Solid Waste/Resource Management In The Sacramento Region: Facing The Future

Transcription

1

2

3

4 Solid Waste/Resource Management In The Sacramento Region: Facing The Future April 2015

5 THE FUTURE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE SACRAMENTO REGION Table of Contents I Introduction A. Purpose of Document B. Executive Summary II Operational Environment A. Commercial collection, disposal, and diversion programs B. Residential collection, disposal, and diversion programs C. Other cities in the region D. Tonnage leaving Sacramento County III Policy Environment A. AB 939 History B. Recent Policy Changes IV Opportunities and Constraints Matrix Organic Waste Management Opportunities Summary V Financial Considerations Impacts on Waste Generators in the SWA Region VI Conclusions and Recommendations Appendix A Existing Organic Waste Management Infrastructure Appendix B Organic Waste Recycling Technologies Appendix C Organic Waste Management Opportunities Matrix Solid Waste / Resource Management: Facing the Future

6 I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of Document This document is a strategic planning document. The solid waste disposal and recycling industry is undergoing a revolution due to economic, technologic, and especially regulatory change. This document is presented to the Sacramento Regional Solid Waste Authority (SWA) Board of Directors (Board) to advise them of the nature of those changes and how City and County staff plan on meeting the challenges they present. Organic materials in the waste stream (organics), in their wide variety of forms, are the largest remaining divertible segment. They are specifically targeted by State legislation and are thus prime candidates for policy attention and / or programmatic change. The discussion in this document revolves heavily around organics. Finally, the requirements of AB 1826, Chartered on September 28, 2014, include that jurisdictions identify organics waste recycling facilities in their region. Germane to the broader goals of this document, Appendix A also serves as the summary of regional facilities, thus providing the City and County with compliance of this provision of AB The City, County, and SWA are best served by informed anticipation, proactivity, and establishing a flexible stance so that change can be managed as it unfolds, not responded to in a mode of crisis. This document is not simply a report of the current state of affairs; it is a decision-making tool for Facing the Future. The purpose of this document is to lay out for elected official s consideration staff s prepared strategy options for compliance, seeking input and preliminary authorization to prepare for the future. B. Executive Summary Staff from the County Department of Waste Management and Recycling (DWMR) and the City Recycling and Solid Waste Division (RSWD) have prepared this document on the feasibility of establishing organics diversion and recycling programs and policies in the Sacramento Region, variously applicable through the SWA, or respectively through actions of the member agencies. Both the City and the County have statewide- and nationally recognized diversion programs and well exceed current diversion requirements. The array of programs and policies implemented at the municipal and SWA level are summarized in Section II. Central to City, County, and SWA efforts is developing a working model for programs and policies to meet the requirements of recent changes in California Law. Those regulatory changes are discussed in detail in Section III. Special attention is paid to AB 1826, the most pressing regulatory change. Page 2 of 21

7 The California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle) is tasked with a statewide goal of recycling 75% of solid waste by CalRecycle is also charged with implementing Strategic Directive 6.1, established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, the predecessor agency to CalRecycle, in This directive calls for reducing organic waste disposal by 50% by According to CalRecycle, significant gains in organic waste diversion (through recycling technologies for organic waste such as composting and anaerobic digestion) are necessary to meet the 75% goal and to implement Strategic Directive 6.1. Currently, organic materials, including green waste, make up about one-third of the state s disposed waste stream (approximately 13 million tons) and food waste continues to be the highest single category of disposal at about 15%. Other disposed organic materials, such as brush, lumber, leaves, and grass clippings comprise an additional 20% combined. Organic wastes present the most pressing challenges and the most promising opportunities to regional decision makers. Potential future initiatives, either directly or indirectly targeting organics diversion, followed by their presentation in an Opportunities and Constraints Matrix, are explored in Section IV. This is envisioned as a living document, producing measures of feasibility for each initiative, measures that will change as economic or regulatory realities do. The opportunities presented will come and go. The types of obstacles, and the degree to which they constrain the opportunities, will change over time as well. In order to have the document serve as a comprehensive yet concise decision making tool, Section V presents the financial considerations of recent regulation and its impact on the customer as it relates to food waste diversion within the SWA region. The financial considerations are based on information obtained from regional facilities and local haulers. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in Section VI and a series of 3 Appendices complete the document, providing contextual and illustrative support to the document s purpose. Page 3 of 21

8 II THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT A. Commercial collection, disposal, and diversion programs Sacramento Regional Solid Waste Authority (SWA) The SWA serves primarily as the City s and County s agency for regulating the commercial waste stream (which includes waste generated at multifamily residential complexes) by executing franchise contracts with companies that engage in the business of collecting commercial solid waste (waste haulers, or haulers); enforcing diversion requirements on waste-generating businesses (generators); certifying construction and demolition debris (C&D) facilities that that are then allowed to offer diversion credits to haulers and generators; and authorizing recycling service providers that do not also offer refuse collection service. The SWA also serves as a forum where the County, City, and industry stakeholders discuss and generate strategies for regional program development and compliance. The City and County do not provide commercial solid waste collection service directly; rather they franchise private waste haulers. Franchisees compete for business in an open system without restriction on which legally permitted disposal facility is used, either in-region or out-of-region. Franchisees are not restricted to geographic areas of the City and unincorporated County, notwithstanding the special contractual arrangement for refuse collection in Old Sacramento. For the purposes of this discussion we ve divided the commercial solid waste stream into three generally but not perfectly distinct categories: (1) regularly scheduled collection service at businesses operating at a specific location, or business ; (2) collection service at multifamily residential establishments, or multifamily ; and (3) temporary service, e.g. roll-off type containers used at construction projects. Of the 450,000 tons of commercial solid waste collected by franchisees in the SWA region in 2013, the breakdown into these categories appears roughly as follows: Business: 215,000 tons or 48%. This segment includes the highest concentration of food waste and other currently disposed organics, estimated to be about 33,000 tons. Temporary: 180,000 tons or 40%. Most of this is construction and demolition ( C&D ) debris. Multifamily: 55,000 tons or 12%. This is exempt from the provisions of AB The presence of organics in the waste stream varies greatly by industry. For example, the average full service restaurant s waste stream is 66% compostable organics, while a large hotel s will be 44% compostable organics. To meet AB 1826 jurisdictional requirements, SWA staff will need to create a dataset from information obtained from the County s Environmental Management Division, as well as all SWA Franchisees. Page 4 of 21

