03/21/1989 - Packet ^ ^
%AWW"
CITY OF TIGARD
UTILITY AND FRANCHISE COMMITTEE
AGENDA
TUESDAY' MARCH 21, 1080 - 7:00 PM
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - TOWN HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS: McReynolds u/' , Barrett ^ Irwin "/ ' Jacobs u/ ' Walsh ____,
^/ __-
wogen _�� .
�
�r
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: Luichnur ��_, Miller _�'_' Schmidt ___.
1 . CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 1980
3 . SOLID WASTE HAULERS ANNUAL REPORT REVIEW - EXECUTIVE SESSION
o The Tigard Utility and Franchise Committee will go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.060 (1) (h) to discuss current
and pending litigation issues .
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
5. ADJOURN
dc/0048o
A1%"ftV
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Members of Utility & Franchise Committee Respond By
FROM: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director For Your Information
DATE: March 13' 1089 Sign anJ Return
SUBJECT: Garbage Haulers Annual Report
We received annual reports from all three franchised garbage haulers by the
March 1, 1080, deadline. Because of the confidential nature of the annual
reports, we will be holding an executive session at our March 21, 1080,
meeting at 7:00 p.m. to review and discuss the reports in the absence of the
haulers. During that session, the haulers will be available to answer any
individual questions the committee may have,
According to the revised Tigard Municipal Code, the City Adminiutrator, must
report to Council by April 1 on the annual reports and propose rate
adjustments if necessary. This meeting will be the committee's opportunity to
forward such a recommendation to the City Administrator.
do/0048u
CITY OF TIGARD OREGON +'
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: August 31, 1987 DATE SUBMITTED: Aust 2.0, 1987
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste PREVIOUS AC'1TIoN: Ori Agenda of
Rate Review Procedure _ February 2, :.987
_ PREPARED BY: Wayne Lowry, Finance Dir.
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Utility & Franchise Cmte.7-1
(/
OLICY ISSUE
Shall the City establish a solid waste rate setting procedure for use in
evaluating rate adjustments suggested by franchise solid waste haulers.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In October 1986, the Council approved an annual report format to be used by
the franchised solid waste haulers in reporting their financial situation to
the City each year. In February 1987, the Utility and Franchise Committee
submitted a solid waste rate setting procedure for Council' s approval. The
procedure averaged the net incomes as a percentage of revenues of the three
haulers to determine their average profit rate. If that rate was below eight
percent or above twelve percent, a rate adjustment would be necessary.
The Council chose to refer the procedure to the Finance Director and the City
Attorney for analysis. The City Attorney reviewed the procedure and responded
in a memo to the Community Development Director on February 23, 1987.
Concerns voiced by the City Attorney were that the averaging of the "profit
rates" could be inequitable among the haulers and that factors other than the
rate of return should be considered in rate adjustment decisions.
The Utility and Franchise Committee has clarified the procedure so that total
expenditures and total revenues are added together from all three haulers and
then the profit rate is determined. Determining the profit rate in this
manner makes the overall rate determination more equitable.
The Committee has also revised the reporting form to provide more detail to
the report reviewer,s.. Most of the business related considerations included in
TMC 11 .04.020 referred to by the City Attorney have been incorporated into the
report form.
Through my review of the rate setting procedure, I have found that Washington
County among other jurisdictions uses a similar reporting form and rate
setting procedure. The revisions and clarifications made by the Utility and
Franchise Committee have made the rate setting procedure more consistent with
the TMC and I believe, meets the need Council has voiced by providing a
consistent and fair way to evaluate solid waste rates.
The Utility and Franchise Committee has asked me to bring this reporting form
and procedure before the Council for your adoption.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve solid waste rate setting procedure.
2. Refer back to Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT
N/A
E� —.— -- _— — -_-_.._............................... _
SUGGESTED ACTION
1. Staff and the Utility and Franchise Committee recommend adoption of solid I
waste rate setting procedure.
cn/0648D
tjlty4 if i1 1 tt'_`! 4 l tt 1 l S)r} 12 - �t
4111it"til tui it `xl w illssi'�, ,1 t I t ,-, i l.
x. t ANALYSIS
• « » 7 I ? OF FRANCHISED G -RB L _
1"'31..:,i..l� 1- !
YSI�i�t111ia1i tMt(jt,,l+zI 1`i{t,tt i 4 } ; ii
}t}t121tt11t1 a 11 ��+ Ili!, �� i�k1,i3�3_ AL._ ;•t:� �`�S FOR 'THE 1.2 MONTH �..,��R 1
WARSYN.3 Row
DECEMBER 31 , 1988
4ri(al 1r1 rea i ;
11144 tlli'2t!{� t i 41 i 13 „1 ti to r,a rt
1�1t 11`llir't°jtt }t t hiti t:;t l t It t r', i t • '.. TOTAL S TOTAL AS
DROP BOXES Hauler r••1 Hauler !.K Hauler l.: REPORTED Adjust Ai.:'._7•!_!Sf !-:.D +4
11E4t+1�itS,ftl tt4 tl i},11411,' S t
------------------
._........._._... ---------
�
Operating
... Revenue
.
-----------------
HAI ,.� s., t r ,+, !:] ..,_ ... ..... '= v:a,..• e ,,..., ::c::••:� 296. 880
_, 8;t r•' -;y r.::•^ 595. 856_ 1. 4 •i,;:
iy,6�S6;lt3et t t,:, j ,,,,1�„! ;,i ,, l...I E..1 r_•t�, .L!!� 3"tE::.��t...,i 1..:,... �•#•L:i,t ,i,.!,_, r t• f•!,_. ,! ! .... 595. 856 -r:... ...r`...
.. L.. 4T y .«l.. J .L» 1~N 1.s«
1iS4i41i41j+121 iutjf,p 2t,1 tx 1 1 `t e ,, } -..!?�_!„ c:3�!t.>
t4f161�114S4td3t`SW } 1 (9+`+ ++ii ti, i}t{Z°+ 3t`3ar "`St ttvt�t hs x412 , t'1t1 i'
�, 11 6, 1 42 6[1,1 1,i
441111kts4i,4t+ 4+ ,rl't -s't jj 'ifx f•1 4
5 _ #1t1�114s}iijStS�ilx iti i°is�}4 tF�li�,ii`ii {t1�iV
ii12 jttC;4 .; ._ ,i: Costs 6. :'••s7205. 620 ...J- - :;: :,.ta
� a. .y r_. "u -! ff tl t i t§i itltj\t(
LJ -•;:3 {';1!' � .._. .,... � n iSt._ .�.._!:.J. ��.� `.f:Y J!�_ ..,r .:i 1 d,
-a _ � ......_ ._._ ,..._, _. r,_!a .« a , l_! j�}3s+11Ptls 4 P },t S lara2;tit{xi tf11111;},4i71S414
9 1111 s j.'1` 1}+. t 2..'`V a + ., ,:;{ :=t,} .; .. z`�.....l.. ...I:c• F tc: '� .� t;•.:.;";, t::,...r t::j':» ":1'_ r•, •r .� 'W;Id 1 : S t..,{i.ate 1 4Pel §r 41;11`x3•'
t�t1 } tt,,}t:.tl t e j t ir. 1 ,.., I n d i I e t«. .. �.t......> - .I.6:r t»..,... ,:'.„ 0 26 :8,r .�..,j 0 .::..0 t :r .� 1 i.) t..! 21..J:'"�. .:. 1 8"k s+ �i ys_it }r}a 4..R i E� 1 ,t}#tt
111213114122 Sll' 1V'4;4 t23t}1 1 ' ++ st 1'%. xi 1 + 414-a arts 1i t? tl 4"{titi[
t Z 1161111 t t} ay31. toe t.
