March 22, 2021 - T&E Committee Worksession

good afternoon everyone welcome to the tnt committee i want to thank mr levchenko for another great packet and dep for your great work today we're going to review and vote on the county's mpdes ms4 permit 2018 financial assurance plan and 10-year solid waste plan these are important items that the county has to submit to the state i will highlight that the fap permit on the agenda today is not regarding watershed restoration work performed in the county it's simply an application process the state has established to ensure county's efforts meet the guidelines set by the maryland department of the environment on the 10-year solid waste plan the committee won't take final action today we'll take this opportunity to dive deep into the draft plan just last week we received a large report on this issue i want to ensure that the committee has the opportunity to review all the documents and hear from all sides on the issue it's my hope that we can schedule a final vote relatively soon and moving on as soon as we as we continue to address the pressing covet 19 pandemic we can't forget about the great sense of urgency and responsibility we have to ensure we're on track to responding to climate change and its impact these two agenda items uh help us to establish goals to guide us in our efforts to do just that so i want to open it up to my colleagues for any opening remarks and then i'll turn it over to mr libchenko anything colleagues there's a there's going to be a lot of discussion and a lot to unpack so i'll save my comments for the actual conversation exactly okay mr leibchenko okay the first item on the agenda is the financial assurance plan the maryland department of environment requires each what's called a phase one ms4 jurisdiction like montgomery county to file these financial assurance plans every two years the last one was filed in february 2019 so two years later here we are um i i've noted in the um in the pack at the second page of the packet the uh what the what the financial assurance plan or fap must demonstrate primarily the fap is intended to show whether a jurisdiction is on target to meet its ms4 permit requirements and in particular its impervious surface restoration requirements that are a major driver of capital costs in the permit the fat bin itself does not affect the permit requirements themselves but is simply reporting on the status of work both operating in capital uh that's occurring under the permit and i will note that uh in in this particular faf we have both planned and completed actions presented as our projected expenditures and the source of funds uh and whether that funding would meet the required expenditures to do that planned work uh dep completed the fact based on its approved and planned work uh assumed in the fy 21 operating budget and the fy 21 through 26 cip this year's faf is a little complicated by the fact that we're between permits we've been that way for a few years now the 2010 2015 permit is still technically in effect since we don't have a new permit we're operating under yet however the county met its restoration requirement under that permit in december 2018. at mde's request dep did revise its faf that was initially sent to the council reflecting that we have a lot of additional work that's assumed to happen so this the revised permit does show planned costs going forward effectively showing how we would meet the next permit or the draft permit if you will so it is an important point we have ongoing restoration work for instance which will be credited to the upcoming permit and that work is both happening now but also planned and reflected in this fap the next permit itself is still as i mentioned in the draft status the public comment period ended in january we are expecting the permit to be finalized later this year i guess it depends somewhat on how significant any changes they make from the draft permit are but it could be as early as this summer if if there's fewer changes perhaps we did receive a brief thing last october on the status of this next permit and the conditions assumed in that permit so we weren't planning to delve into that set of issues today however dep is available to provide an update or answer any questions you have on the draft permit and any uh pieces of that and how they're reflected in the fap but in general i think basically this faf indicates that we are we have sufficient funds planned to meet the requirements of the upcoming permit it's in montgomery county we do have a dedicated fund the water quality protection charge is the primary source of revenue for that fund and the watercolor detection fund is where we we provide most of the of the um revenue to support the permit work so unlike other jurisdictions which may not have a dedicated fund we do and that puts us in good stead with regard to the financial assurance plan certainly uh in a lot of our planning work so it's a that's a key point exactly how we will meet the upcoming permit is not fully defined yet dep is working on a a request for procurement for a contract that would allow for the hiring of a managing contractor who would be responsible for overseeing the selection design permitting construction of projects to meet the new permits restoration goal and once again dep can provide more information on that today if you'd like but that that i did want to distinguish that from the contracting process that had been discussed several years ago with much debate at the council this is a significantly different contract from that and dep has been providing some information to council members upon request on that but if the committee as a whole would like further information we can also talk about that but with that um unless the committee members have specific questions about the facts staff is comfortable recommending approval of fap as revised by dep and as included in the council staff report today okay terrific thank you welcome director ortiz mr dawson ms bubar ms stevens good to see you all again are we on track to getting our permit approved uh good afternoon mr chairman and um and happy fun date to members of the committee um mr chairman uh things are looking good uh we were um uh able to uh meet the past permit requirements um this is you know as i mentioned before uh you know in emerging industry uh jurisdictions are required to um do a lot of work um in a short period of time uh in uh you know in the storm water industry it's very young uh and it's and it's expensive as we know um so the counties um out in front it has always been out in front and um and not only did we complete our last phase uh we got a jump start on the next phase as well as you may recall uh the previous uh council and county executive sort of struck a deal um after lots of uh uh intense discussions um that thankfully i was not a part of um where there were there was a series of projects that were set aside as priority projects uh to be done by a contractor well long story short uh in between the finalization of our current permit um we got to work on on many of those projects so um so work is still getting done and we feel very confident about this next phase but i'm happy to take any questions from you mr chairman or other members of the committee do you expect any challenges or changes in getting the permit approved um we do not um the uh the regulatory process is a little bit of a black box so you know i have to um you know admit i can't see into the crystal ball um but we've had a lot of discussion uh with the state um our staff is very intensely uh involved uh and we've just had a lot of communication so we think