2020-286-Order No. 2019-040 Recorded 8/6/2020REVIEWED
a-L
LEGAL COUNSEL
Recorded in Deschutes County
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal
h`��Jk�SCOG II��III
y
q5 2D20-286
CJ2020-286
08/06/2020 9:13:52 AM
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order adopting the 2019 Solid Waste
Management Plan and directing the
implementation of the Solid Waste Management
Plan
* ORDER NO. 2019-040
WHEREAS, Knott Landfill, the only operating municipal solid waste landfill in Deschutes County is
projected to reach the end of its life by 2029; and
WHEREAS, The County has convened a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) that includes
representatives from the cities, franchised collectors, the environmental community, and citizens at large to advise
the Board of County Commissioners on changes needed to the solid waste system in anticipation of the closure of
Knott Landfill; and
WHEREAS, The Department of Solid Waste has developed a Solid Waste Management plan with the
participation of the SWAC that identifies options, performs analysis of those options and makes recommendations
regarding all aspects of the solid waste system including the option to site and construct a new landfill in Deschutes
County; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. The Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Plan dated July 2019, attached hereto as Exhibit
1, and all of its recommendations is hereby adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County.
Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County hereby directs its Department of
Solid Waste to implement the Solid Waste Management Plan including all actions necessary to proceed with
establishment of a new m nicipaI solid waste landfill within Deschutes County.
Dated this 93 day of, �� , 2019 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OR)iGON
ATTE —.—
Recording Secretary
A V
"I
PHILIP G. H�iNDERSON, Chair
t
PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair
. . ......... ..
ANTHONY DeBONE, Commissioner
C,X\ E S CMG
?-A
o A:Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of November 13, 2019
DATE: November 5, 2019
FROM: Timm Schimke, Solid Waste, 541-317-3177
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2019-040 Adopting of the Solid Waste
Management Plan and Directing the Implementation of the Plan
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff Recommends adoption of the Solid Waste Management Plan
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Knott Landfill in Bend, the only operating landfill in Deschutes County is expected to reach
capacity in 2029. In anticipation of the closure of the landfill, the Department of Solid Waste
has convened a Solid Waste Advisory Committee consisting of representatives of the Cities ii i
Deschutes County, the collection franchise holders, the environmental community and citizens
at large to assist with the development of a Solid Waste management Plan (SWMP). Although
the primary factor driving the need for a SWMP is the replacement of Knott Landfill, all aspects
of the solid waste system in Deschutes County were reviewed for potential changes and/or.
improvements. System components addressed in the SWMP include collection, recycling,
composting, transfer and disposal. Several surveys of the citizens of the County were
conducted as part of our public outreach efforts, including a statistically valid telephone survey
that showed 93% of respondents favoring the establishment of a new landfill in the county
versus transport of our waste out of county to a large regional landfill. The SWMP includes
numerous recommendation intended to modernize the solid waste system and prepare for the
closure of Knott Landfill.
The question of the role of the private sector in the solid waste system was raised late in the
development of the SWMP. This agenda item includes a draft position paper that documents
the current use of private companies in our solid waste system and outlines a proposed
approach to consider additional use of the private sector during the implementation of the
SWMP over the next ten years. If approved this paper will be included as an appendix in the
SWMP.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The SWMP identifies more than 26 million dollars in needed capital expenditures over the next
ten years. Funds are expected to be obtained through tip fee increases and/or incurring debt
to make the recommended investments in infrastructure.
ATTENDANCE: Timm Schimke, Director of Solid Waste
Prepared:
July 2019
Prepared by
J RMA, Inc.
In Association With
GBB, Inc.
ESI
G. Friesen, Associates
Barney & Worth
3uly 2019
Document has been Printed on Recycled Paper
Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
Recognition
The Board of County Commissioners would like to recognize the members of
the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) for their dedication of time and
effort to participate in preparing the 2019 Solid Waste Management Plan
(SWMP). The SWAC held monthly meetings to review and comment on the
SWMP as it was developed. At each meeting, they provided time for members
of the general public to comment and offer suggestions. The SWAC also
participated in two public meetings during the planning process. Their
commitment of time and input made a valuable contribution to help shape the
direction of the solid waste management system for the citizens and
businesses of Deschutes County.
Name
Representing
Note
CURRENT
Jerry Andres
Citizen at Large
Brad Bailey
Bend Garbage and Recycling
Jared Black
Citizen at Large
Bill Duerden
City of Redmond
Paul Bertagna
City of Sisters
Catherine Morrow
Citizen at Large
Jake Obrist
City of La Pine
Cassie Lacy
City of Bend
Replaced G. Ockner 2/12/19
Mike Riley
The Environmental Center
Erwin Swetnam
Cascade Disposal
Rick Williams
Citizen at Large
FORMER
Gillian Ockner
City of Bend
Replaced by C. Lacy 2/12/19
Brant Kucera
City of Sisters
Replaced by P. Bertagna 8/21/18
Smith Reese
Citizen at Large
Resigned 7/12/18
Solid aManagement Plan
Table of Contents
Tableof Contents............................................................................................. i
Glossary......................................................................................................... vi
ExecutiveSummary...........................................................................................
1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1
1.1
Context of the Plan Update...............................................................1
1.2
Plan Purpose and Goals....................................................................2
1.3
Issues Addressed by the Plan...........................................................4
1.3.1 Overview of Regulations for Managing Solid Waste ....................5
1.4
Regulations Related to Local Authority...............................................5
1.5
Plan Organization............................................................................7
1.6
Public Participation..........................................................................8
2. BACKGROUND AND WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS .................................. 2-1
2.1
Introduction................................................................................2-1
2.2
Characteristics of the Planning Area................................................2-1
2.3
Description of the Current Solid Waste Management System ..............2-4
2.3.1 Summary of Annual Solid Waste Generation ..........................2-4
2.3.2 Refuse Collection...............................................................2-6
2.3.3 Transfer Stations...............................................................2-6
2.3.4 Disposal Facility — Knott Landfill...........................................2-9
2.3.5 Recycling Systems.............................................................2-9
2.4
Projected Waste Stream Quantities and Composition .......................2-12
2.4.1 Historical Solid Waste Data...............................................2-13
2.4.2 Waste Stream Composition...............................................2-14
2.4.3 Waste Stream Generation Forecast.....................................2-16
3. WASTE PREVENTION, REDUCTION, REUSE & RECYCLING ANALYSIS.. 3-1
3.1 Introduction................................................................................3-1
3.2 Background...................................................................................3-1
3.3 Existing Waste Reduction and Reuse Programs....................................3-6
3.3.1 Existing Waste Reduction Programs........................................3-8
3.3.2 Reuse Programs................................................................3-22
3.3.3 Recycling Programs/Services...............................................
3-24
3.3.4 Composting......................................................................3-25
3.4 Needs and Opportunities for Increased Waste Prevention, Reduction,
Reuse, and Recycling Activities.............................................................3-25
3.5 Alternatives for Increased Waste Prevention, Reduction, Reuse, and
Recycling Activities.............................................................................3-26
3.6 Recommendations for Increased Waste Prevention, Reduction, Reuse, and
Recycling Activities.............................................................................3-37
4. COLLECTION AND RECYCLING/PROCESSING..................................... 4-1
4.1 Background and Existing Conditions................................................4-1
4.2 Existing Collection and Processing..................................................4-4
4.2.1 Collection.........................................................................4-4
4.2.2 Processing......................................................................4-10
4.3 Needs and Opportunities for Collection and Recycling/Processing ......4-19
4.4 Recommendations for Collection and Recycling/Processing ...............4-35
Solid Waste Management Plan
S. TRANSFER SYSTEM............................................................................. 5-1
5.1
Existing Conditions.......................................................................5-1
5.2
Transfer Station Operation Approach..............................................5-2
5.3
Waste and Vehicle Volumes to Each Transfer Station .........................5-4
5.4
Recycling at Transfer Stations........................................................5-5
5.5
Negus Transfer Station.................................................................5-9
5.5.1 Facility Needs..................................................................5-10
5.6
Southwest Transfer Station.........................................................
5-10
5.7
Northwest and Alfalfa Transfer Stations.........................................5-11
5.8
Knott Transfer Station................................................................
5-12
5.8.1 Disposal at a New In -County Landfill...................................5-13
5.8.2 Disposal at an Out -of -County Landfill..................................5-13
5.8.3 Other Operation Related Requirements ...............................
5-14
5.8.4 Collection Considerations for Specific Wastes .......................
5-14
5.9
Needs and Opportunities.............................................................5-14
5.10
Recommendations.....................................................................
5-15
6. ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ........... 6-1
6.1 Background and Existing Conditions..................................................6-1
6.1.1 Introduction......................................................................6-1
6.1.2 Existing Landfill Disposal.....................................................6-1
6.2 Waste Stream Projections.............................................................6-4
6.2.1 Needs and Opportunities.....................................................6-5
6.3 Alternatives and Evaluation...........................................................6-5
6.3.1 Alternatives Technologies for Conversion/Reduction of Municipal
SolidWaste.................................................................................6-5
6.3.2 Mixed Waste Processing......................................................6-6
6.3.3 Technology Summary .......................................................6-30
6.4 Findings and Recommendations...................................................6-32
7. LANDFILL DISPOSAL OPTIONS.......................................................... 7-1
7.1 Background.................................................................................7-1
7.2 County Authority for Waste Disposal...............................................7-2
7.3 Existing Landfill Disposal...............................................................7-3
7.4 Waste Stream Projections.............................................................7-6
7.5 Needs and Opportunities...............................................................7-7
7.6 Disposal Options..........................................................................7-7
7.6.1 Long -Haul Waste to Out -of -County Landfills ...........................7-7
7.6.2 Option - Site and Build a New In -County Landfill ..................7-13
7.7 Evaluation of Disposal Options ..................................................... 7-17
7.8 Recommendations......................................................................7-21
S. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ............................ 8-1
8.1 Introduction................................................................................8-1
8.2 Background and Existing Conditions................................................8-1
8.2.1 Solid Waste Administrative Agencies.....................................8-1
8.2.2 Solid Waste Enforcement....................................................8-4
8.2.3 Financing and Funding Sources............................................8-5
8.3 Needs and Opportunities.............................................................8-11
8.3.1 Management Considerations..............................................8-12
Solid Waste Management Pian
8.3.2 Financing and Funding Considerations.................................8-13
8.4 Alternatives and Evaluation.........................................................8-13
8.4.1 Administration/Management..............................................8-13
8.5 Evaluation and Recommendations................................................ 8-20
APPENDIXA - PRIVATIZATION........................................................................
APPENDIXB - RATES........................................................................................
APPENDIX C - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION ....................................
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Population and Housing, Deschutes County vs. State of Oregon.............2-2
Table 2-2: 2016 Estimated Population of Cities in Deschutes County, OR ...............2-2
Table 2-3: Deschutes County Economic Activity..................................................2-3
Table 2-4: Solid Waste Tons Per Year................................................................2-5
Table 2-5: 2008 Private Solid Waste Haulers and Service Areas ............................2-6
Table 2-6: Remote Transfer Station Tonnages..................................................2-7
Table 2-7: Deschutes County Transfer Station Hours of Operation .........................2-8
Table 2-8: Deschutes County Tonnage to Disposal Operations..............................2-9
Table 2-9: Annual Recycling Materials Recycled at Deschutes County Transfer Stations
(2016 Tons per Year)...................................................................................
2-10
Table 2-10: Commingled Recyclables Collected by Haulers in Deschutes County (Tons
perYear)....................................................................................................
2-11
Table 2-11: Deschutes County Historic Waste Stream Data (Tons, 2010 through 2016)
.....................................................................................................I...........
2-13
Table 2-12: Deschutes County Per Capita Rates (Pounds per Year) .....................
2-14
Table 2-13: Deschutes County Waste Stream for 2016......................................2-15
Table 2-14: Deschutes County Population Projections........................................2-17
Table 2-15: Deschutes County Waste Stream Projections...................................2-18
Table 3-1 Collection of Recyclables in Deschutes County (2014-2016) ...................3-5
Table 3-2 Required Elements for WR/R Programs and Status of County Programs ....
3-9
Table 3-3 WR/R Alternatives Analysis (EST ANNUAL DIVERSION: small >1K tons;
medium 1K-10K tons; large >10K tons).........................................................3-33
Table 4-1: 2008 Private Solid Waste Haulers and Service Areas ............................4-5
Table 4-2 Deschutes County Commingled Recyclables Collected by Franchised Haulers
2014-2016 (Tons)........................................................................................4-10
Table 4-3 Total Commercial Recyclable Material Collected by Haulers 2014-2016
(Tons)........................................................................................................
4-10
Table 4-4 Solid Waste Facilities in Deschutes County.........................................4-11
Table 4-5 C/D Composition Data from Monterey Regional Waste Management ......4-16
Table 4-6 Food Waste Disposed 2016-2017.....................................................4-18
Table 4-7 Can and Roll Cart Service Rates - As of January 2010 ... .................. ....
4-21
Table 4-8 Collection and Recycling/Processing Alternatives Analysis ...................4-32
Table 5-1: Deschutes County Transfer Station Operations....................................5-4
Table 5-2: Waste Volumes at Transfer Stations..................................................5-4
Table 5-3: Vehicle Traffic at Transfer Stations....................................................5-5
Table 5-4: Recycle Only Vehicle Count at Transfer Stations..................................5-6
Table 5-5: Tons of Recycled Material Collected in 2016........................................5-8
Table 6-1: Deschutes County Tonnage to Disposal Operations..............................6-1
Table 6-2: Knott Landfill Expenses 2016............................................................6-3
Table 6-3: Total Annual Operating Expenses......................................................6-3
E
1 0
Solid Waste
Management Plan
Table 6-4: Deschutes County Waste Disposal Projections.....................................6-4
Table 6-5: Material Recovery Numbers from Zanker Demolition Facility..................6-8
Table 6-6: Most Significant AD Companies in the U.S........................................
6-22
Table 6-7: Alternative Processing Technology Summary ....................................6-31
Table 7-1: Deschutes County Waste to Disposal Operations.................................7-3
Table 7-2: Knott Landfill Expenses 2016............................................................7-5
Table 7-3: Total Annual Operating Expenses......................................................7-5
Table 7-4: Deschutes County Waste Disposal Projections.....................................7-6
Table 7-5: Transfer Station Operation, Transportation and Disposal Costs ............
7-11
Table 7-6: Evaluation of Disposal Options........................................................7-19
Table 8-1: Actual and Projected Expenditures - FY 2016-FY 2019 .........................8-7
Table 8-2: Allocation of Expenditures to Operations............................................8-9
Table 8-3: Projected Reserve Fund Balances - FY 2019........................................8-9
Table 8-4: Actual and Projected Revenues - FY 2016 - FY 2019 .........................8-10
Table 8-5: Internal Financing (Pay-as-you-go).................................................8-19
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Deschutes County SWMP Interactive Planning Process.....................1-8
Figure 2-1: Deschutes County Solid Waste System..........................................2-4
Figure 2-2: Graph of Annual Solid Waste........................................................2-5
Figure 2-3: Transfer Station Locations in Deschutes County.............................2-7
Figure 2-4: Deschutes County Yearly Transfer Station Tonnages .......................2-8
Figure 2-5: Annual Wood/Yard Waste at Deschutes County Transfer Stations (Tons
perYear)...................................................................................................2-11
Figure 2-6: Composition of Waste Disposed in Deschutes County ....................2-16
Figure 2-7: Deschutes County Waste Generation Per Capita Rates ...................
2-19
Figure 3-1: Deschutes County Per Capita Waste Generation and Recovery .............3-2
Figure 3-2: Recovery Rate in Deschutes County.................................................3-3
Figure 3-3: Annual Marginal Rate of Generation in Deschutes County Since 2008 ....3-4
Figure 3-4: Material Recovery in Deschutes County from 2014 to 2016 (tons) ........3-6
Figure 3-5: Front Page of Bend Garbage and Recycling's Quarterly Newsletter ......
3-14
Figure 3-6: Deschutes Recycling Brochure.......................................................
3-16
Figure 3-7: Bend Garbage and Recycling's Preparation Guide .............................
3-16
Figure 3-8: Bend Garbage and Recycling's Collection Schedule ...........................
3-17
Figure 3-9: Inset from Deschutes County Recycling Brochure .............................
3-18
Figure 3-10: Inset from Deschutes County Secure Your Load Brochure ................
3-20
Figure 3-11: Deschutes Recycling Thrift Store Brochure.....................................3-23
Figure 3-12: Habitat for Humanity Lumber Drop Off..........................................3-23
Figure 3-13: Kent County, Michigan "SORT it OUT" event container program ........
3-28
Figure 4-1: Deschutes County 2016 Waste Flow Diagram (in tons)........................4-3
Figure 4-2: Cascade Disposal's 2018 City Customer Calendar and Education Materials
(front side on left, back side on right)...............................................................4-6
Figure 4-3: Franchised Hauler Community Promotional logos................................4-7
Figure 4-4: View of the Truck Entrance at Mid -Oregon Recycling .........................4-13
Figure 4-5: Outside Page of Deschutes Recycling Customer Compost Tri-Fold Brochure
...............................................................................................................
4-17
Figure 4-6: Example of a Portable C/D System .................................................
4-24
Figure 4-7: Example C/D Processing Infrastructure ...........................................
4-25
Figure 4-8: Integrated Mixed Waste and Commingled Conceptual Process Line .....4-28
iv
Solid Waste Management
Figure 5-1: Transfer Stations and Distances from Knott Landfill ............................5-2
Figure 5-2: Typical "Z-wall" Construction...........................................................5-3
Figure 5-3: What Can You Recycle....................................................................5-7
Figure 5-4: Transfer Station Commingled Recycling Sign.....................................5-8
Figure 5-5: Negus Transfer Station...................................................................5-9
Figure 5-6: Negus Transfer Station Safety Features ..........................................
5-10
Figure 5-7: Southwest Transfer Station...........................................................
5-11
Figure 5-8: Northwest Transfer Station...........................................................
5-12
Figure 5-9: Knott Landfill Recycling and Transfer Station ...................................
5-12
Figure 6-1: Newby Island Resource Recovery Park in Milpitas, California ................6-6
Figure 6-2: View of Zanker Demolition Processing Facility....................................6-7
Figure 6-3: Industrial Fluidized Bed Boiler.........................................................6-9
Figure 6-4: Pelletized EF/RDF........................................................................6-10
Figure 6-5: Shredded and Fluffy EF/RDF..........................................................6-10
Figure 6-6: Composting Process Flow Diagram .................................................
6-12
Figure 6-7: Windrow Composting...................................................................6-12
Figure 6-8: Aeration Pipes for Aerated Static Pile Composting.............................6-13
Figure 6-9: Textile covered composting piles -GORE Cover for Organic Waste Treatment
(Courtesy of Gore).......................................................................................
6-14
Figure 6-10: In -Vessel Composting.................................................................6-15
Figure 6-11: Approximate TS Ranges Suitable for Common Types of AD Systems..
6-16
Figure 6-12: Typical lagoon AD system...........................................................6-17
Figure 6-13: Typical High Rate AD System.......................................................6-18
Figure 6-14: Typical CSTR AD System.............................................................6-18
Figure 6-15: Typical Plug Flow AD System Schematic........................................6-19
Figure 6-16- Plug Flow System with Mixing Shafts............................................6-19
Figure 6-17: Typical Waste Stream Suitable for a High Solids AD system .............6-20
Figure 6-18: High Solids AD with Integral Composting Operation ........................6-21
Figure 6-19: Chamber of a High Solids AD with Integral ....................................
6-21
Figure 6-20: Chamber of a High Solids AD with Integral ....................................
6-22
Figure 6-21: WTE Process Diagram.................................................................6-23
Figure 6-22: An Illustration of the Potential MBT Options ...................................
6-25
Figure 6-23: The Gasification Process..............................................................6-26
Figure 6-24: Gasification System Types...........................................................6-27
Figure 6-25: Plasma Gasification....................................................................6-29
Figure 6-26: Enerkem Process.......................................................................
6-30
Figure 7-1: Location and Distances to Proximate Landfills and Transfer Stations ......
7-9
Figure8-1: DSW Organization.........................................................................8-3
Figure 8-2: Projected Expenditures for FY 2019..................................................8-8
u
Solid Waste Management
s ai€6F i.
Glossary
Alfalfa Transfer Station
A recycling and transfer facility in Alfalfa that
accepts recyclable materials to be loaded into
roll -off bins for transport to a recycling facility
and solid waste to be loaded into roll -off bins for
transport to a landfill.
Anaerobic biodegradation
The breakdown of organic matter by natural
processes that do not use oxygen.
Btu
British thermal unit
C D
Construction and demolition waste
CCAR
California Climate Action Registry
CDL
Construction demolition and land -clearing
CED
Covered electronic devices
CNG
Compressed natural gas
Commingled
Placement by residents of a variety of recyclable
materials into a single container for curbside
collection. Compare to source -se arated.
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.
DB
Disposal Bans
DEQ
Oregon De artment of Environmental Quality
DSW
Deschutes County Department of Solid Waste
A facility located at Knott Landfill that receives
Knott Landfill Recycling
recyclable materials, yard debris, wood waste
Facility
and food waste and composts these wastes to
produce organic soil amendment.
A transfer facility located at Knott Landfill that
Knott Landfill Transfer Station
accepts solid waste to be loaded into trailers for
transport to a landfill.
Disposed waste
The total amount of waste delivered to a waste
management facility (landfill, WTEF, etc.) in or
out of the County, as reported to DEQ by the
operators.
EDD
Oregon Economic Development Department
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FTE
Full-time equivalent position
FY
Fiscal year
Franchised haulers
See service providers
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
Green waste
Garden food and wood waste
Generated waste
The sum of disposed waste and recycled
waste.
vi
Solid Waste Management Plan
a
Heavy metals
Any of a class of metals of high atomic weight
and density, such as mercury, lead, zinc, and
cadmium, which are known to be toxic to living
organisms.
HHV
Higher heating value
HHW
Household hazardous waste see definition
Household hazardous waste
Products found in the home that present
potential health and safety hazards. These
products are often labeled as toxic, flammable,
corrosive reactive infectious or radioactive.
Host fee
A fee charged for disposing waste at a solid
waste facility and paid to the local city or county
jurisdiction where a landfill is located.
Knott Landfill
The landfill owned and operated by Deschutes
County where municipal solid waste generated in
the county is disposed.
kWh
Kilowatt-hour
LFG
Landfill gas. LFG is generated through the
decomposition of waste buried in a landfill.
LNG
Liquefied natural gas
Landfill
A solid waste facility or part of a facility for the
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, wood
waste, 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 or to the environment outside the
landfill liner. May be composed of soil or may be
a synthetic material.
MACT
Maximum achievable control technology
MRO
Mandatory Recycling Ordinance
MRF
Material Recovery Facility - a facility that
processes and separates materials for the
purposes of recycling from incoming mixed solid
waste stream, or from mixed source -separated
recyclable stream.
Msl
Mean sea level
MSW
Municipal solid waste see definition
MW
Megawatt
Municipal solid waste
Waste generated by residences, offices,
institutions, commercial businesses and other
waste generators not producing special wastes.
vii
Management;�
Solid Waste u
Negus Transfer Station
A recycling and transfer facility in Redmond that
accepts recyclable materials to be loaded into
roll off bins for transport to a recycling facility
and solid waste to be loaded into trailers for
transport to a landfill.
Northwest Transfer Station
A recycling and transfer facility located on
Fryrear Road between Sisters and Redmond that
accepts recyclable materials to be loaded into
roll -off bins for transport to a recycling facility
and solid waste to be loaded into trailers for
transport to a landfill.
NPDES
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
OAR
Oregon Administrative Rules
OCC
Old corrugated cardboard recovered and
recycled
OEA
Oregon Office of Economic Analysis
ORS
Oregon Revised Statutes
PAYT
Pay -as -You -Throw see definition
PGE
Portland General Electric
Pay -as -You -Throw
Waste collection programs designed so that
households are charged for the amount of waste
they generate (by weight or volume) each week
as opposed to each household paying the same
collection fee.
PVC
Polyvinyl chloride
RFP
Request for Proposals
RI FS
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Stud
Recovery rate
The percentage of materials recovered and
recycled, reused and/or diverted from disposal in
a landfill divided by the total waste generated.
The recovery rate, as determined by the
statewide goal, is calculated by DEQ.
Recycling rate
The percentage of materials recycled, divided by
amount of waste generated (compare to
recover rate).
Residuals
Unrecoverable material received at the recycling
centers.
SWM
Solid waste management
SWAC
Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee
see definition
SWMP
Solid Waste Management Plan
Service providers
Privately -owned businesses that provide garbage
collection services. Other terms used for service
providers include: franchised haulers and
waste haulers.
Single -stream recycling
A collection method where garbage and
recyclables are mixed together in curbside
disposal and taken to a facility for sorting.
viii
Solid5 Waste
y .t Management Plan
Solid waste
As defined by the Resource Conversation and
Recovery Act, a broad term which includes
garbage, refuse (e.g., metal scrap, wall board,
etc.), sludge from treatment facilities, and other
materials including solids, semisolids, liquids, or
gaseous material from industrial, commercial,
mining, agricultural, and community activities.
Exceptions include domestic sewage, industrial
wastewater, irrigation return flows, nuclear
materials, and mining material not removed
during the extraction process.
Solid Waste Advisory
A committee comprised of cities, citizens,
Committee
businesses, and interested parties appointed to
provide input and direction for developing solid
waste programs.
Source -separated
Separation by residents of recyclable materials
into several containers for curbside collection.
Compare to commingled.
Southwest Transfer Station
A recycling and transfer facility located north of
La Pine off Hwy 97 that accepts recyclable
materials to be loaded into roll -off bins for
transport to a recycling facility and solid waste
to be loaded into trailers for transport to a
landfill.
Special waste
Certain wastes which have disposal regulations
that cli11ffa r from C .F h 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.
TCLP
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure.
Laboratory testing procedure for determining the
levels of toxic constituents in a sample.
TDF
Tire -derived fuel
TDR
Tire Disposal and Recycling, Inc., a private
company that owns facilities to collect and
process used tires. TDR has two facilities in
Oregon: one in Clackamas and one in Prineville.
TPD
Tons per day
TPY
Tons per year
Tip fee
The fee charged for disposing waste at a solid
waste facility such as a transfer station/MRF, a
landfill or incinerator.
Transfer station
A permanent facility that accepts waste and
recyclable materials from self -haulers and/or
franchised haulers. The waste is dumped into
larger trailers for transportation to a landfill.
Recyclables are typically loaded into roll -off bins
for transport to a recycling facility
ix
lan
Solid
Waste
Management e
WCI
Western Climate Initiative
WTEF
Waste -to -Energy Facility see definition
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 -to -Energy facility
A facility that burns municipal solid waste and
produces electricity. The facility reduces the
volume of waste by 90% and results in
producing ash residue.
Waste recycling/transfer
Any waste processing facility which collects,
facility
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, prevent, or eliminate the generation
of wastes.
Waste stream
The entire spectrum of wastes produced by all
waste generators.
WR/R
Abbreviation for Waste Reduction, Reuse and
Recycling
Introduction
This Executive Summary provides an overview of the Solid Waste Management Plan
(SWMP) prepared by the Department of Solid Waste (DSW). The SWMP provides a
roadmap for moving forward with actions to advance the solid waste management
system in Deschutes County. It provides guidance for how resources should be spent
to reduce waste, expand recycling services to divert waste from landfills and maintain
efficient collection and disposal services over the next 20 years. The SWMP centers on
the principal that waste be managed as a resource and to have a new disposal system
in place when Knott Landfill closes. It includes a summary of the key strategies and
recommendations as well as a schedule for implementing those strategies.
State of the Solid Waste Management System
Over the past 30 years, the County, working with cities, franchised collection
companies and special interest groups has developed and operated a solid waste
management system that provides efficient and cost-effective services to residents
and businesses. During this period, new services to reduce waste and recycle materials
that respond to State mandated programs and address local needs have been added.
The County and each of the cities provide collection services to residents and
businesses through franchise agreements with private companies. The system also
includes Knott Landfill and several transfer stations located throughout the County that
provide convenient locations for customers to drop off recyclable materials and solid
waste.
A key component of the solid waste system is to provide a menu of waste reduction
and recycling programs and services. The County and the cities work cooperatively
and effectively with the franchised haulers, the Environmental Center and others to
provide these services, which are required by the State. In 2017 and 2018,
approximately 33% of the waste generated in the County was diverted from disposal
at Knott Landfill. This is less than the 45% recovery goal recently assigned to the
County by the State. However, during this period, most communities in Oregon and
across the country experienced a reduction in recycling due to a downturn in the
markets for recovered materials brought on by China's new, more restrictive standards
for purchasing recycled materials. Whereas several jurisdictions in the State have cut
back on services and the materials collected due to these market conditions, the
County, working with cities and the franchised collection companies, continues to
maintain a full range of services to customers. Developing new strategies and
expanding existing programs to increase the amount of waste diverted from landfills is
a key issue addressed in the SWMP.
The cornerstone of the system is Knott Landfill, operated by DSW, which provides a
local resource for disposing of municipal solid waste (MSW) that cannot be recycled.
Over the past 25 years, DSW has enhanced the landfill facility to meet or exceed State
ES-1
requirements for operation of a modern disposal site while maintaining a financially
stable operation. All wastes collected by franchise collection companies and received at
the County's transfer stations are delivered to the landfill.
Within the next 10 years, Knott Landfill is expected to reach its designed capacity. At
that time, a new long-term disposal system must be in place. Also, in 2017 the State
of Oregon adopted regulations that resulted in establishing new goals for reducing the
amount of waste disposed in landfills for all communities throughout the State. The
focus of these new regulations is to manage waste as a resource and to reduce
impacts of greenhouse gas emissions generated from landfills.
These conditions led the Board of County Commissioners to direct DSW to prepare a
comprehensive SWMP to evaluate options and make recommendations for managing
solid waste in the future.
Description of the Current Solid Waste System
In the State of Oregon, counties and cities have the responsibility and authority to
provide comprehensive services for managing solid waste. Deschutes County executes
this mandate by placing the primary responsibility with DSW to oversee these services
and operate necessary facilities. DSW functions as an enterprise fund where all
revenues needed to operate the system are generated by fees charged for customer
services and no general tax revenues are used.
DSW currently operates four rural transfer stations and the Knott Landfill Recycling
and Transfer Facility. The locations of these facilities are shown on the map below.
F--J
N20r}r T ,�K, A� -r
'r cpaY
DESC H UTES
r Rcx9rri�rid
COUNTY
1 .
i spar
;.afar
Bend Alfalfa
Y+.iRw"3
Mal
g(
S
LAXY
T «T
I UK
8ACAELGR
uLegend
}< -llI � —
1: Knott Landfill Recycling and
Transfer Facility
arzrcn
Q7f Ml���can
2: Northwest Transfer Station
lA'k
Q .�,,
N'YBtIIIII' %ATIOMA,
•l
Yrr±diers 3: Negus Transfer Station
�`
eAH,s ro«o«L4T
4: Alfalfa Transfer Station
a
tie
20t 5: Southwest Transfer Station
MUM W.7
xv�rnt«c�t
ii 0
t
�.�
airip�
aavrs
1.a nirx:
The four rural transfer stations augment regular collection services by providing
convenient locations in more rural areas for citizens to deliver waste and recyclables.
ES-2
Over the past three years, Negus Transfer Station in Redmond and Southwest Transfer
Station near La Pine have experienced increases in waste quantities of 23% and 19%
respectively. The increases in the number of customers and the amount of waste
received at these two transfer stations has created the need to expand them in the
near future.
The cities of Bend, Redmond, Sisters and La Pine are responsible for providing
collection services within their jurisdictions and DSW is responsible for providing
collection services to the unincorporated portions of the County. Collection services are
carried out by four private companies operating under franchise agreements. Each
jurisdiction is responsible for setting the service standards and the rates charged to
residents and businesses.
As stated previously, DSW estimates remaining capacity of Knott Landfill to be about
10 years. The landfill accepted over 180,000 tons of solid waste per year over the past
two years and is one of only two modern disposal sites permitted to accept MSW in
central Oregon. The other landfill, located in Crook County, accepts less than 40,000
tons per year. When Knott Landfill reaches capacity, a new disposal solution must be
in place. The SWMP examines the options and presents a recommended approach to
have a new in -County landfill operational when Knott Landfill closes.
Growth in The County
Waste disposed at Knott Landfill decreased by 3.3% between 2010 to 2011 as a result
of the recession that occurred between 2009 and 2013. The decline in waste disposed
was a result of a slower economy, reduced construction activity and perhaps a
reduction in tourism. From 2010 to 2016, the population grew by almost 15% while
the rest of the State of Oregon grew a little over 6%. The result of this growth and
changes in the economy are reflected in the following table. Over the past three years,
the amount of waste disposed at Knott Landfill has increased at a rate of 11% per
year.
Table ES-1 - History of Waste Disposed at Knott Landfill
Year 12010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Annual
Waste 114,307 112,751 113,611 119,682 130,956 144,067 161,087 182,095
Disposed
tons
0/0 (1.4%) 0.9% 5.4% 9.4% 10.0% 11.8% 13.0%
Change
In 2018, DSW reported that 182,000 tons of waste was disposed at Knott Landfill.
Population data prepared by the Center of Population Research at Portland State
University in 2018 shows that Deschutes County is expected to continue to grow by
almost 3.0% per year, while the rest of the State is projected to grow at just 1.3%.
The SWMP includes projections for the amount of waste generated and disposed over
the next 20 years. With the estimated remaining capacity of Knott Landfill at 10 years,
it will be important to monitor the data to ensure that a new disposal site is permtted
and ready to receive waste when it closes. The SWMP presents several strategies to
reduce waste, recycle more materials and divert waste from landfill disposal.
ES-3
Implementation of these programs will help reduce waste disposed at Knott Landfill,
but will only aid in providing limited additional time before a new disposal solution is in
place.
Preparing the SWMP
With the impending issues discussed above, the Board of County Commisioners
allocated funds in fiscal year 2018/19 for DSW to prepare a comprehensive SWMP.
DSW proceeded by first selecting a consultant team that specialize in the solid waste
management industry to provide policy analysis and technical assistance and to draft
the SWMP. A team of consultants, led by IRMA, Inc. was retained. The County also
appointed a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) and assigned them with the
responsibility to review information and provide input and guidance into the
formulation of the plan. The SWAC is comprised of representatives of the cities,
franchised collection companies, the Environmental Center and technical experts in
related areas.
The overriding goal of the County is "to work cooperatively with cities and
service providers to offer citizens and businesses an integrated solid waste
management system that delivers quality and cost-effective services while
achieving the best use of our resources and reducing waste disposed in
landfills. "
In preparing the SWMP, the County adopted several guiding principles or objectives to
be used in evaluating and selecting recommended strategies. These objectives include
factors such as enhancing services, using proven and reliable technologies,
determining cost-effectiveness and considering environmental impacts. The specific
objectives are:
1. To provide an integrated solid waste management system that addresses
an effective combination of strategies and programs guided by the hierarchy
adopted by the State of Oregon to first, reduce waste at the source; second, to
reuse and recycle materials; third, to compost; fourth, to recover energy; and
last, to dispose of waste in landfills.
2. To continue educating consumers regarding practices and methods to
reduce the long-term per capita waste generation rate and to seek,
through community outreach, a cooperative approach to individual
responsibility for waste reduction.
3. To develop programs and support implementation of system improvements that
seek to ensure materials recovered from the waste stream attain the highest
and best use and are recycled.
4. To develop a solid waste system that is based on sound financial principles,
provides cost-effective services and maintains rate stability over the
long term, while allocating costs equitably to all users.
S. To maintain system flexibility to respond to changes in waste stream
composition, waste management technologies, public preferences, new laws
and changing circumstances.
A primary objective of the State is to protect the environment by emphasizing waste
reduction and reducing waste disposed in landfills. Therefore, each wasteshed or
ES-4
county has been assigned a targeted recovery rate, which is the amount of materials
reused and recycled divided by the total amount of waste generated. The State's goal
established under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 459A.010 sets Deschutes County's
recovery rate at 45% by 2025. This target will be measured on an annual basis, and
programs and facility assessments will be made on the County's progress towards
reaching this goal.
The SWMP addresses each component of the
solid waste system according to the
hierarchial management approach adopted
by the State. As shown on the adjacent
graphic, the SWMP considers strategies that
first, reduce waste; second, reuse materials;
third, recycle; fourth, compost; fifth,
recover energy; and finally, dispose of
waste that cannot be recycled or used to
produce alternative energy resources.
Over the past 17 months, DSW, the
consultant team and the SWAC have
examined existing conditions, identified
waste management system needs and opportunities and evaluated alternatives to
address these needs. The process included regular meetings with the SWAC to review
the draft plan and provided valuable input into shaping the direction in the
development of the solid waste system. DSW established a special webpage where
people could access the plan as it was being drafted and reviewed by the SWAC. All
SWAC meetings were open to the public for comments. Also, during the preparation of
the SWMP, DSW held two public meetings to gain input. The outreach program
inrhided conducting several surveys to solicit input. After reviewing each component of
the solid waste system, the SWAC reviewed and endorsed recommendations for the
future system. A summary of the comprehensive public outreach and involvement
program and results of the surveys are included in Appendix B.
Summary of Key Issues Addressed in the SWMP
The SWMP addresses several key issues related to managing solid waste in the County
over the next 20 years. While these issues are a result of changing regulations, some
are driven by the impending closure of Knott Landfill. The following is a list of some of
the key issues addressed in the SWMP.
1. Currently, the County recovery rate is 33%. What strategies can be
implemented that will increase the recovery rate to potentially meet the
recovery goal of 45% by 2025?
2. What strategies can be implemented in the near term that might extend the
site life of Knott Landfill?
3. Are there proven and reliable technologies that would be cost-effective to
implement that would further reduce the County's dependence on landfill
disposal?
4. What is the best approach for providing for reliable and cost-effective long-term
disposal capacity and should a new landfill be sited in the County, or should the
County transfer waste to an existing regional landfill?
ES-5
5. What investments and improvements are needed at the County's transfer
stations to address the long-term system needs and maintain convenient cost-
effective services?
6. Are there regional approaches to work with Crook County and provide
opportunities to provide cost-effective solutions?
7. What is the timeline for making needed investments in the solid waste system
and when do facilities need to be operational?
A full list of the primary issues is presented in Chapter 1, Section 1.3 of the SWMP.
Highlights of the SWMP
Deschutes County has the largest population and economy in the State east of the
Cascade Mountains. In addition to a growing commercial/industrial sector, the County
is a regional and nationally recognized location for year-round tourism. As previously
mentioned, the County is growing at a faster rate than other parts of Oregon. By 2030
the population of Deschutes County is expected to be 230,000, an increase of over
25% as projected by the Population Research Center at Portland State University.
Because of the location of the County in relation to other large population centers, it
was imperative that the County develop a cost-effective and reliable system for
managing waste. As a significant economic center for central Oregon, the County,
working with the cities, has developed a well managed and cost-effective integrated
solid waste system. It provides a wide range of programs and services aimed at
reducing waste and recovering materials for reuse and recycling. Knott Landfill has
been upgraded over the past 25 years anr+ prnvldeS a State of the art- wiicppcal cite
comparable to other major regional landfills operating in the Pacific Northwest.
A focus of the SWMP was to examine the current system and evaluate what strategies
can be implemented to not just maintain services, but to consider alternatives that can
improve them in the future. The SWAC considered many alternatives for reducing
waste, recycling more materials and diverting more waste from landfill disposal. They
considered options to convert waste to renewable energy sources using new or
evolving alternative technologies and other ways to maximize the use of waste as a
resource. The result was a set of recommendations that set forth a strategy to reduce
waste disposed in landfills by as much as 15% or more over the next 10 to 15 years.
When combined with the current waste reduction and recycling programs, these
strategies are designed to help the County achieve and possibly exceed a recovery
goal of 45% by 2025. However, it is important to acknowledge that recycling services
provided by the County and cities are responsible for about 55% of the total recovery
rate. The remaining 45% is a result of private business initiatives that recycle and
report independently to the State.
To address future needs, the SWMP recommends several actions to enhance the
County's solid waste system infrastructure. This includes expanding existing transfer
stations over the next several years to enhance services and meet the needs of the
growing population in the County. It also identifies the need to site and develop a new
landfill located in the County when Knott Landfill closes.
Once the Draft SWMP was completed, a survey was conducted by Triton Polling and
Research, Inc., an independent polling and research company. The purpose of the
Triton survey was to obtain additional input on whether the County should pursue
*mil
siting a new landfill in Deschutes County, or transport waste to an out -of -County
landfill when Knott Landfill closes. Results of this survey indicate that 84% of
respondents support the position that waste generated in Deschutes County be
disposed of in Deschutes County, with 93% supporting the recommendation to site a
new landfill in the County.
The following discussion presents a summary of the recommendations in the SWMP. It
is important to recognize that the SWMP is a roadmap outlining a strategy for
achieving the goals set by the County and cities. There are many details and future
actions to be considered during the implementation phase over the next 10 years. In
moving forward with these actions, there will be many opportunities for the public to
comment and provide input to shape the services to achieve the desired results.
Summary of the SWMP Recommendations
Waste Reduction and Recycling
Currently, about 33% of the waste generated in Deschutes County is recycled. In
2016, the State adopted new rules and established a new recovery rate goal of 45%
for Deschutes County. Therefore, a significant focus of the SWMP is addressing how
the County's residents and businesses can recover and recycle more materials and
reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills. The SWAC considered many options
that can lead to a sustainable management approach to reduce waste and recycle
more materials. In doing so, they examined each of the primary waste generators,
what services are currently being provided, and how those services could be enhanced
to increase recycling. Waste generators included:
1. Residential single-family households
2. Multifamily units
3. Commercial businesses
4. Construction and demolition (C/D) generators
In considering these generators, the SWAC identified certain targeted materials for
recovery. These include separating vegetative food waste and collecting it with yard
waste, expanding collection of source separated materials from multifamily units,
increasing recycling from commercial businesses and separating C/D waste for
processing. The following are recommendations for achieving a higher recovery rate.
Recommendations that Apply to all Generators
Recommendation 3.1: Move toward establishing a standard waste reduction and
reuse program throughout the County for single-family homes, multifamily units and
businesses, which focuses on education and promotion.
Recommendation 3.4: Expand and develop additional materials to educate residents
of single-family homes, multifamily units and businesses on how to reduce food waste
and develop promotion of vegetative food waste collection with yard waste and
consider universal service for vegetative food waste collection.
Recommendation 4.8: The County should complete a waste characterization study to
better understand the composition of its waste stream, which will aid in evaluating
options for recovering targeted materials and designing the programs and facilities
needed.
ES-7
Recommendations for Residential Sinale-Family Households
Curbside recycling for single-family households in the cities and urbanized
unincorporated County is well established. Expanding and enhancing these services to
more customers is an ongoing activity.
Recommendation 4.1: Expand the current residential collection of vegetative food
waste with yard waste to increase participation.
Recommendations for Multifamily Units
Collection of source separated materials is provided to many multifamily units by the
franchise haulers; however, participation is very low. The SWAC considered
establishing a task force to focus on a comprehensive program to expand recycling
service to the ever-growing number of multifamily developments being constructed in
the County. The task force would look at establishing standards for ensuring there is
adequate space for recycling containers and providing consistent educational and
promotional material for these residents.
Recommendation 3.2: Expand and improve a standard fora multifamily recycling
program that includes a comprehensive education and outreach program to expand
participation at multifamily developments and increase collection opportunities.
Recommendations for Commercial Businesses
Collection of source separated recyclable materials is currently provided to some
businesses in the County. However, it is desirable to increase their participation in
recycling; Also, the County experiences many tourists year-round and the SWAC
identified a need to increase efforts to expand opportunities to provide more recycling
services to tourists and businesses that service the tourism industry.
Recommendation 3.3: Expand business education and promotion to target
expansion of recycling for businesses focusing on hotels and resort communities to
reach the year-round tourist population. As part of the business education and
promotion program, develop a program to target food waste recovery.
Recommendation 4.5: Develop a recycling and vegetative food waste collection
program targeting businesses hotels and resort communities.
Recommendations for C/D Generators
The County estimates that 25% or more of the waste disposed at Knott Landfill is
generated from C/D activities. This waste stream contains large amounts of wood,
sheetrock and roofing as well as typical commodity materials such as metal, cardboard
and plastics. Also, there is an inert residue component (i.e. dirt, grit, glass) that is
being disposed in the landfill. Completing a waste composition study and examining
options to process and recover C/D material to reduce waste disposed in Knott Landfill
or a future landfill can be part of a long-term solution.
Recommendation 3.5: Expand and develop new programs aimed at increasing
recycling of C/D material.
ES-8
Recommendation 4.7: Evaluate and develop a plan to provide incentives for
recycling of CID material and programs to recycle these materials to minimize its
disposal at Knott Landfill or future landfills.
Infrastructure and Facility Needs
The SWMP considered the impacts to existing County solid waste facilities and
identified the need for new infrastructure to support the recommended strategies.
These facilities are needed to continue to provide long term, cost-effective services.
Recommendations for Compost Facilities
One focus on reducing waste disposed in landfills is to recover food waste and other
organics from the waste stream. This will result in possibly as much as a 50% increase
in the amount of organic materials to be composted.
The existing compost facility is located at Knott Landfill where there have been issues
with odor. Given the fact there is increasing residential development in the area
around the landfill, this site may not be well suited to handle the expected increase
from food waste and other organics unless more advanced technologies that can
process these materials faster and control odors are implemented. Also, there may be
other locations more suitable for this operation that are closer to potential markets.
The SWAC has identified several recommendations to address the need to process
more organics.
Recommendation 4.2: Conduct an assessment of markets for compost products
resulting frnm ex anried organics programs.
Recommendation 4.3: Evaluate alternatives to enhance and expand composting
facilities. The study should evaluate optimal locations considering proximity to
generators markets and surrounding land uses.
Recommendation 4.4: Upgrade the organics processing capacity and technology to
efficiently handle additional food and yard waste, including meats and dairy from
residential and commercial sources and other organic waste streams.
Recommendations for Transfer and Recycling Stations
DSW operates four rural transfer stations to serve areas of the County that are remote
to Knott Landfill. These transfer stations have been in operation since the early 1990s.
Negus Transfer Station in Redmond and Southwest Transfer Station near La Pine are
at capacity and need improvements. The following recommendations outline a phased,
multi -year strategy to upgrade transfer station facilities.
Recommendation 5.1: Develop a Facility Plan for Negus Transfer Station in 2019 for
making improvements to the facility by 2021 or as needed.
Recommendation 5.2: Develop a Facility Plan for Southwest Transfer Station within
the next three years. Modifications to this facility can be made as the demand for
enhanced services for managing increased waste volumes and traffic is required.
ES-9
Recommendation 5.3: Develop a Facility Plan for the Knott Transfer and Recycling
Facility as necessary to address long-term disposal options or within five years of
closure of Knott Landfill.
Recommendation 5.4: Establish a capital improvement program for making
investments in transfer station modifications over the next 10 years.
Recommendations for Alternative Technologies
Over the past 10 years, there have been advancements in alternative technologies to
recover and convert the energy value of solid waste into renewable energy. The SWMP
includes a review of various technologies to determine if any may be practical for
implementation in Deschutes County. The results of the review led to the following
findings:
1. Alternative technologies for managing waste in Deschutes County do not
appear feasible at this time.
2. Markets for renewable energy or fuel products are not currently available
locally.
3. Knott Landfill is expected to reach capacity within 10 years. This provides an
opportunity for the County to monitor the continued advancement of new
technologies and to reassess the potential for implementing an alternative
technology project in three to five years.
A The County should nnly t-nnSideY theca tarhnnlnniac and VPnrinrC that have a
proven record of successfully operating a commercial scale alternative
technology facility.
Recommendation 6.1: The County should continue to monitor and assess the status
and feasibility of alternative technologies as a part of the solid waste system in three
to five years.
Recommendations for Landfill Disposal
When Knott Landfill reaches capacity, the County must be prepared to have a new
solution in place. Two primary options were considered in the SWMP:
1. Transport waste to regional landfills located between 135 and 185 miles from
Deschutes County near the Columbia Gorge.
2. Site and build a new landfill in Deschutes County.
DSW, working with the SWAC and the consultant team, completed an evaluation of the
landfill options considering several factors. A public meeting was held to solicit
additional input into which option was preferred. After examining the alternatives, the
SWAC reached a consensus that the best approach for providing a long term and cost-
effective waste management system was to site and construct a new in -County
landfill. Some of the key factors supporting this recommendation include:
ES-10
1. The ability to control decisions for managing the County's waste stream
without having to consider impacts to a contract with an out -of -County
service provider.
2. Environmental and other impacts resulting from transporting waste almost
250 to 300 miles (roundtrip) to a regional landfill located in the Columbia
Gorge region are excessive when compared to disposing of waste in
Deschutes County. Depending on the effectiveness of waste reduction and
recycling programs, there will be about 25 to 30 large transfer trucks that
need to make this trip each day. Vehicle emission impacts are substantially
greater with the out -of -County disposal option. Additionally, these trucks
must travel through several towns along the route and the number of trips
is expected to increase as the population grows.
3. With an average depth to ground water of over 500 feet and an arid climate
with less than 14 inches of precipitation annually, conditions in Deschutes
County are conducive to siting a new, environmentally safe landfill
operation. These conditions are similar to those prevalent at other regional
landfills.
4. The cost to build and operate an in -County landfill is expected to be less
than the alternative to transport waste over long distances and dispose in a
regional site that is also obligated to pay host fees, which in turn would
likely be paid by the County.
5. The County has demonstrated its ability to effectively build and operate a
modern landfill complex in an environmentally safe and cost-effective
manner.
There was much discussion on the difficulty of siting a new landfill and the possibility
of a protracted process to successfully obtain permits. However, the geographic and
demographic conditions in the County are favorable in comparison to locations west of
the Cascade Mountains where siting has not been successful. It was noted that prior to
expanding Knott Landfill in the late 1990s, the County did conduct a siting process and
was able to identify sites that were environmentally suitable.
The SWAC considered the impacts of greenhouse gases from landfills and concluded
these impacts are the same whether the waste is landfilled in the County or disposed
at another site. However, avoiding the emission impacts of transporting waste over the
required distances was a distinct environmental benefit.
Recommendation 7.1: The County should proceed to site and permit a new in -
County landfill to be operational when Knott Landfill closes. The landfill should be
capable of handling all waste streams generated in the County.
Recommendation 7.2: The County should begin a formal process to site and permit
a new landfill by 2021.
Recommendation 7.3: Consider privatization of development and operations of the
new landfill.
ES-11
Recommendations for Administration and Financial Management
The County has provided a leadership role in developing much of the infrastructure
that supports the management of solid waste. Day-to-day management and
operations of the transfer stations and Knott Landfill are carried out directly by DSW
staff. DSW also contracts out certain operations to private franchise companies,
primarily to provide collection, transportation and recycling services. This also includes
a license for Deschutes Recycling to operate the recycling and compost facility at Knott
Landfill.
As part of the SWMP, it is important to consider the recommended strategies and what
impact they could have on the current administrative responsibilities of DSW, or if
changes in the management structure are needed. Likewise, the SWMP identified
needed investments to site, permit and construct a new landfill as well as necessary
upgrades and expansions to existing transfer stations.
Currently, the County and the cities of Bend and Redmond have entered into
intergovernmental agreements that commit to disposal of waste at Knott Landfill.
These agreements state the commitment to work together for managing solid waste.
In addition, each jurisdiction has a franchise agreement with private companies to
provide collection and recycling services.
Upon review of the current management structure, no major changes were suggested.
Regarding the financial management of the system, DSW operates as an enterprise
fund where revenues generated from disposal fees are used to provide direct services.
DSW also provides several dedicated reserve accounts used to fund routine capital
improvements at the landfill, thus avoiding the need to borrow money. This approach
provides for stability in the rates charged to customers. Also, the County has been
able to procure low cost funding using the County's bonding capacity for larger capital
investments when required. The last time bonds were required was in 2005 when the
Knott Landfill Recycling and Transfer Facility was constructed.
Recommendation 8.1: Given the need to implement the necessary changes to the
solid waste management system over the next 10 years, the County should meet with
the cities to reaffirm commitments and update, as necessary, the intergovernmental
agreements. The agreements should also address the cities' participation in the
process for implementing the recommendations adopted in the SWMP.
Recommendation 8.2: The County should establish a formal process that provides
for continued involvement of cities, other stakeholders, businesses and the general
public in implementing the recommendations of the SWMP. This process may include
establishing an ongoing advisory group and/or assigning task force committees to
oversee development and implementation of specific programs.
Recommendation 8.3: The County should consider the current DSW organization
and determine the resources that are needed to carry out the implementation of the
recommendations adopted in the SWMP. This will require perhaps some additional staff
as well as financial resources.
Recommendation 8.4: DSW should prepare a financial study of the current rates to
determine the impacts of implementing the improvements identified in the SWMP and
develop a capital improvement plan for a five to seven year period aimed at
maintaining a stable financial strategy for facility improvements.
ES-12
Recommendation 8.5: Consider privatization of all aspects of the solid waste system
as changes and programs are implemented, as referenced in Appendix A, as has been
the practice of the solid waste system historically.
Implementation Schedule
The SWMP provides a roadmap for guiding the future development of the solid waste
management system. It consists of 24 recommendations; several are related actions
while others are dependent on the time when certain policies or facilities are
completed. Also, certain actions are a priority while others can be delayed. The
implementation schedule provides a comprehensive summary tool to help coordinate
and manage the timeframe when actions should occur and be completed and when
others may begin. It is important to recognize that public participation and input for
implementing new programs is essential. While there is flexibility in the schedule,
there are, however, certain actions that have identified key dates that will need to be
considered.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
ES-13
Deschutes County SWMP 2019 Implementation Schedule
Recommendations 2019 1 2020 2021 1 2022 1 2023 1 2024 2025
Recommendations that Apply to All Generators
Set up standard waste
31 reduction and recycling
Task Force
Inpleirentatan gA _. ,,,,
program for single/multifamily
and businesses
Expand education to
.
Single/multifamilyand
3.4
Planninc
Task
force
,...
businesses to promote
raducin /rec clip food waste
4.8 Complete a waste
lementatbn
characterization study
Recommendations that apply to Residential Single Family Households
Expand current collection of
Continue Not R ram
' InUlle rnt P�II Rogram
4.1 residential food waste with
yard waste
Recommendations that apply to Multifamily Units
Develop standard for
,
multifamily recycling
Task Fvrcem
_ In rai,
InElcnent Full Rog-,
3.2 promotion and education
program
1""!FRUR
Develop a multifamily recycling
TasK
ForceIcn�nl
Not R
ram
�'"""`�`
s R
Inplen»nt
Full Rogram,
m
4.6 and food waste collection
program
Recommendations that apply to Commercial Businesses
Expand business
Task Force
In ,Ie�,nnt Ro�anu
3.3 education/promotion focusing
on tourism
Start a recycling food waste
Fannin
_
lnpleneat
Program
4.5 collection program targeting
T
hotels/resort communities
Recommendations that apply to Construction and Demolition (CID) Generators
Expand and develop new
Plaa nnin I I I I 1 !
Rogran,�
3.5 programs aimed at increasing
�In�,lement
recycling C/D materials
Evaluate and develop program
Plannin
I�ple�ent
Rogram
4.7 to provide incentives for
recycling C/D materials
Compost Facilities
Assess markets for compost
assess
4.2 products resulting from
expanded organics program
Evaluate alternatives to
Evaluation
4.3 expand composting facilities
involving optimal locations
Upgrade organics processing
Planning
inplenent
Rogram
4.4 from residential and
— � � a
e —
o —
— v
v
e
commercial sources
Transfer and Recycling Stations
Develop and implement plan
Desl
n Construction
Ogeran� _
5.1 for Negus Transfer Station
e — —
improvements
Develop and implement plan
Plannin
Deli
n
Construction
Ogeratbn
5.2 for Southwest Transfer Station
improvements
Develop plans for Knott
Plannin
5.3 Transfer and Recycling Facility
improvements
5 4 Establish a capital
lerrentatbn
a UpddateAnnually
v
improvement program
ES-14
Recommendations 1 2018 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2026
Alternative TechnologieslSolid Waste Disposal
Assess status of altemath.
Ass_ss
6 1
technologies
TALasIl
Landfill Disposal Options
Proceed to site and permit a
7.1 new County landfill to be
oe�elo snm
aooess
operational before Knott
Landfill reaches capacity
Begin formal process to site
siffia
I
Rern;ttin
7.2
and permit new landfill
E%aluate and consider
Evaluate
&Consider
7.3 privatization of landfill
construction and operations
Administration and Financial Management
County to meet with cities to
Meetin s
i
Review
8.1 reaffirm commitments and
update intedocal agreements
Establish process that
,
8,2 implements the
recommendations of the
i
SWMP
Determine the resources
Review
Bud
etin
�ntaflon
8.3 needed to implement SWMP
a
�Irrple
recommendations
Prepare financial study of the
SWMP and deoelop a capital
Prepare Stud
[Flan
_ _
_
_ _
Ipipl—ntatiin
(Update
A.nnu II
)�
e
8.4 improxement plan (CIP) for 5-7
year period, maintaining
financial stability
Exaluate and consider
wate
a consider
Is
8.5
pri%etization in the system
Blue- Signifies actions involving multiple stakeholders Red- Signifies actions initiated by county
ES-15
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context of the Plan Update
Solid waste management is a system that provides for waste storage, collection,
transportation, processing, recycling, recovery, conversion to fuel/energy products,
and disposal of what is left. It also provides for the accumulation and appropriate
management of special wastes and materials like household hazardous waste, oil,
electronics, bulky materials, and construction demolition (C/D) materials.
Deschutes County, has operated Knott Landfill as the primary solid waste disposal
facility for the County since 1972. The County has also been responsible for providing
the necessary facilities for managing solid waste generated by residents and
businesses in the cities and unincorporated areas of the County. Working with the
cities, franchised collection companies and local recyclers, the County has developed
the infrastructure needed to meet the challenges of providing comprehensive waste
reduction and recycling services while ensuring adequate capacity for safely disposing
of waste in a most cost-efficient manner. In anticipation of the eventual closure of
Knott Landfill, the County is taking the lead role to evaluate the options for managing
waste in both the near future and after Knott Landfill is closed.
This Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) is the first comprehensive assessment of
the solid waste system in many years. The timing for this project is most
advantageous because of two important factors:
1. Based on current projections, it is anticipated that Knott Landfill will be at full
capacity in about 10 years. It will require several years to plan, permit and
build any facilities needed to continue providing constituents with infrastructure
that is both reliable and cost-effective for long term use.
2. The State of Oregon passed SB459A that amends the Opportunity to Recycle
Act and established new goals for all counties (also referred to as wastesheds)
throughout the State. It requires jurisdictions to expand waste reduction and
recycling programs to meet these goals by 2025.