9 The City, the County, and the SWA enacted comprehensive C&D programs that complement each other. They serve as a model for the region and have been bolstered by recent changes to the California Building Code, CalGreen. The most prevalent organic material in C&D is clean wood wastes (e.g. lumber, plywood, pallets), which have reliable markets and are very efficiently diverted from landfill disposal. The C&D programs are extremely effective and not addressed in depth in this strategic planning document. B. Residential collection, disposal, and diversion programs County of Sacramento The County DWMR provides curbside collection, recycling, transfer, and disposal services to approximately 155,000 accounts representing 550,000 residents across the unincorporated area, and provides disposal services to an additional approximately 500,000 residents of the cities of Sacramento and Folsom. DWMR owns and operates the entire County municipal solid waste (MSW) system from curbside to landfill face, and partners with private companies for recycling and some green waste processing. Residential collections use a three cart system: one cart for refuse, one for green waste, and one for recycling materials. Customers enjoy a pay-as-you-throw rate system with rates for their service determined by the size of the refuse cart. Extra recycling and green waste carts are provided for free to encourage the diversion of as much material generated by the household as possible. DWMR focuses on diverting collected materials in the most cost effective way while providing the broadest list of recyclable options possible. In 2013, DWMR collected 36,000 tons of recyclables and 70,000 tons of greenwaste from its residential customers. Most of the County s residential green waste is combined at the County s North Area Recovery Station (NARS) with other sources of wood waste from self-haul and commercial customers, crushed, and sent via transfer truck for biomass power generation. Of the 70,000 tons of residential green waste collected by DWMR vehicles, 55,000 tons were diverted in this manner. An additional 15,000 tons of residential green waste was used as alternative daily cover (ADC) at the County s Kiefer landfill. In 2013, DWMR collected 128,000 tons of residential garbage that was sent to Kiefer landfill, where landfill gas is collected and provides electricity for 9,000 SMUD customers. Sacramento County DWMR applies a comprehensive tool kit of programs for residents which has contributed to the success of the unincorporated Sacramento County attaining an impressive 73% diversion rate. Near universal participation in recycling programs and a three-bin strategy to provide for the customers every need have made DWMR s residential collection program one of the most successful in the country. While the focus of AB 1826 is on commercial organic waste diversion, there may be an opportunity to expand the County s scope of services to include changes in residential organics management. Page 5 of 21

10 City of Sacramento The City s Recycling and Solid Waste Division (RSWD), which is part of the General Services Department, provides a range of collection and recycling services to approximately 124,000 residential accounts located in the City. The basic services provided to all residential customers include weekly solid waste collection for all residential customers; year-round weekly containerized yard waste collection; seasonal loose-in-the-street collection of yard waste (November January), and bi-weekly commingled curbside recycling collection. In 2013 RSWD collected 120,000 tons of solid waste, 35,000 tons of mixed recyclables and 75,000 tons of yard waste from its residential customers. Over the course of a single year, the RSWD collects more than 16 million solid waste, recycling and yard waste carts. The RSWD dispatches approximately 100 residential collection vehicles and staff four days per week from two locations. The North Area Corporation Yard (45,000 accounts) serves areas north of the American River and portions of downtown; the Meadowview City Service Complex (79,000 accounts) serves areas south of the American River. The RSWD uses the Sacramento Recycling and Transfer Station on Fruitridge Road for transfer of solid waste from South Area routes to the County s Kiefer landfill and for processing and recovery of recyclables collected from both the North and South Area routes. The County s North Area Recovery Station on Roseville Road provides transfer for refuse collected from North Area routes. The Elder Creek Transfer Station receives yard waste for recycling from both the North and South Area routes. On April 1, 2014, the City of Sacramento launched a one-year pilot project to collect food scraps from residents in the Elmhurst neighborhood, and turn the food into fuel. Each resident was provided a small plastic bin to store their food scraps. Each week on their regular service day, residents empty their bins into plastic bags and leave them in their yard waste container for collection. RSWD collects the contents of the yard waste container and delivers the material to Republic Services where the food waste is separated, weighed, and transported to Clean World s anaerobic digester located at the County s South Area Transfer Station (SATS) on Fruitridge Road. At Clean World, the food waste is fed into a digester that produces Compressed Natural Gas, which the City uses to fuel a handful of garbage trucks. Eight months in to the pilot, customer participation is below expectations. Just 254 tons of food waste has been collection from about 30 percent of the community s 1,200 residents who are actively participating. While it appears there is an appetite for food waste recycling, there needs to be greater outreach efforts and easier-to-use collection methods to change customer habits. Page 6 of 21