that we've addressed um you know any obviously any questions or concerns and have a sense of what the state's priorities are so at this time we don't anticipate anything but time will tell what concerns did the state raise um well i'm going to defer to uh frank dawson and amy stevens who've been closer to the process now that we get the weeds a little bit so um thank you adam um i'll start um so our understanding is is that the permits can be issued in june uh with an effective date in august um i'm not sure there were really all that many uh major issues in our discussions with uh mde uh they did increase our restoration requirement uh over what we felt was the maximum extent practicable uh but it was something we felt we could accomplish uh within our budget we certainly had concerns uh and wanted to have a force major uh component to the permit uh not fully understanding the impact of kovid on our budget uh amy i don't know if there's anything else you want to add to that no we work very closely with mde and we addressed most of their comments um they did make some changes towards the end based on what the environmental protection agency wanted from region three so there are some new new their differences in this permit and there have been in previous ones but i feel we feel very good about the permit and we're awaiting it differences since the new administration took over and no since our 2010 permit was issued okay what are the differences they put some metrics in that we haven't had in the past um specifically for a number of outreach events which was new outreach efforts we have to achieve requirements for pcb source tracking which was not in our previous permit um doing updates to our tmdl implementation plans um for the restoration requirement there are now benchmarks in the permit that we have to achieve there's a salt management plan that's a requirement there's a good housekeeping plans that are requirements um and that's the extent of the changes i was anticipating the salinity uh monitoring but uh what's a good housekeeping plan that's for other pollutants not not regulated by stormwater pollution prevention plans we all of our depots have store monitor pollution prevention plans so now we're looking at landscaping practices salt is another aspect any other pollutant that otherwise is not any other property that is otherwise not regulated under a stormwater pollution preventation plan okay colleagues any questions no i'm good you you you asked the the relevant one so thank you um okay mr lopchenko anything else we can do on this topic uh no if the committee's supportive we'll just um forward it to the council for for approval and and then they can submit it to the state as a final approved document okay without i think without objection mr reimer that fine with you unanimously yes thank you excellent okay on to the uh 10 year solid waste plan i believe mr left yeah that start our next item yeah i'll provide some background and then we do have uh some we do have some slides from dep to walk us through some of the issues that i've identified in the packet that will help i think um sort of help us get through the item in an orderly manner and get us to the point where we can get to the questions we want to ask as chair hucker mentioned the beginning of the meeting uh the interest today is is really laying out the issues and identifying where we meet may need to come back and have the committee do a maybe a final approval at a second meeting but we'll see where we are at the end of this just as some some quick background before we get into the slides the executive transmitted this comprehensive update back in early february the update is intended to be done every three years we're a little bit late this time around and there's several good reasons for that first we had the county was developing a food waste strategic plan and it was well understood that that would have significant implications for the 10-year solid waste plan and then also we had an aiming for zero-waste planning process that similarly was expected to have a major bearing on the 10-year plan and the strategic plan was or the food waste plan came out in 2018 the aiming zero waste planning process complete concluded last year around april and then you can probably guess where i'm going next is we had the pandemic which has slowed us down a bit as well so we're uh we're now five years into this plan and that explains why we're here today which is really to try to to get this off the decks and get it get it to the state late but in good shape so that's that's the goal today um uh and i before we get into the slides i did also want to note that um it's about a 200 page plan but a lot of the plan has to do with background and demographic information information about legislation regulations how the solid waste management system works existing facilities things like that uh that i don't think the committee needs to focus a lot of time on i think what the committee wants to focus on is really chapter five which is the plan of action section of the plan update uh and it is important to note at the outset that uh much of the plan update does focus on broad policy issues and and notes a lot of further study that is needed uh and less so on prescriptive actions and deadlines and that's not always the case in past years we have had prescriptive items in the 10-year plan and that's that's required uh the executive branch to move forward with actions on in a certain um manner and get back to the council this plan has a lot more in in terms of additional work that's needed to be done to get us to those points and and that's expected because we have had for instance the food waste plan uh a couple years ago that informs this plan and leads to a lot of other issues and similarly with the aiming for zero waste task force we've had a lot of uh follow up on that that's needed so i just wanted to couch that and with that i think i will i'll turn it over to dep to walk through the slides um and then from there we can um dig deeper into the issues that the committee wants to talk about so i'm going to share my screen right now and bring that bring the slides up can everyone see the slide on on the screen yes yes okay so um uh adam if you want to walk through or whoever in dep and i'll i'll flip the slides when you let me know okay great thank you um yeah i'll uh i'll take the wheel um but staff as always is invited uh to jump in during or after if there's anything uh that should be added um so uh next slide um so as as uh keith said um you know there's a lot of background information um but really we're gonna focus on chapter five we can go to the next slide interesting time uh this is a state mandate um but flow is also from a number of federal requirements but essentially this is to ensure that jurisdictions have a reliable um disposal plan for waste solid waste is um one of the very first um environmental policy areas you know going back to the roman empire and before um so this is a pretty big deal we have to describe that that we um you know have the capacity have the planning have the infrastructure to take care of our waste in an environmentally responsible way you go to the next slide key um so as he mentioned um really the the good stuff is in chapter five um in the interest of time we don't have need to go through the background data that's just descriptive to give our regulator a sense of what the solid waste needs are in the county and what infrastructure we have but we can keep going um again some details here um we can we can pass through this it's in your packet if you want more information all right so so the good