+{ti slr211%eli It 1' st n coil _, -.» _._.__..»_..__«.»..._.»......_........»«_. _ s 1211°4 It t211'U i`t1 1{121411 f 1+`3111if" a
Totalo.L•a !. y ,o... .r. ... 41 . 801 297. 646253, 37B �_.!", 592. 825 jj2 t2 1 li i;r1 Et t tli�,j`
:.., :,:... Costs S `77 to}1 M ii
21}211211!2 1 �#,l3 a,. +th1i4 t}+tt t iv,t :+ A" ..._ ._. .,.... :..! . ... �::)....,.! ... s ,l S 16�`„1
• 2 it t t t2 fila ,1 1 6 1 t i i(x
Ctlt 31; !21 �o�z }l
.....»_.._..........._..__......««.«....«..--•---•--.,.._._..._._»._---• ttl+alai i
..._..__............«...._.._..«.....»..._ s14 1y, ht tll
pt2311141ft t,t S2E 11111+`,s t+rl , t; 1 ; 4i t+qilt} 3}1 4 lttC r 1 tit x+,St11y1 124131t1-1-1-1 ,
,1
1 if ... ...,.. ._., i}`s t2 fid 2129E C;5+�1111t}sii,ll+eitg4 1 s 211 1,;it"Al+i99
, .....,,, ,., , ...:L::s.: f ,l.1 1:.1
1 i 1 ,° a , i , ,d 1`•1�:::. i"'•I_'.h`1-_3•d 1...1 ..:L} 7. 052 ... .'i::i!:C= - ... ,......:.». 31031 X I+ t1 ya11• t`�l4`
itiil+l4'1y
+112i1ir6141 2.26;`1,� IMM 1,V l (;+ Al ;t'• til. (%
_.i Total ) .,«..« --,_,a _•, _.
RAMS ltli MAMm
`�
21 S !
�si}13431'l hij}!11!1111 e 11 t iEi ti{c ¢,; + e 11` ...
Itt1 1bt1121�111+tt t Nilj,11 t+ai s tilt'
t1 4 rte°2 11211121, ! 111�IiSa 4 f, �liy ,�`3 11 wl
RECYCLING til tit+;ti t+i;§}414+111, 1i�tlr�l�Lit"I'11t�l,��tiztt�
t 1IN
W
611th
i tt e t
t
43211 1632a tt`yt, t le 1x iylttl tx,• ri, ,t H4
Operating
. .._ .: ..._ Revenue
_ _.. a:: r.:r.,._, 8. 955
.... ,.._,... 34, 5&9
,• ��itN1 11�11}}1 t}�1t�is�Il kltll�S�3�t1��"1�ttl�i��i
r........ c.r•t,... .,1,„ �; -7 1 i S2 1.:6 2 S` i t 2111
�!I�"''.i:'1 •i�:• !.I o'»i F.!-?V t-'!"1(«t�' ! �.. � � �. 3...: ,s..•_i kc?n r � i� c
til55ki7i,'iSt1{t 12 11,?tl 1 9 t+4 'ls1 41 ,t t +5i ;t _ ��+ 2 t+ is 11t1h2;(t; Y(thj ttig2l t4 X13,
111111 tilt 11,jl t 14 t.1 El 1 F 1j
lJ 1tt a1 311221, ti\,t t+t s t,lj„i+ttjt,ht1
4221 11 v a •r S 9 r1Es 1 e 2 +ty ,,I4' tlts2ll 41`s t`ia4 2 4 +111ir1 t1 it+li4i'2i11i}lal 1`1
tY111 1�t3 S14 2 u,a
12 11!11 itt�i{s t r„Y,t, a,i1 ! s 1
112+1231,26l1i91!1tt1111`r1t1i1'!t2,a;444 11,,ta�+�111�11t2.i!2i',.l 2tsi,lS2ikt y4 4iiaitti tv,i 2}4,si1''-...2,tdut,+4 • :t +, t'i1t,�4 Operating
pRa ri n g w o s t n 18. 936 26. 275
, 616, 457
: r_ 1 �a
: _- _1 � 6� _� ! � ,
: J S
Indirect
i .ti Costs1 . 405 , „ 27« �„ Y ;' ;^, [ r - . Lw , 3jF1,1 �3it t,tt1t1l213�+ihlt�ttt�1lia1krtx at,�,a4,1 41tuke1 6 ttsll1t1 t11tt11141t1 2yS1,1ytf14,l�1t,�v2titt3t}11j1411r1 112�l1t31111ieia1 1t13`ftt4h4tt
�tj122f1+1�+11£11 1t
Mon, 1 i �] 11
11h + iott s ---------------------------------------- _ . . «r. » _ . - _ __ _ _ - . 11 11t
sw
, i ^ tct IL- - : 2_ y ,: 1 . _ u _ 2c - 1 , n1 9( , ( j7 _ : _ i ( » f IT „N, 1 1,tf
�tc1
,aii! !1
_
,int 1t 1231 s t ltt= 1ti
1 1' ---------------------------------------- .....«.........»-......_....._»..._................--__...,.....»«.... 11 f} ,111 lt111,ujilt i, 1+a111t 111E,2193,1
t2624h1 14s 1 .
111 lii s+si 3`111+l}tr NI,tt ii sil ,i s el
,, r} iti' 4t14S t161sa mow4 }+t(jjt 1�1qS It tb
_. _. 1141E21111s S 1
11111,atttlts1 ,,. i1+,r r. •t., , ,� 1,, .:.,, ��_� ht1....�C..,vt...1_._) 1.L1,4 ..i. =1_2 - J .:r i-SI..J.,::: 3..,- f��s ;J`;J ^•3'':r�i 1.:_a2..Jt:, ::ar:::, >' x'11}133'1�2'ttil,,�lit`. 1t1`�44i41133o,I114k1 j'tt,1}4t�
2141221111}} #il}` k 1 +1r 1 ,,a} y , __ 1 : ....
t ! r..;.; r.•rt•,:, ,»i:,;.; ,, Dalt+\4}11tt42E1j1511sti311i44�i�i;11112f1te13}tt2,i13
4321$tit 1" rq1 r et t ' u , +Vi 7 r.
t 4 i!�t ijs,llaxt�}��t,1 tit 11�t 1 t t$tsrl tlt����
112 ti111t i22t3111;12 1111 1E 2l`t tslitei}1 �+11jU1}1 ti11 iit}il,�M1t`f!�kit?�
2111111`221 1[`#1 I'M 4x11 ilt1St14,tiit is lial}T11r121t41t121s1ii21%
RESIDENTIAL
tlilji t;11 tz 111 §+ t 1 t 1 t 2 1 S a Suomi111`aa4ljti,rtt+' I2' i�+](15 t 1S t
1121 11131 t! t , „,,1, It 1! 4, a 1,liiil 313 t k 2 4j,1, tjati'>>11;1 4 3
Etitslt 1`2111161;21+ ,it ,i 4 1{'
. �n: -.r•• 425. 274
•+,e:; r•i :,.r-,
man1212 132 11 1't it ty 2 tyt, t i
t 1 1 .. y ... .. }t.11vM 5,..
e ,, l i .•. Dh>er at A n Revenue 2,._:.4, 61.•_. .LL:SO ..,5d•i• 4.r.:._ .'i�4 4.a3��, 1.X3.1. S. .L.il..�.
1
11112 1`111,�r}tx 1 i ,5 , i , , t .� .,». ,2 .• .,n .� e... . ...', 229�}ii h 22 t g 11'Y 3i ifts,41`11i{}htiix ydh�la f
Sill}tth ;�a�ti},1�z sl 3 i t, j
(31 it s tati}�l ti ;Il+ }Iti,i'i xCit lt`k
_ 113`}q� j+x+9S is;11 iitl l}t t1 S zl�i tit a�1}tl�s��
5115S1t,��4t"14ft1 tt., s ttt a`�i, �i t4 t, `S at(, !J S11 rot te+1��tt�y ftil4 alxttIM,liiilt tt�y`1S1it „%
311}36 1,:1,2 it2 1 2Y , s ,a
Operating
314{11111k3h11121241t 21F 161f112t,2 2!}1 l716�l44s+24.Y11`3,,2L2'tt4C?it.+1l1t12124t`1 1 12't+}1,1at,Sz tt`k,l,1tq�i.d.,1tst sitw 1 ,t'U,,r;.ail 1.,.1lyi,a1t,11+�[ _p rr a t: ( gCosts
fr _ tc166, 452 112, 716 291 . 494 570. 662 v66214[12114i.;tEi 1i
tlii tt1�$t,1ki11t1l1S1 t2,i,t1ti3;+11tSt i,+t1sittnA'tx
ih1i}13,2t.'1af,t1t
Vt ;, i , Indirect r .s 55, 792 . c ._ 129, 20 . ; - , rL : 1247. 522
: , !. _ 11g1lr le
_« . - _ . . _« _ _ » __ « ... z Z _ . . -_ » - _ » « . _ _» -_ » _-_ . --_ - _ »_ » « » _ _ _ . 1+.,
I , t
1 142 Mow1iy
;
5 _ C "5 ;< s � rG ! .s , , : . _ qajj � J _. 1 »d'�, 0 818. 184 �
11%S.