Preparing a SWMP entails engaging stakeholders, service providers and local
jurisdictions to assess current conditions, determine needs and opportunities, evaluate
options and make recommendations to set a course for continuing to provide a reliable
and most efficient system. Solid waste is a heavily regulated industry in the United
States and is governed by a combination of federal standards, state statues and
mandates, and local ordinances. These ever -changing regulations continue to
challenge local jurisdictions to prevent waste and recycle more to reduce waste
disposed in landfills.
Additionally, there are a number of private companies that are aggressively working to
develop technologies to make the highest and best use of the resources yielded by
processing out recyclables and converting waste to fuel and/or energy products. The
adoption of new regulations and emerging technology has caused many communities
to examine how best to manage solid waste in the future.
1-1
Chapter I
This SWMP provides a forward look at the solid waste management system and
identifies the needs and opportunities for the next 15 years. It provides decision -
makers with general direction as to what facilities and programs are required to
continue the success of the solid waste system.
The County, together with stakeholders (local jurisdictions, private sector operators
and the public), must continually review the progress made and assure the overriding
values of the community and the overall solid waste system needs are being met. By
following the direction and priorities adopted in this SWMP, Deschutes County will
provide a road map for making changes to manage the solid waste system for meeting
local service needs as well as address statewide goals.
1.2 Plan Purpose and Goals
The SWMP examines each component of Deschutes County's solid waste system. It is
designed to provide guidance and direction for developing policies and programs as
well as the infrastructure needed to manage solid waste over a 15-year planning
period (2019-2034). It is important to acknowledge there are many stakeholders that
are impacted by the direction and decisions made for managing solid waste. This
includes generators such as residents, institutions and businesses, cities and service
providers. As such, these stakeholders have been consulted and given opportunity to
provide input as the plan was prepared. Gaining consensus and support for the
direction of the services to be provided is important going forward with implementing
the recommendations.
It should also be recognized that solid waste practices, regulations, and technologies
are dynamic in nature and will result in a need to routinely update the SWMP on a
regular basis in the future. Thus, the purpose of the SWMP is to prioritize the
steps necessary to continue to provide cost effective services, set a timetable
for when decisions are made and identify the facilities needed for managing
the required services. The plan provides the tool that communicates a strategy and
implementation schedule to manage Deschutes County's recycling and waste
management services.
In developing a SWMP that will guide the decisions and direction for managing solid
waste, the County has embraced several goals and guiding principles for how waste is
managed. These guiding principles consider the emphasis of the State of Oregon's
2050 vision to reduce waste disposed in landfills and to recover more materials,
consistent with a theme to have local jurisdictions manage waste as a resource. While
these directives are an important consideration, the County will rely on strategies that
can accomplish these goals with an understanding they are fiscally responsible and
consistent with delivering cost effective services.
The overriding goal for the County is "to work cooperatively with cities and
service providers to offer citizens and businesses an integrated solid waste
management system that delivers quality and cost-effective services while
achieving the best use of our resources and reducing waste disposed in
landfills. "
This SWMP presents a comprehensive long-term approach to solid waste management
in the County, designed around this resource conservation and management principle.
1-2
Chapter I
The SWMP provides citizens and decision -makers in the County with a guide to
implement, monitor, and evaluate solid waste facilities and programs in the future to
meet the above -stated goal. The guiding principle for Deschutes County's SWMP is
that solid waste should be viewed and managed as a resource using the most cost
effective and reliable strategies that are consistent with the policies as adopted by the
State. The County will strive to conserve resources through behavioral changes and
recognizes the integral link between solid waste management, the environment, and
ultimately the quality of life. Recommendations developed for the SWMP not only guide
local decision -makers but substantiate the need for local funds and State grants for
local solid waste projects and new programs.
When preparing this SWMP, there were several guiding principles or objectives that
were considered in order to select the best approach from meeting the goals of the
County and its partners. Achieving these objectives requires the plan consider and
evaluate key factors such as programs to enhance services, proven and reliable
technologies, cost effectiveness and environmental impacts. These specific objectives
are:
1. To provide an integrated solid waste management system that addresses
an effective combination of strategies and programs guided by the hierarchy
adopted by the State to first, reduce waste at the source; second, to reuse and
recycle materials; third, to compost; fourth, to recover energy; and last, to
dispose of waste in landfills.
2. To continue educating consumers to promote practices and methods to
reduce the long-term per capita waste generation rate and seek, through
mmmtinity outreach; a cooperative approach to assume individual
responsibility to reduce waste.
3. To develop programs and support implementation of system improvements that
seek to ensure materials recovered from the waste stream attain the highest
and best use and are recycled.
4. To develop a solid waste system that is based on sound financial principles,
provides cost effective services and maintains rate stability over a long
term, while allocating costs equitably to all users.
5. To maintain system flexibility to respond to changes in waste stream
composition, waste management technologies, public preferences, new laws
and changing circumstances.
A primary objective of the State is to protect the environment by emphasizing waste
reduction and reducing waste disposed in landfills. Therefore, each wasteshed (or
county) has been assigned a targeted recovery rate, which is defined as the amount of
materials reused and recycled divided by the total waste generated. The statewide
goal established under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 459A.010 sets Deschutes
County's recovery rate at 45% by 2025. This target will be measured on an annual
basis, and programs and facility assessments will be made on the County's progress
towards reaching this state goal.
1-3
MMI
1.3 Issues Addressed by the Plan
With the commitment to produce a comprehensive SWMP, the County has taken the
opportunity to fully assess all aspects of the solid waste system and, with its
stakeholders, identify deficiencies and opportunities to make improvements. It also
offers the opportunity to examine the current infrastructure and to plan for future
investments strategically and develop a financial plan to implement improvements with
the most cost-effective approach. Some of the key issues to be addressed in the
SWMP are as follows:
1. Currently, the County recovery rate is 33%. What strategies can be
implemented that will increase the recovery rate to potentially meet the 2025
recovery goal of 45%?
2. What are the impacts and changes needed, if any, to current collection services
considering the potential for new recycling programs? Are changes needed to
address population growth in the County?
3. What strategies can be implemented in the near term that might extend the
site life of Knott Landfill?
4. Are there proven and reliable technologies that would be cost effective to
implement that would further reduce the County's dependency on landfill
disposal and enhance resource recovery?
5. What is the best approach for providing for reliable and cost-effective long-term
disposal capacity?
6. What investments/improvements are needed at the County's transfer stations
to address long-term system needs and to provide convenient cost-effective
services?
7. What is the best approach for funding the capital improvements required to
meet the future solid waste system needs?
8. Are there regional approaches to work with Crook County and provide
opportunities to provide cost effective solutions?
9. What is the timeline for making needed investments in the solid waste system
and when do new facilities need to be operational?
These represent some of the key issues and concerns addressed in the SWMP. As each
component of the solid waste system was assessed, the consultant team working with
the County and stakeholders identified and discussed the needs and opportunities
pertaining to specific components of the solid waste system. As each component of the
solid waste system was reviewed and updated, issues related to meeting the goals of
the SWMP were addressed.
1-4
Chapter a< o
1.3.1 Overview of Regulations for Managing Solid Waste
In preparing this SWMP, it is important to understand the regulations that pertain to
the responsibility and authority of the County and cities.
Deschutes County is the primary agency that manages solid waste disposal services
for all generators in the County. The cities of Bend and Redmond have supported
Deschutes County's role by entering into intergovernmental agreements. Also, both La
Pine and Sisters have worked cooperatively to support the County -wide system.
However, each of the cities has franchised agreements with private companies to
provide collection and recycling services in their jurisdictions for both residential and
commercial waste generators. This relationship has been in place for over 30 years as
the County has owned and operated Knott Landfill.
The Department of Solid Waste (DSW) has had the primary responsibility for planning
and operating the County's solid waste system. DSW is also responsible for providing
collection and recycling services for the unincorporated areas of the County.
1.4 Regulations Related to Local Authority
In section 459.085 of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), the specific authority for
solid waste management for each county in the State is spelled out. The section deals
with a county's authority outside cities and the effect of annexation and interagency
agreements. Some key highlights of the regulations are as follows:
With respect to areas outside of cities, a board of county commissioners may,
by ordinance or by regulation or order adopted pursuant to an ordinance or
regulation:
a. Prescribe the quality and character of and rates for collection service.
b. Divide the unincorporated area into service areas, grant franchises to
persons for collection service within service areas.
c. Prescribe a procedure for issuance, renewal or denial of a franchise to a
person providing or proposing to provide collection service.
d. Regulate solid waste management.
2. With respect to areas outside of cities, a board of county commissioners may
adopt ordinances to:
a. Own and operate disposal sites and may license of disposal sites as an
alternative to franchising of service.
b. Regulate, license or franchise salvage businesses or the operation of
salvage sites where such action is found necessary to implement any
part of a solid waste management plan applicable in the county.
These primary authorities and responsibilities listed above are also applicable to cities.
In summary, both cities and counties are responsible to ensure basic solid waste
collection, recycling and disposal services are provided to all residents and businesses.
Although local jurisdictions can operate collection services, the primary delivery
method in the State of Oregon is through franchised agreements. There are several
other citations, but those cited above represent the primary authority granted to local
jurisdictions for managing solid waste.
1-5
Chapter
The State supports local governments cooperatively working to prepare a SWMP and
to coordinate services in the most efficient approach. ORS 459.065 states local
governments may enter into intergovernmental agreements as follows:
a. For joint franchising of service or the franchising or licensing of disposal
sites.
b. For joint preparation or implementation of a solid waste management
plan.
c. For establishment of a joint solid waste management system.
d. For cooperative establishment, maintenance, operation or use of joint
disposal sites, including but not limited to energy and material recovery
facilities.
e. For the employment of persons to operate a site owned or leased by the
local government unit.
f. For promotion and development of markets for energy and material
recovery.
g. For the establishment of landfills including site planning, location,
acquisition, development and placing into operation.
As part of preparing this SWMP, a key step was to review and update
intergovernmental agreements, especially as it related to moving forward with
implementation of recommendations. Therefore, the planning process was designed to
obtain input from cities, other stakeholders and the general public as the SWMP was
being prepared.
ORS 459 has several citations that govern the management of solid waste. The ORS
citations above describe the authority of local governments to manage solid waste
within their jurisdictional boundaries and for local governments to work together on
solutions and services.
There are additional citations that relate to waste reduction and recycling and landfill
disposal sites. First, through SB 263, the State's regulations for waste reduction and
recycling were amended and codified in ORS 459A. This amendment to the original
"Opportunity to Recycle Act" enacted new recovery rates for all wastesheds. For
Deschutes County, the recovery rate was set at 45%. It also removed the recycling
rate credits awarded to local jurisdictions: therefore, Deschutes County will need to
consider approaches to increase the recovery rate from 33% in 2016 to 45% by 2025.
This will be discussed in Chapter 3 Waste Reduction Programs.
Second, listed in ORS 459 are the regulations related to new landfill disposal sites. In
section 459.017 it states:
The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that:
a. The planning, location, acquisition, development and operation of
landfills is a matter of statewide concern.
b. Local government units have the primary responsibility for planning for
solid waste management.
c. Where the solid waste management plan of a local government
unit has identified a need for a landfill, the State has a
responsibility to assist local government and private persons in
establishing such a site.
1-6
Chapter I
2. It is the intent of the Legislative Assembly that any action taken by the
Environmental Quality Commission to establish a landfill under ORS 459.049 be
recognized as an extraordinary measure that should be exercised only in the
closest cooperation with local government units that have jurisdiction over the
area affected by the proposed establishment of a landfill.
Furthermore, Section 459.047 identifies how the State will work with local government
to site, permit and implement any new landfill disposal site. In summary, the State
recognizes the complexity and challenges in locating a new landfill disposal site and
will offer assistance where needed.
This overview is intended to provide background information necessary for
understanding what regulations impact the preparation of the SWMP and its findings
and recommendations. As each element of the solid waste system is presented and
evaluated for future impacts, more details regarding the regulations that impact that
element will be discussed.
1.5 Plan Organization
The plan will consider the entire solid waste system by preparing a separate chapter
for each component of the system. This introductory chapter provides information on
the purpose of the SWMP and guiding principles for managing solid waste in Deschutes
County. Chapter 2 Background and Waste Stream Analysis describes the current
system and the types and quantities of solid waste generated in the County.
The remaining chapters address each component of the solid waste system, including:
• Waste Prevention, Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Analysis (Chapter 3)
• Collection and Recycling/Processing (Chapter 4)
• Transfer System (Chapter 5)
• Alternative Technologies and Solid Waste Disposal (Chapter 6)
• Landfill Disposal Options (Chapter 7)
• Administration and Financial Management (Chapter 8)
The information prepared for each Chapter and component includes the following
subjects:
• Review of current practices
• Needs and opportunities
• Discussion and evaluation of alternatives
• Recommendations for future actions
The process for completing the SWMP as illustrated in Figure 1-1 uses a building block
approach to first examine the programs and services for reducing or preventing waste
from being generated as well as services for reuse of materials. These programs affect
the residents and businesses that generate waste. Next, the plan reviews the recycling
programs to consider approaches to recover more materials. The chapters then
progress to looking at ways to process and transform/convert waste to a useful
resource. Finally, with waste that cannot be recycled or used, final disposal options are
evaluated.
1-7
Chapter I
Project Kickoff Draft
ch. 3
Project Goals Ch. 1 & 2-
Draft Ch.3
Revisions
Waste
Introduction
Reduction
&
&
Draft
Existing
Recycling
Ch.4
Conditions
MaterialsRecovery
ERe
Process
Advisory � /Group
Advisory �/ Advisory
Grou Group
' Public Draft ch. Draft Final sWMP
Recommen:1 -
Draft _ Draft Ch.6 Meeting dations SWMP To Board
Ch.5 Alternative Disposal
Collection/ Technologies/ Draft Ch.7
Transfer Landfill Options Options
p AG Mgmt. & ;Final JPublic Meeting
Admin.
AG
AG
Figure 1-1: Deschutes County SWMP Interactive Planning Process
1.6 Public Participation
In preparing the SWMP, the County developed a comprehensive outreach program to
solicit input and reaction from stakeholders, citizens and businesses. This included
setting up a dedicated page in the County and DSW's website. This webpage was
updated monthly. As shown on the process flow chart, there were several SWAC
meetings to evaluate options of the different components of the solid waste system. In
total during the preparation of this SWMP, the SWAC held 14 meetings, all of which
were advertised and open for the public to attend. As the draft SWMP achieved certain
milestones, the County sought to provide opportunity for additional public input by
holding two public meetings. One meeting was held to obtain input and feedback
regarding the draft recommendations of proposed actions for reducing waste and
recycling more materials. A second public meeting was held to obtain input regarding
future disposal options for the County's waste when Knott Landfill closes.
To obtain additional input, DSW issued surveys to obtain feedback of various waste
reduction and recycling programs, and also to gain some insight of public opinion on
future disposal options. Finally, DSW expanded its outreach by conducting a phone
survey using an independent firm to receive further input on whether the County
should site a new landfill in Deschutes County, or consider transporting waste to a
regional landfill located in another jurisdiction.
A full description of the public outreach program is provided in Appendix B.
1-8
0
2. BACKGROUND AND WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides the following information:
• The physical and economic characteristics of the planning area (Deschutes
County);
• A description of the current solid waste management system;
• An analysis of the current solid waste stream composition;
• Trends in waste generation and recovery rates; and
• A presentation of waste generation projections.
2.2 Characteristics of the Planning Area
Deschutes County is located in Central Oregon and comprises 3,055 square miles
bounded to the west by the Cascade Mountains and lies within the central high desert
plateau. It is bounded by Jefferson County to the north, Crook County to the east,
Klamath and Lake Counties to the south, and Lane and Linn counties to the west.
Topography is above mean sea level ranging from 2,411 feet at the lowest elevation to
over 10,000 feet at South Sister, located in the Three Sisters Wilderness of Central
Oregon's Deschutes National Forest. The Forest Service owns 51% of the land within
the County's boundary.
Since most of the region is located at a higher elevation (average elevation is 4,575
feet), the climate tends to be cooler most of the year. In the summer, the average
high temperature is 84 degrees Fahrenheit and in the winter, the average is 24
degrees Fahrenheit. The County receives an average of it inches of rain per year and
22 inches of snow. On average, there are 266 sunny days per year.'
Despite the slowdown in growth during the 2008 recession, the population of
Deschutes County has been one of the fastest growing in Oregon. It grew 3% from
2014 through 2015 and has increased at an average rate of more than 3% per year
and by a total of 57% since the 2000 Census.2 According to the 2010 Census, the
County had a population of 157,733 and was estimated to be 181,307 in 2016.
According to 2016 estimates, this population resided in a total of 85,933 housing units,
with an average household size of 2.49.3 County -wide population and housing figures
from the 2010 US Census estimates are shown in Table 2-1.
1 Source: US Climate Data,
https•//www usclimatedata com/climate/bendloregon/united-states/usor0031
Accessed: November 17, 2017
2 Source: Coordinated Population Forecast: Deschutes County 2015-2016, Population
Research Center, Portland State University, June 2015.
3 Source: US Census Bureau, www.census.gov
2-1
Table 2-1: Population and Housing, Deschutes County vs. State of Oregon
Category Year Deschutes Oregon
Countv Wide
Population
2010
157,733
3,831,074
Population Estimate
2016
181,307
4,093,465
Population percent change
2010-2016
14.9%
6.4%
Number of Housing Units
2010
80,139
1,675,562
Number of Housing Units Estimate
2016
85,933
1,732,786
Housinq Units percent change
2010-2016
7.2%
3.4%
Population is generally concentrated in the City of Bend, which is located in the center
of the County with 83,500 residents (Table 2-2). Most of the urbanized areas in the
County are located along or near the major road corridors of Highways 20 and 97.
Table 2-2: 2016 Estimated Population of Cities in Deschutes County, OR4
Jurisdiction
Population
Bend
83,500
Redmond
27,595
La Pine
1,675
Sisters
2,390
Un-incorporated Cities 1
66,147
Total
181,307
The Deschutes County seat is in Bend, which is considered the political and economic
hub of Central Oregon. As the major population center for Central Oregon, Deschutes
County has evolved into a diversified economic region. The main industries
representing major employers include:
• Leisure and Hospitality
• Medical/Health Care
• Industries
Secondary Wood Products
Aviation/Aerospace
Renewable Energy Resources
Recreation Equipment
• Retail
• Specialty Manufacturing
• Office/Services
• Government
Also, agriculture is still a large part of the Central Oregon economy. Tourism brings
many visitors to the County each year to the resort communities of Black Butte,
Sunriver, Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, and Inn of the Seventh Mountain. Other attractions
include Mount Bachelor ski area, the High Desert Museum, numerous golf courses,
several lakes and rivers, and hiking trails.
In general, the region experiences an influx of visitors year-round, especially to Bend
and its surrounding communities. Data published by "Visit Bend" states there were an
estimated 2.5 million visitor -trips to the City of Bend alone in 2015. If one assumes
4 Source: Population Research Center, Portland State University.
2-2
that each trip represents one person, that would translate to about 200,000 visitors
each month. Comparing current data to information published in 2010 where it showed
about 150,000 visitors per month indicates there has been an increase in tourist visits
of 25%.5 This represents visitors to the Bend only and not the entire County.
Acknowledging the large number of visitors is an important aspect of evaluating
options for managing solid waste. It not only impacts the total waste disposed, but
also the composition of the waste generated. Since the largest concentration of
destination resorts in the Pacific Northwest is in the County, tourism and hospitality
trade are an important sector of the economy.
In 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.7%, dropping to 4.2% in 2017.6 The most
common employment sectors are healthcare and social assistance, retail trade, and
accommodation and food service.'
Table 2-3: Deschutes County Economic Activity
Category I Year Deschutes Oregon
Median Household Income
2015
$51,223
$51,243
Median Value of Owner -Occupied Housing
2015
$253,400
$237,300
Unit
Civilian Labor Force
2015
61.30%
62.10%
Unemployment Rate6
Aug-17
4.20%
4.10%
Full & Part Time employment
2015
60,309
1,498,727
Total Employment ®Percent Change
2015
6.80%
3.800 0
Total employer establishments
2015
6,530
112,393
Buildinq Permits
2016
2,274
19,586
The City of Bend, working with civic leaders, industry representatives and other
interest groups, prepared a comprehensive economic forecast report in August 2016
entitled "Bend Economic Opportunities Analysis". This report cites the recent trends in
the growth for the City of Bend and the County, pointing to recent increases in
employment. It supports the conclusion that the area is expected to continue to have
stronger growth than other areas of the State. It also suggests the need for more
multi -family housing as well as more land in the urban growth boundary to support
growth.
5 Source: Oregon Visitor Trips, RRC February 2016; Estimation of Bend Oregon Visitor
Trips and Visitor Days Prepared by RRC Associates, September 1, 2010,
www.visitbend.com
6 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov
Source: Data USA, https•//datausa io/prof!le1geo/deschutes-county-or/#economy
2-3
2.3 Description of the Current Solid Waste Management System
The current solid waste system in Deschutes County consists of storage, collection,
transfer, waste recovery, recycling, household hazardous waste (HHW), composting
and disposal facilities. Collectively, the facilities and programs in Deschutes County
effectively manage all of the County's waste and recyclables. This chapter provides a
description of the major components of the current solid waste management system in
the County. Some of the smaller recycling facilities or specific programs that are
currently in place within the County may not be included, but will be discussed in later
chapters of this SWMP
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the County and the cities, by State law, are empowered
with the responsibility to ensure recycling services are provided and waste is managed
in a safe and efficient manner. To meet the needs of citizens and businesses, solid
waste and recycling services and programs are provided through a partnership of local
jurisdictions with private service providers. A basic overview of the County's solid
waste system is presented in Figure 2-1.
Cities &
Unincorporated
County
County -Owned
Transfer
Stations and
Recycling
Center
Caaanamfngfetl M—aaR¢ata:f,��.-..qP
W
liFIA
_.....
Ta Praecastrtg
Mard Waste IkrW Gaftage 0 Mt at Cnaaty
Ransa8a
----------Wecvctfng.
C�ft
Ca antis
8 { 1
��,.�� —j--------- J
f 6 f
f t r
r r 1
__. natafta
[fast Caanty7
Nsrmwcst
[5asters]
Negvs
! { €
[Redng5
§ f
!t
so+ the st
,La F7nc7
Figure 2-1: Deschutes County Solid Waste System
Deschutes County owns the four transfer stations, composting site, some of the
recycling facilities and the landfill that serves the solid waste system. The processing
facilities and some of the recycling facilities are owned by private companies or other
local government agencies.
2.3.1 Summary of Annual Solid Waste Generation
Over the past seven years, the County has experienced a continual increase in the
amount of waste generated. Table 2-4 shows the amount of materials that were
recovered, and waste disposed from 2010 to 2017 as reported by the Oregon
2-4
'Chapter
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).8 The total waste generated is the sum of
the waste disposed plus recovered materials.
Table 2-4: Solid Waste Tons Per Year
Total
Solid
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Waste
Generated
177,107
185,386
185,676
193,744
203,921
227,333
240,844
270,658
Disposed
115,030
112,751
113,611
119,682
130,956
143,952
161,087
181,095
Recovered
62,077
72,635
72,065
74,062
72,965
83,381
79,757
89,536
Waste disposed, includes what is received at the Knott Landfill and special waste
including HHW that is recycled or disposed at designated sites. Waste disposal at Knott
Landfill includes MSW and C/D waste.
Figure 2-2: Graph of Annual Solid Waste
The data shown graphically in Figure 2-2 indicates that during the five years between
2012 and 2017, the County has experienced an increase of 46% in the amount of
waste generated.
S DEQ Annual Reports
KM
rk1Ar,
Chapter 2
2.3.2 Refuse Collection
Deschutes County has franchised agreements with four different private companies for
the collection of municipal solid waste from residences and commercial establishments
(see Table 2-5). Each of these companies is franchised by the city it serves and with
the County for unincorporated areas, under authority granted by ORS 459.125. This
same legislation also gives Deschutes County the authority to:
"Regulate, license, franchise and certify disposal, transfer, and resource 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 resource recovery sites or facilities located within the County."
Franchised agreements grant each company the sole right to collect solid waste and
recyclables from a specified area. Waste haulers are obligated to provide a regular
schedule for collection of waste in all areas of the County and recyclables in urbanized
areas. Service charges by the waste haulers are regulated by cities and by the County.
Table 2-S: 2008 Private Solid Waste Haulers and Service Areas
Collection Service Provider Service Area Term of
Contract
Bend Garbage and Recycling North Bend Rolling seven9
Cascade Disposal South Bend and Sunriver Rolling seven
High Country Disposal Redmond and Sisters Rolling seven
Wilderness Garbage and La Pine Rolling seven
Recycling
Note: Deschutes County contracts with all four collection companies for service in the
unincorporated areas of the County.
2.3.3 Transfer Stations
DSW manages four transfer stations in the County. The transfer station system was
developed in the 1990s to replace closed landfills and to offer convenient locations
where residents and businesses in rural areas could take waste and recyclables. Waste
is transferred for disposal at Knott Landfill and recyclables are taken to Mid -Oregon
Recycling, located in Bend.
The four transfer stations include Negus Transfer Station located in Redmond,
Northwest Transfer Station near Sisters, Southwest Transfer Station between Sunriver
and La Pine, and Alfalfa Transfer Station located off Walker Road near Alfalfa (Figure
2-3).
9 Denotes a continuously renewing 7-year term for contracts, per franchised
ordinance.
MI
Chapter 2
ss5ty-W5
Tenvi"im
axvx r Naid
LU.F-
.T"..:
LACE GLt'Utit Uti
a!r
rJue uT aa,:A"OR
ZAt w,es rr e�ev
IAO stntriver
ccrtzth 197i
xAxx
exR.b's N-wxtcav waT �exn,
F 4' VO"Coat MONUMENT
rxsaavo;x A
ru:
:AL+t1M W7
roS:•Yfr? M1V XA0
}„P;,acYv5k
t,a Pit*
--f---j I -,--I
'ARK DESC H UTES
COUNTY
n
Alfalfa Vt+E
S
Legend
1: Knott Landfill Recycling &
Transfer Station
Mflrcan }1,j 2: Northwest Transfer Station
3: Negus Transfer Station
Uroa,ers 4: Alfalfa Transfer Station
5: Southwest Transfer Station
Figure 2-3: Transfer Station Locations in Deschutes County
Negus Transfer Station serves the largest population center outside Bend and receives
the most customers since it is located near the city of Redmond, the second largest
city in Deschutes County. Table 2-6 shows the tonnage of waste materials that flow
into these facilities.
Table 2-6: Remote Transfer Station Tonnages"
Transfer Station
2012
2013
2014
2015
2015
2017
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Negus
21,825
23,510
25,444
28,502
31,309
34,948
Northwest
3,166
2,965
3,037
3,429
3,738
3,630
Southwest
61491
7,074
7,386
8,203
9,193
9,788
Alfalfa
155
157
151
165
170
184
Subtotal Remote
31,637
33,706
36,018
40,299
44,410
48,550
Transfer Station
Knott Transfer
22,838
25,349
25,444
28,501
31,509
45,020
Station
Total Transfer
1 54,475
59,055
61,462
68,800
75,919
93,570
The amount of waste received at the County's four transfer stations has increased by
53% since 2012, while tonnages at the Knott Transfer Station increased 97%. Overall,
transfer station tonnages increased 72% over this period. Most of this increase has
occurred at the two largest transfer stations, Negus in Redmond and Southwest near
La Pine respectively by 43% and 42%. This increase corresponds with the growth in
population throughout the County.
10DSW Annual Reports
2-7
In addition to these remote transfer stations, DSW operates a central transfer station
at Knott Landfill. This station was built to receive waste delivered by self -haul
customers and eliminated these users from unloading at the landfill working area for
safety reasons. A recycling center is also located at Knott Landfill. The total amount of
waste received at all transfer stations and Knott Transfer Station is shown in Figure 2-
4.
60,000
Figure 2-4: Deschutes County Yearly Transfer Station Tonnages
The Knott Recycling and Transfer Facility and the Northwest, Southwest and Negus
transfer stations accept items such as household refuse and construction debris,
commingled recyclables, cardboard, glass, appliances, auto batteries, computer
monitors, CPUs, printers, keyboards, TVs and other electronics, motor oil, tires, scrap
metal, wood waste and yard debris. Knott Landfill also accepts asbestos and
contaminated soil. The Alfalfa facility accepts commingled recyclables, cardboard,
glass, auto batteries, computer monitors, CPUs, TVs, motor oil and scrap metal. 11
Table 2-7 lists the hours of operation for each facility.
Table 2-7: Deschutes County Transfer Station Hours of Operation
Transfer Station
Days of Operation
Hours of Operation
November 1-April 30
Knott Landfill
Monday -Saturday
7:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
Recycling and
Transfer Facility
May 1-October 31
Monday-Sunday..7:00
a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Negus
Monday -Saturday
8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
Northwest
Wednesday -Saturday
8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
Southwest
Wednesday -Saturday
8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
Alfalfa
Saturday
8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
11 Source: Department of Solid Waste Deschutes County Brochure from website
November 2017, www.descutes.org/solidwaste
2-8
Chapter 2
2.3.4 Disposal Facility - Knott Landfill
Landfill disposal is part of every solid waste system. 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 MSW. In Deschutes
County, the only landfill permitted to accept MSW is Knott Landfill, which is anticipated
to close in 2029. Data for recent waste tonnage received at Knott Landfill is shown in
Table 2-8.
Table 2-8: Deschutes County Tonnage to Disposal Operations12
Yearl 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2026 2027
Annual
Waste 1 114,307 112,751 113,611 119,682 130,956 144,067 161,087 182,095
Disposed
% 1 (1.4%) 0.9% 5.4% 9.4% 10.0% 11.8% 13.0%
hanna
Knott Landfill has been the County's primary disposal site since 1972 and is projected
to close in 2029 or in about 10 years. In 2017, over 181,000 tons of municipal and
non -municipal solid wastes were disposed at Knott Landfill. About 75% of the waste
received at Knott Landfill is delivered by franchised collection companies and self -haul
customers. The remaining 25% of the waste is collected and transferred to Knott
Landfill from the four rural transfer stations located in Deschutes County. The rural
transfer station waste is delivered by truck, averaging approximately 15-25 tons of
waste per load.
Landfill gas (LFG), comprised primarily of methane, is a byproduct of waste
decomposing in landfills. Collection and destruction of LFG is important to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and prevent LFG-related fires and explosions. Currently, the
County collects LFG and operates a flare system to burn off the gas safely. In 2009,
Deschutes County completed a study of options for using LFG generated by the
landfill. Due to market conditions at the time, that study generally focused around
electric generation options and included LFG recovery assessments based on 2009
conditions at the landfill. Since then, numerous factors have changed both internally
within Knott Landfill's operations and externally within the LFG utilization industry as a
whole. Since incorporation of leachate/condensate recirculation into the site operation
in 2010, the landfill has seen a significant increase in LFG production, which
necessitated the need for expanding the flare system in 2017. DSW is considering
options for managing the LFG produced even after the landfill is closed.
2.3.5 Recycling Systems
Deschutes County dedicates 2.5% of the annual budget to recycling education, which
has helped to increase diversion numbers in the County. Many private collection
companies and volunteer organizations participate in programs to recycle materials
12Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; 2017 Oregon Material Recovery and
Waste Generation Rates Report.
2-9
Chapter 2
from the County's waste stream. This section describes the primary facilities that
receive, process, and market materials produced from collection services.
The State requires that every jurisdiction with a population of 4,000 or more provide
recycling programs and services. In Deschutes County, recycled materials are
primarily collected from residences and businesses at the curb. Residents and
businesses can also drop off recyclables at several locations across the County. In
addition, a number of waste reduction and recycling education programs for residents
and businesses are conducted by the County or its agents and the franchised collection
companies. The following is an overview of the recycling facilities currently operating
in Deschutes County.
2.3.5.1 Recycling at Transfer Stations
All four transfer stations accept recyclable materials including comingled materials,
cardboard (OCC), auto batteries, glass, electronics, motor oil, scrap metals and
propane tanks. The transfer stations do not accept the following:
• Dirt, sod, concrete, rocks, bricks, and other inert material (accepted at
Negus Transfer Station)
• Hazardous materials
• Liquids
• Manure
• Ashes (dead or alive)
• Asbestos
• Bulky heavy items that may damage the transfer trailers or hinder
unlnadino as determined by the site attendant
Table 2-9 provides the amount of these materials received at each of the transfer
stations.
Table 2-9: Annual Recycling Materials Recycled at Deschutes County Transfer
Stations (2016 Tons per Year)
Alfalfa
Knott
Negus
Northwest
Southwest
Total
Appliances
166
27
74
267
Batteries
7
2
4
14
Cardboard
114
24
63
201
Commingled
20
122
37
94
273
Electronics
100
100
Glass
8
78
27
45
158
Hazardous Waste
264
264
Motor Oil
23
2
11
37
Scrap Metal
9
4
230
71
138
451
Propane Tanks
0.84
0.84
Tires
0.06
43
4
14
1 61.06
Totals
37
269
883
193
443
1 1,826
2-10
Chapter
In addition to the recyclable materials listed in Table 2-9, the County's transfer
stations receive yard debris, which is ground and transported to Knott Landfill for use
as alternate daily cover. Wood waste is accepted at Negus Transfer Station which is
ground and shipped to mills for use as boiler fuel for electricity production. Quantities
of wood waste and yard debris managed through the County's transfer stations is
shown on Figure 2-5.
10000
9000
b
8000
� 7000
6000
K
l a� _
z�
u
a 5000
S
c 4000
z
NO z
�
ffi
u
is
3000
2000
�b
1000PIN
r
2012
2013
2014 2015
Wood Waste
{' ` Yard Debris
2016
Figure 2-5: Annual Wood/Yard Waste at Deschutes County Transfer
Stations (Tons per Year)
2.3.5.2 Recyclables Processing
Commingled recyclable materials are collected by the franchised hauler for each of the
four cities and taken to Mid -Oregon Recycling's facility. Commingled recyclables are
then baled and sent to processors outside of the County. Cardboard and scrap metal
are also baled and shipped out of the County to be recycled. Table 2-10 shows the
amount of materials collected for the past three years by the different franchised
haulers.
Table 2-10: Commingled Recyclables Collected by Haulers in Deschutes
County (Tons per Year)
Hauler:
2014
2015
2016
Bend Garbage and Recycling
4,289
4,480
4,753
Cascade Disposal
4,450
4,658
4,805
High Country Disposal
3,225
3,318
3,409
Wilderness Garbage and Recycling
54
58
50
Total
1 12,018
12,514
13,017
2-11
2.3.5.3 Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHW)
Deschutes County collects HHW at the Knott Landfill Recycling and Transfer Facility.
Residents can drop off HHW during posted times. Motor oil (less than 5 gallons) and
auto batteries (household only) can be dropped off at one of the four transfer stations
or the Knott Landfill Recycling Center. In addition, the County conducts annual HHW
collection events in Redmond, Sisters and La Pine.
Motor oil can also be collected curbside by the franchised collection companies within
Bend city limits if it is in a sealed container that is clearly labeled with the contents
and set next to the glass bin on collection day.
2.3.5.4 Composting
The Knott Landfill Recycling Center, operated by Deschutes Recycling, receives most of
the yard debris and wood waste generated in the County. The facility includes a
grinder and screen operation to produce various soil amendment and ground cover
products. These products are available for sale at the facility. The compost sold at the
facility is independently tested every three months by a U.S. Composting Council
approved lab to ensure quality. The company offers three different types of compost,
which vary by size and application use. One product contains 50% food -based
compost, which helps enhance landscapes with much needed nutrients. The facility
also offers spreaders, delivery of material and a place for customers to drop off yard
debris, clean wood waste, stumps and sod. They do not accept rocks, dirt, garbage,
plastic bags, or concrete. The facility is open seven days a week in the summer, six
days a week in the winter and closed on major U.S. holidays.
2.4 Projected Waste Stream Quantities and Composition
The following Waste Stream Analysis provides a summary of current waste stream
generation and composition in Deschutes County, and forecasts future disposal and
recycling levels.
For the purposes of this projection, the total waste stream is defined as tons of solid
waste generated in Deschutes County, which includes both disposed and
reused/recycled materials. Most types of solid waste are landfilled, while others are
reused, recycled, or disposed of at sites designated for a specific type of special waste.
The waste disposed includes both MSW and C/D waste. MSW consists of waste
generated by residences, offices, institutions, commercial businesses and other waste
generators not producing special wastes. Special wastes have their own characteristics
and handling requirements. Special wastes include industrial waste, hazardous waste,
infectious waste, sludges and septic tank pumpings, tires, and recycled waste.
C/D waste is generated by contractors on construction projects and by self -haul
customers. This waste stream is a material that can be largely inert or may contain
large amounts of wood.
All operators that collect and/or process waste report the amount of recycled materials
to DEQ each year. 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
DEQ, which summarizes the recovery rate for each county. Recovery rates for each
2-12
county in Oregon are listed in DEQ's annual Material Recovery and Waste Generation
Rates Reports. The recovery rate is defined as the total material recovered divided by
the total material generated and pertains to the amount of material that is recycled,
composted, or recovered for energy and not disposed in landfills. In the past, each
wasteshed could earn up to six recovery credits for waste prevention, reuse and
residential composting programs that were then added to calculated recovery rates. As
a result of new legislation, counties or wastesheds will no longer receive these credits.
The recovery rate (without the credits) is the value shown in the tables in this chapter
unless otherwise stated.
Estimates used in this SWMP demonstrate a distinction between "disposed" quantities
and "generated" quantities. As used in this SWMP, disposed solid waste is considered
to be all solid waste delivered to Knott Landfill as reported to DEQ, whether generated
in or out of the County. Waste generation is calculated by adding the total waste
disposed and the materials that are recovered, as reported to DEQ.
2.4.1 Historical Solid Waste Data
Each year, DEQ compiles a report of the amount of materials recovered and disposed
for each county or wasteshed. Table 2-11 provides a summary of this Deschutes
County data over an eight year period between 2010 and 2017. The total waste
generated is the sum of the waste reportedly disposed and materials recovered each
year. DEQ then computes the per capita generation rate by dividing the total waste
generated by the published population for that wasteshed. This provides a
measurement of how much waste each person generates on a daily basis, whether at
work or at home. The top priority of the State hierarchy is to reduce the total waste
generated on a per capita basis. Similarly, the amounts of waste disposed and
recovered are also divided by the population to produce per capita rates for those
waste streams. This information is one method used to measure the success of waste
reduction and recycling programs and is used to compare with other wastesheds.
Table 2-12 provides the "Per Capita Rates" over the same eight year period.
Table 2-11: Deschutes County Historic Waste Stream Data (Tons, 2010
through 2017)13
Waste 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Generated 177,107 185,386 185,676 193,744 203,921 227,333 240,844 270,658
Disposed 115,030 112,751 113,611 119,682 130,956 143,952 161,087 182,095
Recovered 62,077 72,635 72,065 74,062 72,965 83,381 79,757 88,563
Recovery 35% 39.2% 38.8% 38.2% 35.8% 36.7% 33.1% 32.7%
Rate*
*Does not include recovery credits that are no longer counted.
13 DEQ Annual Wasteshed Report
2-13
Chapter
hap
Table 2-12: Deschutes County Per Capita Rates (Pounds per Year)
Per Capita
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Generated
2,243
2,334
2,319
2,384
2,451
2,663
2,727
2,959
Disposed
1,457
1,419
1,419
1,473
1,574
1,686
1,824
1,991
Recovered
786
914
900
911
877
975
903
968
The historic data shows that Deschutes County has experienced about a 33% increase
in the amount of waste generated over the past three years. Other jurisdictions
throughout Oregon also experienced larger than normal growth over a similar period.
However, the average increase was between 7% in Lane County to as high as 10% in
Marion County. Over this three year period, the State experienced an increase in the
economy. It is assumed the increase in construction and the housing market in
Deschutes County was a contributor to the higher generation rate as well as additional
tourist population that is constant throughout the year.
Waste that is not recycled requiring disposal in Deschutes County is delivered to Knott
Landfill. It is anticipated that Knott Landfill will be at capacity and will discontinue
accepting MSW in 2029. The amount of waste disposed at this site in 2010 through
2017 as reported to DEQ is shown in Table 2-11.
2.4.2 Waste Stream Composition
It is important to understand the composition of the waste stream because it provides
an estimate of the types and quantities of materials that are generated and disposed,
including recyclable and compostable materials. This composition analysis uses the
best available data to create a snapshot of materials that are being disposed at Knott
Landfill.
The amount of recycled materials shown represents the actual materials reported to
DEQ in 2016. Composition data for waste disposed was developed from several
sources, including past data from DEQ studies and detailed waste characteristic studies
recently completed for other jurisdictions. This data was used to estimate the
percentage of different materials that are being disposed. The total waste stream
composition is the sum of that which is recycled and disposed. The results of this
analysis are summarized in Table 2-13.
2-14
Chapter 2
Table 2-13: Deschutes County Waste Stream for 2016
% of Total Waste Waste
Waste Composition Total (Disposed + Disposed
Waste1 Recycalbes)
TOTAL PAPER
Cardboard/Kraft
Clean Mixed Paper/ONP
Mixed Paper
Corrvostable/Soiled
TOTAL PLASTICS
ORGANICS
Yard Debris
Wood
Food
Other Orqanics
GLASS
METALS
Aluminum
Tin Cans
Other (scrap metal)
OTHER INORGANICS
Rock / Concrete / Brick
Gypsum Wallboard
Electronics
Misc Orqanics
OTHER MATERIALS
Motor Oil
Other Materials
Other Recvclables
26%
8%
7%
5%
7%
6%
43%
14%
9%
18%
2%
4%
9%
3%
2%
1%
5%
4%
1%
3%
0%
tons
62,198
18,185
15,822
11,276
16,109
14,327
102,654
33,266
22,330
42,701
4,357
9,786
19,844
2,230
3,549
14,065
21,584
6,033
4,833
2,663
11,278
10,055
2,245
6,522
396
TOTAL WASTE 1000/0 240,844
40,272
5,638'
6,443
11,276
16,109
12,887 8%
67,657
42%
6,443
4%
16,109
10%'
41,883
26%
3,222
2%
3,222
2%
11,276
7%
1,611
1%
3,222
2%
6,443
4%
19,330
12%
4,833
3%
4,833
3%
1,611
1%
11,276
7%
6,443
4%
322
0.20%
4,833
3%
0%'
161,087 100%
Recycled
Materials
ns 14_
21,926
12,547
9,379
1,440
34,997
26,823
6,221
818
1135
6,564
8,568
619
327
7,622
2,254
1,200
1052
2
3,612
1,923
1,689
396
79,757
Although this total waste stream is comparable to results of other jurisdictions, it
should be noted that it assumes the total waste disposed at Knott Landfill is largely
comprised of MSW. However, the total of 161,000 tons disposed in 2016 does include
C/D wastes. C/D data will be further evaluated later in the SWMP.
This 2016 snapshot provides a starting point for discussing opportunities to evaluate
various options for managing waste in the future. The options can be in the form of
new policies that may impact generators to reduce or recycle more materials as well
as considering new technologies to maximize reuse of resources and reduce waste
2-15
r�GNR;<
Chapter ei
disposed in landfills. Figure 2-6 graphically depicts the estimated composition of the
waste stream that was disposed at Knott Landfill in 2016.
Paper
25%
Plastics
8%
n
Figure 2-6: Composition of Waste Disposed in Deschutes County
Based on the estimated quantities of materials currently being disposed at Knott
Landfill, there appears to be several opportunities to increase the recovery rate. There
is still an appreciable amount of recoverable commodities such as paper, plastics and
metals that comprises about 40% of what is disposed. Not all of these materials can
be recovered and marketed, but there may be options that can be evaluated to recycle
more of these materials.
Another observation is that an estimated 42% of waste disposed is comprised of
organics, of which almost 60% is food waste. This too may present opportunities to
recover more materials for composting and reduce the amount of waste disposed.
This data represents a starting point to examine different alternatives for managing
Deschutes County's waste. More detailed information may be needed as these
alternatives are vetted.
2.4.3 Waste Stream Generation Forecast
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 Population Research Center (PRC)
2-16
at Portland State University assume variable annual growth rates for each five-year
period at about 1.5%.
U.S. Census figures indicate that the population in Deschutes County increased by 3%
annually between 2000 and 2016 estimates. Information obtained from the Growth
Management Department at the City of Bend that tracks census data and data from
PRC support this conclusion. From 2014 to 2016, PRC projected annual growth rate in
the City of Bend to increase an average of 2.18%. The census data demonstrates the
City population grew an average of 3.9% over this same period. The result was that
PRC showed an increase in population of 3,515 versus 7,106 in the census, more than
twice of what was expected in the City, thus suggesting possibly a larger amount of
growth is occurring in the County than originally projected. There is no information
available to confirm whether this is the case or if the total growth in the County is
greater than what PRC is projecting. At this time the best assumption is to rely on the
PRC data that is accepted statewide. The projected population is shown on Table 2-14.
Table 2-14: Deschutes County Population Projections
PSU Population Annual
Year Projections14 Growth Rate of
Period S
2015
170,606
---
2020
190,734
2.4%
2025
210,826
2.1%
2030
230,412
1.9%
2035
249,037
1.6%
2040
267,798
1.5%
According to DEQ, Deschutes County's per capita waste generation rate was 2,960
pounds per person in 2017, up from 2,319 pounds per person in 2012, an increase of
almost 27% or about 5.4% per year. Much of this increase is a result of a recovering
economy after the recession. In the period from 2010 to 2014, the increase averaged
about 1.6%, lending some support for not expecting this kind of increase over a long
period.
In making projections for future waste generation, the average generation rate over
the past five years was used. Recent data shows improved economic conditions where
the GNP increased to about 3% suggests the economy catching up to pre -recession
levels. This trend is also reflected in the construction industry. However, on a national
level the average waste generation rate is projected to decline as a result of the
increase in the amount of plastics or lighter materials and a reduction of less heavier
materials such as glass and newspaper.
14 Source: "Coordinated Population Forecast 2015 through 2065, Deschutes County
Urban Growth Boundaries & Area Outside UGBs". Population Research Center PSU.
June 2015.
15 Source: Forecasts of Oregon's County Populations and Components of Change,
2010-2050, Office of Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, State
of Oregon, March 2013.
2-17
Chapter
2
The average waste generation rate over the five year period is 2,509 pounds per
capita per year. One reason to discount the decrease in lighter weight materials of
packaging experienced on a national level is the influence of the tourism industry in
Deschutes County. These conditions are somewhat unique to the County and
therefore, the waste generation trends are expected to vary from regional conditions.
Table 2-15 shows the projected waste generation quantities for 2015 through 2040,
which were calculated by multiplying the per capita generation rate by the projected
population estimates from Table 2-14. The per capita rate is shown to decline from the
current rate to one that reflects the average generation rate over the past five years.
This approach discounts the impacts of the extended recession, which is considered to
be an anomaly. Although recessions will occur in the future, the extent of such market
changes cannot be accurately predicted.
Table 2-15: Deschutes County Waste Stream Projections
Waste Per Capita
Year Population16 Generation (pounds)18
(tons)17
2015
170,606
227,333
2663
2020
190,734
246,619
2586
2025
210,826
264,481
2509
2030
230,412
289,052
2509
2035
249,037
312,541
2509
2040
267,798
336,086
2509
The nrnierfind nenaratinn ratee were combined with generation rates experienced over
the past 10 years in Figure 2-7.
(Intentionally left blank)
16 Source: US Census Bureau, www.census.gov
17 Calculated using population estimates from 2010 census and projected waste
volumes based on 5-year average from 2012 to 2016.
18 The Per capita generation rate is projected to decline from high in 2017 to 5 yr.
average from 2012 to 2016.
2-18
Total Waste Generated
2006 2010 2015 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Historic Projections
Figure 2-7: Deschutes County Waste Generation Per Capita Rates
The historic generation data represented by the blue line shows the impacts of the
2008 recession on the amount of waste generated between 2006 and 2016. Although
the population in the County increased, factors such as slower growth in the housing
market, a lower GNP and even lower market prices for recyclable materials contributed
to this effect. In the past three years, the amount of waste disposed at Knott Landfill
increased by 39%. This is not a trend that is expected to continue, thus the projected
generation reflects that the waste stream will grow a rate commensurate with the
growth in the population of Deschutes County. In 2016, the County reportedly
generated about 240,000 tons of waste and disposed of 161,000 tons at Knott Landfill.
By 2040, the amount of waste generated is estimated to grow to 336,000 tons. How
much is disposed will be determined by how much can be recycled and/or converted to
other resources.
Using the projected waste generation rate, Deschutes County can plan for their solid
waste management system to handle future quantities of materials. Although these
projections will vary due to conditions outside the control of the County, they serve as
a starting point to evaluate alternative strategies for managing waste and for planning
the infrastructure to best serve citizens and businesses. Upon adoption of this SWMP it
will be important to examine in more detail the quantities and composition of the
waste stream and recyclable materials during the implementation phase.
2-19
3. WASTE PREVENTION, REDUCTION, REUSE AND
RECYCLING ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction
Over the last three decades, Deschutes County's waste prevention, reduction, reuse,
and recycling programs have continued to expand. With a 57% population growth rate
since 2000, Deschutes County now exceeds 180,000 residents, with an additional
200,000 visitors on average per month, as noted in Chapter 1. Correspondingly,
waste disposed at the transfer stations has increased 40% since 2010, with a 22%
overall waste generation increase since 2012.
Of all the material brought to Knott Landfill, 75% is delivered directly to the landfill by
franchised haulers and self -haul customers, while 25% comes from the rural transfer
stations. With 10 years left in the life of Knott Landfill, now is the time to prevent,
reduce and reuse waste while increasing recycling.
Components of the County -wide waste prevention and recycling program are
discussed in the following sections. After a description of existing programs, further
program needs and opportunities in Deschutes County are evaluated. Alternative
approaches to address needs in three categories are then investigated:
• Improvements to current educational and support services
• Targeting specific waste streams and generators
• Enhanced recovery of new materials
Within each category, specific areas are identified that can be targeted for greater
waste prevention, reduction, reuse and recycling.
3.2 Background
DSW's mission is to provide the customers of Deschutes County with an
environmentally responsible and cost-effective system for reduction and disposal of
solid waste, through quality services, education, and public involvement. With that
mission at its core, the County has implemented a multifaceted, comprehensive reuse
and waste reduction program in cooperation with environmental organizations,
schools, residents and businesses, franchised haulers and private recyclers.
Through SB 263, the State's regulations for waste reduction and recycling, which are
codified in ORS 459A, were amended. This amendment to the original "Opportunity to
Recycle Act" enacted new recovery rates for all counties and wastesheds. For
Deschutes County, the recovery rate goal was set at 45%. The State also removed
the recycling rate credits awarded to local jurisdictions; therefore, Deschutes County
will need to consider approaches to catalyze the increase of the recovery rate from
33% to 45% by 2025.
A primary component of Deschutes County's SWMP objective is to protect the
environment by emphasizing waste reduction. The County will measure their
3-1
mew
progression toward this and their targeted recovery goal by establishing educational
and promotional programs and facility assessments on an annual basis.
Since the inception of the Deschutes County recycling program in the early 1990s, the
amount of waste generated on a per capita basis has fluctuated, with more recent
year-to-year increases following the 2008 economic recession. Additionally, between
1992 and 2009, Deschutes County invested more than $1.8 million to expand its
waste prevention and recycling educational program to try to keep pace. As
mentioned in Chapter 2, this accounts for roughly 2.5% of the DSW annual budget.
Figure 3-1 displays per capita generation and recovery in Deschutes County between
2006 and 2016 based on data derived from the DEQ 2016 Material Recovery and
Waste Generation Rates Report. Similarly, sourced from the same report, Figure 3-2
displays the recovery rate in the County during that time. Figure 3-3 depicts the
annual rate of change in waste generation in the County.
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Per Capita Wasteshed Rates
2006 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Pounds Generated N Pounds Recovered
Figure 3-1: Deschutes County Per Capita Waste Generation and Recovery
Figure 3-1 indicates that per capita waste generation in the County peaked in 2006 at
3,376 pounds and declined through 2012 before rebounding, consistently increasing to
2,960 pounds in 2017. Considering that no substantive policy measure was enacted
during this time coupled with the growing use of computer and mobile technologies to
access information that would have significantly reduced per capita waste generation
rates, it is likely that the observed decline is a result of the economic recession
between 2008 and 2010. Likewise, the increase in per capita generation reflects a
growing economy as well as a thriving tourism sector in Deschutes County. The latter
point is critical to note as the rise in tourism may significantly exceed the rate of
population growth in the County, and waste generated by tourists is counted in the
waste stream in County -wide figures.
3-2
Chapter 3
Figure 3-2 illustrates the County's recovery rate (equal to the per capita recovery rate)
from 2006 through 2016. It is difficult to ascertain a meaningful relationship between
the generation and recovery rate, but it is notable that in 2006 when the County's
generation peaked, it was also paired with the lowest rate of recovery rate (27%).
During this time, the County's recovery rate in relative terms peaked at 39% in 2011
and 2012; however, 2015 saw the greatest amount of recovery in absolute terms with
975 pounds per capita being recovered versus 914 pounds per capital being recovered
in 2011. However, the recovery rate in 2017, as reported by DEQ, was 32.7%, which
is slightly less than 33% reported in 2016.
45%
40%
35%
39% 39% 38%
36% 37%
35%
31% 33% 32.7%
-
30% 27%
e
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2006 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 3-2: Recovery Rate in Deschutes County
Figure 3-3 displays the change in year-to-year waste generation in Deschutes County
on a percentage basis relative to the previous year. Beginning in 2008 and comparing
2008 to 2006, a 20% decline in waste generation is observed over a one-year period.
This is immediately followed by another significant drop in 2010 when generation in
the County fell to 2,243 pounds per capita, compared to 2,475 pounds in 2008. Since
then, there have been no year-to-year declines in waste generation. Between 2011
and 2012, generation was essentially equal. Since then, the County has seen an
increase in waste generation on an annual basis, as reflected in Figure 3-3. As shown
the marginal rate of growth in the generation rate increased over 12% in 2017. This
growth rate is a result of the increase the total amount of waste disposed resulting
from a much improved economy and new construction in the County.
3-3
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5 %
-10%
-15%
20%
-25%
Annual Marginal Generation Growth Rate in Deschutes
County
112 2013 20141 12017
Figure 3-3: Annual Marginal Rate of Generation in Deschutes County since
2008
Figure 3-4 shows the County's recovery of recyclable materials between 2014 and
2017. The totals in this table combine the annual materials reported to the County by
the franchised haulers providing curbside collection, commercial generators, recycling
depots and transfer stations.
(Intentionally left blank)
3-4
Table 3-1 Collection of Recyclables in Deschutes County (2014-2016)19
Recyclables
2014
2015
2016
2017
(tons)
(tons)
(tons)
(tons)
Aluminum
649
567
627
800
Animal
564
443
503
198
Waste/Grease
Antifreeze
142
159
152
165
Cardboard/Kraft
14,578
13,228
13,337
15,022
Composite Plastic
3
3
3
4
Electronics
1,014
1,140
1,064
951
Fluorescent Lamps
2
1
3
10
Food Waste
644
790
819
720
Glass Containers
5,470
6,618
6,681
7,119
Gypsum Wallboard
1
1
1
2
HHW
155
227
264
229
Lead Acid Batteries
766
923
1,087
1,178
Mixed Batteries
1
1
1
2
Paint
197
280
180
191
Paper Fiber
8,063
10,165
9,380
9,498
Plastic Film
247
196
231
228
Plastic Other
377
130
172
iiu
Rigid Plastic
686
943
1,040
1,166
Containers
Roofing/Asphalt
2
2.5
2
4
Scrap Metal
13,140
12,113
7,722
13,261
Solvents
3
2
2
2
Textiles
1
1
-
-
Tin Cans
110
317
327
326
Tires
498
1,040
633
370
Used Motor Oil
1,400
1,455
2,484
2,422
Wood Waste
3,855
7,037
6,221
6,189
Yard Debris
20,396
25,487
26,823
28,393
Total
72,964
83,270
79,759
88,562
Materials directly recycled by waste generators (i.e. not collected by waste haulers
and/or not taken to County transfer stations) that may not be reported to the County
but are reported directly to the DEQ are included in Table 3-1 as well. It should be
noted that the estimated tonnage of collected recyclables in 2016 is slightly different
than the DEQ report (by 2.0 tons), which is attributable to rounding.
19 Source: Oregon DEQ Material Recovery and Waste Generation Summary, Deschutes County (2016)
3-5
Chapter 3
30,000
27,500
25,000
22,500
20,000
17,S00
15,000
12,500
10,000
7,500
S,000
2,500
Material Recovery in Deschutes County (2014-2017)
V
.4�+
T- v
N
N
S
6
N
V
nM
E
10
O
=
M
M N
u
Y
N
@
Q 0
ate+
N
Q1
W
C
°
°
U
cc
-0
co la-
� d
N N
d N
ro
fl.
v
N E
u
Q
X
d
E
U
0
°
O CL
v
._
a
2014
0 2015
2016
2017
c
U
N
ao
t:�a
N
0
f6
N
@
>
X
U
C
~
°
°
Figure 3-4: Material Recovery in Deschutes County from 2014 to 2016 (tons)
and
Figure
3 w it s that .ith few ptio the general.
Based on Table 3-1 al IU riyUr a J-Y, it appears that, rviti i a icvv ex%cNuvii�, �� �c gee �cu.
recovery rate of materials overall has remained consistent between 2015 and 2017.
Noteworthy increases are observed in the amount of organic waste recovered as yard
waste (32%), wood waste (61%), and food waste (27%) since 2014. The increasing
prevalence of wood waste may be attributable to more construction and development
in Deschutes County. Also, the increase in the total amount recycled between 2016
and 2017 is largely due to an increase in amount of scrap metal.
Additionally, the recovery of household hazardous waste (HHW) displayed remarkable
growth from 155 tons in 2014 to 264 tons in 2016, an increase of 70%. In contrast,
the recovery rate of old corrugated cardboard (OCC) declined 10% during this time.
With OCC increases in the waste stream overall given the popularity of online
shopping, the tons have moved to the commingled residential stream and may be
harder to track separately. Similarly concerning is a reduction in the recovery of scrap
metal, down 41% from 2014 levels. Local haulers explain this change in metal being
price driven. There could also be an impact from local scavenging activity, especially
observed at Negus and Southwest Transfer Stations.
3.3 Existing Waste Reduction and Reuse Programs
Oregon has established waste recovery goals for jurisdictions throughout the State.
Waste generation quantifies the total amount of material generated, whether the used
item was eventually discarded or recycled. While diverting materials to recycling
3-6
markets is important, reducing the overall generation of all materials will ultimately
lessen the burden on natural resources, manufacturing, distribution, retail, collection,
recycling and disposal infrastructures.
