in all areas of the County as well as a variety of container sizes for customers to choose the appropriate services. Each year the franchise collection companies provide a financial report to the City or the County. The franchise agreements provide a mechanism to make changes in the services as well as to adjust the rates offered for these services. In addition to basic collection services, each company is diligent in providing convenient ways to recycle more materials. WOW is continuing to expand its recycling opportunities at VRZ with programs such as Resource Rescue program. NGS has just added commercial recycling to their collection services. One option not offered by either NGS or WOW is a program for special collection events for bulky waste items. Presently, customers can call their service provider to have a drop box delivered to their residence or business where they can load the drop box with garbage or bulky items. However, because of the cost, most residents that have bulky items such as used furniture, construction debris from remodeling projects, or just accumulation of junk items, must use a trailer or pickup truck and deliver the load directly to the landfill. In the Newberg area they can take such items to the transfer station. Not all households have access to these vehicles nor do they have enough bulky waste items to justify renting a drop box. To address this service need some communities provide a special collection events in addition to regular pickup service. Bulky Waste Collection Events Some communities offer bulky waste collection events or spring clean days. These events are usually scheduled for a weekend in the spring to make it convenient. The franchise collection company provides drop boxes for the event. The location of the event is usually a community center or a school parking lot, but is some place that can accommodate traffic and is convenient for residents. The events allow people to clean out basements or garages and just get rid of items that are too large for weekly service. These programs have been successful in several communities. The cost to provide this service must be included in the negotiated rate schedule with each franchise collection company. The 4-11

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

CHAPTERFOUR

Waste Collection and Transfer

service is just another way to make it convenient for disposing of items that cannot be picked up by weekly collection service. There are certain constraints in conducting special collection events. For instance, if a city elects to offer this service the franchise collection company must make sure only the residents of that city are using the program. Customers that do not subscribe to regular garbage service or that might live in another jurisdiction have not paid for the program and would need to be turned away. This can be difficult to enforce in some cases. Also, certain people take advantage of the situation by dumping regular garbage at the event. The advantage of the program is that it provides one way in which people can dispose of bulky items in a convenient manner. It can help prevent illegal dumping and offer a way to avoid storage of unsightly items in neighborhoods.

Recommendations
There is no immediate need to change either the collection and transfer system. Yamhill County and the City’s have a high level of service and the system is regulated by each jurisdiction. As the SWMP has identified that conditions may change it will be important for the consider impacts of these changes. The following recommendations are meant to provide guidance for future decisions based on an ever-changing industry. Collection Services Recommendation 4.1 – The County should continue to monitor collection services on an annual basis as part of the process of reviewing the collection rates. Rational for Recommendation – The County currently performs an annual review of the collection services and this practice should continue particularly in light of changes to recycling programs and the introduction of new services. Implementation Timeframe: Ongoing Recommendation 4.2 – The County, working in conjunction with the franchise haulers, should evaluate options for collecting bulky waste items. Rational for Recommendation – There is not an immediate need to add services for collection of bulky waste items. However, as the County continues to become more urbanized the need for such services should be evaluated as a method to collect larger items that can not be collected on the regular routes. Implementation Timeframe: Two to four years Transfer Stations

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

4-12

CHAPTERFOUR

Waste Collection and Transfer

Recommendation 4.3 – The County should evaluate the need for additional transfer stations by the year 2010. This evaluation should be conducted as part of the evaluation of disposal options to be performed by 2010. Rational for Recommendation – The County has an agreement with Riverbend Landfill to dispose of waste until 2010. If the landfill discontinues accepting waste after that date the County is faced with a decision of where waste will be disposed of beyond 2010. One alternative will be to transport waste to an existing landfill outside the County. A new transfer station would be needed to serve McMinnville and the western portion of Yamhill County. An evaluation of the alternatives could be conducted as part of a comprehensive study of the disposal alternatives. Implementation Timeframe: FY 2008/2009

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

4-13

CHAPTERFIVE
5.1 INTRODUCTION

Solid Waste Disposal

This chapter reviews Yamhill County’s solid waste disposal practices. It addresses the current disposal practices for managing waste that cannot be recycled. Using current rates, waste stream projections are made to estimate future disposal needs. The chapter then discusses a number of disposal alternatives, presents certain findings, and makes recommendations for providing a long-term disposal strategy.

5.2

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

5.2.1 Background
The regulations that govern disposal of municipal solid Waste have changed significantly over the past ten years. In 1992, the Federal Government reauthorized the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which included provisions to require that all landfills be lined to protect surface and groundwater. The requirements meant that landfills would need to be located in certain areas that met a minimum set of criteria. It also required larger investments to install groundwater monitoring wells, build plastic liners below the landfill, provide leachate treatment facilities, construct landfill gas collection and destruction systems, and provide sufficient funds to close the landfill and monitor the landfill for a period of 30 years after closure. These new regulations took full effect in Oregon in 1994. The new RCRA rules impacted disposal practices in Yamhill County as well as throughout the State of Oregon. Many communities were forced to close smaller landfills because of either environmental concerns or the fact that new regulations required large investments in new environmental controls. Thus, for many it was simply not cost effective to continue to operate their own landfill. Because of the new location standards and /or political pressures new landfills were difficult to site. The result was that new regional landfills were developed, most of which are located east of the Cascade Mountains. As smaller landfills in the Willamette Valley closed, certain landfills made significant investments to meet the new requirements and thus became regional landfill sites. Disposal practices in Yamhill County have certainly been impacted by these new regulations. The Newberg and Whiteson Landfills both operated until the early 1980’s when they finally reached capacity. The Riverbend Landfill began operating in 1982 just as these landfills closed and has since served as the primary disposal facility in the County. As the new regulations were implemented and enforced, landfills in neighboring counties began to close, and the Riverbend

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-1

CHAPTERFIVE

Solid Waste Disposal

Landfill emerged as a regional disposal facility. It has served as a regional landfill since the mid1990’s.

5.2.2 Current Disposal Practices
The following discusses the current practices and facilities for disposing of MSW. It also presents existing practices for managing other waste streams.

5.2.2.1 Riverbend Landfill
The Riverbend Landfill serves as the primary disposal site for MSW for Yamhill County. The landfill is located on Highway 18, just 3 miles east of the McMinnville City limits. It is centrally located to conveniently serve a majority of the county’s population. It is bounded on the east by the Yamhill River and on the west by Highway 18. The entire landfill is about 170 acres which includes the actual permitted footprint, old landfill areas that have been closed, administrative and maintenance buildings, leachate ponds, areas for growth of poplar trees to treat leachate and buffer zones. Currently, there are about 100 acres permitted for landfill development. The landfill, through its ODEQ permit, also receives construction and demolition waste, non-hazardous special waste, as well as MSW from neighboring communities. As such, it is regulated by DEQ as a regional disposal site. Several different companies have operated the landfill over its 20-year history. It was initially owned and operated by the Riverbend Landfill Company. The owners were a local family that also provided collection services. The landfill was sold to Sanifill, a national privately owned company in the early 1990’s. This company eventually merged with USA Waste, Inc., which later bought Waste Management, Inc., the largest waste management company in the country. Waste Management of Oregon (WMO) has operated the landfill since 1998. The Riverbend Landfill is designed and operated as a modern disposal facility meeting all state and federal regulations. It has a bottom liner system used to prevent leachate from entering groundwater. Any leachate that is generated is collected and treated. Other environmental controls include surface water conveyance and routing, landfill gas collection and destruction and several groundwater and gas monitoring wells. As a requirement of their permit WMO must sample the monitoring wells several times over the course of the year. Once a portion of the landfill reaches its final grades the area is closed using a multi-layer composite cap that is designed to minimize infiltration from precipitation. The area is seeded to prevent erosion and is maintained as part of the going operations. WMO has implemented a unique and innovative system to treat leachate at the Riverbend Landfill. Leachate is collected and pumped to a large holding pond that is lined. The leachate is 5-2

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

CHAPTERFIVE

Solid Waste Disposal

aerated before it is conveyed to an adjacent 43-acre parcel to supply water to a poplar tree farm. The uptake of the poplar trees is such that they will use all of the water supplied by the treatment system. A series of monitoring wells are used to make sure that leachate does not contaminate surface or groundwater. As the poplar trees reach a certain height they can be farmed and marketed to provide dimensional lumber. The program has been successful and has received both regional and national awards. Based on current waste flows, WMO estimates the remaining site life of the existing footprint is 12 years. This suggests there is sufficient capacity to provide disposal services until 2014, which is consistent with the time stated in the County’s licensing agreement. There is potential to develop additional landfill cells on existing or adjacent property. Any consideration to expand the footprint warrants more study. Table 5.1 presents the amount of waste disposed at Riverbend Landfill. Table 5.2 shows the sources and amounts of waste generated in Yamhill County that are disposed at Riverbend. TABLE 5.1
Waste Disposed at Riverbend Landfill

Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Yamhill County Total Waste No No 126,324 101,913 129,249 134,123

% of Total

34% 25% 32% 31%

Outside County No No 245,505 237,136 280,738 300,868

Total 412,910 469,031 365,710 409,950 409,987 434,991

TABLE 5.2 Sources of Waste Disposed at Riverbend Landfill from Yamhill County Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 WOW 27,883 29,230 30,579 32,241 33,773 32,582 33,498 NGS 21,026 37,888 38,322 37,753 33,368 31,648 34,119 Total MSW 48,909 67,118 68,901 69,994 67,141 65,022 67,0617 Other Waste Streams Total County Waste

56,330 34,772 64,227 66,506

126,324 101,913 129,249 134,123

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-3

CHAPTERFIVE

Solid Waste Disposal

Over the past five years the amount of waste disposed at Riverbend has averaged about 425,000 tons per year. During this same period, Yamhill County has disposed an average of 67,000 tons of MSW, representing about 16% of the total waste flow into the site. However, the landfill serves industrial waste that is non-hazardous and SP Newsprint has delivered over 50,000 tons of ash and bottom grate residues to the landfill over the past three years. Therefore, during the last three years the amount of waste materials from Yamhill County has averaged 122,000 tons per year, or about 30% of the total waste disposed at Riverbend. The current disposal charge at Riverbend is $28/ton. The maximum charge is $42.85 per vehicle. Smaller loads (i.e., less than 5 cubic yards) are charged at $8.75/cubic yard, or a $10.00 minimum. The rate paid by the county users through the collection companies is $24.83 per ton.

5.2.2.2 Disposal of Other Waste Streams
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Typical C&D materials may include: ashes, asphalt shingles, concrete, fiberglass, bricks, dirt, plaster, rock, tile, vinyl flooring, visqueen, window glass, wood waste, metal scraps, plastics, asbestos (Riverbend does not accept asbestos) and styrofoam insulation. Currently, these materials are being disposed of at Riverbend. Because wood waste that has been separated can be taken to SP free of charge some contractors have elected to segregate this material. Also, wood waste and land clearing debris (mainly brush and grass clippings) can be taken to the NW Greenland for processing and composting. At this time there is no data on how much C&D waste is disposed at Riverbend. C&D waste, therefore, is included in the total amount disposed. Special Wastes Special wastes are materials that require specific management techniques due to their unique and potentially hazardous characteristics. These materials are often in bulk or liquid forms (Riverbend does not accept liquid wastes), may be generate odors and harmful air emissions, and are regulated by Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality. These streams include wastes from agriculture, medicine, scrap tires, petroleum-contaminated soils (PCS) and asbestos (Riverbend does not accept asbestos). Agricultural Wastes This waste is the designation for residues from agricultural products generated during farm and ranch operation and production. They must be recycled, used productively, or disposed of to minimize pollution and public health hazards. Yamhill County has extensive agricultural activities and industries that grow, process and sell products that generate these residues. Most agricultural wastes are used on farm sites. Those materials which are applied to amend of enhance soils are not considered a problem waste.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-4

CHAPTERFIVE
Medical Wastes

Solid Waste Disposal

The generation, treatment and disposal of infectious medical wastes are a significant public health and disposal issue. Federal, state and local regulations that mandate specific and proper disposal direct its management. The principal generators of these wastes include the industries and laboratories of health care, pharmaceuticals, veterinary medicine, food, drug and cosmetics and funeral homes. Most generators responsibly manage their medical waste by contracting with special companies to transport and dispose. Waste Tires This waste stream is a significant problem in Oregon where consumers generate over three million tires each year (the equivalent of one tire/person/year). Yamhill County generated over 86,000 tires in 2001. Tires are accepted at the Riverbend Landfill for recycling where they are consolidated and processed off site by an outside vendor. There is a set fee for tire recycling at Riverbend Landfill. Oregon’s tire recovery program, which reached 98 percent in 1996, fell to 32 percent in 2000. The demand for waste tires fluctuates based on markets for rubber products and fuel. The county’s tires are delivered to Portland for processing by the Tire Disposal and Recycling Company. Their products are used throughout the west for road and rail beds, landfill stabilization and noise reduction. Petroleum-Contaminated Soils (PCS) These wastes are soils from properties that had a petroleum product release. These products are crude oil and refined petroleum fractions, including gasoline, and oils from crude, fuel, diesel, lubricating, sludge and refuse operations. The contamination is often the result of a spill or release from a storage tank. The primary PCS generators are storage facilities and transportation services that manage petroleum-based products. PCS generated in Yamhill County is delivered primarily to Riverbend Landfill. Portions of this waste may be diverted to other surrounding facilities depending on market conditions. Asbestos This waste is from material that was used for thermal insulation, surface materials and other construction activities throughout much of the twentieth century. Today, in various forms, asbestos fibers are known carcinogens that cause disabling and fatal diseases. It is regulated by the federal government and requires a special disposal permit. Yamhill County’s generators include older, existing construction with pipes, heating elements and other building materials that include asbestos. Riverbend Landfill does not accept asbestos 5-5

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

CHAPTERFIVE

Solid Waste Disposal

containing waste. Asbestos containing waste is primarily diverted to the Hillsboro landfill in Hillsboro, Oregon, or other facilities in the surrounding area.

