HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.25.2021 SWAC Special MtgJEFFERSON COUNTY
Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
Special Meeting Minutes
Thursday, February 25, 2021
3:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
DUE TO COVID -19, NO IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE ALLOWED
(per 5/28/2020 Jefferson County Board of Health Order)
Meeting conducted via GoToMeeting
Public Access: (224) 501-3412; Access Code: 764-790-765#
OPENING BUSINESS
Roll Call and Introductions – Bart Kale, Chair
Committee Members Present:
Bart Kale, Chair & Citizen at Large Heidi Eisenhour, County Commissioner
Lisa Crosby, District #1 Tracy Grisman, District #1
Tim Deverin, District #3 Chad Young, Waste Connections
Glenn Gately, County Conservation District Steve King, City of Port Townsend
Alysa Thomas, Skookum
Committee Members Absent
Jenifer Taylor, District #2
Staff Present
Al Cairns, Solid Waste (SW) Division Manager Jerry Mingo, SW MRW Coordinator
Chris Spall, Public Works Support Staff Laura Tucker, Public Health, SW Education,
George Puopolo, Solid Waste Operations Coordinator
Guests/Visitors:
David Pater, WA State Dept. of Ecology, Ruby Irving, Klickitat County Solid Waste Manager, Meggan Uecker,
Clallam County Solid Waste & Recycling
Quorum Determination: There is a quorum.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Review of Recycling Program Analysis – Al Cairns
Al presented two spreadsheets. One showed an analysis of our recycling materials by greenhouse gas
emission reductions and cost (direct + general + administrative) to recycle. EPA’s Waste Reduction Model
was used to calculate greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from recycling versus landfill disposal. CO2
reductions per metric ton were 9782 for recycling versus only 450 for landfill disposal. Material data
came from 2020 material tons shipped of corrugated containers, mixed paper- residential, mixed paper -
business, mixed plastics, aluminum cans, steel cans, and glass. Tonnage delivered to manufacturer would give
a more complete picture but that data is not available.
If the reason for recycling is to conserve resources, then CO2 emissions is a good indicator of how well we are
doing that. The EPA modeling factors in the CO2 emissions created throughout all the transportation and
processes of different material management techniques and allows for a comparison; in this case: recycling vs
landfilling. It also shows us how individual materials perform in comparison to each other. By applying the
cost to process the materials, we can get a “cost per metric ton of CO2 reduced” as a good cost/benefit
indicator.
The second spreadsheet ranked materials by five performance indicators: 1.) Tons of GHG reduction, 2.)
Lowest cost per ton of GHG reduction, 3.) Lowest rate of contamination, 4.) Lowest subsidy, and 5.) Value
retention. A score of one (1) to seven (7) was used with seven indicating the best performance. Input from the
Beyond Waste group was used for the ranking.
Mixed plastics was the lowest performer by far.
Questions and Discussion
Suggestions were given on changing headings to better describe the criteria, and adding a key for interpreting
the scoring numbers. Someone asked if there was any category that could be considered but was not? There’s
a level of emotion and attachment to each material type. Are we getting where we want to go by recycling
these materials? Need to balance value of recycling program against cost of subsidies from tipping fee. Didn’t
consider opportunity costs between the materials. Plastic makes up 4% of total tonnage but contributes 80% of
the contamination. If you imagine a program without mixed plastics opportunities open up. Potential to open
markets for aluminum cans or steel. We can high grade our materials if we pull plastics out of the mix. That
would be answered by an RFP where the industry can tell us what is possible.
Al recommended moving forward to ascertain if removing plastics from our recycling stream improves value
and reduces tipping fee subsidies for recycling. He presented a timeline of activities for doing this, starting in
March with the development of an RFP and ending in July with the Award of Contract and finalization of the
CROP. RFP would have two options: maintain the status quo by leaving plastics in or a no plastics recycling
stream. For due diligence, would include option for curbside collection only of the materials. Green house
reductions from curbside only collection would be substantial.