To address waste reduction and prevention, the Oregon State Legislature enacted ORS
459A, most recently amended in 2015, which established several statewide waste
generation goals. Specifically, section 459A.007-010 outlines the elements through
which programs should achieve these goals, as follows:
459A.007 - Describes fee structures as a mechanism to reduce waste
generation by lowering collection rates for customers who use smaller or lower
volume waste bins
459A.008 - Describes the requisite educational and promotion programs that
should be enacted to encourage more sustainable behavior regarding the
generation and disposal of waste
459A.010 - Outlines the State's waste management policies, and establishes
goals and recovery rates for various generators and material streams
statewide, the primary waste reduction and recovery goals set forth in 459A.010
include:
• Food waste recovery rate: 25% by 2020
• Plastic waste recovery rate: 25% by 2020
• Carpet waste recovery rate: 25% by 2025
• General solid waste recovery rate: 55% by 2025
• Total solid waste generation between 2025-2049 should be 15% lower than it
was in 2012
• Beyond 2050, total solid waste generation shall be 40% lower than it was in
2012
• Deschutes County should maintain a 45% recovery rate by 2025 and beyond
Also, in 2015, the Legislature passed SB 263 to further catalyze the effort of local
municipalities in achieving the State's 2050 Vision. With respect to waste reduction
and reuse programming, some of the objectives of SB 263 include:
Increasing the number of recycling program elements available to local
governments
Expanding the education and promotion element to include contamination
reduction
Allowing local governments using a DEQ-approved alternative program to
meet the recovery levels and goals of comparable communities
These goals attempt to stop both the growth in per capita solid waste generation and
the growth in total solid waste generation by the County as a whole. Therefore, the
County will need to continue providing waste reduction and education programs to
affect the generation rate within its borders.
3-7
3.3.1 Existing Waste Reduction Programs
Reduction of solid waste generated by residents and commercial establishments is a
priority for the Deschutes County's solid waste management program. Overall, DSW
estimates that it has spent approximately $1.8 million on recycling education and
promotional efforts from 1992 to 2009 and in 2017 alone, the County budgeted
$110,000 towards these efforts. A focus on increased education programming is
reflected in the objectives adopted in this SWMP.
The Deschutes County SWMP objectives pertaining to waste prevention, reduction,
reuse and recycling are as follows:
1. To provide an integrated solid waste management system that addresses
an effective combination of strategies and programs guided by the hierarchy
adopted by the State to first, reduce waste at the source; second, to reuse and
recycle materials; third, to compost; fourth, to recover energy; and last, to dispose
of waste in landfills.
2. To continue educating consumers to promote practices and methods to
reduce the long-term per capita waste generation rate and seek, through
community outreach, a cooperative approach to assume individual responsibility to
reduce waste.
3. To develop programs and support implementation of system improvements that
seek to ensure materials recovered from the waste stream attain the highest
and best use and are recycled.
4. To develop a solid waste system that is based on sound financial principles,
provides cost effective services and maintains rate stability over a long
term, while allocating costs equitably to all users.
5. To maintain system flexibility to respond to changes in waste stream
composition, waste management technologies, public preferences, new laws and
changing circumstances.
Current Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs and Services
The newly adopted Oregon State law impacts the promotion and education programs
that are currently provided.
Table 3-2 details the Waste Reduction, Reuse and Recycling (WR/R) programming
elements featured in ORS 459A.007(1) and their present status within Deschutes
County. According to ORS 459A.007(4) subsection (e), as a municipality "with a
population of more than 10,000... located more than 150 miles from the City of
Portland," Deschutes County is obligated to implement either Elements A, B, and C
and any additional element, or at least five elements.
3-8
Chapter s
Table 3-2 Required Elements for WR/R Programs and Status of County
Programs
Element A: Provide curbside recycling
Status: Cities and urbanized portions of the
container
County are meeting this requirement
because the haulers provide residents
curbside commingled recycling and glass
separate, but these services are not offered
in rural areas.
Element B: Provide weekly curbside
Status: Recycling services in all cities and
recycling
the urbanized portions of the County are
offered every other week. This element is
not satisfied.
Element C: Expanded recycling education
Status: The Environmental Center together
and promotion program which includes a
with local collection companies has
contamination reduction education plan.
implemented and expanded programing to
promote reduction and recycling. All
collection companies submitted plans to DEQ
as to how they are reducing contamination.
Element D: Provide multi -family recycling
Status: Haulers provide recycling services
to apartment complexes that request it.
to those that request it; participation is not
mandatory.
Element E: Curbside yard debris collection
Status: Yard waste is offered on
is available to residential collection service
subscription -only basis in Bend and
customers at least once a month, and
Redmond only and all but one recycling
depots that accept yard waste are
depot (Alfalfa) accept yard waste. In Bend
conveniently located
and Redmond where yard debris service is
available, it is offered on a subscription -only
basis. All customers in Sisters have yard
debris service.
Element F: Recycling is available to
Status: All cities meet this requirement
businesses and schools.
since haulers offer this service.
Element G: There is a recycling depot
Status: With 181,000 residents and eight
available for every 25,000 residents.
recycling drop off centers located throughout
the County for average of about 1 per
22,600 people. These are operated either by
the County or other parties.
Element H: Weight based collection rates
Status: No cities use weight -based rates.
that encourage reduction, reuse, and
However, the current volume -based rates
recycling
provide incentives for customers to use
smaller containers to reduce waste disposal.
Element I: Food composting/anaerobic
Status: Composting is available for
digestion is available for businesses.
commercially generated food waste. No
anaerobic digestion is taking lace.
NEW Element 3: Cities (and county for the
Status: No cities require businesses to
UGB) require businesses that generate four
recycle.
or more cubic yards/week of garbage to
have a recycling program in place.
3-9
Chapter 3
NEW Element K: Curbside food
Status: All cities above 4,000 have
composting/anaerobic digestion is available
residential curbside food collection available.
for residents.
There is no food waste collected in the
unincorporated County. Food waste is then
composted. No anaerobic digestion is taking
lace.
NEW Element L: Cities require recycling
Status: Source separated C/D waste is
program for construction/demolition (C/D)
recycled to the extent it is possible, however
(6 cy for self -haul, 10 cy for collection
a significant amount is brought directly to
service)
landfill.
NEW Element M: Cities require food waste
Status: No cities require large generators
program for large generators (50 tons/yr).
to divert food.
A review of Deschutes County's programs suggests that the County is compliant with
the direction of ORS 459A.007. In fact, the County satisfies several elements beyond
what they are required. Some of the program elements that the County does not
satisfy at the moment, which are intended to increase wasteshed recovery rates are
further evaluated later in this chapter. Nonetheless, in keeping with the objectives of
ORS 459A.007, the County, cities and franchised haulers have implemented several
waste reduction initiatives described below.
Fee Structures
As described in ORS 459A.007, well -designed fee structures administered for curbside
collection services are a critical component of reducing waste generation. Commonly
referred to by resource economists as "unit -pricing," the notion of charging generators
based on their disposal quantities is widely viewed as an optimal strategy for
encouraging reduction efforts. To that end, a jurisdiction establishes a standard fee for
the collection of containers sized 21 gallons or less. While residents are permitted to
request larger or more containers, a jurisdiction is prohibited from offering lower fees
or an adjusted price per unit that benefits larger generators.
Additionally, to internalize the economic and environmental costs incurred in
"providing the opportunity to recycle," municipalities are encouraged to include
associated "net costs." According to the ORS, this includes costs including but not
limited to "collecting, handling, processing, storing, transporting, and delivering to
market recyclable material and for providing any required education and promotion or
data collection services adjusted by a factor to account for proceeds from the sale of
recyclable material."
In Deschutes County, service charges by the waste haulers are regulated by the cities
and the County with maximum rate schedules. As presented in rate schedules effective
August 1, 2017, in Exhibits A through D, the County sets maximum solid waste rates
for the following:
• Unincorporated Rural (Cascade Disposal, Bend Garbage and Recycling, and
High Country Disposal)
3-10
Chapter ;x
• Unincorporated Distant Rural (Cascade Disposal, Bend Garbage and Recycling,
High Country Disposal, and Wilderness Garbage and Recycling)
• Rates for container rental and transfer services provided by Deschutes Transfer
Company to DSW
The County maximum rates are set based on a volume of solid waste basis. For a 35-
gallon can, maximum rates range from $17.75 to $18.40 per month. Bulky services
are an additional charge paid by the customer. Backyard or non-curb/roadside rates
are also set. The solid waste rate sizes include 20, 35, 65, and 95-gallon cans.
For refuse collection in the cities, a list of maximum service charges allowed for the
different levels of service is contained in Appendix A. These rates include providing
recycling carts and collection service. Recycling collection services are provided every
other week using a 95-gallon cart provided by the franchised hauler for the cities of
Bend, Redmond, La Pine and Sisters.
Yard waste service in a 95-gallon cart is subscription only in the cities of Bend and
Redmond. Residents can add vegetative food waste to the yard service. Bend Garbage
and Recycling notes that for city customers, yard debris curbside recycling is a yearly
subscription service for $4.90 per month. Acceptable yard debris includes: grass
clippings, brush, weeds, pine needles, plant prunings, branches no larger than 2" in
diameter and 36" in length. Raw fruit and vegetable scraps are also acceptable such as
apple cores, banana peels, potato skins, zucchini, pumpkins, coffee grounds and
filters, tea bags, etc.20
Franchised haulers bill customers directly and pay the DSW 3% franchise fee, all
disposal fees at Knott Landfill, as well as a 5% franchised fee to the City of Bend21 and
the City of Redmond.
• • 11 1 • 1 • � - - ❑ l • 1 • • •
Enlisting residents, commercial businesses and institutions in waste recovery efforts is
key to program participation and success. As such, providing businesses and citizens
with the information necessary to appreciate and properly use the recycling services
available to them is critical. Through partnerships with local environmental groups,
citizen volunteers, schools, and companies involved in solid waste management, the
County has developed a solid waste education outreach, promotion, and advertising
program for recycling, composting and other waste reduction and reuse efforts.
In following the guidelines of ORS 459A, the County has implemented education and
promotion efforts that emphasize the environmental benefits of reducing waste
generation along with useful guidelines to achieve these goals. Specifically, brochures
and promotional materials issued by the County and the franchised haulers at least
20 Commercial collection of food waste is being offered to interested customers,
discussed in more detail below.
21 http://www codepublishing com/OR/Bend/html/Bendii/Bend1116.html
3-11
/ "W
mr
once per year outline which materials are collected, how to prepare them for collection
and why separation is necessary. Customers are also notified of contamination in their
collection cans, as collection companies will place a tag on carts noting the
contamination. If unaddressed, customer service representatives from collection
companies will call customers to inform them as well.
Education and promotion efforts generally comply with ORS guidance as they target
community and media events, highlight prevalent contaminants in the waste stream,
and highlight energy -intensive and toxic materials as well as providing guidelines to
reduce wasteful consumption habits. The existing County programs are multi -faceted
and provide information to residents, teachers and students, businesses and
institutions, and community groups. In addition, the County offers funding, technical
assistance, and special events to collect materials that present difficulties when it
comes to disposal.
To align with future programming, the primary contaminants found in Deschutes
County commingled materials are film and plastic bags and other rigid plastics that are
not included in the County's recycling program. Local haulers also note that household
garbage is a common contaminant in the recycling stream. The DEQ Contamination
Education Reduction Plan further highlights the following materials as focus areas:
hypodermic needles, ropes, wires and chains, and clothing 22.
Discussed next are various programs and services that have been instituted in
Deschutes County for waste reduction and recycling:
Key -Educational Programs
The Environmental Center and Rethink Waste Project
The Environmental Center is a grassroots environmental sustainability organization
focused on Central Oregon and has taken the lead in promoting educational programs
and technical support to schools in Deschutes County. Together with DSW and local
waste and recycling service providers, The Environmental Center launched the
"Rethink Waste Project" in 2011. This was initially circulated as a print guide to offer
Deschutes County residents information about the needs and ways they could more
sustainably manage their waste. A corresponding website,
www.rethinkwasteproject.org was assembled as well, and in 2015 the site was
updated with the assistance of a local design company to improve marketing efforts.
The informational website, sponsored by The Environmental Center, provides students
and teachers with comprehensive waste prevention and recycling information. The site
informs generators of ways to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost, as well as the
benefits, and promotes the use of recycling services while also reducing contamination
in collected recyclables. It is a key reference for local collection companies and
environmental groups as an outlet for keen and digestible information about the
importance of reducing and properly managing waste.
22 http://www.oregon.gov/deq/mm/Pages/Contamination-Reduction.aspx
3-12
OkW11
EarthSmart
The Environmental Center also hosts the "EarthSmart" youth education program,
offering information for grades K-12 on waste -related topics. The objective of this
program is to educate young students about the environmental implications of their
behavior, encouraging them to reduce their footprint whenever possible. In the 2016-
17 academic year, The Environmental Center gave 172 presentations in schools and
community centers, reaching an audience of 5,029 students. Twenty-one classes and
eight schools took part in the EarthSmart program that included six lessons and a field
trip to the Knott Landfill. More than 450 students toured Knott Landfill as a result. In
addition, funding from this program also enabled schools to have a guest speaker
educate students about important and various ways they can reuse plastic bags.
Students are also invited to take additional responsibilities as Sustainability Advisors in
the EarthSmart program. Sustainability Advisors are encouraged to advocate for
environmental reforms such as energy efficiency and recycling and are given
promotional materials to distribute to peers. Additionally, Sustainability Advisors
review programming with teachers and schools and take note of progress.
Oregon Green Schools
Oregon Green Schools, a nonprofit organization formed in 1997, is another education -
oriented initiative that promotes environmentally sustainable behavior in schools
across the State by offering varying degrees of certification. A key component of the
Green Schools program is waste reduction and recycling. Schools in Deschutes County
that want to become a certified Green School can work with The Environmental
Center's educational program to achieve certification. Bend Garbage and Recycling
also provides a scholarship to a local teacher yearly to participate in this program.
Key Promotional Programs
The general objective of promotional programming is to inform County residents and
businesses on how and why to properly reduce, reuse, recycle and compost materials.
The County provides several documents that outline these concepts. These
promotional materials describe the general function of DSW, and key information
about recycling, composting, hazardous waste, disposal, and fee information. All of
these brochures are available on the County website www.deschutes.org/solidwaste
and are distributed to residents and businesses multiple times throughout the calendar
year.
The Environmental Center and EarthSmart
To expand its reach, The Environmental Center promotes the EarthSmart program by
distributing information at gatherings for teachers, and through the school districts'
email systems. Print ads in local media outlets are another avenue The Environmental
Center uses to promote their campaign. Additionally, the Center's newsletters and
programming all direct their audience to the Rethink Waste website. There is also a
Facebook page and a Twitter account that disseminates updates to followers. The
Environmental Center documents and analyzes their following and the'likes' they
receive to monitor traction.
3-13
Chapter 3_
Franchised Haulers
As one of the largest franchised haulers, Bend Garbage and Recycling sends out
quarterly newsletters to customers, as featured in Figure 3-5. Apart from highlighting
noteworthy community developments they are associated with, Bend Garbage and
Recycling markets special events such as half -priced yard waste disposal for residents
at Deschutes Recycling. Also featured is advice about how to properly add compost for
mulching or topdressing to prepare gardens and lawns for the winter season. Other
recommendations present useful advice on reducing paper waste including providing
information about opting out of mass -marketing materials that are paper -intensive
such as marketing catalogs and phone books. DEQ's Waste Food campaign materials
will be featured in upcoming issues.
A
Figure 3-5: Front Page of Bend Garbage and Recycling's Quarterly Newsletter
Independent Recyclers
The Broomsman is an independent company operating in Deschutes County to provide
hands-on event recycling and compost containers and outreach, as well as business
recycling assistance. Starting first with weddings and other events, clients have grown
to include the Les Schwab Amphitheater and the Cascade Lakes Relay. They provide
hands-on support to increase recycling and composting at these public venues and
3-14
events. Clients also include businesses and local breweries who are looking to
implement sustainable waste practices on -site.
Other independent recyclers also operate within Deschutes County. However, no data
is directly collected by DSW regarding their operations. Recycling from independent
sources is gathered directly by DEQ and allocated to the Deschutes County recycling
figures presented previously in Table 3-1.
Recycling Brochures
In line with ORS 459A.008 which outlines educational and promotional programming,
DSW's recycling brochure specifies the materials collected, facility hours and collection
schedules, how to prepare recyclables for collection so as to reduce contamination,
and why source -separating materials is necessary. The brochure explains which
recyclable materials can be commingled and that they are free to recycle. Other
recyclable materials that can be collected for free but must be separated from
commingled materials include auto batteries, OCC, electronics, glass, and HHW.
Each franchised collection company in Deschutes County also offers promotional
materials and programming to keep their customers aware of scheduling, how to
prepare recyclables for collection, and to encourage participation. Figure 3-6 is taken
from a section in the Deschutes Recycling brochure that highlights which items cannot
be commingled. Figure 3-7 is an example taken from Bend Garbage and Recycling's
collection brochure that outlines how residents can prepare recyclables for pickup and
reducing contamination. Figure 3-8 displays the recycling schedule that is distributed
between two and four times per year to customers.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
3-15
Glass - Recycle in designated location
Clear and Coloivd uass Bottles, & Jars. Rinse ckin. Libels are okm�
Corrugated Cardboard - Recycle in designated location
11 1' J 1 location
Nerespalm-nly. anything that i,nw, in the ner,spaper can he Icclyded kith the no -paper" :A'n plat, bags, srnng or Lardir
ion
Newspaper, Magazines, Catalogs, Phonebewks
. Plastics - Rinse dean. No liquid, motor oil or hazardous taste in container,_ No need to fla ten.
NIS- 6tdv'lhcxtPlastiaa
Plo,nc bottles, tubs and jug., 16 ounce: or larger), milk tugs. rr,n 1 bottles, nhanll-o IxwL
Rigid plate: tub, awh as yogurt containers. sour a am S cottas Ire-- containers and butter tubi
Rigid mtrsen plant pot, t I inches or finger,, plastic buckets t gallons or lees).
NO - Unacceptable Plastics:
Lxan ph•s (1n1I not inctir_ir ) of f"We'rpm6(r phw' -. f l esra: lwg plu.,ricW"I i saran uvap "Ind" Or f,eg.::ip talk
bag'), clear ph"slit rlrun,l l(s (Loki n' an d pnaiu" rontrunrra), (Lod nrld11101 y neklzligl. b❑bbl, syrup,
nhr:N� t:,,,.d.o..... .«r,, n1-- c0ki m„
Figure 3-6: Deschutes Recycling Brochure
Help KeeQ fih�se ,Out of #t►�e
Camfngle
�u11 Carty
fig- ,
to-
PLii�n� Bags
�3,ail Wall
x
No
Papel/fltasti, Plat
Pape, Napkm,,
-P1a;-,6'(
P1asHc;
has '
Nom, food PaJlaging
I id, (all,
bake",
LiqhtbWbs
Felt W,appmg Pape,
Balten,,
Figure 3-7: Bend Garbage and Recycling's Preparation Guide
3-16
r g,� weeks ale pick-up dates for commingle and glass recycling
�c rs Tan highlighted weeks are pick-up dates for yard debris subscribers.
Collection will occur on the same das, your garbage is collected.
i�. �i�, a7 a k H iY _ MQyPATCA MVIMM
i M T W T r S S tt 1 W 'I 1 S S Af 1 W T F S S S1 'i N T F S
1 2.3 4 5 6 7 i 12 3 4 ( 1 '2 3 4 i 1
t _
8 9 10 it fla 13 14 5 f, 8; + 10 ii 5 Ui S � itX 11 12 t[ �84
1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 1718 12 E 13 14. 15 16 17 I8 1 �9 10 #11 12 13 14 15
i 22 2' 24 21 7fi 1,7 28 19 v kl n 2> 1, 25 19 2<i# 21 22 w+ 25 ! � 16 17 iIS 19 24 21: 221
._._. ._-14 ..
129 30 31 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29
ins M4 , w,. . �... q^
S M '1 W T f S S SI 1 N 1 I S S N N '1 1 S S U 1 W T i S
1 2 1 6T
7 8 '9 10 ll 12 t3 i 4 5 6 7 8 1 10 2 3 4 5, b 7 8 1 G 9 #171
14 x 76 4< d i9. 20 11 1 €Yt '2 I�r 17 ! 9 `' t�* tt 15! '121 22 �; �4 2 2tr 2718 19 11 21 22 23 4 It i+ 1'� 17 711 112 2.0 Wl 22 ?'� 28 + .rx{ ! 25 2f, .2R e •0s _6 2..'" �;�29� 27
Figure 3-8: Bend Garbage and Recycling's Collection Schedule
Recyclable materials that must be separated and can be recycled for a fee are listed as
tires, wood waste, yard waste, certain kitchen appliances and electronics. There is also
information about non -recyclable materials, such as polystyrene. le. The brochure
lure
encourages residents and businesses to avoid buying these non -recyclable materials,
as well as provides keen insights into reusing consumable goods. Distinct information
about each material, respective fees and at which facility they are accepted is also
presented in the brochure. An inset from the brochure showing what materials are
accepted at each facility can be found in Figure 3-9.
The locations and operating hours of the various drop-off depots throughout the
County, each of which are open during some weekend days (per ORS 459.007.a.) are
also listed. Lastly, the brochure provides information about the DSW's office location
and hours and features a link to The Environmental Center's website and phone
number for more educational information about recycling opportunities.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
3-17
Figure 3-9: Inset from Deschutes County Recycling Brochure
HHW Brochure
The HHW brochure includes information about residential and commercial HHW
management in Deschutes County. The brochure includes details on the following HHW
management topics:
3-18
Chapter 3
• Information on the County's HHW facility including location, schedule, HHW
accepted and wastes that are not accepted. Information on business hazardous
waste management services offered by the County's HHW contractor is also
included in the brochure.
• Information regarding HHW that can be accepted at the County's transfer
stations and the recycling center at Knott Landfill. These wastes include paints
and stains, motor oil, rechargeable batteries, and automotive batteries.
• Information on the State of Oregon's PaintCare program, including details on
paint acceptance at the HHW facility and recycling center at Knott Landfill. The
brochure offers tips and suggestions for being efficient in managing painting
projects to avoid excess paint consumption, and advice about safely storing
paint products so that they may be re -used.
• Information on residential "sharps" management (described as needles and
lancets). The brochure lists the County facilities that accept sharps and details
the packaging requirements for the acceptance of sharps. For medical waste
generated by businesses, the brochure makes clear that none of this can be
accepted at any of the County's disposal facilities. The phone number for Bend
Garbage and Recycling's commercial medical waste management service is
provided for further information.
Additional details encourage residents to take caution in how they manage HHW
materials in their own homes, encouraging residents to shop for safe
alternatives, follow information on labels carefully, properly store and re -use
leftover products, offer them to neighbors or donate them to charitable
institutions. Lastly, the HHW brochure encourages residents to be mindful of
the environmental and personal health hazards associated with the improper
disposal of HHW, including danger to landfill employees, home damage, and
environmental contamination.
Secure Your Load Brochure
County Ordinance 13.36.040, the "Secure Load Ordinance," is outlined in a brochure
that is distributed to residents and businesses in the County. The brochure lists several
questions that one should pose prior to hauling waste anywhere, forcing drivers to
consider the ramifications of an improperly secure load. For instance, one question
asks drivers if they would feel safe following their own vehicle and another asks
whether drivers feel like they need to drive extra slowly. Positive answers to these
questions should reasonably raise alarm and suggest that a load may not be secure.
The brochure includes pictures of secure versus unsecure loads and emphasizes the
$10 rebate made available to those who securely deliver their waste (see Figure 3-10).
3-19
a
s my Watt considered becuret
10 if it looks like the following.......
bulky Ile"), that arc not toloplelcty contained
within the stdewalls of the vehicle must be m#
qualely strapped down.
it material is being hauled in trod bags, Il must
brr Carped if the hags extend above the side
walls
G.3
"sf
if the laq> is too sinall, tarn, or inadequately
dell, the load Is nor Cbn..dered SerarC-
PROPERLY SECURED
Figure 3-10: Inset from Deschutes County Secure Your Load Brochure
Key Customer Services Programs
Brochures from each Deschutes County franchised collection company offer recycling
preparation guides to help residents and businesses prepare materials for recycling,
and offer information about collection frequency, pricing for material disposal and
lcontact information. As such/ the County ics in c,nrrn1,ianrce 'Alith 0R'S ctatinn That 1,nII
,ol lla 1.1 1111 VI I l tall Vl 1. As Ju\.t t, the �.vut n.r w n r w...i....ur.�.�. ... �.. v..v ... �.. �...y ... ....� ....
documents distributed by collection companies and the County include phone numbers
and contact information."
Bend Garbage and Recycling produces a quarterly newsletter (see Figure 3-5),
Curbside News, which highlights community service efforts the company is involved
with, information on discounts for select materials like compost products and yard
waste disposal, upcoming scheduling changes due to holidays, advice to reduce and
re -use waste, and how to prepare for recycling collection.
Purchasing and Production Practices
The Environmental Center offers grants for around $500 for projects targeting waste
reduction and increased recycling. In many cases this funding goes toward the
expansion of composting programs at schools, although a variety of creative initiatives
has been made possible through these funds. The REALMS school was awarded $700
to facilitate a food rescue program whereby students purchased a refrigerator to store
leftover food so that it can be donated to food rescue organizations. The same school
also put together a "Rubbish Renewed" fashion show with students designing
garments from reclaimed objects and textiles. After an audit was conducted by The
Environmental Center to evaluate wasted recyclables, one school program aimed at
collecting redeemable bottles and cans requested $100 to buy a sink to dispose of
remaining liquids in these bottles and cans.
3-20
Chapter 3
Commercial Programs
Commercial waste reduction programming is designed to meet the needs of local
businesses and industries and inform generators of the proper way to handle material
so that it can be collected and recycled sufficiently. In addition, the environmental and
economic benefits of recycling are promoted. Other promotional efforts such as waste
characterization audits, and recognition or rewards programs are in place to encourage
commercial recycling efforts. For example, Bend Garbage and Recycling offers
commercial waste audits to help companies realize how they can reduce financial costs
stemming from waste disposal.
There is much progress for Deschutes County to realize in this sector. Per DEQ goals,
commercial generators are expected to reach a 55% recovery rate from solid waste by
2025 while commercial generators of food waste or recyclables must source separate.
Neighbor Impact, a food bank in Central Oregon, is largely responsible for salvaging
consumable food in Deschutes County. Presently, it is estimated that they have
partnerships with 50 customers, primarily local grocery stores and Neighbor Impact
recently acquired a refrigerated truck with the goal of increasing these efforts.
C/D Debris
ORS 459A.007 states that jurisdictions provide a recovery program that requires C/D
debris be separated at the generation site or sent to a materials recovery facility for
processing and recovery of recyclable materials. The statute also directs communities
to promote sustainable C/D management by encouraging contractors and
improvement projects to consider planning for waste reduction and re -use in the pre -
construction planning phases.
Presently C/D is often directed straight to the transfer stations or Knott Landfill,
making this stream an important area of focus for the County to consider moving
forward. It is estimated that in 2016 perhaps as much as 31% of all waste received at
Knott Landfill was from construction sites. Wood is one of the primary wastes that is
generated from construction and demolition sites. Currently, clean wood waste
(unpainted, untreated lumber) is accepted at the Negus Transfer Station in Redmond
and Deschutes Recycling at Knott Landfill. This material is chipped and sent to boiler
plants for use as fuel to produce steam and/or power. Additionally, Deschutes
Recycling is working with a local wood waste processor for using chipped wood waste
in the manufacture of sheet lumber products such as oriented strand board and
particle board.
State law mandates that provisions for the recycling of covered electronic devices
(CEDs) be offered for free. CEDs include computer monitors, keyboards, mice,
personal computers, laptops and monitors, which area illegal to dispose of with
general solid waste or municipal solid waste (MSW). Non -covered electronic devices
(NCEDs) generated by households can be recycled for a fee at the Knott Landfill
3-21
Recycling Center. NCEDs include cell phones and telephones, microwaves, surge
protectors, DVD and VHS players, stereos, speakers and cables, fax and copy
machines. Any commercially generated electronics, covered or not, are considered to
be hazardous waste, but can be accepted at the Knott Landfill Recycling Center for
recycling.
Households and small businesses (less than 10 employees) or non -profits can drop off
CEDs at the County's transfer stations and the recycling center at Knott Landfill
County, while NCEDs are accepted at the Knott Landfill Recycling Center for $0.25 per
pound.
Home Composting
Presently the County provides disposal methods for yard waste and organic waste at
all drop-off sites that accept organic waste. The County does not actively sponsor or
provide compost or recycling collection bins at private events or community functions.
Information regarding how households can compost is provided by the environmental
center.
3.3.2 Reuse Programs
In terms of reuse programs, Deschutes Recycling works in partnership with local thrift
stores to salvage reusable materials. A reuse brochure available at the Deschutes
Recycling facility lists recyclable items accepted at the facility but primarily highlights
_� _�_ _i_ Yam- .-a ..11
the various organizations and thrift stores and what materials they accept, as well as
the materials that they most need. A copy of the backside of these brochures can be
seen in Figure 3-11. Additionally, Deschutes Recycling has allowed Habitat Restore to
park a small trailer at the wood waste drop area as an option for diversion of lumber
so that it can be reused for building material (see Figure 3-12).
Reuse and repair cafes are currently hosted by The Environmental Center through their
Rethink Waste Project, usually twice per year; although there is discussion of
expanding this to a quarterly service to encourage County residents to repair broken
items rather than purchasing new ones superfluously.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
3-22
Chapter 3
I. ,...,...,yin
Figure 3-11: Deschutes Recycling Thrift Store Brochure
Figure 3-12: Habitat for Humanity Lumber Drop Off
3-23
Chapter 3
3.3.3 Recycling Programs/Services
Residential Curbside Recycling Collection
Residential curbside collection of recyclables is offered within the city limits of Bend,
Redmond and Sisters as well as the urbanized communities in the unincorporated
areas of the County. Expanding curbside recycling collection to the entire County is an
option that is being explored and has been established in select, high -density areas in
rural settings. In some communities, materials are collected separately, while other
jurisdictions subscribe to commingled recycling services. Although collection frequency,
container size and type, and setout instructions vary slightly, materials handled are
uniform. The collection processes for single and multi -family residences, as well as the
type of materials residents may include are described in greater detail in this SWMP in
Chapter 4 covering Collection and Recycling/Processing.
Commercial Recycling
ORS 459A.007 directs jurisdictions to establish recycling programs for commercial
businesses with more than 10 employees and occupying over 1,000 square feet of real
estate. This can include providing at least weekly collection of source separated
recyclables. However, Deschutes County does not maintain a mandatory recycling
program for businesses. Despite this, many businesses in Deschutes County have a
recycling program. The number of businesses recycling is estimated at 100 and the
materials being collected varies. An estimated 40 businesses are currently diverting
food waste as well.
Generally, cardboard is a popular material to recycle, but franchised haulers do offer
additional recycling options if they are requested. Franchised haulers work with
businesses to specifically design programs that accommodate their needs. Haulers
offer variable collection container services, ranging from 90-gallon roll carts to 40 to
50 cubic yard drop boxes (also known as roll -off containers). Typically, drop box
service is offered to construction companies to collect recyclable materials such as
scrap lumber, scrap metal, OCC, construction and demolition material, asphalt and
concrete, wood pallets, saw dust, sod and grass stripping, wood and cedar shakes, and
yard material. Smaller containers are most often used inside and outside office
buildings to collect corrugated cardboard, white office paper, mixed paper, newspaper,
and metal, glass and plastic containers.
It is also worth noting that ORS 459A.010.A-D states that industrial and manufacturing
scrap materials that are immediately recycled or re -incorporated into new products do
not count in recovery rates. This stream is sometimes referred to as "primary scrap,"
distinct from "secondary scrap" that refers to materials that have been recovered from
the general waste stream. However, Deschutes County houses relatively few
manufacturing or industrial plants, so this consideration is unlikely to have a significant
bearing on the County's recovery rate.
There is a business sustainability awards program currently coordinated by The
Environmental Center. This could parlay into a business technical assistance program
3-24
Chapter3
with waste audits which had been done in the past in the County, but not in the last
five years.
3.3.4 Composting
Deschutes Recycling operates the largest composting facility in the County, located at
Knott Landfill. In 2017, it is estimated that Deschutes Recycling processed
approximately 130,000 cubic yards (35,000 tons) of loose organic material, which
yielded 26,000 cubic yards of marketable compost product. There is a well-balanced
mix of commercial and residential consumers of Deschutes Recycling's compost
product, which is almost entirely locally based. Commercial customers typically include
landscaping companies and garden stores, and several local businesses sell compost
bags produced by Deschutes Recycling. Sunriver also provides a composting facility for
its residents.
3.4 Needs and Opportunities for Increased Waste Prevention,
Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Activities
Deschutes County currently meets the requirements outlined in ORS 459A.007, which
present the elements of a thorough waste reduction and recycling program. Those
elements that the County currently satisfies should be maintained and continue to
receive support. These include:
1 _ cnntinuina to develop and execute a coordinated promotion and education
program with cities, franchised collection companies, The Environmental Center
and other entities needed to support ongoing waste prevention, reuse and
recycling efforts.
2. Continuing to fund these programs to, at a minimum, maintain the level of
participation in reducing waste disposed in landfills.
3. Continue to evaluate program impacts and examine innovative approaches to
inform the public and businesses to reach an ever-growing population and new
employers.
Education in solid waste serves two primary functions: instructing customers on how
to properly participate in and receive services, and messaging to encourage efforts to
reduce and recycle, and create engagement in these and other sustainability actions.
As some jurisdictions have encountered budget constraints, there is pressure to reduce
funding for the promotional services. However, without a continual and persistent
emphasis on promoting and educating customers about waste prevention,
reuse and recycling, the County risks a drop off in participation and the
quality of the materials being recycled. With increasing pressure from
markets for cleaner materials, outreach programs are essential to
contributing the economic viability and sustainability of recycling in the
County.
With the new established goals for Deschutes County to achieve a recovery rate of
45% by 2025, expansion of the waste prevention, reduction, reuse and recycling
3-25
programs will be needed. Additionally, the need to reduce waste disposed in landfills is
desirable for Deschutes County in the long run for several reasons. First and foremost
is the fact that when Knott Landfill closes in about 10 years, the cost for disposal will
certainly increase, whether a new landfill is sited in the County or waste is transported
to an out -of -County landfill. Similarly, if more materials can be diverted from the
landfill in the near future, the site life of Knott Landfill can be extended, which may
have the effect of deferring cost increases to the solid waste system thus keeping
rates from increasing.
For these reasons and considering the need to raise the recovery rate from 33% to
45%, the County should make additional strides to achieve a recovery rate of 45%, as
directed by ORS 459A.010. To that end, guided by the elements listed in Table 3-2,
and to support the mission of the County's DSW to divert waste from Knott Landfill,
extend its site life and defer cost increases to the system, there are several needs and
opportunities on which the County can capitalize. Areas where there appears to be the
greatest opportunity include:
1. Target recycling program expansion in participation at multifamily
developments23, including hotels and resort communities for targeting the year-
round tourist population.
2. Expand collection of vegetative waste with yard waste from residential
properties and consider universal service.
3. Expand and develop new programs aimed at increasing recycling by businesses
or commercial generators, including C/D.
4 implement C o my-wirla rasirlential curbside single -stream recvclina collection
for all.
3.5 Alternatives for Increased Waste Prevention, Reduction,
Reuse, and Recycling Activities
The specific waste prevention, reduction, reuse and recycling program alternatives
outlined below must be coordinated with collection and processing as discussed in
Chapter 4.
• Standardize Waste Prevention, Reduction, Reuse and Recvclinci
Messaging and Communications
Recycle Right and other campaigns currently in place have made great strides in
educating Deschutes County communities about solid waste issues; however, the rapid
population growth coupled with the continual influx of tourists, makes consistent
imagery, recycling container colors and messaging important to consider in making
education investments.
23 Starting in July 2022, all tenants of multi -tenant residential and commercial properties within
cities and urban growth boundaries over 4,000 people will have new opportunities to recycle.
DEQ has numerous resources available on its website.
3-26
Chapter
rptf ,f
The industry standard is $3.00 per household per year for education efforts to effect
change in behavior, which would be approximately $500,000 for Deschutes County
annually.
Given the environmental impact of printing along with the cost of print production,
Deschutes County should expand its online and social media presence in its
communications, thereby reducing the creation of printed materials in favor of creating
dedicated web and social media portals. A web and social media update effort for the
County and partner organizations could provide a comprehensive, easy -to -access
platform for dynamic community engagement on recycling and waste diversion
practices. Opt -in text messaging campaigns can also provide real-time access to
residents with key program and event information. In this way, the County can utilize
social media and neighborhood engagement platforms to promote information, tips,
updates, and messages in a cost-effective manner.
Franchised haulers should continue their customer newsletter efforts, perhaps offering
a paper -free option for those customers who choose it and keeping up app-based
communication options as well.
Best practices in key outreach areas follow with viable opportunities for Deschutes
County:
1. Reducing waste generation:
a. Material bans (for example plastic bags or yard waste/food waste).
There are many national and international examples of plastic bag
bans.24 Notably in the US, Massachusetts has a successful commercial
food material disposal ban25. In 2019, the City of Bend will be
implementing a plastic bag ban and the State of Oregon has established
a plastic bag ban which will go into effect in 2020.
b. Grasscycling and backyard composting. Marion County, Portland Metro,
and the City of Seattle have successful programs in this regard, giving
out backyard composting bins and providing information at events.
c. Strong residential messaging such as waste -wise holidays, stop junk
mail and opt out of phone books. Incorporated into newsletters and
social media campaigns, these messages are important to reinforce.
d. Food waste prevention and diversion through innovative food waste
applications. Spoiler Alert is an application that allows food producers,
wholesale and retail distributors to manage unsold inventory to enhance
food recovery and waste diversion efforts and enables real-time food
24 International locations with plastic bag bans include: Bangladesh, Rwanda, China, Taiwan,
Macedonia and Kenya. US cities with plastic bag bans include Austin, Cambridge, Chicago, Los
Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. US Cities/Counties with plastic bag fees: Boulder, CO;
Brownsville, TX; Montgomery County, MD; New York City; Portland, ME, and Washington D.C.
The state of Hawaii has a plastic bag ban and California as a whole has a ban, labeling and
recycling program requirements.
25 Massachusetts passed a commercial food material disposal ban in October 2014 such that any
business which produced more than a ton of food waste per month was not allowed to put it in a
landfill. A report for Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection found the disposal
ban has created hundreds of well -paying jobs, increased the Gross State Product by some $77
million, and generated more than $5 million in state and local tax revenue.
(httt)s•//www mass gov/guides/commercial-food-material-disposal-ban)
3-27
Chapter 3
donations and discounted sales. GoMkt is a web -based platform that
helps food retailers reduce food waste and increase recovery efforts by
posting unsold inventory to users and food banks at heavily discounted
prices.
2. Stimulating reuse:
Expand opportunities to partner with community resale organization for drop-
offs and community clean-up events to include a reuse component. The current
partnership with Habitat Restore having a trailer at Deschutes Recycling for
reusable lumber could be staffed during peak times to further divert usable
materials. Likewise, Goodwill or other community reuse organizations could be
engaged in this manner at the transfer stations, especially during busy
weekend drop-off times.
3. Ongoing education/community events:
Both direct customer communication (primarily social media, as well as print
media) and community outreach at public events are a fantastic combination
for improving recycling and truly engaging the public in the benefits of
household recycling/sustainability practices.
Similar to the event efforts in Deschutes County, communities are making
efforts to execute a "Zero Waste" program in conjunction with sporting venues,
fairs or other special events.
Kent County, Michigan, has a superior event recycling program called "SORT it
out," shown in Figure 3-7, which grew out of their annual ArtPrize competition.
Garbage, recycling and compost (optional as a third attachment) bins are
attractive, light -weight, and economical.
Figure 3-13: Kent County, Michigan "SORT it OUT" event container program
3-28
raG}!�n
Providing waste reduction and recycling opportunities and programs at public or
private special events can be a boost to reduce waste and increase diversion
tonnage as well as offer education for the community. These events allow the
County a cost-effective means to get the message out about how to reduce
waste and recycle more. They provide a key element of a comprehensive public
awareness campaign. Lending County -owned recycling containers, signage, and
training to local festivals and events may provide the tools needed by these
groups to divert additional wastes as well as the awareness of recycling "away
from home." Hauling services for event recyclables must be discussed and
assured from franchised haulers to ensure that collected materials are delivered
to appropriate processors and markets. Ultimately, a more coordinated
program for all types of events would reduce County staff time in managing
these periodic efforts and create a standardized system across many venues.
Depending on the number and type of public events hosted by each jurisdiction
in the County and the willingness to provide recycling opportunities, franchised
hauler representatives could assist in planning standard recycling and/or
composting collection for these events. Planning for event recycling requires
understanding of vendor flexibility in the use of recyclable or compostable
packaging and wares.
ntinue_waste Reduction/Recycling Grant
Grants can be effective in introducing pilot programs and/or starting new services.
These can also be advertised to gain additional promotional benefits.
Grant funding has generally been successful in allowing the expansion of waste- and
sustainability-related events and programming. Waste -related grants provided to
worthy community projects and educators have traditionally been made available by
The Environmental Center, the DEQ, and DSW. Funding enables educators and
program coordinators to implement additional recycling programs by providing capital
to purchase bins or other tools and equipment. However, there may be additional
constituents with ideas that can enhance the County's goals who simply lack the
means or motivation to implement them.
The County, DEQ, and The Environmental Center can dedicate a portion of their grant
funding in future years towards individuals who present ideas or projects that help the
County achieve waste related goals. In addition to offering a newfound motivation to
execute these ideas, it may also inspire others to consider how they might improve
their own waste management behavior. An evaluation of projects and initial seed
monies to spur waste reduction/recycling efforts can provide years of waste diversion
for enthusiastic participants in a recycling program, which the County may never have
known was desired or possible without the grant application.
Promote Increased Diversion of Electronic Devices from the Waste Stream
Presently, electronic waste can be brought to the transfer stations or Deschutes
Recycling. There is no charge for CEDs, which are collected at the transfer stations and
Deschutes Recycling. Currently, Deschutes Recycling at Knott Landfill is the only
facility that collects NCEDs for recycling and assesses a fee for the service. The Waste
Wizard application currently utilized by Cascade Disposal may be a useful tool in
3-29
Chapter
expanding diversion of electronic devices since residents can be directed to bring
certain waste streams to specific locations.
Reduction Reuse and Recycling
Year-round tourism is a main contributor to the cities and County -wide economy, and
with the number of tourists rivaling, if not exceeding the number of residents in the
County at any given time, it can be expected that tourists account for a higher portion
of the waste generated, than is typical with other jurisdictions.
It can be difficult to maintain waste practices in an environment that is not one's
home, which is often cited as a reason tourism and hospitality vendors struggle to
enforce local sustainability initiatives among guests and their clientele. However, given
the County's pristine natural environment, especially considering that it is the primary
reason that Deschutes County exists as a tourist destination, encouraging this
demographic of tourists to be mindful of the County's waste -related goals should be
expanded. With the impact of tourists on food -service and hotel industries, looking to
restaurants and hotels to source separate food waste in coordination with local haulers
will simultaneously address a significant waste stream (food) as well as a challenging
generator (tourists).
Analogous tourist destinations such as Vail, Colorado and Whistler, British Columbia,
face similar challenges. In Vail, it is mandatory for all special events to incorporate
recycling into their planning and must display recycling bins. Understanding that
tourists may not hre uass conscious about e..f..n.,r.t.c.. fi..n.. rarii ira rnntaminatnn in the recvdino
stream, Whistler also sets out bins specifically for polystyrene and plastic bags. Park
City, Utah, another tourist destination, became the first city in Utah to ban plastic bags
altogether in May 2017. Another example is the Big Sky Resort in Montana that
highlights its recycling initiatives at participating hotels on their website
(https://bigskyresort.com/corporate/`sustainability).
As an option to move forward in this area, the County could coordinate a meeting with
Visit Bend stakeholders, the local hospitality sector and franchised hauling companies.
Resulting from this meeting could be a call for waste audits, which can reveal potential
issues with respect to individual generators and allow haulers to design and modify
collection routes to target certain materials, maximizing the quality of OCC, for
example. In addition, this can allow restaurants and hotels to consider how they might
improve their own operations and capitalize on efficiencies, and potentially earn official
recognition for their efforts that they can use for marketing (see commercial/
multifamily recycling award program discussion below).
Expand Commercial/Multifamily Recycling and Food Waste Recovery
As evidenced in Table 2-13, food waste accounts for the largest portion of the waste
stream in Deschutes County and was estimated to be 42,000 tons in 2016. While
organic waste as a whole is an area that the County can target to enhance their
recovery rate, given the rapidly growing tourist and hospitality sector in the
County, directing commercial entities who produce a substantial amount of
food waste to separate this material stream will likely have a marked effect.
3-30
This effort would coincide with Element M in Table 3-2, which promotes such a
requirement for nonresidential entities.
Both commercial and multifamily program development and expansion would require
enhancing current education and promotion programs aimed at commercial businesses
and multifamily units to recycle more materials. It would be necessary to work with
the franchised haulers to offer expanded collection of source separated materials.
Together with The Environmental Center and coordinating with the franchised haulers
and cities, the County could attempt to determine what barriers may exist in diverting
additional tonnages for businesses and multifamily units not currently recycling or not
able to utilize services for full recovery. Businesses could be directed to new services
and connected with outlets like Habitat for Humanity, Secure Shred (for paper waste)
and similar vendors who address materials commonly found in commercial waste
streams.
Additional programming may include an official County accreditation of The
Environmental Center's sustainability certification and/or additional waste
auditing/awards program to motivate commercial generators to work with local
stakeholders to enhance their recycling efforts. Waste audits conducted in conjunction
with The Environmental Center and local haulers can be beneficial for several reasons.
In addition to informing businesses about what materials they are generating in excess
and how that impacts their economics, haulers may design or modify collection routes
based on businesses that discard high volumes of a specific material or commingled
recyclables.
This alternative requires additional resources and coordination to conduct audits and
perform collections. To minimize the commitment of resources, target groups could be
established for initial efforts. Certain types of businesses, particular waste generators,
or specific geographic locations could be targeted to establish demonstration or pilot
programs. Once a service has been shown to be successful, the program can be
expanded to other businesses similar to the target. To accomplish these types of pilot
demonstration efforts, the program requires close coordination between County
resources and the franchised haulers as well as cooperation from businesses and
multifamily units.
As a successful Oregon example, Portland has an integrated commercial/multifamily
program.26 Similarly, in Deschutes County, building from the commercial program,
multifamily recycling outreach can tie into tourist destination resorts like Sunriver and
Eagle Crest.
The focus for all promotional materials should be on business/property permanent
signage (metal signs, container labels), as well as yearly (at minimum) employee or
tenant printed education materials and supplemented with a complimentary social
media campaign. For multifamily units, special attention should be given to tenants at
move -in. Cultivation of recycling champions on -site has also proven effective.
26 https://www.portiandoregon.gov/bps/58975; https://www.[)ortlandorecion.Clov/br)s/41466
3-31
Chapter
', ,"4_e
Options for implementing the commercial/multifamily outreach work plan include the
following staffing options, separately or in combination:
1. Hire a commercial/multifamily waste auditor as a staff person within DSW.
2. Expand The Environmental Center or other organization funding allocation to
do program development and waste audits. For this option, County dollars can
go directly to program work as it is presumed that staff are in place whose
roles could be expanded.
3. Utilize students from the Oregon State University Cascade campus and/or
Central Oregon Community College. Explore a Community Environmental
Services (CES) partnership as implemented Portland State University27 to get
experienced students as "boots on the ground" with businesses and multifamily
property managers/management companies.
Discussed further in Chapter 4, residential yard waste collection should be made
available regularly to all collection customers, accompanied by outreach and education
to customers. Furthermore, this service should be provided to rural and urban
customers alike. There are presently customers who are opting in to yard waste
service in the urban areas and can add vegetative food waste; however, the service is
not widely promoted.
Optionally, the County could move to seasonal collection of yard waste and not
require collection during the winter or summer seasons, but the County should aim to
divert more yard waste to the Deschutes Recycling compost facility and away from
Knott Landfill. Given that organics is the largest uncaptured segment of what is
currently disposed and adding to the commercial collection of food waste discussed
above, residential food waste should be added universally to the yard waste roll carts
once facility upgrades are in place to handle the capacity.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
27 https•//www.pdx.edu/ces/home: For the past 25 years, CES has provided research and
service through Portland State University, giving students a chance to work in real -life waste
management scenarios and prepare them for careers in the field, while providing excellent
hands-on service to businesses, properties, and events managers in the Portland area.
3-32
El
WN
V
m
E
E
U)
N
c
i
a-+
a
c
W
z
0)
c
U
U)
c
O
Y
A
z
O
M
W y
C
o
0
y
c
G-°
N
u
C
C
N u
C
°
C
y
a
o
L
°
m
}
w
3
m
m
v
O
°J
a
E mm
;o,
in
?�
a
a4 a
LA
o v
Lm
z
a)>�
>
c
m
u
a
,
~C
N Y y
o
N 44 E
E
>
O
Y
c m E U
4:
O u
±+ Y
N U
w
i m
Y
•
10 J
4
L
ao O y
. c o
U
m o.
v o°n p
m
v
�n
;, d o
p O p m a
p ._ c
41
41 c L
u° W A a
u a 3 �' c
z 3 a�
o E E
o
�o
c
a
N
O O
Y
y
C
t
w u
saS
>_
3 07
C y
Cli
u w o
C >
N lee.
r
>
r
r
>°'
3
3
d
z
z
c
c
c
O E E
O
O
o
m m
C
m
a
w
z
z
O
w
z
LU a`
w
L
Y
N
(n
O 4/
d
O
6 N
o
L
a m
p L
LA
6J
m
u
y
L 41
c
VI
a
OJ
0
V1 Y
C
O 'Vl
T
Y 0
O
H N
Y
0 E C
y u
4 3
m
o° o
o o 'o
v 0.
�' c
Y
m V�
u E on
0 w
a .0
l7 U a
CC m
0 m
.a
N {A
4i
=
(U 0C
�
L
IUn
m
O
m
O
6
C u
tLp
.0
O
C
Ln
0 4-
O U 7
Y^ E
(n 3
m N
Y 4J
>
m y E
(D
a p
o
''
Ln 0E
a� m
0 m
a v,
0
3 mu
m
o
tio to
E m
m
N U
m
-0 4J
C c
m a
N
0
U ++
o
1-
m C
•a
v 4�i
C 41 in
u
p
3
O)
u
kn Q.
aci
-0 O
3
p L
w
41
c >�
m N 4)
Y�
m
m E
L
l7
� Y
N O.
w 0
o
O>
LL '0
In d m
OC
>.
U
M
M
M
El
M
M
El
W
Ln
y 4 +
tEo
L
@
L
�L
v E
E
a
D om' O aoi
y`"
vi
E
CM
(n 'L O a0+
C o
o
O
E `
ro c
LJ iq
E in
7
1
.,�
N
v V
v d u
u
ft
.o L-
n o
L.
0 N
u +
v y
3 rn
s
y
c n�
E
u M
CD
c
M
w
v
m O
v
n 4>
C c
O E
o
u -'�
a�
j y
ruo
N>
O
4.+
> tO =
O
N V 3
Mate+
y@
4-1 O c
E a
0o
V �7
V
Y ,. 0
3
Ln .N
L
GJ
N OL * O
C Ol
C
GJ (L.l
E
vi Oo
it
o a*
L-
�
IVn O m
a
�-' GJ u
"
N O
O N 0
-0 � iti C fp
O
c '4 � fEp VI
V—
N O
vsvt m
m y'
v m u
E ;; L-
c o,
fu c
�
u��ia�Vo
cu
E a En
N 3
ul'D
+°3yc
`n:3
t LLn
>. V � ,'�, 01 rn
'n
0uat
L H u
e
Owv 4; o
c o'vro
c
O@, ��
c��0
=moo
�� `—° nE
E y� am
= c
+� o c$ o
u
v O m v 3
a ;c
3 v
M 4-1
y ;, _
>
m
a
o
m
p
m> v w
+� y
10
fa
a u
i c u C
LE v
'n.e3��u
=' �v
yLMc
= v O y
'C s
L `.2 > y a
*' p y
w a+
p v o
o (n N
aG �o.br
O.5 o p C
a 0 a n
O O o
o
,w
o+
m i y oa O
u4�
a� a�i E ay O v
Z�
u
o
N�f080► L
45
++c
O o O
O)3F-
0 4J o
rnl- L
N rnvI►
W2 U
,--i N
M 4 ui
O
f0
14
U
�t
M
M
El
W
O
ra o 41 �
M O
,., o o
-p W iC cl i
va'i
O
O
U u
C U N n N
,�`
U C
L
0�
> C C
°�
in O
C (n
Lnwnc
iF-
u+jU
C(n
C U O 4J °
N N
U
y4J
j 0
y,,
o 0 M CU 4C
10 U pft C
cn� p� �.+ ._
4.1 C
N O1 N
m C n
N
O ++
c
O C C i� m 4J
° U)
In
a) ClQ
(ni E u
'X m N>�
@ Cl N
�c C
vE_
a�vnv
om
L
a
M�
Ln4'>a> u
o�ai
al-
3 � L a�
c
L
L
rn
�
a U
S O uto
U
N C
O
rn=
C.- ; E,u
> rco InU
N C
O C
N u- L r0 C
w
L° W U
O C C
'0 � f6
u
C
y CO 'a
.a C° m C— r-
c Lq
f0 C O
c
0
3 .0 ° c to
o y .�
M '' "a U D
C
M
u y
0
U
y
0
N Cl N
C
w.�
-W N rip 01
u w w s- c
>`o w
�0
maW3o c
>4J CL
U N
o °u
E O° L N
y= � o Q)i
(n
c
+, to41
aNi c>
0
o av n
CD C
in
u o, o
C
Im C�
0 O E" ++ °
+'
C y
L
m
.c u
U
`n C -n
rO v r0 N -j
O> L
C
V.0 O
u N fn
GJ
L=
N% N
E � C L
L (Q
N
y C N N E O
u o >
Y-
L L (n
(0 � .r..l > (�
t0
C X
= (6 7 c N >'
.IJ
fo o N
�O
— v�.�c E
V N:>
v c
v o
> O� m >
cm m
>,
Cr w o
t0c m o� c
E4J m
41 L . 1
L V-
C O
f0 C G:. > r0
O H
U
L o E C j=
i> C
O
>
E
1-"wJ f
O N
y�� O
.0
u ro
to
° N t :2 ,>J
'° > a
> i
r�0 41
y U y= r0 C
> C @ Y w p
w m O
f�- E GJ of
L- f6
C co o
> c+�
.N UC
yd.
U N L .0
N L C
°
0L. ii �+ o N
m
`7 N o U
H r—"
Q
(�I1=
O U 'vi c '' 41
d" rn°
76
v
V rc6 C N O O C
W tU C +N.�
0 4.j
N C� U N U
r0 (UNl
++ .0 m 7
I- °
O C
v al 01 N� O
O i 0
N E
O
N U
N
(UO
'm 4J 3 'O
a V=7
mm
iuWL-XW 00
J=o�>
eV
ew
M
M
Chapter 3
3.6 Recommendations for Increased Waste Prevention,
Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Activities
As noted, Deschutes County currently meets the requirements outlined in ORS
459A.007, which present the elements of a thorough waste reduction and recycling
program. Those elements that the County currently satisfies should be maintained and
continue to receive support. These include:
Continuing to develop and execute a coordinated promotion and education
program with cities, franchised collection companies, The Environmental Center
and other entities needed to support ongoing waste prevention, reuse and
recycling efforts.
Continuing to fund these programs to, at a minimum, maintain the level of
participation in reducing waste disposed in landfills.
Continue to evaluate program impacts and examine innovative approaches to
inform the public and businesses to reach an ever-growing population and new
employers.
For increased waste prevention, reduction, reuse and recycling, the new programs
recommended and those sought for expansion through this SWMP include the following
alternatives. All five recommendations listed below:
• Are consistent with State hierarchical priorities and goals to reduce waste
disposed in landfills;
• Seek to attain highest use of resources to convert organics to soil amendment
and enrichment;
• Require minimal investment to reduce waste disposed at Knott Landfill and
attain long term stability in managing waste versus transport to more distant
landfills;
• Do not rely on markets outside the geographical area; and
• Are flexible to expand or contract with minimal impacts to system.
Recommendation 3.1: Establish a standard WR/R program throughout the County
for single family, multifamily and businesses which focuses on education and outreach.
Rationale - Consistency of messages, imagery and promotional tools will help
to leverage program funding and deepen the impact of WR/R programming to
all residents and businesses.
Recommendation 3.2: Expand and improve standards for a multifamily recycling
program that includes a comprehensive education and outreach program to
expand participation at multifamily developments.
Rationale - Multifamily recycling has traditionally been more challenging due
to the transient nature of the population. Deschutes County is making strides in
this area, however a more robust program is needed. As a successful Oregon-
3-37
Chapter 3
example, Portland has an integrated commercial/multifamily program.
Similarly, in Deschutes County, building from an enhanced business program,
multifamily recycling outreach can tie into the tourist destination resorts in the
area.
Recommendation 3.3: Expand business education and promotion to target
expansion of recycling, focusing especially on hotels and resort communities to reach
the tourist population. As part of the business education and promotion program,
develop a program to target food waste recovery (see also Recommendation 3.4).
Rationale - Businesses generate more garbage and recycling than do
residents, and year-round tourism is main contributor to the cities and County-
wide economy. With the number of tourists rivaling, if not exceeding the
number of residents in the County at any given time, it can be expected that
tourists account for an appreciable portion of the waste generated.
Furthermore, food waste is a large portion of the disposed waste stream;
diverting food waste can produce a valuable soil amendment and also offset
greenhouse gas generation.
Recommendation 3.4: Expand and develop additional materials to educate
households, multifamily residences and businesses on how to reduce food waste and
develop promotion of vegetative waste with yard waste and consider universal service.
Rationale - Discussed further in Chapter 4, residential yard waste collection
should be made available regularly to all collection customers, accompanied by
outreach and education to customers. Furthermore, this service should be
provided to rural and urban customers alike. There are presently customers
who are opting into yard waste carts in the urban areas and can add vegetative
food waste, however, the service is not widely promoted.
Recommendation 3.5: Expand and develop new programs aimed at increasing
recycling of C/D materials.
Rationale - ORS 459A.007 states that jurisdictions provide a recovery
program that requires C/D be separated at the generation site or sent to a
materials recovery facility for processing and recovery of recyclable materials.
The statute also directs communities to promote sustainable C/D management
by encouraging contractors and improvement projects to consider planning for
waste reduction and re -use in the pre -construction planning phases. Presently
C/D is often directed straight to the transfer stations or Knott Landfill for
disposal, making this stream an important area of focus for the County to
consider moving forward.