5.3

DISPOSAL AGREEMENT

During the years from 1984 to 1992 the Riverbend Landfill operated under the terms and conditions stipulated by the County’s Solid Waste Ordinance. This ordinance provided the County with the necessary authority and oversight to ensure the landfill was operated to serve the best interest of Yamhill County constituents. The owners of the landfill collected a $3.30 per ton in order to compensate the County for it is oversight and management responsibilities. The fee was levied as a surcharge, a portion of which was reimbursed to local collection companies to pay for recycling programs. As stated previously, many smaller landfills in coastal communities and Columbia County were closing and these communities were seeking locations to dispose of MSW in a cost-effective manner. As such Sanifill and subsequently, WMO have openly marketed the landfill to provide services to other communities. On May 19, 1992 County voters passed two initiatives effecting the future agreements with landfill operators. Both measures underwent legal action that eventually resulted in signing a new licensing agreement with Riverbend Landfill, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of WMO. The new licensing agreement provided the County with a guarantee to provide a 20-year of disposal capacity at the Riverbend Landfill. The new agreement established several other terms that are important to the stability of solid waste management in Yamhill County. First, it established a set tip fee of $22.63 per ton for disposal. The fee is subject to adjustments for inflation or cost of living based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The agreement recognizes that the cost to operate a landfill is sensitive to volume and provides for rate reductions if waste volumes increase. Second, it sets up a long-term trust fund to pay the closure and post closure maintenance of the landfill. Third, the County receives a licensing fee of $200,000 per year. Fourth, it sets up a “Restricted Host Fee” of $0.60 per ton to help pay the post closure cost of the Whiteson and Newberg Landfills. And fifth, it provides an unrestricted host fee that allows the County to share in revenues from waste delivered to the landfill that may be used for beneficial use. There are several other conditions contained in the agreement which provide the County the necessary control to ensure that services are provided to County constituents. In addition to the County Licensing Agreement, WMO has executed agreements with both NGS and WOW for delivery of waste. These agreements are necessary since there is no flow control authority and WMO needs to be certain that waste collected in the County will be delivered to the landfill.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-6

CHAPTERFIVE
5.4 WASTE STREAM PROJECTIONS

Solid Waste Disposal

5.4.1 Waste Disposal Projections
URS calculated the waste stream projections for Yamhill County from 2002 through 2019 to determine the jurisdiction’s future disposal needs. The county’s population increased by 29.7 percent between 1990 and 2000 to 84,992 (U.S. Census Bureau 2002) representing an annual average growth rate of almost 3%. The population projections for 2001 through 2019 are based on an average annual increase between 1.5 and 1.8 percent. The waste generation numbers are based on population projections and an estimated per capita waste generation rate of 2,940 pounds per year or 1.47 tons per year. National research indicates that per capita rates of waste generation have increased over time. This is true for Yamhill County, where the waste generation figures increased from 2,280 pounds per capita per year in 1997 to 2,940 pounds in 2002. However, statewide data indicates the growth in the rate of waste generation has leveled out if not even been reduced in recent years due to aggressive waste reduction and recycling programs. This data supports the approach of using a constant per capita generation rate in projecting future waste volumes. The volume of material recycled in Yamhill County increased from 21,880 tons in 1997 to 80,791 tons in 2002 (see Table 2-3 in Chapter 2). This represents a recovery rate that grew from 24.5 percent in 1997 to 54.4 percent in 2002. The correlation of waste generation and recycling rates indicates that the county may continue to generate more waste and recover a great percentage of it throughout this decade. These rates, however, will not match the county’s population growth over a longer term. Projections were developed using two waste stream alternatives, each with different assumptions for recycling rates and disposal. They include: • Table 5-3 assumes that the current recycling rate of 49% (2001) will grow to 55% by the year 2006 and remain constant throughout the 20-year period. This assumption is based on achieving a 6% increase in recovery rate by implementing the waste reduction programs and recycling programs identified in Chapter 3. Table 5-4 assumes that the recovery rate will decrease to 45% and remain constant until 2019. This scenario is based on the assumption that markets may deteriorate or be impacted by other factors outside the control of the County, and its service providers will cause less material to be recovered.

•

The tables indicate significant differences in the total MSW that may be delivered for landfill disposal by 2020 based on recovery rate assumptions. Each alternative indicates that a substantial volume of MSW will require disposal by 2014. At the 55% recycling rate, the

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-7

CHAPTERFIVE

Solid Waste Disposal

County will dispose of 718,730 between 2004 and 2014. At the lower recycling rate, the County will need capacity for 1875,770 for the same permit tons, or approximately 155,000 tons of additional capacity by 2014. In 2014, the year the current licensing agreement expires, the amount of waste disposal annually is estimated to average from 72,000 to 88,000 tons. TABLE 5.3 YAMHILL COUNTY Waste Stream Projections - 45%
Waste Generated (tons)2 100,145 108,836 120,689 86,400 87,696 89,011 90,347 91,924 93,395 94,889 96,407 97,950 99,516 101,307 103,131 104,987 106,877 109,040 110,894 112,779 114,696 116,646 118,828 128,043 148,408 130,847 132,810 135,128 137,290 139,487 141,719 143,986 146,289 148,922 151,602 154,331 157,109 160,289 163,014 165,785 168,603 171,470 174,677 Waste Recycled (tons) 31,244 38,842 53,548 63,021 80,791 58,881 59,764 60,808 61,781 62,769 63,773 64,794 65,830 67,015 68,221 69,449 70,699 72,130 73,356 74,603 75,871 77,161 78,605 Waste Cumulative MSW Disposed to be Landfilled (tons) (tons) 68,901 68,901 69,994 138,895 67,141 65,022 67,617 71,966 73,045 74,321 75,510 76,718 77,945 79,192 80,459 81,907 83,381 84,882 86,410 88,159 89,658 91,182 92,732 94,308 96,072 206,036 271,058 338,675 410,641 483,686 558,007 633,517 710,235 788,180 867,372 947,831 1,029,738 1,113,119 1,198,001 1,284,411 1,372,570 1,462,228 1,553,410 1,646,142 1,740,450 1,836,522

Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
1

Population1

Recycling Rate 31% 36% 44% 49% 54% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45%

Yamhill County's population was 86,400 in 2001; population increased 1.5% per year between 1997 and 2000. Population is calculated in this table by projecting an annual population increase of 1.5% on the 2001population figure of 86,400. Projected waste generated between 2003 and 2020 was based on an estimate of 2,940 lb per capita (the 2000 waste generation rate).

2

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-8

CHAPTERFIVE
TABLE 5.4 YAMHILL COUNTY Waste Stream Projections - 55%
Waste Generated (tons)2 100,145 108,836 120,689 86,400 87,696 89,011 90,347 91,924 93,395 94,889 96,407 97,950 99,516 101,307 103,131 104,987 106,877 109,040 110,894 112,779 114,696 116,646 118,828 128,043 148,408 130,847 132,810 135,128 137,290 139,487 141,719 143,986 146,289 148,922 151,602 154,331 157,109 160,289 163,014 165,785 168,603 171,470 174,677 Waste Recycled (tons) 31,244 38,842 53,548 63,021 80,791 68,040 70,389 72,969 75,510 76,718 77,945 79,192 80,459 81,907 83,381 84,882 86,410 88,159 89,658 91,182 92,732 94,308 96,072

Solid Waste Disposal

Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
1

Population1

Recycling Rate 31% 36% 44% 49% 54% 52% 53% 54% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55%

Waste Cumulative MSW Disposed to be Landfilled (tons) (tons) 68,901 68,901 69,994 138,895 67,141 65,022 67,617 62,806 62,420 62,159 61,781 62,769 63,773 64,794 65,830 67,015 68,221 69,449 70,699 72,130 73,356 74,603 75,871 77,161 78,605 206,036 271,058 338,675 401,481 463,901 526,060 587,841 650,610 714,383 779,177 845,007 912,022 980,243 1,049,692 1,120,391 1,192,521 1,265,877 1,340,480 1,416,351 1,493,512 1,572,117

Yamhill County's population was 86,400 in 2001; population increased 1.5% per year between 1997 and 2000. Population is calculated in this table by projecting an annual population increase of 1.5% on the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau population figure of 86,400. Projected waste generated between 2003 and 2020 was based on an estimate of 2,940 lb per capita (the 2000 waste generation rate).

2

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-9

CHAPTERFIVE
5.5 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Solid Waste Disposal

Waste prevention and recycling are important components of Yamhill County’s solid waste management strategy. But theses programs can only be relied on to a reduce dependency on landfilling, and it is necessary for any jurisdiction to provide disposal facilities that can costeffectively serve the community for that waste that can not be recycled. Despite having one of the largest recovery rates in the state, the County currently disposes of 65,000 tons of MSW per year at the Riverbend Landfill. Additionally, the landfill receives another 60,000 tons of other wastes from in County sources. Yamhill County’s estimated population growth might require an increase in landfill disposal capacity from its present flow to as much as 80,000 TPY of MSW in 2014 when the agreement with Riverbend Landfill expires. The Riverbend Landfill, which opened in 1982, continues to serve as the County’s primary disposal site for MSW. WMO has estimated their permitted footprint has sufficient capacity until 2014. Whether additional capacity will be developed on the existing site is still a question and will need to be evaluated in future years. These circumstances provide the County with adequate time to work with private industry to develop solutions to meet the longer-term disposal need. It is important for the County to use this time to develop a strategy for meeting the longerterm disposal need. Over the past 10 years Riverbend Landfill has grown into a regional facility serving many of Yamhill County’s neighbors. By entering into a licensing agreement with WMO the County has formed a partnership that has greatly benefited its constituents. Through this agreement the County generates over $500,000 per year for programs and services. Some funds are paid by County users, but a majority is paid by those customers using Riverbend Landfill from outside the County. These funds have been used to address environmental liabilities of two closed landfills, pay for countywide waste reduction and recycling programs, conduct special services such as collection events for HHW wastes, and meet the administrative and enforcement requirements to manage the solid waste program. Thus, the regional approach has provided added funds to deliver basic services. As part of the decision to continue disposal at Riverbend, the County needs to consider the financial impact to its overall solid waste program and the future of being part of a regional system.

5.6

ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION

This alternatives and evaluation discussion considers the needs and issues discussed in the previous sections. Alternatives for handling the major waste streams include MSW, construction /demolition debris, household hazardous waste, and special wastes.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-10

CHAPTERFIVE
5.6.1 Alternatives for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Disposal

Solid Waste Disposal

Yamhill County has landfill capacity to meet its near-term disposal requirements. The Riverbend Landfill will, at a minimum, operate until 2014. Therefore, the initial planning horizon is 10 years and the longer-term is 30 years or more. However, the County will need to evaluate its options and make certain decisions by 2010. That is because implementing an alternative disposal strategy could take anywhere from 3-5 years. Over the next six years the County and its service providers have sufficient time to consider alternatives for the longer term period. Possible long-term solutions include disposing at existing local landfills, siting a new in-County landfill, exporting waste to a regional landfill, or considering alternative technologies. Alternatives Continue Disposal at the Riverbend Landfill Currently permitted to fill a 100-acre footprint. The facility, in addition to serving Yamhill County, is a regional disposal site for coastal counties and communities in Northwest Oregon, including Columbia County. It also receives a small volume of waste from Marion County. It has an estimated remaining capacity of 12 years within the existing permitted footprint. Disposal rates may vary per agreements with various jurisdictions. Through the County agreement the current rate is $28 per ton. Property that Riverbend owns provides potential areas for expansion. This property provides potential room for expansion that may provide an additional 10-25 years of disposal capacity at current volumes. There may also be opportunity to purchase additional property to expand the site or at least to locate support buildings or other features to allow maximum build out of the existing landfill site. Having a modern landfill facility to serve the County is a valuable resource. Locating a new landfill in the County is not an easy task, if that approach was selected. Therefore one consideration is to evaluate how to maximize the resource that is currently in place. Any decision to permit additional landfill capacity or acquire additional land for expansion will need to be evaluated by WMO. Its current operation maintains a good performance and the company will need to make a decision by 2010. The primary advantage of maximizing the capacity of Riverbend Landfill includes maintaining a convenient disposal site for less than $30 per ton. Providing this low cost disposal capacity significantly impacts costs for several major industrial customers in the area and helps these businesses remain competitive in the market place. Many other communities pay in excess of $60 per ton to transport and dispose of waste at distant landfills. As such there is no additional transfer station or long-haul costs. Another key

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-11

CHAPTERFIVE

Solid Waste Disposal

advantage is the revenue derived from the host fees as a result of operating a regional disposal site. Site a new in-County landfill With the possible closure of Riverbend Landfill in 2014 or when the current footprint reaches capacity, Yamhill County could consider the siting a new MSW disposal site. It may be feasible to locate and operate a new solid waste landfill in the county. The new landfill would be designed to meet federal, subtitle D regulations and dispose of more than 86,000 tons per year starting in 2014. The site could also serve as a regional landfill, which would help maintain lower tip fees for County constituents. An important assumption for this option would be the County’s obligation to add the cost of a new landfill to its collection franchise rate base. The Yamhill County’s Solid Waste Department would begin a siting study in 2009 based on the knowledge that the effort to site, permit, and construct the first cell may require five years. As part of the change in franchise fees, the County would collect revenue to help pay the capital cost of the new landfill. The initial siting studies and initial land purchase could cost an estimated $3 to $5 million. The estimated total tipping fee for a new landfill could be $35 to $47 per ton (assumes 100,000 TPY). This alternative, although feasible, should not be considered without the County’s understanding of the difficulties in locating a new municipal solid waste landfill. It may be a long and challenging process that many communities avoid by purchasing disposal capacity at local facilities or large, regional landfills in eastern Oregon or Washington. A new landfill will require a sufficient volume of MSW to make it cost-effective. The analysis presented in the SWMP indicates that the county’s facility would require a minimum of 100,000 tons per year to compete with alternative disposal options. It would not be unreasonable to expect a new landfill to receive that much waste since it is projected that the County would generate over 80,000 tons per of MSW. In addition there is industrial waste and MSW from neighboring communities that may use the facility. Alternative Technology Over the next 10 years there could be changes in how solid waste is managed. There are alternative technologies that are under consideration by other communities. The alternative technologies may include more extensive separation of food waste for compost, the development of waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities, and the consideration of in vessel bioreactor or gasification units. Gasification units are being tested to extract energy from organics in the pulp and paper process. They are designed to replace waste heat boilers because they are much more efficient. They have been tested on solid waste and have shown some potential. These technologies are generally more expensive and may require changes in the way waste is collected, but changes in the 5-12

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

CHAPTERFIVE

Solid Waste Disposal

industry may come about either by changes in regulations or other factors outside of the control of solid waste industry. For example, the Marion County burner has a successful history as a WTE facility. A capitalintensive investment, which relies on the flow control of materials to the burner, it may represent a model for how energy recovery facilities serve communities as they manage their waste in the future. Metro is embarked in examining a program to separate food waste for compost operations. By doing so the amount being sent to distant landfills could be reduced by 10% to 15%. Alternative technologies may not be on the forefront of primary alternatives, but there could be developments in 5 to 10 years that may impact how waste is managed. The County should continue to monitor such events and evaluate whether these alternatives are available and proven enough to offer an alternative to other options. Construction of a bioreactor landfill Another option is the construction of a bioreactor landfill facility. This could increase costeffectiveness by minimizing space required for disposal (wastes would be continually degraded) and offering a byproduct of electricity generated from methane emissions. Conventional landfills attempt to maintain MSW in dry conditions in order to keep the biodegradable portion of deposited wastes from breaking down. Wastes will decompose eventually, at a slower rate after landfills are closed, and problems may arise due to leachate and gas emission issues. Bioreactor landfills differ in that decomposition is encouraged at the beginning of the life of the landfill. This result is a source of energy that can be harvested. In bioreactors, liquid is added and leachate may be recirculated in order to increase decomposition of wastes. Decomposition can occur aerobically (in the presence of oxygen) and/or anaerobically (without oxygen present). Gases, primarily methane and carbon dioxide, are generated as byproducts of the decomposition process. After dewatering, these gases can be used directly in reciprocating engines. Gases can also be further processed by removing sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. This results in higher-BTU gases that can be used in gas turbines to generate electricity. A bioreactor landfill may be suitable for Yamhill County for several reasons, assuming 70% of its wastes are biodegradable. Another advantage is that leachate and gas products generated in decomposition are managed in a more controlled manner. Gases are harvested, rather than being released to the environment. Collection of methane gas is of particular interest, because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it is readily converted to usable energy. Because the byproducts are released when the facility is newer, there also may be fewer problems with unwanted leakage or emissions than could occur in aging facilities. In bioreactors, landfill space would also become available sooner.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-13

CHAPTERFIVE

Solid Waste Disposal

Because bioreactors would be more stable upon closure, efforts and costs of monitoring landfills may be reduced. Alternative uses of landfill, such as park space, may also occur earlier in time. A bioreactor landfill is currently being used in California. In 1995, 56 landfill facilities were utilizing gas recovery, and 42 of these were producing electricity (California Energy Commission 1998). The use of bioreactor technology is a recent trend, and data are still being collected on their operation. A bioreactor research facility is being studied in Yolo County California (Yolo County, California 2001; Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management 1998). The site contains paired landfill cells: one is operated as a conventional landfill, and the other is operated as an anaerobic bioreactor with recirculating leachate. Upon completion, the study will allow for a direct comparison of waste decomposition time between the two methods. Bioreactors are a recent technology and research is needed in areas such as the degradation of organic and inorganic toxins, control of landfill gas emissions, and leachate recirculation. Although the technology is still being studied, bioreactors may be a more efficient solution than traditional landfills. The level of effort to site and cost to build such a facility, however, is similar to that of a new MSW landfill. Export waste to regional sites Today, many communities in Oregon rely on regional landfills. Due to transportation and other potential costs for transfer facilities, regional disposal is an expensive option. The cost to transport and dispose of waste at these facilities could range from $35 to $50 a ton. This does not include the cost to operate a local transfer station and to load trailers for delivery. The cost to operate and maintain a transfer station would add $6 to $12 per ton, making the total cost about $41 to $62 per ton. The disposal of MSW in larger, regional landfills in eastern Oregon and Washington is reasonable alternative for many communities. There are several regional landfills (within 100 to 250 miles) that could meet Yamhill County’s disposal requirements (Figure 6-1). These are: • • • • • • Coffin Butte Landfill near Corvallis, Oregon Columbia Ridge Landfill in Arlington, Oregon Roosevelt Landfill in Roosevelt, Washington Finley Buttes Landfill in Boardman, Oregon Northern Wasco Landfill in Wasco County, Oregon Dry Creek Landfill in Medford, Oregon

Yamhill County has sufficient, near-term landfill capacity for its MSW waste stream. It needs a longer-term solution. The decision to transport waste to a distant, regional site involves two

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-14

CHAPTERFIVE

Solid Waste Disposal

issues. The first relates to whether the County supports shipping its waste and relying on other jurisdictions or prefers to manage its own waste. The second relates to the cost to transport waste, usually by train or truck. Communities that have justified the additional costs have taken different approaches to transporting waste based on their location and access to services. Vancouver, Washington’s waste is barged to Finley Buttes Landfill in eastern Oregon. Waste from the Puget Sound area is delivered by rail to eastern Oregon and Washington landfills. A decision to implement this alternative has a shorter lead time than other alternatives. A central transfer station could be located and built within 3 years. The County could then solicit proposals from each landfill for transport and disposal over a specified period. To complete the proposal process and negotiate a contract should take less than 6 months. The alternative to long haul to a distant landfill will be available as a possible long term solution. The impact will be a significant increase in the cost to dispose of MSW. The other loss will be the revenue generated from having provided a regional landfill to other communities. These are just a few considerations that must evaluated when considering a longer term solution.

5.7

EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The County has an agreement with Waste Management to provide disposal of solid waste at Riverbend Landfill until 2014. If for any reason there was not adequate capacity at Riverbend, Waste Management is obligated to dispose of the County generated waste at an alternate site for the same rate. Thus, there is sufficient disposal capacity for the next 10 years. There is no immediate need for Yamhill County to take action on disposal alternatives. It may be possible to increase the capacity by permitting additional cells adjacent to the existing footprint at the landfill. At this time there are no plans to permit additional cells. If Riverbend closes in 2014, then the County and service providers would need some time to implement alternative disposal solutions. There are several regional landfills operating in Oregon that are available to accept the County’s waste. NGS already operates a transfer station and therefore can direct waste to alternative sites rather easily. WOW has available space on its existing property to modify existing buildings or to construct the necessary facilities to transfer and long haul to alternative landfills. Both operators have the ability to react to changes in disposal sites. The largest impact will be to ratepayers, as they would experience increased cost to transport waste to more distant landfills. Also, revenues generated from waste disposed at Riverbend from outside the County would not be available. The County would need to either develop alternative funding or cut programs or services. Based on these conditions it would be desirable to decide on the future of solid waste disposal in the County by 2010. This would provide as much as four years for the system to respond.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-15

CHAPTERFIVE

Solid Waste Disposal

The following recommendations provide Yamhill County with a set of actions for managing its MSW disposal.

5.7.1 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Recommendation 5.1: The County should continue to work closely with operators of Riverbend Landfill to ensure it provides the highest level of services to its constituents. Over the next six years the County should monitor the operation and continue dialog with Waste Management and franchised collection companies about the future of Riverbend beyond 2014. Rationale for Recommendation: The County has little control of the future of Riverbend Landfill beyond the year 2014. They have historically worked cooperatively with the owners and the franchised collection companies to make sure the County’s interest are considered. With continued dialog and maintaining the spirit of considering what is best solution for providing cost effective disposal services, the longer term solution (beyond 2014) can be evaluated. Implementation Timeframe: 2004 - 2010 Recommendation 5.2: The County should review its current land use and zoning code to identify the proper zones where disposal sites should be located. Rationale for Recommendation: All jurisdictions should identify within their zoning code the areas to be designated or areas best suited for public service operations. Yamhill County should make sure their zoning code properly identifies areas that may be suitable for future disposal sites. This action does not suggest the County or a private entity should site a new disposal facility in the County, but it properly identifies which zones can accommodate such development. Implementation Timeframe: 2004 - 2010 Recommendation 5.3: The County should continue to monitor the progress of alternative technologies that may be emerging. Such options as gasification, bioreactors, and food waste composting are a few under development and in testing. In the future an evaluation of alternative technologies may be considered. Rationale for Recommendation: Over the past 15 years there have been many changes in the way solid waste is managed. With fewer landfills and higher transportation cost private companies and communities are continuing to examine alternatives for reducing waste that is disposed in landfills. Yamhill County does not need to forge new ground by researching or testing these alternatives. But they should continue to monitor progress of these technologies through participation in industry organizations such as the Solid Waste Management Association of North America (SWANA). Implementation Timeframe: Ongoing

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-16

CHAPTERFIVE

Solid Waste Disposal

Recommendation 5.4: The County should conduct a comprehensive evaluation of disposal alternatives in FY 2008/09. Rationale for Recommendation: The County will need to make an informed decision on what options to pursue for provisional long-term disposal for solid waste by 2010. A decision in 2010 is necessary to allow sufficient time to site a new landfill, permit a new cell at the Riverbend Landfill, permit and build a new transfer station, or implement any other disposal alternative. By evaluating the disposal alternatives in FY 2008/09 the County will have the information necessary to make the decision. Implementation Timeframe: FY 2008/2009

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

5-17

CHAPTERSIX
6.1 INTRODUCTION

Hazardous Household Waste

This chapter of the county’s Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) discusses the issues, policies and options of managing Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) in Yamhill County. HHW is hazardous waste commonly found around the house that has the potential to cause significant harm to human health or the environment. HHW are substances commonly used in household cleaning, around the yard, or in hobbies, crafts and auto maintenance that are poisonous, toxic, flammable, reactive or corrosive. These products include, but are not limited to pesticides, herbicides, mercury and mercury thermometers, some types of batteries, gasoline, kerosene, motor oil, antifreeze, oil-based paint, paint thinner, turpentine, pool chemicals and drain cleaners. Without proper disposal opportunities, these materials are dumped illegally on the ground, in a stream, in the sewer system, allowed to evaporate, or sent to municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills that are not licensed to receive hazardous wastes. Improper use, storage, handling, and disposal can impact local air quality, human health, and environmental systems, as described below: • Product Use. Improperly used pesticides may enter groundwater or runoff from lawns and gardens into storm drains, rivers and lakes, killing aquatic life and contaminating drinking or surface water. Product Storage. Improperly stored products may cause accidental poisonings, especially among children. Flammables (solvents, fuels) may start fires or add fuel loads to buildings. Waste Collection. Employees at solid waste transfer stations or disposal facilities have been injured or endangered as a result of hazardous waste mixed in with household garbage from residents and businesses. Chemicals for swimming pools are highly reactive and can release poisonous gasses. Flammable products may ignite inside a vehicle, transfer station or disposal site. Product Disposal. Many hazardous products, unless segregated and collected separately from other wastes, may contaminate the soil, water and air through a direct release into the environment. This includes accidents within the home, releases from disposal sites (landfills and transfer stations), and releases into municipal wastewater treatment facilities. The disposal of some HHW products (mercury) in lined, RCRA Subtitle-D facilities may cause environmental damage by leaching through the waste and degrading the liner system, causing leaks from the landfill. Some households and small business may flush certain hazardous wastes into the local wastewater sewer system. Some types of HHW can damage drain lines, leak into surrounding soil, or enter wastewater treatment facilities where chemicals may damage biological components within the treatment system. 6-1

• •

•

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

The proper disposal of HHW is an important factor for the county’s solid waste management system. HHW can present substantial environmental and health risks that will require solutions as Yamhill County grows and the demand for disposal options increase. The proper management of these waste streams will reduce the health risk and reduce the impact to the environment.

6.2

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

The management of hazardous substances is regulated under Subtitle C of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The rules however, specifically exempt wastes generated in homes, by stating that HHW shall be managed under Subtitle D as solid waste. Households are exempt from liability under the federal CERCLA (“Superfund”). HHW is also exempt from most state or local separation requirements governing hazardous wastes, with the exception of a disposal prohibition of “bulk liquids” such as large quantities of paint in solid waste. These materials typically accumulate in small quantities within the home, but inappropriate disposal of these wastes, even in small quantities, may harm human health or the environment. Since management of these household hazardous wastes as solid wastes is not adequate, there is language in subtitle D of RCRA encouraging states to develop solid waste management plans and to develop management of HHW to prevent it from going to MSW landfills. States, including Oregon, have provided funding and other support to local jurisdictions to encourage collection of HHW and its proper disposal. The material is collected through special HHW collection events or at permanent HHW facilities. These collection events or facilities are often opened to certain businesses that generate very low amounts of hazardous waste. These businesses are required to pay for the services that are provided to them, whereas HHW customers are provided the service as part of their solid waste service. Some businesses, including dry cleaners, print shops and film processors, generate what is considered to be very small quantities of hazardous waste materials. These conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG) are businesses that generate less than 100 kilograms per month (220 pounds) of hazardous waste (or 1 kilogram/month of acutely hazardous waste), and accumulate less than 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) of that material at any one time. This category, unlike generators of larger amounts of hazardous waste, is not required to have an EPA identification number, use a shipping manifest, properly package and label waste shipments, or report to DEQ (though they still must follow standard OSHA and DOT labeling and shipping requirements). Like households, CESQGs are allowed to use permitted MSW facilities as a method of disposal. They are, however, responsible for maintaining paperwork to verify their CESQG status, and for verifying the proper treatment or disposal of their wastes. By allowing CESQGs to use
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-2

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

collection events or HHW facilities, jurisdictions can ensure proper disposal of more hazardous materials. CESQG examples (and common types of wastes they generate) include: • • • • • • Small printers (press cleaners and other solvents) Photography businesses (developers, bleaches, fixers) Small dry cleaners (perchloroethylene) Automobile services (spent solvents, antifreeze) Construction contractors (paint thinner, flammable paints, varnishes, stains) Farmers, landscapers and horticultural businesses (pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, motor oil)

6.3

OREGON HHW PROGRAMS

The state of Oregon has provided two mechanisms to promote the collection and proper disposal of HHW within its jurisdiction. First, the state has set up a contract with a private HHW collection company, which can be used by local jurisdictions to provide special collection events to their residents. The second program provides grants to build permanent HHW collection and storage facilities.

6.3.1 State HHW Contractor
The states of Oregon (for the Department of Environmental Quality) and Washington (for the Department of Ecology) maintain contracts for waste management that may be used by local governments in Oregon through a special program. This program allows local jurisdictions to use the state’s respective waste management contractor(s) (and the security of those contracts) to meet their HHW management requirements. These contracts require the user (local jurisdictions) to follow the respective state decisions regarding waste management options. The DEQ, when selecting disposal options, often uses (by rank) environmental protection, reduced liability, and cost as its primary considerations. Under CERCLA (Superfund), the waste “generator” (whoever signs the waste manifests – typically this is the facility manager, such as the county) is responsible and may be liable should hazardous waste from this program end up causing environmental damage. The generator (Yamhill County) is liable even if this damage occurs outside Yamhill County or is a consequence of poor management by the county’s hazardous waste vendor or its agents. Some HHW may be recycled or re-used, but the some types may require delivery to a permitted Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF). There, wastes may be recycled, disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill, burnt for fuel, or incinerated in a hazardous waste incinerator. The
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-3

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

TSDF then provides the generator with a certificate of disposal or destruction as appropriate. Waste management options are driven by a variety of factors, including available technology, cost, policy (the waste management hierarchy) and risk. There is a significant liability involved with handling and transporting larger quantities of HHW materials, and even though the state employs a contract handler, liability associated with the transport and disposal of hazardous waste can never be reduced to zero. It can be limited through adequate contract terms and by ensuring that the TSDFs and the companies that own them have a history of compliance. This includes relevant experience and staff, a U.S.-based insurance policy with a reasonable deductible and from an insurance company with acceptable ratings (Aor better from AM Best, or A or better from Standard and Poor’s), adequate funding reserved for facility closure, and adequate overall financial strength. The insurance policies should cover vehicle liability, including MCS-90 (provides cash availability to pay for immediate clean up in the event of spills), workers’ compensation, general liability, pollution liability for at least the next three years, and umbrella liability (for all liability expenses not covered by other insurance). Yamhill County can eliminate the investigation of these issues through the use of a state contractor provided state has included such provisions in the vendors’ agreement. If the county does not use a state-approved contractor it will be essential to review and approve the TSD facilities used by the contractor for adequate liability insurance, compliance history and management systems. The county should also consult with its risk management group to determine the degree of risk and adequacy of existing insurance policies associated with managing and transporting the waste in a county-owned and operated vehicle.

6.3.2 Permanent HHW Facility Grants
The HHW grant program provides funds from DEQ for a permanent facility that provides HHW collection services to all residents of a specific jurisdiction in Oregon. These permanent facilities provide a consistent schedule for HHW material collection and can increase participation in the program. Based on the biennium budget for fiscal year 2003-04, the grant amount is $60,000 plus $0.50 for each resident over 10,000, with a maximum of $100,000.

6.4

WASTES TO TARGET AND ACCEPT

In Oregon, many HHW collection programs typically collect the high-hazardous waste types that have been identified by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. This requires a special focus on the following categories: • Poisons: pesticides, herbicides and fungicides

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-4

CHAPTERSIX
•

Hazardous Household Waste

Heavy Metals: mercury and products containing elemental mercury (thermostats and thermometers, fluorescent light tubes, mercury batteries, bilge pump switches), NickelCadmium (Ni-Cad) batteries, lead-acid batteries Flammables: solvents, gasoline, kerosene, other fuels, oil-based paint and flammable solids Corrosives: acids, bases and reactives (such as pool chemicals)

• •

6.4.1 Waste Types to Collect
Yamhill County’s consideration and review of the issues and policies for managing HHW and CESQG waste will define how it identifies the products its system will collect. The types of materials typically collected in other HHW programs often include but are not limited to: Paints, Stains and Solvents • • • • • Oil-based paint and stains Latex paint, water-based stains Aerosol paints Other paints (pool, marine, auto) Solvent-based cleaning fluids Other Automotive Products • • • • • Other Household Products • • • • • Consumer batteries (ni-cad, lithium) Heavy metals Polishes, waxes, soaps Thermometers Fluorescent light bulks Motor oil (new and used) Contaminated, used motor oil Antifreeze Vehicle batteries Old fuel Pesticides and Poisons • • • Solid, non-flammable pesticides/herbicides Aerosol pesticides/herbicides Liquid pesticides/herbicides

• Solid, flammable pesticides/herbicides

• Water-based cleaners
Corrosives • • • Acids Bases (drain cleaners, oven cleaners) Reactives

• Oxidizers (pool chemicals)

• Other automotive fluids
CESQG Waste • • • • Automotive products Agricultural chemicals Laboratory chemicals Photography & Printer chemicals

• Construction chemicals

• Ballasts
6.4.2 Wastes to Exclude
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-5

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

The county should consider excluding some hazardous waste products due to safety and existing recovery programs. Examples of these exclusions include: • • • • Explosives Radioactive materials Electronics Compressed gas cylinders

For the most part these items are handled by other entities and require special handling. Explosives and radioactive materials require handling beyond the training of a HHW program and should be referred to the local fire marshal or hazmat team. Electronics are often bulky and are more easily handled by a commercial recycler. Compressed gas cylinders should also be referred to a commercial handler or provider for proper discharge and disposal.