stuff uh in uh in chapter five um we focus on infrastructure it's the county's responsibility to make sure that we can move um solid waste uh recycling and composting uh in a responsible and fluid way in an environmentally responsible manner so there's a lot of emphasis on our facilities of course montgomery county we go above and beyond in what we currently do and what we plan to do in the future i'll go a little more detail but the infrastructure is a big deal montgomery county is very very blessed um to have um control of virtually the entire system we own our own recycling facility we have a compost facility in dickerson um we have the incinerator although it's clearly controversial issue um it's uh it's part of the county's system so we're not so you know regardless of where we go the transfer station everything is in our control and uh that's um really the best position uh to be in um in addition to the infrastructure um we gotta you know be smart about how we manage stuff so we're going to talk a little bit about uh some some of the programs several of them are underway in operations and then finally get into detail about policies and legislation um because you know that you know really changes behavior and begins to alter society and of course has big implications but we'll go into more detail keith can go to the next one so regarding the recycling facility and um i think everybody has um has been to the uh facility who's on this call and um you know one of my first uh meetings with evan glass was at the facility um so the it's a great facility um it was um designed and put into place around 1990 um but it's out of date and um we've covered this a lot in the past i won't go into too much detail but we have a preliminary design from a contractor for a full modernization of the facility on its present uh footprint um some of the um innovations that we're um going to be installing are robotic sorters and it's just like it sounds robotic arms that can identify the materials and sort it with more precision and also reduce labor costs optical sorters which also recognize and are able to blow or use other technologies to sort the material as well and also segregating glass at the very beginning of the process as glass breaks um it gets into some of the other materials and then degrades the value for them and also um glass going you know being sorted at the end of the system goes through multiple conveyors so then it also gets broken and mixed reducing uh its value but we can go into more detail uh you can go to the next slide um i think this might be a video um i don't know if you can click on it there we are all right cool so are several firms that have uh robotic technologies uh in um it's programmable so it can identify uh certain types of plastic it can identify color it can sort um we're learning about this internally but it there's a lot of promise for having better sorting less contamination and uh and more reliability you can go to the next slide key food scraps as keith mentioned a lot of tremendous work has been done by staff stakeholders and community members on uh being on having a strategic plan for how we're dealing um with food scraps in in the larger food system what we know is that food is an organic that has value just like an aluminum can does or or a piece of cardboard it should also be recycled and when when food is mixed with carbon waste so leaves and um in garden trimmings um you know that that folks put out on their curb under our current system it create has the potential for creating a higher grade compost um montgomery county and print storages produce a soil amendment known as leaf bro it's a very well known and well respected product that's on the shelves of big box stores as well as uh small hardware stores and landscapers but uh but by creating um by getting food scraps into our system we can create a product that's known as leaf pro gold uh prince george's produces it now we don't produce it here in montgomery county yet but we have a very strong interest in doing so there's a lot to the subject and i'll save a lot of it for the questions but some of the bigger decisions on policies like requiring uh restaurants or commercial entities to compost really must depend on the ability for that that food scrap material to be processed locally so so we're looking at various options to figure out how the county can better control its own destiny on food scraps so the first option is to utilize the existing compost facility in dickerson um as you know it's used for carbon so leaves and uh in yard trim that's put out at the curb um but but there's a covenant with the sugarloaf citizens association that prevents us from from bringing food scraps there so that is an option but would require uh some negotiation and a new agreement uh the second option is a new compost facility at another site in the county uh the third option is um that we work with a third third-party operator in some kind of public-private partnership and that the county um has received some soft approaches from um anaerobic digester companies and others for such a setup and i can talk more about that if there's interest in that and the fourth option is the status quo which is uh sending our food scraps to prince the prince george's county facility and although that's a fantastic um blue ribbon facility it is very far away in upper marlborough so it's a it's a long trek in addition the carbon footprint it makes it tough for compost hauling companies to efficiently do trips from montgomery county to prince george's especially as the scope and scale of food scrap collections grow you can go to the next slide key um i'm gonna try not to geek out too much on everybody here but um but just a heads up because we'll be talking about this more in the future there's essentially two processes that are used for uh for composting the first is anaerobic digestion or the first that we'll talk about here which um is a is a contained facility that um that creates uh methane in an anaerobic environment the methane can be converted to energy and then it creates a product a digestate that um has to be further processed but then can also be turned into compost after some post processing um it's it's rather capital intensive um it requires a lot of chemistry and engineering uh and is is relatively higher tech but there are some benefits uh the second one is uh aerobic composting um this is the system that prince george's uses and that picture at the bottom is from their facility it's a lower tech system where the material is mixed and then covered you see that cover that cover in particular what the prince george's folks use um a product cover product made from the gore-tex company so those of you who are hikers or bikers or skiers or are familiar with gore-tex jackets well this membrane this fabric is exactly the same so it keeps rain out but allows the compost to breathe so there's a controlled environment and it accelerates the compost process exponentially and and provides more predictability and security so um i'm going to stop myself there for your sake but those are the two technologies that are also in the mix as we try to figure out the county's future next slide key uh this is the epa's hierarchy um it's uh informs you know not just our system but everybody's waste system that we do want to always focus on source reduction and reuse and as all of you know i've been in front of this committee pushing new laws um in that spirit um but it's all one system so it all works together so um so as we get a little bit deeper in the presentation you'll see that in addition to the disposal methods which are toward