1 ,11'1d i xtt 1+1t4Y d 116'1
1it�l'411211a'1'!11 i t t 231uk+4 ( t ..,,n t{' .. nti all 1j11',11,yt3+22+;St111st.1'114`1'di Eilhlte;;11it1ij
111k1js24[' l, l'! 114x}111;t1{} ,,, - s1 oil ..__....»...__._. ___..-._ ._._. _..___..»_...
NET REVENUES__ ,....�»., ,.., ..;: ._ _. _ � _,_..._, r,: .«....._, �yt'It}l�f,t�e+11`tlxtebt4tStl°�i1�1.
111+11111 taxi! 1 11 2 3`�3G f R ".VE3"33. E' 12 r... t, ,_. 3 1 4_;1... �,i tl}ti�2 11l 611ttS1St 112 t2�i,11fi11�-}
11 5 ... .! 7 .i..q t:,. -7 ,..!n 1..2 1. .. 4. 577 1, .I. , ?'w.! ,n ..:J s S
. .1. . . t
.n.
'" ,�11 i r i ttj 1eE1 s,lltl ;li 21` Stt,iiat"�4,ials�,'t
31{111 163 t1211s1ttf Ilst; t 4-t 1+ r }t`" `•.:„ (J'P' Total ) 20% 42% 38%
441 t�' t i+;%4t"tt° f 4fl's�}r 1ll�+t i11Clt 't'1a(
1124142213 tt3 Est ' s, t..r,i 1 t e,%. iit`ill 4`a 4Eiq`1 22221;2ta 1 tint'Iy4i[EtYitalta t rl
231141M'hl2'jlel.1 111 I1 tt tri i a i a; s tlil 143`�° 2ie§1t+331 2'41111 S t+33!21 till t t+!iti}!
t91i111331i1113i11i s 41 t tta l E `t to s t4. t 1 2«:(_23`33 E h'S?_;1.X33ldlitlt}31'lar#1a41f(t'11Nut3 6 Sl}
2911,1f'2Esa,1lSjii,i}a is j + 1} 1 +1` i ,t1't s Ft4+ t, }
------------------
Operating
_.»._.._...«...»...«_......_.«.._._..«._...._..___ 1 1 236s,
led"4111 ti 1 t s 2 4i it'1
61+1E114+11211421411 4 N- j1 2 4 t ,a 421 _ ...,.
303. 692 �,-,-r21!1`211 ',11,1,:•4 t tl1 ,�'6a �1}t 2 1,2111,11%
9'4, ,', I .... ;, .» .. .., .:� •a �7
111} 1 ! ,-i � '•I �. -i j..1 t srltl t 't �,t11t Y!las° tka4 ¢1114-1414 k,,jht
�_i�t^:I cl 2:.1.I i� � .{...��.C 1 l..!t«. .3. .3.{...,r f.:i•..__.J t..f ._, .,�i.?.. 1 . 307. 602 itli,y,. t
212[st1t121 lt,le tli s ltg t.1,lil s+e 1,
�if 112 t1 t tt;jltili§il sl i i+14i�1114tV441it1isy e1�1141"�
2}Eyj(1142#}tj +i st 11'414141. ;}17 sr S+ tt` 1; U 111 21413 4x111}4+3a 13111}211 2?<s'4344111211111,t�1x t 1:1
13s,4i1i1 t 1111,1 t 31 4ia1 :rats 1 } 6t +_i 111 1 +tt 1tt 4'Ijs 2 Yl p111,1 414 21 4 6191 i1sY,�
315. 747
�}i,t34,2111,10,2 5 i 11 31S1i1 441CC1•".a}s3,{2allt2tat l1t l ,14+7 11 11111came-t1.t
i•1,1,,21
U
- ' a «t « g Costs /4. 9
; 3 126. 141 r16. 81 .. 516. 811 t
7 1. L .Lt Costs . , 480 _ Jt . _ J 2" _ „ 8r4 . }w , 6c44. 0 J� h5slisin 1 AV N 11
l2:2}a1j
sii1;li[i t11s.461 a1 sirtvl,2;1[11 4 ltlitia r 4114 tt}
2143+22t2111743s#`1 a a +,i�;1 it ,%s all
------------------
Total
. _ ___ . __
ota. Ctrf� 3 _24a » : 181 . 441c « , 6" i880. 465 Lc3» , * :
4It,ita 1 ---------------------------------------- ------------------
1g1rj�}lS4,2j3itdt rt11 s 1112 14+k1�°.1t�ti1 IttnliEIs1tt2tl1ttt+i14°4 t5i�1'i{h6l1+111+1t+t11n11l+iijt,iI�,1t;1 C�11i2tlt
14412,.
,
1112 1
.._ EVE
__,.�
• , ,.,,_. , _. e r-. ,_,,..r.... t ti,ll2ts�l'1t1111'ittis2l l�tiitltl�
..,. r ».... 122, 251 _.,,:-,•'.. .y- r.�{_ Cf....,.;. .»y �`14'1t 1ti1�.
11 ..,,...:. ! s1141�
1 NEI-r.' I � 3...„I`�•3 t,1 E a 8, .,:,.2� 2 f 6.a S'.:}5 / ..._ , 1. ... ,...,. '�,._. .3.•.: / 1 2 a tt xt °t5 a} Witt t
t
13 11
1 i 12 421tx r1 i ra , _ 7 1 , .._ ..._ _.. ,M1 i 1 2111 11{ , i i tit qx tllll 3111J11k1s 1
122 2111 t t, . o ' Total ):� 2 .�+9% t_.M'"• 1lly'1Si11st1111Y°i'liitti1i11t11+` 411!122"ttS;21111 122 i�1,�E
1 2 7 t ti t! 11 ,9 tie i
,WNW
1}2aft 114�1 i„ c t
21i1S41ei�t11l1ii,n 1,111 trtl la 41 t. 1x12 �t1s6tS(ii�fa��}j'11111+(itifiille¢y�1i�3t11i�411�tYtn
2-.0 t 1s.1,1 e
11}3111211! 4+14.;,2 V l it,,itni i} ,1 !'ItYr tl. 24 1j13is121[6 14 1415 111915}1311111+ slxl[i T131 x1214`1
TOTAL
,._...... REVENUE
.. ..... ...... {... .... .__.
... ..,_.: .. ,,, 1 e�-, ,..., r... ,;_,�,. ,... : 265. 515 3S6, 627
SaUillttlsllt�1tf�s1121f}l �1�1i111 jl1t11t kt�}1 �
�O l F•11__ 1+I l.._ 1 3>..1.._.?1:.1+i t.J E .L I-,1, 5 t._.t 3 6 til• i:a 6 t'•:. -.�, +.'
, a •? .. ...).::' _... .. ..
11 2 it tZ t +x t s4 9 s..0 x'221 t
OTHER
y..!i:::'I::` 'i :� ,!C:'�, ;::' 3. 035 3. 035
_ .1t1s1}1}ttt112rktttt 1, is 3�S�1j'1 d (l�t11�S,t3{'4 6m
1 i , ,L..i t I......., L„i 13„E,':',: .`'-' t t' 11 � �2 1331 X11.,
t ,1
( F 1 1 4 .,.a .t=,�, 2.J�-'_...1 ,. {,1 r" �. t}1 1 i2 x111 i$iSti.tt3161113 SS
1112S,11i`ti 1t cytVoF t :2 1 i+.,.: Qi ...... .. mot 12 t tl1i111�1f 211 t 1 421 i2 12 1i;11fl1t,,t1`ii111
[2t111tE1sE slt,l,tl 4 ,14�a ,1 2 ,l �,j ------------------- -
i', •, „, !