11 Other cities in the Sacramento region Systems for commercial collection in the surrounding communities of Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, and Rancho Cordova are similar to those found in the SWA region, with basically the same cast of private sector service providers and the same mix of in-county management versus waste export. The City of Folsom collects business and multifamily commercial solid waste with City staff and partners with the County for use of Kiefer landfill for refuse disposal; Folsom s temporary commercial tonnage operates under an open system similar to others in the region. The City of Galt manages an exclusive franchise for commercial collection. Aggregate tonnage is smaller than the SWA, estimated at 120,000 tons in Programs for residential collection in the surrounding communities of Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova and Folsom are similar to those found in the County and City of Sacramento, utilizing a three-bin program as the cornerstone of residential diversion programs. Folsom collects residential solid waste with its own City staff and partners with County for use of Kiefer landfill for refuse disposal. Some green waste is used there as ADC as well. The other cities contract collection services to Republic Services. Refuse is transferred at Republic s Elder Creek Transfer Station and trucked an additional 52 miles to their Forward Landfill outside Manteca. Approximately 38,000 tons of Green waste is also transferred at Elder Creek. Some is delivered to the regional markets described in Appendix A; the remainder is delivered to Forward Landfill. Tonnage leaving Sacramento County Of the approximately 450,000 tons of commercial MSW collected by SWA Franchisees in Sacramento City and County, approximately 120,000 tons are diverted for recycling, while approximately 330,000 tons are disposed. Of the 330,000 tons of Commercial MSW collected and disposed by SWA Franchisees, approximately one-third of that disposal stays within Sacramento County (Kiefer Landfill and L&D Landfill), while approximately two-thirds of it is exported to landfills outside the region, primarily Forward Landfill near Manteca in southern San Joaquin County, Lockwood Landfill near Sparks, Nevada, and Yolo County Central Landfill. Approximately 285,000 tons of residential refuse from the City of Sacramento, the unincorporated county, and Folsom are disposed in-county. Approximately 80,000 tons of residential refuse, primarily from the three cities of Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova is exported. With no regional composting facility, residential greenwaste generally (1) is used as alternative daily cover (ADC) at landfills, or (2) exported large distances for composting or biomass conversion (electrical generation). Page 7 of 21

12 III POLICY ENVIRONMENT A. Policy History The path to current compliance Both the City of Sacramento and the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County currently exceed the 50% diversion rate required by AB 939. In 2013, the City of Sacramento and unincorporated County achieved diversion rates of 64% and 73% respectively. In addition to diversion rate compliance, both jurisdictions have also met Cal Recycle requirements programmatically. This includes the implementation of quality residential curbside collection programs for commingled recyclable and green waste collection; education programs; regional facility recycling programs and processing; and C&D, commercial, and multi-family recycling programs through the SWA. The City and County of Sacramento should achieve additional diversion in 2015 and 2016 through implementation of SWA Ordinance 25 which requires SWA Franchisees to achieve 30% diversion of commercial solid waste collected by Forecasted regulatory impact on diversion The table below shows the derivation of the reported 2013 diversion rates for the City of Sacramento and the unincorporated County that are referenced in section 1 above. This table also forecasts the 2019 diversion rates, respectively, reflecting the positive effect of additional diversion the City and County will experience as a result of implementation of SWA Ordinance 25. However, as of January 1, 2020, AB 1594 eliminates California jurisdictions ability to achieve diversion credit for green waste used as alternative daily cover at landfills. Consequently, this table forecasts the 2020 diversion rates for the City and County, reflecting the negative affect of not being able to do so Diversion Rate Forecasting - Sacramento City and County Combined (SWA) City of Sacramento Unincorporated Sacramento County SWA (City and County) Diversion Rate 64% 66% 62% 73% 75% 72% 69% 71% 68% Total Generation (tons) 1,193,300 1,266,000 1,279,000 1,588,100 1,686,000 1,703,000 2,781,400 2,952,000 2,982,000 Total Disposal (tons) 435, , , , , , , , ,400 Total Recycling (tons) 758, , ,100 1,164,200 1,261,600 1,234,500 1,922,200 2,091,000 2,032,600 Tonnage Shortfall to 75% Recycling Goal 120, ,150 2,900 42, , ,900 Green Waste as ADC 45,100 48, ,100 42, ,200 90,600 0 Page 8 of 21

13 Per the table above, the total green waste credited as diversion to the City and County in 2019 is forecasted to be approximately 90,600 tons (based on current practices at facilities used by the City and County including Kiefer Landfill, L&D Landfill, and Forward Landfill). Based on regulations and rules promulgated pursuant to AB 1594, the City and County would experience a drop in their forecasted diversion rates from 2019 to 2020 if other creditable diversion programs are not developed to compensate for that 90,600 tons. B. Recent Policy Changes AB 1826 Organic Waste California State Assembly Bill 1826 establishes requirements for organics recycling on commercial establishments, and for jurisdictions to monitor compliance. Details are highlighted below and additional information is available at Requirements for organic waste generators Businesses that generate organic waste shall arrange for recycling services for that material on the following schedule: - Beginning April 1, 2016 for businesses that generates eight cubic yards or more of organic waste per week; - Beginning January 1, 2017 for businesses that generates four cubic yards or more of organic waste per week; - On and after January 1, 2019 for businesses that generates four cubic yards or more of solid waste per week; and - On and after January 1, 2020 for businesses that generate two cubic yards or more of solid waste per week may be required to recycle that waste in a specified manner. Businesses that contract for landscaping or gardening services are to comply with the organic waste recycling requirement. Requirements for jurisdictions On and after January 1, 2016, each jurisdiction shall implement an organic waste recycling program. If a jurisdiction, as of January 1, 2016, has in place an organic waste recycling program that meets the requirements of this section, it is not required to implement a new or expanded organic waste recycling program. The program required by this section shall be directed at organic waste generators and include one or more of the following: - Implementing a mandatory commercial organic waste recycling policy or ordinance. Page 9 of 21