the bottom energy recovery and treatment and disposal um you know there's a a lot of other things that we need to do to lower the stress farther on and we want to spend as much time and energy as possible on those top tiers go to the next slide keith i'm really excited and this is the first time this has been mentioned in public but we're in the early stages of planning and redesigning the transfer station at derwood into the eco park at shady grove and although in many ways the current transfer station is an eco park many of you have been there you can drop off all sorts of materials from electronics to appliances to books to clothing and it gets reused all of those uses are fantastic and again montgomery county is very blessed and unique in having a facility like that um it's uh it's a little outdated and um you know the system has grown and we do a lot of good things there but there's a lot of congestion there's not an easy flow of traffic there's it's not always safe to um to drop off material um just because there's not enough pedestrian access and it's easy to get clogged up so we want to do a redesign that incorporates more uses and provides more opportunities for diversion as well as creating a better customer experience so the idea branded as an eco park sends the message to the public that um that this is a place to be sustainable um you can take your um unwanted materials uh that have some some value and potential for reuse to be taken there to be reused rather than the concept of a transfer station which is just about moving garbage around so um so a lot more we can talk about here but this is in the early stages this is a concept and we'll be reaching out through procurement process to get a more sophisticated design for future discussion but i'm really really really excited to share this concept with you this afternoon let's go to the next slide keith so um the aiming for zero waste process um that keith mentioned and participated in thanks keith for your um for your insight and support um and uh and participation in in that work group um you know after we do all this other stuff there's still stuff in the waste stream that we just can't do anything with it's either a material that or mixture of materials or products that can't be easily separated or used again for various reasons or it's something that has little or no value so there is always going to be even though we aspire for zero waste um at least in the next generation or several they're certainly going to be non-recoverables things that that we just can't recycle or reuse so what do we do with that stuff um the dep is still in the process of due diligence and trying to figure out the um the pros and cons and ramifications of the different options but um but essentially this is what they are um disposal um added well there's the current the status quo of course is the incinerator at dickerson um options other than that our disposal at an out-of-state landfill um the second one another option is to build our own landfill on site two and site two is a county-owned um property i believe more than 200 acres um just south of our current facility in dickerson and then third which would would complement on these options is a disposal technologies that might be able to recover more energy or or more refined sorting before it gets the disposal but um but nonetheless there's still going to be materialities for the foreseeable future in our world of stuff that we just can't do anything with that must be disposed of um the there's basically three um lenses that we're looking at the options one is environmental justice um you know very rightfully uh equity is front and center um here in the county and in our country but especially in our county with the racial justice act um and uh and you know everything that all of you have fought for over the years as well as the county executive so we want to make sure that we're um not overburdening um an existing community someplace else with the county's trash the second one is environmental impacts so looking holistically about the impact of one methodology versus another including the transportation and then finally of course the costs so um you know regardless of what we decide there's probably going to be some kind of um cost implication and that's of course when it will come to the county council through the through the county executive's budget so those are all things that we're looking at very very complicated um issue um so we're in the weeds with that but that's um where we are in that at this time next slide here this is um really the fun stuff so um so this is uh briefing the county executive on what came out of the aiming for zero waste um report lots and lots of ideas and we can really talk for probably the rest of the year about all the ideas and the options but we have done a preliminary sort pun intended of some of the different programs over the next few years for rolling out so um in our current fiscal year we've already rolled out again pun intended commercial food scraps recycling program we captured our 200 000 pound of commercial food scraps even during cobid so we're exciting about that we've been focusing on educating residents on recycling right at the curb um in the interest of time we can come back to some of these but you get the idea um some of the um either what anything of killer interest um in the uh next fiscal year uh moving into residential uh food scraps so that first box under 2022 that's a big one and i will be issuing an rfp out shortly on that very excited that for that for private sector participation in the collection um and then expanding that in 2023 uh well that's enough for now i'm gonna resist the temptation to do deeper dive down the rabbit hole go ahead keith uh so commercial food scraps i mentioned um underway um successful program so far we have a dozen folks and we're close to announcing um a really big partnership not ready for prime time but just about your appetite a little bit big player in the county who we expect to be participating in the commercial food scrap program um and uh in addition to just picking up their stuff or doing education with them on the uh on how um how it all works how to do it safely uh and um and how can help their bottom line with the goal and i know this has come up in the past with the goal of um of uh moving these customers on to our private sector haulers so we've been trying to target um businesses and entities that um could make a big difference um who have no plans uh to compost to kind of onboard them um sort of a gateway experience and then pass them off and onto the private sector and um and a handful of our 12 partners will be cycling off in the next few months so uh so excited about that very successful so far go to the next slide key for residential uh we get so much interest from the public in uh providing curbside pickup there are some municipalities um that already do provide curbside pickup chevy chase tacoma a handful of others um which is great and it's uh but it's important that the county um do this as well so we're really excited to be rolling out two single family routes uh one is in the greater bethesda area other in silver spring um and uh as i mentioned that rfp will be out shortly um so the first year will be a first phase and then we'll be expanding in subsequent years um but we our goal is um to uh to have 1700 households participating with that potential so um stay tuned more to come on that next like you again more good geeky fun stuff here um so this is some of the bigger picture stuff so if we really have any hope of approaching zero waste we have to do things on