, ._ :r 288. 550
.. , r.:.-,c 1 1 11626 3 4121111 }}t11E t #MINN,21116�ix t1 It°}ljil
12!t1t e11 Yi4:,11 1 t S „,3,,t i!i ,s i ,:1 i ! •;a• tREVENUES. _ 10. 505_ 's.'�, ..r H. :'• .�'i381.6621211 st1 t�11111'{�1tiSR4t 2 111�1.t.,t{221 at!11 ij
4 s .. .i- --- -._,.i' e 1 - -. --. _ _ r _ 1_ 1 11,.,1 -1a i tl
11121116 1 q�4f to 1s 1` 111C.x x 1 aj .1i`l � -_. ... lltiil�llki 1 l}1734=41111'12214 l�i{#t11y I��trt�2l�t�i t12�
14111(,21 It.4,t1t s, i{ t°+IE,4 11 ,� , iti
OTHER
t
4
r _._.t, (... ...,,_ 2. 594
., ,_..;_ 53��1EIlft11`1i}sa 3 j,4ylitlY 1 31t1311e1tt1132
v_ 3 3 31__.: 1..:.._�... 3 S 2. •.�.'�.'14 8i,.�. .,,J...,4.� i.�312 tt tl1YMg24 Sl i 414
2 , r.-, .�>[..!_, ,�,.#,'� , �._ ..1 . 118. 582 118. 582 1�tt°1,Ss2e'ittil7i+l 2 114 44i��lf2tt 111`1 1 hi 1121;
1111i4y12t 11141x1 t 'i `ql 1❑1414' }, 111,4
441111!1111}2,`11111 r s 14 3'1t } 1, 1 4 i l
1I11�i111l222l11t221 t271S2F9T2 t1tt,10i%tl1t1ttrllkt'1177 716}feixy l;1t2214Fa, }I3 tr nlf ,'; ,3..t.,,i�n*tt
1,r1} l+1
N ;1INCOME' 7, i11 :3. .1 . 203. 241 271 . 08(..) _ 1lS a4ti1141itV433wE114x111
3% 43 f t3e11§223�11t`11,1
1i1126r2,14E221$�1+411311',1111132�11e1252354135i4,
1�1'25.,;21
1j1
,11
''1s
131}l�}1x1%6 11 i'tl ai , 1313111111`4'ittl!l ytstrt tf{1316111i331leit 111is11'it1 11
!til s1E2ji+ I,rl rY;64 it,t,t 1 ,� "I t,l 1" ➢(y't tis+ 1 nNo
d st.yZ i
1p 1 d1 ,1 3 1 ! , .11 r_ ,.: ,,. ,... n . . •;r �. R {;, a 4 i 3 z 14 1 t
1 (�PROFIT O F� ,3: ] t s1 1t t Not",91211 tt1 r3 t 1 t
12112y1#trlr(i}I litr t t s i 1,jl a1 v _„ .I. f 1 l 1.....„ i:1i'�:'„ �':r, 9. . �9�S, } � ,+ V si' Y
I a i,i1 t},tl 1x4 4, I ,frit z + l 21134#9(lj t is !2 3 ai 1 1,c't i 2 1#4i s2at xi 11
111t�j211x1,t11114ai.`+1 s4 4 122€lt7ts li2lie1j,2Ei1 1+h,iEti!x3111131 i4y 1t 11
41114x12 2 44i22111isa 1,21tu iketl2�l.S eE31i1`iltEtiltli},l,
12114121111621 1 2 1 1 1 l s;ts4 ( }
1'11'1111 1111 t, 1 21111 Is214t1i1r1141)121 ttt4�t1i11111141ka11t112,1E21't}lilt�21
11,2}2y 1!1 ltt it at,1 6 2 lla 4.1,. Yl ..,..._....:, REVENUE
..�._. r.. 2, 771 , 22::,.._ .....» .. ilEi4ju1131,i`,X111 4tz1Et[24123,'r{i3f1121St2}11S1yt,.J
111. A
4 1 MOW,
1,. r E y 112`1 4 1 1
TOTAL� A L_ h•�..L::.4'd E N U 2�.
394. 207 796. 349 1 . 580. 667 .� ,! x...,.4.«
1111H1 tl at 214,21E 5 +t t,1 -? t,i,r3 t.1 , 2, 771 . 223 111 tt+a111414itlt�itS tl 2 191 12111 1 iSil,1ii111,t 9t it itl
•i.
11'tt1 4a S1 jj(di,112 t t 2E ,i t 4 s 141 29% s+_- % 1}tl�llll l}7t,g2�{i 111 tMg 6
12141221(1 }1,,11 1}j, 11gi ;t z j st,Mao es 1 l 1 a t 1_,i 3 141v i 1j2aE(
i 7 1. 11 11653 124221111`4°114`+!'1x1 lgttijl4t 1}171121¢}jl ai 1i
4122421t14(t xi iti,} 2,1'1 ' t1�} il 3j21124;tQ 111112_i23yf4"31611121}611 i liii4z{1111t�3,
4141111 1111!2421 1, t i,ele la rill'r i sal
_.........:.. .«. .....,,... ..
.....:...... .,._..,. 733, 334
. „ .,. . ,!kali xs�'ll't;tiS142i41' 44it�i�21i 12l214tg1t+211
f 1..: � ri L_ 1.:9,.J:_, 3 ,:? .._�t»)a'!v -��_�._ .:=,.t •..:_•.:.''-� 1 . 377. 426 2. 500. 14::!,' tt
81q12111, .4= 4 } { i Y l� 2. 500. 143 t4,�ti F 1 k}21111�I jvi36111s47 111 f1 k1 Ste 1E1�jSi4,tt
11114,41111 Yla1k[11 h 2 Y 1st! t o t
16% 29%% �`!w»5,,r
it1�1S1ts}t;,sSi19t 1 1 1 i 4 if 3, wl ,.!i. 4`ta'ta}ialir9l+'ti>�tf'�'le in�r61i`li� 'leli�1
44{1r11+sli s Itt�1 ,low
tt i + i s t tx ' 1411121 xs#4tss12s313s;i1 t Nip, t42Si1 A(��lj'f a`t3
,lump}22 1�` , ;� 1+;t1Yl r Y111 rt}4 a it i<31}1111112112 21 122111 f4t x1221$
¢ 1 t2jil. 11,t1i +s+ 1121+5131 t2244�i 22212211 t, t t1
i 1 2 e fjk,,��ill2tli21xi}�"61922E
111,, 1 i k1 2 i t 1 14$t t tt x;rl "2, 11Ew i4iiata t: s+�t 12,
114(1 y11t161 `Vt tk 11 stlr2t r ,ti 1 it , t i , r
ANALYSIS OF WRANCHISED GARBAGE HAULERS
ANNUAL REP[ 3 FOR THE 12 MONTH PERIOD
ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1987
TOTAL AS TOTAL AS
DROP BOXES Hauler A Hauler B Hauler C REPORTED Adjust ADJUSTED
---------------- --------- --------- ------------------ -----------------
merating Revenue 1 , 989 102. 686 223, 101 327, 776 327. 776
Tigard % of Op ) 95% 30% 67% O
O
serating Costs 616 75, 316 197, 726 273, 658 273. 658
idirect Costs O 38` 331 108, 607 146. 938 -20, 541 126, 397
________________________________________ __________________
Total Costs 616 113, 647 306. 333 420, 596 -20. 541 400. 055
------------------1--------------------- -------------------
Tigard % of Op ) 100% 31% 74%
NET REVENUES 1 ° 373 -10, 961 -83, 232 -92, 820 -28% -72, 279
% of Total ) -1% 12% 90%
\
RECYCLING
________________
perating Revenue 10, 454 8~ 084 2, 934 21 ° 472 21 , 472
Tigard % of Op) 77% 18% 61% O
O
perating Costs 12, 632 9, 859 8, 966 31 , 457 31 , 457
ndirect Costs 1 . 121 5. 791 5" 075 11 , 987 -1 , 643 10, 344
________________________________________ __________________
Total Costs 13, 753 15, 650 14, 041 43, 444 -1 , 643 41 " 801
________________________________________ __________________
Tiqard % of Op) 77% 19% 59%
NET REVENUES -3, 299 -7, 566 -11 , 107 -21 , 972 -102% -20. 329
% of Total } 15% 34% 51%
RESIDENTIAL
peratinq Revenue 204` 621 92. 571 382. 065 679, 257 679. 257
Tigard % of Op) 72% 13% 61% O
(:,.I
perating Costs 157, 680 57, 655 201 . 992 417, 327 417. 327
ndirect Costs 43. 691 27. 829 145. 803 217, 323 -22, 184 195. 139
________________________________________ __________________
Total Costs 201 . 371 85, 484 347, 795 634, 650 -22. 184 612, 466
________________________________________ -------------------
Tigard
_________________Tiqard % of Op ) 72% 13% 55%
NET REVENUES 3, 250 7. 087 34" 270 44, 607 7% 66, 791
% of Total ) 7% 16% 77%
COMMERCIAL
________________
peratinq Revenue 102, 310 218. 900 738, 833 1 , 060, 043 1 , O6O, O43
Tigard % of Op > 89% 40% 764 O
O
perating Costs 70, 846 84, 219 257, 321 412, 386 412° 386
ndirect Costs 23, 806 51 , 611 262, 043 337, 460 -37, 797 299, 663
________________________________________ __________________
Total Costs 94, 652 135, 830 519, 364 749, 846 -37, 797 712° 049
________________________________________ __________________
Tigard % of Op) 88% 39% 77%
NET REVENUES 7, 658 83, 070 219, 469 310, 197 29% 347, 994
% of Total ) 2% 27% 71%
OTAL NET REVENUE 8, 982 71 , 630 159, 400 24O, 012 322. 177
THER REVENUES 1 . 052 1 , 052 1 , 052
________________________________________ -------------------
OTAL
_________________OTAL REVENUES 8. 982 71 , 630 1bO. 452 241 , 064 323. 229
THER COSTS 568 20, 562 64, 853 85, 983 85, 983
ET INCOME 8, 414 51 , 068 95, 599 155. 081 237, 246
5% 33% 62%
ROFIT % 2. 63% 12. 09% 7. 10% 7. 43% 11 . 36%
OTAL REVENUE 319, 374 422, 241 1 , 347, 985 2. O89, 60(1 2, O89, 600
15% 20% 65%
Tigard % of Op) 77% 25% 69%
OTAL COSTS 310, 960 371 . 173 1 . 252, 386 1 " 934, 519 -82. 165 1 , 852. 354
16% 19% 65%
-igard % of Op) 77% 24% 67%
Statement of Intent to Participate in
Wasbi.ngton Wasteshed Yard Debris Recycling Plan
Upon the request of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Division,
Department of Environmental Quality, and as local governments
within the Washington Wasteshed, the City of e-- and
Washington County have discussed the need to develop a
Washington Wasteshed Yard Debris Recycling Plan, as described in
Exhibit "A" , attached hereto and incorporated by reference
herein.