14 - Requiring a mandatory commercial organic waste recycling program through a franchise contract or agreement. - Requiring organic waste to go through a source separated or mixed processing system that diverts material from disposal. The organic waste recycling program shall do all of the following: - Identify existing facilities within a reasonable vicinity and the capacities available, or those suitable for development or expansion. - Identify barriers to siting new or expanded compostable materials handling operations and specify a plan to remedy those barriers that are within the control of the local jurisdiction. - Provide for the education of, outreach to, and monitoring of, businesses. Each jurisdiction shall provide CalRecycle with information on the number of regulated businesses that generate organic waste and, if available, the number that are recycling organic waste. Each jurisdiction shall also report to the department on the progress achieved in implementing its organic waste recycling program, including education, outreach, identification, and monitoring. A local governmental agency may charge and collect a fee from generators to recover the local governmental agency s costs incurred in complying with this chapter. AB 341 Mandatory Commercial Recycling and Statewide Recycling Goal California State Assembly Bill 341 establishes mandatory commercial recycling and a goal of 75% recycling goal for the State of California by the year It is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of the solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year AB 1594 Alternative Daily Cover California State Assembly Bill 1594 provides that the use of green material as alternative daily cover (ADC) does not constitute diversion through recycling beginning January 1, Commencing August 1, 2018, local jurisdictions are required to include information in its annual report on how the local jurisdiction intends to address diversion requirements and divert green material used as ADC. The bill requires a jurisdiction that does not meet certain diversion requirements as a result of not being able to claim diversion for the use of green material as ADC to identify and address, in its annual report, barriers to recycling green material and, if sufficient capacity at facilities that recycle green material is not expected to be operational before a certain date, to include a plan to address those barriers. Page 10 of 21

15 Existing law requires the operator of a disposal facility to pay a quarterly fee based on the amount of solid waste disposed of at each disposal site. This bill provides that, commencing January 1, 2020, green material used as ADC at a solid waste landfill will not be subject to this fee. AB 32 Greenhouse Gases In its First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan, The California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (CARB) identified a number of strategies to implement AB 32 that may eventually impact waste management facilities. The overarching priorities include: Take full ownership of the waste generated in California Maximize recycling and diversion from landfills Build the infrastructure needed to support a sustainable, low-carbon waste management system, including development of non-landfill alternatives Improve the sustainability of the waste management infrastructure Reduce the volume of waste generated From CARB s perspective, meeting the goals for 2050 will rely on increased use of alternative waste management technologies to push towards achieving net zeroemissions. For the AB 32 Waste Management Focus Group the emphasis was on alternatives to landfill disposal, despite the fact that landfill methane emissions constitute only 1% of California GHG emissions. The strategies in the working papers espoused incenting investment into the construction of alternative infrastructure to landfills, while disincenting landfill disposal through eliminating alternative daily cover diversion credit, banning organics disposal, and perhaps subjecting landfills to cap-and-trade. However, no attention is paid to reducing GHG emissions due to waste hauling, despite the fact that, according to the Transportation Focus Group working paper, transportation accounts for the largest contributor to GHG emissions at 38% of the total. Strategies could have little effect on GHG emissions if waste transporting is ignored. The waste utility is unique among utilities in that the conduit by which the commodity travels is a truck on a road. That means there are few physical limitations to where waste can flow; and since the road network is built and maintained by a different industry, there is little capital investment necessary to participate. Further, the movement of a commodity by truck is unregulated As a result waste flow is very random, subjected to various influences including tip fees, fuel prices, market share, individual contracts, and corporate directives. Consequently, in the near term, newly forbidden-from-landfills organic material will likely be trucked great distances to the few existing outlets, with a net increase in GHG emissions. Page 11 of 21

16 SB 498 Biomass Diversion Restrictions Previous law allowed the 50% diversion requirement to include not more than 10% through transformation or biomass conversion, as defined, if specified conditions are met. The act defines biomass conversion, to mean the controlled combustion of specified materials for the production of heat or electricity. SB 498 revises the definition of the term biomass conversion to mean the production of heat, fuels, or electricity by the controlled combustion of, or the use of other noncombustion thermal technologies on those specified materials. The bill would require a solid waste facility sending materials to a biomass conversion facility to ensure that the materials sent are limited to those specified materials. The bill would authorize the Local Enforcement Agency to inspect the solid waste facility, as specified. The bill would require the owner or operator of a biomass conversion facility to submit an annual report to the department, under the penalty of perjury, containing specified information for the preceding year. Because a violation of this requirement would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Page 12 of 21

17 IV OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS MATRIX Through the collaborative joint City and County staff-level discussion of the approaching regulatory changes, specific attention was paid to identifying and exploring potential paths to the various measures of compliance demanded therein. The regulatory descriptions in Section III illustrate that ample time is available to approach these various paths as opportunities as opposed to crisis responses. However, that planning horizon is closing. Staff believes a worthwhile discussion of the future of waste management in the Sacramento region, specifically meeting challenges associated with increased diversion of organic wastes, means including analysis of the feasibility of opportunities that may on the surface seem highly impractical, if for no other reason than their analysis can be informative towards that of more conventional opportunities. It is critical to effective decision-making processes that improbable ideas be explored, if for no other reason than to articulate why they are far-fetched. Each opportunity is presented against a series of evaluation criteria, or potential obstacles, that are grouped into three broad categories: Policy Constraints, Community Constraints, and Internal Constraints. Each pairing is then measured into one of four general values: The constraint will not present an obstacle to that opportunity, The constraint will possibly, under some potentially avoidable circumstances, present an obstacle, The constraint will likely, under most foreseeable circumstances, present an obstacle, or The constraint will, under virtually every foreseeable circumstance, present an obstacle to execution of that opportunity. Any particular obstacle, in and of itself, does not render an opportunity hopeless, but the framework of this decision-making matrix provides a way to measure opportunities against each other, allowing ones that score consistently poorly to sink in favor and others that score consistently better to rise to more serious consideration. It is an easily updated tool as conditions change so it also provides a framework to identify windows of opportunity that are opening and, of course, closing. The remainder of this Section provides a brief summary of current opportunities identified by staff and highlights a handful of applicable, notable constraints, or lack thereof. The full matrix in illustrative form is included in this document as Appendix C. Page 13 of 21

