Lane County outlines proposed waste‑processing facility with anaerobic digester, says diversion could halve landfill inputs

Lane County solid‑waste staff told the Eugene Sustainability Commission on the evening of the commission’s hybrid meeting that a planned public‑private waste‑processing facility would divert about 50% of the material that otherwise would reach Short Mountain landfill and would include an anaerobic digester to produce renewable natural gas (RNG) for the natural‑gas pipeline.

County solid‑waste manager Jeff Orlandini said the facility — proposed to be built on county land and operated by a private partner selected through an RFP — would leave curbside collection unchanged and aims to help the county reach a 63% recovery target (Orlandini said the community is currently at about 52–53%). “It’s a 50% diversion rate. So every 100 tons that goes in the facility, 50 don’t end up in the landfill,” Orlandini said.

The nut graf: county staff presented the project as a response to landfill planning and climate goals. Officials said the project would extend landfill life, reduce fugitive methane compared with landfill capture alone, and create a local recycling and processing hub; commissioners and attendees pressed staff on financial risks, who would buy the RNG and how residents and haulers will be educated about changes.

Orlandini said the county would own the land and most buildings; the gas‑generation building would be leased to the operator for the first five years. The operator selected in the county procurement (referred to in the presentation as Bulk Handling Systems / Bulk Handling LLC) would finance and install processing equipment; Orlandini said equipment financing and operations are structured around a roughly 25‑year term tied to minimum diversion standards. If the operator does not meet those standards, the county said it will not be obligated to purchase equipment and the contract contains remedies and performance windows.

County figures provided in the briefing included approximate capital and contract figures discussed by staff: about $15 million cited for the anaerobic digester portion and roughly $100 million referenced for processing equipment. Staff said the board approved fee changes that include an 11% increase at the landfill for the first two years (described in the presentation as a 3% CPI‑type adjustment plus an 8% facility surcharge); Orlandini estimated the direct household impact attributable to landfill tip‑fee changes at roughly 50–60 cents per month in year one, rising to about $2.40 per month after four years under the county’s modeling assumptions.

Staff framed climate benefits around methane capture: Orlandini compared existing landfill gas capture (which he said is in the mid‑60s to about 70% of available landfill gas for current equipment operators) with anaerobic digestion that can yield capture rates “well over 90%” of the biogas produced at the digester. He said the RNG would initially be injected to the natural‑gas pipeline and sold to an offtaker rather than used immediately inside the local community, though he and commissioners discussed possibilities for future local uses such as buses operated by Lane Transit District.

Questions from commissioners and community‑sector attendees focused on four main risks: (1) what happens if the operator cannot find a reliable purchaser for RNG, (2) whether the facility can meet its diversion guarantees and penalties if it does not, (3) near‑term rate impacts for haulers and their customers, and (4) wetland and site mitigation impacts for the chosen property. Orlandini said the contract includes remedies and liquidated‑damages provisions, and that if the operator were to fail the county would have options with the bank and equipment owner to bring in a new operator or decline to buy the equipment.

Haulers raised concerns about timing and pass‑through of fee increases. Orlandini said several cities permitted haulers to pass increases through immediately to avoid short‑term losses and that some smaller haulers had indicated difficulty absorbing rapid increases.

On recycling, Orlandini said the proposed facility could increase local recycling processing and decrease the number of times recyclables are reloaded and shipped out of county; staff noted local reload facilities (EcoSort and Sanipac) are currently owned by larger national firms and that a local Material Recovery Facility could reduce truck miles and handling steps.

Orlandini said county staff expect to use an outreach and education budget and funds available under the Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) for public education, and to work with cities and franchise partners on messaging about curbside and program changes. He described the county’s approach to education as a combination of county, city and hauler efforts and said the county would prioritize outreach to schools and youth as part of behavior change work.

Why it matters: commissioners said the project would affect landfill lifespan, household rates, local recycling markets and the local utility’s fuel supply; county staff said the facility is intended to reduce landfill emissions and create new local processing capacity but that markets and technologies will determine financial and operational outcomes. The commission requested follow‑up information on site wetland impacts, details of the offtake agreements for RNG, and a clearer list of public‑education materials the county plans to deploy.

Orlandini closed by saying the county had negotiated protections in the contract to avoid long‑term ratepayer exposure should the equipment or operator fail, but also acknowledged there is no absolute guarantee: “If it doesn’t work and it fails, then we’re just not sending waste there anymore,” he said.

Ending: staff said they will return with additional analysis and with results of the county’s waste composition study expected before June; commissioners asked staff to share follow‑up materials about the contract, the site‑impact analysis and outreach plans before the next commission meeting.