6.5

YAMHILL COUNTY HHW SYSTEM

Yamhill County is a growing and important part of the Willamette River Valley in Northwest Oregon. The most diverse agricultural region in Oregon, this valley specializes in berries, vegetables, hazelnuts, hops, grapes, grass seed and nursery products. The market value of the county’s agricultural production, which includes a growing wine industry, ranks seventh in Oregon. Its other principal industries include lumber, education, international aviation, dental equipment, manufactured homes, pulp and paper, and steel. Yamhill County is 718 square miles. Its population of 84,992 (2000 Census) reflects a 10-year increase of 29.7% and an urban to rural residential ration of three to one. It has ten incorporated cities with populations that range from Yamhill (794) to McMinnville (26,499). Yamhill County generated 128,043 tons of waste in 2001. 65,022 tons were disposed of the Riverbend Landfill; 63,021 were recovered for processing and recycling. Currently, Riverbend Landfill has permitted capacity to meet the county’s disposal requirements through 2014. A long-term disposal solution should include consideration of how the county manages its special waste streams like HHW. Two private companies, Western Oregon Waste (WOW) and Newberg Garbage Service (NGS), provide residential and commercial collection of MSW in Yamhill County. These companies operate through franchise agreements with the county that permit regular collection and recycling services. They also provide limited HHW service (antifreeze and used motor oil) through their respective material recovery (WOW) and transfer station (NGS) operations. These facilities, and the Riverbend Landfill, provide recycling drop-off for antifreeze, used motor oil, scrap metal, tin/aluminum cans, glass, plastic bottles, magazines, newsprint and corrugated cardboard.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-6

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

HHW generation can be expected to grow at the same rate as the population growth and similar to that of the solid waste stream. HHW is estimated across the nation to vary between 0.01% to 3.4% of MSW by weight, with the variability coming mainly from the differences in the definition of what material is HHW. In this analysis, the HHW generation rate is assumed to be 1% of the total waste generated. Regardless of which generation rate is used, any HHW that is not collected by HHW programs can be assumed to have been improperly disposed of. Tables 71 summarizes the growth in waste generation for the next twenty years in Yamhill County.
Table 6-1 Yamhill County Waste Stream Projections

Year
2001 2005 2010 2015 2020

Population1 86,400 91,924 99,516 109,040 118,868

Waste Generated (tons)2 128,043 135,128 146,288 160,288 174,735

HHW Generated (tons)3 1,280 1,351 1,463 1,603 1,747

1 2 3

See data presented in Table 2-4. Based on Yamhill per capita waste generation rate of 2,940 lbs./year. Based on national average generation rate of 1% of total waste generated

As the county continues to grow, the amount of HHW generated will continue to grow. It is in the best interest of the environment within the county to identify and adopt a HHW program that will increase the awareness of the community and increase the total HHW collection within the county. Providing HHW collection programs increases the likelihood that these materials will be properly disposed.

6.5.1 County Hazardous Waste Recycling Program
Yamhill County offers one hazardous waste recycling program through its franchise collection services. These services collect used motor oil at three facilities throughout the county. It advises the county’s businesses and citizens about the services available through the Metro transfer stations, HHW facilities and latex paint recycling program in Portland and Oregon City.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-7

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

The two Metro Transfer Stations are open to the public and citizens of Yamhill County seven days per week between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (HHW Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.). However the Metro South Transfer Station in Oregon City is about 40 miles and the Metro Central Transfer Station in NW Portland is about 50 miles from McMinnville. Used Motor Oil This service allows citizens to deliver used motor oil to the franchised Newberg Garbage Service Transfer Station, Western Oregon Waste Recycling Center or the Riverbend Landfill. The combination of options diverts 10,000 gallons per year into a recovery program. The oil collected by franchised firms is sent to recycling operations in Oregon and Washington. Used Batteries The same facilities accept used batteries for recycling at their operations. Antifreeze Western Oregon Waste collects antifreeze for a fee at the recycling center. In 2003 they collected about 50 gallons and it is recycled by Thermafluids. NGS does not collect antifreeze at the transfer station.

6.5.2 Existing Collection Events
In addition to the ongoing recycling program, Yamhill County has conducted nine HHW collection events in two-year cycles since 1992. These have been weekend events (April, June or September) in two locations: McMinnville on Saturday and Newberg on Sunday. The county uses an DEQ-approved environmental contractor to receive, process and dispose of the HHW from these events. The costs to hold these special HHW collection days were initially paid for by DEQ. In January 1999 Yamhill County Solid Waste Department began paying for the HHW collection events. Table 7-2 provides a summary of the participation at the 1997, 1999, and 2001 events. As shown, the costs of these events have ranged from $25,000 in 2001 to as high as $72,000 in 1999. During these collection events, participants brought a wide variety of HHW materials, as shown in Table 7-3. These materials range from small quantities of toxic materials, such as mercury, to larger quantities of both latex and oil-based paints. Most notable is that of the 30,000 lbs collected at the event, 25,000 lbs (or 83% by weight, and two-thirds of the total cost) was Paint/Non-Poisonous substances. In fact, the event collected 9,450 lbs (32%) of latex paint, which can be handled at existing nearby facilities and recycled instead of collected and handled as hazardous waste. Both the county and DEQ provide public information about their respective collection events. While the HHW collection event is free to the public, DEQ and the county require that CESQG participants pre-register and pay a disposal fee based on the type and quantity of waste that they bring. K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc 6-8

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

Table 6-2 Yamhill County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Events Participation/Costs
Year Event Month & Location Resident Number Estimated Weight Collected (tons) 28.5 16.1 38.3 36.3 21.4 15.3 Total Event Cost (disposal, people) $57,169 $34,952 $72,519 $56,388 $38,317 $25,014 Total Event Cost Per Ton $2,006 $2,170 $1,893 $1,553 $1,790 $1,635 Total Cost Per Participant $73.27 $63.43 $50.18 $101.78 $72.02 $100.86 36.7 74.6 Total Tons Collected 44.6

1997

April McMinnville April Newberg

666 359 950 554 532 248

1999

Sept. McMinnville Sept. Newberg

2001

April McMinnville* April Newberg*

Note: The total cost for each event includes disposal, advertising and additional personnel. *In 2001, participation was less than previous years partially due to limited or no special advertising to support this program. Event Comparisons Yamhill County’s 1997, 1999 and 2001 HHW events provide important, comparative information about the value of these collection days. In 1997, the event saw 1,025 participants who delivered 44 tons of HHW. The 1999 event had 1504 participants who delivered almost 75 tons of waste at two locations (an increase of almost 47% in participation and 70% in material). The increase in participation may be a result of better promotion and the fact that more people were aware of the program based on the 1997 events. In the 2001 event, 780 citizens delivered over 36 tons. This 39-ton drop in the volume of HHW may reflect the difference between participation based on promotion. As noted above their was limited or no special advertising of these events. The 1999 events included a minimum of ten percent of the total budget for advertising and promotion. The 2001 events had no budget for these activities.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-9

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

Table 6-3 Yamhill County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Amounts, Newberg 2001
Waste Material Paint / Non-Poisonous Waste Oil Base Paint Latex Paint Aerosol Paint Solvents Latex Paint Flammable Solid Oil Base Paint Latex Paint D.O.T. Proper Shipping Name Pounds # of of Waste Drums Cost per Line

Paint Related Material Non RCRA Waste Liquid Aerosols, Flammable Flammable Liquid Latex Bulk Flammable Solids, Organic, N.O.S. Paint Related Material Non RCRA Waste Liquid Subtotal, Paint/Non-Poisonous Waste

7200 9000 800 3600 450 4 3000 1000 25,054

8 10 4 9 1 1 12 4 49

$ 3,414.48 $ 4,325.50 $ 857.50 $ 1,125.00 $ 150.00 $ 40.00 $ 1,620.00 $ 500.00 $ 12,032.48

Toxic & Special Hazard Aerosol Insecticide Isocyanates Acid Base Poison Flammable Oxidizer Reactive PCB-Ballasts Lead Acid Batteries Poison PG I Mercury Mercury Spontaneously Combustible Base

Aerosols, Poisonous Isocyanates Toxic Corrosive Liquid, N.O.S. Caustic Alkali Liquid, N.O.S. Toxic Liquids Flammable, Organic, N.O.S. Oxidizing Liquid, N.O.S. Water Reactive, Solid, N.O.S. Polychlorinated Biphenyl's Batteries Wet, Filled With Acid Toxic, Organic, Liquids, N.O.S. Mercury Thermometers (90) Mercury Debris Sodium Hydrosulfite Corrosive Liquid, Basic Inorganic Subtotal, Toxic & Special Hazard

200 135 250 250 3250 150

26 5 3 4 40 4313

1 1 1 1 13 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 23

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

183.75 120.00 225.00 225.00 3,575.00 325.00 40.00 56.00 56.00 40.00 56.00 4,901.75

Lower Toxic Risk Materials Antifreeze Asbestos PPE Gear / Plastics Ni-Cad Batteries Alkaline Batteries Fluorescent Lights Lithium Batteries Cylinders MEKP

Non RCRA Waste Liquid Asbestos Non RCRA Waste Solid Batteries Dry, Containing Potassium Hydroxide, Solid Batteries Dry, Containing Potassium Hydroxide, Solid Material Not Regulated by D.O.T. Lithium Battery Compressed Gas Flammable Organic Peroxide Type E Liquid Subtotal, Lower Toxic Risk

550 100

2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 82

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

113.05 65.00 40.00 41.25 9.00 40.00 850.00 40.00 1,198.30

21 150 60 ft 3 250 1 1075 30,442

Grand Totals

$ 18,132.53

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-10

CHAPTERSIX
6.5.3 1998 HHW Survey

Hazardous Household Waste

In 1998 Yamhill County conducted a survey of residents to obtain their opinion of the HHW service that the county provides. A total of 400 people completed the phone survey, and 29% indicated that they had used the HHW service. A total of 16% of the people were unaware that the county was offering the service, and 35% of the people responded that they had no HHW that needed to be disposed of at the time. The survey also asked if people would be willing to pay for HHW service, and 61% of the respondents said that they would be willing to pay an additional $0.60 per month in their garbage bill for semi-annual collection events, and 25% would choose to pay an additional $1.10 per month for a permanent facility that is open once per week. The numbers discussed above indicate that there is a lot of support for the HHW program in Yamhill County, and that they are willing to pay a nominal amount for this service. Of the people surveyed, 86% would choose to support semi-annual or weekly collections with an increase in their garbage bill, even though only 29% had stated that they had used the HHW collection program before. Assuming that the county instated a $0.60 per month fee for HHW and Latex Paint services, approximately $218,000 would be available for administering the programs (based on 30,270 households residing in the county). The survey responses show two things. First, regardless of whether or not residents had HHW materials to dispose of, the majority was in favor of a collection program in the County. And second, that residents indicated that they would be willing to pay a nominal amount for these services in their monthly collection bills.

6.5.4 Latex Paint Collection Program
A large component of the material received at HHW collection events is latex paint, which is not hazardous and can be recycled. Table 7-3 shows that 10,000 lbs or 33% of the material collected at the 2001 collection event in Newberg was Latex Paint. The collection of this non-hazardous material at the HHW events is very expensive, accounting for almost $5,000 or 30% of the event expenses. Metro Regional Services in Portland, has developed a latex paint recycling service, located at the Metro South Transfer Station in Oregon City, which is part of their HHW program. Metro then sells the recycled paint, or donates it to charitable groups. Metro has developed agreements with several surrounding communities to accept their latex paint for a fee. In October of 2003 the County working with both NCS and WOW has developed a latex paint recycling program. Under the arrangement the two waste haulers would periodically collect latex paint at their facilities, but at a minimum of once per month. As part of the agreement Metro would provide storage containers for the paint. The latex paint would then be transported to Metro’s paint recycling facility for processing and resale. The County would pay the transportation cost and a small to Metro for handling the material. The County is entering this
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-11

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

program as a pilot study to determine how effective it will be. However, because it has the potential to significantly impact the volume handled at HHW collection events this program could reduce cost on whatever alternative collection program the County should choose.

6.6

NEEDS

Yamhill County generated 128,043 tons of solid waste in 2001. Assuming that HHW generation is equal to the national generation rate, Yamhill County residents generated 1,280 tons of HHW in 2001. Based on the collection event summary in Table 7-2, 36.7 tons of HHW were collected and properly disposed of during 2001. That means that approximately 1,240 tons of HHW may not have been disposed of properly in the county (this does not account for any HHW that was disposed of at the Metro HHW collection facilities). HHW poses challenges to human health and to the environment although it is a small portion of the total waste stream. It is important to manage this material in a responsible manner, to reduce the impacts of these materials. By offering collection methods for residents to easily and properly dispose of HHW, the likelihood for improper disposal is reduced. The improper disposal of HHW poses certain risks to the environment, including the use of storm and sanitary sewers, municipal solid waste streams, illegal dumping, on-site burial and incineration. The county has successfully conducted several HHW collection events in past years. These events have been conducted with the support of state funds. Since state funding of these collection events is ending, the county needs to make a decision whether to continue collection events or adopt other methods for collecting HHW and CESQG materials. In addition to evaluating options and determining a course of action, a stable method of funding for the program must be established. As shown in past events, the level of participation in such collection events was related to the level of promotion and advertising supporting the program. Therefore, it is apparent that a promotion program should be a key ingredient to any of the preferred programs. Another factor is education. The policies developed by the county to manage these wastes should include an education program specifically designed to encourage the reduction and prevention of HHW. It is inherently more cost effective to educate households and businesses on the use of alternative products that may not contain toxic or hazardous materials. The cost to manage and dispose of HHW is significant and ranges between $70-$100 per participant per event. It is less expensive to educate the public on the available options and alternatives and avoid the costs of managing HHW after it enters the waste stream. Yamhill County may consider several alternatives for the collection of HHW as part of its Solid Waste Management Plan. Each alternative may review primary policy issues that include: • • Promotion and education for alternatives to HHW use Regular (and supplemental limited) collection of certain HHW
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-12

CHAPTERSIX
• • • • Facility ownership and operation Facility and event locations Purchase or lease of a mobile HHW collection vehicle Funding options

Hazardous Household Waste

Based on survey results and feedback from participants, there is strong support for providing a means to collect and safely manage HHW and CESQG wastes. With state funding for collection events expiring and with other programs and services competing for limited state resources it is important to evaluate opportunities and determine a strategy for continuing this service. The following section discusses the options that can be considered for managing HHW and CESQG waste.

