MEMORANDUM. To: Cc: From:

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "MEMORANDUM. To: Cc: From:"

Meagan Daniel
6 years ago
Views:

1 To: Cc: From: David Bromfield, Orange County EPD; File Rick Wilson, EPIC Allison Trulock, HDR Date: March 30, 2012 Subject: Solid Waste Integrated Resource Plan - Strategies Ranking Matrix (Task 6) The purpose of this memo is to describe the attached matrix, which presents eight potential management strategies that have been identified through the County s ongoing project to develop a Solid Waste Integrated Resource Plan (SWIRP) that targets Class III solid waste, including construction and demolition debris (C&D). The strategies were recently presented to a stakeholder group of approximately 25 people, which included representatives from public and private industry, including state and local government representatives, generators, haulers, processors, and disposal facility representatives. Approximately 34% of the attendees were state and local government representatives, 18% were disposal facility representatives, another 18% were processors, 15% were haulers, 12% were consultants, and 3% were generators. The meeting was held in the Orange County Commission Chambers on February 28, The purpose of the stakeholder meeting was to foster discussion with the group regarding each of the potential management strategies and to obtain feedback that would assist the County and HDR in refining the final strategy recommendations that will be included in the SWIRP document. The strategies presented and discussed during the stakeholder meeting, and their ranking based on the attached matrix, were as follows: Strategy 1. Improve reporting requirements to track generation and recycling/disposal of Class III waste through building permits, Class III haulers, and/or facility data 2. Require job site C&D Debris Diversion Plans, require at least 50% diversion requirement Ranking 1 st (tie) 1 st (tie) 3. Require C&D pre-processing prior to disposal 2 nd 4. Landfill ban for certain types of C&D materials 3 rd (tie) 5. Building contractor education 4 th 6. C&D disposal surcharge (community host fee) 3 rd (tie) 7. Adopt policies that strongly encourage C&D diversion 3 rd (tie) HDR ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 OF 4

2 8. Establish a C&D recycling incentive program for waste haulers 3 rd (tie) Descriptions of each of these strategies can be found in the SWIRP Draft Management Strategies document that was provided to all stakeholder meeting participants. It should be noted that there were originally 10 potential strategies that were developed by HDR and County staff. However, two of the strategies (solid waste industry education and requiring the use of recycled materials in construction) were eliminated from the list of potential strategies based on internal evaluation and discussions prior to the stakeholder meeting. These particular strategies were determined to have a relatively poor potential for diversion success, difficulties related to implementation, or inconsistencies with the guiding principles. Each of the eight strategies presented to the stakeholder group are listed in the attached matrix and have been evaluated and given a numerical score based on nine individual criteria that were derived primarily from the stated Vision, Guiding Principles, and Goals for this project, as well as discussions with County staff. The criteria also take into consideration the stakeholder feedback received and various administrative and economic considerations that have been identified as important factors during the course of the project. In order to assist the County and HDR in short-listing the five or six strategies that will be most effective in addressing diversion of the target waste type, participants in the stakeholder meeting were asked to indicate which strategies they felt would be least effective in reaching the goals of the SWIRP. The evaluation criteria used in the attached matrix are as follows: Streamline reporting process Improve tracking of generation and processing/disposal Achieve State goals for diverting C&D waste Market development Financial impact on County Financial impact on users Administrative and legal complexity Energy conservation and renewable energy Stakeholder input regarding least effective strategies The strategies were assigned a score of one point, two points, or three points for each of the criteria depending on how well it met the identified criterion. The standards for assigning a score based on each criterion are specifically defined within the matrix. Each of the strategies was scored relative to one another. Based on the resulting matrix scores for each of the eight potential management strategies and feedback received during the stakeholder meeting, HDR has narrowed the list of strategies down to a total of five that will be further evaluated as part of the final SWIRP document. Certain strategies were combined where appropriate, while others have been identified as policies that the County should promote adoption at the State level, but not specifically address at the County level. Finally, one strategy was removed from the list entirely, as it was determined to be redundant with one of the other recommended strategies. The following presents a brief discussion regarding each strategy: 1. Improve reporting requirements to track generation and recycling/disposal of Class III waste through building permits, Class III haulers, and/or facility data HDR ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 OF 4