Coupled with the corollary collection and processing recommendations in Chapter 4,
these three changes could add the additional 30,000 tons of recycling needed to meet
the County's 45% recycling goal by 2025.
3-38
1-1
,Chapter
4. COLLECTION AND RECYCLING/PROCESSING
4.1 Background and Existing Conditions
This chapter focuses on the current refuse collection programs servicing the residents
and businesses in Deschutes County. Deficiencies needs or areas where changes could
be made to meet the goals presented in this SWMP are identified. Alternatives for
addressing changes or deficiencies are discussed in relation to the objectives stated
below. Based on analysis and input from staff, SWAC members (includes franchised
haulers) and the general public, recommendations are presented.
For purposes of this SWMP, "collection" and "waste transfer" refer to waste transport
(by individuals or collection companies) directly to a disposal site or transfer station
that subsequently processes or consolidates waste and delivers it to a disposal site.
This chapter also reviews the current facilities in Deschutes County that receive and
process materials for the purposes of recovering and marketing those materials.
Deficiencies for meeting future needs are identified and the existing infrastructure,
capacity and capabilities for processing additional materials to increase materials
recovery are evaluated.
In ORS 459.085, the responsibilities and capabilities of counties and cities with respect
to the provision of collection services are outlined. Specifically, to county
responsibilities, ORS states:
"With respect to areas outside of cities, a board of county commissioners may
adopt ordinances to provide for:
(a) The licensing of disposal sites as an alternative to franchising of service.
(b) The regulation, licensing or franchising of salvage businesses or the
operation of salvage sites where such action is found necessary to implement
any part of a solid waste management plan applicable in the county. Such an
ordinance shall grant the same authority and prescribe the same procedures as
provided for other franchises or licenses under this section. "
A priority of DSW is to provide services that meet the diverse needs of businesses and
residences in urban and rural communities that are both effective and fair to all users.
Providing convenience through a variety of services is a key part of attaining this goal.
The County, cities and franchised haulers have various means for households and
businesses to participate in recycling, including:
• Curbside Collection - provided to most of the County
• County Drop-off Centers - Five locations throughout the County (Knott
Landfill and Negus, Northwest, Southwest and Alfalfa Transfer Stations)
4-1
Chapter 4
Other Drop-off Centers —Wilderness Disposal (La Pine), the City of Sisters,
and Sunriver provide recycling drop-off facilities for their communities.
Electronic waste is accepted at the Knott Landfill Recycling Center and all
transfer stations. The transfer stations only accept CEDs. Deschutes
Recycling at Knott Landfill will accept both CEDs and NCEDs.
Special Material Collection Events — Twice each month, DSW offers HHW
collection at Knott Landfill and annual HHW collection events in Redmond,
Sisters and La Pine. Additionally, residents can bring yard debris to Knott
Landfill and the transfer stations at no charge on designated dates at annual
"Fire Free" collection events held each spring in preparation for the fire
season.
Figure 4-1 presents the current flow of waste and quantities in Deschutes County from
the franchised haulers collection, direct haul, transfer and processing in 2016.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
4-2
El
I
M
Ct
Chapter,41
It should be noted that the sum of MSW delivered to Knott Landfill from the franchised
haulers and the transfer stations (164,786 tons) in 2016 is 3,159 tons greater than
the 161,087 presented in the 2016 DEQ report. Yard waste and wood/lumber collected
by Cascade Disposal were reported in cubic yards and were converted based on the
EPA's "Volume -to -Weight Conversion Factors." Accordingly, compacted mixed yard
waste typically weighs 640 pounds per cubic yard, uncompacted mixed yard waste
typically weighs 250 pounds per cubic yard, and wood and lumber were assumed to
typically weigh 169 pounds per cubic yard.28
4.2 Existing Collection and Processing
4.2.1 Collection
ORS 459.125 allows the County and cities to enter franchised agreements with public
or private entities to manage the collection, disposal, processing and marketing of
solid waste and recyclable materials. Additionally, this ordinance grants the County the
authority to regulate and oversee these operations as they occur within the County.
Franchised collection companies collect commingled materials, glass, organic waste
(yard debris and food waste mixed with yard debris), and MSW from residences and
businesses in Deschutes County and deliver them to facilities (as noted in Figure 4-1)
within the County for intermediate processing. Within the County, these facilities
organize and consolidate material streams so that they can be shipped out of the
County for recycling. Other than disposal at the Knott Landfill, the only materials that
are entirely processed within the County are yard waste and vegetative food waste,
which are composted a County -owned facility at Knott Landfill operated by Deschutes
Recycling.
There are approximately 180,000 residents in Deschutes County, covering 85,000
households (an estimated single-family count of 55,000 households and multifamily
count of 30,000 households), as well as 6,500 employers with 60,000 employees.29
The County has franchised agreements with four different private companies for the
collection of municipal solid waste from residences and commercial establishments
(see Table 4-2). Each of these companies is franchised by the city it serves and with
the County for unincorporated areas, under authority granted by ORS 459.125. This
same legislation also gives Deschutes County the authority to:
"Regulate, license, franchised and certify disposal, transfer, and resource recovery
sites or facilities; establish and collect license or franchised fees; and otherwise
control and regulate the establishment and operation of all public or private disposal,
transfer and resource recovery sites or facilities located within the County."
28 U.S. E.P.A. Volume -to -Weight Conversion Factors, April 2016.
29 https://www census gov/quickfacts/fact/table/deschutescountyoreaon/SB0001212#viewtop
and https:llwww.huduser.gov/publications/``pdf/``BendOR coma 15.pdf
4-4
Chapter 4
Curbside Collection
Franchised agreements grant each company the sole right to collect all solid waste and
recyclables from a specified area as noted in Table 4-1. Waste haulers are obligated to
provide a regular schedule for collection of garbage in all areas of the County and
recyclables in urbanized areas.
Tnhha A-1! 2nna Private Solid Waste Haulers and Service Areas
Collection Service Provider
Service Area
Term of
Contract
Bend Garbage and Recycling
North Bend
Rolling seven30
Cascade Disposal
South Bend and Sunriver
Rolling seven
High Country Disposal
Redmond and Sisters
Rolling seven
Wilderness Garbage and
Recycling
La Pine
Rolling seven
Note: Deschutes County contracts with all four collection companies for service
in the unincorporated areas of the County.
Service charges by the franchised haulers are regulated by cities and by the County
with maximum rate schedules. As presented in rate schedules effective August 1,
2017, the County sets maximum solid waste rates for the following:
Unincorporated Rural (Cascade Disposal, Bend Garbage and Recycling, and
Hinh-Countni Mcnncail
Unincorporated Distant Rural (Cascade Disposal, Bend Garbage and Recycling,
High Country Disposal, and Wilderness Garbage and Recycling)
Rates for container rental with all franchised haulers and transfer services
provided by Deschutes Transfer Company to DSW
The County maximum rates are set based on waste container volume. For a 35-gallon
can, maximum rates range from $17.75 to $18.40 per month. Bulky services are
available at an additional charge paid by the customer. Backyard or non-curb/roadside
rates are also set. The solid waste rate sizes include 20, 35, 65, and 95-gallon cans
(see Appendix A for full schedule of collection rates).
Along with solid waste, collection every other week for recycling in a 95-gallon cart for
the cities of Bend, Redmond, La Pine and Sisters is included.
Yard waste service in a 95-gallon cart collected every other week is subscription only
in the cities of Bend and Redmond. Residents can add vegetative food waste to the
yard service. Bend Garbage and Recycling notes that for city customers, yard debris
curbside recycling is a yearly subscription service for $4.90 per month. Acceptable
yard debris includes grass clippings, brush, weeds, pine needles, plant prunings, and
branches no larger than 2" in diameter and 36" in length. Raw fruit and vegetable
scraps such as apple cores, banana peels, potato skins, zucchini, pumpkins, coffee
30 Denotes a continuously renewing 7-year term for contracts, per franchised ordinance.
4-5
M
Chai;„
er 4
grounds and filters, tea bags, etc. are also acceptable.31 All customers in the City of
Sisters have yard waste service every other week.
Franchised haulers bill customers directly and pay DSW a 3% franchised fee, as well
as a 3.5% fee to the City of Redmond and a 5% franchised fee to the City of Benc132, in
addition to disposal fees at Knott Landfill.
Cascade Disposal offers customers a tool called the "Waste Wizard" in which residents
enter their address and find out what they should do with a certain material, as well as
what their specific collection day is. As a convenient phone application, Waste Wizard
is very popular with customers.
Curbside Recyclables
Cascade Disposal's promotional materials list the recyclables collected at the curb,
collection calendars and other information as presented in 2. County -wide ReThink
Waste and CAN Cancer logos also appear prominently on the Cascade Disposal website
(Figure 4-3).
City Recycling
Schedule 2018
{AhLA 2UtNr" IULY WIbj
+±[{$r$iii ssi io ,s.t$iai$csaln
nt.>Ft�sxi �� bi,iit as
[CPRUMY Wtb �UGU[Y,roltl
se.:a x sma$.
it I[i[DI➢[➢ri tl 1 il➢I${$r$111b
tb >, ss � •�Is
MfiM:.x, W IN [[PTCh16lN IOiB
$7Fl x
it lt$liL$i$� it 9 tFi[fiil➢t751
.... APRil l01R..,,.. OCTOR[R Mxp
e is.$sa'r➢tx i. {tin::➢1➢le�x
II 1$ P ➢�➢?Ilb II R X:H'9.'I1f
>U b uA IMMR W i!
Ib+lL:➢�L:.LI?a tY 111 S}iP�$i ,
, ru lit x mi'
x tilSS iis�$ 1'Q'�ffi1As
x
v� 7$ 2 2 !':3 � Ifi A➢TYI.7xl
Caniade Diapo�l
Welcome to our
service area!
..N,vc .t u.r,... uakv M,ov.:a•�
Nrre a e rya mr <[—i— lea men, of
your 1waeMiC Huih and rrcKhb:x.
...[v <.rf w4 fir la0
m yow rfiWdd P�HM
slut !*Seek earum 1,111cmdll
w~v►bN
Grtm WWA Cufltiei FMWNi
a
P".1
a , .
� wri
1wM
Now to WOO
WiW's UP NMI we Seery.
t
Your new 96-901lon roll can
is for most of Your household
recyclahlu-
vwafa�u+ yre<l .<a,Yrw' yr.^a
+fww RIJv
M Rk
Small Uln - Class Only
Ulu[ Roll Cart
Commingled Materials
<•w. Gay.
xrula:xS imlmt
Other
Recycling Tips
Figure 4-2: Cascade Disposal's 2018 City Customer Calendar and Education
Materials (front side on left, back side on right)
31 Commercial collection of food waste is being offered to interested customers, discussed in
more detail below.
32 http•//www codepublishing com/OR/Bend/html/Bendii/Bend1116.htmi
4-6
hapter-4
Figure 4-3: Franchised Hauler Community Promotional logos
As a complete list, the following materials can be commingled into the recycling cart
curbside in Deschutes County:
PAPER
• Newspaper
• Junk Mail
• Computer Paper
• Wrapping Paper (no foil)
• Shredded Paper (strips only)
• Cereal/Cracker Boxes
• Paper Egg Cartons
• Soda and Beer Cartons
PLASTICS
• Plastic Bottles & Tubs (6 ounces or larger)
• Rigid Plastic Plant Pots (4 inches or larger)
• Plastic Buckets (5 gallons or less)
• Milk Jugs (no need to flatten)
METALS
• Cans
• Jar Lids
• Beverage Cans
• Foil
4-7
• Shoe Boxes
• Paper Towel Tubes
• Phone Books
• Magazines
-Catalogs
• Paper Bags
• Corrugated Cardboard
MOW
Rates for Items Collected at Knott Landfill and the Transfer Stations
Knott Landfill rates and accepted items include the following:
Household garbage and construction debris
<400 Ibs - $22.00*
Each additional 100 Ibs - $3.00
Asbestos (Friable)
<2000 Ibs - $100.00
Each additional lb - $0.05
Must have approved Special Waste Disposal Application prior to disposal
Asbestos (Non -Friable) is charged at regular garbage rate
Must have approved Non -Friable Asbestos Application prior to disposal
Contaminated Soil
$0.0175 per lb
Must have approved Special Waste Disposal Application prior to disposal
Alfalfa, Negus, Northwest, and Southwest Transfer Stations rates and accepted items
include the following:
Household garbage or construction debris (limit of 4 cubic yards of
construction debris)
<1 cubic yard - $22.00*
Each additional cubic yard - $8.00
Yard Debris (accepted as garbage at Alfalfa Transfer)
Per cubic yard - $4.00
Wood Waste (accepted only at Negus Transfer Station)
Per cubic yard - $4.00
Appliances (limit 4 per customer, not accepted at Alfalfa Transfer)
Each - $8.00
Tires (limit 12 per customer)
Passenger car, pick-up and light truck - $2.00 each
Additional charge if on rim - $2.00 each
Heavy truck or equipment tires are not accepted
Sod is only accepted at the regular garbage rate at the Negus, Northwest
and Southwest Transfer Stations (limit 1 cubic yard and is only accepted at
4-8
Chapter h
the attendants' approval based on transfer trailer status. Sod can be
brought to the Recycling Center at Knott Landfill for $4.00 per cubic yard).
*A $10.00 rebate is given for loads properly secured in accordance with County Ordinance
13.36.040.
Special Waste Collections
The Hazardous Waste Facility at Knott Landfill accepts a wide variety of hazardous
waste, including paints and stains, solvents, fuels, antifreeze, aerosols, cleaners,
poisons, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, oil filters, rechargeable batteries, fluorescent
tubes and bulbs, propane tanks, pool and spa chemicals, thermometers, mercury
thermostats and switches, etc.
HHW is accepted free of charge from residential users at the Knott Landfill Hazardous
Waste Facility. The HHW Facility is open from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on the second
and fourth Friday and Saturday of each month. For the months of November and
December, the facility is open on the 2nd Friday and Saturday only.
Business Hazardous Waste is also accepted at the Hazardous Waste Facility from
businesses regulated as Conditionally Exempt Hazardous Waste Generators (CEG). To
qualify as a CEG, the business cannot generate more than 220 pounds of hazardous
waste per month. CEGs must pre -register with the hazardous waste contractor by
completing an application to participate. Fees are charged based on the type and
amount of waste accepted.
Commercial and Multifamily Collection
There are an estimated 6,500 businesses and 30,000 multifamily households in
Deschutes County.33 Similar to curbside service, franchised haulers offer commercial
and multifamily solid waste and recycling collection services upon request in their
geographic service areas based on the maximum rates noted above. Some businesses
have also requested food waste collection for vegetative material. Approximately 85
businesses at present are managing food waste in this manner. An estimated range of
75% to 95% businesses in the County have recycling services depending on the area.
Multifamily properties are offering curbside services to their tenants. Food waste is
delivered to the compost facility at Knott Landfill.
Summary of Franchised Hauler Collection
Table 4-2 presents the 2014-2016 tons of commingled recyclables collected by the
franchised haulers from residential accounts. Note that of the approximately 80,000
tons of recycling reported to DEQ, franchised collection represents approximately 16
percent of recycling collection (13,017 tons).
33 htti)s://www.huduser.govZpublications/pdf/`BendOR comp 15.pdf
4-9
Chapter 4
Table 4-2 Deschutes County Commingled Recyclables Collected by Franchised
Haulers 2014-2016 (Tons)
Franchised Hauler
2014
2015
2016
Bend Garbage and Recycling
4,289
4,480
4,753
Cascade Disposal
4,450
4,658
4,805
High CountryDisposal
3,225
3,318
3,409
Wilderness Garbage and
Recycling
54
58
50
Total
12,0181
12,514
13,017
In 2016, there was an approximate 8% increase in the amount of commingled
recyclables collected in the County. Cascade Disposal and Bend Garbage and Recycling
remained the leaders in collection of these materials, displaying a growth rate of 11%
and 8% in this category respectively. High Country Disposal's growth was around 5%
during this time while Wilderness Garbage and Recycling's collection rate fluctuated,
maintaining an average of 54 tons per year.
Table 4-3 presents the 2014-2016 tons of source-separated/commercial recyclables
collected by the franchised haulers. This adds another 10,602 tons to the 13,017
commingled tons reported in Table 4-2, for a total of 23,619 tons, representing 30
percent of all recycling reported in Deschutes County for 2016.
Table 4-3 Total Commercial Recyclable Material Collected by Haulers 2014-
2016 (Tons)
Franchised Hauler
2014
2015
2016
Bend Garbage and Recycling
3,689
3,875
4,086
Cascade Disposal
3,198
3,608
4,165
High Country Disposal
2,067
2,319
2,124
Wilderness Garbage and
Recycling
209
195
226
Total
9,133
9,998
10,601
4.2.2 Processing
DSW owns and operates Knott Landfill, which is the only operating landfill in the
County. Knott Landfill also serves as a recycling drop-off location and houses the HHW
4-10
Chapter 4
drop-off site and compost facility. Deschutes Recycling manages the recycling drop-off
center and composting operations. In addition, the County manages four transfer
stations: Negus Transfer Station, Northwest Transfer Station, Southwest Transfer
Station, and Alfalfa Transfer Station. Addresses, hours of operation, and materials
accepted at each of these facilities are listed in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4 Solid Waste Facilities in Deschutes County
Name
Address
Operating Hours
Accepted Materials
Knott Landfill
61050 SE 27th Street
Nov. 1-Apr. 30
MSW, C/D debris,
Bend, OR 97702
Monday -Saturday
asbestos, contaminated
7am-4:30pm
soil
May 1-Oct. 31
Sunday -Saturday
7am-5pm
Knott Landfill
61050 SE 27th Street
Nov. 1-Apr. 30
Commingled recyclables,
Recycling Center
Bend, OR 97702
Monday -Saturday
cardboard, glass, paints
(operated by
7am-4:30pm
and stains, auto batteries,
Deschutes
motor oil, scrap metal,
Recycling)
May 1-Oct. 31:
appliances, tires,
Sunday -Saturday
electronic waste, wood
7am-5pm
waste, yard waste, and
cooking oil
Knott Landfill
61050 SE 271h Street
2"d and 41h Friday and
Paints, stains, fuels,
Hazardous
Bend, OR 97702
Saturday of month
aerosols, cleaning
Waste Facility
9am-3pm
supplies, pesticides,
fertilizer, batteries,
(2"d Friday and
fluorescent tubes and
Saturday of month in
bulbs, pool and spa
November and
chemicals, thermometers,
December)
propane tanks, fireworks,
ammunition,
residential sharps
(hypodermic needles,
lancets)
Knott Landfill
61050 SE 27th Street
May 1-October 31:
Yard debris, clean wood
Compost Facility
Bend, OR 97702
Monday -Sunday
waste, sod, clean dirt,
(Operated by
7am-5pm
residential and
Deschutes
commercial program food
Recycling)
November 1-April 30:
waste only.
Sunday -Saturday
7am-4:30pm
4-11
Name Address Operating Hours Accepted Materials
Negus Transfer 2400 NE Maple Monday - Saturday MSW, C/D debris,
Station & Avenue 8am - 4pm commingled recyclables,
Recycling Center Redmond, OR 97756 cardboard, glass, auto
batteries, motor oil, scrap
metal, appliances, tires,
electronic waste, wood
waste, yard debris
Northwest
68200 Fryrear Road
Wednesday -Saturday
MSW, C/D debris,
Transfer Station
Sisters, OR 97759
8am-4pm
commingled recyclables,
& Recycling
cardboard, glass, auto
Center
batteries, motor oil, scrap
metal, appliances, tires,
electronic waste, yard
debris
Southwest
54580 Highway 97 La
Wednesday -Saturday
MSW, C/D debris,
Transfer Station
Pine, OR 97739
8am-4pm
commingled recyclables,
cardboard, glass, auto
batteries, motor oil, scrap
metal, appliances, tires,
electronic waste, yard
debris
Alfalfa Transfer
Walker Road, Alfalfa,
Saturday
MSW, commingled
Station and
OR 97701
8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
recyclables, glass, auto
Recyc_-ling w_-a_-
ling a.cnaCr
batteries motor nil
va��c.�ca, ��� •,�, scrap
metal, tires, electronic
waste
As a supplement to residential and commercial collection service, each of the transfer
stations in the County is also equipped with a recycling drop-off center. All transfer
stations accept commingled recyclables, cardboard, glass, auto batteries, motor oil,
scrap metal and electronic waste free of charge. Tires are accepted for a fee at all
County facilities. Appliances are accepted for a fee at all County facilities with the
exception of the Alfalfa Transfer Station.
The following items are not accepted at any of the County's transfer stations:
• Inert materials such as dirt, sod, concrete, rocks, and bricks*
• Hazardous materials
• Liquids
• Manure
• Ashes
• Asbestos
• Bulky items
*These materials are accepted at Negus Transfer Station
4-12
Chapter 4
Other recyclables that are accepted for free at every disposal site but cannot be
commingled include:
• Automotive batteries
• Barbeques (separated from gas tanks)
• Corrugated cardboard
• Glass bottles and jars
• Lawnmowers (fuel and oil must be drained)
• Motor oil
• Propane tanks
• Scrap metal
Recyclables
For recyclables processing in Deschutes County, franchised collection companies
deliver commingled recyclables and glass directly to Mid -Oregon Recycling (located at
20835 NE Montana Way, Bend). Mid -Oregon Recycling is owned and operated by Bend
Garbage and Recycling. This facility also receives recyclables (cardboard, glass and
commingled materials) that are collected at the County's transfer stations and the
recycling center at Knott Landfill. Mid -Oregon Recycling essentially functions as a
transfer station and does not process recyclable materials. Rather, recyclables such as
cardboard and commingled materials are baled and transported to material recovery
facilities in the Portland area and the Willamette Valley. Presently some materials are
being transferred to Pioneer Recycling Services located at 16810 SE 120th Ave,
Clackamas, OR 97015. Glass is being taken to a recycling facility in Portland.
Figure 4-4: View of the Truck Entrance at Mid -Oregon Recycling
4-13
Chapter 4
Markets for Recycled Material
Since curbside collection of source separated materials was universally established in
Oregon in 1985, markets have continued to evolve and grow significantly in both the
United States and abroad. Commingled materials collected from curbside programs
include paper products such as corrugated cardboard, newspaper, mixed paper and
various grades of plastics as well as tin and aluminum cans. Also, glass is collected and
separated in bins or at drop off sites.
China, more than any other country, has been the largest purchaser of recyclable
materials from processors. Recently, China has initiated a new policy to require all
recyclable materials contain less than 0.5% contamination (called the National Sword).
This stringent requirement more or less restricts most materials from entering China
markets. As a result, there is a glut of recyclable paper products on the market. This
has caused the market price for mixed paper to fall to less than $20 per ton in early
2018. Most recycling companies can tolerate fluctuating market prices. However, the
disruption in markets caused by China's new policies are unusually severe, which may
lead to franchised haulers needing to increase program prices. With the significant
reduction in the price for paper coupled with lower demand that may continue,
processors may not be able to weather these conditions.
In Deschutes County, the cost to collect, transport, process and ship recyclable
materials to markets is built into the current collection rates. However, franchised
collection companies rely on a certain amount of revenue for recycled materials.34
Without dependable and rUUU,I market KCl i.Jl II.eJ, 111a i1y jur iaululvl IJ in Oregon 1 and
elsewhere are evaluating options ranging from temporarily landfilling recyclable
materials, to levying a temporary surcharge, to discontinuing collection services for
recyclable materials. As of March 2018, DEQ granted waivers to at least 12 franchised
haulers and/or jurisdictions to temporarily dispose of materials because of financial
hardships due to current market conditions35. Like Deschutes County, many of these
communities must transport recyclable materials long distances to be processed and
then shipped to markets.
The County and cities must work with the local franchised collection companies and
Mid -Oregon Recycling to determine what actions might be taken to address this
temporary condition. It is desirable to consider those options that continue curbside
collection to existing customers. Although it is also desirable to expand programs to
recycle more materials from multifamily and commercial customers, it may be
necessary to delay expansion of such collection services until these market conditions
improve.
This is truly an unprecedented time in Oregon and nationwide recycling history. Based
on the analysis by Dr. Jeffery Morris of Sound Resource Group, Inc., it seems that the
effect of China's new more stringent policies on recyclables should have a limited
impact on recyclable paper markets in Oregon as India has developed into a significant
trading partner with brokers in the Pacific Northwest for this material. Although the
34 Since 2013, net revenue from all recyclables collected has been negative. Prior to 2013, with
the exception of 2009, there had been commodity revenue to help offset collection costs.
35 http://www.oregon.gov/deg/FilterDocs/mm-disposalconcurr.pdf
4-14
Chapter t:
global market suffers whenever a major trading partner like China is eliminated,
subsequently reducing demand for recycled commodities across the board, the impact
on certain material streams will vary depending on how substantially they are traded
with China relative to other countries.
Overall, the industry advocates that local governments take a long-term view of
market conditions. Historically, there have been disruptions and large fluctuations in
prices. The fact that there is great stability in the collection of recyclable materials
provides a steady supply of materials, and there is demand for these materials in the
United States and internationally. The largest challenge is reducing the amount of
contamination in the various recyclable materials recovered from collection programs
and Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) to meet market specifications so these
materials can be used effectively to make new products.
C/D Waste
It is estimated that about 30% of materials entering Knott Landfill are C/D waste.
Presently, inert material (soil, rock, concrete, asphalt, etc.) can be taken to an inert fill
site at the Negus Transfer Station in Redmond. Clean, unpainted and untreated wood
waste can be taken to Deschutes Recycling and Negus Transfer Station for off -site use
as boiler fuel and remanufactured wood products. However, there is no dedicated C/D
landfill in the County and, with the exception of the clean fill and clean wood waste
options noted above, these wastes must be disposed at Knott Landfill.
:1_LI_ �L.,. .-iFi..r. „E rin eto rliannccrl �t !lnnht
T here is no information avallable of lI 111C col i Ipositiol � o C D `VVUaLc
Landfill. Data from the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (District) is
shown below in Table 4-5. The District has some characteristics similar to Deschutes
County in that most C/D waste is generated by the housing market and the area
experiences a strong tourism industry and turnover from rentals and new ownership.
It also serves a similar population.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
4-15
Chapter
Table 4-5 C/D Composition Data from Monterey
Regional Waste Management District
Construction/ Demolition Composition
Data
Average Available
Total C/D Waste Accepted - 70,000 TPY
Materials to
Recover
Goal is a 70% Recovery
Tons/Year
%
Salvaged Materials for Reuse
632
0.9%
Rigid Plastics
1,417
2.0%
Aluminum Scrap
165
0.2%
Cardboard
1,517
2.2%
Co -mingled Containers
292
0.4%
Wood /Green Waste
12,116
17.5%
Metal Scrap
3,553
5.1%
Mixed Paper
1,313
1.9%
Total Re -sellable
21,005
30.2%
Asphalt /Concrete
2,498
3.60%
Hazardous Waste
7
0.0%
Mattresses /Carpets / Pads
275
0.4%
Sheetrock
149
0.270
Roofing Material
505
0.7%
Tires
79
0.1%
Inerts and fines (Alternative Daily Cover)
23,909
34.5%
Total Non -Re -Sellable
27,422
Adjustment to Non-Resellable
6,897
Total Sort Line Diversion
55,324
79.8%
Landfill /Residue
14,046
Total Material Processed
69,370
This data suggests that as much as 30% of C/D waste is recyclable materials. Also,
the District operates a processing line that recovers inert materials and fines. The
District uses this material as landfill alternative daily cover, thus reducing the need for
clean soil to provide daily cover for use at its landfill.
Yard Waste/Food Waste
Curbside collection of yard waste and vegetative food waste on a subscription basis is
provided by the franchised hauling companies who deliver the material to the Knott
Landfill compost facility.
4-16
Chapter 4
Negus, Northwest and Southwest transfer stations accept yard waste from the self -
haul public. This material is ground several times per year and transported to Knott
Landfill for use as alternative daily cover.
Self -haul customers can also bring yard waste to Deschutes Recycling's compost
facility at Knott Landfill where fees are charged at a volume -based rate (presently
$4.00 per cubic yard). Rock, contaminated dirt, residential waste, plastic bags and
other non -vegetative materials are not permitted at the compost facility. Deschutes
Recycling is a member of the U.S. Composting Council and adheres to the standards
listed in their Seal of Testing Approval Program to ensure quality compost output.
Deschutes Recycling provides a promotional brochure (see Figure 4-5) which includes
information about their various compost products.
,. ,.
Failofi:ne
E"'7
eGt'
row
So s
Figure 4-5: outside Page of Deschutes Recycling Customer Compost Tri-Fold
Brochure
Changing from turned windrow composting to aerated static piles has decreased the
processing time to approximately six weeks at Deschutes Recycling. Piles are
temperature and moisture monitored. Compost products from the Deschutes Recycling
facility are sold to the County, local retailers and residents.
The following products are offered:
• SoilBuilder® Compost (5/8" screen)
• BioFine® Compost (3/8" screen)
• ReGrow® Compost (3/8" screen and contains composted food waste)
• Ground Cover
4-17
Chapter 4
In 2016, Deschutes Recycling processed approximately 20,000 tons of yard waste,
food waste and wood waste.
At the Lake Penhollow composting site, owned and operated by Sunriver
Environmental LLC, under Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership, yard debris (grass,
pine needles, leaves, brush, limbs and tree materials) is accepted, for a fee ($5/yard),
and compost, wood chips and mulch are sold at the facility.36 Utilizing an AgBag
system for composting, the site serves the Sunriver, Crosswater, Caidera Springs and
Vandevert Ranch communities of Central Oregon, and is open 25 hours per week, May
through September, two hours per week in October, and is closed from November
through April.
Food Waste
As presented in Table 2-13 in Chapter 2, it is estimated that about 42% of all waste
disposed in landfills is made up of organics (food waste, wood, yard debris, soiled
paper and miscellaneous items), of which over 50% is food waste. Overall, food waste
represents 24% of all waste disposed. This information was been confirmed by the
results of the recently published Waste Composition Report (2016-17) issued by DEQ
in February 2018. The report contains additional details related to the sources and
types of food waste disposed. Table 4-6 below presents the food waste data gathered
by DEQ in 2016-17.
Tahlc- 4-6 Food Waste Disposed 2016-2017
Residential
Commercial
All Food
23.4%
24.6%
Non -Packaging
Vegetative Food
12%
13%
Non -Vegetative (Meats /Dairy)
3%
4%
Other Food /Packaging
8.4/0
7.6%
The data show on a statewide basis that food waste is about 24% of waste disposed
by both residential and commercial customers. Also, the largest amount of food waste
is categorized as non -packaged vegetative waste. This food waste category is what
franchised collection companies are targeting to have residential customers place in
with their yard waste. This material can then be processed at the Knott Landfill
compost facility. In 2017, approximately 1,000 tons of food waste was collected and
composted. However, as the data in Table 4-6 suggests, about 13% of all waste
disposed or 23,000 tons in 2017 is non -packaged vegetative waste. Expanding food
waste collection could be a potential program to increase the County's recovery rate.
36 httl)s://www.sunriverwater.com/Compost-Site.htmI
4-18
The other food waste categories include non -packaged, non -vegetative waste which
includes dairy products and meat. In Marion County and Portland, these wastes are
also accepted because the facilities have been approved to compost these categories
of food waste. Before these wastes can be accepted at the Knott Landfill compost
facility, the compost methods would need to be refined and the DEQ permit would
need to be revised.
4.3 Needs and Opportunities for Collection and
Recycling/Processing
Following the review of collection and recycling/processing activities taking place in
Deschutes County, the following needs and opportunities are evident.
Target Certain Types of Generators or Waste Streams to Increase
Diversion by Expanding Basic Services
a) Expand collection of cardboard and scrap metal in the commercial and
multifamily waste streams — In order to reach the DEQ target of 55% recycling
in the commercial sector, Deschutes County needs to develop a commercial
outreach and implementation program. Both of these commodities have an
enduring market value and present great opportunity for targeted diversion
from commercial and multifamily customers.
b) Expand residential curbside services — Currently, curbside collection of
commingled recyclable materials is offered in the cities and urbanized portions
of the County. These collection programs can be expanded to serve rural areas.
Likewise, yard waste/food waste and glass are not currently offered
consistently in the rural areas. In Bend and Redmond where yard debris service
is available, it is offered on a subscription -only basis. All customers in Sisters
have yard debris service. Consideration of making recycling and yard debris
service universal within the County -wide rate structures could be advantageous
for meeting recycling goals and creating the most efficient routing.
c) Expand the multifamily housing recycling program — More infill and multifamily
dwelling units are being built to accommodate growth in the County and DEQ is
requiring that all tenants have recycling services by 2022. Developing a focused
education/promotion program in conjunction with enhanced methods to provide
convenient services could contribute to achieving the County's recovery rate.
This alternative has some key elements that are important to enhance the
opportunity to make multifamily recycling successful.
1. Multifamily complexes must provide space to temporarily store recyclable
materials generated by the individual units. These spaces must contain and
secure materials and provide easy access for collection companies. To
achieve this, design guidelines in the cities and County must be
standardized to provide both space for containers and room for trucks to
service solid waste, recycling and compost bins/carts.
4-19
Chapter 4
2. Regular educational materials will need to be distributed to inform existing
and new tenants of recycling and waste reduction programs.
3. It is desirable to have some form of incentive built into the rates. Most
complexes offer garbage service as part of the rent. Therefore, tenants are
not typically incentivized.
d) Expand tourism recycling opportunities — The significant tourism industry in
Deschutes County makes it necessary to focus on hotel and tourist destinations
in order to meet recycling goals. Tourists outnumber residents in the County
every month of the year. There are a variety of programs that can be explored
including the tie-in with any new food waste program since restaurants serve
visitors extensively. In addition, targeted business outreach to hotels and
destinations for business technical assistance and recognition, as discussed in
Chapter 3, is imperative.
Adjust Rates to Impact Behavior Changes and Fund Program
Expansion
As presented in Table 4-7, Deschutes County has set maximum rates that franchised
haulers can charge for curbside waste and recycling collection, which is based on the
volume of a household's refuse cart. For example, a 35-gallon cart can range from
$17.75 to $18.40 per month for collection (solid waste and recycling), but a larger cart
comes with an increased collection cost. This is one mechanism through which the
minty ran attempt to impact behavior change among residents. Increasing the cost
of waste disposal with additional waste generated can have the effect of discouraging
excess waste generation. In addition, offering similar disposal options for free or at a
reduced rate generally motivates a household to utilize these services as well.
Rate incentive programs can work symbiotically if well designed. For instance,
adjusting collection fees such that they rise equally or greater than the marginal
difference between the volume of a 35-gallon container and a 65-gallon container will
have a greater impact than simply raising the monthly collection rate by an arbitrary
amount as container size increases.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
4-20
Chapter i ..
Table 4-7 Can and Roll Cart Service Rates — As of January 2010
Cart Volume
Rates for
Weekly
Pickup
Cost per
unit
($/gallon)
20 Gallon
Curb or roadside
$15.45
0.77
Backyard or other
17.55
0.88
35 Gallon
Curb or roadside
$17.75
0.51
Backyard or other
$20.15
$0.58
65 Gallon
Curb or roadside
$29.20
0.45
Backyard or other
$33.80
$0.52
95 Gallon
Curb or roz
$36.65
$0.39
Back a
$39.55
0.42
At present, a 35-gallon container has a monthly cost of $17.75, meaning that the price
of waste collection for a single family using a 35-gallon trash container is $0.51 per
gallon. However, the monthly cost for a household with a 65-gallon container, 85%
larger than the 35-gallon can, is $29.20. This translates to $0.45 per gallon, a per
gallon rate that is approximately 12% less expensive than having a smaller cart. The
County's current rate structure does have an incentive built in for smaller containers.
Some cities use weight basis for setting rates and have resulting rates wherein a 65-
gallon container costs twice as much as a 35-gallon, as in Seattle, Washington.
Adjusting rates so they better reflect the environmental costs of waste generation
given the economic costs of collection will generate more revenue for DSW.
Additionally, it is well -documented that raising the costs of garbage collection relative
to the generation of garbage, while also offering recycling and yard waste disposal
options, has the effect of increasing diversion from landfills and reducing waste
generation overall.37,38,39
37Dijkgraaf E, Gradus R. (2009). Environmental activism and dynamics of unit -based pricing
systems. Resource and Energy Economics, 31, 13-23
38 Ferrara I, Missios P. (2005). Recycling and Waste Diversion Effectiveness: Evidence from
Canada. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 221-238.
39 Pickin 3. (2008) Unit pricing of household garbage in Melbourne: improving welfare, reducing
garbage, or neither? Waste Management and Research, 26, 508-514
4-21
Target Recovery of New Materials
a) Divert More Dry Waste Materials for Processing at a MRF
This would require commercial businesses to separate food waste from dry,
non -organic waste. The dry waste may be acceptable for processing along with
the residential curbside materials at a MRF.
b) Focus on Food Waste40
Recent waste composition data published by DEQ shows that approximately
45% of materials disposed in Oregon landfills is comprised of organic material
such as food waste, compostable paper, yard debris and wood waste. Food
waste represents about 50% of all organics or 24% of the entire waste stream
disposed. In 2017, 181,000 tons of waste was disposed at Knott and 43,000
tons of that waste was food waste. DEQ's 2016 statewide waste composition
report indicates that half of food waste is not packaged (per DEQ waste sort
categories), making it easier to collect since there is no plastic packaging to
remove. According to the study, residential waste and commercial waste
contain about the same amount of food waste on a statewide basis. This could
vary in different wastesheds, and, perhaps due to the higher rate of tourism in
Deschutes County, the commercial waste stream may contain a higher amount
of food waste. However, for the sake of this evaluation it is assumed that both
residential and commercial have similar percentages of food waste.
® Expand Residential Food Waste Recycling Program
Based on DEQ's waste composition data, there may be as much as
21,500 tons of food waste in the residential stream. If more
customers participate in placing food scraps in with yard waste, the
material can be delivered to the compost facility instead of the
landfill. As more food waste is received for composting at Knott
Landfill, improvements to the compost facilities will be needed to
more efficiently process the additional materials. With subscription -
only yard debris program to which residents can add vegetative food
waste, there is a great opportunity in Deschutes County for
expansion by making yard debris part of universal service for all
residents.
Expand the Commercial Food Waste Recycling Program
It is estimated that 21,500 tons of food waste is disposed by
commercial customers at Knott Landfill. Expanding the commercial
food waste program to more restaurants, cafeterias and other large
40 In all organics program discussions, the Department of Solid Waste should consider
connections to the City of Bend's current anaerobic digestion interest at the wastewater
treatment plant.
4-22
Chapter''
EL,a-
generators can result in increasing the recovery rates and reducing
what is disposed in the landfill. To do this will require programmatic
changes to increase business technical assistance. The County is well
poised to expand its current work with The Environmental Center
and other organizations to increase investment in program design
and deployment. The additional facility needs for organics are
discussed below.
c) Consider a Textile Recycling Program
Textiles comprise part of the 4,800 tons of "other materials" disposed in
Deschutes County in 2016, as presented in Table 2-13. Programs for textile
recycling have wide public appeal and can be curbside or drop-off programs.
In 2001, Fauquier County, VA became one of the first municipalities in the
United States with a wide -scale municipal textile recycling program. In its first
three years, approximately 125 tons of post -consumer textile waste (PCTW)
per year were collected, generating more than $115,000 in revenue at market
prices. From an industry report at that time, it was noted that PCTW was one
of Fauquier County's highest recyclable revenue generators and resulted in a
10% decrease in overall recycling costs.41 A textile program can be explored
with local organizations such as Salvation Army and Goodwill.
The Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles (SMART) Association is the
organization of Wiping Materials, Used Clothing and Fiber Industries,
i now r'KA An-r r.i �ir•r ernhnhle rinfnhncc by nrnA in
operating since 1932. JI•I/1R � i I Iaai plan na a sea, aawv.. -- -
category and state for textile collection programs.42
d) Investigate the C/D stream and target certain materials such as wood, metals
and fibers
It appears that perhaps as much as 30% of the waste disposed at Knott
Landfill is generated from C/D activities. Developing alternatives for
recovering more materials and locating a separate disposal site for inert
materials and C/D could increase the site life of the Knott Landfill if
implemented in the near future. It may also provide long-term benefits to the
system by avoiding the transportation to a disposal site located further from
where C/D is generated.
It is critical that the County improve their efforts to divert C/D debris from
the landfill. C/D debris is generally much heavier than MSW on a volumetric
basis, and wood waste accounts for 10% of materials disposed.43 In addition
to composing a significant portion of the County waste stream, C/D debris is
often larger and more difficult to compact. As such, it occupies valuable
space in Knott Landfill. As mentioned in Element L in Table 3-2, DEQ offers
an approach that could help the County divert C/D from Knott Landfill, which
4'httip://www.aiswmd.org/Resources/Documents/Textiles.pdf
42 https://www.smartasn.orgZ
43 See Table 2-13
4-23
will likely extend the life of the landfill and enhance the recyclables recovery
rate. Techniques can include differential tipping fees at the landfill for C/D
loads as well as adding a C/D processing line, discussed in more detail below.
One immediate recommendation is that DSW begin to track incoming C/D at
its facilities to determine a more accurate estimate of its tonnage. However,
assuming the 45,000 tons estimate is accurate, this may not be enough C/D
material to justify a full-sized permanent processing facility. There are
smaller, portable, manual picking lines specifically made for C/D recovery that
may work well for this application. A picture of such a unit is shown in Figure
4-6. Portability may also be a benefit as DSW can experiment with its location
within the County to target areas of substantial C/D activity.
Figure 4-6: Example of a Portable C/D System
Source: Krause Manufacturing
Once the best location is determined and the actual amount of C/D materials
is known, either incoming at the Knott Landfill or available in the region, a
more permanent solution should be pursued. This could include DSW owning
and operating its own C/D processing line at Knott Landfill, or establishing a
public -private partnership with a private entity, wherein County land is
utilized and leased for a given term to a private processor, giving the County
a preferable rate for C/D processing.
A recovery line to remove fines and inert materials would allow for automated
recovery of ferrous materials and manual recovery of OCC, wood, and non-
ferrous metals. At the facility shown in Figure 4-7, trucks dump on the right
side of the facility and C/D material is processed from right to left. To begin
4-24
Chapter 4
processing, an excavator pre-sorts bulk items and feeds the balance of the
piled C/D waste onto an apron conveyor which is elevated by an incline
conveyor. Material drops onto a finger screen separating up to 8-inch sized
material to be processed by magnet, star screen and manual sorting. Larger
(8-inch plus) material proceeds along the conveyor to be manually processed
and dropped into underlying bunkers or containers and hauled for marketing.
The facility shown has a grinding operation for residuals, and an area where
reusable building materials are segregated for donation to a local charitable
building reuse center.
Figure 4-7: Example C/D Processing Infrastructure
Source: Fauquier County, VA
The facility depicted in Figure 4-7 was constructed in 2006 for a total cost of
$4.5 million, including site work and bringing power to the site, and was
designed to process 70 tons/hour (approximately 500 tons per day). Recovery
of materials from new construction commonly ranges from 50-60%, and
recovery from demolition projects varies up to approximately 50% depending
on the type and quality of delivered materials. The facility has been able to
support companies looking to construct Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) certified buildings, as they can acquire LEED
points by containerizing and hauling mixed C/D wastes to this facility. Many
full-scale C/D systems are capable of processing more than 100,000 tons per
year, so it is important to thoroughly understand the tonnage of C/D material
generated in the region that can be diverted to such a facility before developing
a permanent facility.
Processing Alternatives for Recycling Services
Currently, recyclable materials collected from curbside programs in Deschutes County
are delivered to Mid -Oregon Recycling in Bend. Materials are reloaded and transported
4-25
/ +G1PR
13 ,..` , 1 .tea
to recycling facilities in the Willamette Valley and Portland area. Over the past three
years, Mid -Oregon Recycling has shipped approximately 13,000 tons per year of baled
residential commingled recyclables. Although market prices fluctuate, for the most
part they were sufficient to pay the cost of transportation and process the materials.44
There are at least six MRFs in Portland that can handle the County's commingled
materials. Having several MRFs vying for materials provides competition such that Mid -
Oregon Recycling can negotiate for these services as needed.
The key factor for securing the best market price is largely dependent on the quality of
the materials being collected and the capability of the MRF to process the materials
and meet specifications. One challenge the MRFs in Oregon have is ability to process
commingled materials cost effectively and meet these specifications. As a result,
Portland Metro is in the process of adopting new regulations aimed at setting minimum
performance standards for MRFs. This is expected to result in MRF owners making
investments in advanced processing technology to enhance the efficiency of operations
and improve the quality of the materials recovered. Since a majority of the recyclable
materials collected in the State are processed in Portland, outlying counties like
Deschutes will most likely incur higher cost for processing recyclable materials due to
transportation costs.
At this time, the County must wait to see what new regulations will be imposed and
what the effects will be on processing and marketing costs. Of the total 2.2 million
tons of recyclable materials collected in the State of Oregon in 2016, it is estimated
that 400,000 tons of commingled recyclable materials were processed. Because these
material-, contain less than 10% residue that is landfilled, the hiqh quality ensures that
surely once again, there will be processers and markets for the materials.
Build a MRF in Deschutes County
The County and its collection companies must rely on MRFs that are located in Portland
or the Willamette Valley. One option is to consider building a MRF to process waste
streams to recover materials in Deschutes County. There are two concepts that might
be considered. One is to build a MRF that can process the commingled single streams
collected from residential, multifamily and participating commercial customers. The
second is to build an integrated mixed waste/commingled process line.
Build a Commingled/Single Stream MRF
The MRF technology used to process commingled recyclables from residential and
commercial customers has continued to evolve over the past 25 years. Single stream
processing systems still include conveyors, screens, magnets, and eddy current
separators to separate containers and paper and recover materials. Whereas most
older systems relied on manual sorting to pick recyclables or remove contaminants,
new MRF technology has adapted to more reliable automated processing. Also, new
screening equipment is designed to reduce plugging and wrapping from plastics, wire,
cables, etc., and can be easily maintained.
44 Since 2013, net revenue from all recyclables collected has been negative. Prior to 2013, with
the exception of 2009, there had been commodity revenue to help offset collection costs.
4-26
Advances are continually being made and new technologies developed to increase
separation efficiencies and reduce labor costs. One such technology is optical sorters,
which identify different grades of paper or various resin types in plastic and can
instantly separate these from the other materials. Air density and flexibility separators
are also used to sort two-dimensional and three-dimensional items. Figure 4-8 depicts
key components of a typical MRF processing line.
Deschutes County is currently collecting 13,000 tons per year of commingled
materials. Based on recent feasibility studies, the cost of equipment for a smaller MRF
processing system is estimated to cost between $5 million and $7 million. When added
to the cost of the building to house the system, estimated to be $12 million, the total
capital outlay is about $17 million to $20 million. It may be possible to use existing
structures to reduce the capital outlay.
In one recent study, the annual operating expense to process 20,000 tons including
capitalized expenses (debt services) was $143 per ton. To process less waste would
only increase this cost. The study concluded that to break even, considering average
revenue for sales of materials of about $110 per ton, the MRF would need to process
at least 30,000 tons of commingled materials annually, or more than twice as much as
currently collected in the County.45
The benefits of processing materials in the County include providing more control over
the system to supply materials that meet market conditions and creating local jobs to
keep dollars within the County borders. However, materials would still need to be
trancnnrtPri to markets or to an intermediate Drocessor to consolidate for shipping.
Thus, no transportation cost savings would be realized under this approach. In
addition, the County and service providers would assume all market risk.
Build an Integrated Mixed Waste/Commingled MRF
An integrated mixed waste MRF system is designed to process both commingled
single -stream recyclables and mixed waste. The mixed waste MRF system would use
many of the same components as does a commingled or single stream recovery
system. The main difference is that the integrated line would include additional
screening in the front end designed to remove the wet organics fraction from the
mixed waste stream. In a typical commingled waste stream, the amount of organics in
the waste stream is minimal or none, so including screens to remove organics is
unnecessary. However, in a mixed waste MRF, the waste streams have a significant
amount of organics (estimated to be between 25% and 35%) that must be removed in
the initial screening process to avoid contamination to fibers and containers that have
a higher market value. Figure 4-8 also shows a typical mixed waste MRF with organics
being removed immediately after the pre-sort screen.
45 This does not include additional commercial source -separated recycling tons from the
franchised haulers which could also be processed.
4-27
BALER FEED
Figure 4-8: Integrated Mixed Waste and Commingled Conceptual Process Line
Some mixed waste MRFs are designed to remove the dense fines made up of food
waste and wet mixed
organic materials
prior to the pre-sort. 9�1 /.m.......y}hc hcavv
r
-
organic fraction first, the material on the sort line is less dense, making it easier for
sorters to remove larger items such as metal, wood, or other bulky items. It also
improves the screens' ability to separate containers from paper, minimizing
contamination and improving the ability for optical equipment to read the signatures of
materials.
The industry has increased its interest in integrated mixed waste process lines to
process more materials for several reasons. First, legislation is demanding higher
recovery rates and targeting the commercial waste streams, which typically have
appreciable quantities of paper and plastics that can be recovered. Second, the
advanced mechanical and optical technology available today greatly reduces labor cost
and is more reliable for producing quality materials. Third, advanced technology
equipment increases the throughput or capacity of the system. This increased
throughput rate or capacity allows more materials to be processed. As a result, mixed
commercial and multifamily waste can be processed. There are a number of advanced
mixed wastes MRFs operating in California and several more being planned.
For this option, the County could build an integrated mixed waste MRF to process the
13,000 tons of commingled materials plus commercial and multifamily wastes. Recent
waste composition data from DEQ suggest that these waste streams contain about
25% of recyclable materials such as OCC, clean paper, plastics and metals. In
Deschutes County, about 60,000 tons of commercial and multi -family waste was
collected in 2016. This assumes that roughly half of all waste collected is from these
generators. It would result in potentially recovering approximately 15,000 tons of
4-28
aKl
recyclable materials. Considering the mixed waste MRF may recover 80% of available
materials, this would yield 12,000 tons of additional recovered materials. This is a
conservative estimate since more advanced equipment can recover a higher
percentage of these materials.
The cost of the equipment for a large mixed waste MRF processing system is estimated
to be between $12 million and $15 million (in 2018 dollars). Also, the cost of the
building is estimated to be closer to $24 million because the larger structure needed to
receive and process more materials as well as house extensive equipment needed. The
annualized debt service from an integrated mixed waste MRF would be $3.2 million.
Operating cost may range from $4 million to $5 million annually. Total annual
operating costs would average about $8 million to process 60,000 tons of commercial
waste and 13,000 tons of commingled recyclables. The total unit cost is estimated to
be about $110 per ton. This does include cost of disposal of the roughly 49,000 tons of
residues from the MRF.
Revenue from the sale of materials would vary based on market conditions. The
average market price for materials is about $50 per ton in February 2018. It should be
recognized that revenue from the sale of recyclables from mixed waste will bring lower
revenues typically than if derived from source separated materials. This does not
include cost to deliver to markets.
This option is one approach towards increasing the recovery of materials and reducing
waste disposed in landfills. However, with the cost to transport to markets and, as
Innn ac tharP is landfill cauacity in the County. it does not appear to the best use of
financial resources to build an integrated mixed waste MRF at this time. In the future,
if the County were to dispose of waste out -of -County, this option may be considered.
Explore Composting Options46
Deschutes County could generate an additional 20,000 to 30,000 tons per year of
mixed organic materials that would be delivered to a central compost facility. The
material would be generated from two sources. About 10,000 tons per year would be
comprised of the mixed organic fraction separated from residential and commercial
waste processed at an integrated mixed waste MRF if it were built. Another 20,000
tons per year would be concentrated food waste collected by the franchised haulers
from select commercial generators. The result is that 120 tons per day of mixed
organics are expected to be delivered to the compost facility.
The material delivered to the compost facility will contain a certain level of
contaminants that are not desirable for composting. To remove the primary
contaminants, it is assumed some level of pre-processing will be needed. This system
will vary depending on the characteristics of the materials being delivered. For the
purpose of developing a conceptual plan and cost estimate, the pre-processing system
will include the following:
46 The Department of Solid Waste should align with the City of Bend wastewater treatment
plant/brewery waste conversation underway now, including anaerobic digestion of the brewery
spent grains with sewer waste.
4-29
Chapter a
1. In -feed conveyor
2. Presort station (manual sorting) to remove larger plastics, metal and other
larger items
3. A screen or trommel to screen fines (2" to 4") from large items; mostly plastics
and larger fiber
The larger items removed are expected to be landfilled but would most likely contain
high BTU byproducts that could have energy value, which may be diverted if a waste -
to -energy facility (WTEF) is available.
It is expected that organic materials delivered from the integrated mixed waste MRF
will be largely glass -free as the system is assumed to have a state of the art glass
recovery system. However, if glass is contained in food waste collected from the
commercial routes, the compost product will need further processing to remove glass
in order to meet market specifications.
A key element of the County's total recycling program is processing wood waste, yard
debris and food waste at Knott Landfill. In 2016, about 30,000 tons of organic
materials were composted. The compost facility processes incoming materials by
grinding and screening the materials before placing them in windrows. The windrows
are aerated and turned as needed to promote the composting process. Once the
materials are composted, they are set out to cure and be screened to make different
ground cover and soil amendment products.
cnmc of i-hn rnllcr*inn nrnnramc to inrronca rorvriinn Fire intPnfiP(� to rnllprt mnrP
. _. i is v. � _ a. .. t.v.. V. v7...... w — ... - --I _....' ... .. ..._..-.--' -- --••--- ... _. _
food waste and additional yard debris. If the amount of material continues to grow, it
may be necessary to use a more advanced compost system. These technologies are
designed to greatly reduce the time to complete composting and, perhaps more
importantly, control potential odors generated by the composting process.
Aerated Static Piles System (AEP)
This approach uses blowers and piping to move air through the piles to perform the
primary composting step. For some systems, this step is estimated to take about 18 to
22 days. The cost of some aerated static pile systems is higher because they use
stainless steel ducting and pipes and there are larger motors capable of moving air in
both the positive and negative direction. The material is removed and placed in
secondary aerated static piles to complete the compost process for another 22 days.
Although the system can include a bio filter, the aerated static piles in the primary
phase are not fully enclosed.
Deschutes Recycling currently uses an aerated static pile system at the Knott Landfill
compost facility. Processing time from placement in the aerated piles to moving to
curing piles is approximately six weeks. The system in use was relatively lower in cost
than many systems as it uses high density polyethylene and PVC pipe and readily
available low-cost blowers.
4-30
Chapter
In Vessel with Aerated Static Pile
This approach uses a stationary fully enclosed vessel system for the primary
composting operation. Materials are loaded into the vessel, which provides an air and
temperature control system to compost materials for 18 days. Once completed, the
material is moved to a secondary aerated static pile bunker system to finish out the
compost process for 22 days. The system is used particularly in sites in close proximity
to neighbors as it is designed to better manage potential odors if located properly. It
includes bio-filter to treat the exhaust air.
Both systems can be constructed on a 5-acre site assuming the site is relatively flat
and rectangular in shape, with about 2 acres for stockpiling compost product for
distribution. If the material has ready markets, then this area can be reduced. The
cost to operate the compost systems as described is estimated to be $17 to $25 per
ton. This does not include costs to build the systems, which range from $5 million for
the aerated static pile system to as much as $8 million for an in -vessel system. These
costs are based on systems designed to process 35,000 to 40,000 tons per year.
There may be other options that may be considered, depending on the types of
material received and the size of the site.
Table 4-8 presents the Collection and Recycling/Processing Needs and Alternatives
Summary.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
4-31
El
x
l Jyl3FA
aFA
�++,�
�212�
MEMO
C
FC
r�
Y N
moch
P
_g
m
El
M,
E o
L
O�
L
c �
v v
E
� T
oV
o �
C L
O -O
+d C
m
C N
E O
o v
N 40
UO
C
u
a� v
c
m ai
V] V
N L
(A 0
to O
w N
L O
N to
� � C
dm
3 m
y u
�:3�
y .O o
4w (U v
�► L (n
o
4) 41Ln
a
d +c v
to
LOC
rn
aU
a� c
tOn a (U
O L
N >
O
L t U
L L
C ro
v
4)+'w
a
a o
m Om o
( Q-0 E
Mn� rnu
io r+
c
Q
M
M
El
ai
v 3: {�
o a
O N
yLE
y
M11 ,$ o t7 v+
3 , w- C o
41 -0 yOj °c
C >
a
m rn
o v O
c O fo
oIv E E
C 7 N
Z E c V �
V O ++ O
O o Y +�
�cuvi i* o
O
u
C v (Ua
y
C Q) v = O �
�
Zi , ao
v o
�• CL L > to
�O0E C 0 3
u�aE)v cr
O to C y C
4+ oQJ0u0
O c L. 0 rnv v
O ° O CO C O c
,+ ,i 4+
uV
7 c R y O C N
aE E y fo a�
4wO
yI u a a.t
uo,Eam3oc
N c a C W d' M
C : O N �O U
uY �' H to kv
C N mt th N~�'
tn
U O E 41 di m
�+w rn+Q+50�`a3i
O i oL C L y c
Oa�"a'�Ov
N aj im C c
C>E>
(U
61 O f6 .0
C w v
I�thi- cLnf-Li.a
N M vi
v
v v= Ow
tn
m u u
C u N t N O
O u•
N L
sEOE
m c um O
�vof�++
.N C
cnEc
cm fa N
C E
w -0a o
C
u yU
*'
.0 ,,
.� tf C y
'—°�E
>, v
vvcm
E
4-L
0
W
M o 0
L O
0 L- c c X
mc
'a U 41 � =
v ,.,
v Wr
CM (U
fOCai++
i-
occf60U
"o�
of�,O
C�°c,�v
orna�'i
++ a
:m W t
°CxivfL°uc
L
ufOuE
a°tu
$cu o v v,.
vas
o
Ec`L°�
v
v
O,�ool,c
Cvi t°i,
EYE
_ al-
L_
3 c o >.O1 a
0— O C y
„ L
ja
N�
u 0—y
( cn v
+L+ _
U_
u C C
O m U O
C w C) +' � L
O T C
O B � v
U O '- O
Etc c
E fo `n''
C
E'u
L-
° 0 m
I-c
-
O
106 c U c
'n O
'aa In CO M U u •U
to
fC6 C O
_
L
in a�i o o
3 cs � L- c
Q
0 Zn
mO •-
tan
�i
,°.+ ` 4�
En
+.axivc'cv,
LV)co
vvCvU
NT
O i
cc
u O y
a.—>
> N
o
4j U o u
E c•= m co
f`no c
to „
v C j rn
�
v d CU cl �
L O C
U 01
C L
°1 O
o E`�' 0.` v
(n C n C Zn
c u ai
O L
i0 •` i
f0 w O u y, L
U C)
°uo>
E��o
�w
WC(n �o
ro
m
c c u
r>o+�o v o
c@ 34, `j''n
,.-w-+ E
10 v v
fa v
rn
v
>= L w
3 o C N y
C.0 N
u
>� gfoEO
> Ea-
-o (U 0
L C4mj
O OP > �
E
E41
v a'.f., (n
to O v
v p,, C
+-' c v L v
> Cz
.c
41 CL fo �, v
o
o .,� ,+
c v LA
E=o f
CU
F° �� aoi E
41
O C c
a� m o
t! 41 v f.+••'o
fa @> i
I p y
v U y
f! = d
v f0 o
v3cv
~
�,.,,., o
a)
s
CEL
vi
U N W
~
d aj v C Y M
Q .-
f0 =
W o w_
` j CJ
++ o C C
'-' �'o
0)0
N - v� fo O
y
U
��±
�J C) O 0)y
d
F-
O C u v,
rn v
W 41
d O � t,
L ,,
_T .c C C ,.+ s
,, O O�
y in O
N H O
i+ O C
Cy O v
'n
'm+,
d v L
J+ L c, C O O
41
C
L.O U 41
U m
u E'm
C E
`o _c.- cn
d E C°
c
y O O
++
•L C '�0-,-,
O o fn >
U O C E
O O N X O ,., c
i U L v U of v
y !� o N
J ->
�-1
N
A
Chapter 4
4.4 Recommendations for Collection and
Recycling/Processing
The purpose of the Collection and Recycling/Processing evaluation is to examine the
alternatives to increase the recovery rate and reduce waste disposed in landfills,
consistent with the guiding principles identified in this SWMP. Based on the discussion
presented and the assessment of the needs and opportunities, the following represent
recommendations for meeting the goals of the Deschutes County solid waste
management system. Notably, the recommendations presented in Chapter 3-Waste
Prevention, Reduction, Reuse and Recycling should be reviewed to ensure they are
complimentary and consistent with the overall strategy to meet the goals of the
SWMP.