6.6.1 HHW Service Options
The county’s HHW strategy may identify new services to manage HHW and CESQG wastes. This approach should allow the Yamhill County Solid Waste Department to continue its partnership with the franchised collection companies to better manage HHW. The county and its partners, WOW and NGS, may consider the several options for continuing to provide comprehensive HHW services. These comprehensive services must include alternatives to three basic elements of the program. 1. Promotion / Education - Any HHW collection program must include a program aimed at educating the public about how to manage HHW materials. Yamhil1 County should support any service option that it selects for HHW and CESQG collection through an ongoing Prevention and Education program. This includes additional education for county residents regarding the reduction and prevention of HHW. Education will be an important element in a successful collection strategy for this service. 2. Collection methods – A convenient and cost effective means of collecting HHW and CESQG materials must be developed in order to provide citizens and businesses with alternatives to disposing materials inappropriately. Options may include: a. Continue to conduct annual collection events and maintain existing or expand services such as: ! Curbside collection and facility acceptance of used motor oil and antifreeze ! Expand collection of lead-acid batteries at the MRF, transfer station and Riverbend Landfill ! Paint recycling where the collection companies, in partnership with local retailers, recover unused oil-based and latex paints

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-13

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

b. Develop a permanent HHW facility in the county. The facility would provide: ! A secure, protected location for waste identification, packing and temporary storage ! A regular location for the county or contractor to provide collection events ! An appointment-only service for small businesses and residents at the permanent facility between regular collection events c. Provide regular, mobile collection services throughout the county. This could include: ! A Yamhill County owned mobile collection vehicle, or ! A multi-county (Yamhill, Marion and Polk) shared vehicle and staff. 3. Develop stable funding for the program – Past HHW collection events have been supported by funding from the DEQ or by the county using franchise fees. An assessment of funding alternatives should be conducted and a stable mechanism established. The value of this program is based on an understanding that it is more cost effective to educate households and businesses on the use of alternative products that may not contain toxic or hazardous materials. Also, the education materials informing the public about these products provides another form of advertising for the HHW program, enhancing the success of the special collection events.

6.7

MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR HHW /CESQG WASTE

6.7.1 Management of HHW Program
The Yamhill County Solid Waste Department or its franchised collection companies should provide management and oversight of the HHW program. Program budgeting, contracting and reporting to DEQ would be the responsibility of Yamhill County. Basic management responsibilities include the following five categories: • • • • • Program Coordination Responsibilities to schedule events and facility service, manage information, evaluate the program and prepare the annual report. Financial Responsibilities to recommend an annual budget, review contractor performance and payment, and manage information. Staffing Responsibilities to develop job descriptions, hire and train personnel, manage schedule requirements, and coordinate with contractor services. Facility Responsibilities to conduct audits, purchase equipment and supplies, provide maintenance, and ensure permit compliance. Waste Management Responsibilities to establish waste protocols and inspection procedures, review disposal facilities, and manage contracts for TSDF.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-14

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

In the past the YCS has been responsible for planning HHW collection events. They have managed to implement these events within the current resources. Any commitment to continue regular collection events would require appropriate resources be dedicated to the program to ensure its success. This commitment would include staff resources and funds needed to advertise and promote such events.

6.7.1.1 Promotion and Education
Under the current program the YCS provides the primary promotional and educational materials and services for the HHW program. Promotion and education efforts are primarily related to informing the public of HHW collection events. There has been no ongoing program for instructing residents on how to reduce the amount of HHW materials by purchasing alternative products. The collection companies however, inform residents and businesses to refrain from discarding certain materials such as sharps and other medical or certain hazardous materials. The options for conducting a regular or ongoing education program are described. County Education / Promotion Under this approach YCS would develop an ongoing campaign to inform the public about the types of HHW materials contained in municipal solid waste and how to properly dispose of them. The program could be conducted as part of the regular waste reduction and recycling promotion program. It could involve at a minimum a brochure that can be distributed at facilities or through the collection companies themselves. It should also include an education element to instruct people about products that are non hazardous and that can be used instead of the common products that contain low amounts toxic materials. A good example of educating the public on alternatives to using commercial cleaning products that may contain small amounts of toxic ingredients was recently completed by YCS. YCS published its first issue of a countywide waste reduction and recycling newsletter in the spring of 2003. It included one page devoted to “green clean home products” or home cleaning products that can be just as effective as commercial products that may otherwise contain small amounts of toxic chemicals. This type of education can be effective in not only educating consumers but also making them aware of the potential harm these products can cause if not properly handled. The program would also include an advertising element that would inform citizens of collection events or other instructions on how to properly dispose of HHW materials. It should also include a component for informing businesses that generate CESQG waste on the proper handling methods for these waste materials. The cost to implement and carry out an ongoing HHW and CESQG promotion and education program will vary. However, it is reasonable to budget a minimum of $10,000 annually to remind people of the types of HHW materials that are contained in certain products and to be responsible for properly disposing of these materials. The budget for advertising HHW collection
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-15

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

programs will vary depending on which collection alternative is selected by the County and service providers. However, as demonstrated from past events the success of the collection events has been related to the amount of money spent on advertising. The County should place sufficient budget to promote the collection program selected. Collection Companies – Promotion /Education The County could require that collection companies adopt a permanent promotion and education program as part of their ongoing recycling campaigns. Under this approach both NGS and WOW would develop a program that would be agreed to by the County and cities. As part of their recycling literature they would produce a brochure or materials to inform residents and businesses about HHW or CESQG wastes. The program could be similar to the program discussed above. Since franchised collection companies are responsible for minimizing the risk of exposure to hazardous waste it would seem an appropriate approach to have them inform customers of which materials can be harmful. And, although many HHW materials pose little risk if properly stored in containers, it would be a natural extension of their business. The program would need to be coordinated with the County but would become part of their franchise services.

6.7.2 Collection Alternatives
A key element of any HHW program is providing a convenient means of collecting, storing and transporting these materials for disposal in an appropriate facility. The State of Oregon provides a statewide service to work with local jurisdictions and private industry to store, transport and dispose of these materials. Each jurisdiction must choose a method for collecting and handling both HHW and CESQG materials. A discussion of each of the alternatives is provided.

6.7.2.1 Continue Special Collection Events
Yamhill County has successfully conducted annual collection events at two locations over the past 10 years. The program consists of holding two collection events one in McMinnville and one in Newberg have been popular and effective. These collections events have traditionally been partially funded by DEQ but in recent years the program has been funded from franchise fees. The DEQ funding mechanism has dried up and a new source of funding must be provided if the program is to continue. As discussed previously, the cost to provide these collection events has varied from as low as $25,000 to as much as $72,000 per year. The cost ranges from $70 to $100 per participant. Participation has varied greatly and is related to the amount of promotion and advertisement provided prior to each event. The collection events provide a basic level of service to collecting HHW materials. By conducting two separate events at two locations a majority of the county’s population is provided
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-16

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

with a means to dispose of these materials. One drawback is that people who might need this service during the year must wait and store HHW or CESQG material until the collection event occurs. If they are not aware when the event will occur they might select a less desirable disposal method. Also, with only two events per year a household may not be available to make use of the service day that is selected.

6.7.2.2 Construct a Permanent HHW Facility
Yamhill County may consider siting a permanent HHW facility as part of its updated SWMP. This facility could be sited at one of the existing transfer stations or at the Riverbend landfill, or a separate site could be selected. Another aspect is whether the facility would be operated by the county or by a private party. This decision is secondary to that of building a permanent HHW facility to serve the county. The significance of having a permanent facility, as compared to a greater frequency of one-day collection events or a shared mobile operation, is the commitment to more onsite functions and storage. These waste functions include acceptance, identification, packing and storage. Waste acceptance includes a minimum number of collection events per year (often one per month) at the facility, as well as special use of the facility on an appointment-only basis by residents and small-quantity generators. Appointment-based use of the facility may be limited to special circumstances such as a home sale or a bulk delivery. Waste identification is the screening and classification of materials into pre-determined categories. This allows the proper management of compatible and incompatible wastes. The difference is a function of reactivity, safety, end-user (TSDF) requirements, economics, and available storage space. Waste packing is based on three approaches for proper management: • • • Loose packing allows wastes to remain in their original containers as they are packed together into totes or drums. Lab packing is the same as loose packing with the addition of absorbent material around the containers. This protects the containers during shipment and absorbs any spills. Bulking empties the original containers into a bulk liquid mixture of compatible wastes.

Waste storage provides the temporary capacity for containers prior to their delivery to a regional TSD facility. When considering building a permanent facility, one must account for the added cost to staff and operate it. DEQ Permit Requirements for HHW Facilities The facility will require a DEQ solid waste permit. The agency does not have specific permit requirements for household hazardous waste facilities. However, DEQ does have a General Guidance description for the design and operations of HHW collection and storage facilities.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-17

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

The county’s development plan should refer to both permit requirements for the Transfer Station/Material Recovery Facility category and the HHW General Guidance. The Guidance contains specific requirements for HHW facilities including siting, security, emergency equipment, structural requirements, exterior secondary containment, drum storage, waste identification, waste sorting and storage, waste packing, waste shipments, worker safety, facility inspections, spill prevention and emergency response, equipment, personnel training, and facility closure. Building a permanent facility provides a high level of commitment to the program. It also provides flexibility as to how these services will be provided. For instance, once a permanent facility is constructed there are several different alternatives for providing the services. Some communities like Metro in Portland, which operates two HHW facilities, are open every day and available to the public each day. Other communities operate HHW facilities and restricting use to certain times. In Marion County the new facility will be open only five days per month and users must call for an appointment. Marion County also intends to supplement its permanent operation with a mobile collection vehicle. This mobile unit is available to conduct special collection events throughout the county to better service outlying areas. Yamhill County can consider any number of alternatives if a permanent facility is constructed. Residential Collection Events at a Permanent HHW Facility Yamhill County may consider conducting a minimum number of collection events each year (one per month, one per week). These events, which require preparation and closure time, could be open to the public for 4-6 hours. Waste acceptance should begin in the morning to allow adequate daylight hours to complete waste sorting, packing and storage. These HHW events are a service provided by the county. An important consideration is whether they should be limited to Yamhill County residents only. This decision is a function of funding. If the service is funded by county residents and businesses, it may be necessary limit its use. Special Collection at the Permanent Facility This facility could also be available for special collections on an appointment basis. This service is intended for small generators and special situations where there is an immediate and timesensitive need for HHW collection. Examples of this include people who are selling their home and have an immediate need to dispose of large quantities of garden, garage and household chemicals, or a person who calls in with a large quantity of highly hazardous materials. These appointment-based visits to the facility could be scheduled, whenever possible, to maximize staffing efficiencies and reduce the disruption of staff opening up the facility for a single user. This may include only taking appointment-based visits on one day of the week.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-18

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

Using this approach provides a more leveled cost of service. Unlike collection events where the amount of material delivered will vary greatly, a regular appointment based program somewhat regulates how much material will be collected and thus processed for storage, transport and disposal.

6.7.2.3 Mobile Collection Vehicle and Events
Yamhill County may consider a mobile collection vehicle for HHW. The vehicle should meet all requirements for the collection and transport of HHW, and the necessary support equipment, to events throughout the county. The appropriate vehicle should be a tractor-trailer (53 LF) system that is estimated to cost between $35,000 and $55,000. This does not include other support equipment such as forklifts. It should meet all federal Department of Transportation regulations and include systems for fire suppression, spill containment, power, ventilation and chemical resistance. Using a mobile collection vehicle provides flexibility to conduct collection events at various locations at different times of year. A minimum service capacity standard might be a collection event for 300-400 households. After the initial capital to purchase the vehicle, the mobile collection program could be relatively cost effective. Collection events using the mobile unit should be arranged such that the people staffing the event, who are trained in handling these materials, can be scheduled in advance or even contracted for specific dates throughout the year. Similar to the appointment program for permanent facilities, the amount of material will generally be limited to the area served by the mobile collection event. This helps to level the cost of the program. The one drawback is that there is less storage capacity. This means the HHW transportation contractor may have to make more frequent pickups, which may impact cost. The cost to purchase a mobile unit and other support equipment might range from $35,000 to as much as $75,000. Therefore, to operate a County owned vehicle would be similar to holding collection events but would include the capital expenditure for the mobile unit, which could add about $10,000 per year.

6.7.2.4 Mobile Collection Vehicle and Events – Shared Services
One option that might be available to Yamhill County is to use a mobile collection vehicle in conjunction with a neighboring county or counties. Under this alternative one community might purchase the mobile unit and provide basic staffing to operate the vehicle and the events. Any community wishing to use the service might contract for the use of the unit. They could also provide support services to needed to conduct the collection events. This option may be more appealing to Yamhill County since Polk and Marion County have discussed this option and are continuing to explore implementing such a program. One scenario that has been discussed is for Polk County to purchase the mobile unit through a grant with DEQ.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-19

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

Marion County, which is in the process of building a permanent facility, would operate the unit. A cost for providing collection events throughout the two-county area would be established and each county would pay for the service. The annual cost to participate in a shared mobile event could vary significantly depending on the frequency and number of participants per event. If shared with other communities the annual cost may be $4,000 assuming each community uses the vehicle twice per year. This does not assume any DEQ grant money is used. Cost to set up the event, collect the HHW materials and transport them to a HHW processing facility may cost $50 to $60 per participant. Thus, assuming 1,200 participants per year the cost may range from $65,000 to $76,000 per year. Adding in $10,000 for promotional materials and advertising the total cost may range from $75,000 to almost $90,000 per year. This approach may be available to Yamhill County. Benefits of this approach are that Yamhill County could select the level of collection services it wishes. For, instance the County could decide to hold quarterly rather than semi-annual events each year. And, the county could select any part of the county it chooses to hold such events. This added flexibility is certainly advantage over other collection options. The cost would most likely be less than holding special collection events since the vehicle is equipped to handle both HHW and CESQG materials.

6.7.3 Evaluation of Collection Alternatives
Each of the collection alternatives discussed have certain advantages and disadvantages. For instance, if a permanent HHW facility is built it has the major advantage of providing a central facility that can be operated any number of days. The facility would make it possible for customers to drop off materials on a regular basis throughout the year. A central location would be desirable so that it will be convenient to a majority of residents and businesses. However, certain customers would certainly need to drive farther than others. Collection events, on the other hand offer flexibility. They can be scheduled in advance and the service can be provided at different locations possibly making it more convenient to customers. In addition there are different costs associated with each alternative. Table 7.3 provides a comparison of the collection alternatives for collection of HHW and CESQG waste. It compares four alternatives discussed above. These are: Alternate A Conduct collection day events twice each year in McMinnville and Newberg to allow the county to control the increasing resident participation. Alternate B Construct a permanent facility in the McMinnville area this operates on a regular schedule and appointment-only basis.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-20

CHAPTERSIX
Alternate C

Hazardous Household Waste

Purchase and operate a mobile HHW vehicle that only serves Yamhill County. Alternate D Provide mobile HHW service through a joint agreement with Marion and/or Polk County.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-21

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

Table 6-4 Qualitative Evaluation of Alternatives for Yamhill County
Alt. A: Collection Events Major Advantages • No facility siting or construction requirements Easier to stage temporary events than a permanent facility Flexible – can serve different areas Incorporates promotion and education activities including brochures, advertising and school programs • Alt. B: Permanent Facility Provides more frequent opportunities for residents to safely dispose of HHW than events Allows for appointment only use for home sellers (a major targeted population) and as a method to control access and cost Partial funding available from DEQ ($100,000) for facility construction Provides opportunity for HHW re-use Provides opportunity to serve CESQGs that may also lower per-pound HHW costs Fixed location may be inaccessible to some and accessible to others Requires permit from DEQ • • • • • Alt. C/D Mobile HHW Vehicle Collection Service No facility siting or construction requirements Easier to stage events Flexibility to serve entire county May serve only Yamhill County May share multi-county service costs through agency agreement

•

•

• •

•

• •

Major Disadvantages

• •

• •

Difficult to control access (and thus costs) Not convenient; residents must wait for the next event No funding available from DEQ Does not serve home sellers, a significant source of HHW Cost vary per number of participants – Estimated to range from $60,000 to $ 110,000*

•

• •

•

Vehicle and staff costs Depends on cooperation of other jurisdictions that may impact flexibility.