The undersigned acknowledge the statutory requirement that
such plan be developed, and further that since the City intends
to participate in the development of the Washington Wasteshed
Plan which is to be submitted to DEQ by August 15 , 1989 , the
City was not required to submit an individual plan to DEQ on
February 15 , 1989 .
The City and County, acting through staff responsible for
development of policy recommendations and implementation of
policy, intend to participate on the Planning Committee as
described in Exhibit "A" and to implement the Washington
Wasteshed Yard Debris Recycling Plan as developed and duly
approved. The planning Committee process must be completed
July 1 , 1989 , and the approved plan must be submitted August 15 ,
1989 , under time limits set by DEQ.
For Washington County: For City of
Name : Name : r�ricl .f. �i�ly
T i t l e : Chairman Board of Commissioners Title :
MAR 14 1989
Date : Date :
CC :BB/0134c APPROVED WASHINGTON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMIIIS�SIONE��R//rrJJS
.
np
w ' MINUTE ORDER # //
_ ....
DATE ` :1.. .. .. ..........
l��r� � < a 1 �EO u t_4�;. . BY ... ...:d . . .,�b1,. ll-
CLEAB of
EXHIBIT A
REQUEST FOR A 6-MONTH EXTENSION FOR A YARD DEBRIS
RECYCLING PLAN FOR THE WASHINGTON WASTESHED
On Dec . 20 , 1988 , the Washington County Board of Commissioners
approved the concept of developing a city/county planning team to
work on writing a yard debris recycling plan for the Washington
Wasteshed. This concept was presented to the cities of Washington
County by Commissioner Steve Larrance on January 5 , 1989 .
Commissioner Larrance explained the concept of a Tualatin Basin
Plan for yard debris . This conforms with the current position
that Washington County has taken with regards to the Tualatin
River water quality standards .
The EQC has set a compliance schedule for the Tualatin River that
the County and the Unified Sewerage Agency must meet by June
1993 . A March 1990 deadline has also been established to have
management authority in place to control non-point source
pollution within the urban areas of the county.
The concern expressed by Commissioner Larrance centered on two
ideas . The first was that the wasteshed needed to address its
particular problems with yard debris as they relate to the
Tualatin River. The second was the time schedules already in
place to address the related topic of non-point source pollution
and how a yard debris recycling program can affect this specific
County concern. ,
The County and cities within the Washington Wasteshed are all
concerned that a Metro plan will not address this particular
localized problem. This added requirement within the wasteshed
for specific control of yard debris disposition through
collection, processing and marketing is best addressed by the
local jurisdictions in concert .
The Washington Wasteshed does realize the need for a coordinated
yard debris plan for the region. The Board of Commissioners have
committed in writing to work with Metro and the neighboring
jurisdictions to assure a coordinated regional yard debris plan.
Planning Process :
On January 26, 1989, representative of the 9 cities and the
County met to discuss particulars for a city/county yard debris
planning team. The following ideas were agreed upon in principal
at that meeting:
1 . This team will be called the Washington Wasteshed
Planning Committee, to be chaired by the Wasteshed
Representative.
2 . The Committee will be made up of the Wasteshed
Representative and a representative from each of the 12
cities located within the Washington Wasteshed.
3 . That the objectives of this Committee will be to apply
for a 6 month time extension from DEQ for plan submittal ,
and upon receiving such an extension, to develop a plan to
collect, process and market yard debris within the
wasteshed.
4 . The Committee will set up two sub-committees for
technical advisement. These two sub-committees will report
their findings back to the full Committee for consideration.
The Committee will have sole responsibility to reach a
consensus report that will then be taken to each individual
city council and Board of Commissioners for their review and
decision.
5 . The Collection Sub-Committee will evaluate collection
options for the Committee . Membership will be made up of
select haulers , the county, any city representatives , a USA
representative, a representative from the County Solid Waste
Advisory Committee and processors .
6 . The Processing/Marketing Sub-Committee will review
current processors and markets and evaluate potential
processors and markets. Membership will be made up of the
county, any city representatives , a USA representative,
processors , nursery and other agricultural interests.
7 . The Committee will have the Wasteshed Representative and
any interested city representatives present at all Metro
meetings concerning the regional yard debris plan.
8 . The Committee and the two sub-committees will meet as
often as is necessary to make sure that the plan is
developed within the stated timeline.
9 . The Wasteshed Representative will be the primary contact
person for the Committee and will be responsible for keeping
the cities informed.
Timeline:
February 15 , 1989 Deadline for cities to have indicated
their intent for plan development.
February 16 , 1989 Determine make-up of sub-committees , set
schedules for sub-committee meetings ,
and send letters to members .
March - May 1989 Assess local collection methods , data
collection on cost alternatives,
evaluate funding sources, determine
amounts of debris generated, appraise
processing and marketing impacts .
June 1989 Present findings to Committee for review
and evaluation. Determine plan
parameters that meet consensus of all
members . Write wasteshed plan.
July 1 , 1989 Final yard debris report ready for
approval of Committee and for
presentation to jurisdictions for formal
approval .
August 15 , 1989 Submit final Washington Wasteshed Yard
Debris Recycling Plan to DEQ for
approval .
Conclusions :
Although the above timeline will necessitate an acceleraed
schedule of meetings for those involved, the County feels that
such a timeline can be met. This meets both of the concerns that
Commissioner Larrance expressed.
With the stated composition of the sub-committees, the wasteshed
will be well represented by the local concerns of the Tualatin
Basin. This will allow the wasteshed to devolop a plan that
addresses the wasteshed 's particular needs and can then be
intergrated into a Metro regional plan when it is developed.