18 Opportunities: Facility Development 1. Opportunity: Development of a regional composting / AD facility, e.g. GreenCycle A regional facility developed as a public private partnership would be located in the Sacramento region. It would rely primarily on composting but likely incorporate other organics recycling technologies as appropriate, such as anaerobic digestion. It would be a regional solution to the current greenwaste diversion challenges and open the door to long range solutions for other organics as programs and policies become more aggressive. Not an obstacle: Would not present compliance uncertainty for recent legislation and performs especially highly considering emissions from transportation. Possibly an obstacle: Would require additional CEQA analysis and delays, perhaps from challenges from nearby communities. Possibly an obstacle: In the current environment would significantly increase tip fees; the impact on residential collection rates would be more buffered. Likely an obstacle: Would be difficult to finance the facility without rate increases. Likely an obstacle: Air permit compliance would significantly increase facility cost. 2. Opportunity: Development of a regional thermal conversion facility A regional facility, likely developed as a public private partnership, would be located in the Sacramento region. A thermal technology, for the purposes of this analysis does not include incineration; rather it means high-temperature thermal conversion processes. The facility would primarily generate energy from organic wastes but thermal technology has also demonstrated the ability to generate energy from municipal solid waste generally. Possibly an obstacle: The legacy of public opposition to garbage incinerators hampers generating public acceptance of thermal technologies. Likely an obstacle: Financing of this kind of facility would require significant rate increases. Certainly an obstacle: Entitlements and permitting of such a facility would be highly controversial. Certainly an obstacle: Thermal technologies will offer limited diversion potential per the provisions of SB Opportunity: Anaerobic digestion or composting of all MSW Composting and/or anaerobic digestion of the entirety of the MSW stream, such as is being pursued by the City of San Jose, represents a fundamental shift in the region s historical waste management practices. It faces numerous obstacles but would result in comprehensive compliance. Separate collection of single stream recyclables (blue bin) would remain. Page 14 of 21

19 Not an obstacle: Pursuing this opportunity successfully would achieve comprehensive diversion compliance for the foreseeable future. Possibly an obstacle: Residential and commercial customers would encounter changes to collection schemes, many of which would seem counter-intuitive. Possibly an obstacle: While residential tonnage can be guaranteed by municipal collections operations, the commercial tonnage necessary to make a facility viable would be more difficult to attract in the face of higher tip fees. Clearly an obstacle: The CEQA process, permitting, and facility siting would be extremely challenging. Clearly an obstacle: Would be difficult to finance without rate increases. 4. Opportunity: Process all MSW combined for recyclables and then compost or digest the remainder Processing MSW for recyclables in a dirty material recovery facility (MRF) and coupling that recovery operation with a composting facility, such as is done in western Placer County, would similarly represent a fundamental shift in the region s historical waste management practices. Many of the same obstacles would be faced Not an obstacle: Pursuing this opportunity successfully would achieve comprehensive diversion compliance for the foreseeable future Possibly an obstacle: Residential and commercial customers would encounter changes to collection schemes, many of which would seem counter-intuitive. Clearly an obstacle: The CEQA process, permitting, and facility siting would be extremely challenging. Clearly an obstacle: Would be difficult to finance without rate increases. 5. Opportunity: Rely on enhanced local infrastructure (help revise permits at existing facilities) Several facilities in the SWA region recycle organic materials but have permit restrictions that prevent them from more aggressively pursuing feedstock such as food waste and residential greenwaste. Partnering with these facility operators to improve the environmental controls on site to satisfy waste facility regulators and streamlining their CEQA and permitting process could open up Sacramento s diversion infrastructure capacity. Not an obstacle: Public support would not include financing; it would be limited to regulatory guidance and commitment of waste tonnage. Possibly an obstacle: Existing facilities revisions to their waste acceptance permits would, at the very least, involve Initial Review pursuant to CEQA. Possibly an obstacle: Existing facilities may face challenges from neighbors concerned about enhanced or expanded operations. Page 15 of 21

20 Likely an obstacle: Private facilities have very few tools to ensure enough tonnage arrives to make enhanced operations viable. 6. Opportunity: Landfill organic waste with LFG collection / energy generation system Kiefer landfill currently functions as an anaerobic digester. The landfill gas collection system delivers fuel to engines that generate 15 MW of electricity. There are varied estimates regarding the gas collection efficiency of landfills. Current methods of waste collection and disposal would remain largely unchanged. Operational and/or engineering improvements could be implemented to improve gas collection efficiency. Not an obstacle: This alternative would likely have the least impact on collection rates on both residential and commercial customers. Not an obstacle: Relies on local infrastructure without increase of GHG associated with long-hauling of organic wastes. Certainly an obstacle: Regardless that it represents conversion of organic wastes into energy by anaerobic digestion, it currently would not be considered diversion by any applicable California law. Opportunities: Program Development 7. Opportunity: Target source-separated food waste in the commercial sector This opportunity is in large part required by statute (AB 1826) and logically would take form as a SWA Organics Recycling Ordinance. As with SWA s Business Recycling, C&D, and Multifamily Recycling Ordinances, larger generators logically would be targeted first. However, more aggressive pursuit of commercial organics, as soon as the program is initiated, may provide more reliable feedstock supplies to organics recyclers in the region. It also may reduce per-ton costs for haulers because having more customers generally means more efficient routing. Not an obstacle: This would achieve immediate diversion compliance regarding AB 1826, the regulatory change with the most immediate horizon. Not an obstacle: Facility infrastructure is already in place to manage the most immediate concerns, leaving longer-range regional needs for later initiatives. Possibly an obstacle: As with every enhanced recycling program the Sacramento region has developed, broad customer education efforts will be required. 8. Opportunity: Target source-separated food waste in the residential sector This opportunity would follow on the City s pilot project mentioned earlier in this document and on the experiences of Cities such as Portland, OR. Residential customers would be able to recycle food waste in their green waste container at the curb. Putrescible waste must be collected weekly. Page 16 of 21