Cost

•

•

$100,000 - $250,000 capital, various operations

•

Similar to Alternative ACollection Events Estimated to range from $75,000 to $110,000 for County owned to $65,000 - $100,000 for shared vehicle *

*Includes promotional program.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-22

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

One possible option for Yamhill County to consider is to work cooperatively with both Polk and Marion Counties regarding the purchase of a mobile collection unit. The capital cost to purchase a mobile unit would be shared and each community would pay for the operating cost. Additionally, each County would have some flexibility to schedule collection events in their community. This would have the same advantages as conducting special collection events. Yamhill County can continue to evaluate the paint recycling program in an effort to increase the amount of recycled material. It would also possibly decrease the cost of HHW events by reducing the amount of material collected at such events.

6.8

HHW /CESQG PROGRAM FUNDING OPTIONS

In order to institute a HHW and CESQG collection program the County needs to identify a stable source of funding. The alternatives described above ranged in cost from $50,000 to as much as $250,000 per year. The difference in cost depends on whether there is a permanent facility and how many days the facility is opened. If collection events are preferred it will vary depending on the number of events held each year. In the past the program has been partially funded by grants from DEQ and/or paid for by the County from franchised fees or other collections. In 1998 a survey of customers was conducted. Although the survey was limited it had a fairly good response rate. It showed that people were supportive of having HHW collection events and they were willing to pay a fee for service. The mechanisms that are available to the County for funding the HHW program are discussed.

6.8.1 Yamhill County Solid Waste Funds/Franchise Fees
The Solid Waste Fund consists of revenue from host community fees at the landfill and franchise fees for collection companies. The County currently collects approximately $650,000 per year in fees. A portion of this Fund could be allocated to pay for HHW collection and disposal events as in past years. To fund an ongoing HHW collection program would require a minimum of $50,000 per year but most likely it will require $100,000 annually. This would represent 15% of the total funds available for other County solid waste services. These same resources are needed to fund all programs including franchise administration including rate review, waste reduction and recycling programs and enforcement of illegal dumping. Therefore, these funds could be used to support certain elements of the program but would not be adequate to support an ongoing HHW and CESQG collection program. It may be possible to increase franchise or host community fees to pay for the program. This would require renegotiating contracts with Riverbend Landfill and they in turn would need to pass cost along to customers. This may not be feasible. Also, using County fees has other limitations. Since 80% of the county’s revenue is from host community fees from Riverbend
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-23

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

Landfill, the amount of revenue could be impacted negatively, if waste disposed at the landfill would decrease or waste from outside the region were discontinued. For these reasons any use of County fees should be seen as an interim solution.

6.8.2 CESQG User Fees
One method for paying for the HHW collection program is to institute a fee for service. Under this program anyone dropping off HHW or CESQG materials would pay fee. The fee could be prorated based on the volume or level of toxicity of the waste. For instance, dropping off of oilbased paint might incur one fee compared with a customer dropping off flammable or toxic liquid that might pay another fee. Each product must be manifested in a safe manner but the flammable and toxic material may cost slightly more per unit. In our research we have not located a facility that charges customers a service fee. Based on the past collection events conducted by the County actual cost of collection events ranged from $70 to $100 per vehicle. At this rate it is unlikely any one would subscribe to the service. Another alternative would be to charge a nominal fee per vehicle. Each customer could pay $5 or $10 to drop off materials. Based on the participation of past collection events this approach would generate between $6,000 and $12,000 annually. Therefore, adopting a user fee approach would require an additional source of revenue or it would need to be subsidized by other funds.

6.8.3 Add Services to Franchised Collection Rates
Both NGS and WOW offer a wide variety of services to customers. Each service has an associated fee for services, which is regulated by the County and by Cities. The recommended HHW collection program could be added to the current collection fees. Under this approach the County would work with collection companies and cities to establish a basic fee for the services. For instance, each household that subscribes to service will be charged a fee as part of their collection rate. As suggested in the 1998 survey this fee could range from $0.50 to $0.75 per household per month. With 30,000 households in the County it would generate between $180,000 and $270,000 per year. This may be more than what is required for the program depending on which alternative is selected. This amount of money would be sufficient to fund any of the collection alternatives discussed in the previous section. It would provide stable funds that are directly related to the services provided. A separate rate could be established for commercial customers for the CESQG waste materials. One drawback to this approach would be that some households do not subscribe to collection services. These households would be subsidized by those paying for collection services. One solution is to issue coupons or obtain receipts from paying for collection services that are redeemable at HHW collection events or at a facility.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-24

CHAPTERSIX
6.8.4 Add Fee to Disposal Charges

Hazardous Household Waste

The County could work with Riverbend Landfill to establish a fee or surcharge on waste disposed at the landfill to pay for the HHW and CESQG collection program. The rational being that all residents and businesses use the landfill and it would provide a fair and equitable means of charging customers. For instance County disposes of about 70,000 tons of MSW at Riverbend. To generate $140,000 the landfill would need to charge about $2.00 per ton for all waste delivered by the franchised collection companies and by those who haul their own waste. The franchised collection companies would still need to prorate this charge back to both residential and commercial customers. For instance, each household might be asked to pay $0.25 per month, which would be $3.00 per year. This amount would seem reasonable considering the feedback provided in the survey. The remaining amount would be generated from commercial waste. Using the disposal rates does provide an equitable means to generate revenue for the HHW program assuming it is charged to Yamhill County waste only. It is also possible to consider that all waste delivered to the landfill pay for the HHW program. Under this arrangement the actual per ton charge could be between $0.25 and $0.35 per ton. Based on the fact that 400,000 tons of wastes are disposed of annually at Riverbend this arrangement would generate between $80,000 and $140,000 per year. The one drawback to this approach is that operators of Riverbend Landfill would need to adjust rates with many of their customers outside of Yamhill County.

6.8.5 Wastewater System Surcharges
Some communities have chosen to implement a fee using their sewer or water rates. King County, Washington partially funds its HHW and CESQG programs through surcharges on the wastewater bills. The rationale behind this approach is that reducing the improper disposal of HHW benefits wastewater treatment systems, and so users of these systems should help pay for proper treatment. Since most households do have water service most households are then paying for this service. The fee charged would be similar to that used under the collection fees since the amount of the fee would not relate to the amount of water used. Therefore, the impacts would be similar to the alternative of adding this fee to collection rates.

6.8.6 DEQ Grants
In the past the state has offered grants to pay for HHW collection events. In recent years however, these funds have been cut from the state budget. Local governments have had to find other sources of revenue to pay for these events. DEQ does provide funds to build permanent facilities for HHW collection services. Both Marion and Columbia Counties have received $80,000 to fund the construction of a permanent building. The state does not provide monies to fund operations.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-25

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

The grant amount is $60,000 plus $0.50 for each resident over 10,000, with a maximum of $100,000. Yamhill County would currently qualify for up to $100,000.

6.9

EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The current Yamhill County HHW program has relied on contractor provided collection events that have been held once every two years in two locations in the county. With such a long period between events, residents are unlikely to see HHW collection as a regular program; therefore the special events require a lot of advertising to make residents aware of upcoming dates. Most residents are also not very likely to save HHW materials for two years for the next collection event, so some material from program participants is probably not being handled correctly. But historical use of the collection events shows that residents support and use the program, so the county should focus on making the program more convenient to increase participation. The county can also reduce the cost of the program by diverting non-hazardous materials such as latex paint from the HHW events. The following recommendations provide Yamhill County with a set of actions for managing its HHW collection program. Recommendation 6.1: The County, in cooperation with NGS and WOW, should proceed with the latex paint collection program and disposal agreement with Metro. Rationale for Recommendation: This would be an effective method to possibly reduce costs of the HHW program by eliminating the disposal of a material that is not a hazardous waste. Since the latex paint would be collected separately and sent to Metro, the volume of latex paint that is collected at the HHW events would be reduced. Additionally, with this agreement in place, any latex paint that is collected at the events could then be separated and sent to Metro instead of being disposed of by the TSD contractor. It will also increase the overall waste recovery rate. Implementation Timeline: Start in 2004 – Ongoing Recommendation 6.2: The County should consider developing an agreement with Marion and/or Polk Counties for the purchase and use of a common mobile HHW collection vehicle. Rationale for Recommendation: The mobile collection unit could be used to stage collection events in Newberg and McMinnville, as well as allowing the county to cost effectively offer HHW collection in more remote areas traditionally not served by collection events. Since the HHW collection events would typically occur on a three to six month schedule in any of the jurisdictions, the collection unit and staff for the events could very easily be shared. Additionally, a common mobile HHW collection vehicle will allow the counties to jointly fund the program, instead of individually supporting their own programs. Implementation Timeline: Startup by 2005 - Ongoing 6-26

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

CHAPTERSIX

Hazardous Household Waste

Recommendation 6.3: The County should continue to schedule collection events in the county at least twice per year until the mobile program is established. Rationale for Recommendation: By establishing a regular collection schedule, even twice a year, residents will know when to look for the advertising of the event, and public awareness of the program will increase. Irregular schedules tend to lead to more confusion on the part of the public and less participation. Also, by holding the event on a regular basis, residents will become more educated about what materials are and are not considered HHW. Implementation Timeline: Two years (2005) Recommendation 6.4: The County should work with cities, Riverbend Landfill and franchised collection companies to establish an appropriate fee to support the latex paint and HHW collection programs. This new fee can be part of the collection rates or collected as part of the disposal rate. Rationale for Recommendation: By adding a nominal amount to monthly collection bills, $0.30 to $0.60 per month, the county could generate $110,000 to 220,000 per year to support the latex paint and HHW programs. A survey of residents showed that the majority is willing to support the HHW program, even if they were not currently using the program. Another benefit of adding a fee to monthly bills is that it would generate more awareness of the program and increase participation. The funds can either be collected through disposal tipping fees or by altering collection rates. Implementation Timeline: One to two years (2004 –05) Recommendation 6.5: The County should develop an ongoing promotion and education program for proper management of HHW and CESQG waste. Rationale for Recommendation: The County and service providers have already developed a formal promotion and education program for waste reduction and recycling services. Additionally, the County has developed information that has been distributed to educate households on alternatives to using products that may contain low amounts of toxic ingredients. A minimal amount of funds should be budgeted to support this effort. These monies can either be funding from current resources or be part of developing a permanent funding source for the collection program. However, it is important that the County ensure the message is delivered on a consistent basis. Implementation Timeline: Ongoing

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

6-27

CHAPTERSEVEN
7.1 INTRODUCTION

Administration and Enforcement

This chapter of the SWMP considers the current practices and policies for the administration and enforcement of the County’s Solid Waste Management Program. It reviews the presents the role and responsibilities of the County in managing the solid waste system. It includes the activities involved with carryout ordinances, enforcement mechanisms, and programs and services. It also considers the current funding sources and fiscal requirements needed to manage the system. The chapter further presents deficiencies and needs for meeting the goals of the solid waste system in the future, as well as meeting the requirements and the recommendations considered in this plan. Based on these needs, alternatives are discussed and evaluated, and recommendations are made to improve the overall solid waste management system.

7.2

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

7.2.1 Existing Solid Waste Administrative Agencies
There are several public agencies involved in the oversight, administration and enforcement of the solid waste programs and activities. Each of these jurisdictions shares responsibility in making sure the state mandates and minimum standards are enforced. Each city has the primary responsibility to ensure that collection and recycling services are provided. This is accomplished through the use of franchised agreements with private service providers, to provide these services within the jurisdiction and boundaries of each city. The County is responsible to ensure that collection and recycling services are provided to the unincorporated areas within the entire county limits. In addition to the collection services, the County has historically been the principle jurisdiction responsible for ensuring there is a disposal site to serve constituents. This has been accomplished through agreements with private landfill operators. The current agreement is with Waste Management (WMO) for operation of the Riverbend Landfill. Under this agreement WMO will provide disposal capacity until 2014. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for permitting and regulatory oversight, enforcement, and overall operating facilities. The DEQ is also responsible for working with each waste shed in the state (in this case, Yamhill County) to enforce the provisions of state law related to waste reduction and recycling. The following is a more detailed discussion of each agency’s role in managing the solid waste activities as they relate to Yamhill County.

7.2.1.1 Solid Waste Management Ordinance (No. 578)
The operating authority and policy directives for managing solid waste in the County are contained in the Solid Waste Management Ordinance. It stipulates the County “ shall regulate the
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-1

CHAPTERSEVEN

Administration and Enforcement

accumulation, collection and disposal of waste and solid waste and the creation and operation of disposal sites to: a. Provide for safe and sanitary accumulation, storage, collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste. b. Prohibit and provide for abatement of accumulation of waste, or solid waste, on private property in a manner that would create a public nuisance, a hazard to health, or a condition of unsightliness. c. Develop a regional long range plan to provide adequate disposal sites and disposal facilities to meet future demands. d. Provide a coordinated countywide program of control of solid waste in cooperation with federal, state, and local agencies responsible for the prevention, control, or abatement of air, water, and ground pollution. e. Provide for and encourage research, studies, surveys, and demonstration projects on developing more sanitary, efficient, and economical solid waste disposal systems and programs. f. Provide for a coordinated solid waste disposal program with cities within Yamhill County and with other counties or cities, should regional programs be developed. g. Provide for cooperation and agreements between Yamhill County and other counties involving joint or regional franchising or licensing of solid waste collection or disposal. h. Provide minimum standards for location and operation of disposal sites to protect adjacent or nearby residents.” All conditions and regulatory requirements for operating facilities or providing services are stipulated in this Ordinance. The Ordinance can be amended from time to time to add provisions needed to provide safe and proper management of solid waste.

7.2.1.2 Yamhill County, Department of Planning and Community Services
In the State of Oregon the primary responsibility for managing solid waste is assigned to counties (ORS Section 459.125). Under this law, counties have a broad range of authorities to design, construct and operate facilities, and to generate revenue to service the needs of the counties. They may also exercise the prerogative to contract or franchise with private service providers for collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste services. In Yamhill County, the Department of Planning and Community Services is responsible for managing and oversight of solid waste services under direction of the County Board. As such they are responsible for administering franchise agreements and for overseeing the contract for disposal services. The County is not involved in direct operations of facilities or direct services
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-2

CHAPTERSEVEN

Administration and Enforcement

for collection or recycling. Yamhill County Solid Waste (YCSW), a division within the Department of Planning, currently performs the following activities: 1. Administer collection franchises for the unincorporated areas. This includes: • • • Establish service standards. Review and set rates. Ensure compliance with the state minimum waste reduction and recycling regulations.