various levels um we spent a lot of time in this um presentation so far talking about infrastructure infrastructure is you know the the the rock solid um on stuff that the the county has to provide and we're trying to up our game there as you can see from the eco park concept to the um to the modernized um recycling facility and composting um it's behavioral so we're at the curb in residential neighborhoods educating residents who aren't recycling right and we're seeing a lot of impact from that but there's still a lot of stuff that we have to do to make sure that the industry is not overburdening us um at the end of the day at the end of the day the government um us and dep and all of you in the different ways that you support us we end up cleaning up after this disposable society and uh we're happy to do it um but it'd be um great if it wasn't as heavy a lift and it would be great if it wasn't as costly a lift and it is costly um when now there's just so much material out there especially when a lot of it is not recyclable when we have the burden of disposing on it so um so internally we're in the workshop but you'll be hearing about a number of these policies coming out soon one is extended producer responsibility of various products that those that are hazardous or those that are not recyclable that the manufacturers or the brands have some stake in helping us dispose of those materials so the burden isn't entirely on the county um looking more at a single use containers we've talked about that previously shopping bags um i'm not in the interest of time i'm not going to go through any one of these i'm just going to pull out a couple things standardized labeling is a big deal there's a lot of confusion in the recycling stream if you recall from our conversation about number six plastics so we are in conversation with the federal government to try to increase standards on that and that's important another one that gets talked about a lot is save as you throw and this is trying to cost modulate for homes and businesses that um that recycle more and trash less so providing some kind of monetary or other incentive um that's a difficult um policy area on a large scale but it's something we're committed to figuring out uh generally it works on smaller scales and uh and where we have an interest in partnering with the municipality for um for piloting a save as you throw system but i can talk more about that another one i want to flag is um the issue of sub-district b so that's generally the northern part of the county where um the county does not provide services olo provided a very uh in-depth uh report to all of you last year um sub district b is important from a sustainability um perspective and from a policy perspective currently that's um approximately half of the county that um that we don't have um any partnership with um as the government um i won't repeat all the issues but it's hard to make a lot of progress on on some of these issues especially at the curb and to ensure that we're getting the best materials possible um when when we don't have a direct relationship with collections and with residents in that part of the county um but in the interest of time we can move on but happy to to do a deeper dive in this caller and other conversations keith all right and here we are uh i am not willie wayne or wish i were but uh but i'm happy to take any questions in the meantime and i'm also joined by members of our team so um so thank you everybody if you're still awake i'm happy to take any questions or comments uh thank you all that's terrific um any questions for my colleagues sure so not quite sure where to begin here right um to continue director ortiz's uh line of puns there's a lot to sort out right so that's it for me at least consciously so uh first off i'll say you know so it was a big weekend for me uh because i visited the eco park uh little did i know of what it what what's to become uh and so i i i went um and dropped off a bunch of uh you know large yard trimmings and then also some electronics to the transfer station and yeah i mean as you noted director ortiz you and i visited there which seems like a while ago but uh you know the navigation still needs to be sorted out but it is what it is kind of like a safari so instead of eco park eco safari right you got the electronics on your left and you got the the plastics on your right um but and then and then when i went home i you know put together a compost bin so so a big eco a big eco weekend for me and so taking a step back um again i'm not really sure where to begin here because not only was there your presentation and then mr levchenko's very detailed uh report but then over the last number of days we received additional correspondence from environmental leaders here in the county a very detailed report as well put together on their own thorough in its nature just about what we need to be doing better here and there are clearly some disconnects and so that's part of the reason i'm not quite sure where to start here trying to understand where dep is where uh central staff is and then where the environmental community is you know i think we all share the same goal of continuing to move forward and as has been stated numerous times we are doing way more than is required of us by the state of maryland but we're in montgomery county so we don't rest on that we want to continue doing more and we we just have to um and so let me just start with some of the composting stuff because it seems that that is as we all know and has been said you know some of the easiest lift quite frankly because i'm just trying to look at my notes right here uh is it 170 000 tons of food scrap that is put into our waste system and so if we can start i caught myself i was gonna say if we can start peeling that back um but i said i wouldn't do that so uh so if if if we start collecting that and diverting that that will certainly mitigate other decision points with the incinerator with you know i think you said there were four options four or five options out there and clearly you know the the zta that i had introduced earlier this year or late last year is in recognition of the steps that we have to take and i'm speaking with folks in annapolis at the state level about changing some of those state laws that that restrict our composting ability on farms uh recognizing that that is a very efficient way to deal with with some of these um this this waste the food waste and so there's a lot of different directions to go in but let me just ask about the the residential composting right so clearly for the residential composting there's the site in dickerson but then i presume that the eco park and if we can start calling it that i don't know if there you know if there's another term aside from just transfer station but but uh the the revised transfer station would be able to accommodate more of that is that kind of the vision and the goal that's a good question um you know one of the options was to find another site outside of the current composting facility the uh we're not sure um and again this is why we want to um engage a procure a partner who can help us do a deeper dive into you know how much space is required for different uses can we accommodate the traffic flow um so it um it's conceptually an option uh but um but it's as as you know from being there a councilman there's uh not a lot of elbow room um and um depending on the technology it might require a good amount of space i would say like at this point um you know if i were a betting man um we would we would want a site with more room um than that one but that's still something we have to