These actions will not only have short term impacts but will fit into long term
strategies to manage waste effectively by reducing what would be transported to a
new landfill located further from where waste is generated.
All seven (7) recommendations below:
• Are consistent with State hierarchical priorities and goals to reduce waste
disposed in landfills;
• Seek to attain highest use of resources to convert organics to soil amendment
and enrichment;
an
d
• Require minimal investment to reduce waste disposed at Knott Landfill and
attain long term stability in managing waste versus transport to more distant
landfill;
• Minimizes the reliance on markets outside geographical area; and,
• Are flexible to expand or contract with minimal impacts to system
Recommendation 4.1: Expand the current residential collection of vegetative food
waste with yard waste to increase participation.
Rationale - Establishing a consistent collection program in cities and
urbanized unincorporated areas of the County will allow consistent program
communication, give the County the ability to evaluate rate incentives to
encourage participation and implement promotion and education programs to
support the collection system.
This recommendation can provide immediate benefits to reduce waste disposed
at Knott Landfill. Targeting food waste collection represents an expansion of
existing programs and the existing compost facility can manage these
additional materials at least in the short term. At the same time, a long-term
strategy to implement a more aggressive sustainable compost system is
needed. The results will have immediate impacts on the County's recovery rate.
Recommendation 4.2: Conduct an assessment of markets for products made from
4-35
l W
Chapter
a
compost resulting from expanded organics programs.
Rationale - The study should confirm opportunities to market various soil
amendment products that will result from expanding food and yard waste
collection programs. The study can include other byproducts resulting from co -
composting mixed waste organics with sludge from the City's Wastewater
Treatment Plant and/or waste from breweries.
Recommendation 4.3: Evaluate the alternatives to enhance and expand
composting facilities. The study should evaluate the most optimal location considering
proximity to generators, markets and surrounding land uses.
Rationale - The current compost facility at Knott landfill has limited space to
expand. Relocating and expanding the current compost operations is a long-
term strategy to implement a more aggressive sustainable organics
management system.
Recommendation 4.4: Upgrade organics processing capacity and technology to
efficiently handle additional yard waste/food waste, including meats and dairy, from
residential and commercial sources and other organic waste streams.
Rationale - Assuming permits are secured to process and compost meats and
dairy waste, the composting facility can be upgraded and the organics
collection program can he cvnnnrlcrl
Recommendation 4.5: Develop a business recycling and food waste collection
program targeting businesses, hotels and resort communities.
Rationale - The significant tourism industry in Deschutes County makes it
necessary to focus on hotel and tourist destinations to meet recycling goals.
Tourists outnumber residents in the County every month of the year. There are
a variety of programs that can be explored including the tie-in with any new
food waste program since restaurants serve visitors extensively. In addition,
targeted business outreach to hotels and destinations for business technical
assistance and recognition can be included with a general commercial technical
assistance program.
Recommendation 4.6: Develop a multifamily recycling and food waste collection
program.
Rationale - More infill and multifamily dwelling units are being built to
accommodate growth in the County and DEQ is requiring that all tenants have
recycling services by 2022. Developing a focused education/promotion program
in conjunction with enhanced methods to provide convenient services could
contribute to achieving the County's recovery rate.
4-36
Recommendation 4.7: Evaluate and develop a plan to provide incentives for
recycling of C/D material and alternatives to recycle materials from the C/D stream
and minimize disposal of C/D wastes at Knott Landfill.
Rationale - After assessing quantity and composition of C/D accepted at
Knott Landfill, the County should consider alternatives to incentivize generators
to reduce and reuse C/D materials. Currently, the only alternative for managing
C/D waste is disposal at Knott Landfill. It is estimated that perhaps as much as
30% or more of what is disposed at Knott Landfill is classified as C/D waste.
Although the cost to dispose C/D waste at Knott Landfill provides some
incentive for generators to separate wood and inert waste, it is noted that an
appreciable amount of C/D waste is being disposed at the landfill.
Implementing a comprehensive C/D reuse, recycle and recovery program would
reduce waste disposed at Knott Landfill in the short term, which will preserve
space for disposal of MSW.
Recommendation 4.8: The County should complete a waste characterization study
to better evaluate options for recovering targeted materials and for designing the
programs and facilities needed.
Rationale - The assessment and evaluation of options in the SWMP are based
on statewide waste characterization data. This data is typical of other
jurisdictions and represents a reasonable estimate of potential impacts form
implementing the recommended programs. However, information obtained in
preparing the SWMP also suggests there are the unique characteristics of the
demographics of Deschutes County where such a study will provide needed
information to help prioritize and develop the most cost effective programs for
meeting the County's goals.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
4-37
S. TRANSFER SYSTEM
Over the past 25 years, Deschutes County has developed a system of facilities to
receive waste and recyclable materials delivered by self -haul public and contractors
throughout the County. The system provides convenient locations to serve more
remote areas of the County. This chapter describes the existing conditions and
considers what changes are needed to address long term needs of the system.
SA Existing Conditions
The transfer station system is a key component of providing convenient service to all
areas of the County. There are five transfer stations, four of which are remote to Knott
Landfill, that receive and transfer solid waste, recyclables, wood waste, and yard
debris from different areas within the County. The four remote stations are as follows:
1. Negus Transfer Station —Serves the City of Redmond, Eagle Crest and other
unincorporated areas in the north region of the County.
2. Southwest Transfer Station —Serves the City of La Pine, Sunriver Resort, and
other unincorporated areas in the southwest region of the County.
3. Northwest Transfer Station —Serves the City of Sisters, Black Butte Ranch, and
other unincorporated areas in the northwest region of the County.
4. Alfalfa Transfer Station —Serves the eastern areas of the County.
These four transfer stations were all built adjacent to closed landfills and have been in
operation for about 25 years. At present, all of the transfer stations are operated by
County personnel except for the Negus Transfer Station, which is operated by a
private contractor under contract with the County. At that facility, the County staffs
fee collection operations in the gatehouse.
The 5"' transfer station, the Knott Transfer Station, was placed into operation in 2007
as part of the North Area Development and is adjacent to the active Knott Landfill.
This station only receives self -haul public and contractor vehicles. The waste is
reloaded into transfer trailers and hauled to Knott Landfill for disposal. Franchised
vehicles and large contractor vehicles go directly to the Landfill.
Figure 5-1 illustrates the location of each remote transfer station and their distances
from Knott Landfill. The County contracts with a private contractor, Deschutes
Transfer, for the hauling of all solid waste and certain recyclables from the remote
transfer stations. At present, all solid waste from the four remote stations is
transferred to Knott Landfill for disposal. Commingled recyclables, corrugated
cardboard, and glass collected at the remote transfer stations are hauled to Mid -
Oregon Recycling in Bend by Deschutes Transfer for reloading and transfer to recycling
facilities outside Deschutes County. Appliances collected at the remote facilities are
hauled to the Knott Landfill Recycling Center by Deschutes Transfer for processing and
transfer to scrap metal recyclers. Scrap metal collected at the remote transfer stations
is hauled by Deschutes Transfer directly to Schnitzer Steel in Bend.
5-1
Motor oil, wood waste, yard debris, automobile batteries, electronics and tires
collected at the remote transfer stations are hauled off site for recycling by other
recyclers under contract with Deschutes County.
When Knott Landfill closes around 2029, solid waste collected at the remote transfer
stations will have to be transferred to a new disposal site.
Negus
Sisters
25 miles Station
Northwest to landfill
Station
Redmond
22 miles
to landfill
97 nTiles Alfalfa
Bend Lr
� to landfill Station
Knott
Landfill
30 miles
to landfill
Southwest
Station
Figure 5-1: Transfer Stations and Distances from Knott Landfill
5.2 Transfer Station Operation Approach
For the most part, the design and operation of the four remote transfer stations is
similar. Customers arrive at the gatehouse where the attendant determines the fees
based on the volume of waste being disposed. Vehicles are directed to unload at a stall
where the customer then unloads over a barrier into a bin or trailer that is parked
below at a separate grade.
For recyclables, the attendant assesses fees if required (appliances, tires, wood waste
and yard debris) and directs the customer to the appropriate area for unloading.
In general, the four remote transfer stations, which have been in operation for
approximately 25 years, are in need of miscellaneous repairs and updating to handle
5-2
Chapter 5
increased customer traffic and waste flows; however, they continue to provide the
service required. All the operations are performed outside with no weather protection
except for some structures which provide cover for some recyclables. Figure 5-2
illustrates the "Z-wall" type of construction which provides the required elevation
break necessary for loading transfer trailers by franchised and self -haul vehicles.
Figure 5-2: Typical "Z-wall" Construction
It is reasonable to say that this type of construction is not the standard for design and
construction of new transfer stations in 2019. Concerns over safety for personnel and
the public, weather protection and separation of wastes, have resulted in the type of
transfer station using a flat floor for vehicles to unload onto. In 2007, the Knott
Transfer Station was constructed using the flat floor design and operates in a fully
enclosed structure. At the Knott Transfer Station, wastes delivered from self -haul
vehicles are unloaded onto the tipping floor and then moved by a rubber -tired loader
to the top -load area for placement into a transfer trailer. This same approach will also
be utilized in the future when the franchised vehicles come to a transfer station to
unload. Table 5-1 provides some detail about the County's transfer station operations,
including locations, and hours of operation, based on a tour of the stations done in late
2017.
5-3
Table 5-1: Deschutes County Transfer Station Operations
Transfer
and
Recycling
Facilities
Knott
Transfer
Station
Negus Transfer
Station
NW
Transfer
Station
SW
Transfer
Station
Alfalfa
Transfer
Station
Transfer
County
Joint
County
County
County
Operations
Operated
County/Contract
Operated
Operated
Operated
Operations
(County staff
collect fees.
Deschutes
Transfer staff
conduct all other
on -site
operations)
Hours of
Winter: Mon-
Mon -Sat, 8-4
Wed -Sat,
Wed -Sat,
Sat, 8-4
Operation
Sat, 7-4:30
8-4
8-4
Summer: 7
days/week, 7-
5
5.3 Waste and Vehicle Volumes to Each Transfer Station
As mentioned in Chapter 2, the amount of waste disposed at Knott Landfill has
increased by 22% over the past three years. This increase in customer traffic and
waste volumes is evident at each of the transfer stations. Table 5-2 shows the annual
weights of wastes managed at the transfer stations and the percentage increase over
the past three years.
Table 5-2: Waste Volumes at Transfer Stations
Transfer Station
2015
2016
2017
%Change
Tons
Tons
Tons
Negus
28,502
31,309
34,948
23%
Northwest
3,429
3,738
3,630
6%
Southwest
8,203
9,193
9,788
19%
Alfalfa
165
170
184
12%
Subtotal Remote Transfer Stations
40,299
44,410
48,550
20%
Knott Transfer Station
28,501
31,509
45,020
58%
Total Transfer
168,800
75,919
93,570
36%
As important as the increase in waste volume received at each transfer station is the
number of customers using these facilities. Table 5-3 shows vehicle traffic at the
5-4
Knott, Negus and Southwest Transfer Stations for 2015-2017. Traffic data for the
Northwest and Alfalfa Transfer Stations are not provided because the volumes are
significantly lower than the other three transfer stations. Northwest Transfer Station
receives several loads weekly from High Country Disposal, the franchised service
provider in Sisters. Most of the waste collected in Sisters by High Country Disposal is
hauled to the Negus Transfer Station for reloading and transfer to Knott Landfill.
Table 5-3: Vehicle Traffic at Transfer Stations
Transfer Station
Vehicle Type
2015
2016
2017
% Change
Negus
Franchised
Self -haul
2,264
29,937
2,542
34,547
3,367
38,701
49%
29%
Total
32,201 37,089 42,068
31%
Southwest
Franchised
Self -haul
1,271
13,583
1,323
15,334
1,392
16,901
100/0
24%
Total
14,854 16,657 18,293
23%
Knott
Franchised
Self -haul
0
87,870
0
97,084
0
110,991
26%
Total
187,870 97,084 110,991
26%
These increases have had a significant impact on both Negus and Southwest Transfer
Stations. The additional traffic requires more space for queueing vehicles, as well as
additional stalls for customers to unload. These facilities will need some upgrades in
the near future because they were not built for these traffic or waste volumes. The
Knott Transfer Station can handle the increases. Volume increases have been low at
the Northwest and Alfalfa Stations and no upgrades appear necessary in immediate
future.
5.4 Recycling at Transfer Stations
All recyclables are received and collected separately at the remote transfer stations. As
discussed in Section 5.1, Deschutes County contracts with Deschutes Transfer for the
hauling of recyclables collected at the remote transfer stations. Commingled
recyclables, corrugated cardboard, and glass collected at the remote transfer stations
are hauled to Mid -Oregon Recycling in Bend for reloading and transfer to recycling
facilities outside Deschutes County. Appliances collected at the remote facilities are
hauled to the Knott Recycling Center for processing and transfer to scrap metal
recyclers. Scrap metal collected at the remote transfer stations is hauled to Schnitzer
Steel in Bend by Deschutes Transfer.
Motor oil, wood waste, yard debris, automobile batteries, electronics (TVs, computers,
monitors, printers) and tires are hauled off site by other recyclers under contract with
Deschutes County.
5-5
Chapter 5
Table 5-4 provides the number of vehicles delivering recyclables only to the Negus and
Southwest Transfer Stations over the past several years. Data on the Northwest and
Alfalfa Transfer Stations are not included because of very low volumes.
Table 5-4: Recycle Only Vehicle Count at Transfer Stations
Transfer Station 2015 2016 2017 2018
Negus TS 10,766 8,969 10,813 3,687*
Southwest TS 4,884 1,038*
*Data was not collected through the entire year
The recyclables services provided at each transfer station are discussed in Chapter 3
and detailed in Figure 5-3.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
5-6
Figure 5-3: What Can You Recycle
5-7
OW,
Chapter 5
Figure 5-4 shows the sign at the Negus Transfer Station, which provides information
on materials acceptable for commingled recycling. The materials are temporarily
stored under cover until they are transferred to Mid -Oregon Recycling.
Finure 5-4- Tranch-w Station Comminaled Recvclina Sian
Table 5-5: Tons of Recycled Material Collected in 2016
Alfalfa
Knott
Negus
Northwest
Southwest
Total
Appliances
166
27
74
267
Batteries
7
2
4
14
Cardboard
114
24
63
201
Commingled
20
122
37
94
273
Electronics
100
100
Glass
8
78
27
45
158
Hazardous Waste
264
264
Motor Oil
23
2
11
37
Scrap Metal
9
4
230
71
138
451
Propane Tanks
0.84
0.84
Tires
0.06
43
4
14
61.06
Totals
37
269
883
193
443
1,826
5-8
These transfer stations provide a convenient location for the public to drop off
recyclables, however, the amount of materials received and transferred was less than
2,000 tons in 2016.
5.5 Negus Transfer Station
Negus Transfer Station has been operating for over 25 years and serves the
northeastern region of the County and the City of Redmond. The City and the area in
whole has experienced significant growth over the last 10 years. As shown in Table
5-3, the number of vehicles using the facility has increased by 31%. Also, the
franchised hauler serving the City of Sisters has been hauling wastes directly to Negus,
further increasing the quantity of waste managed through this facility. In 2017, the
facility transferred 35,000 tons of waste to Knott Landfill, which is an increase of 23%
since 2015. The growth is such that the transfer station needs upgrading to efficiently
manage the vehicle volumes and properly receive and transfer the waste delivered to
the facility. Additionally, the age of the facility, coupled with the increases in traffic
and tonnage have taken a toll on some of the facility infrastructure, necessitating
some interim repairs.
Figure 5-5: Negus Transfer Station
The figure above shows the customers unloading into transfer trailers. The following
pictures show the safety features to separate customers from the load out bays.
5-9
MM.
Figure 5-6: Negus Transfer Station Safety Features
5.5.1 Facility Needs
As Negus Transfer Station has undergone some improvements over the years, based
on current waste volumes and expected growth, the County will need to implement
further improvements to maintain a safe and efficient level of service. The following is
a preliminary assessment of needs:
a. Possible expansion of the recycling center, including improved separation from
the waste receiving area.
b. Separation of commercial vehicle traffic from the seif-haul vehicles including
separate unloading areas.
c. Covered or enclosed areas for vehicle receiving and unloading.
d. Improvements to facilitate inbound and outbound scales and a scale house.
e. Areas on site for receiving and storing food waste, C/D wastes, yard debris, and
wood waste.
It is important to note that any upgrades must be done with no or minimal interruption
to existing operations. The County should consider developing a facility plan to address
the immediate needs as well as how this facility will operate in the future when the
Knott Landfill is closed. These recommended upgrades to Negus Transfer Station
should be done as soon as possible after adoption of this SWMP.
5.6 Southwest Transfer Station
This transfer station, like the other remote transfer stations, has been in operation for
over 25 years and services an area of the County which has experienced significant
growth over the last few years. In fact, the growth in waste and vehicle volumes is up
over 10% for franchised haulers and over 20% for self -haul vehicles. Southwest
Transfer Station needs to be upgraded to properly serve the southwest region of the
County for the next 25 years, and this upgrade should be done within the next 5+
years. The upgrade should have the same features as discussed for the Negus Transfer
Station:
5-10
--
Chapter 5
a. Possible expansion of the recycling center, including improved separation from
the waste receiving area.
b. Separation of commercial vehicle traffic from the self -haul vehicles including
separate unloading areas.
c. Covered or enclosed areas for vehicle receiving and unloading.
d. Improvements to facilitate inbound and outbound scales and a scale house.
e. Areas on site for receiving and storing food waste, C/D wastes, yard debris, and
wood waste.
As with Negus Transfer Station, all upgrades must be done with no or minimal
interruption of the existing operations.
Before the upgrade is done, it is noted that this transfer station is only open for public
operations for 4 days per week. The County may consider opening this facility six days
per week, similar to Negus Transfer Station. This may redistribute some of the traffic
and tonnage to reduce congestion loading experienced under the current operating
schedule.
Figure 5-7: Southwest Transfer Station
S.7 Northwest and Alfalfa Transfer Stations
These two transfer stations have been operating for well over 25 years and have
experienced minimum growth over the last several years. More growth at the
Northwest Transfer Station would have been seen if the franchised hauler for the City
of Sisters was taking more of the collected wastes to this facility rather than directly to
Negus Transfer Station. Northwest Transfer Station is constructed with a Z-wall
system like the County's other remote transfer stations and uses transfer trailers for
receipt and transfer of waste. Alfalfa Transfer Station has a 2 bay Z-wall and uses
drop -boxes to receive and transfer waste.
The County may consider if these transfer stations need to continue to be in operation
as part of the long-term system. However, because they have been operating for
many years and are established in their respective areas, there could be significant
objection from the citizens in each area if closure were to be considered. This is a
concern and could result in some illegal dumping in the future. If these stations remain
part of the long-term system, there may be some safety improvements needed.
5-11
Chapter e.<
Figure 5-8: Northwest Transfer Station
5.8 Knott Transfer Station
The Knott Transfer Station began operation in 2007 and since opening, has only
managed self -haul waste. The transfer station is a 30,000 sq. ft. totally enclosed
building with two top loading trailer bays. The design of the transfer station provides
some flexibility to secure waste from franchised collection trucks as well as self -haul
vehicles. Based on current operations, this transfer station will satisfy the needs of the
County at least until the Knott Landfill closes. Assuming the Knott Landfill closes in
2029, there are some different options for the use of this facility.
Figure 5-9: Knott Landfill Recycling and Transfer Station
5-12
5.8.1 Disposal at a New In -County Landfill
In the case where a new landfill is sited in the County, the function of the Knott
Transfer Station may change, depending on the final location of the new landfill. The
operation could include the following:
a. All self -haul vehicles would continue to deliver waste to the Knott Transfer
Station.
b. All franchised collection vehicles servicing the Bend area would deliver waste to
the Knott Transfer Station. Waste delivered by the franchised haulers would
then be reloaded into transfer trailers and hauled to the new landfill if the
landfill is more than 10 miles from the transfer station. If the new in -County
landfill is closer than 10 miles from the transfer station, it is feasible that the
franchised collection vehicles could haul directly to the new landfill.
c. Transfer trailers from the remote transfer stations could haul directly to the
new landfill unless volumes are minimal and need to be reloaded at the Knott
Transfer Station to be more efficient.
d. Most recyclables from the remote transfer stations would still be hauled to Mid -
Oregon Recycling or the Recycling Center at Knott Landfill.
5.8.? Dicpecal at an Out -of -County Landfill
The other option that will impact future waste collection and transfer operations in
Deschutes County is the disposal of the County's waste at a landfill located outside the
County. To ensure waste is transported most efficiently, waste will be reloaded into
larger trailers for transportation to the disposal site. This may require additional
modifications to the Knott Transfer Station to receive and transport waste. These
changes may include the following:
a. Self -haul vehicles would continue to deliver waste to the Knott Transfer Station.
b. Franchised vehicles servicing the Bend area would deliver waste to the Knott
Transfer Station.
c. Waste from Negus and/or Southwest Transfer Stations may be hauled directly
to an out -of -County landfill. This assumes that some load densification, as is
currently done at the Negus Transfer Station, would be performed at the
facilities to maximize payload efficiency.
d. Waste from Northwest and Alfalfa Transfer Stations may be hauled to the Knott
Transfer Station for reloading.
e. Most recyclables from the remote transfer stations would still be hauled to Mid -
Oregon Recycling or the Recycling Center at Knott Landfill.
In addition to the above, it may be cost effective to install a compactor at the Knott
Transfer Station to achieve maximum payloads in trailers for the long haul to the out -
of -County landfill.
5-13
Chapter-5
5.8.3 Other Operation Related Requirements
For either landfill alternative, there are some operational considerations, building
revisions, and possible equipment additions which would be required if the franchised
vehicles were to deliver waste to the Knott Transfer Station. Examples are:
a. How to properly manage the tipping floor when both the franchised and self -
haul vehicles are entering and unloading in the same building.
b. Addition of some lighting to make it easier for vehicles coming directly in or
backing in for safety purposes.
c. Addition of a compactor to maximize the payload going into the transfer
trailers. In Oregon, the gross vehicle weight for highway vehicles is up to
105,000 pounds, so transfer trailers can be loaded with up to 30-35 tons of
waste. Maximizing payload reduces transfer costs by making the transfer haul
as efficient as possible.
d. Possible modifications or additions to the transfer station's structure to increase
capacity.
5.8.4 Collection Considerations for Specific Wastes
As the County considers other options as part of this SWMP, there is a possibility that
some types of waste could be collected separately and segregated at the County's
transfer stations for further processing. Food waste, C/D waste, yard debris and wood
waste are examples of wastes that could be utilized for future use and/or processing.
In the case of the C/D waste, which can be disposed in an unlined landfill, the vviunies
generated in Deschutes County have become so large that they are reducing the life of
the Knott Landfill. C/D waste could be disposed in an unlined landfill that does not
require large capital investments in liners and landfill gas control systems. For the
other identified wastes, there are conversion technologies which can be considered and
have proven to be successful such as composting and anaerobic digestion (A/D) to
produce fuels and/or electricity.
Therefore, consideration should be given to each transfer station site for space to
receive and segregate these wastes as the facilities are being planned for upgrading.
5.9 Needs and Opportunities
As discussed in the Existing Conditions section, the County's remote transfer stations
have been in operation for over 25 years. These facilities have been a key component
for providing cost effective services to citizens and businesses throughout the County.
However, the two primary remote transfer stations, Negus and Southwest Transfer
Stations, have both experienced significant increases in traffic and waste volumes. The
assessment of these facilities indicates that improvements are needed. The level of
improvements at each station requires a much deeper evaluation to determine the
investments needed to address immediate operations and establish the investments
for the future system.
5-14
Chapter 5
5.10 Recommendations
Preparing a new site development master plan for both the Negus and Southwest
Transfer Stations will allow the County to better plan for the capital investments
required at each station to continue to provide convenient and cost-effective services.
The following are recommendations for addressing the needs to upgrade and expand
the remote transfer stations.
Recommendation 5.1: Develop a facility plan for the Negus Transfer Station in 2019
for making improvements to the facility by 2021 or as needed.
Rational — Negus Transfer Station is a key facility for providing convenient
and cost-effective services to the City of Redmond and northern portions of the
unincorporated County. In keeping with the goals of the SWMP, improvements
are needed to:
1. Receive and transport waste and recyclables more efficiently;
2. Provide convenient and accessible recycling services;
3. Provide flexibility for managing different waste streams;
4. Enhance safety for customers and workers; and,
5. Allow the County to plan for timely capital improvements to
maintain long term rate stability.
Recommendation 5.2: Develop a facility plan for the Southwest Station within the
next three years. Modifications to the facility can be made as the demand for enhanced
services for managing increased waste volumes and traffic is required.
Rational - Southwest Transfer Station is a key facility for providing
convenient and cost-effective services to the City of La Pine, the community of
Sunriver and southern portion of the unincorporated County. In keeping with
the goals of the SWMP, improvements are needed to:
1. Receive and transport waste and recyclables more efficiently;
2. Provide convenient and accessible recycling services;
3. Provide flexibility for managing different waste streams;
4. Enhance safety for customers and workers; and,
5. Allow the County to plan for timely capital improvements to
maintain long term rate stability.
Recommendation 5.3: Develop a facility plan for the Knott Transfer Station as
necessary to address long-term disposal options, or within five years of closure of Knott
Landfill.
Rational - Knott Transfer Station is a primary facility for providing long term
services for the entire County. Much of the infrastructure needed for managing
waste over the long term is in place. The facility was designed to be expanded.
5-15
Chapter 5
How this facility fits into providing long term transfer services will depend on
the location(s) of future disposal and/or processing facilities. A facility plan
should be prepared to determine what improvements/modifications might be
required to manage waste after the Knott Landfill closes. This plan should be
implemented in time to be operational when Knott Landfill is closed. In keeping
with the goals of the SWMP, improvements are needed to:
1. Receive and transport waste more efficiently;
2. Provide flexibility for managing different waste streams;
3. Enhance safety for customers and workers; and,
4. Allow the County to plan for timely capital improvements to
maintain long term rate stability.
Recommendation SA: Establish a capital improvement program for making
investments in transfer station modifications over the next 10 years.
Rational — The County has established a capital improvement fund within the
DSW enterprise fund. It will be important for long term financial planning and
maintaining rate stability to identify and schedule the necessary capital
improvements needed at transfer stations for the next 10 years.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
5-16
Chapter ,G.
6. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
6.1 Background and Existing Conditions
6.1.1 Introduction
Since the passage of the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act in 1976,
nationwide, there has been an ongoing effort to recover commodities such as paper,
cardboard, plastic and glass containers. The options to prevent waste being generated
and to expand reuse and recycling programs and services to reduce waste disposed in
landfills have been presented in Chapters 3 and 4.
There has also been a persistent pursuit to develop alternative technologies that can
recover energy value contained in the remaining waste stream for conversion into a
renewable energy source. Alternative technologies include proven systems like mass
burning similar to Marion County's Energy from Waste Facility (EfWF) and emerging
technologies used to extract the energy from the waste stream.
For the past 47 years, Knott Landfill has served as primary disposal site for all solid
waste generated in Deschutes County. Based on current and projected quantities of
waste disposed, Knott Landfill is expected to reach capacity and cease operations by
2029 or in 10 years. In keeping with the State's waste management priorities, this
rhantar des — - - --..._- - --- - - -.
waste disposed in landfills. These technologies target the value of managing waste
that cannot be recycled and to extract energy value and/or convert it to a renewable
energy resource.
6.1.2 Existing Landfill Disposal
Knott Landfill is the only landfill in Deschutes County and is anticipated to close in
2029. It accepts both MSW as well as C/D waste as discussed in previous Chapters.
The amount of waste received at Knott Landfill in recent years is shown in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1: Deschutes County Tonnage to Disposal Operations47
Year) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Annual
Waste 114,307 112,751 113,611 119,682 130,956 144,067 161,087 182,095
Disposed
Change
(1.4%) 0.9% 5.4% 9.4% 10.0% 11.8% 13.0%
47 Source: 2017 Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report
6-1
e ,y
The amount of waste disposed at Knott Landfill in 2017 was 181,000 tons, or an
increase of 39 percent over the last three years. The growth in the amount of waste
disposed can be attributed to several factors including population growth, increase in
construction and overall improvement in the economy. Although Deschutes County
continues to experience slightly higher population growth than the rest of Oregon, this
increase in waste disposed is not expected to continue at this rate. To this point, the
waste disposed through July 2018 is about the same amount as what was reported in
2017. Therefore, the waste projections to be used for planning purposes assumes
waste generation will increase at a rate commensurate with the growth in population
in Deschutes County.
By 2040, the amount of waste generated is estimated to grow to 336,000 tons. How
much is disposed will be determined by how much can be recycled and/or converted to
other resources. In Chapters 3 and 4, the SWMP identifies new programs and services
that can reduce the volume of waste disposed over the next 10 to 12 years which may
result in extending the site life Knott Landfill. However, even if the County achieves its
diversion goals by 2025 it may extend the site life of the Knott Landfill by one or two
years. Extending the site life by reducing the amount disposed is desirable and can
provide additional time to implement alternatives.
Cost of Landfill Disposal
The County has operated Knott Landfill for more than 45 years. In 1996, Cell 1, the
first Subtitle D compliant lined cell was completed at Knott Landfill and MSW landfilling
operations were moved to Cell 1 at that time. Non-MSW disposal operations continued
in the unlined red area at Knott Landfill fhrni inh .)nn%t The new relic r�nctri irterl from
1996 forward include bottom primary and secondary liners and a leachate collection
and recirculation system. A landfill gas collection and monitoring system was installed
in 2001. The landfill gas collection system is expanded on a regular basis as waste
disposal operations proceed.
When the landfill was converted to a Subtitle D compliant facility, the County
established a closure and post closure fund as required by the State. This fund will
ensure adequate funds are dedicated to properly close all active landfill areas and pay
the expenses for monitoring the site for 30 years after closure or until the time the
landfill is deemed stable.
The cost to operate Knott Landfill is $35 of the $55 per ton tip fee charged by the
County; the other $20 of the tip fee funds recycling, public education and other
programs administered by DSW. In 2016 the Department's total cost to operate Knott
Landfill was $5,962,000. The breakdown of the different expense categories associated
with operating the landfill is shown in Table 6-2.
6-2
Table 6-2: Knott Landfill Expenses 2016
Knott Landfill Operating Expenses
2016 (Actual)
Operations
$ 2,662,000
Fees and Permits (DEQ)/Insurance
$ 400,000
Transfer to Funds
$ 2,500,000
- Capital Reserves
- Equipment Reserves
- Closure and Post Closure
Contingency (7%)
$ 400,000
Total Annual Operating Expenses
$ 5,962,000
Depending on the quantity of waste disposed daily, the actual operating cost typically
does not vary significantly. For example, if a landfill receives 600 tons versus 500 tons
of waste per day, the operating expenses for placing and compacting the waste will
not appreciably change. The reason is that fixed operating costs are a higher
percentage of overall expenses and therefore the unit cost or per ton rate to operate is
not greatly impacted by the amount of waste disposed. For instance, the capital
expenses to build new landfill cells as well as the planned closure and post closure
expenses are fixed costs and are already prorated on a per ton basis. Thus, when
waste volumes increase, there is more revenue to pay for fixed costs resulting in
lowering the unit cost to operate the landfill. For this reason, regional landfills that
accept large amounts of waste can charge a lower tip fee compared to smaller
landfills. The following table shows how the actual tip fees vary depending on the
annual amount of waste disposed.
Table 6-3: Total Annual Operating Expenses
Total Annual Operating Expenses
Year
$ 6,000,000
$/Ton
Annual Waste Disposed
2016
161,000 tons
$37.27
Annual Waste Disposed
2017
181,000 tons
$33.15
Average Disposal Cost
1
$35.21
Each year, DSW prepares a budget and makes an estimate on how much waste will be
disposed in the coming year. There are some inflationary expenses such as labor and
fuel prices, but most expenses are relatively stable.
In considering future disposal options, the County can compare the estimated cost to
the current tip fee of $35 per ton for landfill operations.
6-3
Chapter r
6.2 Waste Stream Projections
In Chapter 2, estimates of how much waste might be generated and disposed were
presented. This information represents background data that can be used to analyze
alternatives and determine future disposal needs.
Using the waste generation projections, estimates were made of the amount of waste
that could be processed using an alternative technology and/or may need to be
disposed in a landfill. In projecting the estimated waste to be disposed beyond 2030,
the analysis will assume that the per capita generation rate will continue to be 2,800
pounds. This will be multiplied by the population projections using the latest growth
rate for period leading to 2030 as prepared by the Population Research Center at
Portland State University.
Table 6-4: Deschutes County Waste Disposal Projections
Year
Population
Per Capita
Generated
(tons)
Waste
Generated
(tons)
Waste
Recycled
(tons)
Recovery
Rate
Waste
Disposed
(tons)
2015
170,606
2,663
227,333
83,381
36.7%
143,952
2016
174,701
2,727
240,844
79,757
33.1%
161,087
2017
178,893
3,022
270,326
89,000
32.9%
181,326
2018
4 0n 107
a nnn
274 7un
a0 r,77
i:t-n /
1,94.103
2019
187,583
3,000
281,375
92,854
33.0%
188,521
2020
190,734
3,000
286,101
94,413
33.0%
191,688
2021
194,739
3,000
292,109
96,396
33.0%
195,713
2022
198,829
3,000
298,243
98,420
33.0%
199,823
2023
203,004
2,900
294,356
97,138
33.0%
197,219
2024
207,267
2,900
300,538
99,177
33.0%
201,360
2025
210,826
2,900
305,698
100,880
33.0%
204,817
2026
214,832
2,800
300,764
99,252
33.0%
201,512
2027
218,913
2,800
306,479
101,138
33.0%
205,341
2028
223,073
2,800
312,302
103,060
33.0%
209,242
2029
227,311
2,800
318,236
105,018
33.0%
213,218
2030
230,412
2,800
322,577
106,450
33.0%
216,126
Table 6-4 shows that by 2025 the waste disposed is estimated to be over 200,000
tons and 216,000 tons by 2030. This assumes that the County's recovery rate of 33%
does not increase over the existing rate. This assumption is conservative as it is
expected that the expanded programs and services recommended in the plan will
result in diverting more waste. For planning purposes, these conservative projections
will be used for evaluating alternative technologies and planning for future facilities.
6-4
Chapter
,.;r; °'
6.2.1 Needs and Opportunities
The County, working with cities and private collection companies, has provided the
infrastructure needed to manage solid waste in a most effective manner. With Knott
Landfill, the residences and businesses have become reliant on having an in -County
disposal site that greatly supports a most cost-effective system. For example, the
current tip fee at Knott Landfill is $55 per ton, one of the lowest rates in Oregon and
perhaps the entire Pacific Northwest. One reason other counties have higher rates is
because several jurisdictions have elected to transport waste from 50 miles to 200
miles to regional landfills.
With Knott Landfill having a finite capacity, it will close in approximately 10 years.
There are strategies that may extend the site life as mentioned, but eventually an
alternative must be in place prior to the actual closure date. Looking at projections,
the County will generate between 300,000 and 400,000 tons of waste per year.
Making a conservative assumption that the recovery rate remains constant, the County
will need to dispose almost 220,000 tons per year by 2030. While this presents a
challenge, it also provides opportunities that may not be feasible in other parts of the
State. Deschutes County is growing and besides the attraction to relocate to the area,
the amount of tourism and annual visitors contribute to an active and vibrant
economy. Therefore, the County is expected to experience a higher rate of growth
than perhaps other parts of the State. The amount of waste that is forecasted to be
generated may make certain alternatives more cost effective for Deschutes County
compared to other jurisdictions that do not generate quantities of waste to pay for
these alternatives.
Many communities throughout the country have found themselves in a similar
situation. The difficulty in locating a new landfill or having enough waste to support
building a new landfill has led many jurisdictions to consider alternative technologies
to manage their waste. Others have made commitments to manage waste as a
resource and to reduce disposal at landfills.
The amount of time before Knott Landfill closes provides an opportunity to examine
the status of the technologies that may be practical in meeting the goals stated in this
planning effort. In the following section, a review of the technologies that are in
commercial operation will be discussed. Even if a technology is determined to be an
option, a future landfill disposal alternative must also be identified. These future
disposal alternatives will also be discussed.
6.3 Alternatives and Evaluation
6.3.1 Alternatives Technologies for Conversion/Reduction of
Municipal Solid Waste
The following provides a description and status of the various technologies currently
used for managing waste. Some technologies may not be cost effective or practical for
Deschutes County.
6-5
'PRO r
Ch-apter
6.3.2 Mixed Waste Processing
As discussed in Chapter 4, Mixed Waste Processing Facilities (MWPF) are designed to
accept and process commingled recyclables (if a single -stream collection system
exists) and the MSW stream itself. Many national manufacturers of separation
equipment are recognizing the potential opportunities of MWPF systems and tout their
MSW experience in their marketing materials. Figure 6-1 shows the conveyor layout of
a MWPF in Milpitas, CA.
Figure 6-1: Newby Island Resource Recovery Park in Milpitas, California
(Source: Faulk Handling Systems)
According to the latest yearbook (2010-2017) by the Governmental Advisory
Associates, Inc. there are 28 MWPFs or MRFs with a mixed waste processing line in the
United States. The primary focus of these facilities is to divert recyclable materials.
Due to the regulatory requirements in California for waste diversion and reducing the
amount of organics disposed in landfills, 21 of the operating MWPFs are in California.
These facilities are generally highly automated and use similar equipment to that used
for single stream MRFs, with a bag opening operation as an additional step. The
processing system equipment sequence typically includes a pre-sort station for the
recovery of inadvertently accepted non-processable materials, followed by a bag
opener (shredder with a large product size on the order of 16-inches), multiple
screening operations, and separation operations that can utilize air separators, eddy
current separators, magnetic separators, and optical sorters. The objective is to
maximize the recovery of recyclable materials, including paper, aluminum, ferrous
metals, and plastics. Depending on the proximity to a glass market or processor, a
mixed glass product may also be recovered.
In Chapter 4, it was determined the cost of building a MWPF in Deschutes County for
the purpose of recovering more commodities from the commercial waste stream was
not cost effective. However, processing mixed waste is also required to extract
materials for feedstock for certain technologies. In other parts of the country and in
Europe, these processing facilities are designed to create a renewable energy
byproduct. Therefore, in considering alternative technologies to create bio-fuels, refuse
Chapter
derived fuels and/or to extract energy value from the waste stream, some level of
processing will be required.
6.3.2.1 Construction and Demolition Recycling
In the effort to improve overall recycling or diversion percentages within jurisdictions
or municipalities, the dense tonnages associated with C/D wastes have always been a
prime target for recovery. This concept was introduced in Chapter 4, but the current
section provides more context in terms of the technology as an alternative to disposal.
The common C/D processing equipment of a screen or two and some manual sorters
now includes more sophisticated air separation and even infrared optical units to
better separate materials for more recovery or potential development of new markets.
While the technology is improving to process C/D materials, most within the industry
stress the importance of markets and outlets for the commodities that are targeted for
recovery.
One of the most sophisticated C/D facilities that has been recently constructed is the
Zanker Recycling Demolition Processing Facility located in San Jose, CA. The system
won the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) gold award for recycling
systems in 2016. The system is rated for 60 tons per hour (TPH) but consistently
operates at 75 TPH. The facility serves an approximate population of 6 million people
in an area with strict recovery regulations regarding all waste. A view of the facility is
shown in Figure 6-2.
Figure 6-2: View of Zanker Demolition Processing Facility
The system at the Zanker facility utilizes three types of screens, four different air
classifiers and three separate magnets to achieve a material recovery of over 70
percent. The infeed stream consists mostly of materials from the demolition of local
houses and businesses. The facility recovers clean fill, metals, concrete and brick, and
wood as well as utilizing the fines as alternative daily cover (ADC). Table 6-5 presents
the material recovery rates for Zanker with and without counting ADC.
M
Table 6-5: Material Recovery Numbers from Zanker Demolition Facility
types
CountingMaterial
Dail;
Daily
Construction Waste
73.9%
54.4%
Wood Waste
96.7%
94.7%
Yard Waste
Brush
Demolition
73.6%
24.8$
Mobile Homes
Wood shingles with paper
Sheetrock
91.5%
89.1%
Asphalt shingles
41.4%
13.4%
Tar and gravel roofing
Concrete
99.1%
94.5%
Stucco and Plaster
Miscellaneous
54.4%
8.5%
Bulky Miscellaneous
6.3.2.2 Engineered Fuel Production
Engineered fuel (EF) is a manufactured product created when MSW is processed
through mechanical, biological, and/or thermal processes to produce a higher quality
fuel. While similar in concept to Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), EF is processed to meet a
r_r lity, which,
when
t �s the CC from further n nc
set standard ror quali�y, Wlllla 1, WIICII Illel, eJlelllplJ lliG �.� „v,,, further regulation ,u,
waste. EF is typically transported to an energy consumer located some distance from
the EF production facility, and the energy consumer is not regulated as a MSW
handling or disposal facility.
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulates the use of waste -derived fuels
under its Non -Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) program. In this program, when
non -hazardous waste is processed to produce an EF product, that product may be "de -
wasted" when used as an alternative to conventional fossil fuels. Federal de -wasting
does not, however, preempt applicable state solid waste regulatory requirements.
Adoption of EF therefore has been slower in the United States.
EF can be used in solid fuel industrial boilers as a substitute for coal. In addition to the
potential for economic savings, the organic fraction of the EF creates greenhouse gas
reductions. An industrial EF combustor/boiler will be very similar in design to a
fluidized bed RDF boiler (see Figure 6-3).
(Intentionally Left Blank)
ME
Chapter 6
Superheated
Fuel Steam
FD Fan Bed Removal and Economizer Baghouse ID Fan Stack
Cleaning System
Figure 6-3: Industrial Fluidized Bed Boiler
(Source Outotec)
Non -boiler applications for EF include using it as a coal substitute in cement kilns or
other industrial thermal uses. In 2016, an EF/cement kiln project was announced in
Berkeley County (Martinsburg), WV. The fuel production facility will be designed to
process up to 120,000 tons per year (500 TPD) of MSW into an EF for use at the
Essroc cement kiln located in the county. The fuel production facility will be owned and
operated by Entsorga North America, a privately -held company. The reported
construction cost of the fuel production facility is estimated to be $19 million dollars.
The Essroc cement facility will undertake a modest capital project to construct an EF
receiving, storage, and handling system, with tipping fees reported in the mid $50/ton
range. Production of EF includes steps similar to a MRF to extract recyclables and non-
combustible materials from the feedstock. An additional step would be shredding
and/or pelletization to homogenize the fuel product. The final fuel product can be in
the form of pellets (see
Figure 6-4) or in the form of fluffy material (see Figure 6-5).
(Intentionally Left Blank)
Chapter 6
Figure 6-4: Pelletized EF/RDF
(Photo courtesy of WastAway)
Figure 6-5: Shredded and Fluffy EF/RDF
(Photo courtesy of neo-eco Recycling)
6-10
Chapter 6
Some of the companies making and installing EF/RDF processing equipment are as
follows:
— Vecoplan
— Bulk Handling Systems
— Stadler
— Machinex
— CP Group
Some of the companies in the U.S. market that produce EF/RDF as a final product of
their processing lines include:
— Envision Waste Services
— Repower South
— Vexxor
— SpecFuel
— WastAway
6.3.2.3 Composting
Also discussed briefly in Chapter 4, composting is a natural process whereby
microorganisms break down organic matter in aerobic conditions. This section will
cover the details on composting as an alternative waste processing technology for
mixed waste processing and its connection to anaerobic digestion.
The composting process starts with grinding the incoming material and mixing it with a
hiJLirn nncn* and rmmnnctinn innridiim. This material anes throuah three stases of
processing: active composting, curing and screening, as outlined in Figure 6-6 below.
The full cycle lasts up to 150 days. Five factors that influence the composting process
are moisture, oxygen, temperature, carbon to nitrogen balance, and particle size. The
type of waste used for composting determines the carbon to nitrogen balance and
particle size. Large composting facilities must screen waste received to ensure non -
organic material (contamination usually found in food waste deliveries) is not present.
Prepared waste material then goes through the composting process where moisture,
oxygen, and temperature are controlled to create a product. Yard waste such as green
waste, plant material, and woody waste traditionally have been the most common feed
materials for composting. The addition of food waste is now more prevalent, and more
facilities have started to accept it into the process. Biosolids have also been used as a
feed source for composting.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
6-11
Bulking Agent Filter Media to
(woodchips, S&EC Market
sawdust) Overs Used as Bulking
Feedstock Prep Active
Incoming Curing Screening of
(Grinding/ Composting
Materlai Mlxing) (3O•BD days) (48-90 days) final product
Compost Inoculum to Mixing
Compost
Market
Figure 6-6: Composting Process Flow Diagram48
Figure 6-7: Windrow Composting
Traditional windrow composting utilizes piles that are placed in long rows, the size of
which is determined by turning abilities (see Figure 6-7). For small facilities, piles must
be turned manually using shovels, end loaders, top turners, or pull behinds. End
loaders are not as efficient at mixing evenly and require a smaller pile size to be
effective. For large scale facilities, either top turners or towed turners are ideal to
allow for better mixing and larger piles. Top turners are driven over the pile and towed
turners are towed at a distance behind a tractor over the pile. Proper mixing is
important so that conditions are consistent throughout the pile to make sure that the
whole pile reaches temperatures high enough to kill pathogens and to produce a
consistent product. The pile size can also create concerns with the composting
process. Smaller piles have less insulation, creating a concern that temperatures high
48 State of Composting in the U.S.- Institute for Local Self -Reliance, July 2014
6-12
Chapter ij
enough to kill pathogens will not occur. Larger piles create a concern for anaerobic
conditions near the center of the pile where it is harder for air to circulate, requiring
more turning of the pile. Aerated turned piles are suitable for yard waste and some
food waste.
Due to the difficulties of maintaining aerobic conditions, turning the correct amount,
and the limitations of traditional windrow composting, technology has shifted towards
adding air to the pile using aeration systems. Aeration systems are advantageous
because they require less space for similar throughputs since they don't need to be
turned. When designed correctly, aerated piles will maintain aerobic conditions
throughout the pile. Because of this, an aeration system also has a shortened
composting duration compared to a traditional windrow system (see Figure 6-8).
Figure 6-8: Aeration Pipes for Aerated Static Pile Composting
Aerated static piles (ASP) require a system to supply oxygen to the composting pile,
such as an aeration floor. There are multiple aeration floor systems that can be used
including piping systems, trench systems, and a combination of piping and trenching.
Aeration blowers are used to force air (positive aeration) or pull air (negative aeration)
through the pile from the aeration floor. The feed waste moisture and porosity for ASP
composting is important since it is difficult to alter moisture or porosity once the pile is
created. The feed waste usually requires bulking so that the porosity is great enough
that oxygen can get through the whole pile from the aeration floor. The amount of
bulking agent used is dependent upon the particle size and moisture content of the
feed stock; smaller particle size and greater moisture content both require the use of
more bulking agent. Common bulking agents include woodchips, crop residue, bark,
and leaves.
Some composting systems utilize both forced aeration and turning. Feed material will
be processed using an aerated static pile method. The compost will then be placed into
piles for curing, where the compost is turned. Both forced aeration and turning can be
used simultaneously, however, it is not very common. To incorporate both forced
aeration and turning, a larger space is required.
6-13
Chapter 6
ASPs can remain open or be covered to help control the composting process.
Insulation provided by a cover helps to ensure that a temperature high enough to kill
pathogens is maintained throughout the pile. Two types of covers used are finished
compost and textile covers. Finished compost, at least six inches thick, on top of piles
can be used as coverage that reduces water infiltration, which reduces leachate
generation while keeping moisture in the material and insulating the pile. The
temperature of the pile is greatest in the center and decreases near the edges of the
pile.
ASP is the system used at Deschutes Composting, discussed further in Chapter 4. As a
corollary national example of an ASP project, a California landfill recently converted its
windrow composting operations to an ASP composting facility. Redwood Landfill
previously accepted approximately 150 tons per day of green waste (yard clippings
and residential food waste) but was permitted to increase its daily feedstock to 514
tons per day, which included green waste as well as commercial food waste. To
increase production without substantially increasing area, composting time had to be
dramatically reduced. The aeration system includes a system of pipes, blowers, and
biofilters to force air into the composting and the ability to produce a vacuum.
Figure 6-9: Textile covered composting piles -GORE Cover for Organic Waste
Treatment
(Courtesy of Gore)
Textile covers provide additional benefits to finished compost coverage (see Figure
6-9). The textile covers shed water, reducing leachate and helping in storm water
management, maintain a breathable environment to allow airflow into the pile, and
capture odors. Several covers also offer oxygen -controlled systems and provide
oxygen and temperature monitoring to aid in process control. Pile covers are a more
economical option than full coverage structures such as canopies or buildings,
particularly when odor and run-off are of concern. Pile covers can also be used on a
temporary basis when rainfall, odor, or other events are anticipated for both static and
turned piles.
6-14
Chapter i'
Figure 6-10: In -Vessel Composting
Shipping containers, silos, rotating drums, tunnels, and trenches can all be used for in -
vessel composting. Aeration is forced in the vessel to maintain aerobic conditions and
proper decomposition. Forced aeration occurs through moving paddles or piping
systems that bring air to the material. Depending on the system, the vessel can be
a r.._..,.r,is an examnla of an aaratari in -vessel system
covered Or remain open. �.,v-..v� � �E.,..,. 1111 j ..j. -, -
where biosolids and wood waste are combined to make compost. The aerated in -vessel
system is good for organics.
Different qualities of composts have different certifications or grades. Three different
composting products can be produced and sold. Each product has one of three grades:
Grade 1, Grade 2, or Waste Grade. Each grade has different levels of standards that
must be maintained. Grade 1 compost has the strictest level of standards, and the
standards loosen as the product moves from Grade 1 to Grade 2 to Waste Grade.
Waste Grade compost does not have set standards but is classified as compost that
exceeds any Grade 2 standard requirements. Compost produced from biosolids has
stricter standards, since it has a higher potential risk for odor, contaminants, and
pathogens. Similar to grades, the different certification levels for compost are based
on quality; the higher the quality, the higher the certification level. Each grade and
certification of compost can be used for different uses including compost, stormwater
management, and landscaping. Grade and certification specifications can be found
through the U.S. Composting Council.
Based on the report published by the Institute for Local Self -Reliance and Biocycle in
October 2017, there are 4,713 composting facilities in the U.S. that process
approximately 21.1 million tons of organic material annually. Most of these facilities
are in California, Florida, Iowa, Washington and New York. The material processed at
the existing composting facilities is predominantly yard waste, at 57% of the incoming
feedstock.
6-15
Many policies on the state level have been enacted to encourage or require diversion
of source separated organics. Back in the 1990s, more than 20 states instituted yard
waste landfilling bans that resulted in more than 20 million tons of organic waste being
diverted from landfills every year. More recently, a handful of states have instituted
food waste disposal bans whose impact we are yet to see. In addition to landfilling
bans, waste diversion laws and goals help increase the diversion of organics from
landfills to composting or other processing facilities.
As discussed further in the next section, composting is often used with anaerobic
digestion as both processes can be designed into a complementary organics
management system.
6.3.2.4 Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a biochemical process, facilitated by microorganisms, that
decomposes organic material to biogas and digestate in an oxygen depleted
environment. The performance of AD systems is sensitive to rapid changes in the
environment, due to the specific needs of the living conditions that the microorganisms
require. The composition of the organic material, the rate at which it is introduced to
the microorganisms, and the temperature of the system must be maintained relatively
consistent throughout the process. Frequent or rapid variation of these factors can
reduce the efficiency of the biochemical conversion process and can result in damage
or destruction of the microorganism population. AD is a technology developed for
treatment of wide range of organic materials, including source -separated food waste,
biosolids, organics from MSW, residues from food processing and packaging industry,
manure, etc.
The primary characteristics of the waste stream that must be defined to select the
appropriate AD technology include the volume of the waste stream, the total solids
(TS) content, the volatile solids (VS) content, and the chemical oxygen demand
(COD). The volume and TS content of the waste stream primarily dictate the type of
technology that is most appropriate to maintain uniform contact between the organic
material and the microorganisms. Approximate TS content ranges for which the
common types of AD system are appropriate are summarized in Figure 6-11. The VS
content and COD primarily dictate the size of the system, and in some cases, the need
to apply multiple AD technologies to properly treat the waste stream. The
performance, operational requirements and cost of the waste treatment process vary
significantly, depending on the characteristics of the waste stream and the type of AD
technology. A brief description of several common types of AD systems is included
below.
LAGOON
HIGH RATE
CSTR
PLUG FLOW
HIGH SOLIDS
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% > 25%
WAS l t S I KtAM I U I AL buuua t i J) uu i r-n
Figure 6-11: Approximate TS Ranges Suitable for Common Types of AD
Systems
rsG1A5
Lagoon type AD systems can be considered the most simple type of AD system,
comprised of an in -ground waste storage vessel, typically earthen, with a plastic or
concrete liner and a flexible cover to contain the biogas. A photo of a typical lagoon AD
system is shown in Figure 6-12. Depending on the characteristics of the waste stream,
mixing devices may be installed to maintain contact between the waste stream and
the microorganism population and prevent accumulation of solids on the bottom of the
lagoon. These systems are most applicable to low TS liquid waste streams (typically
less than 8%), and are typically installed in agricultural waste applications, such as the
treatment of flushed swine or dairy manure. These systems allow for the treatment of
dilute waste streams at a relatively low capital cost. Lagoon systems are less efficient
in cooler climates, as maintaining optimum temperature is inherently difficult due to
heat loss to the surrounding soil and the amount of energy required to heat the water
in dilute waste streams.
Figure 6-12: Typical lagoon AD system
(Photo courtesy Environmental Fabrics, Inc. www.environmentalfabrics.com)
High rate AD systems are technologically more advanced and most suitable for low TS
liquid waste streams (less than 8%) with higher VS content and COD. These systems
are comprised of a tank or vessel containing a fixed population of microorganisms,
typically attached to physical structures such as grates, baffles, or a bed of granules.
An exterior view of a typical high rate digester is shown in Figure 6-13.
The waste stream flow is directed through this vessel, and the organic material is
converted to biogas as it flows through the microorganism population. Because the
microorganism population is fixed in the vessel and is not removed with the waste
stream, these systems allow for lower hydraulic retention time (HRT), thus they
require smaller vessel volumes, relative to other types of AD systems. High rate AD
systems are typically installed in industrial and municipal applications, for the
treatment of waste streams including food and dairy processing wastewater and
secondary treatment of municipal wastewater. These facilities can accept pumpable
feedstock.
6-17
'Chapter
Figure 6-13: Typical High Rate AD System
(Photo courtesy Applied Technologies, Inc., www.ati-ae.com)
The most ubiquitous type of AD system for liquid or semi -solid waste streams is the
Continually Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) or "complete mix digester". CSTR AD systems
are comprised of a tank or vessel with a gas -tight cover and a mixing or agitation
system. Two typical CSTR vessels are shown in Figure 6-14. These systems operate
over a range of about 5% to 15% TS, depending on the waste stream characteristics
and specific equipment and mixing technology. These systems are also known as
%%_.. a a ..F6," �rFr�re Mc thn \Aixtc ctrcam nnri mirmnrnanicmc arP kPnt in
suspended gr o hI reactors, s, - u.t. •vu.a..... ........ a. ............ =..........— _. — .__.,._ ...
suspension by the mixing devices. The mixing process serves to maintain uniform
temperature throughout the vessel, keep the solids in suspension and assures that
contact is maintained between the waste stream and the microorganisms to allow for
efficient conversion. These systems are installed in a wide range of waste treatment
and energy generation applications, processing materials including dairy manure,
restaurant and grocery store food waste, and corn silage. There are more than 8,000
CSTR AD systems operating in Europe, packaged by many different vendors.
Figure 6-14: Typical CSTR AD System
(Photo courtesy BIOFerm USA, Inc., www.biofermenergy.com)
6-18
Chapter 6
Plug flow type AD systems are suitable for the treatment of liquid or semi -solid waste
streams with TS content of about 10% to 25%. These systems are comprised of a tank
or vessel in which the waste stream is combined with the microorganism population,
and the mixture is conveyed between distinct inlet and outlet points. A schematic of a
general plug flow digester is shown in Figure 6-15. There are many configurations of
plug flow -type AD systems with various devices for mixing and conveying the waste
stream.
Because the waste stream is not completely mixed in plug flow AD systems, care must
be taken in the selection and design of these systems to avoid the accumulation of
solids in the vessel. These systems are most effectively installed in higher TS
applications such as municipal wastewater sludge treatment, where the waste stream
is relatively homogenous, and the consistency of the material presents a challenge to
the effective application of CSTR technology.
Cover
Biogas Storage Digester
Digester { _ _. _ _ Influent
Effluent
r1
Effluent Structure
Influent Structure
Figure 6-15: Typical Plug Flow AD System Schematic
(Photo courtesy of Renewable Energy Institute www_plugflowdiciester.com)
New advancements in the plug flow design have allowed processing mixed food and
yard waste as a feedstock. These plug flow systems have shafts that turn and help the
mixing of the materials and the movement through the digester. An example of plug -
flow digester with shafts is shown in Figure 6-16.