21 Not an obstacle: This opportunity would provide programmatic compliance with the comprehensive array of regulations. Possibly an obstacle: Other municipalities experience shows a significant learning curve and customer resistance to odors and food residue in greenwaste carts. Likely an obstacle: Current facility infrastructure requires two transfer locations, in effect creating an additional link in the waste transportation chain and associated costs and emissions. Certainly and obstacle: Residential collection rates and customer sorting schemes will change. 9. Opportunity: Transport organics, including greenwaste, to out-of-region facilities Several composting facilities exist throughout California yet not in the Sacramento region and predate more stringent environmental controls (most notably air emissions mitigation measures). These so-called grandfathered facilities could be utilized for increased organics diversion from the Sacramento region. Emissions associated with transport or increased tonnage is controversial. Not an obstacle: There would be no regional facility to finance. Possibly an obstacle: Customer acceptance of distant transport for waste materials has proven problematic historically. Possibly an obstacle: There are significant air emissions associated with long-range transport and the regulatory framework for them is uncertain. Possibly an obstacle: The performance from implementation of this opportunity is subject to the volatility of fuel prices. 10. Opportunity: Enhance home composting program Both the City and the County promote home composting by supporting education efforts in partnership with the City Department of Parks and Recreation and the University of California Cooperative Extension, respectively. These programs have been modestly funded over the years and could be enhanced. Not an obstacle: Enhanced programs would continue to enjoy public support and not significantly impact residential collection rates. Likely an obstacle: Participation levels necessary to produce the diversion required by recent legislation is unlikely given the established timelines. 11. Opportunity: Implement the Kiefer Special Planning Area (SPA) The County is pursuing an SPA on approximately 100 acres across Kiefer Boulevard from Kiefer landfill. It is specifically tailored to attract recycling-related industries so as to serve the long-range interests of sustainable waste management for the region. The SPA opens the door to many of the opportunities identified in this document. Page 17 of 21

22 Not an obstacle: This opportunity is an enabling opportunity. While specific projects would be evaluated on their own merits, the development of the SPA is consistent any opportunity pursued to comply with any of the identified legislation. Not an obstacle: The SPA could in fact reduce the GHG associated with long hauling waste materials in the current scenario. Possibly an obstacle: The DEIR for the Kiefer SPA dates from September Finalizing the project could require additional environmental review as time passes. Page 18 of 21

23 V FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The requirements of AB 1826 and AB 1594 directly impact a local jurisdiction s ability to manage their organics waste stream. Local jurisdictions must not only analyze their current means of managing their organics waste streams, but also must look toward the future to determine whether the existing infrastructure and program approach will suffice or whether new infrastructure and programs are necessary to meet those mandates. Staff surveyed a variety of active regional facilities within 100 miles to inquire whether they accept green waste material and/or food waste material. The table below presents staff s findings: Facility Name Facility Location Food Waste Accepted? (Y/N) Green Waste Accepted? (Y/N) CleanWorld SATS Anaerobic Digester Sacramento Y N Elder Creek Transfer Station Sacramento N Y Kiefer Landfill Sacramento N Y L&D Landfill Sacramento N Y Lopez Aggregates Sacramento N Y North Area Recovery Station Sacramento N Y Sacramento Recycling and Transfer Station Sacramento N Y CleanWorld UC Davis Anaerobic Digester Davis Y N Old Durham Wood *New Facility Durham N Y Silva Ranch Herald Y Y Feather River Organics Marysville N Y Compost Solutions Orland N Y Western Placer Waste Management Authority Roseville N Y Smitty's Hog Ranch San Joaquin Y N Jepson Prairie Organics Vacaville Y Y Yolo County Central Landfill Woodland N Y Northern Recycling Zamora Y Y Page 19 of 21

24 For the purposes of this document, staff was interested primarily in the financial impact of AB 1826 on the customer as it relates to food waste diversion within the SWA region. Currently, there are six facilities within 40 miles of Sacramento that accept food waste. Based on staff research, the average gate rate for food waste is $40.00/ton and the average contract rate for trash for the SWA franchisees is $30.00/ton. This equates to an estimated $10.00/ton cost differential between tip fees for contracted trash and food waste diversion. If food waste is taken to a facility out-of-county, there is an additional hauling fee, which averages $10.00/ton, and loading fee to tip the material locally and then re-load it into a haul truck, which also averages $10.00/ton. Given the data presented above, if food waste that is normally disposed is instead diverted to a food waste facility, there is on average a $30.00/ton increase if taken to an out-of-county food waste facility and a $10.00/ton increase if taken to an in-county food waste facility. Ultimately, it is estimated that this cost differential to divert the food waste portion of the commercial waste stream, when passed down to the SWA customer will result in approximately a 5% increase on their monthly bill if taken to an in-county food waste facility and approximately a 13% increase on their monthly bill if taken to an out-ofcounty food waste facility. These price increases do not include any additional costs related to creating extra routes to accommodate two waste streams (food waste and trash) and are specifically related to the tip fees, hauling fee, and loading fee identified above. The tables below show an example of staff s findings related to the financial impact on the customer to divert food waste that is currently disposed: Example of Current Service Assume No Food Waste Diversion Monthly Trash Service Level (cyd/month) 25 Monthly Trash Bill $ Future Service Estimated Financial Impact to the Customer to Divert Food Waste In-County Food Waste Facility Out-of-County Food Waste Facility Estimated Monthly Bill to Divert Food Waste Potential and Dispose of Remaining Trash $ $ Increase in Current Monthly Bill to Divert Food Waste $ 9.00 $ % Change in Monthly Bill to Divert Food Waste 5% 15% Page 20 of 21