do further study on and just to do some level setting here right because we're some of these conversations and and decision points are they have timelines associated with them um you know renewals of contracts and and other things and because they're all interrelated what is at this point your your very basic timeline for for revamping the um for revamping that site the transfer station well there's no um uh you know we're driving uh there's there's um other than public pressure uh for doing more that there's no regulator that says hey you gotta you gotta create an eco part by a certain date um the uh the incinerator contract uh the one that we're in now is up in 2026. um so if we want to reduce diversion by that point in time um you know we want to move fast so we're trying to capture as much waste as possible but other than that um i don't think that there's any any timeline other than the ones that are self-imposed but i want to invite patty or anyone else on my team to chime in with any other thoughts in response to councilman's question i would this is patty i would agree that um we don't have a deadline other than something that we would like to self-impose upon ourselves but but we haven't done that um because there's just you know a few steps that have to be gone through if it's possible to be able to secure the additional space next to the transfer station um that provides just a host of opportunities that would allow us to address not only the safety and space issues but but the environmental initiatives that we want to put in place um so you know that's probably more of a critical path item than anything else is really trying to see if we can make progress on that but um but in the meantime we're just you know continuing to do as much as we can on all fronts well uh you're correct right about the the timelines and director ortiz the the timeline i was specifically referring to was the renewal of the contract or uh if that's the right way to phrase it uh with with the incinerator and and you know governments and bureaucracies rarely have their own timelines they're usually external pressures uh and other other types of events that force change and and i think we are clearly at that inflection point and cutting across a few different narratives and a few different scenarios is it possible in your estimation to close the incinerator while having the transfer site be what it currently is well that's one of the things that we're trying to uh understand uh better by bringing on uh consultants so if we have to move to a long haul rail uh and um that that will require infrastructure changes um um if uh if we decide to truck the material out and that's um what the what the report that that you mentioned earlier recommends that um that trucks uh take the material out um you know all of that uh requires some planning in some some accommodation um it's a i'm not an engineer i'm not a traffic engineer nor am i a waste engineer but but uh but i think we know that it's a it's a substantial lift so you know we're you know as i mentioned in the earlier slide we're looking at the options and ramifications associated with them but it's um yeah but there's a budget aspect there's a space aspect um contractual aspects um to get that material either on rail or on truck to uh to another site and um you know one of the benefits that um with the current system is that a train can make the trip in a day uh going from the transfer station to um to dickerson uh and you know and come back with a limited amount of railable cars if we're going longer by rail um it's longer trip so we'll need um more cars um most like that again another rabbit hole but uh but we require a lot of planning and when we don't quite have our heads around the full implications of those options likewise with trucks questions about how many trucks would be required where would they be cued would it come out of the shady grove facility so are the traffic implications on rockville pike or shade grove road or um or does it go to dickerson and uh and truck from there so those are all questions that um we're just you know wading into at this time patty is there anything that you would add no you could the issue on the incinerator i mean you mentioned the 2026 date which is the end of the contract extension but the the real issue for the county is at what point do you have to put in a lot of resources to upgrade or continue the operation of that facility and comparing that to other options such as you know rail hall or long truck hall but you would obviously want to make a decision or have it have a good sense of of those issues before you would put a lot of resources you know into the incinerator again to extend its life another 20 years i think that's a more important decision point than the contract extension date because the county does have options for um uh ending contracts uh um there's there's language in the 10-year plan regarding that so uh i don't i don't think we want to get too hung up on on a on a particular date the issue is when do we have the information we need to make the best infrastructure decisions uh based on costs and environment and all the issues that mr ortiz mentioned earlier that's that's when we need to that's what we need to get the the the council positioned at to have that information so that it can uh make an educated decision going forward whenever that is uh yes you're absolutely correct um and so while again you know i'll go back to the the government bureaucracy perspective that there's no timetables usually internally we know there is a timetable then not only is the timetable set by the contract extension but there is an uh x uh an external um timetable with climate change right and so we we need to to to get this going but but mr lubchenko you're absolutely correct in that a lot of smart people have different opinions about this and i know and everybody is on the correct side um i i don't doubt where all of our hearts and minds are particularly you all here on this screen and those who who are advocating to us it's just trying to to sort through that and figure out what is possible um in in the most expedient manner quite frankly um and and um you know i'll i'll turn back to the the the the committee chair let me just end on this one point um and i'll come back need be but with regards to the expansion of the the composting programs that you you referenced uh director ortiz i i again just want to state for the record that we have some very incredible uh local entrepreneurs green entrepreneurs doing this work and want to make sure that we don't lose sight of that in this process thank you noted appreciate it mr chair mr uh thank you councilmember um very helpful can we um can we go back to the materials recycling facility um the additional money in the cip can you elaborate a little bit more on how that will be spent um how much is is uh personnel how much is equipment what the goals are sure i'll defer to patty um i might need lonnie's help here on some of the details because it's a project i mean it's a cip project so we paid for design and construction the personnel costs you know associated with management of that are included in the operating budget so it's recommended as a two-year project um that we would start in the beginning of fiscal year 22 if you approved it um and we would start with um kind of full court press on on the design we have some work you know kind of our under already underway on the design but we would get going on the design starting in fy 22 if you approved it and we would also begin the process to um issue bonds to be able to get some capital investment for the