In comparison to the timeline that Metro has projected, the
wasteshed should be approximately one year ahead in its process
for dealing with yard debris. The wasteshed will begin
implementing the plan within 30 days of DEQ approval .
f
A Case Study in
�110{ SLI a ttlef Systemr-,seg nning
33
eattle has experienced a renais- solid waste management today. But
sance in solid waste manage- getting the public to reduce or recycle
iz The crisis and economic ment. Two years ago, the city's waste requires a behavior change, and
distress in our system forced Solid Waste Utility(SWU) was in cri- achieving that change means gaining
thepublic t0 a attention to sis and economic distress; today, it is people's attention. An atmosphere of
p pay a recycling leader with a revamped solid crisis and economic distress, while
waste collection and disposal system. painful in the short term, can provide
the problem of garbage.
The crisis and economic distress in the impetus for gaining the public's at-
our system forced the public to pay at- tention and providing needed long-term
tention to the problem of garbage.That changes in local solid waste manage-
public attention,coupled with good sys- ment practices.
tem planning and staff work, has For decades garbage collection and
created a revitalization of our solid disposal has been a"silent service." A
VI by waste management programs and prac- citizen puts garbage out, usually in un-
Diana H. Gale tices. Seattle's experience may be use- limited amounts, and it disappears dur-
ful to other communities grappling with ing the day for little cost(very low rates)
similiar local waste management issues. or "free" (buried in the property tax
Seattle's new system relies heavily on rate). As long as citizens receive low
waste reduction and recycling,the most cost, silent service,there is no incentive
effective and cost-efficient forms of to change behavior.
, s
�y
Curbside recycling collection by Recycle America, a Waste Management, Inc. company.
December 1988 21
Noe
:
LL
I
f—
u
.,..,
SWO
Fick and sort line at materials processing plant.
But the Seattle story is about how $3 million depeletion allowance pay-
garbage became one of the top four We must now use every meet, share in any future costs of clo-
public issues in the Puget Sound re- sure up to 7% of the total, pay atip-
gion:first, because it was such a prob- possible opportunity to create ping fee that increased upon our entry
lem; then, because it was such a suc- into the system from $11/ton to
cess story. media events to turn $31.50/ton, and pay$8.50 of the tip-
ping
the public's attention fee into a fund earmarked for planWt
-
the future disposal systems. Seattle
The Crisis
Getting public attention to Seattle's to recycling. had two years to tell the county whether
sit would stay in the system forever, or
olid waste problems was not all poli-
tive. In any crisis,the bad news appears have a plan to get out. These contrac-
tive.
3
tual terms set a two year horizon which
long before the good news emerges. For the state Department of Ecology. The .
energized the city's solid waste disposal
Seattle,the crisis involved our landfills. gas migration was extensive, more planning efforts.
For 20 years, Seattle had relied on homes were evacuated, and no one
two landfills 15 miles south of the city wanted to live anywhere near a Seattle
limits for disposal. It was an "out of landfill. Because of these problems, in Economic Distress
sight,out of mind"operation. Our cri- 1986 the city of Kent demanded that Seattle's solid waste is managed by
sis began in early 1983 when a black Seattle close its second and only re- a utility financed through an enterprise
,> `
ax re e-
d nearby. fund. We receive no property t v
lagoon or lecheate pool formed at the marring landfill, locate y p p Y
city's Midway landfill facility. The As a result, Seattle had to turn to nues or other city support. Rates are
landfill was closed in 1983, but in 1985 Ding County for solid waste disposal so- the primary source of revenue and are
i preliminary testing indicated that land- lutions. Seattle and King County have expected to cover the costs of collection,
fill gas was migrating off-site. A num- a long history of uneasy relationships transfer, transport, and disposal.
ber of homes were evacuated on on many matters, including waste man- In the late 1970s Seattle initiated
Thanksgiving Day because explosive agement. Negotiations between the two a variable can rate which charged
levels of methane gas were found in the bodies to write an interlocal agreement customers higher rates for more cans.
basements. Midway was nominated as were rancorous, but King County held The hope was that this system would
a Superfund site. Daily battles were the ace—the landfill. The county reduce waste. The rate was not effec-
fought in the press between the city and demanded that the city pay a one-time Continued on page 31
22 Resource Recovery
Continued from page 22 businesses that might be negatively af- Waste Reduction and Recycling
fected by the curbside program. Since state and city priorities were
tive,however, since the base was so low As the result of the RFP process, waste reduction and recycling first,
and the cost of additional cans was not Seattle chose two different curbside Seattle conducted a"Recycling Poten-
significant. contractors: one for the north half of tial Assessment (RPA)" to determine
In 1986 and 1987, Seattle enacted the city (Recycle America, a Waste how much waste we could divert from
two rate increases that raised the sin- Management, Inc. company) and one our system. The RPA developed five
gle can rate to $13.55/month, with for the south half (Recycle Seattle, a recycling scenarios with increasingly ag-
each additional can costing $5 more. subsidiary of Rabanco, a local collet- gressive programs that achieved recy-
These increases were caused by our es- tion company). Recycle America pro- cling rates ranging between 42% and
timates of closure costs at our Super- vides weekly pick-up and three stacka- 78%of the total waste tonnage. Higher
fund landfill sites and by the dramatic ble containers for source separation. recycling levels are achieved by target-
increase in tipping fees at the King Recycle Seattle provides one large 90 ing more sectors(residential, commer-
County landfill. Suddenly, citizens be- gallon wheeled tote for commingled col- tial, self-haul), moving to mandatory
came aware of their garbage bills. The lection with monthly pick-up. source separation, and using higher
SWU was overwhelmed by calls from The programs began cart delivery in technology systems with materials proc-
customers wanting to reduce their sub- February, 1988. By July, 54% of eligi- essing and yard waste and food com-
scription level. The variable can rate ble customers were signed up and par- posting.
began to work. ticipating, and collectors were divert- Seattle has selected a 60% recycling
ing more than 2,500 tons per month goal by 1994 to be achieved by a mix
Planning a System from the waste stream. The program of programs. First,we will continue the
At the beginning of 1987 all the nec- costs the city approximately$48/ton for current curbside recycling program,
essary elements were in place to plan collection. Using "avoided cost" anal- add plastics (first PET and HDPE,
a new solid waste system. The city y,is,the city expects to save money on later mixed), and add metals not cur-
council had adopted goals for a com- the program within five years. rently being collected. Second, we will
prehensive plan that mirrored the collect yard waste at the curb and proc-
state's priorities of waste reduction, ess it into a compostable material, pro-
recycling, incineration, and landfilling. The economic signals being vide backyard composting programs,
Mayor Royer had urged that the SWU sent through a variable can and collect clean yard waste at trans-
initiate a curbside recycling program. fer stations. Third, we will institute
King County's two year time clock on rate finally are being heard apartment recycling. We will provide
future disposal options was running. payments(diversion credits)to recyclers
The city's garbage collection contracts by our citizens, who are able to organize recycling pro-
expired at the end of 1988, and a new grams in multi-family dwellings. If by
rate increase would be needed in 1989. 1994 our 60% recycling goal is not
Finally, the landfill crisis and rate in- Forecasting achieved, the city will begin collections
creases had made solid waste one of the The SWU borrowed experienced fore- at apartments. Fourth,we will add ma-
four critical issues in the public's mind. casting staff from Seattle City Light, terials processing, in the form of pick
the city's energy utility, to develop a and sort lines, to the self-haul loads
Curbside Recycling solid waste disposal forecast model. that come to the transfer stations.
Mayor Royer wanted the SWU to The model was designed to make the Fifth, we will provide diversion pay-
begin a citywide curbside recycling pro- balance of demand for waste disposal ments for private sector recycling, pe-
gram in 1987. While separating devel- services and supply of waste disposal tition the state utility commission to re-
gram
of this program from other options sensitive to rates and revenue quire recycling rates commercial
solid waste planning efforts was not requirements. The model included eco- haulers, and move to take further con-
strictly logical, the mayor understood nomic and demographic variable from trol over commercial waste if we are not
achieving our 60% goal by 1994. Fi-
that the city desperately needed a"win" the region. Available data was poor. nally, we will institute a separate food
in the solid waste field, and recycling SWU currently is evaluating all data waste collection system and compost
was expected to be popular. sources and developing more sophisti- those wastes in in-vessel equipment.