2. Coordinate waste reduction and recycling promotion and education programs with franchised collection companies and Riverbend Landfill. 3. Administer the franchise agreement with Riverbend Landfill. 4. Responsible for responding to illegal dumping and enforce the County’s ordinance. 5. Coordinate with other local jurisdictions to respond to emergency events. 6. Conduct special events such as Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection programs. 7. Monitor and manage the post closure maintenance for two closed landfills 8. Manage and coordinate the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). To oversee and manage this program, YCSW has dedicated staff for managing these activities. However, because of these limited resources, they must set priorities for managing solid waste. They must allocate time between enforcement, franchise regulation, waste reduction and recycling, promotion, education, and special events. To carry out these activities, YCSW group includes a solid waste manager who is dedicated to the solid waste program and a part-time employee to assist in administering solid waste activities that includes coordinating waste reduction and recycling programs. This part-time employee represents 60% of a full-time equivalent (FTE) position. YCSW has a full time person to respond to and enforces the illegal dumping ordinance. Support activities such as legal, financial, and administration are provided by other Planning Department staff or by other departments within general administration. An important role of the County is to work with and coordinate recycling activities with the two franchise collection companies and the Riverbend Landfill. These same franchise companies provide collection services to each of the cities. As a result, it is important that county services are coordinated with those provided within the city limits. YCSW is responsible for reviewing rates charged to customers by both NGS and WOW for the unincorporated portions of the County. Franchised collection companies will submit financial information to YCSW, which performs an evaluation of the data. Findings and recommendations
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-3

CHAPTERSEVEN

Administration and Enforcement

are presented to SWAC for a final recommendation to the Board of Commissioners who are ultimately responsible for approving rates. The County is not directly involved in the rates set by cities or the incorporated areas.

7.2.1.3 Cities
There are ten incorporated areas within Yamhill County. These include the cities of McMinnville, Newberg, Sheridan, Dundee, Lafayette, Dayton, Carlton, Amity, Willamina, and Yamhill. Under to state law, cities have the same authority for managing solid waste as do counties. They can either provide these services directly or they franchise with private companies to collect garbage and recyclables. Their authority also allows them to set standards for service, establish collection boundaries, and set rates. Cities can determine what services and recycling programs to implement consistent with state law. For those cities with population over 4,000 (McMinnville, Newberg and Sheridan), specific recycling programs and standards must be met as discussed in previous Recycling Chapter 3. The cities are required to provide regulatory oversight and administer collection franchises and provide review of rates. To pay the expenses for these services cities charge a 3% franchise fee to the collection service providers. This franchise fee is charged as a percentage of total gross receipts. The cities are responsible for setting collection rates for service within their jurisdictions. Similar to the County process, financial information is submitted to the cities for review. The cities conduct an independent review and make recommendations for changes as needed. Many cities do not have full time personnel that work on solid waste issues on a regular basis, thus they have limited resources available to perform rate reviews. However, cities do have resources from the franchise fees available to fund rate reviews either internally or to use contract services. The cities rely on collection companies to provide disposal services as part of their franchise agreement. However, the disposal agreement between WMO and Yamhill County also provides for disposal of all in county waste from both incorporated and unincorporated areas.

7.2.1.4 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is the primary responsible agency, as directed by the State, to oversee solid waste activities in the state. Pursuant to ORS Section 459.015, DEQ is responsible for assuring that effective programs are in place and that local governments coordinate solid waste programs and services. DEQ provides technical and educational assistance to government agencies, community and business groups and citizens. They maintain funds to financially assist local governments in planning and implementing solid waste management plan activities. The types of assistance include informational materials, workshops, and seminars. Financial assistance is provided
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-4

CHAPTERSEVEN

Administration and Enforcement

through grant programs primarily aimed at helping local governments prepare management plans and implement recycling programs. DEQ is also responsible for regulating and enforcing standards for solid waste facilities. The Northwest Regional office of DEQ located in Portland provides oversight of the solid waste facilities in Yamhill County. Each solid waste facility is required to have a permit. The permit stipulates the minimum standards for handling and managing solid waste. Facilities that do not comply with minimum standards and/or conditions stated in the permit are subject to enforcement action. As stated in ORS 459.047, the DEQ can lend assistance to local governments to plan, locate, acquire, develop and operate new disposal facilities. However, in recent years, DEQ has typically played a low-key role in these activities. Facilities in Yamhill County that operate under a permit from DEQ include the Riverbend Landfill, the Newberg Transfer Station, and the recycling center operated by Western Oregon Waste. The Northwest Greenland also has a permit for their yard waste composting operation.

7.2.1.5 Yamhill County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
The Solid Waste Management Ordinance states that the Board of County Commissioners will create a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). The Committee is appointed to provide oversight and guidance in developing and implementing solid waste programs. Specific duties contained in the ordinance include the following: 1. Compile an annual report containing its recommendations regarding proposed changes or additions to regulations promulgated by the Board or amendments to this ordinance in order to carry out the intent of the ordinance. 2. Develop a long-range plan to provide adequate disposal sites and disposal facilities to meet future needs for county and regional disposal sites, in cooperation with the coordinator and other appropriate county officials selected by the Committee or the Board. 3. Develop minimum standards for the location and operation of disposal sites including, but not limited to, protection of adjacent of nearby residents. This shall be accomplished through consultation with the coordinator and other appropriate county officials selected by the Committee or the Board. 4. Perform other acts or duties as directed by the Board, established by other ordinances, or as may be necessary, proper, or desirable to effectively conduct the functions and responsibilities of the Committee.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-5

CHAPTERSEVEN
7.2.1.6 Financial Resources for Solid Waste Program

Administration and Enforcement

The County does not operate solid waste facilities or provide any direct services; therefore it does not collect user fees or other fees for service. Solid Waste services in the County are provided by private vendors through agreements with the County. Therefore, YCSW must administer these agreements to ensure that solid waste services are provided throughout the entire county. The County is also responsible for meeting minimum standards for waste reduction and recycling programs. And, they must also enforce illegal dumping ordinances throughout the County. The County has also taken the responsibility to oversee the post-closure maintenance of two landfills that were once operated and closed by private companies. This responsibility includes ensuring that groundwater, surface water and the surrounding areas are not adversely impacted by these two closed landfills. County Revenues The County operates solid waste similar to an enterprise fund in that there are no other sources of revenues other than fees charged to customers. The revenue needed to fund these activities is derived from two primary sources. The first is from franchise fees, paid for by each of the collection companies. The second source of revenue is from the licensing and host community fees generated through the agreement with Riverbend Landfill. Projected revenues from these sources for fiscal year 2003-04 totaled $662,000. Of this, nearly 80% is associated with the Riverbend Landfill agreement. Franchise fees total $69,000 or 10% of annual revenues, whereas interest generated from fund balances and emergency funds and post-closure funds total approximately $68,000 or the remaining 10%. Whereas, the Riverbend Landfill agreement provides a stable source of funding to the department, it is important to recognize that the majority of revenue is a result of waste delivered to Riverbend from outside the County. In 2002, of the total 435,000 tons of waste disposed at Riverbend only 134,000 or 31% of the waste disposed was generated in Yamhill County. The revenue collected from the host community fee is placed in the solid waste program fund within the Department of Planning. County Expenditures Annual expenditures for the department are broken into three primary categories, the first being the cost of personal services, which is $288,000 for fiscal year 2003-04. There are essentially 4.15 full-time equivalents (FTE’s) assigned to the solid waste program. This includes a full-time solid waste manager, 60% of a management analyst, and a full-time code enforcement official. The remaining FTE’s are divided among other support services provided from within the Planning Department. This includes office administration, clerks, and some time from the planning director.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-6

CHAPTERSEVEN

Administration and Enforcement

The second area of expenditures is referred to as materials and services. Materials and services include supplies, professional services, equipment, publications and dues, utilities, building rent, etc. In fiscal year 2003-04 the amount budgeted for materials and services was $321,900, however, the amount budgeted may vary from year to year depending on programs and department needs. One important line item in the materials and services budget is the waste reduction and recycling education program funding. In fiscal year 2003-04 it totaled $35,000 or roughly 6% of the entire expenditures. Other larger line items include $125,000 for professional services and $52,000 contribution to administrative overhead. The third category of expenditures is the contribution to other funds. In fiscal 2003-04 the contribution to other funds is approximately $53,000, or roughly 9% of the department’s expenditures. This money is distributed to either post-closure funds or the emergency expenditure line item. In addition to the normal revenue and expenditure line items the County’s solid waste budget special categories for post closure care of closed landfills. These categories include the postclosure funds for the Newberg Landfill, the post-closure fund for Whiteson Landfill, and the emergency expenditure fund. In total, these funds are approximately $3.8 million. Table 7.1 shows the distribution of revenues and expenditures based on the FY 2003-04 budget. Over the past three years revenues have increased at a rate of about 3% per year. Part of this increase can be attributed to interest generated from account balances from investments mostly from environmental liability funds.

Revenue Sources
Annual $662,153 (FY 2003-04 Budget)
Interest & Other $67,853 10%

Franchise Fees $68,800 10%

Restricted Host, License, & Beneficial Use Fees $525,500 80%

Expenditures for the County programs have varied over the past several years. For FY 2003-04 personnel cost are forecasted to be $287,000. Over the past four years a personnel cost have
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-7

CHAPTERSEVEN

Administration and Enforcement

increased by about 17% per year. Part of the increase can be attributed to FTE’s directly assigned to the solid waste program. Another part can be assigned to increase in health insurance and part time help. The materials and services budget has increased largely due to the impacts of the environmental / post closure funds. Most notably is the variation in funding for education and promotion for waste reduction and recycling and other services by YSCW. Over the past four years the amount has varied from $30,000 in FY 2001-02 to as much as $110,000 in FY 2002-03. The primary difference in the level of funding is because the FY 2002-03 budget included the resources needed to fund HHW collection events. In FY2003-04 funding for this line item is budgeted at $35,000 since the County decided not to hold HHW collection events. Therefore, it is typical for YCSW to budget between $30,000 and $35,000 for promotion and education activities targeted for waste reduction and recycling programs. Expenditures Annual $662,153 (FY 2003-04 Budget)
Contribution to Other Funds $52,677 8% Personnel (4.15 FTE) $287,576 43%

Material & Services $321,900 49%

Other Expenditure Items Post Closure Newberg Post Closure Whiteson Emergency/Contingency

$1,200,000 $750,000 $1,839,677 $3,789,677

7.2.1.7 Environmental Liabilities / Emergency Fund
In the early 1980’s, two privately operated landfills in the county were closed. One was the Newberg Landfill located on 40 acres adjacent to the Willamette River. The second was the Whiteson Landfill located on 28 acres adjacent to the South Yamhill River. At the time these landfills operated there were no rules requiring the owners to maintain the landfill after closure. As such, these sites were not required to collect monies to monitor and maintain the landfills for
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-8

CHAPTERSEVEN

Administration and Enforcement

any period after they ceased operations. Both landfills are located in environmentally sensitive areas near rivers. After the landfills were closed, the County recognized the need to assume responsibility for maintaining the sites on a proactive basis. They assumed the responsibilities to maintain and ensure protection against potential environmental and human health risks. Activities associated with these closed landfills include sampling existing groundwater wells, maintaining final cover, inspecting the landfill cover to guard against excessive erosion and to maintain surface drainage. The County must also monitor the landfills for any gas emissions or possible impacts to the environment. The County began to collect monies to pay for post closure activities in the late 1980’s and have continued to manage the sites since that time. In January 2003 YCSW completed a study to determine the extent of potential environmental liability associated with each site. The report was completed by Parametrix Inc., an independent consultant firm, entailed reviewing groundwater monitoring data and conducting a site reviews to establish the amount of funds needed to manage these sites for the long term. Annual maintenance cost was estimated to be $35,300 for the Newberg Landfill and $35,500 for the Whiteson Landfill. These costs only addressed routine maintenance and monitoring. However, if there were any releases of contamination to groundwater or surface waters from the landfills the County would need sufficient monies to pay for cleanup or remedial actions. As part of the study, the consultant evaluated the potential environmental liabilities or risks that lie with each facility. As required by the ORS 459 for closed landfills, they evaluated the “worse case scenario” for each site. The worse case is an estimated of environmental and health risk associated with the closed landfills. It is based on local conditions and the closure improvements made at each site. The results of that study indicate that “worse case scenario” or potential environmental risks could be $890,000 for the Whiteson Landfill. Considering the annual maintenance cost for 13 years of $779,000 the financial risk for the site is estimated to be $1.7 million. For the Newberg Landfill the “worse case scenario” costs were estimated to be $1.043 million. When the annual monitoring and maintenance cost of $932,000 for 14 years is added to this cost, the total amount needed is $1.97 million for the Newberg Landfill. The total potential environmental risk of these sites was estimated at $3.6 million. The County is not insured against such environmental liabilities, and they have adopted a policy to provide self insurance for potential environmental liabilities. As such the County has established a separate fund for each landfill. To date they have accumulated $750,000 in the Whiteson fund and $1.2 million in the Newberg fund. This totals $1.95 million, or roughly 54% of the estimated environmental liability associated with these landfills. In addition to these funds, the County has established an emergency expenditure fund of $1.84 million. These three funds represent the amount of money established for the self-insurance against environmental risk associated with the landfills.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-9

CHAPTERSEVEN

Administration and Enforcement

It is important to recognize that in establishing the amount of money to be set aside for these post-closure funds, the independent engineering firm estimated an associated risk of potential environmental impacts from these landfills in 2003. As the closed landfills stabilize the amount of money needed in these funds can be reevaluated to determine if the amount of funds need to be adjusted. It is also important to note that the revenue necessary to fund these environmental liabilities is largely a result of the Riverbend Landfill agreement. Therefore, waste generated from outside the region being disposed at Riverbend is contributing to funding these contingent environmental liabilities.

7.3

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

This section describes the needs and opportunities of the solid waste management structure in Yamhill County. It examines the responsibility of the County and considers the requirements for managing the future program.

7.3.1 Solid Waste Administration / Enforcement
Yamhill County has the primary responsibility for ensuring that there are adequate disposal services provided within the county. The County must also ensure that there are adequate collection and recycling services provided. State law also makes the County the primary responsible agency to ensure the minimal waste reduction and recycling services are in place, and that the County meets the state mandated recovery goals. The responsibilities need to be evaluated and prioritized to make sure that adequate resources are provided to manage and administer the programs. In addition, the County has assumed the responsibility to maintain two closed landfills and to remediate any environmental impacts that may result from these facilities. The County’s other principal responsibility is to enforce regulations related to illegal dumping or accumulation of excessive waste materials on private properties. These represent the minimum responsibilities that must be conducted by YCSW. Over the next ten years it is expected that the County will maintain these minimal services. What must be considered are the additional services or support programs might be put in place to implement or execute the recommendations contained within this solid waste plan. The solid waste system in Yamhill County is highly dependent on the services provided by private companies. The County plays an important role in supporting and executing these programs in conjunction with the private companies. However, this role must be evaluated from year to year to determine the level of resources and funding needed from the County to help make sure these programs are successful. In addition, the County must always reexamine its role in providing leadership in the waste reduction and recycling programs, and in coordinating with the private service providers.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-10

CHAPTERSEVEN

Administration and Enforcement

Over the next 11 years the County has a reliable source of revenue to pay for existing services with much revenue being generated from host community fees. Beyond this period the future of these revenue sources is uncertain and depends on whether additional landfill cells are developed at the Riverbend Landfill and whether it continues to serve as a regional disposal site. In addition to the current programs and services provide by YCSW there are several recommendations contained in the SWMP, that need to be accounted for in planning for future administration and management alternatives. These include the need to continue to fund and execute an aggressive waste reduction and recycling campaign. And, whereas this campaign needs to be coordinated and conducted in conjunction with NGS, WOW and the Riverbend Landfill, the County must play a central role in planning and implementing the program. Another service recommended in the SWMP is to establish a permanent HHW collection program. The County has begun an important step by working with both NGS and WOW to set up paint collection events. However, implementation of HHW collection using a mobile unit is the preferred alternative for conducting collection events for HHW and CEG waste. This program will require additional time and resources of YCSW. Currently, franchise collection companies must prepare detailed financial to request rate adjustments to both the Cities and the County under separate processes. Although the fees for service will differ due to density of development and other demographic conditions it places some extra burden on the companies and review agencies to conduct rate studies and review financial information. If the rate review processes could be coordinated it might result in streamlining the process and making it more cost effective for both the private collection companies as well as the review agencies.