Figure 6-16: Plug Flow System with Mixing Shafts
(Picture courtesy of Hitachi Zosen Kompogas)
6-19
Chapter 6
High solids or dry -type AD systems represent a relatively new and emerging sector of
AD waste treatment technology. These systems are being installed to process waste
streams that form a pile, typically with TS values greater than 20%, including
municipal organic waste, grocery and produce waste, and stackable agricultural waste.
An example of a waste stream suitable for treatment in a high solids AD system is
shown in Figure 6-17. High solids AD systems are operated as batch -type processes in
which the waste stream is piled in vessels (also called chambers) with drains in the
walls or floor using a bucket loader. The vessel is sealed and the waste pile is irrigated
with liquid containing a microorganism population. During the AD process, some of the
physical structure of the waste material breaks down, releasing liquid, which is used to
irrigate the subsequent batches.
Figure 6-17: Typical Waste Stream Suitable for a High Solids AD system
(Photo courtesy BIOFerm USA, Inc.)
Several high solids AD technology suppliers also offer, as part of their process,
composting capabilities that can be installed within the same plant. Subsequent to the
digestion process, the waste stream receives an aerobic treatment; in some cases,
part of this treatment takes place in the same vessel/chamber where anaerobic
digestion occurred. These solutions are very convenient when quality compost has the
potential to provide a significant share of the revenue in addition to the biogas
generated during the AD part of the process. Figure 6-18, Figure 6-19 and Figure 6-20
show AD systems overview as well as the interior of a chamber where anaerobic and
aerobic treatment occurs in different steps of the process.
6-20
Chapter !'
Figure 6-18: High Solids AD with Integral Composting Operation
(Image courtesy of Turning Earth, LLC)
Figure 6-19: Chamber of a High Solids AD with Integral
Composting Operation 1
(Images courtesy of Aikan)
6-21
Chapter 6
Figure 6-20: Chamber of a High Solids AD with Integral
Composting Operation 2
(Images courtesy of Aikan)
There are many AD technology vendors and project developers in the U.S. According
to the American Biogas Council, there are 184 operating AD plants that process food
waste as a feedstock. Table 6-6 provides a list of the most important ones, based on
their experience and the number of operating plants in the U.S. and abroad.
Table 6-6: Most Significant AD Companies in the U.S.
Provider
Processes
Facilities
Quasar Energy Group
Wet Anaerobic
14 operational plants across the U.S.
Digestion
Zero Waste Energy
Dry Anaerobic
Monterey, San Jose, South San
Di estion
Francisco CA
CR&R-Eisenmann
Dry Anaerobic
Perris, CA
Di estion
Wet Anaerobic
Acquired Monsal technology with
General Electric
Digestion
operating facilities in Europe
BioFerm
Wet and Dry
5 plants in North America
AD
Organic Waste Systems
Dry Anaerobic
30 operating plants in Europe and Asia
Di estion
Thoni
Dry Anaerobic
Plants in Europe licensed to Martin
Di estion
GmbH
Hitachi Zosen Kompogas
Dry Anaerobic
75 facilities worldwide
Di estion
6.3.2.5 Mass Burn
Mass burn combustion technology, commonly referred to as waste -to energy (WTE),
involves burning or incineration unprocessed MSW in the presence of oxygen,
releasing heat, which is used to produce high temperature and pressure steam in a
6-22
Chapter r
boiler. The steam is directed to a turbine generator, which produces electricity for
plant operation and sale to the electrical grid or for industrial processing. Marion
County Oregon's Covanta facility and Lee County, Florida's existing WTEF are both
examples of a mass burn combustion unit.
Large capacity units, generally greater than 250 tons per day (TPD), are referred to as
commercial -scale facilities. Combustor and boiler components for these facilities are
manufactured at remote fabrication shops into panels or sections. The sections are
typically of the maximum practical size that can be economically transported to the
project site. At the project site, the sections are assembled into complete and
functional units. Due to the extensive amount of field work required, the unit ancillary
subsystems such as fans, burners, air ducting, insulation, power and control wiring are
also installed at the project site. The unit is first tested after it has been fully
assembled, which can take 12 or more months to complete at a cost of several million
dollars. The balance of plant equipment including air emission controls, power
generation, and plant utilities are constructed simultaneously with the
combustor/boiler.
General process diagram for a commercial mass -burn WTEF is shown in Figure 6-21.
INI
ft.
POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
0 0 a
SYSitM, 11Y511W
Figure 6-21: WTE Process Diagram
(Courtesy of ecomaine)
Several U.S. and international companies sell field -erected mass burn combustion
units as either an equipment supplier or as a full design, build, and operate WTEF
6-23
Chapter 6
services company. Several of the full -service companies will also provide for private
facility financing and ownership.
6.3.2.6 Mechanical -Biological Treatment
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facilities are widely relied upon in Europe. The
impetus for the construction and operation of these types of facilities has been
regulations and economic incentives. Significant taxes are placed on solid waste that is
landfilled in Europe; therefore, solid waste must be processed to maximize the
recovery of materials prior to landfilling any remaining material.
These European MBT facilities involve both mechanical and biological treatment
processes to recover recyclables and process the remaining material through three
basic alternative approaches that rely on biological treatment of the material. The
biological treatments can be grouped into the following categories: bio-drying,
composting, or anaerobic digestion.49
The MBT plants in Europe process only residual waste remaining after source
separation of recyclables and organics is completed. They can be configured in
different ways to achieve different goals: increased recycling, diversion of organic
material from landfills, and energy recovery through production of RDF. A generic
illustration of a potential MBT facility is shown in Figure 6-22. The European facilities
are constructed in conjunction with an energy user for the bio-dried fuel product or an
established market for the compost product. The MBT facilities that incorporate an
�:_ digester d .ce b.iogas that is rnr nnw deed in a rnmbinarl haat and
dndCrUUlI. digester produce a' vivyaa a �a� o ..v.... w. . �
power application. There is a higher cost of disposal where these facilities are
constructed and operated in Europe.
In the United States, the term MBT facility is a relatively recently used acronym.
Certain aspects of an MBT facility have been constructed, such as a material recovery
facility, mixed waste processing facility, an in -vessel composting facility, or an
anaerobic digester. The application of MBT technology as a waste processing facility
was introduced by Entsorga North America at an MBT facility being constructed in
Martinsburg, WV that employs Entsorga's bio-drying technology.
(Intentionally left blank)
49 "Mechanical Biological Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste", prepared in the United Kingdom
by the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, February 2013.
6-24
Figure 6-22: An Illustration of the Potential MBT Options
(Source: DEFRA UK)
In 2017, Fiberight LLC started construction of a 600 ton per day MBT facility utilizing
its proprietary technology in Bangor, Maine. The facility is expected to begin
commercial operations in the fourth quarter of 2018.
A limited list of suppliers and/or operators of MBT facilities is as follows:
• Biffa Group Limited
• Entsorga Italia
• Fiberight LLC
• Shanks Group, LLC
• Veolia
• Sacyr Valoriza
6.3.2.7 Pyrolysis/Gasification
Gasification and pyrolysis are thermal conversion technologies that operate with
different amounts of air present in the system. Gasification occurs in the presence of
limited amounts of air that allows partial combustion of the material. Pyrolysis occurs
in the complete absence of air.
Gasification leads to a mixture of combustible gases (hydrogen, carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide and some trace compounds) called syngas as a final product. Syngas is
a valuable commercial product used to create synthetic natural gas, methane,
methanol, dimethyl ether and other chemicals. It can also be used directly to produce
energy as a surrogate for natural gas.
sai,._Fr
er 6
Pyrolysis leads to synthetic liquid fuel similar to crude oil and syngas. Synthetic liquid
fuel can be mixed with crude oil and further refined to gasoline and other petroleum
products.
Both technologies have been successful in processing biomass and homogeneous
industrial waste products. Their application in the field of MSW processing is under
development. Gasification, in particular, has been applied worldwide on different
feedstocks and shows potential for processing MSW. The basic stages of the
gasification process are shown in Figure 6-23.
MSWD ( AIR/OXYGEN
GASIFIER
ASNM
BY-0ROBUCUCT
GAS CLEAN-UP
SUUMR
BT_PRMUCT
CLEAN SYNGAS�
v Er
TO POWER
TO PRODUCTS
Figure 6-23: The Gasification Process`
6.3.2.8 Gasification for Electricity Production
Gasification is the thermal conversion of any carbon -based material with a small
amount of air or oxygen in a heated chamber, into syngas. The syngas may have a
heating value of 200 to 500 Btu per cubic foot and can be either used as a fuel for
energy production or further processed to a wide variety of fuels and chemicals.
so Gasification Technologies Council, 2011.
Chapter R?
In the gasifier, the feedstock is converted through several sequential processes. First,
the feedstock is homogenized into smaller particles. Then it is inserted into the gasifier
with a controlled amount of air or oxygen (and steam for some gasifiers). Feedstock
passes through several temperature zones where a sequence of reactions occurs
before the syngas is removed from the chamber. The temperatures in a gasifier
typically range from 1,100 to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Solid residue is removed from
the bottom of the reaction chamber.
Traditional gasification systems come in several primary variations, each with
advantages for particular feedstock or product applications. The basic design of each
system type is built around the reaction chamber with insertion of feedstock, but each
has a different heating mechanism, air entry and syngas removal location, as
illustrated in Figure 6-24.
feedstock
I
out
out
up -draft down -draft cross -draft
Figure 6-24: Gasification System Types
Other gasifier types, including plasma gasifiers, do not rely on a different gasifier
structure or arrangement of air inlets and syngas outlets, but rather on type of heat
source used.
Four different types of gasifiers are described in more details in the following sections.
ndraft (counter current flow gasifying agent and feedstock)
An updraft gasifier has stacked zones clearly defined to dry, pyrolyze, gasify, and
partial combust the feedstock.
In this type of system, the air is introduced from the bottom of the chamber and rises
counter -current to the downward movement of the waste through the conversion
zones. The gases produced move upwards and are removed from the top of the
chamber. This upward movement of the air and gas improves the efficiency as the
rising hot gases help to control temperatures, aid in drying of the feedstock, and
improve the mixing of the gases in the chamber. Possible disadvantages of updraft
6-27
Chapter
systems are having tar present in the raw gas (which causes blockages), and
inefficient loading for some large or heterogeneous feedstocks.
Fluidized bed gasifiers are one type of updraft gasifier. In these gasifiers, feedstock is
suspended in oxygen -rich gas (effectively creating fluid -like movement of the gas and
feedstock within the chamber). The suspension improves the heat transfer rate
between the gas and the feedstock and allows ash to fall out of the suspension instead
of being carried up with syngas. Fluidized bed systems can gasify feedstocks with
potential to form corrosive ash without damaging the chamber. In addition, they
support a higher fuel throughput than other gasifier types. This type of reactor may
also be referred to as a circulating fluidized bed or transport reactor.
Downdraft (co -current flow aasifvina aaent and feedstock)
In downdraft gasifiers, the air is introduced at a mid or top part of the chamber and
the syngas is removed from the bottom part of the chamber. Heat is added from the
top of the chamber, and the gas temperature increases as it moves downward. The
gas leaves the chamber at very high temperatures. This heat can be harnessed for use
in heating the upper portion of the chamber. On the way out of the chamber the gas
must go through the ash (in the form of char), which reduces the amount of tar in the
syngas.
Entrained -flow gasifiers are a type of downdraft gasifier. In these gasifiers, the
feedstocks and air are introduced high in the chamber so the oxidant and the
feedstock blend as they move downward. Gasifiers of this variety operate at high
temperatures and are efficient for conversion of coal or other easily pulverized
i i a'w.
1-eri. cn.� ale fnwnv Ins;, -tar cx ngas, because the reactions orcur along the entire length of
the chamber.
Crossdraft
In crossdraft gasifiers, the air inlet and the gas outlet are on the opposite sides in the
middle of the chamber. This type of gasifier is less common as it produces high -
temperature syngas at a high velocity that does not have as efficient CO2 reduction as
other gasifier types. The types of feedstocks for these systems are limited by the
system design to low ash fuels, such as wood, petroleum coke, and charcoal.
Crossdraft gasifiers have several advantages, including the production of high carbon
monoxide, low hydrogen and low methane syngas content when used on dry fuels, and
a fast startup time desirable for some applications.
Plasma
Plasma gasification is used in industries that require disposal of hazardous wastes at
high temperature. High temperature (up to 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit) is created by a
plasma torch in the gasifier.
Two different plasma gasification configurations are available, based on the part of the
gasification process at which the plasma torch is applied. The first type is plasma -
assisted gasification, and the second is the plasma coupled with traditional thermal
gasification.
The first type has the plasma torch(s) in the gasification chamber where the heat
generated breaks apart the chemical bonds in the feedstock and forms gas. Inorganic,
6-28
-moew
Chapter
rejected materials are collected at the bottom of the gasification chamber as a glass-
like inert material potentially suitable for construction or other aggregate applications.
Most plasma torch gasifiers are arranged similarly to an updraft system, as illustrated
in Figure 6-25, where feedstock is inserted near the top of the chamber, air or oxygen
inserted in the middle or bottom of the chamber, and syngas is removed from the top
of the chamber. The feedstock moves downward and into the intense heating zones
created by the plasma torches. This type of system helps to prevent tar formation, as
the syngas remains at a very high temperature (upwards of 1000°C) as it exits the
chamber.
feedstod
plasma torc
heat
plasma
gas out
air
plasmatorch
heat
Figure 6-25: Plasma Gasification
The selection of an optimal gasifier type for a particular application depends on
variables such as the size, moisture content, and calorific value of the feedstock and
the desired product type and quality.
6.3.2.9 MSW to Biofuels
One promising solid waste management technology is use of MSW as a feedstock in
the production of renewable transportation fuels (Biofuels). A leading company in this
evolving sector is Enerkem. Headquartered in Montreal, Canada, Enerkem has
developed a proprietary thermochemical process for commercial production of ethanol.
Enerkem's process involves feedstock preparation, gasification, cleaning and
conditioning of syngas, and catalytic synthesis. Figure 6-26 illustrates the Enerkem
process.
(Intentionally left blank)
•
Chapter
y 6
Figure 6-26: Enerkem Processsl
Currently, Enerkem operates two research and development facilities, both of which
produce ethanol:
- Sherbrook, Quebec (Canada) - Pilot plant operating since 2003
- Westbury, Quebec (Canada) - Demonstration facility operating since 2009 with
processing capacity of 1.3 million gallons of ethanol annually.
Enerkem's first commercial production facility is located in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
and began initial operation since 2015 and produces methanol.
6.3.3 Technology Summary
Of the multiple alternative processing technology options discussed in this Section, the
following are recommended for further consideration by Deschutes County.
Anaerobic Digestion with ASP Comnostina. The County could consider sponsoring
or contracting with a facility that processes source separated food waste via AD and
which further processes the digester digestate with other organic waste via
composting to produce renewable energy and compost. Such a facility could produce
valuable renewable energy and soil amendments and lessen the County's reliance
upon landfill management options. AD is highly compatible with ASP composting
operations as the digestate output is readily composted with woody organic material
for a nutrient -dense compost product.
Food waste can rapidly decompose in the landfill, converting into methane gas, a high
potency greenhouse gas. While landfills, including Knott Landfill, are fitted with landfill
gas capture and treatment systems, much of the methane generated from food waste
may escape even with the landfill gas capture system installed.
Mechanical Biological Treatment with Alternative Solid Fuel Production. The
County could sponsor a facility to process its waste through an MBT facility. Such a
facility could provide a second chance to recover traditional recyclable materials which
were inadvertently discarded in the MSW stream while producing an alternative solid
51 Enerkem, 2011.
6-30
Chapter IJ-
fuel suitable for industrial use from the non -recyclable waste. The County would need
to find large scale solid fuel consumers such as cement kilns and industrial boilers
willing to purchase the solid fuel. This could lessen the County's reliance upon landfills
and could potentially reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions to the extent biogenic
fractions of the solid waste fuel (wood, paper, organic textiles, etc.), offset the use of
fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil.
MSW to 1311ofuels. The County could consider sponsoring an MSW to biofuels facility.
Such a facility could produce cellulosic ethanol for use as a transportation fuel or fuel
blending stock. The volume of MSW generated within the County is likely not sufficient
to support a biofuels project by itself, but a recent study of the economically available
forestry biomass waste52 indicates that the combined MSW and forestry waste streams
would be more than sufficient to support such a facility. Such a facility could not only
provide Deschutes County with a long-term waste management solution, but also
provide an outlet for low value forestry waste which currently has no economically -
viable market. The facility could spur hundreds of millions of dollars in private sector
infrastructure investment creating hundreds of jobs in the solid waste management
and forest products sectors.
An MSW to biofuels facility would reduce Deschutes County's greenhouse gas
emissions in multiple ways by reduced landfill methane and CO2 emissions and
eliminating the need for long -haul trucking of MSW to remote landfills. Additionally,
when used as a transportation fuel, cellulosic ethanol has a greenhouse gas profile at
least 60 percent less than its fossil fuel alternatives, gasoline and diesel.
-r-1..1.. r_-f .. i— fho rmnif=l i- ct anri tin fap fnr thin AlternatiV(? nmrpcSina
I able V-r Julml fli uul iwa -" �.0 r. w. -0— f.1.
technologies profiled above. The costs assume approximately 250,000 tons MSW per
year, but further market analysis would be required to gather specifics for Deschutes
County, including forestry waste assumptions.
Table 6-7: Alternative Processing Technology Summary
Alternative Technology
Capital Cost
Approximate
Tipping Fee
Organics (AD with ASP)
$45 million
$50-$70/ton
$5 million pre-processing
$35 million facility-(80,000tpy)
5 million post -processing
MWP/EF
$50 - $100 million
$60-$70/ton
MWP/Energy Recovery
$250 - $300 million
$60-$70/ton
(Biofuels)
Deschutes County's current cost for disposing of waste is $35 per ton. Comparing this
cost to the approximate cost to operate the technologies at $50 to $70 per ton shown
52 TSS Consultants, CENTRAL OREGON BIOMASS SUPPLY AVAILABILITY ANALYSIS prepared for
the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, June 2016.
6-31
Chapter 6
in Table 6-7, it does not seem practical to move forward with these alternatives. Also,
for these technologies to be feasible, there must be a stable market for the energy
produced by them.
When Knott Landfill closes, the cost for disposal will most likely increase due to the
transportation cost as any new disposal site will be further from the population
centers. As communities across the country continue to build these alternative
technologies, more experience will be gained for the County to draw upon. In addition,
circumstances related to the price of energy or alternative fuels may change to where
there will be opportunities to market the products locally. For example, California has
an established renewable energy tax incentive credit program that has prompted the
development of AD facilities to make compressed natural gas. Canada has a program
that provides carbon emission offset credits from renewable energy. As such, the
Durham Regional Waste Authority recently built a WTEF outside Toronto, Canada.
These projects are beneficiary of the renewable energy programs.
6.4 Findings and Recommendations
In recent years, there has been increased demand to recover more materials from the
waste stream and to explore ways to turn waste into a resource. This effort has been
supported by efforts to seek clean renewable energy sources. The result has been
technologies that have been in operation in Europe for many years, like AD, that are
now operating in the U.S. Also, several technologies that have been in the
developmental stage for many years are now in operation or are being implemented.
ThPSP technologies seek to transform the cellulose matter prominent in MSW into bio-
fuels or to remove the glass, metals and other inert materials to make a clean fuel
product.
This Chapter examined the status of the alternative technology industry and whether
these technologies may be viable options for managing waste generated in Deschutes
County. The following represents the findings based on the review of these
technologies and considering the information available to date.
1. Further study to include an alternative technology for managing waste in
Deschutes County does not appear feasible at this time.
2. Markets for the renewable energy or fuel products are not readily available at
this time.
3. Knott Landfill is expected to close in 10 years. This provides the opportunity for
the County to monitor conditions and to reassess the potential of implementing
an alternative technology in three to five years.
4. The County should only consider those technologies/vendors that have a
proven record of successfully operating a commercial scale facility.
Recommendation 6.1: The County should continue to monitor and assess the
status and feasibility of alternative technologies as a part of the Solid Waste System in
three to five years.
6-32
M
7. LANDFILL DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Introduction
This SWMP has identified strategies to reduce waste, recycle more materials and
consider possible technologies to decrease the amount of waste disposed in landfills.
However, there is still waste that must be properly disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.
When Knott Landfill closes, which is anticipated to be in about 10 years, the County
will need to have an alternative disposal option in place. The two primary options are
to transport waste to existing regional landfills or to site and build a new in -County
landfill.
7.1 Background
When the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was re -authorized in 1992,
it adopted new regulations governing where landfills can be located and how they
would be designed and operated. The part of the federal regulations pertaining to MSW
landfills is section "Subtitle D". The state of Oregon adopted these regulations, which
are defined in OAR 340-94-001. These regulations require landfills be designed with
liner systems and leachate and landfill gas controls systems. They also require owners
of Subtitle D landfills to set aside funds to close and monitor landfills during the post -
closure care period, which is typically required to be 30 years. Existing landfills that
continued to operate had to transition out of current operations and build new landfill
cells that were compliant with the new regulations.
The financial burden to make substantial capital investments in new landfill cells and
set aside funds for closure and post closure care caused many smaller landfills to
close. For many communities that did not generate large amounts of waste, the
expense to meet new Subtitle D requirements was not cost effective. Therefore, to
make it cost effective for a jurisdiction to comply with Subtitle D regulations, they
needed to obtain long term commitments for wastes from other jurisdictions. Difficulty
in securing long term agreements for waste prevented many communities from
making the investment in new landfills.
As landfills were closed, some jurisdictions were faced with the task to locate a new
landfill site. Both Portland Metro (the regional solid waste authority for the Portland
Metropolitan area) and Marion County spent several years siting new landfills on the
west side of the Cascade Mountains, and neither jurisdiction was successful. It is
important to note that, although both jurisdictions had located sites that were
physically suitable for a new landfill, they were not successful due to public opposition
or because of challenges related to State and local land use laws.
The failure to site landfills in the more populated areas west of the Cascade Mountains
encouraged support to building larger landfills designed to serve several communities
in the and climate east of the Cascades. The new landfills were permitted along the
Columbia River Gorge, which has favorable geologic and hydrologic conditions for
building Subtitle D landfills. They also provided convenient access via alternative
transportation methods such as rail and barge as well as by truck.
7-1
IMM
By the early 1990s, larger communities, such as Portland Metro and Vancouver and
Seattle, Washington chose to contract out the transportation and disposal of their
wastes. As a result, several regional landfills were developed in the Columbia Gorge.
Since the development of these landfills in the 1990s, there have been no new Subtitle
D landfills sited in Oregon. There have, however, been many expansions to existing
Subtitle D compliant landfills.
7.2 County Authority for Waste Disposal
As presented in Chapter 1, ORS 459.085 designates authority to each county in the
State. It specifies that both cities and counties have the authority to adopt ordinances
and regulations regarding the management and execution of programs and services to
collect recyclables and wastes in their jurisdictions.
With respect to areas outside of cities, a board of county commissioners may adopt
ordinances to:
a. Own and operate disposal sites and license disposal sites as an alternative to
franchising of service.
b. Regulate, license or franchised salvage businesses or the operation of salvage
sites where such action is found necessary to implement any part of a solid waste
management plan applicable in the county.
In summary, both cities and counties are responsible to ensure basic solid waste
collection, recycling and disposal services are provided to all residents and businesses.
The State supports local qovernments working cooperatively to prepare a SWMP and
coordinate services in the most efficient approach. ORS 459.065 states local
governments may enter into intergovernmental agreements as follows:
a. For joint franchising of service or the franchising or licensing of disposal sites.
b. For joint preparation or implementation of a solid waste management plan.
c. For establishment of a joint solid waste management system.
d. For cooperative establishment, maintenance, operation or use of joint disposal
sites, including but not limited to energy and material recovery facilities.
e. For the employment of persons to operate a site owned or leased by the local
government unit.
f. For promotion and development of markets for energy and material recovery.
g. For the establishment of landfills including site planning, location, acquisition,
development and placing into operation.
As part of preparing this SWMP, a key step has been to review and update
intergovernmental agreements, especially as it relates to moving forward with
implementation of the recommendations. Therefore, the planning process is designed
to obtain input from cities, other stakeholders and the public as it is being prepared.
ORS 459 has several citations that govern management of solid waste. The ORS
citations above describe the authority of local governments to manage solid waste
within their jurisdictional boundaries and for local governments to work together on
solutions and services. There are additional citations that relate to waste reduction and
recycling and landfill disposal sites.
7-2
Chapter 7
First, through SB 263, the State regulations for waste reduction and recycling were
amended and codified in ORS 459A. This amendment to the original "Opportunity to
Recycle Act' enacted new recovery rates for all counties (also referred to as
wastesheds). For Deschutes County, the recovery rate was set at 45% by 2025.
Second, listed are the regulations related to new landfill disposal sites. In ORS
459.017 it states (bolded language emphasizes State responsibilities):
1. The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that:
a. The planning, location, acquisition, development and operation of
landfills is a matter of statewide concern.
b. Local government units have the primary responsibility for planning for
solid waste management.
c. Where the solid waste management plan of a local government unit has
identified a need for a landfill, the State has a responsibility to assist
local government and private persons in establishing such a sites3.
2. It is the intent of the Legislative Assembly that any action taken by the
Environmental Quality Commission to establish a landfill under ORS 459.049 be
recognized as an extraordinary measure that should be exercised only in the
closest cooperation with local government units that have jurisdiction over the
area affected by the proposed establishment of a landfill.
Furthermore, ORS 459.047 identifies how the State will work with local governments
to site, permit and implement any new landfill disposal site. In summary, the State
recognizes the complexity and challenges in locating a new landfill disposal site and
will offer assistance where needed.
7.3 Existing Landfill Disposal
Knott Landfill is the only landfill in Deschutes County and is anticipated to close in
2029. It accepts both municipal solid waste (MSW) as well as construction and
demolition waste (C/D) as discussed in previous chapters. The amount of waste
received at Knott Landfill is shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Deschutes County Waste to Disposal Operations54
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Annual
Waste 114,307 112,751 113,611 119,682 130,956 144,067 161,087 182,095
Disposed
tons
% (1.4%) 0.9% 5.4% 9.4% 10.0% 11.8% 13.0%
Chancre
53 Emphasis added to acknowledge importance of SWMP
54 Source: 2017 Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report
7-3
MMMRUIlf
The amount of waste disposed at Knott Landfill in 2017 was 181,000 tons, an increase
of 39% since 2014. The growth in the amount of waste disposed can be attributed to
several factors including population growth, increase in construction activity and
overall improvement in the economy. Although Deschutes County continues to
experience slightly higher population growth than the rest of Oregon, this increase in
waste disposed is not expected to continue at this rate. To this point, in 2018 DSW
reported that 182,000 tons were disposed. Therefore, the waste projections to be used
for planning purposes assume waste generation will increase at a rate commensurate
with the growth in population in Deschutes County.
By 2040, the amount of waste generated is estimated to grow to 336,000 tons. How
much is disposed will be determined by how much can be recycled and/or converted to
other resources. In Chapters 3 and 4, this plan identifies new programs and services
that can reduce the volume of waste disposed over the next 10-12 years, which may
result in extending the site life of the Knott Landfill by one or two years. In Chapter 6,
several alternative technologies that can convert waste into resources and reduce that
which is landfilled were evaluated. These technologies, however, do not appear to be
viable today. Perhaps, in the future, conditions may change that the County can
consider their feasibility.
Cost of Landfill Disposal
The County has operated Knott Landfill for more than 45 years. In 1996, Cell 1, the
first Subtitle D compliant lined cell, was completed at Knott Landfill and MSW
landfilling operations were moved to Cell 1 at that time. Non-MSW disposal operations
continued in the unlined area at Knott Landfill through 2008. The new cells constructed
from 1996 forward include primary and secondar;� liners and a leachate collection and
recirculation system. A landfill gas collection and monitoring system was installed in
2001. The landfill gas collection system is expanded on a regular basis as waste
disposal operations proceed.
When the landfill was converted to a Subtitle D compliant facility, the County
established a closure and post closure fund as required by the State. This fund will
ensure adequate funds are dedicated to properly close all active landfill areas and pay
the expenses for monitoring the site for 30 years after closure or until the time the
landfill is deemed stable.
The County charges a tip fee of $55 per ton for the cost to manage the solid waste
system. Of this amount, $35 pays for the cost of operating Knott Landfill. The
remaining $20 of the tip fee is used for operation of the four transfer stations and to
fund recycling, public education and other programs administered by DSW. In 2016,
the Department's total cost to operate Knott Landfill was $5,962,000. The breakdown
of the different expense categories associated with operating the landfill is shown in
Table 7-2.
7-4
Table 7-2: Knott Landfill Expenses 2016
Knott Landfill Operating Expenses
2016 (Actual)
Operations
$ 2,662,000
Fees and Permits (DEQ) / Insurance
$ 400,000
Transfer to Reserve Funds
$ 2,500,000
- Capital Reserves
- Equipment Reserves
- Closure and Post Closure
Contingency (7%)
$ 400,000
Total Annual Operating Expenses
$ 5,962,000
Depending on the quantity of waste disposed daily, the actual operating cost typically
does not vary significantly. For instance, if a landfill receives 600 tons versus 500 tons
per day, the operating expenses for placing and compacting the waste will not
appreciably change. The reason is that fixed operating costs are a higher percentage
of overall expenses and therefore the unit cost or per ton rate to operate is not greatly
impacted by the amount of waste disposed. The capital expenses to build new landfills
cells as well as the pinnneri closure and post closure expenses are fixed costs and are
already prorated on a per ton basis. Thus, when waste volumes increase, there is
more revenue to pay for fixed costs resulting in lowering the unit cost to operate the
landfill. For this reason, regional landfills that accept large amounts of waste can
charge a lower tip fee compared to smaller landfills. The following table shows how the
actual tip fees varies depending on the annual amount of waste disposed.
Table 7-3: Total Annual Operating Expenses
Total Annual Operating Expenses
$ 6,000,000
$/Ton
Annual Waste Disposed
2016
161,000 tons
$37.27
Annual Waste Disposed
2017
181,000 tons
$33.15
Average Disposal Cost
$ 35.21
Each year, DSW prepares a budget and makes an estimate on how much waste will be
disposed in the coming year. There are some inflationary expenses such as labor and
fuel prices, but most expenses are relatively stable.
In considering future disposal options, the County can compare the estimated cost to
the current tip fee of $35 per ton for landfill operations.
7-5
.Xl
Chapter
7.4 Waste Stream Projections
In Chapter 2, estimates of how much waste might be generated and disposed were
presented. This information represents background data that can be used to analyze
alternatives and determine future disposal needs.
Using the waste generation projections, estimates were made of the amount of waste
that could be processed using an alternative technology and/or may need to be
disposed in a landfill. In projecting the estimated waste to be disposed beyond 2030,
the analysis will assume that the per capita generation rate will continue to be 2,800
pounds. This will be multiplied by the population projections using the latest growth
rate for period leading to 2030 as prepared by the Population Research Center at
Portland State University.
Table 7-4: Deschutes County Waste Disposal Projections
Year
Population
Projections
Per Capita
Generated
(tons)
Waste
Generated
(tons)
Waste
Recycled
(tons)
Recovery
Rate
Waste
Disposed
(tons)
2015
170,606
2,663
227,333
83,381
36.7%
143,952
2016
174,701
2,727
240,844
79,757
33.1%
161,087
2017
178,893
3,022
270,326
89,000
32.9%
181,326
2018
183,187
3,000
274,780
90,677
33.0%
184,103
201a
, 0-7 cow
nnn%JWU
Tut 275
a2 f2rd
33 n%
188_521
2020
190,734
3,000
286,101
94,413
33.0%
191,688
2021
194,739
3,000
292,109
96,396
33.0%
195,713
2022
198,829
3,000
298,243
98,420
33.0%
199,823
2023
203,004
2,900
294,356
97,138
33.0%
197,219
2024
207,267
2,900
300,538
99,177
33.0%
201,360
2025
210,826
2,900
305,698
100,880
33.0%
204,817
2026
214,832
2,800
300,764
99,252
33.0%
201,512
2027
218,913
2,800
306,479
101,138
33.0%
205,341
2028
223,073
2,800
312,302
103,060
33.0%
209,242
2029
227,311
2,800
318,236
105,018
33.0%
213,218
2030
230,412
2,800
322,577
106,450
33.0%
216,126
Table 7-4 shows that by 2025 the waste disposed is estimated to be over 200,000
tons and 216,000 tons by 2030. This assumes that the County's recovery rate of 33%
does not increase over the existing rate. This assumption is conservative as it is
expected that the expanded programs and services recommended in the plan will
result in diverting more waste. For planning purposes, these conservative projections
will be used for evaluating options and planning for future facilities.
7-6
7.5 Needs and Opportunities
The County, working with cities and private waste collection companies, has provided
the infrastructure needed to manage solid waste in a most effective manner. With
Knott Landfill, residences and businesses have become reliant on having an in -County
disposal site that greatly supports a most cost-effective system. For example, the
current tip fee at Knott Landfill is $55 per ton, one of the lowest rates in Oregon and
perhaps the entire Pacific Northwest. One reason other counties have higher rates is
that several jurisdictions have elected to transport waste from 50 miles to 200 miles to
regional landfills.
With Knott Landfill having a finite capacity, it will close perhaps as early as 2029.
There are strategies that may extend the site life as discussed in Chapter 6, but
eventually an alternative disposal site must be in place prior to the actual closure date.
Looking at projections, the County will generate between 300,000 and 400,000 tons of
waste per year. Making a conservative assumption that the recovery rate remains
constant, the County will need to dispose almost 220,000 tons per year by 2030.
While this presents a challenge, it also provides opportunities that may not be feasible
In other parts of the State. Deschutes County is growing and, besides the attraction to
relocate to the area, the amount of tourism and annual visitors contribute to an active
and vibrant economy. Therefore, the County is expected to experience a higher rate of
growth than perhaps other parts of the State. The amount of waste that is forecasted
to be generated may make certain alternatives more cost effective for Deschutes
County compared to other jurisdictions that do not generate enough waste to pay for
these alternatives.
The amount of time remaining before Knott Landfill closes provides an i� opportu� pity to
evaluate options and implement strategies to reduce waste disposed in the landfill. At
the same time, given the time needed to site a new landfill or build facilities needed to
support other options, it is prudent to develop a strategy for managing waste when
Knott Landfill is closed.
7.6 Disposal Options
7.6.1 Long -Haul Waste to Out -of -County Landfills
One option for handling waste from Deschutes County after the closure of Knott
Landfill would be to export the waste to landfills outside of the County. There are
several regional landfills currently operating in the States of Oregon and Washington.
These regional landfills were developed in the 1990s in response to the requirements
of RCRA Subtitle D. In both Oregon and Washington, there was also a push to develop
new landfill capacity in and climate areas east of the Cascade Mountains. The purpose
was to reduce exposure to impacts from precipitation and the potential for
contaminating groundwater if the landfill liner systems fail. Communities like Seattle,
Washington also subscribed to the fact that the increased cost to transport and landfill
waste east of the mountains would create an incentive to recycle more materials.
Simply put, by recycling more material, communities would save money by avoiding
the cost to transport waste long distances.
7-7
Chapter
4
Regional Landfills
Landfills are considered regional in the State of Oregon if they receive more than
75,000 tons per year from jurisdictions outside the local county. There are currently
five regional landfills operating in Oregon and one in Washington. These are as
follows:
Landfills Located East of the Cascade Mountains
1. Columbia Ridge Landfill, Arlington, OR - Owned & operated by Waste
Management
2. Finley Buttes Landfill, Boardman, OR - Owned & operated by Waste
Connections
3. Wasco County Landfill, The Dailies, OR - Owned & operated by Waste
Connections
4. Roosevelt Regional Landfill, Roosevelt, WA - Owned & operated by
Republic Services
Landfills Located West of the Cascade Mountains
5. Coffin Butte Landfill, Corvallis, OR - Owned & operated by Republic
Services
6. Dry Creek Landfill, Medford, OR - Owned & operated by Rogue Disposal
The combined capacity of these privately owned and operated landfills is well over a
few hundred years. In addition to Knott Landfill, there are a few publicly owned and
operated landfills. These landfills are located in Lane County and Crook County. Lane
County only handles waste generated in their county including the cities of Eugene and
Springfield. Crook County currently serves only its county residents but has expressed
interest in receiving waste from outside their County.
A key consideration for any community to dispose of waste is the cost of transporting
waste to these regional sites. The locations of the five landfills considered in this
discussion and their respective one-way distances from the Knott Transfer Station in
Bend are shown in Figure 7-1. Not shown on the map are the two regional landfills
located west of the Cascade Mountains. Both Dry Creek Landfill in Medford and Coffin
Butte Landfill just north of Corvallis are approximately 200 miles from Bend. However,
transporting waste over the Cascade Mountains, particularly in the winter months, may
not be practical, so these two facilities have been excluded from this analysis. Negus
Transfer Station is also shown in the figure because it is closer than the Knott Transfer
Station to all existing landfills, making it possible to directly haul waste from Negus
Transfer Station to the regional landfills. This would save transporting waste 22 miles
from the Negus facility south to the Knott Transfer Station that would otherwise be
needed.
7-8
M 7W
Figure 7-1: Location and Distances to Proximate Landfills and Transfer
Stations
t
Portland
Kkckitat
County
The D
Wasco Landfill
130 mi
Wasco
Courtly
Negus Station
22 mi 'Redmond }
Bend
Knott S
Yakima
Roosevelt Landfill
180 mi
e$ :� Finley Buttes Landfill
206 mi?endlelon
Cpm i lus Ridge Landfill
185 i Morrow
Gilliam ) County.
county
Crook County Landfill
37 mi
Deschutes
_... _. County .............
Crook
County
'The mdages listed
are distances from
the Knott 5taht
the Negus Staontiono
and resoechve
landfills
The map shows the closest Subtitle D landfill is in Crook County. The closest regional
landfill is 130 miles from Bend, located in Wasco County near The Dalles. Three other
regional landfills, located near the Columbia Gorge, range in distance from 185 miles
for Columbia Ridge to 208 miles for Finley Buttes
There are several methods for transporting waste to landfills. The main transportation
methods are: truck, rail and barge. For distances under 300 miles, transportation of
waste by truck tends to be the most cost effective. Since the distances to all five
landfills are around or below 200 miles from the Knott Transfer Station, this analysis
will focus on the costs of transporting waste via truck from Deschutes County to the
proximate landfills.
In order to haul waste from Deschutes County to the out -of -County landfills, the
transfer stations in Deschutes County would need to be renovated. For the purposes of
this analysis, the cost to renovate the Knott and Negus Transfer Stations is
$4,000,000 and $8,000,000 respectively. Additionally, the cost of operating these
transfer stations would be $12 per ton each.
The cost of transporting waste from these transfer stations will vary based on the
landfill chosen. Recently, Metro received bids for transporting waste from their transfer
stations in Portland to the Columbia Ridge Landfill in Arlington, OR. The contract Metro
7-9
has with a private hauler has a cost of $653 per container and using an average of 32
tons per container results in $20.41 per ton in transportation fees. The proposal
includes a provision that Metro pay the cost of fuel at $4 per ton and therefore, Metro
assumes risk for changes in fuel costs. This yields a total cost of $24.41 per ton for
Metro to transport waste 175 miles to the Columbia Ridge Landfill.
This bid price translates to about $0.14 per ton -mile and is based on traveling over
80% of the time on Interstate 84, a major freeway. Transfer trucks transporting waste
from Deschutes County to regional landfills will use a combination of County, State
and federal highways and will travel through small towns. This may increase the total
haul time and impact costs, even though the total miles are similar. Regardless, this
cost represents the most recent information from a public bid process and will be
utilized to compare options for transporting waste from the Knott and Negus Transfer
Stations to the prospective landfills. Actual cost will be established using a competitive
bid process.
At the Knott Transfer Station, it is probable that a compactor will be installed to
maximize the payload for each trailer. With a transfer station compactor, waste is
placed in a compaction unit where it is compressed to a high density before being
loaded into a transfer trailer. With a compactor, payload can be precisely controlled to
maximize transportation efficiency. Typically, a transfer trailer can be top loaded with
a payload of 24 to 26 tons. However, a compactor can produce a payload of 30 tons to
as much as 34 tons of waste in each a trailer, thus maximizing transportation
efficiency and minimizing the total number of transfer trips needed. Using Metro's cost
to transport waste of $0.14 per ton -mile which includes fuel, the cost to transport
waste 185 miles from Deschutes County to the Columbia Ridge Landfill is estimated to
be about $26 per ton
The County could also transport waste from Negus Transfer Station to Columbia Ridge
Landfill, a distance of about 165 miles. Using the $0.14 per ton -mile, transportation
cost would be about $24 per ton. If the County did not use a compactor, the payloads
per each trip would be 25 tons versus 32 tons in comparison with loads utilizing a
compaction system.
Disposal fees at the regional landfills will vary depending on how much waste is
committed and the timeframe for that commitment. It is estimated the disposal fee
will range from $22 to $35 per ton. In addition, most regional landfills are required to
pay a host fee for out -of -County wastes. Host fees are a fee paid to the local city or
county jurisdiction where a landfill is located. Metro is required to pay a $6 per ton
host fee at Columbia Ridge Landfill. This cost will be added to the estimated cost of
disposal.
This represent the best information that is available and will be used for planning
purposes and evaluating alternatives. The actual price to dispose will most likely be
determined through a public procurement/bid process.
The transfer station operating and renovation costs and waste disposal costs for both
transfer stations to all five regional landfills are summarized in Table 7-5. For the
Negus Transfer Station, only the Wasco and Crook County landfills are considered
because hauling only 25 tons per trailer would be more costly for the other landfills
being evaluated due to longer transportation distances.
7-10
Chapter
Table 7-5: Transfer Station Operation, Transportation and Disposal Costs
for Out -of -County Long -Haul
Knott Transfer Station
Landfill
Transportation
Disposal
Total Transportation/
Landfill
Costs ($/ton)
Costs & Host
Disposal & Host Fee
Fee
($/ton)
ton (1)
Wasco Landfill
$19.00
$28.00
$47.00-$50.00
(135 miles one-way)
$31.00
Columbia Ridge Landfill
$26.00
$30.00-
$56.00-$59.00
(185 miles one-way)
$33.00
Finley Buttes Landfill
$29.00
$30.00-
$59.00-$62.00
(206 miles one-way)
$33.00
Roosevelt Landfill
$25.00
$30.00-
$55.00-$58.00
(180 miles one-way)
$33.00
Crook County Landfill
$8.00(2)
$40.00(3)
$48.00
(35 miles one-way)
Negus Transfer Station
Wasco Landfill
(110 miles one-way)
$i6.00
$28'00
$31.00
$44.00=$47.00
Crook County Landfill
$6.00 (2)
$40.00 (3)
$46.00
(18 miles one-way)
(1) Assumes a host fee of $6 per ton for all regional landfills. Host fees may vary by jurisdiction.
(2) The cost to transport from Deschutes County transfer stations was adjusted considering
time to travel rural highways and through congested areas.
(3) Crook County tip fee is based on the current published gate rate of $35 per ton plus a $5
per ton host fee.
The closest regional landfill that can provide 50 years or more of capacity is the Wasco
County Landfill at a distance of about 135 miles. However, the other regional landfills
are all within 200 miles and therefore, the cost to transport waste is reasonably close
in comparison.
The cost to dispose at these landfills has two components. First, is the actual cost the
operator will charge to accept a jurisdiction's waste, often referred to as a tip fee. This
can vary depending on the volume commitment and the terms of the contract. A
commitment to accept 200,000 tons per year for 20 years may have lower costs than
the same tonnage for a shorter period of maybe five years. This is because the landfill
has more certainty with the longer term and can better plan for the cost of the
services with a longer commitment period. Also, a large portion of the costs to operate
a landfill is fixed, thus more waste that is contracted for disposal may result in a lower
7-11
l''�M� � F!iiF
fee. The second component would be the host fee that is often a condition placed on
the landfills. The current host fee is assumed to be $6 per ton, but this can vary from
site to site. Also, host communities do have the ability to raise their fees without input
from out -of -county users. This is a risk that can be negotiated as part of the disposal
contract.
Based on the distance to the regional landfills and using the most recent transportation
cost produced from a public proposal (Metro), the cost to transport Deschutes
County's waste to regional landfills ranges from $16 to $29 per ton from the Knott
Transfer Station. Based on current data shown in Table 7-5, it is estimated that the
cost to transport and dispose of waste at a regional landfill could range from $47 to
perhaps $60 per ton. Each of the regional landfills are active in soliciting more wastes
from jurisdictions. This market condition would appear to be advantageous to the
County as these landfills would compete to provide the best price.
Crook County Landfill
Besides transporting waste to landfills located along the Columbia Gorge, another
option is to dispose of Deschutes County's waste at the Crook County Landfill. This
landfill is an approved Subtitle D landfill that currently receives all waste from
Prineville and Crook County. In 2017, the landfill disposed of 36,000 tons of waste.
Crook County is open to receiving waste from jurisdictions outside their jurisdiction.
Previously, the landfill accepted waste from Jefferson County. In 2009, Jefferson
County elected to transport their waste to the Wasco County Landfill. The current tip
fee to dispose of waste at the Wasco County Landfill is $35 per ton plus a host fee of
$5 This . similar
to 1[he t to n rate Knott Landfill and Deschutes County
�J per ton. � his is siiiii�ai w u �c w�� w operate �
would need to transport waste almost 40 miles from the Knott Transfer Station to the
Crook County Landfill. Another option could be to transport waste from Negus Transfer
Station to Crook County, which is 15 miles.
The option to dispose of some, but not all, of Deschutes County's waste at the Crook
County Landfill would need to be evaluated further to determine how much waste
could be disposed and for how long. This could also be a strategy that might help
extend the site life of Knott Landfill beyond the anticipated 2029 closure date.
Reducing waste disposed at Knott Landfill can extend the time before it reaches
capacity, but the County would lose revenue and the unit cost to operate Knott Landfill
would increase. For instance, if 30,000 tons each year were transported to Crook
County at a cost of $40 per ton, the loss of revenue to Deschutes County would be
about $1,200,000 per year, plus the cost to transport waste to Crook County. The cost
to transport waste to Crook County may offset the current cost to haul from Negus
Transfer Station to Knott Landfill, but this would need further analysis. Since the cost
to operate a landfill has a large percentage of built in fixed costs, when the waste
volume deceases, the unit price to operate Knott Landfill would most likely increase.
From Crook County's perspective, sending more waste to their landfill could benefit
their overall cost of operations and perhaps provide a lower tip fee.
This option can be further explored, but only if Crook County is willing to accept an
amount of waste from Deschutes County that is both practical for the overall
Deschutes County system and beneficial for both jurisdictions. However, disposal of all
of Deschutes County's waste at the Crook County Landfill is not a long-term solution
as it would greatly impact the capacity and site life of the Crook County Landfill.
7-12
EPSONV
Chapter 7
7.6.2 Option - Site and Build a New In -County Landfill
The County, in cooperation with the cities, has the option to site, design and build a
new in -County landfill when Knott Landfill closes. For Deschutes County, siting a
landfill in a more remote setting may be successful. In the late 1990s, the County
conducted a preliminary search and located potentially suitable sites for a new landfill.
However, this effort was discontinued when a further evaluation of expanding Knott
Landfill was determined to be feasible. Now that Knott Landfill will be closing, this
option is being considered.
itina a New_Landfi
The rules and regulations for siting and permitting a new Subtitle D landfill are
specified in the OAR 459. Based on these requirements, there are several steps in the
process to be completed before a final permit can be issued by DEQ.
Step 1 — Establish a need for the new landfill
DEQ requires a jurisdiction to adopt a SWMP that formally establishes the need to site
and build a new landfill to manage municipal solid waste and to serve its jurisdiction.
DEQ will not accept an application without the need being fully recognized.
Step 2 — Identify potential areas/sites that meet location criteria
There are several approaches for proceeding with siting a landfill. The jurisdiction can
identify potential areas and proceed to identify perspective sites based on established
location criteria. A Phase I Site Characterization may also be conducted to identify
sites that are suitable in this initial step. Also, as part of this step, a thorough review
of t he jiirISdictioii�S ia'iid use r eguia'tio^i may also - conducted t^ establish th--- ----
that are most suitable under the current zoning rules. Identifying the appropriate
zoning to comply with local land use requirements is an important step towards
receiving a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) that will be needed to obtain a
DEQ permit. In this step, a public meeting might be held to gain input into the areas
that are most suited for building a new landfill.
Step 3 — Complete Phase II Site Characterization consistent with DEQ
permitting requirements on the preferred site(s)
Upon identifying areas that satisfy the location criteria, a jurisdiction can proceed to
develop and carry out a formal siting study to identify preferred sites. The siting
criteria should list the desired features and parameters for the new landfill. This
process should include public input during the site selection process. A Phase II site
characterization report will need to be completed to select a preferred site and provide
sufficient data and site information to obtain permits.
As this step is completed, the jurisdiction can submit information to DEQ and seek
preliminary approval under OAR 340-093-0090. This step allows DEQ to provide
comments or concerns prior to the jurisdiction spending funds on completing the
detailed engineering reports. Preliminary approval does not prevent DEQ from denying
or conditionally approving a completed permit application. Nor if denied, does it
prevent the applicant from proceeding to complete the application and address the
concerns of DEQ.
7-13
Step 4 — Complete permit documents and DEQ application
After selecting the preferred site(s), the jurisdiction can move forward with preparing
the permit application. This entails preparing detailed engineering plans,
environmental monitoring and operations plans, closure and post closure studies and
provide for financial assurance requirements. All the technical reports and studies will
be part of the overall permit application submitted to DEQ. The jurisdiction must also
provide a LUCS prior to DEQ approval.
Step 5- Complete permit application process
After the permit application documents are submitted to DEQ for review, DEQ will
provide comments and the jurisdiction will need to respond within a specified time
established in the statutory review process. This step will also entail public meetings to
obtain comments prior to issuing a final permit.
These represent the basic steps a jurisdiction must take to site and build a new
landfill. Local jurisdictions can develop an approach that includes public involvement
and completion of the permit documents that satisfy their local conditions. It is
important to work closely with DEQ and other agencies that may be impacted or other
stakeholders in obtaining a permit.
Siting Criteria
In siting a new landfill, there are certain restrictions on the location that are required
to be addresses prior to spending resources on an extensive siting process. The
Subtitle D location restrictions address the following:
Airports and airport safety
• ran Nvi �o ui iu un rv. .a... ..��
Flood plains
• Wetlands
• Fault areas
• Seismic impact zones
• Unstable areas
• Critical habitat
• Sensitive hydrogeologic environments
A preliminary review of these criteria appears to indicate that there are areas within
the County that will satisfy these location restrictions. A formal review should be
conducted prior to proceeding with an extensive siting process.
Another key siting criteria is protection of groundwater. An analysis of potential
impacts to groundwater will be required as part of the site characterization process. As
an example, groundwater at Knott Landfill is over 700 feet deep, which could be
considered a desirable attribute for groundwater protection. The overall geologic
conditions present in parts of Deschutes County are more favorable for siting a landfill
than other areas.
Based on the requirements and various steps a jurisdiction must complete, the process
to site a landfill is quite extensive. It requires field investigations to characterize the
site and several technical and engineering studies to be completed and approved by
DEQ and perhaps other agencies that may have jurisdiction. When documents are
submitted, they are reviewed in house by DEQ and appropriate state agencies. DEQ
also provides time for public comments and conducts public meetings. During this
7-14
process, appeals can be made to higher authorities or decision makers for a final
action. Thus, it is difficult to predict the total time needed to complete the landfill
permitting process and procure a permit. A key land use action that must be
completed by the sponsoring jurisdiction is to approve the LUCS. This approval is
subject to appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and can be a protracted
process.
It has been noted that no new landfills have been permitted in the State of Oregon for
more than 20 years. Part of the reason for this is the fact that a majority of Oregon's
population resides west of the Cascades which is subject to greater amounts of
precipitation. High amounts of precipitation can pose challenges for groundwater
protection and management of leachate. The State has preferred that new landfills be
built in and climates east of the mountains. Most communities do not generate
sufficient wastes to justify the cost to build a Subtitle D compliant landfill and with the
existing capacity at regional landfills available to accommodate those communities, no
new landfills have been sited.
Based on past experience going back to the early 1990s, it should be assumed that it
may take two to three years to site and permit a new landfill. However, this schedule
does not account for legal challenges and/or appeals to agencies that have approval
authority. As an example, the Riverbend Landfill in Yamhill County is the most current
landfill permitting project in Oregon. The landfill owner applied for an expansion to the
landfill on an adjacent property in 2011. As of October 2018, the process has taken
almost eight years and is currently on appeal to the State Supreme Court for a
decision. This landfill is located near several residences and is close to farm land.
TZ tL-e .d..cision is ma to .•.•. a f.,.- A-11l %Alith *ho nntinn to citc n npw landfill , a nerind
11 111C UCLIJI VII IJ IIICIUG L Illovc Ivl ry r�. �i. �.�_ v11tio.. to Site ....-- •.-••..••• •, - r .--
of three to five years considering extra time associated with appeals should be
assumed for completing the permitting process. Additional time will be needed to build
the supporting facilities (access roads, gatehouse/scales, maintenance buildings, etc.)
and the initial landfill cells. These could take two years to design and construct.
Conservatively, six to eight years may be needed to have a new in -County disposal
site ready to accept waste.
Phvslical Description of a New Landfill
The commitment to site and build a landfill should be considered an investment to
provide ongoing services for a long period. Such a facility will provide a stable long-
term solution for Deschutes County and perhaps other parts of central Oregon. Using
waste generation projections, a preliminary analysis was prepared that indicates
between 400 and 500 acres would be needed to provide approximately 100 years of
service. This does not necessarily mean the entire site will be built out at the onset, as
it can be built and filled in phases. However, in seeking a future landfill site, it is
desirable to have the capacity to manage the County's waste for the long term. The
amount of property needed should account for providing a buffer for adjacent
properties. The size of the buffer area depends on the location and mitigating impacts
to neighbors, if required.
In considering the amount of land required for a new site, it should be assumed the
landfill can be excavated to a depth of 50 to 100 feet and filled to a height of 100 feet
above the surrounding grade. This approach is not only more cost effective to operate,
but also results in reducing the overall footprint needed for the facility.
7-15
rnG«In;.
Traffic is usually not a major consideration as most likely, waste will be delivered by
transfer trailers like those currently used at the County's transfer stations. This helps
to reduce the number of vehicle trips that would be needed to deliver waste to the new
landfill. The site should also have safe access to highways or County roads. Dedicated
service roads to access the landfill working areas can be constructed as needed.
Cost to Site/ Build and Operate an In -County landfill
To properly dispose of MSW, the County would need to site, construct and operate the
new landfill in accordance with the Subtitle D regulations. Since the County has
operated Knott Landfill in conformance with these regulations for over 20 years, it
certainly has the knowledge and experience needed to continue this practice.
Currently, the cost to operate the landfill is about $35 per ton. This includes all direct
and indirect expenses such as closure and post closure funds, capital reserves and
fees.
Siting a New Landfill
As previously noted, a new landfill has not been sited in the state of Oregon for more
than 20 years. Thus, the costs to complete the entire process are best estimates
assuming the procedures presented in the previous section are followed. Since there
are several opportunities to appeal decisions during the process, it is difficult to
estimate the total time required and what additional efforts will be needed to respond
to any appeals. However, the cost to produce the technical reports and engineering
documents needed to secure a permit are defined and these costs are known.
With this background, the estimated cost to site the landfill are:
Landfill Siting Process (includes public meetings) $ 300,000
Site Characterization Reports $ 1,000,000
Preliminary Engineering and Permit Documents $ 1,200,000
Permitting Contingency (20%) $ 500,000
Total $3,000,000
Included in the estimate is a contingency to address the need to conduct additional
public meetings, provide additional technical studies and/or respond to permit
agencies and possible appeals. These funds will be expended over the entire siting and
permitting process which might be three to four years, or possibly longer depending on
appeals.
Landfill Development/ Construction Cost
A new landfill must be designed to comply with the regulations established by the OAR
390-94-001 that are consistent with RCRA Subtitle D. Key environmental and
engineering features for siting and building a new landfill are installing groundwater
monitoring and landfill liner systems to protect groundwater. Other elements include
leachate and landfill gas management and control systems.
All the physical improvements and control systems will be established in the
preliminary engineering documents submitted to DEQ. Upon receiving a permit, final
design of the landfill elements, as well as necessary support facilities, can be prepared.
7-16
These engineering plans must be approved by DEQ prior to start of construction. In
this initial phase, the County will need to excavate and build the first landfill cells as
well as construct the necessary infrastructure to support operations. This will include
access roads, scales, employee facilities and maintenance shops. The estimated costs
to complete the engineering and build the facilities to start operation are listed below.
Support Facilities $ 4,000,000
(includes access roads, scales, employee facilities,
maintenance shops, utilities, etc.)
Initial Landfill Cells $ 2,000,000
Leachate Management System $ 1,000,000
Environmental Monitoring Systems $ 1,000,000
Subtotal $ 8,000,000
Engineering/Construction Services/Administration $ 1,400,000
Contingency (15%) $ 1,600,000
Total Estimated Construction Cost
$ 11,000,000
This estimate assumes that 10 to 15 acres will be constructed in the first phase over a
two or three year period. The entire landfill is expected to be approximately 400 to
500 acres in area. These estimates are based on the most recent costs to construct
landfill improvements of similar facilities throughout the State.
The total cost to site and construct a new landfill is estimated to be about $14,000,000
with a 15% contingency. It is assumed that the County will issue some form of bonds
to fund these initial Improver rents, which i would be r etir eu over a 2v-year period.
Operating Expenses and Projected Cost Per Ton
The cost to operate a new landfill is expected to be similar to the current cost to
operate Knott Landfill. As shown in Table 7-2, the current cost to operate Knott Landfill
including reserves, closure and post closure funds is about $6,000,000 per year, or
about $33 to $35 per ton. Projecting these expenses and adding the annualized debt
service for the capital to build the new landfill results in a projected cost of $38 per ton
in 2029 dollars. This represents a present worth value in 2018 dollars of $34 per ton.
Adding the cost of the land, assumed to be $1 per ton paid over time, the estimated
cost to start up and operate the landfill is $35 per ton. Once the debt service on the
initial capital investment of $14,000,000 is retired, landfill expenses may be reduced
by $4 per ton. This suggests that the long-term disposal cost for operating an in -
County landfill is about $30 per ton in 2018 dollars. Assuming a suitable landfill site is
located within 25 miles of the Knott Transfer Station, transportation cost could range
from $6 to $8 per ton, depending on the route.