The city put out a Request for cated methods of collecting and retriev-
Proposals(RFP)for curbside recycling. ing solid waste information. One major
The RFP specified that no contractor gap identified early on was data on Disposal of Non-Recyclable
could collect in more than half the city; waste stream composition. In 1988 we Waste
that contractors must provide bins and initiated a two year waste composition Even if Suttle recycles 60% of its
regular pick-up (preferably weekly); study, where we take monthly samples waste, we still will have to dispose of
that contractors must collect glass, from residential, commercial and self- more than 800 tons of waste daily in
metal containers, newspaper, and haul companies. The waste stream is 1997. In the planning phase, the city
mixed paper, and provide any materi- categorized into nearly forty elements did an environmental impact statement
als processing necessary; and that con- which are separated and weighed. (EIS)on several landfill options and a
tractors must have program marketing Eventually, all estimates of program ef- site-specific EIS on incineration op-
and promotion plans and a mitigation ficiencies will be reviewed in light of the tions. The EIS concluded that inciner-
program for any small drop-off sites or actual waste composition data. ation is an environmentally acceptable
December 1988 31
and cost-effective solution and that a collection and bulky item pick-up. By diversity and creativity were more im-
plant could be sited in the city. changing from backyard to curbside portant than in-depth knowledge of
The public, however, asked that and alley collection, we were able to solid waste. To fill in our information
recycling be given a chance to work be- make a substantial reduction in our and knowledge gaps,we participated in
fore incineration options were acti- overall collection costs. We also nego- national groups such as Public Tech-
vated. The mayor responded to this re- tiated a contractor payment schedule so nology Inc.'s Solid Waste Tipping Fee
quest by recommending that municipal that we could benefit from the drop in Minimization Task Force and used
waste be long-hauled by rail to a land- tonnage that is likely to occur from the every opportunity to seek out forums
fill in eastern Washington or Oregon. recycling and yard waste diversion pro- where we could share information
The city would select the landfill site grams. about solid waste problems and solu-
and rail hauler by an RFP process. In structuring our rates to customers tions with other local governments.
Landfill sites in eastern Oregon and in 1989, we will be able to make the
Washington are superior to those in variable can rate work as an incentive Conclusion
western Washington because of the dry to reduce waste. We will offer mini-can Now, the city must turn outward to
climate, deep clay layer, and sparse (half-can) service to "super-recyclers" our customers. We need to expand our
population. In addition, landfill owners at a reduced rate. We will charge a efforts in public education and infor-
in those regions are willing to discuss premium to customers who select back- mation. We must use every possible op-
contractual agreements with the city yard service or who have a second or portunity to create media events to turn
that do not require a minimum amount third can. We will offer a low-priced the public's attention to recycling.Local
of waste and that will not result in yard waste subscription service to cus- environmental and recycling citizen
higher costs with lower volumes of dis- tomers who will separate clean yard groups have offered to help, and we will
posal. This provides flexibility to recy- waste. We have taken extraordinary enlist them in our outreach efforts.
cle at higher levels without the finan- steps to reduce or stabilize rates for cus- Recycling will not work if you can-
cial disincentives that could accompany tomers who select curbside,yard waste, not change public behavior.In Seattle,
the investment in a more capital- and recycling options. The economic we now have the attention of the pub-
intensive solution, such as a resource signals being sent through a variable lic and we have the needed economic
recovery plant. The mayor recom- can rate finally are being heard in Seat- carrots and sticks. Our job is to take
mended a ten year contract with an op- tle by our citizens. advantage of this opportunity to get the
tion to renew so that if in ten years the public to do what is good for them—
city was not reaching its recycling goals, and what will produce an effective solid
incineration again could be considered. waste management system in the city of
60 Seattle. ❑
Facilities Planning
Now that the major elements of Seat- SIGN UP SEATTLE
tle's new solid waste system are in CURBSIDE RECYCLING
place,planning can begin on the proper
configuration of facilities. This year a
consultant did an efficiency plan for our
two existing transfer stations. We must
now decide whether to build a new rail-
side transfer station or put compaction 1• g • A1• A 1 a
equipment into existing facilities and _' i v ss 1
Ow
ihsimply load boxes of compacted waste
onto rail cars at a loading site.
With the increase in pick-up service
to customers, the use of transfer sta-
tions may diminish and the efficiency _ Diana Gale is Director of Seattle's
of our field operations becomes a major z Solid Waste Utility. The SWU, with a
Ale Ales 11• � l•
cost issue. The city also must plan for �c %X .. A a 1 s $50 million operating budget and a$75
N
implementation of the materials proc- �j I z million capital budget, collects, trans
-
implementation
lines and a food waste process -- fers, and transports the city's waste and
ing center. also is responsible for closing two Su-
perfund landfills.
Previously she was Director of Seat-
Financing Information Needs tle's Legislative Department, where she
We have developed a new rate strut- The work in Seattle's SWU over the specialized in energy and environmen-
ture and financial policies to support past two years has been produced by an tal issues. She has a Master's and a
our new solid waste management sys- excellent staff supported by a team of Ph.D. is Urban Planning from the Uni-
tem. This year we bid out new collet- consultants. The staff came from a rich versity of Washington, where she also
tion contracts for the city, changing variety of backgrounds, including has taught, and she has served as a
from backyard to curbside service and energy conservation, planning, recy- Research Associate at the London School
offering options of separate yard waste cling, and economics. In the staff, of Economics in Great Britain.
32 Resource Recovery
St
Municipa Wa e
CO bustion Ash ,
Testing Methods, Constituents
and Potential Uses
by By volume, ash is approximately one-
Despite the recent rise in Jeffrey L. Hahn tenth to one-twentieth of the incoming
municipal solid waste. By weight, it
source reduction and recycling and represents approximately one-fourth of
David B. Sussman the original amount.Ash is much denser
programs, the United States than raw solid waste and takes up
still will need to combust ombined ash is the non-com- much less space for ultimate disposal.
a sizable portion of bustible portion of municipal Why Burn Solid Waste?
solid waste. The term "ash
its waste stream refers to all the solid residue streams of Despite the recent rise in source
for the forseeable future. a municipal solid waste combustion sys- reduction and recycling programs, the
tem.The four basic types of ash include United States still will need to combust
bottom ash (approximately 85 to 95 a sizable portion of its waste stream for
percent of the total), also referred to as the forseeable future. Combusting mu-
clinker;" ash that collects on boiler, nicipal solid waste has three basic pur-
superheater, and economizer tubes, poses. First, high temperatures steril-
often called"soot;"ash that is removed ize the waste and deny food and habitat
from the flue gas through boiler passes; to disease vectors,such as rats and flies.
and the fly ash collected by air pollu- Second, volume reduction is accom-
tion control equipment. plished, and ash disposal takes much
Flyash is a combination of the solid less landfill space. Third, useful energy
material, as well as reacted and un- can be captured.
spent reagent from the acid as scrub- For thousands of years, solid waste
p g g I
hers, that is collected after reaction in
has been combusted to control disease
the scrubbers by particulate collection and reduce volume. Up until the 1960s,
equipment like fabric filters or elec- open dumps often were set afire as a
trostaticPP reci itators. Fly ash o
g
ri i- means of disease control and to make
i
room for more arbage. But public
nates from the ever-present fraction of g i
inorganic compounds in paper, wood, health problems—brush fires, rat
plastic, rubber, and food wastes. For migration, air pollution, and worker
example, there are clays in papers, injuries—made open burning unac-
c able. Burnie municipal solid
stabilizers in plastics, pigments in ept g p
printing inks, and mineral salts in waste in a carefully-controlled furnace,
vegetables and other food products. with appropriate ash management safe-
Bottom ash is comprised of bottles, guards, however, can achieve the ben-
cans, auto parts, broken appliances efits of combustion without causing en-
and other materials that cannot be vironmental harm.
completely combusted.The ingredients
of fly and bottom ash are the unavoid- Landfill Problems
able, inorganic by-products of every- There are many differences between
thing that is thrown away. landfilling raw solid waste and landfill-
16 Resource Recovery
Noe
7�: ingash. First, landfilling raw munici-
pal
unici pal solid waste generates odors,
methane gas, and many other toxic and $
reactive gases. These gases originateAP
from the biological decomposition of 1 1Hii
ia3 .
g P 11�:
organic matter. While odors are more C_ •�£ -
annoying than dangerous, methane gas � )
migration from poorly-designed or
operated landfills can cause explosions
in nearby structures, resulting in prop-
erty damage and loss of life.