7.4

ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION

Although many of the direct services are provided by private vendors under franchise agreements or contracts, the County and cities are ultimately ensuring services are provided to constituents in accordance with state laws and the County solid waste ordinance. The following represents a discussion of alternatives for managing the solid waste system in Yamhill County considering current operations and impacts from actions considered in the SWMP.

7.4.1 Continue Basic Services
Under this alternative YCSW would continue to provide the basic services similar to the current program. The primary functions include: 1. Administer franchise agreements and contracts with private vendors. This includes rate review, service standards and state reporting requirements. 2. Plan and coordinate waste reduction and recycling activities. There are limited resources to take on additional responsibilities to implement new programs.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-11

CHAPTERSEVEN
3. Monitor and enforce illegal dumping ordinances. 4. Conduct special events such as HHW collection. 5. Monitor and manage two closed landfills. 6. Administer, manage and coordinate SWAC.

Administration and Enforcement

The current YCSW staff involved in conducting these basic services includes 4.15 FTE assigned to the program. The resources required to meet these staffing needs is about $290,000 per year. The materials and services budget will vary year to year depending on program needs. However, the budget for Waste Reduction and recycling education and promotion in 2002-03 was $35,000. The amount of funds for these programs needs to be evaluated and a firm commitment made to fund basic programs each year. In FY 2003-04 the amount of monies budgeted for materials and services is $322,000. Impacts of Continuing Basic Services The basic administrative services provided by Yamhill County Solid Waste are sufficient to meet the immediate needs of the program. Maintaining current staff levels as well as commitment of financial resources will insure that program needs are met. Based on the current resources there are limited funds available to add new programs and or to expand the waste reduction/recycling efforts. Under the current program a minimum of $35,000 will need to be budgeted for waste reduction and recycling efforts. In some years this could be increased, however, this commitment does create much support for expanding the amount of materials recycled or for starting new programs. In addition, implementing a new HHW program will be difficult under current resources. It is possible to continue to do the basic services and to solicit additional outside contractual services to assist in implementing these programs. It is also possible to gain commitments from cities and local services for help pay for additional services. However, this too will require additional administrative time from the County staff to successfully implement these programs.

7.4.2 Expansion of YCSW Programs
Under this alternative YCSW will continue to maintain the existing programs and resources as contained in the FY 2003 -04 budget. However, prior to the start of the next fiscal year the County will examine the recommendations of the Solid Waste Management Plan to determine what additional resources and staffing are necessary to implement and maintain the recommended programs. Specific areas with additional resources or staffing assistance may be needed are as follows: 1. Increased involvement in targeted waste reduction and recycling programs particularly aimed at recycling certain materials. 2. Implementation of permanent HHW/CEG collection program.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-12

CHAPTERSEVEN
3. Coordinate rate review process with cities.

Administration and Enforcement

To implement and carry out these programs will likely require additional staff resources. One option would to increase the current recycling coordinator position from 0.6 FTE to a full time position. Increasing the position would add 800 hours annually to implement and maintain new programs. Another option would be to use resources from inside the Department assuming other programs can afford the reduction of staff. Requirements to startup the HHW collection program will require additional resources. However, once the program is established and provided it is conducted in conjunction with the recommendations in the plan it should have a limited impact on future staff resources. The program will require annual promotion and advertising. Educational materials may also need to be developed, however, much of this work can be completed through outsourcing. The main staff effort will be to plan and schedule the events, coordinate with other jurisdictions and franchise collection companies and manage any contracted services. A third item to consider is the potential to work more closely with cities to execute a coordinated rate review process. Under this process franchise collection companies would submit one financial package for considering adjustments in rates. Much of the customer base lies in the incorporated cities or within the urban growth boundaries surrounding these cities. Having a single rate process will result in savings in time and money. If the local jurisdiction uses outside professional services to review rates perhaps this could be coordinated with the County and result in further savings. Recognizing the County must evaluate program options and management and administrative responsibilities each year these consideration represent a few program changes that could be implemented if additional resources are provided. Impacts of Expanding YCSW programs The impacts of expanding the YCSW staff and program requirements to meet the recommendations of the Solid Waste Management Plan should be minimal. It is estimated that the current management analyst is budgeted for 60% could be expanded to a full time position. This would add about $15,000 to $20,000 in labor costs. The materials and services budget would have to be evaluated from year to year but would most likely be increased by anywhere from $25,000 to $30,000 to fund the targeted programs as recommended in the SWMP. The results of adding a half time FTE and additional resources will be result in continued expansion of the waste reduction and recycling program to keep pace with the County’s stated goals for the program. The other opportunity created by expanding staff resources of the County will be to establish a permanent HHW collection program. It is recommended in the near time that the HHW collection program be conducted using mobile units shared with other counties. The ability to share resources and capital equipment with neighboring counties will enable the program to have
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-13

CHAPTERSEVEN

Administration and Enforcement

stability yet be flexible to meet the needs of the County. To coordinate this program and to conduct advertising scheduling and execution of the program will require the commitment of additional resources of the County. In the past, the County has been able to conduct collection events using current staff but on an inconsistent basis. This is due to lack of staff resources as well as funds to support the program. However, with the addition of the half time FTE plus the consideration of part time employee or contractual services to assist in executing these programs these collection events can be part of the regular services. Also, as part of the recommendations to implement a HHW collection program it is suggested that a fee be added to the existing collection or disposal rates to help pay for the program. The added revenue from these fees could help fund these added resource requirements. Recommendations Recommendation 7.1: The County should increase current staff and resources to meet the demands of expanding waste reduction and recycling programs and to manage the HHW collection program. Rational for Recommendation – Current responsibilities of YCSW require dedication of 4.15 FTE’s. Whereas the SWMP does not recommend significant changes to current responsibilities it does recognize the need for some additional resources to implement specific targeted programs aimed at reducing waste and recycling more materials. Although the County has met its recycling goals the analysis indicates that there are opportunities to increase the amount without making major investments in new collection programs but by providing additional advertisement and promotions of existing collection services and programs. This represents the most cost effective way to stabilize current recycling rates as well as to increase the amount recycled. It also provides additional resources needed to implement HHW collection events on a regular schedule. Implementation Timeframe: FY 2004-2005 and ongoing Recommendation 7.2: The County should reassess the post closure funds and environmental liabilities associated with the Whiteson and Newberg Landfills in 2006 to determine the status and evaluate whether the program is adequately funded. Rational for Recommendation – The County should continue to place monies in reserve to fund contingent environmental liabilities. However, as these closed landfills become stable and assuming there are no detected contamination to groundwater or surface water or other impacts the amount of funds required may lessen. The most recent assessment was completed in January 2003. Updating this assessment in three years should be performed to ensure whether the amount of funds accumulated is adequate. Implementation Timeframe: FY 2005-2006 and ongoing
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-14

CHAPTERSEVEN

Administration and Enforcement

Recommendation 7.3: The County develop a mechanism to coordinate with cities the process used to review financial information and rates proposed by franchised collection companies. Rational for Recommendation – Both the County and the cities are independently conducting rate review processes. This requires resources from the public agencies as well as time and expense from the franchise collection companies. In most instances the financial information submitted is the same. Using a joint review process would help streamline the process and perhaps be more efficient. Implementation Timeframe: 2004-2005 Recommendation 7.4: The County should use excess monies that may result from adjustments to the environmental liability funds to establish a rate stability fund for solid waste activities. Rational for Recommendation – The total amount of money collected for environmental liability associated with the two closed landfills may be adjusted in future years. If it is determined that these resources can be modified in future years and funds exceed estimated requirements, it would be desirable to begin to set up a rate stabilization or solid waste reserve fund. Such a fund could be used in future years to offset changes the cost of services or be used to fund certain programs. Implementation Timeframe: 2006 and ongoing Recommendation 7.5: Based on results of the 2003 Closure and Post Closure report prepared by an independent consultant, SWAC recommends the County should continue to fully fund the environmental liability requirements until it is fully funded. The total environmental liability is estimated to be $3.5 million. Rational for Recommendation – In January 2003 YCSW completed a review of the potential environmental liability associated with two closed landfills (Whiteson Landfill and Newberg Landfill). The report was prepared by Parametrix, Inc., an independent consultant. The report concluded the total permit and worse case scenario costs for both landfills to be $ 3,451,163. The SWAC reviewed the report and its conclusion and recommended to the Board that the post closure environmental liability be fully funded. It should be noted that the report presents an estimate of the costs to pay for certain events attributed to these closed landfills. These are estimates based on an analysis of environmental conditions in 2002 and are subject to change. Therefore, the cost estimates should be updated from time to time to ensure adequate funding is available and as necessary the County should consider the options presented in recommendation 7.4.

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

7-15

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
anaerobic biodegradation – The breakdown of organic matter by natural processes that do not use oxygen. C&D – construction and demolition waste CEG or CESQG – Conditionally exempt small quantity generators of hazardous waste that generates less than the required. CSS – City Sanitary and Recycling Service, also known as WOW. commingled – Recyclable materials are placed into a single container for curbside collection. Compare to source-separated. composting – A process by which organic matter is decomposed under controlled conditions into its component parts, and subsequently used for mulching or as a soil supplement. composting facility – A facility designed to facilitate the controlled process of biologic conversion of some portions of municipal solid waste (i.e., yard waste) into material for land spreading and soil enrichment. DEQ – Also known as ODEQ franchised collection companies – Privately owned businesses that provide garbage and recycling collection services. green waste – garden, food and wood waste generated waste – The sum of disposed waste and recycled waste. heavy metals – Any of a class of metals of high atomic weight and density, such as mercury, lead, zinc, and cadmium, that are known to be toxic to living organisms. HHW – household hazardous wastes (see definition) household hazardous wastes – Products found in the home that contain small amounts of hazardous substances. These products are often labeled as toxic, flammable, corrosive, reactive, infectious or radioactive. landfill – A solid waste facility or part of a facility designated for permanent disposal of solid wastes in or on the land. This includes a sanitary landfill, balefill, landspreading disposal facility, or a hazardous waste, problem waste, special waste, woodwaste, limited purpose, inert, or demolition waste landfill. leachate – Water or other liquid that has been contaminated by dissolved or suspended materials as a result of contact with solid waste or solid waste byproducts. liners – Materials used to prevent the passage of leachate from one part of the landfill area to another. May be composed of soil or may be a synthetic material. MRF – Materials Recovery Facility. A facility that accepts commingled recyclables or mixed waste and recovers recyclable materials by sorting/mechanically separating.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

G-1

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
MSW – municipal solid waste (see definition) municipal solid waste - waste generated by residences, offices, institutions, commercial businesses and other waste generators not producing special wastes NGS – Newberg Garbage and Recycling Service (see refuse collection description in Chapter 2) NWG – Northwest Greenland (see definition) Northwest Greenland – A facility operated by WOW that accepts yard debris and woody waste. The material is processed and composted and converted to a variety of products for sale. OAR – Oregon Administrative Rules. The rules adopted by the State of Oregon for managing solid waste. ODEQ – Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The state agency responsible for monitoring and enforcing solid waste regulations. OEA – Oregon Office of Economic Analysis ORS – Oregon Revised Statutes PAYT - Pay-as-You-Throw (see definition) Pay-as-You-Throw - trash collection programs designed so that households are charged for the amount or volume of trash they generate each week as opposed to each household paying the same trash collection fee. RCRA – The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The federal laws governing the management of solid waste. recovery rate – The percentage of materials recovered, relative to the amount of waste generated. The recovery rate, as determined by the statewide goal, is calculated by adding DEQ approved credits for waste reduction to the recycling rate. More information, including specific credits allowed, can be found in Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 459A – Reuse and Recycling (see References). recycling rate – The percentage of materials recycled, relative to the amount of waste generated (compare to recovery rate). residuals - unrecoverable material received at the recycling centers that must be landfilled. Riverbend Landfill – A solid waste landfill located in Yamhill county operated by Waste Management of Oregon. service providers – Also known as franchised collection companies and waste haulers. single-stream recycling – a collection method where trash and recyclables are mixed together in curbside disposal and taken to a facility for sorting

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

G-2

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
solid waste – All Putrescible and non –putrescible wastes, including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, refuse, ashes, waste paper and cardboard; sewage sludge, septic tank and cesspool pumpings or other sludge; commercial, industrial, demolition and construction wastes; discarded or abandoned vehicles or parts thereof; discarded home and industrial appliances; manure; vegetable or animal solid and semi- solid wastes, dead animals and other wastes; but the term does not include: hazardous wastes or materials used as fertilizer. Solid Waste Advisory Committee – A committee comprised of citizens, businesses, and interested parties appointed by Yamhill County Board of Commission to provide input and direction for developing solid waste programs. Solid Waste Management Plan – A document that presents a comprehensive strategy for managing waste reduction, recycling, renewal and solid waste services for a longer term typically, 7-10 years. source-separated – Separation by residents of recyclable materials into several containers for curbside collection. Compare to commingled. special waste – Certain wastes that have disposal regulations that differ from MSW. Each special waste category has its own characteristics and handling requirements. Some examples of special waste are: incineration ash, fluorescent bulbs, hazardous waste, latex paint, styrofoam, and appliances. SP Newsprint – A paper company located in Newberg that accepts wood waste and yard waste to be used to fuel boilers for making paper Subtitle D – the subsection of RCRA pertaining to regulations governing solid waste disposal facilities. SWMP – Solid Waste Management Plan (see definition) SWAC – Solid Waste Advisory Committee (see definition) TDF - tire derived fuel tipping fee – The fee charged for disposing waste at a landfill or charged to customers at transfer stations. TPD – tons per day TPY – tons per year Transfer Station – A permanent, fixed, supplemental collection and transportation facility used by persons and route collection vehicles to deposit solid waste into a large transfer vehicle for longer distance transport to a permanent disposal site. Valley Recovery Zone (VRZ) – A facility located in McMinnville that accepts source separated materials from the public to be recycled. The facility also accepts some commercial recyclables and is operated by WOW.
K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

G-3

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Waste Disposal – The discharging, discarding, or abandoning of solid wastes, hazardous wastes, or moderate risk wastes. This includes the discharge of any such wastes into or on land, air, or water. Waste Haulers – see service providers waste recycling/transfer facility – Any waste processing facility which collects, stores, or treats waste materials for reuse. This can include buy-back recycling centers, drop-off recycling centers, salvage yards, reclamation sites, and waste storage centers. waste reduction – To reduce, avoid, or eliminate the generation of wastes. waste stream – The entire spectrum of wastes produced by all waste generators. WMO – Waste Management of Oregon, owned and operates at the Riverbend Landfill. WOW – Western Oregon Waste, formerly known as City Sanitary and Recycling Service Yamhill County Solid Waste – A division within the Department of Planning and Community Development that is dedicated to administer and manage solid waste programs and services. yard debris – Grass clippings, leaves and small branches that is part of the solid waste stream. YCSW – Yamhill County Solid Waste (see definition)

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

G-4

APPENDIXA

Ordinance 578 – Regarding Riverbend Landfill Agreement

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

APPENDIXB

Ordinance 4544 – Annual Report for Collection Rates

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

APPENDIXC

Collection Franchise Agreements

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc

APPENDIXD

Landfill Rate Schedule

K:\ycsw\Yamhil_County_SWMP_files\Yamhill County SWMP April6 .doc


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:220
posted:10/6/2009
language:English
pages:162