Questions and Discussion
Lisa asked what would happen if only one RFP was submitted and how many proposals are you hoping to
get? Al said there is no obligation to run another RFP if we only get one proposal. The way Skookum operates
the program is unique in that they actively pursue the best paying market. What they lose in the efficiency of
using one brokerage (MRF) they gain in commodity value. To be fair to all proposers, the RFP would be
broken down into three components: collection; transportation, and; marketing.
Whether SWAC agrees to pursue what a no plastics process looks like, we would not be the first. Walla Walla
was the first in Washington to pull plastics out of the mix. Glenn asked, if cost and complications were not an
issue, are there any number one or two plastics, like milk jugs for instance, that would be an option?. Al
responded that Walla Walla tried accepting only bottles and jugs but it didn’t work. Why did it fail?
Messaging is challenging and people aren’t following it. Recycling numbers on bottom of materials don’t
mean anything. Most people think if it’s plastic it should be recyclable. Al said we could try a staggered
approach with just bottles and jugs only to see if we could get contamination under 5%. But we should do it
now before issuing an RFP. Need to know what our recycling program is going to look like before we issue an
RFP. Heidi mentioned that some items have to be taken to the Food Coop to be recycled. Should we only
allow plastic recycling at one location? What incentives improve behavior? Any creative ideas to continue
plastic recycling while changing behavior of our populace? Better to change manufacturers behavior than
consumers. With a glut of oil, single use plastic production is increasing and that lowers the value of recycling
plastics. We are at the mercy of the manufacturers of these materials. We subsidize their production of things
we really can’t recycle. Up to 30% of plastics shipped to a MRF end up being landfilled and some of that
does not get there. What is our messaging to the community? We’re up against the plastic industries putting
the chasing arrows symbols on everything, and people from other areas of the country where you throw it in
the bin and it get recycled. Plastics can only be down cycled one or two times, and then it can shed
microplastics in the environment that are endocrine disrupters and carcinogens. We have to think about how
we’re going to sell this to our community. It comes down to education and behavior change. Encourage
people to buy things that are not in plastic. May get a lot of blow back about not taking plastic. Landfill is a
better option, safe storage for plastic, than not knowing where it would end up. Steve supports removing
plastic from recycling but needs to understand what it means for City’s disposal contract with DM (level of
service change) and messaging. Tracy leaning toward the message that plastic is garbage. Not accepting
plastics could lead a local collection effort. For instance, the Port of Port Townsend may be given a grant to
study the feasibility of plastics for energy generation. Lisa expressed concern for this development since
emissions from such a process are of concern. Bart not quite divorced from jugs and bottles. Options for milk
in other containers does not really exist. Bart wants to hear additional arguments for taking milk jugs out of
the mix. David Pater seeing other communities moving to only taking plastic milk jugs and soda bottles and
no other plastics. David Pater supported Al’s proposal. Al reminded everyone that plastics are only 4% of the
recycling stream. Larger goal might be to replace it with another material of equal or better value to reduce
greenhouse gas. Public Works recently awarded a grant to study feasibility of clean wood waste diversion and
biochar production. Al suggested our focus should be on achieving an annual goal of reducing 10K Metric
Tons of GHG.
2. Review Public Works Recommendation – Al Cairns
Al asked the SWAC to vote on whether or not to continue looking into removing plastics from the recycling
stream by discussing it with the contract hauler and the City.
Discussion
Should we pursue finding out what it would look like with no plastics, including only bottle and jugs, or
keeping the status quo? Someone asked, what percentage are milk jugs and water bottles of total plastics?
Steve Gilmore gave a figure of 2% of all plastics.
Call for Vote
Bart called for a vote and SWAC members voted and approved PW continuing to pursue this by consulting
with stakeholders (City of Port Townsend and Waste Connections) to find out the impact of removing plastics
from the recycling stream. (Steve King did not vote because he had to leave at 4p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT
Bart adjourned the meeting at 4:30 pm.
Next Meeting Date: March 25, 2021.
2021 Regular Meeting Dates
January 28 July 22
March 25 September 23
May 27 December 2