7.7 Evaluation of Disposal Options
Given the remaining capacity of Knott Landfill, the County has some time before
making a final decision on a future disposal site. However, whether the County elects
to transport waste to a regional landfill or pursue siting and building a new in -County
landfill, investments in the solid waste system will be needed. As discussed in previous
chapters of this SWMP, there are several recommended actions for implementing
7-17
strategies to reduce waste disposed in landfills. There are also several emerging
technologies that are commercially viable that can be used to convert or transform
waste into renewable energy resources. Some of these technologies are not currently
feasible for the County, but perhaps conditions could change in the future that would
prompt a reconsideration of an alternative technology. However, the County cannot
fully rely on these strategies to dispose of all waste and must plan to have an option
ready when Knott Landfill closes for disposing of waste that cannot be recycled or
converted.
In this chapter, three options were discussed:
1. Transport waste to an out -of -County regional landfill
2. Transport a portion of Deschutes County's waste to the Crook County Landfill
3. Site and build a new in -County landfill
At this time, Crook County is interested in accepting only a portion of Deschutes
County's waste. Thus, this option will be evaluated as part of the strategy to transport
waste out -of -County. Disposing of some of the Deschutes County's waste at the Crook
County Landfill might be an interim strategy to extend the site life of Knott Landfill.
However, based on the information received from Crook County to date, this strategy
is not cost effective and does not provide immediate benefits to Deschutes County.
The two primary alternatives are compared in the following table.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
7-18
,Chapter
Table 7-6: Evaluation of Disposal Options
Primary Factors
Transport Out of County
New In -County Landfill
1. Implementation
0 Regional landfills are permitted
Siting a new landfill has proven
Considerations
and have available capacity
to be both environmentally and
• County transfer stations will
politically difficult and
need to be modified to
unpredictable for communities
accommodate long haul
transportation
2. Sound Financial
0 Proximity of several regional
County and cities control rates
Principles
landfills provides competition
Revenue and jobs stay in
that can result in lower fees
Deschutes County
Impacts to local economy as
revenue and jobs are created in
other jurisdictions
3. Cost Effectiveness
Estimated cost to transport and
Estimated costs
dispose varies
$35 disposal + $ 7 transport
$42/ton
$47-$60/Ton
(Assumes landfill is 25 miles or less
from Knott Transfer Station)
Note: After initial debt is retired
2040, the operating cost will be
reduced by about $4/ton
4. Rate Stability
a Disposal contracts can be written
Based on history of tip fees at
to provide certainty of cost
Knott Landfill, disposal costs
Factors outside control of County
are predictable and stable
could impact fees
(Host fees, fuel prices,
road mile taxes, etc.)
S. System Flexibility
0 Flexibility can be part of
County controls waste and
contract; may have impacts on
disposal system and can make
tip fee
changes as needed (Example:
• If minimum waste supply is
if local jurisdictions implement
committed, there may be
new diversion programs)
possible impacts to County or
County retains ability to
cities to implement alternatives
manage waste without
contractual issues
6. Reliability
0 Disposal is reliable
• Transportation and disposal
• Transporting waste to regional
are reliable
landfills may encounter
0 Transporting waste on certain
interruptions
roads may encounter short
• In general, regional landfills have
term interruptions
good track record for
a County has control and can
environmental compliance
manage environmental risks
• County can control nature of
waste is disposed in the landfill
7. Environmental
Considerations
7.1 Impact from
Disposing of waste in a regional
0 Disposing of waste in County
Landplling:
landfill has the same impact as
has the same impact as
Greenhouse gas
disposing waste in County
disposing waste at a regional
(GHG) emissions
landfill
7-19
Chapter
7.2 Impact from
Transportation:
In 2030, 2-2.1 million truck
0 In 2030, 340,000-350,000
miles and emissions along local
truck miles and emissions
Waste Disposed
roads and highways 97 and 197
along local roads and highways
2030 - 216,000 tons/year
6,800-7,000 trips/year
a In 2040, 2.3-2.7 million truck
0 In 2040, 390,000-450,000
miles and emissions along
truck miles and emissions
2040 - 250,000 tons/year
highways 97 and 197
along local roads and highways
7,800-9,000 trips/year
• County will need to disturb
Existing regional landfills are
400-500 acres*
- 7.3 Impact on Land
permitted and will continue to fill
0 County may adopt mitigating
designated sites with or without
measures as necessary
Deschutes County waste
*Note: Existing quarry sites might
provide opportunity to restore
disturbed land
The comparison of the options shows that either transporting to an on out -of -County
landfill or building a new in -County landfill will provide a dependable long-term
disposal solution. Both options will require investments to build the facilities needed to
support future operations however, more capital is required to site and build an in -
County landfill. Both options are reliable and provide for an environmentally safe
solution for disposing of waste. For instance, DSW has operated Knott Landfill for over
25 years in compliance under the more stringent disposal regulations adopted in 1995.
DSW has installed advanced leachate controls and a recirculation system. Landfill gas
is collected and flared to control LFG emissions and ensure destruction of all -
contaminants. Regional landfills that service several jurisdictions have a notable record
of compliance and service.
Another consideration is the fact that the regional landfills sited and permitted in the
early 1990's are located in and climates east of the Cascade Mountains where there is
little precipitation (less than 16 of rainfall per year). Regional landfills are also located
in areas where the depth to groundwater is several hundred feet below the surface.
Additionally, they are located in rural areas with few residences and/or they provide
buffer areas. These same conditions are prominent in Deschutes County and therefore
it is fair to assume that suitable sites can be located to meet these criteria. Finally,
DSW has demonstrated their capabilities to operate the Knott Landfill in a cost-
effective manner. As an enterprise fund, DSW has provided a well -managed system
and maintained stable tip fees to residents and businesses.
When considering the key guiding principles for developing the solid waste
management system, there are several other factors that support the option to site a
new in -County landfill as the best option.
The first key factor is having flexibility for managing the County's waste stream.
Owning and operating an in -County landfill provides maximum flexibility to make
decisions on how best to manage waste. Decisions on implementing programs to
reduce waste disposed or to divert waste can be made without having potential
contract issues. For out -of -County landfills, contracts can be written to minimize
impacts from changing the amount of waste transported and disposed. However,
owners of regional landfills typically want some certainty and commitment of the waste
7-20
they will be managing. This commitment is understandable since they need to plan
their operations.
The second factor is the impacts of transporting waste over 130 miles to the regional
landfills located along the Columbia Gorge. Currently, waste is delivered to these sites
using a variety of transportation modes such as rail and barge in addition to trucks.
Also, most of the wastes transported to these landfills travels the majority of the
distance along I-84, an interstate highway. Thus, the distance to the landfill may be
similar for some users in comparison to transporting from Deschutes County, but the
time to transport waste to a regional landfill is not impacted by travelling through city
business centers or small towns. The primary transportation route from Deschutes
County will be US 97 and SR 197. The nearly 7,000 trucks trips annually (about 30 per
day) must drive through several cities and towns along the route. Although these
roads represent the primary truck routes for transportation of goods in central Oregon,
they still must travel through business centers of several cities and towns. As these
cities and towns increase in population, the travel time will be impacted. Rail haul may
be a consideration; however, it has not proved to be cost effective when transporting
materials over a short distance.
Another impact consideration is the wear and tear on highways and emissions from the
transfer trucks. Annually, trucks will travel over 2 million miles on these highways to a
regional landfill. Disposing of waste at an in -County landfill reduces this impact.
A third factor is cost. Based on the preliminary evaluation of similar long -haul
agreements, it is estimated to cost between $5 per ton to perhaps as much as $18 per
ton more to transport waste to a regional landfill than to a new in -County landfill. Most
Of L_i5 additional IUJFI results fIrom the a eA i-rnnnh6uatuinvn.. evnonsec However, tiP
UUU 1Uw-County has disposed of 180,000 tons of waste per year and has operated a modern
Subtitle D complaint landfill at a cost that is competitive with these regional landfills.
The preliminary cost estimate prepared for the SWMP shows that a new in -County
landfill can be operated at a cost that will be similar to or slightly more than the
regional landfills that dispose of much higher volumes of waste.
Other factors that could impact the future costs to dispose of waste at a regional
landfill may include the fees charged by those communities hosting the disposal
facility. Also, Deschutes County is one of the fastest growing areas in the State and
the amount of waste to be disposed may increase at higher rate than projected. This
will result in more truck trips to transport waste and the time to travel to the regional
sites will be impacted as other cities and towns along the route experience more
growth.
7.8 Recommendations
With Knott Landfill expected to be at capacity in 10 years or possibly less, the County
must develop a plan to ensure that a disposal system is in place to serve residences
and businesses. The County must begin to plan for this event as the time needed to
obtain permits and build the infrastructure needed will take several years.
7-21
Recommendation 7.1 - The County should proceed to site and permit a new in -
County landfill to be operational when the Knott Landfill closes. The landfill should be
capable to handle all waste streams generated in the county.
Rational - The SWMP has identified and recommends several actions for
County and cities to take to reduce the amount of waste disposed in a future
landfill. It also recognizes that alternative technologies are continuing to
develop that may at some point prove to be feasible for extracting additional
resources from the waste stream and creating some form of renewable
energy. Progress on these technologies can be monitored. However, the best
approach for managing and disposing waste that cannot be recycled or
diverted is to continue to operate an in -County landfill. It provides flexibility
and maximizes control for managing the County's waste streams, avoids
impacts resulting from transporting waste long distances over highways and
will be cost effective in the long run.
Recommendation 7.2 - The County should begin a formal process to site and
permit a new landfill by 2021.
Rational - The timeframe to conduct a process to select a preferred site
may take from three to five years. Once the site is permitted, final
engineering, obtaining construction permits and building the initial landfill
cells is expected to require and additional three years. Using these
assumptions, the site may be available in approximately eight years.
Recommendation 7.3 - Consider privatization of development and operations of
the new landfill.
Rational - Refer to privatization discussion in Appendix A.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
7-22
S. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
8.1 Introduction
In the State of Oregon, counties and cities have the responsibility and authority to
provide comprehensive services for managing solid waste. Deschutes County executes
this mandate by placing the primary responsibility to oversee these services and
operate necessary facilities with DSW. This chapter reviews the County's funding to
determine what changes may be needed to meet the goals presented in this SWMP. It
will also consider the adequacy for managing the needs of the solid waste
management system, and to determine if resources are sufficient to implement the
recommended strategies as presented in this SWMP.
8.2 Background and Existing Conditions
8.2.1 Solid Waste Administrative Agencies
Counties and cities are provided the authority and responsibility for managing solid
waste under ORS 459.125. This statute gives counties the authority and responsibility
for designing, constructing and operating facilities necessary for the safe and efficient
handling of solid waste. Counties may elect to own and operate facilities or contract
with private sector vendors or other jurisdictions to provide the services. Deschutes
County provides services through a combination of owning and operating certain
facilities and contracting with private sector vendors. In addition to operations, the
County provides a leadership role in planning and implementing solid waste
management services throughout the entire County. It is also responsible for ensuring
that State -mandated programs are in place to provide required services or to meet
goals.
The County's annual budget states the mission of the Department of Solid Waste is to:
"Provide environmentally sound and cost-effective solid waste management
services that are in compliance with all laws and regulations to the citizens of
Deschutes County. "
The County executes this mission by providing the necessary facilities needed to
operate an efficient solid waste system and working effectively with local jurisdictions,
private industry and citizens to provide coordinated solid waste management services
throughout the County.
Department of Solid Waste
Background
The County delegates the responsibility for managing solid waste operations to DSW.
DSW has been the primary provider of disposal sites for all wastes generated in the
County for over 50 years. At one time, there were several disposal sites operated in
the County that provided convenient locations where customers could dispose of
waste. When new regulations were adopted in the 1990s, the County, like many
jurisdictions throughout the country, were forced to close landfills that could not
8-1
Chapter 8
comply with these new standards. In response, the County constructed a network of
transfer stations to provide convenient sites to receive waste and recyclables from
customers and transport all waste to Knott Landfill in Bend. To respond to the new
regulations, the County made significant capital investments to install liner systems
and environmental controls for protection of groundwater and to close old unlined
areas of site. Under DSW leadership, these actions resulted in developing a solid waste
system that has been compliant with all regulations and providing cost effective and
environmentally safe services for over 25 years.
Although the County is the primary agency for providing the infrastructure needed for
provide solid waste services, operation of these facilities is conducted through a
public/private partnership. DSW is directly responsible for operating Knott Landfill as
well as the gatehouses at all transfer stations. DSW is also responsible for the
operation of the Northwest, Southwest and Alfalfa transfer stations. Operation of the
Negus Transfer Station and the waste and recyclables transfer system is conducted by
private companies through contract agreements.
In addition to owning and operating facilities, the County provides collection services
to all unincorporated areas of the County through franchised agreements with four
different collection companies. Cities have separate franchised agreements with these
same companies that serve their respective jurisdictions. The County and the cities
work cooperatively with franchised haulers to ensure that solid waste is managed in an
integrated, comprehensive and coordinated approach. This includes cities, other public
agencies and private businesses. The County has continued to foster a public -private
partnership that has led to a solid waste management system that provides cost-
effective services throughout ioiit 'Lille entire County. Thus, the County provides a
leadership role in setting policy and operating facilities while maximizing the use of the
private sector to implement and carry out direct services on a daily basis.
In addition to County owned and operated facilities, Mid -Oregon Recycling provides a
facility that receives and processes the commingled and other recyclable materials
collected from residences and businesses. These materials are baled and transported
to MRFs in the Willamette Valley and Portland. Deschutes Recycling operates the
recycling center and compost facility located at Knott Landfill.
DSW Organization
DSW functions as a separate department responsible for operating the transfer
stations and Knott Landfill. Their responsibilities also include policy development,
facilities management and administration, and direct operations. DSW operates the
system as an enterprise fund, which is completely funded by tip fees, franchised fees,
and the sale of recyclable materials. As an enterprise fund, no general tax funds are
used for operating or managing the solid waste system.
The Director of Solid Waste is responsible for overseeing all aspects of facility
operations including compliance with regulations, execution of County policies and
approved services, preparation of budgets and management of financial resources. The
Director reports directly to the County Administrator.
To operate the transfer facilities and Knott Landfill, the Director manages a staff that
includes administrative support, supervisors, gatehouse and site attendants and
8-2
equipment operators. The current staff includes 24 full time equivalent (FTE)
employees and six part-time contract employees. Figure 8-1 shows the organizational
chart for DSW.
Figure 8-1: DSW Organization
Department Functions
Incorporated Municipalities
There are four incorporated cities (Bend, Redmond, Sisters and La Pine) that have the
same authority in Oregon for the management of solid waste, as does the County.
State law allows cities to license, contract, or franchised with private vendors for solid
waste collection. They also have the authority to own and operate solid waste facilities
(ORS 459.065).
Cities have the authority to approve rates and program options within their
incorporated boundaries. Cities with populations over 4,000 have responsibilities under
SB66 to ensure the implementation of recycling and waste reduction education
programs. Solid waste programs are partially funded by a franchised fee collected by
private collection companies.
8-3
Cities in the County have entered into franchised agreements with private companies
to provide collection of recyclables and solid waste in their jurisdictions. Cities
determine the service standards for residences and businesses and set rates. Cities
have also entered into intergovernmental agreements that support the County to
provide transfer stations and disposal services.
The current relationship between the cities, Deschutes County and the franchised
companies has resulted in the operation of an integrated and coordinated collection
and disposal system that provides a high level of service and that addresses statewide
mandates and regulations.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
DEQ is responsible for overseeing State solid waste policy as stated in ORS 459.015.
This authority includes ensuring local governments enact effective programs consistent
with statewide goals, work cooperatively to provide services and coordinate solid
waste management throughout the State. In addition to monitoring local solid waste
management, the agency provides educational and technical assistance to government
agencies, community and business groups, and citizens. This assistance includes public
information materials, workshops, seminars, and compilation and management of solid
waste data. DEQ can provide funds to assist local governments in planning and
implementing solid waste management programs.
DEQ also supports research and demonstration projects to encourage waste prevention
and resource recovery. It provides grants to assist jurisdictions in implementing
specific proqrams and is responsible for the development and oversight of regulations
for managing solid and hazardous waste.
8.2.2 Solid Waste Enforcement
DEQ has the lead responsibility for enforcing solid waste management and air quality
regulations and permitting at all solid waste -related facilities in the state of Oregon.
Deschutes County is responsible for monitoring and enforcing local illegal dumping
regulations.
The following sections describe the enforcement responsibilities for solid waste
management.
• Solid Waste Facilities. DEQ issues solid waste permits for each facility that
handles solid waste, including compost facilities, within the state of Oregon. It
conducts periodic inspections of the County's waste handling facilities, including
landfills, transfer stations, and recycling centers. It also conducts investigations
of abandoned waste sites and requires the principle responsible party to correct
or remediate any contamination resulting from such facilities.
• Water Quality. DEQ issues water quality permits for leachate management
and permits for stormwater runoff under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). Currently, there are no water quality permits
required at the County's solid waste facilities.
8-4
Chapteraid?
• Hazardous and Special Wastes. DEQ issues permits for facilities that
manage hazardous and special wastes including construction/demolition
landfills. DEQ conducts regular inspections of these facilities and develops
regulations and guidelines for the proper management and disposal of
hazardous and special wastes.
• Illegal dumping. The County's Community Development Department's Code
Enforcement Division investigates and responds to illegal dumping incidents in
Deschutes County through site inspections and response to complaints. It
works with property owners to clean up and close illegal dumpsites and issues
fines as necessary to enforce County regulations.
8.2.3 Financing and Funding Sources
The County has the primary responsibility to ensure that the necessary infrastructure
for providing cost-effective collection and disposal services is available to all residences
and businesses. The underlying foundation enacted by the State legislature is to
provide for the health and safety of citizens of Deschutes County. DSW is responsible
for managing and ensuring the delivery of these services through a combination of
working with different agencies, private businesses and private sector vendors. It
ensures that revenue resources are adequate to provide these services. Its overall
purpose is to provide citizens and businesses in cities and the County with an
environmentally responsible and convenient system for managing solid waste through
quality, cost-effective and uninterruptible services.
Funding Obligations
DSW operates as a public utility through an enterprise fund. The revenue needed to
meet the expenditure requirements of the program is funded primarily through tip and
franchised fees. A small portion of revenue is derived from the sale of recyclable
materials. As an enterprise fund, there is no reliance on federal, State or local taxes.
An enterprise fund mandates that financial obligations for delivery of services, as well
as the associated environmental risk, be in place. This often includes the need for
contingency resources and/or reserves.
The purpose of any utility is to provide uninterrupted service to its customers. DSW
assures this through three functions. First, it generates the revenues necessary to
operate the service system. Second, it provides the capital and reserves required for
system improvements. Third, it prepares for contingencies to minimize interruptions in
service and provides rate stability.
The Enterprise Fund
The Solid Waste Division was originally part of a larger Public Works Department that
was responsible for road construction and maintenance in addition to operation of solid
waste sites. This Department operated with revenues from statewide transportation
funds, transfers from the County's general fund account and revenues from tip fees
collected at the solid waste facilities. In the mid 1990s, a decision was made to
establish a separate Solid Waste Department and enterprise fund that would operate
solely on revenues from services provided. Many public works utility operations, such
as wastewater or water districts, typically use enterprise funds.
8-5
M
113 MM511�
The enterprise fund may manage its revenue resources to provide for operations
including purchasing equipment and internal financing for capital projects. As an
enterprise fund, the County can issue bonds and repay the debt through user fees.
DSW completed a financial plan in 1998 that was used to establish strategy to mostly
finance capital improvements and establish reserves for the purpose of maintaining
stable rates and minimizing the need for sudden rate increases. This is a result of the
County's overall guidance to provide a fiscally responsible and managed approach for
these services. Revenues in excess of annual expenditures are typically placed into
dedicated reserve funds. These reserve funds are intended to be used for capital
investments, either for new facilities or replacement of existing facilities, resources for
closure and post -closure maintenance of Knott Landfill, and contingency funds.
Dedicated reserve funds (described later in this chapter) are in place to ensure that
disposal fees remain stable and allow capital project funding without incurring large
amounts of additional debt.
This financial strategy has been effective in minimizing incremental or sudden rate
adjustments. The current disposal rate or tip fee is $55 per ton and was approved in
July 2017. The previous tip fee of $50 per ton was in place for seven years, from 2010
to 2017. DSW was able to avoid rate adjustments, despite a decrease in disposed solid
waste between 2010 and 2013 at Knott Landfill, by maintaining appropriate fund
balances.
Revenue Requirements and Expenditures for Facility Operations and
Management
The revenue requirements to fund the County's solid waste management programs
and provide services are reviewed on an annual basis. DSW establishes these revenue
requirements by examining its needs in several categories, consistent with the
requirements of managing an enterprise fund. This includes all internal operations
conducted by DSW and those operations that are contracted with private companies.
Primary budget line items include:
1. Personnel Services - Includes all direct labor and employee overhead/benefits
2. Materials and Services - Include all supplies and the materials required to
operate facilities and services that are contracted. These include:
Transportation of waste and recyclables from transfer stations
• Transportation of recyclable materials to processing facilities
• Education and promotional services for waste reduction and recycling
• Transfers to the general fund to compensate for administrative
support services such as legal, accounting, purchasing, and other
support functions.
3. Capital Outlay - Represents expenditures for equipment and items over $50,000
4. Transfers to Funds - These represent distribution of revenue to reserve funds
for closure and post closure of Knott Landfill, system -wide capital
improvements and equipment.
.W
Chapter 8
5. Debt Service - Includes payment of debt (principle and interest) for bonds
issued to make large capital investments. Specifically, the County issued a $14
million bond in 2006 to construct new facilities at Knott Landfill including scales
and a scalehouse, an administrative office, a household hazardous waste
facility, a recycling center and a transfer station. In 2016, the County re-
financed approximately $5.2 million of the original bonds. Therefore, the
budget reflects the appropriation of capital funds, but no new debt was
incurred.
The annual budget prepared by DSW considers not only the direct operating needs of
the Department but also addresses the changes required to meet State regulations
and the service needs of the cities and franchised collection companies. DSW budgets
for transfers from reserve funds to offset expenditures to close portions of the landfill,
purchase equipment and make capital improvements. Also, in 2018 and in the 2019
budget, DSW established an operating contingency of about $600,000 or 4% of the
total budget. This policy is consistent with standard practice for public utilities or
enterprise funds. The amount of contingency will vary for each utility operation
depending on the risk associated with generating the projected revenue. Since 80% or
more of DSW's revenues are from tip fees at facilities, they rely extensively on
projected solid waste quantities to be disposed at Knott Landfill. Historically, solid
waste volumes have varied from minus 3.35% to plus 11%.
Table 8-1 shows the actual expenditures for fiscal years (FY) 2016 and 2017 along
with the expected revenue requirements for FY 2018 and FY 2019.
Table 8-1; Actual and Projected Expenditures — FY 2016-FY 2019
Revenue Requirements
(Expenditures)
FY 2016
Actual
FY 2017
Actual
FY 2018
Budget
FY 2019
Adopted
Personnel Services
$1,967,190
$2,049,320
$2,278,466
$2,504,623
Materials & Services
$3,483,735
$4,334,705
$4,859,217
$4,772,159
Debt Service and Bond Re-
finance
$6,219,266
$ 858,512
$ 861,102
$ 860,938
Capital Outlay
$ 74,313
$ 127,449
$ 125,000
$ 173,000
Transfers Out
$1,726,539
$3,075,000
$2,580,000
$4,688,023
Contingency
-
-
$ 569,886
$600,000
Total Requirements
$13,471,043
$10,444,985
$11,273,671
$13,598,743
8-7
Chapter 8
Figure 8-2: Projected Expenditures for FY 2019
Contingency
4%
Capital Out
10/_ Debt Service
6%
Figure 8-2 shows that about 54% of the DSW budget is expended on operations and
another 35% in transfers representing financial obligations associated with operating
Knott Landfill. One expense item that could be impacted by recent events relates to
the costs for transporting and processing recyclable materials. Over the parse 1v years,
markets for recyclable materials collected under State -mandate collection
requirements to households were stable. For example, the average price per ton of
recovered materials from MRFs ranged from $120 per ton to as much as $160 per ton.
Since 2016 however, prices have been severely disrupted due to China's increased
restrictions for purchasing recyclables. Currently, market prices now average about
$50 per ton for all materials with the price for mixed paper, the largest commodity in
the recycled stream, being worth less than $10 per ton. Jurisdictions across the United
States have had to make rate adjustments to address significant commodity price
reductions. Some communities in Oregon have discontinued collecting certain items
and others have received exemptions from DEQ to dispose of certain materials
because of the depressed values of those materials. Since revenues are used to offset
the cost of transportation and processing recyclables, when market prices decline,
these expenses must be made up by ratepayers. To date, the franchised haulers, cities
and the County have maintained the current collection system and rates despite the
recent market challenges.
This issue will mostly impact collection rates to residences, but DSW does pay the
expenses to transport the recyclable materials collected at its facilities to processors in
the Willamette Valley and Portland. If the recycling processors charge more, DSW's
budget may be impacted since they pay for the transportation of recyclable materials
to processors and also absorb the cost of depressed market prices.
M
Chapter f
Based on a review of the past few years, DSW's budget is largely expended on direct
operating services for the transfer stations and Knott Landfill. The allocation of
expenditures to services is shown on Table 8-2.
Table 8-2: Allocation of Expenditures to Operations
Service
Cost Allocation
Disposal of Solid Waste — Knott Landfill
60%
Operation of Transfer Stations
26%
Recycling Marketing/ Transportation/Special Waste
HHW /Com ostin
5%
Debt Service
9%
Note: The actual allocation of expenditures to operations may vary from year to year.
Reserve Funds
A key feature of DSW's financial program is the establishment of dedicated reserve
funds. DSW reviews these funds annually to verify the amount being collected and
placed in reserve is sufficient to meet the needs of their operations over the next five
years. As such, revenues are transferred into reserves to maintain the required
amounts. If funds are needed for capital improvements or projects such as the closure
of landfill cells, money can be transferred into the operation budget. However, these
funds can only be appropriated and spent with approval of the Board of County
Commissioners.
Currently there are four different reserve funds. These are described in Table 8-3.
Table 8-3: Projected Reserve Fund Balances - FY 2019
Reserve Funds
FY 2019 Fund
Balance
Landfill Closure Fund — Established to make final improvements required to
$4,037,938
close the landfill once it is completed.
Landfill Post Closure Fund — Established to collect funds dedicated for
$1,057,948
monitoring and maintaining the landfill after it closes.
Capital Projects Fund — Funds set aside to make improvements and
$3,104,840
expansions to existing facilities or to build new facilities.
Equipment Fund — Funds needed to purchase large equipment needed for
$543,175
operations.
Total Reserve Funds
$8,743,901
-
DSW uses these funds to execute its basic services in accordance with State and
federal regulations and to maintain rate stability. The total amount generated in each
fund must be reviewed at least annually to verify that sufficient funds are available to
meet anticipated and unforeseen obligations and liabilities. As solid waste is one of the
most heavily regulated industries, it is necessary for DSW to update the funding
requirements as part of their operations.
Although DSW does provide a capital projects reserve fund, it does not currently have
sufficient funds to finance construction of major facility improvements. As the SWMP
has identified investments needed in existing transfer stations and potentially siting
and constructing a new landfill, DSW will need to consider the appropriate approach
for raising the capital to make these investments. In 2006, DSW issued bonds used to
construct needed facilities at Knott Landfill. These facilities were designed to not only
meet immediate needs but also to provide for services when Knott Landfill closes.
Additional capital will be needed over the next 10 years to construct the infrastructure
required to provide cost effective long-term disposal and resource recovery services.
Revenue Sources
DSW generates most of its revenue from fees for services. This includes the tip fees
charged to customers and fees charged to the franchised collection companies. Table
8-2 presents the actual revenues generated in FY 2016 and 2017. As mentioned
previously, in 2016 the County re -financed bonds that shows up in the budget as new
revenue. However, no new debt was incurred.
As shown each near, DSW carries forward a beginning fund balance, referred to as
"Beginning Net Working Capital". These revenues are a result of funds not expended
during the previous year's budget and/or increased revenues from waste quantities
that were higher than projected in the previous year. These fund balances range from
an expected 5.5% in FY 2018 to perhaps almost 13% budgeted in FY 2019. The net
working capital is part of the annual budget used to offset revenue requirements in the
current FY.
Table 8-4: Actual and Projected Revenues — FY 2016—FY 2019
Revenue Sources
FY 2016
Actual
FY 2017
Actual
FY 2018
Budget
FY 2019
Adopted
Beginning Net Working Capital
$1,163,893
$1,810,265
$ 615,872
$1,730,130
Charges for Services
$8,755,712
$9,780,396
$10,614,998
$11,795,572
Interest Revenue
$ 24,335
$ 31,959
$ 20,000
$ 44,000
Other Non -Operational Revenue
$ 10,801
$ 12,801
$ 10,801
$ 11,041
Sale of Assets, Land or Equipment
$ 40,673
$ 47,242
$ 12,000
$ 18,000
Refinance Bonds — Capital Issuance
of Long -Term Liability
$5,285,895
-
-
-
Total Resources
$15,281,308
1 $11,682,663
1 $11,273,671
1 $13,598,743
8-10
Chapter 8
For FY 2019, almost 87% of the projected revenues are generated from charges for
services. For this reason, DSW must be diligent in monitoring the incoming waste
streams and balancing expenditures. Many factors outside the control of DSW can
impact the revenues projections. During the recent recession, solid waste quantities
were depressed due to reduced construction activity as well as a slower overall
economy. Other factors that possibly impacted the amount of waste generated in
Deschutes County was a reduction in tourism during this same period. This occurred
between 2012 through 2014 when solid waste disposed at the landfill decreased. Over
the past three years, DSW has experienced an increase of 26% in solid waste
quantities.
Despite these unique circumstances, the financial strategies and operations of the
enterprise fund by DSW have resulted in stable rates. The current rate of $55 per ton
is 40% less than most other large jurisdictions in the State. Other communities that
operate similar enterprise funds include Marion County at $87.45 per ton and Lane
County at $78.77 per ton. While these jurisdictions operate well established and
stable solid waste systems, this comparison demonstrates the ability of DSW to
operate a cost-effective system.
8.3 Needs and Opportunities
The County has provided a leadership role in providing the facilities necessary to
support efficient management of solid waste services. Over the past 25 years, Knott
Landfill has been improved and expanded to meet the disposal needs of the County. It
also includes a system of four transfer stations which provide collection facilities that
offer convenient and cost-effective infrastructure to receive and transport waste and
recyclables for communities outside the Bend area.
In addition to owning and operating facilities, DSW has worked effectively in
partnership with the cities, franchised collection companies, The Environmental Center
and other entities to expand programs and services to respond to growth and the
ever -changing regulations that impact how solid waste is managed. This stewardship is
apparent by the fact that collection and disposal rates are amongst the lowest in the
state. At the same time, the service providers have adopted new programs to promote
waste reduction and reuse as well as new services to recycle more materials.
For the past 25 years, the system has relied on having a disposal site, Knott Landfill,
to manage solid waste in a convenient, cost effective and environmentally safe
manner. As discussed in previous chapters of this SWMP, when Knott Landfill reaches
capacity in the next 10 years, a new disposal alternative must be in place. There are
several improvements to existing programs and services as well as the addition of new
programs and services that have been recommended that will present new challenges
to the solid waste management system. These include:
1. Currently the County has achieved a recovery rate of 33%. New goals set by
the State recommend the County increase its recovery rate to 45% by 2025.
These are not mandatory goals, but they suggest that certain programs need
to be expanded and/or new services be provided.
8-11
Chapter 8
2. To address the increase in the recovery rate, the SWMP identifies several
modifications and expansion of collection services. This will take a
coordinated effort between the cities, County and franchised collection
companies.
3. Expanding collection programs for food waste from residents and commercial
businesses will also require more advanced composting systems and possibly
relocating the current composting operations.
4. As new recycling programs and services are considered, a uniform and
standardized education and promotion program will be needed.
Both the Negus and Southwest Transfer Stations need improvements to
address increases in customer traffic and waste volumes.
6. A new disposal site must be located or chosen over the next six to seven
years to provide sufficient time to make the necessary investments to have
facilities operating when Knott Landfill closes.
While there are significant program and service enhancements that need to be made
over the next five to ten years, the County and its partners have time to execute an
incremental approach to make the improvements needed to sustain a convenient and
cost-effective system. The recommendations made in this SWMP provide a roadmap
for implementing a systematic approach. However, it will require leadership from the
County and active participation of the cities, agencies, franchised collection companies,
and others to effectively develop the details and implement these system changes.
8.3.1 Management Considerations
A coordinated effort between the County and cities is needed to address changes to
the solid waste system and maintain cost-efficient service to all citizens and
businesses. New resource recovery goals imposed by the State will mean changes to
collection services, which will require that facilities be expanded or adapted to handle
the enhanced collection services. Implementation of the actions recommended in the
SWMP will require all parties to participate in making key decisions that affect their
constituents. For instance, expanding recycling services for collection of food waste,
expanding multi -family and commercial recycling programs, and planning and
constructing the facilities needed for future operations are amongst the many actions
to be taken over the next five to ten years. Coordinating these actions to continue to
build an effective integrated solid waste system will require participation by all
stakeholders.
The SWAC, representing a cross section of local government, franchised collection
companies, technical experts and the general public has played an important role in
shaping the direction of the SWMP. In deliberating over the recommendations, the
SWAC has identified the need to establish a task force or other committees to further
develop the details for implementing the recommended actions.
8-12
06�
Chapter 8
8.3.2 Financing and Funding Considerations
Over the past 25 years, DSW has operated as an enterprise fund largely built on a pay
as you go model with exception of issuance of bonds in 2006. A portion of these bonds
will be retired by 2026 and the remaining amount in 2033. As the County considers
the options for disposal after Knott Landfill closes, there are several financial scenarios
to evaluate including:
If the County elects to transport waste out of Deschutes County, the cost to
dispose of solid waste is estimated to increase from $35 per ton to more than
$50 to $60 per ton in today's dollars. This increase is for the incremental cost
to transport and dispose of solid waste at an out -of -County facility. Additional
costs will be incurred at existing transfer stations to provide the infrastructure
to load transfer trailers for long haul transportation operations. The total
expense to operate this system will most likely range from $70 to $80 per ton.
This tip fee may also be subject to host fees the regional landfill will charge,
which is assumed to be $5 per ton for planning purposes.
2. If the County elects to site and construct an in -County landfill, the cost to
dispose of waste is estimated to be similar to current cost of $35 per ton. Also,
some transfer stations will require improvements to accommodate growth and
provide short term surge capacity. Under this option, system operating costs
are estimated to be about $60 per ton.
These projected revenue requirements only consider the cost of operating transfer
stations d transporting II ..�-ste to a landfill. Tt does not include any new
SlauGii�, and a a� �Spoi tip iy pond uow a e., a..
expenses for waste reduction and recycling programs, increases in expenses due to
new regulations and cost to manage special waste streams (tires, HHW, C/D, etc.).
Other capital investments that can impact future rates include the possible siting and
construction of a new compost facility to handle food waste, yard waste and other
organics.
DSW prepared a financial study in 1998 that established funding strategies and
reserve funds that have been effective in maintaining a stable rate system. A new
financial plan should be developed to address the new facility needs and other
program options recommended in the SWMP.
8.4 Alternatives and Evaluation
Moving forward with implementing the recommendations in this SWMP will require
changes in the management approach to engage stakeholders in setting priorities and
developing specific actions. Also, the cost of the services to all County residents and
businesses will increase as the system transitions from disposing of solid waste at
Knott Landfill to a new site. This section presents the alternatives to address the
management and financial needs.
8.4.1 Administration/Management
The County has been the primary owner and operator of facilities and therefore has
played leadership role in developing the infrastructure needed to provide cost effective
8-13
management of solid waste. With the adoption of this SWMP, there will be a need to
manage the transition from the system that relied on Knott Landfill to seeking an
alternative disposal site. Also, as collection services are adapted to implement new
programs and services, facilities will need to be modified and new facilities developed.
Many communities have faced similar challenges brought on by the need to transition
the solid waste system on a County -wide or regional approach. The following presents
some alternatives that might be considered.
Maintain Existing Management Structure
The County has effectively provided the leadership role working with cities and
franchised collection companies. During the past 25 years, most of the changes to
facilities and services have been the result of new regulations and or policies adopted
by local jurisdictions. The SWMP has established a roadmap for moving forward.
However, the recommendations will impact all citizens and businesses in both the
cities and the County.
The County will continue to play a leadership role with DSW having the responsibility
to organize, plan and oversee implementation. This will require additional resources
from DSW or possibly some restructuring of responsibilities within DSW. Since several
recommendations will require decisions by local jurisdictions, they will impact
franchised collection companies. Their involvement will be crucial to planning and
developing the best approach for moving forward with enhanced collection programs
and services. Thus, under the current management structure, there are a few
alternative management models or approaches to consider.
Establish a Solid Waste Steering Committee - This committee can be comprised
of elected officials from each jurisdiction or possible a key division manager
from each jurisdiction. The Steering Committee would be responsible for
representing the interest of their jurisdiction as recommendations for changes
to services are considered. The County would represent its constituents while
local governments represent theirs.
2. Appoint a Special Task Force to plan and implement programs - Under this
model, a Task Force would be given the responsibility to address certain needs
of the system. It is a way to involve decision makers, experts in technical fields
and representatives of the general public during the implementation process.
As an example, establishing a Task Force to develop a comprehensive program
for providing recycling to multi -family dwellings could be considered. This has
been a challenge for many communities and a tailored approach is needed to
provide these services effectively. Each jurisdiction must consider what works
best for their situation. Another Task Force might be appointed to oversee the
siting of a new landfill if this disposal alternative is selected.
3. Establish an ongoing SWAC - The SWAC would provide guidance and involve
stakeholders in developing alternatives and actions for implementation. Many
counties have established ongoing committees as a method to involve
stakeholders in development of their solid waste system. In many cases, the
SWAC may have different levels of responsibilities and authorities granted by
the Board of County Commissioners. Involvement of a SWAC has proven to be
8-14
M
€ #s
effective in developing consensus and support for implementing solid waste
programs and services.
There are numerous examples where these management models are being used. Clark
County, Washington for example has a regional steering committee and a SWAC. The
steering committee is a policy group involving the participating cities, while the SWAC
is a cross section of stakeholders and the public. The SWAC is involved with
implementation of the recommendations adopted in Clark County's Regional Solid
Waste Management Plan. Other communities rely heavily on SWACs to provide input
and guidance for developing new programs and services.
As the County moves forward with implementation, the use of a Steering Committee
and/or SWAC may be an effective way to involve the local jurisdictions and
stakeholders with implementing the SWMP.
In addition to establishing a framework for local government participation, the County
should consider renewing the intergovernmental agreements with each city. It is
critical that the County work closely with these partners to develop consensus prior to
making large investments in the solid waste management system.
Regional Management Approaches
As regulations became increasingly more stringent requiring extensive environmental
controls, jurisdictions had to consider options for processing, transporting and
disposing of solid waste. It became desirable and, in some cases, necessary to work
o� � regional solutions. Regionalization of solid waste management services, where the
system extends beyond the boundary of one political jurisdiction, provides the
potential to offer administrative and economic benefits over what a singular
jurisdiction may not be able to achieve otherwise. This is especially true for capital -
intensive system elements such as transfer stations, MRFs, landfills and alternative
technologies like WTEFs.
Throughout the country, there are several forms of regional organizations ranging
from singular purpose agencies like a Joint Powers Board, to separate agencies such as
Special Districts and Authorities. These management approaches may be a
consideration as one approach for moving forward with implementation of the SWMP
and developing the future solid waste system.
Joint Powers Board
When two or more jurisdictions have a stake in the development of a system in which
policies and investments will impact constituents of each of those parties, establishing
a separate decision -making authority may be desirable. What differs from a system
that relies on intergovernmental agreements is it recognizes each jurisdictions' desire
to have a vote on certain actions. The Board can be made of elected officials from each
jurisdiction or delegates. The Board may have a limited authority, as agreed upon,
such as approval of the annual budgets and/or setting rates. This authority is usually
restricted to certain functions that serve both parties. Policies, programs and services
8-15
related to collection and recycling do not necessarily need to be part of this
agreement.
Operations of the common facilities can be carried out by the employees of the
County, but under direction of the Joint Powers Board. As such, the agency can work
similar to the existing enterprise fund including using existing County and/or city
support services.
The advantage of the Joint Powers Board is to isolate the enterprise fund from
purposes other than solid waste services. Also, since the participating jurisdictions will
be paying indirectly through its residents and businesses for system improvements,
elected officials may desire a more control over decisions affecting the system. In
some cases, the commitment of solid waste volumes to build the needed facilities may
be necessary to sell bonds to finance capital intensive projects.
A few examples of Joint Powers Boards include the Spokane Regional Solid Waste
System and Santa Fe Solid Waste Management Agency.
1. The Spokane Regional Solid Waste System was originally formed in 1988 by
an intergovernmental agreement between Spokane County, the City of
Spokane, and other regional cities and jurisdictions. Under that agreement,
the City of Spokane took on the ownership and operation of County -wide
solid waste disposal system.
This agency operates with elected officials from both the cities and the
County as Board members. Its establishment was necessary due to
adoption of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which
required closing all city and County landfills. These landfills were prohibited
from continuing to operate under the new RCRA regulations as they were
located above a sole source aquifer. In order to sell bonds to finance the
closure of all landfills and build a WTEF, the regional system agency was
formed.
On November 17, 2014, a new intergovernmental agreement was initiated.
Under the new agreement, the ownership and management of the solid
waste system was transferred from the City of Spokane to Spokane County.
The exception to this transfer was the ownership of the WTEF and the
Northside Landfill, which ownership of was retained by the City of Spokane.
The agreement specifies that Spokane County direct waste flows from the
transfer stations to the WTEF.
2. The Santa Fe Solid Waste Management Agency is comprised of three elected
officials from Santa Fe County and three from the City of Santa Fe. The
agency operates like a public utility or enterprise fund. It operates the
County landfill and contracts directly with the City to operate the recycling
and transfer station. It contracts with the City to provide purchasing and
some legal services and uses the City benefits system for its employees.
This agency was formed to site, build and operate the new county landfill. It
works closely with both jurisdictions to provide facilities and support for
waste reduction and recycling services.
8-16
Chapter8
These Joint Powers Boards have operated for several years and all the circumstances
that created the arrangements may not be the same today as they were when they
were formed. However, they have operated successfully to provide equitable and cost-
effective services that have satisfied the participating jurisdictions. It should be noted
that they have flexibility to evolve as shown by the changes made to the Spokane
Regional Solid Waste System. The most common incentive is the commitment of solid
waste volumes to support the investments in facilities, the ability to finance these
investments and to operate most cost effectively by consolidating waste streams to
support operations.
Establish a Regional Authority or Special District
The establishment of a special district or authority in the State of Oregon is not
common for solid waste services. However, there are many examples of regional or
special water and wastewater districts. In the State of California, there are several
examples of special solid waste districts or authorities. The impetus for establishing
these regional districts is largely driven by the need to pool waste streams in order to
build and operate solid waste facilities most cost effectively. These special districts are
standalone organizations that own and operate transfer stations, MRFs, and landfills.
The boards are typically comprised of elected representatives of the participating
agencies under some agreed formula. The agency has ability to finance, build and
operate facilities to serve all participating jurisdictions.
Different from the Joint Powers Boards, Special Districts are totally autonomous and,
depending on state statutes, may have authority to levy taxes. This is the case in the
State of Washington where statutorily, a solid waste Special District (referred to as a
Disposal District) can tax citizens and 'businesses within its approved boundaries.
Currently there are a few Disposal Districts operating in the Washington State.
Some examples of Regional Authorities operating are as follows:
1. Monterey Regional Solid Waste Management District - This Board is
comprised of elected official from seven cities and Monterey County. It
operates all recycling and disposal facilities and manages about 250,000
tons of solid waste per year while its member agencies maintain
responsibility for franchised collection programs and services. The
District's facilities include:
• Regional compost site managing food, yard and
agricultural waste and digestate from an anaerobic
digester
• Mixed waste and commingled MRF
• Regional reuse center (Last Chance Mercantile)
• Landfill disposal facility
• C/D MRF
By working together, the District can ensure that facilities are available
to handle the programs and services offered by its member agencies.
2. South Bayside Waste Management Authority - Located halfway between
San Francisco and San Jose in San Carlos, California, the Authority
serves 11 cities and San Mateo County. Established in 1982, the primary
8-17
Chapter 8
function of the Authority is to operate a MRF and transfer station that
serves all member jurisdictions and to provide a cost-effective system to
transport solid waste to a regional disposal site. In 2010, the Authority
coordinated a complete transition of its solid waste collection system
and retrofitted existing facilities by constructing infrastructure needed
for its member jurisdictions to comply with new regulations.
There are several other examples of special districts operating throughout the United
States. Many were established for the purpose of building the infrastructure needed to
manage solid waste using the most effective approach. In some cases, they may
operate as a separate government entity like Portland Metro, which provides services
in the Portland regional area. However, many operate under the authority of a board
comprised of elected officials representing member agencies.
These alternative management structures provide some options that might be
considered, depending on the factors that are important to the County and the cities.
8.4.2 Finance and Funding
The County has a proven financial management system in place via an enterprise fund
for the management of the solid waste system. The enterprise fund provides a sound
operating base and reserves for maintenance, capital improvements and meeting
regulatory requirements.
Based on its historic performance and given the funding requirements in the
immediate future, it is not expected that the County would need to modify the basic
enterprise fund approach. It is recommended that the County continue to rely on its
current mix of revenue sources to fund future facility and program improvements. A
new financial plan would address scenarios such as:
What increases are needed in tip fees and franchised fees to meet new
revenue targets to fund improvements? For example, a resource
recovery surcharge could be added to tip fees over a defined period to
generate a targeted amount of new revenue.
• Can or should franchised fees be adjusted to supplement revenue sources
needed for new facilities and programs.
Should the County issue new bonds to fund system capital improvements?
Table 8-5 provides an illustration of the amount of new revenue that could be
generated through a per ton resource recovery surcharge on landfill tip fees. This
surcharge would be in place for a defined period and could be adjusted up or down
depending on the revenue targets set for new facilities and programs. If the County
added a special capital investment fee, assumed to be $5 per ton for this example, it
may raise an estimated $11 million for new facilities over a ten year period.
8-18
Chapter$,
Table 8-5: Internal Financing
Pa -as- ou- o
Waste Disposed
Capitol Reserve
Year
Population
(tons)
$5/Ton
2020
190,734
191,688
$958,440
2021
194,739
195,713
$978,565
2022
198,829
199,823
$999,115
2023
203,004
197,219
$986,095
2024
207,267
201,360
$1,006,800
2025
210,826
204,817
$1,024,085
2026
214,832
201,512
$1,007,560
2027
218,913
205,341
$1,026,705
2028
223,073
209,242
$1,046,210
2029
227,311
213,218
$1,066,090
2030
230,412
216,126
$1,080,630
Estimated Total Revenue Generated for Capital
$11,180,295
To determine the amount of capital investment needed, DSW should prepare a capital
improvement plan for the next ten years. This plan should consider how much is
needed to fund improvements based on the cash flow requirements. Also, the amount
needed should take into account that DSW already generates funds needed to
construct new landfill cells. However, once the final cell is constructed, the reserve
funds currently generated from rates could be allocated to fund other capital needs.
These funds would be managed similar to the existing reserve funds. They can be
restrirtari anti budgeted on an annual basis to make improvements based on the
approved capital improvement plan. This approach provides flexibility and avoids
paying interest on bonds and will cost ratepayers less than using some bonding
instruments. Also, the reserve fund can earn interest to help reduce contributions.
County Bond Financing
In 2006, using its ability to issue bonds for public purposes, DSW used $14 million in
bond funds for capital improvements made to develop new facilities at Knott Landfill
including a new entrance road, scale complex, administrative office, HHW facility,
recycling center and a transfer station. These bonds are being paid by DSW through
tip fees. The County has the capacity to continue to use these bonds if needed.
However, future rate payers will need to pay off the principal and interest over a
period of 15 to 20 years depending on the terms of the bond requirements.
Revenue Bonds
Since DSW derives its revenues from tip fees, an alternative financing method is to
issue revenue bonds to pay for improvements and new facilities. These bonds are sold
on the open market. However, the combination of higher interest rates, coverage
requirements, and bond reserves make revenue bonds financing more expensive than
using the County's bonding capacity. Because these bonds pledge future revenues
from tip fees as collateral for the debt, this form of financing requires that a
commitment of solid waste volumes be made to pay off the debt by all parties.
8-19
Chapter 8
General Obligation Bonds (New Taxes)
General obligations bonds issued to finance of the County's solid waste system is an
option with limitations. This approach places DSW's budget in a competitive pool with
other County programs. It would be developed and approved as part of the overall
general fund subject to revenue requirements consistent with the County's tax and fee
structure. Solid waste activities could compete with other projects for available funds.
All system revenues would be directed to the jurisdiction's general fund. Also, general
obligation bonds may require a vote from the County's residents.
The most common form of tax would make solid waste services part of the property
tax. Under this approach, every unit pays its portion of the solid waste management
program. Tip fees can be used to supplement the program revenues. For instance, the
property tax portion can be used to pay facility debt service, program management
and administration, and basic waste prevention and recycling education programs. Tip
fees would be collected at solid waste facilities for direct services.
This approach would ensure that all constituents pay for general services. Therefore,
users of the system would not be required to subsidize those generators who elect to
haul their waste to facilities outside the system. This would help stabilize tip fees and
possibly delay or prevent increases over a longer period.
The downside to this approach is that adding new taxes is complicated and certainly
unpopular. It is much easier to raise tip fees than to approve new taxes, even if the
actual tax is a small percentage of the total property tax.
8.5 Evaluation and Recommendations
The County, cities and service providers have worked cooperatively and effectively to
operate a well -managed and integrated solid waste management system for all
businesses and residents. The system provides a full range of necessary services that
are compliant with State mandated requirements at rates that are equitable to all
constituents. To continue with a solid waste management system that provides cost
effective services, it is important to maintain or enhance the level of coordination
between all stakeholders. Currently, there is no formal or consistent forum in place to
facilitate the level of coordination needed to support implementation of the SWMP.
Currently, the County and cities have in place intergovernmental agreements that
provide authority to the County to manage and dispose of waste. Cities retain the
authority to oversee the collection services provided for their constituents. These
agreements provide a necessary foundation for continuing the development of an
integrated solid waste management system.
Several options for managing and operating a regional or County -wide system are
discussed in this chapter. Whether the system is managed by the County or through
the authority established by forming a Joint Powers Board, the primary element that
binds the parties to work cooperatively and effectively is the intergovernmental
agreement. As long as these agreements satisfy each jurisdiction's needs for servicing
their communities, there is no need for changing the management system.
M
Chapter 8
A SWAC, established for the sole purpose of developing the SWMP, has provided the
necessary guidance and input to formulate the strategy to meet the future needs of
the solid waste system. The adopted SWMP sets forth a road map to make
improvements in an incremental but strategic manner over time. However,
implementation of the recommendations will require updates and/or changes to
policies and programs, further technical and feasibility analysis to select the best
strategies for new services, and physical changes to the infrastructure that will require
commitment of financial resources. Establishing a process to provide an ongoing dialog
to develop the details and monitor the progress of these actions is essential to
successfully implement the SWMP.
Recommendation 8.1 - Given the need to implement the necessary changes to
the solid waste management system over the next ten years, the County should meet
with the cities to reaffirm commitments and update, as necessary, the
intergovernmental agreements. The agreements should also address the cities
participation in the process for implementing the recommendations adopted in the
SWMP.
Rational - The current intergovernmental agreements recognize the
commitment to support and rely on the County to own and operate solid waste
facilities to dispose of waste generated in their jurisdictions. As the County
endeavors to move forward with recommendations to the solid waste
management system and to site a new in -County landfill, having the support
and commitment to this arrangement is necessary. Also, in considering the
agreements, cities should determine what role they wish to have in shaping the
future solid waste management system;
Recommendation 8.2- The County should establish a formal process that provides
for continued involvement of cities, other stakeholders, businesses and the general
public in implementing the recommendations of the SWMP. This process may include
establishing an ongoing advisory group and/or assigning task force committees to
oversee development and implementation of specific programs.
Rational -Whereas, the SWMP provides a road map and direction for shaping
the future services of the solid waste management system, there are still many
details to be determined. These changes will impact collection programs and
services that are directed by the County and each city. Also, as changes to
these services are made, the County, working with the private sector, must
make improvements to the system infrastructure to ensure facilities can handle
materials and waste streams most efficiently. Having the continued
involvement of the key stakeholders and others will only enhance the ability to
oversee the successful implementation of the SWMP.
Recommendation 8.3 - The County should consider the current DSW organization
and determine the resources that are needed to carry out implementation of the
recommendations adopted in the SWMP. This will require perhaps some additional staff
as well as financial resources.
8-21
Rational — DSW currently operates with a staff of 24 FTE positions that
operate four transfer stations and Knott Landfill. This is a fairly lean, but
efficient, organization that must continue to maintain the current level of
services while taking on additional responsibilities to work with cities and
service providers to make changes to implement new programs, enhance
facility operations and make capital improvements to existing facilities. The
ability of DSW staff to take on new responsibilities should be evaluated to
determine what changes might be made to execute the recommendations
adopted in the SWMP.
Recommendation 8.4 — DSW should prepare a financial study of current rates to
determine the impacts of implementing the improvements identified in the SWMP and
develop a Capital Improvement Plan for a five to seven year period aimed at
maintaining a stable financial strategy.
Rational — Operating as an enterprise fund, DSW has managed the rates and
the financial resources needed to provide services to all constituents in a fair
and equitable manner. DSW has also established dedicated reserve funds that
are used to stabilize and minimize the impacts to rates and for making
scheduled capital improvements for operating Knott Landfill and providing
disposal capacity. The SWMP identified improvements to transfer stations and
compost facilities and the siting and construction of a new in -County landfill
that could cost between $20 to $30 million over the next ten years. DSW can
prepare a Capital Improvement Plan to consider investments to be made over a
five to seven year period that can updated annually. Forecasting and scheduling
these new investments and evaluating the options for how these improvements
can be financed will result in developing a strategy that results in the most
cost-effective approach.
Recommendation 8.5 — Consider privatization of all aspects of the solid waste
system as changes and programs are implemented, as referenced in Appendix A, as
has been the practice of the solid waste system historically.
Rational — Refer to privatization discussion in Appendix A.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
8-22
�' 'T�
�ti 55 r ��
(Intentionally Left Blank)
The Role of the Private Sector in the Deschutes County Solid Waste System
Purpose: This paper describes the current role (2019) of the private sector in providing comprehensive recycling and
solid waste services to the residents and businesses of Deschutes County and discusses how the private sector role will
be considered as the County moves forward with implementing the recommendations of the SWMP.
Background
The current Deschutes County solid waste management system operates under a partnership with local jurisdictions
and a regulated arrangement with private companies to deliver recycling, collection and transportation services. The
County owns and operates the only landfill for disposing waste. These roles are further described throughout the Solid
Waste Management Plan (SWMP).
The private sector has had a significant role in the solid waste system for many years. Private companies have always
provided curbside collection of waste from residents and businesses. Over the years, the private sectors participation
in the system has increased and now includes:
• Curbside collection of waste, recyclables and yard debris from residents and businesses under a franchise
system.
• Transfer of waste and recyclables from rural transfer stations to Bend also under the franchise system.
• Operation of the recycling center and compost operation at Knott Landfill is a public/private partnership
where the County provides infrastructure and operational assistance while a private company operates the
facility.
• A private company through a contract with the County provides operation assistance at Negus Transfer
Station in Redmond.
• A private non-profit company through a grant agreement with the County provides education and promotion
of recycling and waste reduction.
• A private company through a contract with the County operates the Household Hazardous Waste facility at
Knott Landfill
• Other private companies such as The Broomsmen independently provide recycling services at events such as
concerts and various festivals.
The Solid Waste Department is aware of the benefits that the private sector can bring to the system and has strived
when developing facilities to enable consideration of private operations. The facilities that were constructed at Knott
Landfill in 2005 included a large transfer building and recycling/composting facilities. Both of those facilities have
offices, employee lunch/break facilities and have utilities metered separately to facilitate operation by private
companies if the County should choose to do so. As mentioned above, the recycling facility at Knott Landfill operates
in such a fashion.
61 050 SF 27'SCreet Bend, Oregon 97702
(541) 31 7-3163 @ sohdwa slF@desr huLes .org 0 tvvnw.deschutes.org/sw
Pagel of 3
Implementation of the SWMP and the Role of the Private Sector
This Solid Waste Management Plan did not specifically address the role of the private sector in the solid waste system
as part the recommendations made for changes/improvements to the system over the next 10 years. The SWMP sets
the direction in which the system should move and includes recommendations to achieve that vision. It does not
provide specific operational details on how those recommendations will be implemented. The SWMP points out that
the solid waste system in Deschutes County provides a very high level of service to the community at a very
reasonable cost considering the breadth of services provided. The County believes that this is due in part to the
relationships and roles of the public and private sectors in the system. With consideration of the responsibilities stated
in ORS 459.085 relating to the responsibilities to manage sold waste and consistent with the goals and guiding
principles adopted in the SWMP, the County intends to continue in this manner, and will consider private ownership
and/or operation at appropriate points in the implementation of the SWMP over the next ten years. Specifically, it is
anticipated that consideration of the private sector will occur at the following point.
• The SWMP calls for efforts to increase diversion of construction and demolition material from the waste
stream. This will likely include a significant investment in infrastructure to separate valuable commodities
from that waste stream. The question of public or private ownership and/or operation of that infrastructure
will be considered.
• The SWMP calls for construction of a new transfer station in Redmond. Once completed, operations will
change significantly, as the site moves from a small rural facility to a modern facility that includes enhanced
recycling opportunities and a compost operation. The County will consider private operation of part or all of
that facility.
• The Southwest Transfer Station located between Sunriver and La Pine will also be improved in the future and
the County will consider the private sector there as well
• The County attempted to site a new landfill in the mid 1990's which was unsuccessful for a variety of reasons.
Through that process, however it was clear that there was interest from private companies to be involved in a
new landfill. The County intends to fully consider the private sector as we move towards the development of
a new landfill in the county. Private companies could assist the County in a number of ways including
assistance with siting, permitting, construction and operation of a new facility.
When considering the private sector, a number of factors need to be considered such as:
• Ability to adapt to changes in County/City policies and programs
• Ability to react to changes in regulations
• Flexibility to adapt to waste diversion opportunities
• Capability to take advantage of competition in the marketplace
• Ensures equity of services
• Associated risk assigned to ownership options
• Associated risk with market conditions
• Appropriate control of cost and establishment/regulation of rates
61050 SE 27' �` Street Bend, Oregon 9I702
� (5=1!) 31 I-3 i 63 vvWvv.d(schuLes. crg/svv
Page 2 of 3
CO
13-epartment of Solid Ataste
• Other factors that ensure safe, efficient and reliable services as deemed important by the Board
As established under ORS 459.085 the County has the authority to ensure proper management of solid waste services
including meeting the mandates of the States waste reduction and recycling policies. This legislation empowers the
County as well as local jurisdictions to oversee and determine how best these services are provided including the role
of the private sector. Deschutes County believes that the solid waste system is strongest when the public and private
sectors work together to provide services. The County provides stability and ensures adequate programs and facilities
are available to manage our waste safely and efficiently and meets the state requirements. The private sector
provides flexibility and brings significant experience and expertise to the table.