25 VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions 1. There is sufficient in-county and out-of-county organics processing capacity to handle the anticipated flow of food waste generated by compliance with the most immediate terms and timeframes of AB The financial impact to generators associated with 1826 compliance is not severe, and the impact is lower for in-county processing of organic waste than the cost of export to out-of-county processing facilities. 3. The looming requirement to recycle green waste resulting from 1594 could create a waste stream likely large enough to attract private investment in green waste processing infrastructure within the region. 4. Current SWA policies have resulted in approximately two-thirds commercial waste export, so a system for organics processing similar to the SWA s C&D recycling system may be necessary to incent in-region investment. Recommendations 1. Gather input from all stakeholders. These include regional facility operators, SWA- Franchised haulers, SWA-Authorized recyclers, and commercial waste generators. 2. Consider a wide variety of policy solutions, ranging from a completely market-based, unregulated approach to a material flow controlled approach. 3. Adopt ordinances to implement policy directives. Page 21 of 21

26 Appendix A EXISTING ORGANIC MATERIALS RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE SACRAMENTO REGION County staff did a market assessment within an approximately 100 mile radius of the County and City of Sacramento. A summary of facilities, their existing operations, sources of material, and marketing components, is provided below. The facilities are introduced here, with page identification in the summary, for ease of reference. They are listed roughly in order of distance from Sacramento to final disposal or recycling location. Page A-1 Clean World / County of Sacramento South Area Transfer Station Page A-2 L & D Landfill Page A-2 County of Sacramento North Area Recovery Station Page A-2 California Safe Soils Page A-3 County of Sacramento Kiefer Landfill Page A-3 GreenCycle Page A-3 Lopez Agricultural Services Page A-4 Silva Ranch Biosolids Storage Facility Page A-4 Sierra Energy Page A-5 Yolo County Landfill Page A-5 Smitty s Hog Ranch Page A-6 Western Placer Waste Management Authority Transfer and Compost Facility Page A-7 Recology, Inc. Jepson Prairie Organics / Hay Road Landfill Page A-7 Recology, Inc. Feather River Organics / Ostrum Road Landfill Page A-7 Old Durham Wood Page A-8 Compost Solutions Page A-8 Northern Recycling Page A-8 Waste Management, Inc. Sacramento Recycling and Transfer Station Page A-9 Republic Waste, Inc. Elder Creek Transfer and Recovery Page A-9 Sierra Waste Transfer Station ORGANICS PROCESSING AND DIVERSION FACILITIES Clean World Partners Anaerobic Digester at South Area Transfer Station 8550 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, CA Clean World Partners opened a commercial scale, anaerobic digestion system at the County South Area Transfer Station in December The site also featured California s first anaerobic digestion-based renewable natural gas refueling station. The refueling station and operation was developed and is managed by Atlas Disposal Industries. A-1

27 The Sacramento Biodigester is currently receiving tons of food waste per day from area food processing companies, restaurants, and supermarkets. The facility has the capacity to accept up to 100 tons per day if it can get past the operational and economic difficulties and constraints of this start-up project. At full capacity, the system has the potential to divert up to 40,000 tons of waste annually from landfills producing organic fertilizers and soil amendment products for distribution to area farms. L&D Landfill 8635 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, CA Clean world also operates other anaerobic digestion facilities in the region, including one at UC Davis and one at American River Packaging in Sacramento. SATS remains an underutilized County transfer station permitted to accept residential greenwaste as well as municipal solid waste including food waste. L&D Landfill is a construction and demolition debris (C&D) landfill and SWA-Certified C&D sorting facility permitted to receive 4,125 tons per day. It is located in southeastern Sacramento. It is not permitted to receive putrescible (food) waste. It is currently not permitted to receive residential green waste but has submitted a permit revision application to do so. It is a SWA-Certified C&D Sorting Facility and as such recycles urban wood waste. North Area Recovery Station (NARS) 4450 Roseville Rd, North Highlands, CA NARS is a solid waste, source-separated recyclables, and green waste transfer station located in Sacramento County. It is operated by the County DWMR. Food waste is received at the facility but not in source separated form, only mixed in with the municipal solid waste from residential and commercial sources. Food waste is not recycled at NARS. Permitted capacity for the facility is 1,800 tons per day and includes source separated green waste, both from residential and commercial sources. Green waste is mixed with urban wood waste, and transferred either for use as alternative daily cover at Kiefer Landfill or biomass conversion at Old Durham Wood, discussed later in this Appendix. California Safe Soil, LLC 1030 Riverside Parkway, West Sacramento, CA CSS produces a low cost, high volume, liquid fertilizer product from expired produce and meat generated at supermarkets and food distribution centers. The food is collected for free and transported by CSS in company-provided odor-proof containers. They currently handle A-2

28 approximately 3 tons per day at their West Sacramento location, and are planning to expand to a facility at McClellan airfield capable of handling 32 times the present volume. Kiefer Landfill Kiefer Blvd, Sloughhouse, CA Kiefer landfill is the only municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill in Sacramento County. It is permitted to receive 10,815 tons per day, including green waste from residential and commercial sources. Green waste and urban wood waste are diverted via the North Area Recovery Station (NARS) to Old Durham Wood for use in biomass conversion. Kiefer recycles some green waste as ADC on site. Food waste is not currently recycled at Kiefer landfill. Kiefer landfill has a gas collection system that collects the methane and carbon dioxide generated by decomposing organic waste materials. This is anaerobic digestion. This gas is directed to an on-site 15 megawatt power plant that produces enough renewable electricity to power 9,000 homes. GreenCycle (suspended) Kiefer Blvd, Sloughhouse, CA The GreenCycle project was initiated by the Sacramento Regional Solid Waste Authority (SWA) in 2004 and was envisioned as a publicly owned, privately operated residential green waste composting facility (100,000 tons per year) with potential to add food waste composting (10,000 tons per year) for anaerobic digestion at some date in the future. An extensive site selection process produced a short list of potential locations, including one in the Kiefer landfill bufferlands and sites on Twin Cities Road and Scott Road in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was finalized in September A procurement solicitation for a private sector operator resulted in bids that exceeded what current market realities and curbside collection rates could support. The project was de-funded and indefinitely suspended by the SWA Board in March Lopez Agricultural Services Florin Road, Sacramento, CA The Lopez Agricultural Facility is located in eastern Sacramento County. Composting operations are 6 days per week and include the acceptance and processing of green waste and landscape material, largely from private landscapers in Sacramento County. The facility is not permitted to accept residential green waste. A-3