3 o The HDR team recommends this strategy be further evaluated as part of the SWIRP due to the high score it received based on the various criteria in the matrix and its perceived high-level of effectiveness by the stakeholder group as compared to other strategies. 2. Require job site C&D Debris Diversion Plans, require at least 50% diversion: o The HDR team recommends that this strategy be further evaluated as part of the SWIRP document due to the high score it received based on the various criteria in the matrix and its perceived high-level of effectiveness by the stakeholder group as compared to other strategies. The HDR team also recommends that this strategy be combined with Strategies 5 and 7, as Strategy 7 (Adopt policies that strongly encourage C&D diversion) would be an excellent stepping stone toward the eventual adoption of a C&D diversion ordinance that requires job site C&D debris diversion plans (Strategy 2). In addition, Strategy 5 (building contractor education) is a natural fit with the requirement to prepare C&D diversion plans, as a good deal of industry education will need to take place before, during and after adoption of such a requirement. 3. Require C&D pre-processing prior to disposal: o The HDR team does not recommend that this strategy be further evaluated as part of the SWIRP document primarily due to the fact that it is made largely unnecessary by the recommendation to require job site C&D diversion plans (Strategy 2). 4. Landfill ban for certain types of C&D materials: o The HDR team recommends that the County promote this strategy for adoption at the State or regional level. However, we do not recommend that the County pursue this strategy alone. o The strategy received a fairly high score based on the criteria identified in the matrix, but was seen as the least effective of the eight proposed strategies by the stakeholder group. 5. Building contractor education: o The HDR team recommends that this strategy be combined with Strategies 2 and 7, and further evaluated as part of the SWIRP document due the overwhelming consensus it received from the stakeholder group. 6. C&D disposal surcharge (community host fee): o The HDR team recommends that this strategy be further evaluated as part of the SWIRP document based on the fact that it has the potential to provide a needed revenue source for implementation of some of the other recommended strategies. 7. Adopt policies that strongly encourage C&D diversion: o The HDR team recommends that this strategy be combined with Strategies 2 and 5, and further evaluated as part of the SWIRP document due to its perceived high-level of effectiveness by the stakeholder group as compared to other strategies. 8. Establish a C&D recycling incentive program for waste haulers: o HDR recommends that this strategy be further evaluated as part of the SWIRP document due to the fairly high score it received based on the various criteria in the matrix. Based on the above discussion, the final list of recommended strategies for further evaluation includes the following five strategies: HDR ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 OF 4

4 Improve reporting requirements to track generation and recycling/disposal of Class III waste through building permits, Class III haulers, and/or facility data Adopt policies that strongly encourage C&D diversion, require job site C&D Debris Diversion Plans including a 50% diversion requirement, and educate building contractors Landfill ban for certain types of C&D materials to be promoted at the state and/or regional level C&D disposal surcharge (community host fee) Establish a C&D recycling incentive program for waste haulers HDR ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4 OF 4

5 Evaluation Criteria Streamline reporting process Improve tracking of generation and processing/disposal Achieve State goals for diverting C&D waste Market development Financial impact on County Financial impact on users Administrative and legal complexity Energy conservation and renewable energy Stakeholder input regarding least effective strategies Key Questions Strategy #1: Improve reporting requirements to track generation and recycling/disposal of Class III waste through building permits, Class III haulers, and/or facility data Strategy #2: Require job site C&D Debris Diversion Plans and a minimum of 50% diversion Strategy #3: Require C&D pre processing prior to disposal Strategy #4: Landfill ban for certain types of C&D materials Strategy #5: Building contractor education Strategy #6: C&D disposal surcharge (community host fee) Strategy #7: Adopt policies that strongly encourage C&D diversion Strategy #8: Establish a C&D recycling incentive program for waste haulers Does the strategy streamline reporting processes? 3 High impact on streamlining reporting 2 Marginal impact on streamling reporting Little impact or possible negative impact on streamlining reporting 1 Does the strategy help the County better track where C&D debris is generated and processed/disposed? 3 Tracking of materials is significantly improved Tracking of materials is somewhat improved 2 1 Tracking of materials is not improved Does the strategy help the County achieve the State's goal of diverting 40% by 2012, 50% by 2014, 60% by 2016, 70% by 2018, and 75% by 2020? (reduce C&D disposed per square foot) 3 Significant impact on ability to meet State goals Moderate impact on ability to meet State goals Minimal impact on ability to meet State goals 1 1 Does the strategy encourage development of new markets for C&D materials? 3 Significant impact on the development of new markets Moderate impact on the development of new markets No impact on the development of new markets 1 1 Does the strategy have an impact on the financial obligations of the County? 3 Positive financial impact on County 3 2 No financial impact on County Negative financial impact on County Does the strategy have a financial impact on users? 3 Positive financial impact on users 3 2 Little or no financial impact on users Negative financial impact on users What is the level of administrative and legal complexity associated with implementing and maintaining this strategy? 3 Low level of administrative and legal complexity Moderate level of administrative and legal complexity 2 1 High level of administrative and legal complexity How much impact does the strategy have on energy conservation or renewable energy? 3 Significant impact on energy conservation and/or renewable energy 2 Moderate impact on energy conservation and/or renewable energy Minimal impact on energy conservation and/or renewable energy Do stakeholders believe the strategy will be effective in helping to achieve the County's goals of streamlining reporting, improving tracking, and reducing disposal of C&D debris? (Points: 0 5 most effective; 6 10 moderately effective; least effective) Scoring by Strategy 3 Received 0 5 points from stakeholder group Received 6 10 points from stakeholder group Received points from stakeholder group 1 Overall Score

This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing.

This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing. Table of Contents 0.0 Executive Summary... 1 1.0 Introduction... 4 1.1 Background... 4 1.2 Project Purpose... 5 1.3 Project Scope...