In contrast, ash is biologically inac-
tive: it does not generate odors or ex-
plosive, toxic, or reactive gases in a
landfill.
Second, groundwater contamination
can occur from any material disposed
of in a landfill. This is the result of
moisture contained in the material, or
rain or surface water, infiltrating the
materials and leaching out toxic con- Ash conveyor system at the Ogden Martin facility in Marion County, Oregon.
taminants. Because of its raw waste
composition, most landfill leachate is
highly organic and highly acidic be- Ash Management at an Second, agencies have established four
cause of the biological activity within Operating Facility broad characteristics to use in deter-
the landfill.Organic acids have the po- Properly-designed mass burn plants mining whether other wastes,including
tential to carry toxic compounds into use closed systems so that no employ- ash, are hazardous.These characteris-
groundwater. visitorsor nearbresidents are ex- tics include ignitability, corrosivity,
In contrast, ash leachate forms in ees, , y reactivity, and extraction procedure
small amounts because infiltration Posed to airborne dust from the residue
streams. All hoppers from the boiler to (EP) toxicity.
through dense ash is slight and contains The EP characteristic often is ap-
only inorganic compounds—salts and the air pollution control device have plied to municipal waste combustion
sealed, air-locked valves that transfer
metals—that do not travel easily the fly ashes and/or dry scrubber rea- ash. The EP is a laboratory test that at-
rough hsoil. By locating the landll in
imic
he landill environ-
a proper hydrogeological setting and by gent and reaction products to sealed menta and ds to isposals cenariof of 5 percent
using liners and leachate collection Sys- screw or drag conveyors. These con- unknown waste and 95 percent raw mu-
tems, both types of leachates can be veyors deliver all of the combined nicipal waste in an unlined landfill.The
prevented from entering the ground fly/bottom ash stream to the sealed dis- Toxic Characteristic Leaching Proce-
water. charger at the lower end of the furnace. dure (TCLP) test also has been pro-
Third, municipal solid waste creates As the bottom ash falls down the ash posed to determine if a substance
dust problems when it is deposited in discharger chute into the quench water bflshould be managed as a hazardous
a landfill. Bits and pieces may blow baththe y ash is captured,moistened, waste. Some problems occur with tests
around, and the compaction process it- and combined with the bottom ash be- that take a small sample of waste, sub-
self may increase dust generation. fore it is hydraulically discharged by a ject it to laboratory analysis, and then
In contrast, semi-wet ash does not ram. The ram extrudes and dewaters use the results to predict how larger
result in fugitive dust at landfills. Wet the ash prior to dropping it onto the quantities of hypothetical waste actu-
ash is so dense that it does not require conveyor system.At this point,the ash ally will behave in the real world.In ad-
much compaction,so little airborne ma- has the consistency of wet concrete.As dition, there are legitimate questions
terial is released into the environment. it moves outside the boiler building, an about how representative samples are
Finally,the biological decomposition enclosed conveyor transfers the ash to obtained, how samples are prepared for
of raw municipal waste results in a slow a storage building or other area for laboratory analysis,what type of test is
volume reduction over time. This con- eventual transfer in covered, water- most appropriate for how the waste will
tinuous shrinkage causes the landfill tight trucks or containers to a landfill be managed, and how test results
surface to subside and requires exten or for reuse. should be interpreted.
sive re-working of the soil. Subsidence After rigorous EP and TCLP testing
also results in increased rain water Ash Characterization in five Ogden Martin System facilities,
infiltration, which produces more Since it is difficult to predict the po- ash has not yet exhibited the character-
leachate. tential adverse affects of burying waste, istics of hazardous waste in any in-
i In contrast, an ash landfill becomes environmental regulatory agencies typi- stance. In Marion County, Oregon,for
a stable mass within days of initial cally have adopted a two-pronged ap- example, a comprehensive testing pro-
placement and requires only simple proach to the problem. First, wastes gram was performed in November of
maintenance of the final cover.No sub- with high potential for environmental 1986 during the facility's test period.
sidence occurs. harm are classified as "hazardous." This facility is the first in the United
December 1988 17
y
States to use a dry scrubber and high- waste. In other words, ash would not rous and non-ferrous metal recovery
efficiency particulate control equip- be subject to management as a hazard- using magnets, screens, and other
ment. For lead, the ash tested well ous waste and testing to determine its mechanical processes is used at many
below the regulatory threshold for the regulatory status would not be required. solid waste combustion facilities.
upper bound of the confidence limit on EPA had a different interpretation of Recovery techniques for larger(greater
three separate analyses for EP toxicity the law,however. EPA stated that if the than one inch)metallic components are
and one for TCLP. Tests at other OMS ash was tested and exhibited the char- well developed, but the economic via-
facilities have yielded similiar results. acteristics of hazardous waste, it had to bility of extensive recovery depends on j
In addition, EPA's long-term study of be managed as such. Now EPA is re- local scrap metal markets. Metals such
the Marion County ash monofill has evaluating its position and developing as cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, silver,
shown that lead in leachate is neglible a new series of characterization tests to and gold are recoverable only by using
if proper monofilling practices are fol- determine the regulatory status of ash complex chemical techniques.
lowed. and developing environmentally-sound The major component in ash is the
criteria for ash management and bur- inert, non-metallic portion. Because its
The Regulatory Status of Ash ial. Meanwhile, Congress also is at- properties are similiar to traditional ag-
Prior to the Resource Conservation tempting to clarify the regulatory sta- gregates, ash is used as a substitute for
and Recovery Act(RCRA)of 1976, ash tus of ash, and legislative action is likely conventional aggregates in Europe,
was regulated by states and local in the spring of 1989. principally in highway construction as
governments as municipal solid waste. EPA also has released draft guidance paving, road bed, and fill material and
It often was approved as cover material on the handling,transport, storage and for use in concrete and cement. Ogden
for sanitary landfills. With the im- disposal of ash. The guidelines specify Martin currently is working with sev-
plementation of RCRA, waste was split leakproof containers and transport ve- eral universities to develop proper
into two categories: hazardous (Subti- hicles, tight covers, and groundwater screening techniques and mixture
tle C)and non-hazardous(Subtitle D). monitoring systems. For fly, ash dis- proportions for cement blocks and to
Even though household waste and the posed separately, EPA recommends examine the leachability of metals from
ash residue from processing household disposal at a monofill with a double such blocks.
waste were excluded from Subtitle C, liner. For combined ash or bottom ash, While the technical problems asso-
waste combustion facility operators a monofill with either a composite liner ciated with ash utilization probably can
were required to conduct extensive test- or a clay liner with special environmen- be resolved, the institutional problems
ing to determine if their ash exhibited tal features should be used. For com- (markets for metals, public acceptance
hazardous waste characteristics. bined or bottom ash that is co-disposed of ash)will be more difficult to address.
Congress attempted to clarify the with garbage, a double liner or compos-
somewhat ambiguous definition of ite liner, with pre-disposal ash treat-
"household waste" in the Hazardous ment or source separation to reduce Conclusion
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. metals content prior to combustion, is Ash is the remaining incombustible
The law states that if a facility takes the preferred method. residue representing 5-10 percent by
only household and non-hazardous volume and 15-20 percent by weight of
waste and has a program to prevent Ash Utilization the municipal solid waste stream. It is
Subtitle C hazardous waste from being Ash contains many valuable metals, a biologically inert, dense material that
accepted, it is not deemed to be gener- and the non-metallic portion has prop- can be managed in a more environmen-
ating,treating, or managing hazardous erties similiar to sand and gravel. Fer- tally sound manner than raw solid
waste.
Present testing methods may not
adequately simulate what actually oc-
curs when ash is placed into a con-
trolled landfill unit. As indicated by
leachate data from actual ash fills, po-
tential ground or surface water
con-tamination from well-managed disposal
units does not appear to be a problem.
Before uses of combined ash can reach
their full potential, expanded public
awareness, a better understanding of
1 resource recovery ash characteristics,
and improved markets are necessary.❑
Jeffrey Hahn is Senior Vice President
for Environmental Engineering at Ogden
Martin Systems, Inc.'s Emeryville, Cal-
ifornia office. David Sussman is Vice
President for Etzvironrnental Affairs at
Asti loading for transport to monofill. the OMSAlexandria, Virginia./acility.
I
18 Resource Recomre