project with the intention that we would want that cash from those bonds to begin to be available to us in fy 22 so we could purchase the equipment and begin the construction under the assumption that the design would be completed in fy 22 also but we wanted to be able to have the cash available to us to start the actual purchasing of the equipment and installing that in fy22 uh if the project would have to go into fy 23 to be completed um but we were trying to structure it so so that we didn't have a major hit on the rate payers um to where the first debt payment uh on the bonds wouldn't be to fy 23. um so we're gonna you know and we've worked with the department of finance that we think we can do that so that we can um have the cash available to get the project going well underway and fy 22 but financially we're you know uh we're able to not have a major hit on the rate payers in fy22 but lonnie is there anything else that you want to add on the details for that there we go no not really other than you know where we are is predominantly on the equipment the idea is to get upgraded processing equipment much higher efficiencies within the same footprint and that's where that's where we're going to be able to process everything that we currently collect and to your question from the personnel i mean obviously county personnel would be you know majorly involved in overseeing the construction of this but we intend to do it with the assistance of mes um in terms of you know hiring the contractor to do the construction right um and i think it is important to note on this that as i hinted at that this would increase the throughput of the facility to avoid the current bypass that has to happen now where a substantial amount of co-mingled materials are going to a york pennsylvania facility for recycling that we pay on a on a per ton basis so this would enable us to manage the bypass that we can't manage now and as mentioned in the plan it also might allow for some additional flexibility to take on other potential customers including municipalities you heard at the public hearing from mayor newton that the city of rockville is certainly interested in in being able to utilize that facility but there's no space right now uh it's something that could be considered in the future if if if the numbers worked out right um thank you on construction demolition debris um i'm glad you're looking at the tipping fees and increasing them how do ours compare to other jurisdictions we're pretty cheap yeah how'd you arrive at 76 a ton and not um so the policy goal that we are striving for is to have that be recycled to have the c d be recycled unfortunately um there's just not a lot of places to be able to allow it to happen so we are uh i mean not a lot of market we're not a lot of well the market doesn't do it right the market doesn't exist right now we're hoping that the clarksburg facility opens up soon you know it was open it had a fire gosh might be coming up on two years now so we anticipate that opening back up and we've been in contact with them trying to get a feel for what their rate would be um although it's not open yet so we're not sure so um so what we arrived at was we think is going to be you know maybe um a little bit more than what they um have their rate expected to be with the goal of encouraging people to take their c d up there um so that it can be recycled um but if that isn't the case if something does happen in that facility doesn't open back up the 76 was also arrived on based on what our real costs are for handling that c d material um and being able because basically it's going to a landfill right now if it can't you know be handled up at the rf um and so so either way we were trying to make that price that we're charging that fee that we're charging consistent with our cost for getting rid of it but also trying to encourage it to be recycled if and when that facility opens back up and 76 accurately reflects all our costs pretty much yeah you take a look at what it costs to you know kind of separate it out and then you know ship it to a landfill in pennsylvania which is where it's going if it can't be handled up at the incinerator is there any statutory limit that doesn't uh allow us to charge more and generate revenue from providing you well it is a fee for service and so we basically have to have some fidelity that's what i'm asking yeah yeah so yeah you basically your fees should cover the cost of services um but obviously you know there's lots of numbers that go into that calculation but is the is there a market for it anywhere um not that i'm aware of where it's actually recycled right are there other jurisdictions that you think do a better job on this topic i don't think so a little bit of familiarity with this not a ton um but there are there are a handful of uh recyclers um around the mid-atlantic region there aren't a ton because man the puns councilman glass but there's um you didn't want to point it out i know he's just too easy at this issue area um but it requires a big footprint uh it requires you know a lot of permitting you know it's dusty it's dirty it's loud um so it does exist there's uh one in prince george's county southern prince george's there's a big one in new jersey called revolution recycling um so um so it can work um but it requires i think some intentionality um between the the government sector um with uh with private industry but we're excited with clarksburg coming back online we have a good relationship with them and hopefully we can reinvigorate that here okay 12 years ago i put in a study commission bill to have the state uh look into improving this operation mde submeritly killed it um on pay as you throw uh what has been a success in other jurisdictions um i'll introduce this topic a little bit and then i'll if anyone else wants to jump in um please do uh well the the places that do it um from what i'm told are are generally smaller places the largest city that does a large jurisdiction as far as i know and again i qualify this with them this is something we're still studying um so i may just not be aware yet is worcester massachusetts um so they have a system uh and there's different uh and it can work different ways there's sort of a spectrum uh there's a certain type of only a certain type of bag that you're allowed to use and the bags are very expensive so the collection contractor will come open or the city or whatever it will be look in and see if they have the right kind of bag but it's a very expensive bag or there's a ticket system or sticker system that uh people have only a certain amount of stickers or tickets to use a year and then they have to buy more and it goes in then there's other softer ones that just um are that the trash cart is small and the recycling and composting carts are bigger um so it's incentivize it that way but we're not aware yet of anybody who's um doing it a large scale well but again we're still um still doing homework on that but worcester is a big place but has it had the effect of um of encouraging people to reduce their their trash well from what we're told again i i you know i admit we're still learning uh is it works best when there's also a compost um program available at the same time because a lot a lot of waste on a lot of weight is in uh is in food products you know vegetables carry a lot of water etc so right those are when it's it's most effective um but yeah from what we've gathered so far when those programs exist in tandem there is a reduction and in your old role uh even though prince george's has a food compost program they don't have they haven't looked into this or have they did uh