61050 SE 27" SUreet [send, Oregon 97702
(5417-3163 ��`? Sol idwaCe(,�odeschuLes. org wv�w.de>chutes.orglsw
Page 3 of 3
(Intentionally Left Blank)
Exhibit A
Maximum Rates for the Collection of Solid Waste within the Unincorporated Distant Rural
Collection Area Served by Wilderness Garbage and Recycling Services
Can and Roll Cart Services - Effective January 1, 2010
One pickup of one can each week:
20 gallon can:
curb or roadside
$
15.45
back and or other
$
17.56
35 gallon can:
curb or roadside
$
17.75
back and or other
20.15
65 clalion can:
curb or roadside �_
'3
29.20
backyard or other
95 anon can;
36.65
curb ar roadside
,
backyard or other
$
39.55
One pickup of additional can each week:
35 c aid on can:
curb or roadside __--
$
12.10
_
back any rd or other
$
14.25
Soecial services:
35 c a,�llon can spuc.�al pi�.kup rate f7e�r �iickup $ 11.
Bulk Rate for the Collection of ESulk Refuse:
$13.60 per yard "or" a service fee of $67.00 per hour for 1 truck and driver ($96.60 per hour for
2 men) )lus disposal fees m {
,.Y'
If the need for a type of service arises that is not now foreseen or specifically covered by this rate
schedule, then the charge for such service shall be:
1. Uniform and non-discriminatory between customers of a collector;
2. Commensurate with the rates generally charged in unincorporated Deschutes County;
3. Subiect to approval by Deschutes County. — ��
Exhibit A - Continued
Maximum Rates for the Collection of Solid Waste within the Unincorporated Distant Rural
Collection Area Served by Wilderness Garbage and Recycling Services
Container Services - Effective January 1, 2010
;1 Cubic Yard Container $ 111.01 $ 199.10 $"72 $ 375,36
$ 463.48 $ 551.58
1.5 Cubic Yard Container
$ 151.16
$ 277.56
$ 403.94
$ 530,34
$ 656.70
$ 783.1 3
2 Cubic Yard Container
$ 195.71
$ 362.14
$ 528.59
$ 695.00
$ 861_43
_$ 1,027.811)_
3 Cubic Yard Container
$ 269.95
$ 496.80
$ 723.67
$ 950.55
$ 1,177.41
$ 1,404.29
4 Cubic Yard Container
$ 337.71
$ 623.64
$ 909,61
$_1,195.58
_$ 1,481.55
$ 1,767*3
5 Cubic Yard Container
$ 406.78
$ 748.90
$ 1,091,07
$ 1,433.23
$ 1,775.38
$ 2,117.54
6 Cubic Yard Container
$ 471,67
$ 865.97
$ 1,260.25
$ 1,654.57
$ 2,048.86
$ 2,443.1113
8 Cubic Yard Container $ 577.40 t$ 1,060 63 $ :1 543.83 $ 2,027,05
WNW
$ 2,510.26 5$ 2,993.48
, �.,,,,eMh..5�., li
LCyY i•�4t� '� t A i��i� b) Ci fir. ia."�ivLR�. -.ih
Compactor Rates:
Compactor containers will have a disposal charge at 3.0 times the uncompacted rate. The service
fees shall be the same as those charged for uncompacted containers.
Exhibit B
Maximum Rates for the Collection of Solid Waste Within the Unincorporated Rural Collection Area
Served by Brownrigg Investments, Inc., Bend Garbage and Recycling Company, Inc.,
and High Country Disposal Company, Inc.
Can and Roll Cart Services - Effective January 1, 2010
- — Rates as of
_ Glass of Service T 1-Jan-10 ---
One pickup of one can each week:
20 gallon can: ___
curb or roadside $ 14.85
.—_ ___._ _.. _ ___.—�� $ 1( 55
backyard or o#her ---
35 gallon can:-
___..____.__.---___..__.__. $ 17.75
curb or roadside
---------- $ 19.70
backvard or other
65 gallon can:-
___
FCurb or roadside 27.55
barkvard or other :fi 30.65
95 gallon can W-- -
F
urbor road�uie $ 33.80
.e -�ackvard or other � $ 36.10
One pickup of additional can each week:
35 gallon can: 5
(curb or roadside 1_02 $ rv1 5
backvard or other,. -
Special services:
35 gallon can special pickup (rate pc r pickup) � $ � 12.45
Bulk Rate for the Collection of Bulk Refuse:��
$12.50 per yard "or" a service fee of $60.50 per hour for 1 truck and driver ($87.10 per hour for
2 men) talus disposal fees.
If the need for a type of service arises that is not now foreseen or specifically covered by this rate
schedule, then the charge for such service shall be:
1. Uniform and non-discriminatory between customers of a collector;
2. Commensurate with the rates generally charged in unincorporated Deschutes County;
3, Subject to approval by Deschutes County.
Exhibit B - Continued
Maximum Rates for the Collection of Solid Waste Within the Unincorporated Rural Collection Area
Served by Brownrigg Investments, Inc., Bend Garbage and Recycling Company, Inc.,
and High Country Disposal Company, Inc.
Container Services - Effective January 1, 2010
Number of Services (Pickups) Per Week
1
T 2
3_
4_
5
6
Service Provided
1 Cubic Yard Container
$ 92.12
$ 166.02
$ 239.97
$ 313.76
$ 387.79
$ 461.70
1.5 Cubic Yard Container
$ 125.99
$ 232,29
$ 338.52
$ 444.79
$ 551�08
$ 657.38
2 Cubic Yard Container
$ 163.32
$ 303.37 _
$ 443.41
_$ 583.45
$� 723.48
$ 863.52
3 Cubic Yard Container
$ 226.22
$ 418.12
$ 610.09
$ 802.03
$ 993.98
$1,185.91
4 Cubic Yard Container
$ 283.92
$ 52.
.
_.
m _
5 Cubic Yard Container
$ 342.69
$ 634.00
$ 925.30
$1,216.58
$1,507.87
$1,799,19
6 Cubic Yard Container
$ 398.14
$ 734.75
$1,071.36
$1,407.97
$1,744.57
$2,081.16
8 Cubic Yard Container
$ 489.90
$ 904,90
$1,319.88
$1,734.87
$2,149.87
$2,564.86
Compactor Rates:
Compactor containers will have a disposal charge at 3.0 times the uncompacted rate. The service
fees shall be the same as those charged for uncon,ipactcd containers. � ��
Exhibit
K8moimnurn Rates for the Collection of Solid Waste within the Unincorporated Distant Rural
Collection Area Served by Brownrigg Investments, Inc,, Bend Garbage and Recycling Co., Inc.,
and High Country Disposal Cm,Inc.
Can and Roll Cart Services - Effective January 1,2010
Class of Service
20 gallon can:
Irb or roads de
ur
-CIM , �� r other
35 gallon can:
65 gallon can,_
cur or roadside
1—cur or roadside
uackvard or other
one pickup ofadditional can each week:
35 gallonoon
1�u�b or roadside
Special services:
2 men) plus disposal fees.
t now fo seen Cr ipecific�� illy covered by this rate
schedule, then the charge for such service shall be-,
1, Uniform and non-discriminatory between customers of a collector;
2. Commensurate with the rates generally charged in unincorporated Deschutes County;
3. SL]bieCt toapproval by Deschutes County
Exhibit C - Continued
Maximum Rates for the Collection of Solid Waste within the Unincorporated Distant Rural
Collection Area Served by Brownrigg Investments, Inc., Bend Garbage and Recycling Co., Inc.,
and High Country Disposal Co., Inc.
Container Services - Effective January 1, 2010
Number of Services (Pickups) Per Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
Service Provided
1 Cubic Yard Container
$ 114.12
$ 205.36
$ 296.65
$ 387.91
$ 479.14
$ 570.39
1.5 Cubic Yard Container
$ 155.86
$ 286,97
$ 418.05
$ 549.17
$ 680.26
$ 811.4
2 Cubic Yard Container
$ 201.97
$ 374.68
$ 547.41
$ 720.12
$ 892.86
_$ 1,065.57
3 Cubic Yard Container
$ 279.37
$ 515.67
$ 752.01
$ 988.35
$ 1,224.67
$ 1,461.00
4 Cubic Yard Container
$ 350.29
$ 648.85
$ 947.44
$ 1,246.03_
$ 1,544.63
$ 1,843.19
_
5 Cubic Yard Container
$ 422.62
$ 780.44
$ 1,138.42
_$ 1,496.37
$ 1,854.33
$ 2,212.31-
6 Cubic Yard Container
$ 490.58
$ 903.85
$ 1,317.11
$ 1,730.40
$ 2,143.69
$ 2,556.97
8 Cubic Yard Container
$ 602.65
$ 1,111.24
$ 1,619.79w
$ 2,128.36
$ 2,636.93
$ 3,145.51
Compactor Rates:
Compactor containers will have a disposal charge at 3.0 times the uncompacted rate. The service
fees shall be the same as those charged for uncompac.ted containers
Exhibit D
Rates for container rental and transfer services provided by
Deschutes Transfer Company to the Department
of Solid Waste
Rates Effective January 1, 2010
Refuse Transfer Rates
Northwest Transfer Station
$304.00
per load
Southwest Transfer Station
$304.00
per load
Alfalfa Transfer Station _
$150.00
er load
Ne us Transfer Station
_$12.41
er ton
Recycling Drop Box Transfer Rates _
_ _
Black Butte Ranch Recycling
$180.00
er load
Bend Demolition Recycling
_ $90.00
er load
Eagle Crest Resort Recycl�n�
_$135.00
per load
Northwest Transfer Station Recyclinc T
$135.00
per load
Sisters Rec clip
$135.00
per load
Sun river Rec clip
_ $120.00
per load_
Southwest Transfer Station Recycling _ _
$135 00
$168,75
per load
per load
Wilderness Disposal Recycling_ _
Negus Transfer Station Recycling Appliance
$4.23
per ton
Cardboard
$95.55
per ton
Commingle
$34.66
per ton
Glass
$18.87
per tan
Scrap Iron
$60.02
er ton
Container Rental Rates
_
40 yard Secunt� Box � ������ �
_
_d $87.5aer
month
30 yard Drop Box _._..m
_ .$70A0
per month
40 Yard Drao Box -
$51.50
per month
Deschutes 2019 Solid Waste Management Plan
Public Outreach /Involvement Process
A key element of preparing the Deschutes County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP)
was to actively promote public participation and seek input from the broader public as the
plan was being prepared. This outreach program was comprehensive. It included setting up
a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) with broad representation including immediate
stakeholders such as cities, recyclers and franchised collection companies and setting up a
dedicated website that posted regular updates of the draft SWMP as it was being prepared.
All SWAC meetings were open to the public who were invited to participate at meetings. The
County issued regular announcements to all parties that visit their website.
Summary of Solid Waste Management Plan Outreach:
Solid Waste Management Plan website
(https•//www deschutes org/solidwaste/page/solid-waste-management-plan)
o Deschutes County Fact Sheet
o Solid Waste Management Plan document draft
o Links to the Recycling and Disposal Options surveys
o Links to the SWAC and public meetings
o Other resource information
Solid Waste Advisory Committee Meetings website
(https•//www deschutes org/solidwaste/page/solid-waste-advisory-committee-
meetings)
o Calendar Dates
o Location/Directions
o Agendas
o Meeting Minutes
o Presentations
o Links to the draft SWMP and public meetings
• Public Meetings:
o Recycling Public Meeting — 6/25/18 6:00 — 7:30 p.m.
o Disposal Public Meeting — 1/31/19 5:00 — 7:00 p.m.
Publicity:
o Solid Waste website
o Deschutes County website — news release, banner board, calendar
o Deschutes Services Building meeting notification board
o County Public Information Officer social media blasting
o Notifications at SWAC and other meetings
o Other communication efforts
• Community Outreach Efforts:
o Meeting requests - Timm Schimke, Director of the Department of Solid Waste
(DSW) presented at different community events such as Sisters Rotary and
various City Council meetings
o Media interviews - Multiple media outlet interviews with Timm Schimke
Emailed correspondence including calendar invites and material (attachments and
website links):
o SWAC email distribution list - comprised of committee members, staff and
consultants
o SWAC Interested Parties email distribution list - comprised of people
requesting to subscribe at meetings, in the office or via survey responses
• Surveys:
o Solid Waste Recycling Survey (http://deschutes.org/swsurvey)
o Solid Waste Disposal Options Survey (http://deschutes.ora/disposaloptions)
o Telephone survey conducted by independent polling and research firm
o KTVZ television station poll
Results from Surveys
DSW, in conjunction with the SWAC, conducted two special public meetings. At each
meeting a survey was issued to obtain feedback from the public about the direction for the
future solid waste services described in the SWMP. The survey was also published on the
County's website to reach more people. The surveys were designed to gauge the public's
general sentiment and input related to the Waste Reduction and Recycling Program and
future landfill disposal options. The following information is a summary of the results and
comments received.
(Intentionally Left Blank)
SUMMARY
212612019
RESPONSES:
196 Surveys
155 Comments
93 Page 1
62 Page 2
63 Interested Party Distribution List Additions From Survey Responses
Survey asks about recycling and composting habits (page 1) and ways to extend the life of the landfill by reducing waste
and recycling more (page 2)
• Majority of respondents have curbside recycling, about half subscribe to curbside yard collection, and under half
compost at home
• Most recycle at work; very few work places compost
• All but a small percentage are in favor of educating on buying products with less packaging waste
• Over half of the respondents strongly agree or agree in having curbside yard/food waste collection as part of their bill
• Majority agree in having businesses recycle/separate food waste and requiring multifamily complexes to recycle and
compost (while offering some type of rate incentive)
Over 150 comments submitted with a general theme of:
- being able to recycle styrofoam and more plastics
- providing more recycling and composting education
- making recycling easy
- offering recycling and yard/food waste services in unincorporated areas
- expanding composting availability at home and in the community
- accepting all/most food waste
- putting in place programs for construction material
- requiring hotels and other businesses to have recycling available
Summary - 212612019
E
Y 3
`o
" 3 c
O
e 2.
= u E
� U
O
U) to to
•4 �4 •41
z
O IH N f/7 d'
Y
p W00
N M
Q
Q W O
LA
vi w z a O
W Q ® o U) a
I00
Q U Q
OMl (L" s 3. "'i �t?� < >" 00
cr- O
Q r
CA
W O
N W
co O .J
bt_9
Cm jh 2, N u a 00
tJ CD
z o W z ti
N e
l0
eel
O O O
H h �
> M
W
Y C o
W cr
a .
CJ WLU
Z
p O o 0
V) ® Q
m Z
z N u. u.
p — -j �O o
V w Ln
M
t co r4
ro
0 o v LL
f z 0 0
o r N m
ch
0
• I'm considering food waste to include any veggies or fruit that have expired or the cut off ends. I do not add cooked
food to my compost. I used the description on Bend Garbage & Recyclings website to determine this as acceptable.
• 1 would like to be able to recycle styrofoam and peanuts.
• I feel like there is so much more that can be recycled that we have to throw away. Try to be very conscious of packaging
when shopping, try to buy in bulk. As a family of 3 we do have the smallest trash can and usually when we put it out it
isn't full. Would like to compost at home but I'm grateful that we can put food waste in our yard waste can.
• By food in compost, only raw vegetables, fruits, coffee grounds and egg shells.
• I use about 1-2 bags of medium-sized kitchen trash per week (usually 1). 1 answered as if 1 were the person collecting,
but I live in an apartment with communal trash bins.
• Community composing would be great! Wish there was more we could recycle in our community.
• We have to sort and haul our recycling at work. I would love to be able to recycle more ie. clamshell containers.
• We would like to be able to recycle more things than what we are allowed now and we would like to be able to compost
more things. When we lived in Bellingham Wa. There were more options. I would also like to see programs put in place
for construction and the school district, so that they are not creating s00000 much waste. I have worked at both and it
is crazy how much perfectly good things get thrown away!
• I rent my home and since it is a duplex the bins are shared and the landlord includes these services in our rent (and
won't add on yard debris service).
• I would love to see solid waste disposal and recycling fees included in our taxes rather than paid for a quarted as they
are now. What a shame that dumpsters are locked and we don't have garbage cans readily available for use by visitors
on the street. Publicly available garbage and recycling would be more in keeping with the "Be Nice, You're In Bend"
ethos.
• Recycling of plastic could be done 'by number' and include a greater variety of items.
• Why don't we have a power generating incinerator? Many euro countries do this.
• Worm composting is so easy. I've been doing it for years. No smell. No fuss. Those happy worms compost kitchen food
waste 24/7 365 days a year. It would be great to see our region (county & city) actively supporting worm composting -
at home & at work places.
• More guidance about appropriate recycling and composting would be very helpful.
• We put out trash for pick up usually every other month so answer above is not correct. With reduction in items now
accepted for recycle our trash use might increase. We try not to purchase items in non -recyclable containers.
• Need more plastic clamshell recycling days. Possibly a clamshell recycling container provided by the County to increase
awareness and recycling.
• We don't have enough garbage to fill even the small can each week so I put my yard debris there rather than pay for a
third yard debris container.
• The only food waste I put out to the curb is items that I can't currently compost (meat, bread, fats etc). I am really
interesting in solid waste management. I find zero waste lifestyles really interesting and I am trying to transition to one.
I am so close but still working on it. I am always looking for new zero waste ideas.
• I would love to be able to use curbside composting.
• Frustrated at how little is able to be recycled in Bend as compared to my company office in California.
• Strong supporters of recycling and composting.
• I have very little yard waste so not sure adding that service would be helpful but adding a composting service would be
terrific. The compost bins in the Northwest Community Garden were recently removed so now I have no place to
compost and I don't want a compost bin in my yard because of it's possible rodents could be attracted to it.
• Please enable Bend Garbage to expand area served for curbside yard waste collection.
Pg 1 Comments - 212612019 115
• Trash disposal is too cheap and it doesn't give incentive to people to recycle. I bring trash and it weighs 30 pounds max,
every few months and it costs me $12 or something. People next to me are paying $40 and piling cardboard, wood, etc
out of their vehicle into the pile for the landfill. I realize that you think making it more expensive would mean more sofas
and wrecked belongings would go to the roadsides, but there are fines and laws for that. Make a bigger incentive for
recycling please and make trash more, much more expensive. Glass isn't picked up in my neighborhood and since the
west side recycle transfer station closed, I have to drive all the way out to the landfill with glass to recycle, so I just do it
all there, no more curbside.
• I currently haul yard waste to the landfill for composting once or twice a year for a cost of $4/disposal. It is a hassle to
drive to the landfill to dispose of hazardous waste and metal, but I do it. It would be nice if used batteries, especially AA,
could be recycled. Recycling of plastic has become a worldwide problem. The county may need to consider a separate
bin for plastic so it does not become contaminated by other recycling, if that is a problem. The county should evaluate
the feasibility of a tax or limits on plastic packaging, straws, and bags.
• The current service is excellent. But as a new resident, I have not noticed much outreach from the waste company to
show what goes in the bin. Yes, there is stuff online, but what about people who do not want to make the effort to look
things up? What about graphics on the cart? Flyers? T.V. ads? Facebook ads? I an guessing there is a lot of
contamination in the recycling.
• We do not put meats, dairy products or other non -vegetable food items in yard debris bins. Yard debris should not be
commingled with solid waste but composted and reused.
• Would be great if we could recycle glass and compost at my place of employment.
• I just moved here from NC. I am very surprised there is not a compost service in place. I know you can put raw fruits and
veggies in the yard bin, so that's at least one step in the right direction. However, something more could be
implemented. Secondly, what can and cannot be recycled is unclear. Many residents are confused on what should and
shouldn't be recycled.
• I would love to see more efforts to moving Bend/Deschutes County toward zero waste systems (like in San Francisco:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg3OA1s8-SI), including an official curbside compost collection (like in Portland) in
addition to the currently -offered yard debris collection, and textile recycling collection receptacles
(https://gemtextrecycling.com). I believe more public outreach on what can be accepted for recycling is needed. When I
lived in Portland, we received regular mailings on recycling. I've found that most people in Bend have no clue what can
and cannot be recycled in our curbside bins. I would be interested in forming a citizen task force to research effective
municipal zero waste strategies. Please let me know if this would be helpful. Thank you!
• People are lazy whatever will make composting/recycling the easiest is best because people don't want to do anything
more than is necessary. I have compost/worm composting and maybe one plastic grocery bag of trash per month. I try
to recycle everything I can.
• We also recycle plastic film at the grocery store, use fabric shopping bags and occasionally take our Styrofoam to
Portland (until they stopped taking it) We try very hard to repair and re -use items and avoid buying things we don't
need. We love our community and our earth and try hard to keep it clean.
• I throw my garden compost in the trash because my HOA doesn't want to see composting bins in yards. I throw away my
garden compost because I don't have room for another trash can. I've started bringing my deposit bottles to recycling
center myself and keeping the money for myself. I think it sucks you don't recycle clamshell plastics - a lot of places do.
• Our garbage can is set out when full, which takes —10 -12 weeks.
• I think Bend should ban single use plastics like grocery bags, straws, plastic cups. We also should have community
composting. Thank you.
Pg 1 Comments - 212612019 215
• Currently making a push at work to educate staff on what can and can not be recycled, ie. clam shells = no, cracker box =
yes
• I would like to see stronger recycling programs in the school district.
• It would be great to have a more robust composting system, including the "compostable" cups, plates, clamshells
(Volcano Veggies), etc. that many businesses use, but that we can't actually efficiently compost.
• Too many people put trash in the recycle bin. Several of my neighbors do, they don't want to pay for excess garbage. I
read that somewhere they won't pick up the recycle bin if it has trash. Does the driver have to get out and check each
bin??? I think they should send the recycle truck out first and have them leave recycle bins with garbage. Than have the
garbage truck pick up the recycle can as garbage along with the garbage can and charge for 2 cans of garbage. But that's
too much work for the drivers unless they have an easy way to record the extra pickup, AND look in the recycle can. But
people will just scatter recycling on top to make it look like a proper recycle can.
• Interested in composting options when i dont have a yard to do it
• We both work from home so we recycle. Have tried composting in the past and failed. We are open to trying it again.
• We must get better at this. We must get better at developing alternatives to our waste. if we develop alternatives and
make garbage expensive enough, the vast majority of people will reduce their waste. Humans are not good at dealing
w/future crisis. 2029 seems so far away. Unless strongly encouraged by financial reasons or forced by policies & laws we
won't do anything until too late. The planet deserves better. Thanks.
• I'd love to have more recycling bins at work and recycling information to share with my staff.
• I would love having more composting options available.
• increasing deposit has resulted in more can, plastic bottle, and glass self haul recycling in my household.
• Recycle bins are not large enough. Also, to promote less waste I should only pay for when I set my garbage can out, if I
skip a week I should get a credit or something...
• 1 would like to become more knowledgeable about what materials are recyclable and what is not
• I would love it if there was a formal composting program. It would also be great if more types of plastics were
recyclable.
• I would use and be willing to pay for a curbside compost program. We don't have room to use compost in our yard.
• PLEASE add more plastics to recycling.
• I wish yard waste pick up was free for all just like recycling is
• Garbage is terrible. Recycling is awesome. But sending recycled product on a worldwide trip somewhat defeats the point
of recycling. Encourage local business to use/produce products from recycled material? A local contest?
• We compost at home!
• Please offer more recycling of plastics. Work with stores to reduce packaging or for the buggies lieu Costco, Trader Joe's,
Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc to truck clamshells and other stiff consumers can't avoud buying to a proper recycling facility
in the empty trucks going back to Eugene or pdx.
• Any help with at home composting would be great
• I have such a small yard that yard debris collection and home composting isn't needed. But I would do curbside compost
collection if that was feasible.
• Oregon should make it easier.. it used to be we could go to any grocery store to return our cans/bottles now we only
have one place to go in Redmond and Bend.. No more choices of where to go.. also the one place to go has become kind
of a trashy place.. I would not send my wife or children or mother there alone!!
• we definitely need a city-wide food waste compost option
Pg 1 Comments - 212612019 315
• It would be great to have more workshops, support on best practices for composting at home. We have a compost
tumbler and are interested in how to make the best soil from it. Would be great to hear how others are reducing waste
locally to get inspiration, tips, and more.
• We should have compost curbside pick-up and/or access to discounted at-home composters
• Please consider adopting a compost/food waste curbside collection program. Currently, our Yard Debris bin allows for
"fresh food" to be included, so one would hope it could be possible to expand that to include all/most food waste. The
City of Portland initiated a program a few years ago and has seen great success in waste reduction.
• I would love to have curbside compost pickup but need to look into the cost of a yard waste container if it were only
used for food scraps. I also try to only put my garbage and recycling bins out when they are full or super stinky in hopes
that by me not placing it on the curb, that will be one less stop for the dump truck and hopefully save on gas. Not sure if
this theory is true but if it is it would be great to have a push to educate the public to do the same. Perhaps people could
have an option for their trash to only be picked up every 2 weeks instead of every week so that you could build this
efficiency into your system.
• Getting the 10 cent bottles and cans into the DEPOSIT - REFUND stream is becoming increasingly difficult. Recycling
should be easy and precise ..... a no-brainer if taught at schools and throughout our society. Simple - Easy and efficient -
even if it costs EXTRA.......
• I am on the Bend Climate Action Steering Committee. We are responsible for creating a workable Climate Action Plan for
the community to increase renewable energy use and decrease our carbon and other GHG emissions. Out committee is
very interested in the significant role waste management will have on our overall success for years to come.:)
• Would love to be able to add food waste to curbside.
• Work - We tried composting without success due to lack of compliance (wrong stuff in) & lack of greens/browns. I'd do
yard waste if there was a reduced option instead of every month. Too expensive for amount of yard debris 1 have.
• Would love a small curbside compost option
• If Bend could pass legislation making takeout containers (coffee and drink cups, food packaging) either more expensive
or banned, that would help a lot. Americans can do more, and the changes to established habits may be painful at first,
but in the grand scheme, no big deal.
• I've been "homeless" for 6 years and the amount of waste - I have found - is appauling. Vote for me as Mayor of Bend so
WE can help clean up our community and to propagate positivity and critical thought locally to begin...
• I would like to see appropriate bins for collection in my apartment complex.
• Curbside service - Live in unincorporated Bend and do not have this service - must take to transfer station
• Glass & yard debris pickup in the county would be awesome.
• I would love to not have to pay extra for yard waste. It reduces our garbage volume & waste to landfill significantly!
• Hope its working
• Work compost - Soon. I know that awareness of what can be recycled is pretty minimal among my peers.
• Would really like to see composting bins so all food waste & certified compostables etc. can be composted in a bin at
home. i.e. more than just current yard waste
• More info/signage, perhaps on bins, on what's acceptable and what's not. Also include info with bills - maybe quarterly
so people really look at it with lots of visual images.
• Would be nice to have curbside recycling and yard/food waste collection available at outlying communities in the county
(where curbside garbage is already offered)
• Regarding yard waste recycling - I have a lawn maintenance service that maintains the yard. They haul away the yard
waste. I assume that they dispose of it properly.
Pg 1 Comments - 212612019 415
• Compost at home: We didn't know that was available. We will compost in the future. Self -haul recycling: Most often
batteries, hazardous waste, e-waste, etc.
• Sure wish we had the option of weekly recycling pickup. My recycling bin is overflowing every other week, and often I
have to drive to the Knott recycling station in between. My garbage bin is usually only about half full each week. In
Portland, garbage was every other week and recycling was weekly ... that worked well, 1 found. Also wish I could recycle
used motor oil curbside like Portland does ... but, I wonder if I'm one of few who change their own oil these days:-).
• The city of Guelph in Ontario Canada has an excellent waste management program. Might be something worth checking
out.
• New residential communities - new homes - the builders don't give residents enough space for all the trash & recycle
bins - there's no way I could fit another can and... I do NOT want to SMELL residential food waste in my home or
neighborhood
• Would love to have glass recycling in rural Deschutes County!
• I wish Knott Landfill had Terracycle (www.terracycle.com) boxes at the transfer stations that we (as a community) could
add to, and increase our recycling/decrease waste streams.
• Glass and compost bins at work would be great. I wish plastic clamshells were recyclable. Why aren't they?
• I would love curbside composting, and more education about what can and can't be recycled here.
• We are interested in learning about any industrial composting options available to us as a business.
• We need to be able to recycle clamshell, or push for reduced use of clamshell in grocery stores.
• Would like a compost recycling available at home and work
• It would be great to see bend doing better with composting food. There are so many farms that could be linked up with
that valuable resource. Last time I was in bend , they didn't recycle glass which is crazy. 1 just moved back and hopefully
that has changed.
• The majority of people recycle incorrectly and need training. There needs to be a lot more information put out there as
to what is and is not recyclable, and why it matters. Also, there should not be an extra charge for yard waste recycling.
People don't do it for that reason. The same for charges for bringing recyclables to the transfer station.
• We need to make waste management more expensive so more people recycle and compost. People need to be trained
on how easy it is to do the right thing for the environment and our community!
Pg 1 Comments-1/1612019 515
N try �
of N N
•
• •
�? ✓ *�
L1
Cj
y�'� `(.
!;.
r�
f F f
S�.y:
V f J I :..
�
I
S �4 c.y:
•
�kf � �� S R
� fC gSl,�,cy
�
�i
� � f?; � �
7� � � �� y
.
A
•
>�"`3' � a„ �4/SS" f�
z�s��•'��d" 'a:�^'�ays.
s;. �p/,,f 2?.. �'Z f'�,�
���" �
I<�� i'�
� ������✓
1-•4x�f'�`
����Z
IIIIII
��'IF
^w.
L� C I.� i`"C s1y..�s??�'tYl;.,�
�
*
`'��� �
��i¢q`r L.�
"�'U"ea.✓..
,�'1-'
.�s�'�.,
9
°
'�'a
'`
r� r
�
�� ti. L; � s1
_ ;.. f� �
rah �°
3 -"�f,
�,� :
•
'
� <�
•
.�
s
z, z r ?'
�� �� �U I�''L"Y;�s'
� i"��3 .
���h� („3 9
� "i
�
� 3�f�
1s'��fi�
i
!^bps
S �iL ti✓��
�"N�`. ,���
Ch
r/
O
N
N
• By adding food waste to recycling program, won't that fill up the landfill quicker? Food waste should be collected more
than once per week because it is going to stink!!
• Where does the composting and yard waste go? Why does that save space, when regular trash pickup does not?
• Hotels should be required to have recycling available.
• Restaurants should be given incentives that they can also use in advertising. Like a special logo and or sticker that they
can show proudly for being zero waste etc. The more incentives and the easier things are made through programs the
more people on board with creating less waste. Thanks!
• Since a large portion of our waste in the landfill is construction waste, I think thoughtful consideration should be put
towards financial incentives and/or regulation, policy, building codes, permits, etc to really make a dent in extending the
life of our landfill and conserving resources (environmental and financial). I only think all residents should have yard
waste/food waste as part of their bill if this includes ALL food waste, like how businesses currently can compost.
• It would be nice to have a way to more easily identify and sort the types of plastics. Also if more plastics were accepted
lies would go in the landfill. When I lived in Bozeman. Mt they had these wonderful dumpster around town for recycling
that has sista sections for the sudent items. It was how 1 recycled living in my apartment complex.
• Incentivize, don't mandate
• I think it would be best to tackle people recycling the right things and not putting garbage in the recycling before trying
to tackle adding food waste composting. Maybe incentives are supplied for recycling or composting only if it is done
right. That might be to hard to track though.
• I think it is incumbent on businesses and property owners and managers to institute these policies. It should not
become a burden, to low-income residents. There should also be better education and infrastructure for hazardous
waste disposal.
• Perhaps residential, business and multifamily complexes should be given rate incentives for recycling and composting.
We also need to develop recycling businesses that can process recyclables locally.
• Provide the container, and they will come.
• There are so many variances to the above questions it's difficult to answer with the above options. Is it cost effective for
you?, how do you drill EVERYONE it's beneficial to recycle everything we can? ... SO many questions.. We support
recycling 200% but I'm still uncertain myself of the fine points of plastic recycling.. It's not easy and LOTS OF PEOPLE
need more info on it CONSISTENTLY!!
• Yard waste/food waste should not be required. I like having the option. I think it would be great to learn more about
the relationship between who is creating the food scraps and who benefits from the compost. Once it is composted at
the landfill, who is buying and using it?
• With our affordable housing shortage, we should not single out and burden multi -family housing with requirements or
fees.
• I have tried food composting and found it to require a lot of time and attention but 1'd be more than willing to separate
it for collection!
• I think that curbside composting should be offered and available for all of Bend, businesses and residential but not
required for anyone. I also think that reducing packaging and waste should be a main goal for everyone.
• We should have programs in the Deschutes schools that education children about recycling, reusing, and reducing.
• We should ban single use plastic bags!
• I'm currently in the Bend/Deschutes County JMA, and am served by Bend Garbage. For some reason, I'm offered
recycling in a blue bin, but not recycling of yard waste. This should be changed to allow for more composting material to
be gathered. As of now my only option is to take it to the landfill in general, a wasteful process.
Pg 2 Comments - 212612019 114
• We should get a county ruling to outlaw plastic bags, utensils and straws etc which cannot be recycled and end up on
the roadsides. Follow lead of Seattle and Portland, we can do it. Maybe weigh the amount of recycling that people take
to the landfill collection station and then weigh their trash when they haul that and give a credit if they are big on
recycling and small on trash. I see a lot of metal and wood going into the trash. Make the landfill last forever!
• We compost in our backyard and so don't need compost pick-up. We don't have enough yard waste for weekly pick-up.
Would it be practical to have free community dumpsters for yard waste and compost, perhaps at the edge of parks? A
likely problem might inclusion of garbage and too many plastic bags.
• This is a necessity.
• how would compliance with recycling and composting requirements be ensured?
• Need to make it EASY to recycle and compost or no-one will do it.
• I compost and have worm composting on my own and use it in my yard to enrich the soil so I can eventually have a
garden. I wouldn't want to be charged for this service. But think it is a good idea for people who won't do it themselves.
• This is tough to answer because I have mixed feelings. I feel that everyone should recycle and compost, however
requiring them to do it can backfire because they wont do it correctly or conscientiously. Education and promotion is the
key. Perhaps requiring a trial period of three months when a person signs up for new service would allow them to see if
they are willing to recycle and compost correctly. Providing rate incentives are nice, but the process is costly so who will
pay for it?
• Food waste in the landfill helps everything else in the landfill to decompose better. It also provides the fuel to create the
methane that runs the power plant on the landfill. Completely separating out the food waste changes the character of
the landfill and the decomposing lifetime of the trash in the landfill.
• You haven't mentioned prices. A lot of people are being crushed by taxes and fees in Deschutes. I don't think it's fair to
force this on anyone except a business. Why don't you fine companies in Oregon that have excess pancaking and ARE
THE PROBLEM??? You're punishing the end users but not the people who create the problem.
• Recycling and composting is something we ALL should be doing as it's called personal responsibility. I'm sure more
people would partake in composting and recycling if there weren't additional fees. Maybe have it as an "all -in -one"
package. You pay your monthly fee and with that it includes trash, recycling AND composting. It must be easily
accessible for customers to use it. If it's not they won't.
• yes, yes, yes to recycling and educating/promoting waste reduction is HUGE
• Composting food waste in the yard debris bin only includes raw plant material, if I understand it correctly (apple cores,
carrot tops, etc.). It would be great if the facility could compost meat bones, cooked leftovers, etc. I assume this is
possible, but I'm not sure what it entails. Portland has a composting system ... what do they do that might be worth
copying?
• People are LAZY!! In multifamily complexes they will choose the easiest place to throw their trash, no one can hold
anyone else accountable - unless there are cameras and everyone can see who are the offenders and they get chided
into complying.
• I would like to do compost but in this new home with no garden i would like to know what options i could have
• If you give businesses and multifamily complexes incentives to recycle & compost you should give individuals incentives
too!
• Would it be possible to require grocery stores and restaurants to donate food instead of throwing it away? There's so
much perfectly good food being wasted. It makes no sense.
• When you say require multifamily to compost, I assume you mean require them to separate food waste that will be part
of the collection program
Pg 2 Comments - 212612019 214
• Instead of teaching consumers what packaging to buy, the manufacturers should package in fully recyclable products.
That way there's no question if it can be recycled or not
• I lived in an apartment building and saw lots of people try to recycle things that aren't recyclable. I think there needs to
be more signage in apartment buildings about what is/isn't recyclable. This is particularly an issue as lots of people move
to bend from other areas that have different recycling rules
• I agree with requiring recycling. I do not agree with requiring composting.
• "Require" is a word that provides no wiggle room. Incentivize offers a benefit to both parties.
• Why not charge a fee for recycling to be done for folks. Take a look at what rainbow disposal in Huntington Beach does.
There's a fee and the facility sorts. It's apakling how much waste there is. Responsible packaging and consumerism is
critical to our future.
• the ones I said "Strongly DISAGREE On.. I feel apartment complexes and businesses would raise their rates which would
directly affect the average person.. apartment complexes as you guys well know already charge an arm and a leg.. so
that is why I strongly Disagree.. and I strongly Disagree about all residents should have curbside/food waste collection
bill.. due to the fact Some Do not use that service.. it's like the State of Oregon recently passing a law where everyone
gets a trasnportation tax deducted from their pay checks now.. Surprise.. guess why we are disgusted with the
government???. you guys do that I Gurantee the Deschutes county leaders will be hearing a ton of negative comments
over it! M. also.. maybe poor planning on deschutes counties fault for the land fill.. why should us as residents have to do
something about it.. if it was a lack of planning of the deschutes county leaders?
• I always think that incentive programs work best. I don't think burden should be placed on multifamily complexes as
they usually tend to be lower income..but I see the point in trying to control areas that may not have the space to
compost on site. It still seems discriminatory to me.
• Comment on the "all residents should have curbside yard/food waste collection." I already have that and it is already on
my bill. Not sure why you're asking that question. Also, the garbage and recycling bill comes every other month, not
monthly.
• A strong education program, along with incentives will be among the key factors to engage our community in reducing
their waste and recycling more, among other actions. Mandatory requirements will likely be a disincentive. Due to my
committee position, I've chosen the neutral route on the last five questions. Good luck.
• Multifamily complexes need to have a way to give a rebate to tenants for recycling and composting. They would need to
have someone monitor what goes in the right bin since many choose not to be responsible. This is a challenge. There
needs to be a colorful laminated poster showing what goes in what bin and what not to recycle/compost.
• Some businesses are awfully small to handle this or even generate enough/any compost. Require a certain size business
maybe? Or food -based business only?
• Curbside yard waste/food waste collection - Only if we use the service.
• Vote early and vote often. Let's make this change NOW:-)
• "Require" sometimes pisses people off. But I think it would force change. But maybe giving incentives to do it would be
more effective than requiring it? Like you have to pay more if you don't do it.
• I don't really understand multi -family complex question. I think there should be big rate incentives for building
(construction) waste reduction. Or, some other program to collect & reuse/recycle construction waste. i.e. separate bin
for re-store/habitat re -usable materials & rate reduction or rebate for amount in said bin.
• Curbside yard waste/food waste collection - If they don't have a yard they shouldn't have yard waste
• All residents should have curbside yard waste/food recycling as part of their monthly bill: If in a practical sense that is
required to make yard waste/food recycling work, then I think it should be a requirement.
Pg 2 Comments - 212612019 314
• First step is to reduce, then reuse then recycle. Would love to know if there is a program for black pastor plant
containers.
• What we really need is a waste energy plant
• Multi family complexes with stink to high hell with composting! It's 90-100 degrees way too often - what about the poor
homeowner that gets stuck living next to the compost pile??!! Home value? Health? Vermin?
• I didn't realize there were multi -family units that *don't* provide recycling bins!
• For things which we cannot recycle locally, we should look into systems/programs where we can send it away
(www.terracycle.com), and place the boxes in strategic locations around town.
• Disagree: Those of us who compost shouldn't have to pay for food and yard waste collection since it's a service we
wouldn't use.
• Offering rate incentives for recycling and separating food waste for composting sounds good, but I don't recommend it
unless there is a corresponding economic benefit to the County.
• All education messages should include information about the costs of opening a new landfill. We should also consider
adding a small fee toward the future cost of the landfill since it is inevitable that we will need to source one. Saving
today for this future expense would be financially prudent.
• The reduction of packaging waste is crucial, but would be more effectively dealt with at the level of when the packaging
is put on, rather than at the consumer level. We need legislation to reduce wasteful packaging, especially plastic
packaging, and the counties should be lobbying the Oregon legislature to get this done.
Pg 2 Comments - 212612019 414
(Intentionally Left Blank)
I AWjjA fjy Lff W=1 Vj 111110WE LW##UG. - I.;rj _ Implementation Considerations 1.3 - Cost Effectiveness
1.2
.2 -Sound Financial Principles 1-4 - Rate Stability
... ' '* 'P' s Out 0 test '� L (A
ci. Pr c Best: T (Transport f County
rail 0
4 Overall Option Like
1 - ly.1-11 I 1-11ILY
1.6 - Reliability
1.7- Environmental Considerations
1
8
9
10
5
7
5
16
2
4
8
6
5
5
6
9
3
6
6
9
2
6
8
3
4
4
8
3
7
6
4
4
5
5
7
6
9
6
9
2
6
4
1
4
8
5
5
4
7
9
3
2
6
6
5
4
Responses
40
42
40
42
41
42
42
1.1 - IMPLEMENTATION
CONSIDERATIONS
7 9
6 r zFq z,crSu 4
S 010"NEIRM
4 MIR'
3 WIENER, 6
2 E A.
i i,,,-mmm 8
0 S 10
1.4 - RATE STABILITY
7 1,1011 6
6
5 9
4 7
3 @ 2
2 0,00,10
011-10, S
0 s 10
1.7 - ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
7 4
6 ANu 4
5 R'F 2
4 ffi 4
2 H61" 9
1 ROSS 16
0 5 10 is 20
1.2 - SOUND FINANCIAL
PRINCIPLES
7 W�. . �1 3
6 N 1
5 N<',,N 7
4
3 Nd 6
2
1 9
0 S 10
1.5 - SYSTEM
FLEXIBILITY
7 1KINE-0 6
6 ON S
4 N' 6
3 6
2
0 2 4 6 8
1-3 - COST
EFFECTIVENESS
7 �k 2
6 00 4
S Z' 6
4 NNEW 3
3 11,11S, 9
2 0 6
I 5"mam's's 11
0 s 10 is
1-6 - RELIABILITY
7 '1 1
6 5
5 ANININ 9
4
2 00 6
I ""o,"S s
0 s 10
4 OVERALL OPTION LIKE BEST
T = TRANSPORT OUT OF COUNTY
L = NEW IN -COUNTY LANDFILL
T
L ,03§100 3 0
0 5 10 is 20 25 30
L T
Total 30 11
35
Dashboard 311112019
• Encourage more recycling esp. of items that will produce methane
• Still thinking about that!
• Infrastructural changes - make it easier for "green" disposals. Also, education!
• Increased environmental restrictions and the extra cost.
• I'm wondering if in this process, plans or proposals have been recommended/suggested to address the enormous waste
that happens on our school campuses?
• Transfer stations need to be open 7 days a week and safe.
• Loss of public land.
Incentives and penalties to reduce packaging, food waste, construction waste.
Money from reuse of the existing Knott Road site. Money from its development could pay for a new site or transfer of
solid waste to another site.
More competition in garbage, recycling and yard waste collection to reduce that cost to residents.
• Resiliency in case of emergencies. The roads north to Columbia river landfills may be closed in case of earthquake, fire,
or severe weather.
• Increased fill rate of out of county landfills.
• No
• landfill alternatives
• No, I don't have anything to be considered about this landfill.
• building a new land fill
• burning
0 Hopefully longevity and other plans will put in place incase of more build up prior to the development of other facilities.
• I know Deschutes County on its own doesn't generate enough trash to have an EFW (Energy From Waste facility) but
what if we took trash from other counties? It is estimated that Central Oregons population to double in the next 15
years ... Would that be enough trash to make this viable option? In 2016 in Jefferson, Crook, Deschutes and Klamath
counties, combined for more solid waste (252,811 pounds) than Marion County (243,100 pounds) (source: 2016
Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report). EFW in Marion County processes 550 pounds per day/200,750
per year. The counties surrounding us are already shipping their solid waste elsewhere. Why not ship their solid waste to
Bend to our new EFW facility? If we build an EFW it's one and done... Just ideas, because at some point, the next
landfills will get full, will close and we'll have to go through this all over again.
• WTE technology is emerging and was not fully explored in the documents prepared during this planning process.
• How many jobs would be impacted if we send our trash out of the county?
• Continue to think about waste reduction, composting options and education for users.
2 - Comments - 311112019 1 / 1
• If we end up hauling long distance then we need to use trucks that run on methane or biodiesel
• Keep our trash here & emphasize waste reduction & sustainability.
• Curious about expanding recycling & composting for residents. The less in the landfill, the better.
• My comment would be that given past projects (i.e. parkway) a new landfill would hit major appeals and cost overruns.
• Have you thoroughly looked at rail transfer to existing large landfills elsewhere?
• None. I attended the open house and it was very well down.
• None
• is there other options?
• 1 don't have any comments or questions.
• making a new land fill to help keep trash safe
. If decided upon to develop a new Landfill in County how will the land be acquired and decided upon prior to either
constructing or developing new facilities? What precautions will be put in place to address near by pedestrians?
• In the environmental section, GHG emissions are stated as having local impacts. GHG emissions are fairly ubiquitous and
should be viewed from the lens of a total system.
• How many jobs does Knott landfill provide the county?
3 - Comments - 311112019 1 / 1
• As much as possible we need to take care of our own problems & wste. We need better & more methane recovery. It's
very iffy to think you can get land from BLM. Public land should stay public & not be used as a landfill.
• Local control & accountability
• We shouldn't ship our waste elsewhere! 350K mi vs 2.1 million miles is huge.
• Transportation emissions
• I think that it would be better from all aspects to transfer to an existing landfill that has the capacity.
• Keep it local!
• Concerned about having reliable, cost effective solid waste options.
• The out of County option utilizes existing landfills thereby negating the need to use valuable land to create a new landfill
here in Deschutes County. It eliminates the need for acquisition, start-up, and operating costs based on a future capacity
requirement. It also eliminates the need for additional bond debt to acquire and construct a Deschutes County landfill. It
also allows much more flexibility to adjust for solid waste volume in the future.
• Rate stability and being able to take items to the dump.
• I prefer rail transport out of county if overall greenhouse gas emissions are less or equal to truck and private vehicle
transfer to a new landfill in Deschutes County. Otherwise, it depends on the new site and environmental/public values.
I value open public lands, such as BLM, and don't think we should take away that land from public use.
• Local landfill is the long term lowest carbon emission solution. A local landfill results in a more stable cost structure
through the landfill life. Deschutes county is a favorable hydrogeologic environment for the long term storage of waste.
A local landfill provides the most flexible solution for processing alternative waste streams. Additionally, a local landfill
helps the community maintain mindfulness of the impact of waste disposal.
• Less greenhouse gases from driving garbage far away. Less trucks on the highway. But we must reduce the waste
through more vigorous construction and demolition recycling.
• Well, trash is trash, so neither choice seems like a particular "win," but the matrix dictates that regional sites have a
good history of compliance, and there's less for Deschutes County to deal with if we truck it out. But then the highway
miles/emissions are a bad deal under that plan, so ..... hopefully smarter minds than mine will come to the most optimum
decision.
• More control for the county and better job opportunities for locals
• it can keep jobs and there would be way less commuting
• this option is the best beacuse a in county landfill its keep all the cost down and its safer do do this
• Easer
• Supports local development
• It will be more jobs available if we do build New In -County Landfill, and it won't have to cost more if we do have to
transport out of county.
• new land fill
• its more safe than transport
• While little more costly managing less facilities could be more beneficial to both pedestrians and general land
management.
• Local control should be the primary consideration. Deschutes and adjacent counties are a geographic island
.....perfectly capable of managing its waste disposal challenges without undue reliance on remote and unpredictable
influences over the next 50 years or longer.
• I feel 1) it's our trash, we should be responsible for it, 2) Better for the environment (fuel, road repair, oil, etc.) keeping
the truck traffic 1/16 -1/8 of out of County 3) Keeping job local.
4 - Comments - 311112019 112
• First reason is the lower cost to the system for an in -county landfill, and the second reason is the much lower
environmental impact to ship to a local landfill.
• Transportation out of the county allows for the county to be flexible as new technologies emerge in MSW management
(e.g. WTE). If the county constructs a new landfill, it will create the "feed the beast" hurdle as future technologies
become more feasible.
• Cost effectiveness.
Significantly more truck miles for out -of -county option.
• It is more practical. However, it will have to be done in such a way that the surrounding use will not be impacted.
• We need as many jobs as possible in the county. If we transport out of the county, it seems we'd be taking jobs away
from current residents.
• Self-sustaining and reliable model. It provides long term financial stability for rate payers. There is a lot of uknowns
especially for funding and variables outside of couny control if we transport out of county. Gas prices will likely rise, and
other agencies will have control of our garbage bills. The county has time to identify and construct a location prior to
Knott end of life. We should start charging now to collect funding to be able to do that.
4 - Comments - 311112019 212
R1
Top Line Results
Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon
Dates Conducted: 6/24/2019through 7/3/2019
Survey Type: Live Interview Telephone
N = 505N
Margin of Error at 95% Confidence Level: +/- 4.3%
Weighting: Age & Gender
Q0. Are you speaking on a landline or cellphone?
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
Landline 83 16.5 16.5
Cellphone 422 83.5 100.0
Total 505 100.0
We would like to start by providing you some background information on the Knott Landfill, the only landfill
in Deschutes County.
Currently, the Knott Landfill is estimated to reach its capacity in ten years. One of the biggest questions
facing County officials is what will happen once the landfill is full.
A committee of local residents and stakeholders have been studying a variety of disposal options, but two
main choices have emerged:
The first option is to build a new landfill in Deschutes County. The second option is to transport our trash
out -of -county to a large landfill near the Columbia River Gorge.
In terms of costs, currently, Deschutes County spends about $35 per ton of trash to maintain garbage at the
Knott Landfill.
If we build a new landfill, costs are estimated to increase to $42 per ton. If we transport trash out of county,
costs are estimated to increase to $47 - $62 per ton. These are estimated rates which can be difficult to
forecast because of unpredictable factors like fuel prices, taxes and other fees
Q1. How important is the financial impact of this decision to you? Is it...?
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
The most important factor
89
17.6
17.6
total % important 69.2
One of many important factors
260
51.6
69.2
total % not important 14.1
Neutral
79
15.7
84.9
Not an important factor
30
6.0
90.9
The least important factor
41
8.2
99.1
Not Sure / Don't Know
5
.9
100.0
Total 505 100.0
Triton Polling Research, Inc.
www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3% Page 1 of 6
A landfill impacts the area where it is located and requires mitigation of impacts such as emissions, litter and
odor. If we build a new landfill, these impacts will remain in Deschutes County. If we transport trash out of
county, impacts from our trash will affect other jurisdictions.
02. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statement: Trash that is generated here
should stay here. Do you...?
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
233
46.2
46.2
Agree
193
38.2
84.5
Neutral
67
13.2
97.7
Disagree
9
1.8
99.5
Strongly Disagree
3
.5
100.0
Total
505
100.0
Truck transportation has been identified as a significant source of carbon emissions. If we transport trash out
of county, there will be more emissions because of the miles trash will travel to be disposed of. If we
transport trash out of the county, we estimate over 2 million miles will be traveled each year. If we assume
a new landfill will be sited 30 miles from Bend, we estimate about 350,000 miles will be traveled each year.
Q3. Please indicate how important the transportation impacts of this decision are to you, Is it...?
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
The most important factor
94
18.6
18.6
One of many important factors
297
58.7
77.4
Neutral
55
10.9
88.3
Not an important factor
27
5.3
93.6
The least important factor
30
5.9
99.5
Not Sure / Don't Know
2
.5
100.0
Total
505
100.0
If we build a new landfill, jobs and revenue from trash disposal stay here. If we transport trash out of
county, revenue and jobs are created in other places.
Q4. Please indicate how important the economic impacts of this decision are to you. Is it...?
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
The most important factor
146
28.8
28.8
One of many important factors
270
53.4
82.3
Neutral
55
11.0
93.3
Not an important factor
17
3.4
96.7
The least important factor
17
3.3
100.0
Total
505
100.0
Triton Polling Research, Inc.
www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3%
total % agree 84.5
total % disagree 2.3
total % important 77.4
total % not important 11.2
total % important 82.3
total % not important 6.7
Page 2 of 6
If we build a new landfill, 400-500 acres of land will need to be developed. This development could displace
other uses and may impact neighboring parcels of land even in remote areas of the County. If we transport
trash out of county, there won't be an impact to local land within the county.
45. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statement: I would be comfortable
displacing other uses so that a landfill could be built locally. Do you...?
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
172
34.1
34.1 total % agree 77.1
Agree
217
43.0
77.1 total %disagree 7.4
Neutral
74
14.6
91.7
Disagree
29
5.8
97.5
Strongly Disagree
8
1.6
99.1
Not Sure / Don't Know
4
.9
100.0
Total
505
100.0
Please rank the following impacts from most important to least important based on your values on a 1 to 10
scale, where 1 is least important and 10 is most important:
Q6A. Impacts on my monthly trash bill / disposal rates
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
1-Least important
51
10.0
10.0
2
18
3.6
13.7
3
37
7.4
21.0
4
23
4.6
25.7
5
127
25.1
50.8
6
42
8.3
59.1
7
55
10.9
70.0
8
52
10.3
80.3
9
21
4.2
84.5
10-Most important
78
15.4
99.9
Not Sure / Don't Know
1
.1
100.0
Total
505
100.0
Q68. Environmental impacts
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
1-Least important
18
3.5
3.5
2
8
1.6
5.2
3
14
2.8
8.0
4
9
1.9
9.9
5
67
13.2
23.1
6
24
4.8
27.9
7
44
8.8
36.7
8
100
19.8
56.5
9
55
11.0
67.4
10-Most important
157
31.1
98.5
Not Sure / Don't Know
7
1.5
100.0
Total
505
100.0
Triton Polling Research, Inc.
www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3%
total % ranked 1-5 50.8
total % ranked 6-10 49.1
total % ranked 1-5 23.1
total % ranked 6-10 75.4
Page 3 of 6
Q6C. Impacts to local jobs and the economy
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
1-Least important
9
1.8
1.8
2
6
1.2
3.0
3
8
1.5
4.5
4
17
3.3
7.9
5
57
11.3
19.1
6
29
5.8
24.9
7
66
13.1
38.0
8
107
21.3
59.3
9
61
12.2
71.4
10-Most important
141
28.0
99.4
Not Sure / Don't Know
3
.6
100.0
Total
505
100.0
Q6D. Impacts to land and local development
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
1-Least important
13
2.5
2.5
2
14
2.7
5.2
3
25
5.0
10.3
4
31
6.2
16.5
5
121
24.0
40.4
6
39
7.8
48.3
7
84
16.7
64.9
8
84
16.5
81.5
9
25
5.0
86.5
10-Most important
63
12.5
99.1
Not Sure / Don't Know
5
.9
100.0
Total
505
100.0
Q7.Overall, which option would you support? Building a new landfill in Deschutes County OR transporting
our trash out -of -county?
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
Building a new landfill in Deschutes County 469 93.0 93.0
Transporting our trash out -of -county 15 2.9 95.9
Not Sure / Don't Know 21 4.1 100.0
Total 505 100.0
Triton Polling Research, Inc.
www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - Molz: +/- 4.3%
total % ranked 1-5 19.1
total %ranked 6-10 80.3
total % ranked 1-5 40.4
total % ranked 6-10 58.6
Page 4 of 6
Lastly, we have a few questions about you that are needed for statistical purposes. Your responses will
remain anonymous and strictly confidential. Q8. Are you....?
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
A residential customer
390
77.3
77.3
A business customer
2
.4
77.7
Both a residential and business customer
80
15.9
93.6
A self -hauler
24
4.7
98.3
1 never use a recycling or transfer station or
8
1.7
100.0
the landfill
Total
505
100.0
Q9. What is your age?
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
18-34
102
20.2
20.2
35-44
95
18.8
39.0
45-54
85
16.9
55.9
55-64
90
17.8
73.7
65-74
87
17.2
90.9
75-84
41
8.1
98.9
85+
5
1.1
100.0
Total
505
100.0
Q10. What is your gender?
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
Female 249 49.4 49.4
Male 255 50.6 100.0
Total 505 100.0
Q11. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
Bachelors Degree
192
38.0
38.0
Some College
166
32.8
70.8
Post Graduate
70
13.8
84.7
High School Graduate
71
14.0
98.7
Some High School
1
.2
98.9
Prefer not to answer
5
1.1
100.0
Total
505
100.0
Triton Polling Research, Inc.
www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3% Page 5 of 6
Q12. What is your approximate annual household income?
Count Percent Cumulative Percent
Less than $30,000
45
8.9
8.9
$30,000 to $39,999
31
6.1
14.9
$40,000 to $49,999
32
6.3
21.2
$50,000 to $59,999
40
7.9
29.1
$60,000 to $69,999
34
6.7
35.8
$70,000 to $79,999
35
7.0
42.8
More than $80,000
228
45.2
88.0
Prefer not to answer
61
12.0
100.0
Total
505
100.0
Municipality
Count
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Bend
260
51.5
51.5
La Pine
2
.5
51.9
Redmond
72
14.3
66.3
Sisters
5
1.0
67.3
Unincorporated
165
32.7
100.0
Total
505
100.0
City - Mailing Address
Count
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Bend
362
71.7
71.7
La Pine
26
5.2
76.9
Redmond
94
18.6
95.5
Sisters
12
2.3
97.8
Sunriver
2
.4
98.2
Terrebonne
9
1.8
100.0
Total
505
100.0
State House District
Count
Percent
Cumulative Percent
53
207
40.9
40.9
54
217
43.0
84.0
55
38
7.5
91.5
59
43
8.5
100.0
Total
505
100.0
State Senate District
Count
Percent
Cumulative Percent
27
424
84.0
84.0
28
38
7.5
91.5
30
43
8.5
100.0
Total
505
100.0
Triton Polling Research, Inc.
www.TritonPolling.com Survey of Registered Voters Deschutes County, Oregon - 505N - MoE: +/- 4.3% Page 6 of 6
https•//www l(tvz com/news/deschutes-county-sets-public-meeting-on-trash-disposal-
options/989286403
Where should trash go once
Knott Landfill in Bend is full?
As of 3/12/19 (per Katie at KTVZ):
424 votes
89% - To a new local site
11% - Out of the County