29 The permitted capacity of the facility is 650 tons per day. There is a limitation on the landscaping type green material that is not to exceed a 50 ton weekly average. Current total throughput of material is approximately 250 to 300 tons per day, so there is capacity at the facility underneath the permit; however windrow operations at the facility are on permeable surfaces, which in part, prevent the facility from expanding. Additional operations would need to be made on non-permeable surfaces. Also, there have been odor complaints and environmental issues with the County EMD and the City of Rancho Cordova. The facility sells finished compost back to landscapers that tip there, as well as for development projects, and through compost brokers. Lopez also accepts gypsum wall board and blends it for customers with special needs. Silva Ranch Wet Weather Biosolids Storage Facility Clay Station Road, Herald, CA The Silva Ranch Wet Weather Biosolids Storage Facility is located approximately two miles northeast of Clay Station Road and Twin Cities Road in Sacramento County. The Ranch is a 2,800-acre property used for pasturing and growing crops for a variety of animals. Municipal biosolids and residential green waste are accepted at the ranch and applied to the land to enhance soil productivity and the growth of crops for animal grazing. Current throughput at the facility averages about 40 tons per day but varies by season. Source of the feedstock include the Sacramento County Regional Sanitation District (SCRSD) and the Elder Creek Transfer Station whose customers include the Cities of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Citrus Heights. Land uses within one mile of the facility are agricultural, and include animal grazing and growing of animal crops. There have been odor complaints and environmental regulatory concerns associated with the site. Sierra Energy Port of Sacramento, West Sacramento, CA Sierra Energy, Inc. of Davis, CA has secured funding for and begun the planning process for a waste gasification facility (non-combustion thermal conversion) at the Port of Sacramento. The facility would process organic materials and potentially mixed solid waste at extremely high temperatures, producing biogas for fuel and, theoretically, inert slag material for possible recycling as a construction material. A-4

30 Yolo County Central Landfill County Road 28H, Woodland, CA The Yolo County Central Landfill has a permitted operating capacity of up to 1,800 tons per day. The facility is located on 724 permitted acres outside Davis, CA in unincorporated Yolo County. In addition to landfill operations, Yolo County has endeavored to experiment with on-site landfill based anaerobic digestion of organic material. The main goal of the project was to assess the capabilities of a new type of digester cell to generate electricity, produce quality compost, achieve emissions less than those of current aerobic composting technology, and be cost-effective within local and regional waste disposal fee structures. In that regard, Yolo had estimated costs for this pilot project in its Contractor s Report entitled Landfill-Based Anaerobic Digester-Compost Pilot Project at Yolo County Central Landfill from April The report details capital and operating costs on a per ton basis, and estimates revenue for electricity generation and compost sold (after reduction of 40% of initial weight after decomposition and screening). According to Yolo County staff, the pilot demonstrated that the operation could be competitive regionally. Yolo is interested in trying this project on larger scale in potential partnerships. Smitty s Hog Ranch North Jacktone Road, Acampo, CA Smitty s Hog Ranch, in addition to its primary enterprise as an agricultural operation, is a food waste recycling facility in northern San Joaquin County. The facility offers an economic disposal option for small and large restaurants, food retailers, caterers, and culinary businesses. Over 1,000 pigs serve the role of processing food waste and food scraps in fenced yards, barns and pastures. The hogs are self-fed and do get exercise. While tipping fees vary, Smitty Hog s Ranch typically accepts food waste at very competitive rates and receives anywhere from 100 to 200 tons per week. Smitty s does have a baler, and makeshift devices to extract food content from packaging in order to feed the food waste portion to swine, and then baling and recycling the non-food waste component. A-5

31 The facility is not regulated by a Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) as a solid waste facility. Rather, the facility is licensed to feed food waste to swine by the State of California Department of Food and Agriculture. Odors at the facility have been a concern; Smitty s is in its 3 rd location due to odors, environmental issues, and proximity to residential or other land uses. Food packaging materials are baled and recycled. Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA) Transfer Station, Materials Recovery Facility, and Composting Facility 3033 Fiddyment Road, Roseville, CA The WPWMA is a regional agency comprised of the Cities of Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville, and Placer County. The Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA) operates a Transfer Station, Materials Recovery Facility, and Composting Facility outside Roseville. The permitted area of the facility is 52.6 acres with approximately 27.2 of that acreage dedicated to the Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station. The remaining 25.4 acres is dedicated to Composting Operations and aerobic windrow composting. The permitted maximum tonnage at the facility is 1,750 tons per day. The compost from this facility is a product of green waste material and does not include food waste products. The facility uses a turned windrow method of composting using a specialized windrow turner. Aeration is largely a function of the particle size of the feedstock, the moisture content and the height of the pile. The majority of the feedstock processed at the facility is relatively low moisture content material. The site is adequately graded and paved to minimize ponding of water that could lead to odors. Most of the material received consists of woody material (shrubs, trees, bushes, etc.) with a small percentage of materials that have high moisture content, like grass clippings. According to staff, it has historically been necessary to add significant amounts of water to maintain the minimum amount of moisture for effective composting. The Authority has an on-line Odor Notification Form on its website that allows residents and businesses to notify the Authority of any odors related to the operation of any part of the facility and request follow up. The main outlet for finished product compost is brokers for the agricultural sector. The facility also sells compost and woodchips to customers at its on-site buy back center. A-6