yeah at the time the county did a softer version with a with a smaller bin um i wanted a very very small bin uh instead um i had a compromise with a smaller bin but um but maybe things will be different here in montgomery county but no uh you know prince george's has not has not pursued a more aggressive program than that would people just be able to order another bin or do you have to use the bin you're given and you can't get a second one uh yeah again there's different programs you could be charged for putting more uh more out or you would just have to wait um that was the whole point okay yeah and just another um another factor is that the collection companies in general are very opposed to this because they feel like they have to get through their routes quickly get the material get to the transfer station and then you know get back out so they um so there would be a contractual element small detail but not a small detail um because there might be a staffing component that we have to have staff doing random but conversation for another time okay um any other questions colleagues yes thank you sorry i'm hand raised no no worries uh thank you uh just two quick issues um keith can you talk about there's there's reference in there to the essentially the climate impact of the incinerator and closing it if material is then uh trucked down and i i see in the packet it seems to say that that would essentially be an increase of our emissions can you just expand on that please uh sure yeah um last year as part of the aiming for zero waste planning process dep had the benefit of a consultant look at a number of solid waste related issues and and near the end of the process they were looking at the the what's left issue that you heard earlier and um looked at different um or looked at the alternative of continued uh incineration of waste versus the trucking or the rail hall uh and um one of the issues i looked at was what are the greenhouse gas implications of that and they used what's called the epa warm model warm in measuring the greenhouse gas emissions from the rrf and also from landfills and um i and i tried i included a i think i included the footnote in the packet about that um obviously how you count matters a lot uh and uh in the warm model uh the focus is on what they call human generated greenhouse gas emissions uh and based on that definition and how they calculate it uh biogenic emissions which food waste would fall into are not counted as part of that they're seen as the regular carbon cycle that would happen regardless of the human interaction here if you will and that basically the incinerator is accelerating the emissions but it's not creating new emissions conversely with landfilling of biogenic waste you generate a lot of methane and that methane would not normally happen except through the landfilling so it's considered human-generated greenhouse gas emissions uh so uh in the uh model the consultant used uh it it uses that the the the assumptions that i just mentioned uh landfilling does not look good because methane is a is a much higher contributor to greenhouse gas emissions per ton than um co2 is so the landfilling looks bad and the incineration tends to look better but the war model is obviously not the only model people would use to look at this and a good example is the um report that was submitted uh last week from uh the environmental groups uh that focus on a different way of approaching the greenhouse gas inventory if you will and from their perspective they see greenhouse gas emissions being substantially worse at an incinerator versus a well-managed landfill so i think that issue really needs to be further reviewed we'd like dep to look at that and go through the environment advocates report on that issue and a number of other issues and give us their best analysis uh whether it's theirs or whether they can find a uh a third-party consultant uh to weigh in uh to educate us on uh the different ways to look at emissions uh through these at these different disposal methods okay well that seems like a important issue for us to you know really work our way through and you know i don't think we would want to sign off on a plan that we know is going to actually make the whole problem worse with climate change yeah i mean you look at the climate change report if the pie chart that shows where the emissions are are inventoried it's buildings and transportation which is the vast majority the solid waste wedge is very small but that's because they're using that warm model methodology within that um so uh it once again it depends on how you count so they use they use the model in the climate plan well the climate plan is its inventory is based on regional uh calculations uh managed by the council of governments uh so it's not that the county made up uh how to count the numbers we're we're consistent with how it's being done in the region okay um at one point the executive had made sort of a different point which i tended to agree with uh or i agreed with that there's sort of an underlying ethical issue about communities exporting waste how is that reflected in the in this report um well i i think the you mean in the environmental advocates report or or the 10-year plan in the 10-year plan oh well the 10-year plan is is it it references the executive's goal of closing the incinerator but it also references that there's a lot of further study and work that needs to be done to get there as mr ortiz mentioned it doesn't delve into all those issues and and and what they are and uh what has been determined if you will i there's a lot of work that needs to be done that's recognized in the plan that came over from the executive so we don't have a we don't have that that issue of you know the environmental justice issue that mr ortiz mentioned that's not defined per se in the in the 10-year plan that came over okay all right well seems like something we have to get our our uh heads around here and what is your recommendation there well my my suggestion is that uh and a lot of this plan has it it it references all this additional work that needs to be done my concern is that we we we get on a path where this work gets done and and the council's in a position to weigh in on the issue i don't feel the council is really in a position to weigh in on uh you know the future of the incinerator today um i think that that's where this additional work has to has to be done so we can be educated on on all these issues um and you know certainly the sooner that can happen the sooner the council can can have a discussion of this issue and all the implications the cost issues environmental issues including the greenhouse gas emissions operational issues we just don't have our hands around that yet now that the plan as submitted doesn't say that that the incinerator will be closed it just says that it's a goal of the executive so my only interest was that the council is not necessarily buying into that goal right now i think the council is interested in in getting educated on it gotcha okay thanks okay anything else we should cover today mr lopchenko uh just i did want to um close the loop on the sub-district b issue yeah that was it was referenced earlier i just want to warn you i gotta stop at four but that's fine probably won't solve that whole problem and uh either no my only suggestion there is that we we have the benefit of the office of legislative oversight report uh i think the council needs to do what it does with these reports which is um go through the process of reviewing that report hearing from interested parties uh you know going through that issue

2021-03-27 11:56

Other news