SELECTED IMPACTS TO MARION COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

OPTIONS _{TON (2009$)} COST PER FACILITIES TRANSPORTATION

Continue use of WTEF $40.25/Ton (Includes cost of ash disposal) Minimal Impact - Transfer station expansion to efficiently transport waste in excess of WTEF to Coffin Butte

Minimal Impact – Waste not reused or recycled in

excess of WTEF capacity must be transported 30+ miles to Coffin Butte.

Transport waste to Coffin Butte $48 to $53/Ton Expand existing transfer station(s) or

build a new transfer station to increase

capacity for transporting waste to landfill (246,000 TPY)

Transportation of waste to Coffin Butte adds approximately 740,000

truck miles per year.

Transport waste to regional landfills in Eastern Oregon or Eastern Washington $58 to $65/Ton Expand existing transfer station(s) or

build a new transfer station to increase capacity for transporting waste to landfill (246,000 TPY) Transportation of waste to regional landfills in Eastern Oregon or Washington adds over 3,500,000 truck miles per year. Rail haul could

be considered.

Other Evaluation Factors

In addition to the comparison of costs, there are several other guiding principles or values contained in the SWMP as stated above. These principles result in criteria that can be used to compare options and make recommendations. These criteria are presented in the following matrix in order to show a further comparison of the options.

In addition to the information summarized in the options matrix, an Environmental Review of the Waste Processing and Disposal Alternatives is presented in Appendix D. This overview is intended to provide a brief discussion of environmental impacts that are generally attributed to landfilling, waste-to-energy and compost facilities. It is recognized in this discussion that solid waste systems can include a combination of some or all of these facilities to manage waste. It also acknowledges that solid waste management is a highly regulated industry and all facilities are subject to design and performance standards.

Final Draft - CHAPTER 6

6-35 April 2009

Table 6-6 - Summary of Matrix – Evaluation of Options Marion County

Option

Cost Effectiveness and Long-Term Rate

Stability

Promotes Hierarchy of Waste

Management – Highest and Best

of Resources

Local Control Reduce Waste _Generation Reduce Toxicity of _Waste

Flexibility to Adhere to Changes in Regulation/ Waste Stream Environmentally Sound Economically Proven to be Reliable Option 1 Marion County continues Energy Recovery with the use of WTEF after 2014

• Rates have remained stable through

operating life – currently $40 per ton on system cost basis • No major capital

investments are needed to continue operation

• Electric sales provides added source of revenue to offset tip fees

• Bonds have been repaid allowing flexibility to provide other services or programs.

• Does not compete with WR/R Goals • Energy recovery is recognized as higher value than landfilling • There is no disincentive to reduce waste if there is adequate waste to meet minimum performance • Requires some dependency on landfilling as backup • Maintains local control • Limited or no risk to external fees or restrictions • Requires backup disposal site / landfill • Neutral – No disincentive if minimum performance is met • Revenues from sale of electricity can be used to offset portion of tip fees • Cost to dispose of excess can provide avoided cost incentive

• County has

programs to reduce certain toxic waste, i.e. mercury; batteries • Certain materials containing toxic elements are destroyed by incineration at high temperatures

• County must deliver minimum quantity of waste or pay penalties

• Facility can adapt to changes in

regulation

• Presents some risk to change in regulations • Unscheduled downtime requires backup • It is possible that changes to waste stream could impact the higher heating value (HHV). To date there has been no measurable impact.

• WTEF is subject to continuous air monitoring – facility has never received NOV

• Air pollution equipment minimizes health risk

• Ash residue must be handled properly to minimize fugitive dust

• Ash residue leachate required special handling due to conductivity, but does not fail Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (TCLP)

• Provides base load energy from renewable source, i.e. replaces fossil fuels

• WTEF – operated in Marion County for 20 years – has been reliable

• Cost to operate has been stable Option 2 Marion County Discontinues Disposal at WTEF and Landfills

• Rates can be stable assuming a long term contract is in place. Estimated cost to transport and dispose to local regional landfills - $48 to $53 per ton on a system cost basis.

• New investment in transfer station capacity will be required

• Local fees and restrictions could impact cost of service.

• Does not compete with WR/R Goals • Does not promote

highest/best use of resources

• Landfills have built- in disincentive – more waste- less cost to operate • Landfill gas can be

recovered for energy

• Landfill disposal is reliable and long term contracts can be used to minimize risk.

• Disposes of waste in other jurisdiction presents some risk – Host fees; local restrictions

/conditions

• Cost to

transport/dispose can provide avoided cost incentive • Neutral – No disincentive if minimum performance is met • County has programs to reduce certain toxic waste, i.e. mercury; batteries • Some material

containing toxic elements are buried

• Contract can be flexible; however, most agreements require minimums to get lower tip fee. • Some risk to change

in regulations • Typically minimum

waste quantities must be delivered to get reduced tip fee • Some impacts from

changes in waste stream • MSW landfills are designed to protect groundwater • Landfills provide regular monitoring • Option will require

added

transportation that contributes to “GHG” emissions..

• Modern new landfills are reliable • Not subject to extreme unforeseen conditions • Is subject to increase in transportation cost.

Final Draft - CHAPTER 6

6-37 April 2009

Based on the information assembled as part of this SWMP Update and the evaluation summary, there are several conclusions regarding the future management of waste in Marion County.

1. The WTEF has been a reliable disposal method for over 20 years. It has been proven to be both economically and environmentally sound. With the bonds paid off, it offers a viable option for the future.

2. Continuing use of the WTEF by extending the contract with Covanta is the most cost-effective option for continuing to manage solid waste in Marion County. It does not require significant investments in new infrastructure. In addition, revenue from the sale of electricity enhances long-term stability and helps offset tip fees. Continued use of the WTEF also provides much more flexibility to invest additional resources into waste reduction and recycling programs. It also reduces the amount of waste required to be transported out of the County.

3. As population increases in the County, the amount of waste will continue to grow. As alternative technologies continue to develop and become commercially viable, there may be opportunity to develop a facility that would generate by-products to either complement the WTEF and/or provide additional source of energy. One promising technology is Bio-Reactors / Digesters for organics especially food waste and biomass. Also, a third combustion unit may be feasible depending on the amount of waste generated.

4. By extending the contract with Covanta, the County could be expected to have more financial resources to apply to waste reduction and recycling programs. This could include seed money to support development of alternatives for organics/ food waste recycling or composting.

5. There will be a continuing need for landfills for certain waste streams and for waste that is in excess of the capacity of the WTEF. The County has not identified any suitable areas within its jurisdictional limits that might be designated as potential sites for landfill. As such, the County continues to rely on landfills in other jurisdictions for disposal of waste that cannot be recycled or converted to other products and/or energy.

6. Reuse of the ash residue from WTEF is common internationally. There is continued interest and research in the U.S to develop beneficial uses for ash residue from WTEF.

6.6 Recommendations

The County has increased the recycling rate over the past five years such that over 52% of the waste generated is either reused or recycled. The amount to be processed and disposed is about 250,000 tons per year and will continue to grow as population increases. The WTEF can continue to operate and provide for converting 185,000 tons per year to an energy source. The remaining waste must be disposed of at out of County landfills. However, the goal is to continue to implement

CHAPTER 6 - Final Draft

programs and services to reduce this amount. Given the options discussed in this Chapter, recommendations for processing and disposal of waste are as follows: