HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-16-2010 - 2 ' 1
ORANGE COUNTY
ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 16, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No. o'�
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Plan Work Group Update
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Plan Gayle Wilson, 968-2885
Blair Pollock, 968-2885
PURPOSE: To provide a brief status report on the state-mandated three year update to Orange
County's Ten Year Solid Waste Plan process.
BACKGROUND: The statutorily-required three-year update to the ten-year Solid Waste Plan
was due to the State on June 30, 2009. There have been no penalties for being late although
the statutes allow penalties such as ineligibility for State grants (to date the County has not
been prohibited from receiving grant reimbursements). Due to the deliberate planning process
that the County and its partner governments have engaged in, there is now a draft Plan awaiting
additional review and comment by the public, review and adoption by the Towns, and final
review and approval by the Board of Commissioners and submittal to the State.
The current draft (attached) was presented to the Solid Waste Plan Work Group for
consideration at its June meeting, but the Group did not have time to review it at that meeting.
The Plan will again be on the agenda for the Group's September 16th meeting. Solicitation of
public comments is also scheduled for a public meeting at 7:00 p.m. on September 29th at the
Solid Waste Management Department's offices. The public meeting is sponsored by the Solid
Waste Advisory Board and will be advertised online at the Solid Waste Management
Department's web page and in the media as well as discussed in the Department's regular
monthly articles in local papers in September.
Following input from the public meeting, County staff will schedule the draft Plan for formal
presentation to the Boards of each of the three Towns and request their approval for the Plan.
This has been done with each of the three previous updates in 2000, 2004 (for 2003) and 2008
(for 2006). After receiving input from the various Town elected boards and their constituents
and incorporating that input into the draft Plan, the Plan will be presented to the Board of
County Commissioners for consideration. Following Board approval of the Plan, staff will
submit it to the State. The Plan is due to be updated again by June 2012.
y
2 �
While it had been hoped this Plan update would have more decisive elements to it, the draft as
it now stands is mostly a descriptive document. Work Group recommendations and BOCC
decisions with regard to convenience centers, rural waste collection franchising, etc. have not
been made to date and discussions are continuing. Staff believes the County should submit the
Plan update as soon as possible to become compliant and remain eligible for state grants. The
Plan can be updated or revised at anytime when/if decisions are made.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no financial impacts with regard to preparation and
submission of the plan. There could be potential future impacts depending on the components
of the adopted Plan.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The County Manager recommends that the Assembly of
Governments' meeting attendees receive the Solid Waste Plan update and provide guidance or
direction to staff as necessary.
DRAFT
Three-Year Update of Solid Waste Plan
(for 2009)
Orange County, NC
Submitted �;XX, 2010
Table of Contents
Summary......................................................................................................................................8
Chapter 1 Statistics and Information on Solid Waste Management..........................................20
Chapter 2 Summary of Solid Waste Management Activities.....................................................31
Chapter 3 Solid Waste Planning Update.....................................................................................33
Chapter 4 Process for Development of the Plan..:..................................................
....................
Appendix A Copy of Motion to not build transfer station but send waste out of County........50
Appendix B Copy of Resolutions Adopting Plan (pending plan adoption by SWAB).............52
And advertisement for public meeting on plan
Appendix C Map of Waste Sites used by Orange County ......................................................54
Appendix D Waste Characterization Study Excerpts (1995.v. 2000 v. 2005 v. 2010)...........55
Appendix E Waste Reduction Goal Sheet...............................................................................58
AppendixF Plan Elements.......................................................................................................59
Appendix G Supporting Documentation—brochures,newsletters,other ...............................90
Appendix H Departmenta.l Goal...............................................................................................91
AppendixI Financial plan ......................................................................................................92
Appendix J Excerpt of Previous Plan memo summarizing decision points............................93
Draft
Report Summarv
The Orange County Solid Waste Management Department three-year update actually
encompasses the period July 2008 through June 2010. The 2006 update due June 2006 was
submitted in August 2008 and covered the period from July 2004 through June 2008. The
functions of the Solid Waste Department have changed and grown slightly since the last update.
This report details those functional changes,provides statistical information about solid waste
management in Orange County from 2007-2008,2008-09 and 2009-10,describes the planning
process we've continued for the development of the integrated, comprehensive solid waste plan
that will help the County on its way to achieving its goal of 61%waste reduction and outlines the
next planning periods' big issues. In 2008-09,the County achieved its highest waste reduction
rate ever of 54%per capita..
Highlights•
2008-09:
• Added corrugated cardboard to residential curbside recycling and banned
landfilling of residential cardboard from residential waste with cooperation of
the Towns banning residential cardboard from the trash,
• Achieved 50%waste reduction rate, highest in North Carolina that year,
• Completed landfill gas project negotiations and contract with L7NC,
• Completed conversion of all recycling collection programs to two-stream
recycling from six-way separation, increasing collection efficiency at
commercial and drop off programs 80%, (Except that paper at dropoff sites is
still sorted three ways—newspaper and magazines,corrugated cardboard and
mixed paper to maximize revenues through high public compliance with
sorting requirements),
• Improved market delivery in 110 yard walking floor trailers instead of 40-yard
rolloffs.
• Added over 100 new business recycling sites due to improved collection
efficiency and increased commercial program tonnage 23%,
• Initiated permanent sale of backyard composting bins at Operations Center,
after selling over 1,000 units at the final annual sale event.
• Completed Solid Waste Operations Center and occupied building with many
green design features, consolidating senior staff in central location,
• Initiated confidential paper shredding events that have become semi-annual
and well-used, averaging over 300 users per set of seasonal events,
• Initiated business-to-business plastic film and bag recycling pilot project with
grant from American Chemistry Council of$5,000 plus materials,
• Received best Community Paper Recycling Program Award from American
Forest and Paper Institute and$2,000 grant,
• Glass Packaging Institute 2008 Clear Choice Award: Recognition for
Outstanding Sustainable Practices
• Increased toxic and hazardous waste recycled by 4%over 2007-08,
• Continued solid waste planning process focusing on unincorporated areas.
• Conducted transfer station siting process,
• Evaluated Alternative Technologies in formal study by Gershman,Brickner
Bratton(GBB).
8
Draft
2009-10
• Decided not to site a transfer station in Orange County within the next 3-5
years and County will deliver Municipal Solid Waste (MSV�under its control
to Durham Transfer Station,
• Sanitation Division to be fully incorporated into the Enterprise Fund beginning
in FY 2010-11,
• Added over fifty additional businesses to commercial can,bottle and paper
recycling due to collection efficiency gains in prior year,
• Took over Orange County Schools recycling,reducing school system program
costs by$30,000 while increasing Solid Waste revenues,
• Designed and put out for bid landfill gas system with UNC,
� Added#2 and#5 non-bottle,rigid plastics to dropoff site recycling,
• Completed business-to-business bag and film recycling pilot program resulting
in reduced waste disposal costs for businesses and increased revenues in film
and bags for recipients,presented results nationally,
• Began use of electronic on-line advertising in local publications,
• March 2010,took over management and brokering of urban curbside recycling
materials from contractor, generating additional�$20,000 per month revenue
for County,
• Conducted fifth, every-five-year waste characterization study—i.e. 1990, 1995,
2000, 2005 and now 2010, (see Appendix D)
� Reduced solid waste convenience center operating hours from six days per
week(62 hours/week)to four days per week(43 hours/week), eliminated
mattress disposal at centers and `free' landfill permits for residential waste,
reduced use of one center to two days per week(21 hours)to save money,
• Increased electronics recycling at a projected rate 30%over 2008-09 tonnage
of 456 (which was our highest ever, exceeding the previous high in 2007-08 of
413 tons).
• Added old media e.g. videotape, diskettes, cassettes to electronics recycling,
• Added oyster shell recycling collection program at landfill.
� Closed leachate collection pond and completed sewer line for leachate
transport to wastewater treatment plant
• Worked with Economic Development Department to investigate possibility for
solar photovoltaic array to be constructed at closed Construction and
Demolition(C&D)waste landfill on north side
The table ES-1 below shows how much waste generated in Orange County was managed over
the past two years.In mid-September 2008, Orange County stopped accepting MSW generated
at LJNC to save landfill space. Over the previous five years, UNC had delivered an average of
5,200 tons per year of MSW to the Orange County Landfill.
Most of the out-of-county waste destinations were the same in 2008-09 as reported in previous
years, but waste sent to the Durham Transfer Station was notably lower at 439 tons in 2008-09
compared to the 1,277 reported in 2007-08. That shift represents well the concept of how mobile
waste is based on the relative economics of disposal and who owns or controls the waste. The
table below shows marked shift to use of out of county facilities from the prior year.Because all
9
Draft
that waste is still attributed to Orange County, it is counted in the calculation of the waste
reduction goal.
Table ES-1 Waste Generated from Oran e Coun 2008-09 v 2007-08
Ori in of Waste Tons 07-08 Tons 08-09 Comments
MSW landfilled in 55,422 50,760 UNC stops waste delivery in Sept 2008,
Orange County MSW in 08-9 includes 3,486 tons of
bul items formerl classified as C&D.
C&D landfilled in Orange 16,756 10,992 Includes LCID and mobile homes
Coun
MSW landfilled outside 7,138 15,227 Reported to State DENR by other
Oran e Coun facilities based on hauler re ortin
C&D landfilled outside 6,984 6,410 Excludes C&D recycled at MWPs
Oran e Coun
Total tons revorted as 86,300 83,388 3.4%decline
disposed from Orange
Coun
Waste calculated by NC N/a 80,864 This tonnage subtracts out all tons
DENR as disposed from calculated as recycled at all Mixed Waste
Orange County Processors and is the official tonnage
used b NCDENR in calculation
Waste per capita (July 0.68 tons 0.625 tons Base year 136 tons/capita--
2008 pop. = 129,296) 2008-09 Waste Reduction Rate: 54%
v. 2007-08 rate SO% er ca ita
Municipal Solid Waste (MSV� Mana eg ment
Orange County's rate of MSW generation had not increased in nine years until a 4.4%gain
during 2008-09. The amount landfilled in-County continued to decline, dropping 9% in 2008-
2009 below the 2007-08 fiscal year.For the past five years, including two years since the last
plan update submittal,MSW tonnage generated averaged�63,186.Despite the overall tonnage
increase in MSW,Orange County's waste reduction rate per capita was calculated at 54%for
2008-09, our best to date and third in the State last year.
Table ES-2 MSW landfilled in Oran e Co.and outside Oran e Co. 2004-OS to 2008-09
Year MSW in MSW out of County Total MSW landfilled from
Coun Oran e Coun
2004-OS 56,308 6,498 62,806
2005-06 57,568 4,153 61,721
2006-07 57,301 5,555 62,856
2007-08 55,422 7,138 62,560
2008-09 50,760 15,227(does not include the tons reported 65,987
as rec cled at mixed waste rocessors
At current rates of diposal,the MSW lined landfill is projected to close in early 2013, as opposed
to the mid-2011 closure date projected in the previous solid waste plan update submittal. That is
highly unlikely to be significantly revised again.
10
Draft
Construction and Demolition Waste
After establishment of the County's nationally unique Regulated Recyclable Material Ordinance
(RRMO) in 2002-03,the County, in 2005, opened a new C&D landfill of 13 acres on land the
County purchased adjoining the current landfill site to the west. The volume of C&D waste fell
almost 50%following implementation of the RRMO; due to rigorous waste regulations and
higher tipping fees,waste moved out of County to licensed and inspected waste sorting facilities
that picked out what the County required—wood,metal and cardboard.
The C&D waste buried in Orange County has now fallen to about 1/3 of its former volume,
totaling only 10,992 in FY 2008-09 with an additiona16,410 tons going out of County for burial
or processing.About 3,500 tons of bulky wastes that were formerly buried with C&D were
shifted to the MSW landfill in 2008-09. The annual C&D burial rate for 2009-10 is�X{to be
. .. .. �. ._ _._. . .. _ _ . . �.� ....,.. , _ .. . . _
_. . ;
f 1���in�'uly,afte�r Jun�,data is aya�ilable),down aa�additioAal X�X,°la;Thus the C&D landfill is
__
now projected to last about 18 years.
Table ES-3 Tonna es &Destinations of C&D from Oran e Co 2007-08 v. 2008-09
Year Landfilled in- Landfilled out- Clean wood, Recyciced at mixed Total
County of-County scrap metal and waste processing
est. cardboard facilities
2007-08 16,756 6,984 2,346 797(est 26,887 est)
2008-09 10,992 6,410 2,200 1,593 21,195
In-County C&D waste continues to decline, further reducing system revenues while providing
needed local services that serve especially smaller builders and remodelers. Tonnage should
increase somewhat when the construction sector of the economy recovers.
The County continues field enforcement and education about the RRMO as well as taking the
lead generally in investigation of illegal dumping and burning complaints throughout the County
in conjunction with law enforcement agencies and the Fire Marshall. Disposal rates for single-
wide mobile homes are on the increase as older trailers come out of service. In 2010-11County
staff may consider development of a plan for managing abandoned manufactured homes.
Financin�of Solid Waste and Recycling Pro r�ams
Revenues for Orange County's Solid Waste management operation has changed somewhat over
the past two years,but the foundations are the same. Landfill tipping fees,mulch,wood and
scrap metal sales revenue, a variety of grants and some interest income fund the landfill portion
of the operation including management of white goods,tires,yard waste, clean wood, scrap
metal,the equipment maintenance shop,the scalehouse, environmental enforcement and a
portion of environmental support services. The 3-R(reduction,reuse and recycling)Fees and
some recycling revenues now fully support recycling programs and another major portion of the
environmental support services.A combination of general fund contributions and direct
payments from the County school system for waste collection services have supported the Solid
Waste Convenience Center Operations, some of the schools and government buildings waste
collection costs and the remaining costs of the Department's environmental support services. The
Sanitation Division is slated to be integrated into the enterprise fund in 2010-11.
11
Draft
Table ES-4 Annual 3-R Fees in Oran e Coun 2009
Fee T e Fee amount Comments
Basic Fee (B) $37 Levied on all improved properties including non-
profits and those within Chapel Hill limits,but in
Durham Coun ,no increase
Urban curbside (iJ) $52 Weekly curbside residential recycling(increased
from$44 in 2007
Rural curbside(R) $38 Bi-weekly curbside residential recycling increased
from$26 in 2007)
Multi Famil ( $19 Fee levied on each unit in com lex,no increase
Landfill fees and financing
The MSW tip fee rose in 2008 to $49 per ton from$47 per ton to accommodate the state
mandated$2 per ton surcharge on solid waste and the increased cost of operations. It increased
to $50 in 2009-10. Other fees rose as well,reflecting operating costs increases. The table below
illustrates the current landfill fee schedule.MSW tonnage for FY 08-09 decreased 10%below
2007-08 and C&D tonnage dropped 35%causing a substantial drop in revenues.
Table ES-5 Annual Landfill Fees in Oran e Coun 2009-10
Fee T e Fee Amount Comments
Munici al Solid Waste $50 er ton Includes state dis osal tax of$2 er ton
Construction and Demolition Waste $44 er ton Includes state dis osal tax of$2 er ton
Yard waste and clean wood $18 per ton No state disposal t�charged as it is not
dis osed
Scrap metal and cardboard $0 Revenue rec'd from materials
Sale.Materials banned from disposal by Co.
ordinance
Appliances and Tires $0 State law—disposal costs covered through
advance dis osal fee.
Tables in Chapter 1 detail the funding,revenue and expenses for the Solid Waste Management
Department in 2008-09.
Service Provision
The County continues to provide recycling and landfill services county-wide along with the solid
waste convenience center services. The convenience centers are primarily for the residential
sector in the unincorporated areas but available to all residents. The Solid Waste Management
Department continues to manage the Sanitation Division including five rurally located solid
waste convenience centers,the County schools' waste collection and responsibility of litter
control and illegal dumping.
The County provides curbside recycling to all 18,500 urban single family residences, 13,500 of
the 21,000 rural residences, 95%of all 15,000 multifamily units, five unstaffed dropoff sites, five
staffed sites,hazardous waste collection, electronics collection including televisions and
12
Draft
computers for residents and businesses, compost bins sales and education and outreach. The
electronics recovery program is already positioned to meet the pending statewide landfill ban on
televisions and computers because we have been collecting them for five years at our permanent
facility.
Door-to-door solid waste collection services are all privately provided in unincorporated Orange
County. The three Towns all provide public waste collection to residential customers in their
respective incorporated areas and a mix of public and private providers is used by
commerciaUnon-residential entities in the incorporated areas.UNC provides most waste
collection and recycling services by contract. The majority of waste generated in Orange County
is delivered to the Orange County Landfill(see Table ES-2).
Incorporated areas
The Towns continue to deliver their MSW to the Orange County landfill as a key element of the
interlocal agreement adopted in 1999 All three Towns operated their own municipal residential
waste collection service and all responded to the landfill ban on residential cardboard with
passage and enforcement of their own bans on putting cardboard in the garbage.
Each of the three Towns continues to make marginal improvements to their already relatively
efficient, cost-effective waste collection systems. Carrboro has automated 100%of its
residential collection and integrated its commercial and multifamily routes.Hillsborough
automated over 90%of residential routes in 2007 and in 2009 renewed its exclusive franchise
contract with Waste Industries to continue collecting non-residential waste within its corporate
limits. Chapel Hill continues its semi-automated residential collection and continues to consider
fully containerized brush collection to reduce yard waste collection costs.I1NC's 1VISW is now
hauled by contractor Waste Industries to the Waste Industries transfer station in Durham.
Generally the Work Group and Solid Waste Advisory Board(SWAB)have not addressed the
management of waste from within the incorporated areas except as it might pertain to a future
interlocal agreement. The Town and County Managers have discussed the delivery of their MSW
to out of county facilities but have not made any collective decision about whether to enter a
cooperative disposal arrangement. It is Orange County's intention to enter an agreement with the
City of Durham to deliver MSW and bulky waste from County facilities to the City of Durham
Transfer Station after the Orange County Landfill closes.
Unincorporated Areas
The County collects the majoriry of residential MSW generated in the unincorporated area from
its five staffed convenience centers throughout the County.Last year that included 8,005 tons of
MSW and another 3,468 tons of bulky waste that were placed in the MSW landfill as well as
1,298 tons from the schools and County government buildings.An estimated 5,000 residences or
25%of unincorporated area households subscribe to a variety of private waste collection services
that generally haul waste out of County. A few very small local haulers use the Orange County
landfill.Private customers account for an estimated 5,000 tons of MSW; an estimated 500 tons
of which was delivered to the Orange County landfill.
13
Draft
Convenience Center operations have been stable and no major improvements have been made
for two years. There is increasing demand and markets for additional recyclables that are
constrained by lack of sufficient space at convenience centers and dropoff sites and management
capacity.Funds are not now available to readily capitalize those center improvements that have
been identified and analyzed as both being cost-effective and provided safer more efficient
service. Future funding options, site improvements, locations and operational concepts are being
discussed by SWAB and the Work Group and a recommendation will be brought to the Board of
Orange County Commissioners (BOCC).
No Transfer Station
The BOCC adopted a motion in December 2009 not to construct a transfer station in Orange
County for at least the next several years. (see Appendix A)The implications of that decision for
each of the four local governments in the County's interlocal solid waste agreement have not yet
been determined. Some inter-governmental discussions have taken place, but the governments
have not finalized any collective decisions on the future destinations of waste once the landfill
closes. Orange County will take the waste under its direct control to the City of Durham
Transfer Station once the landfill closes.
Managing MSW after landfill closure will be challenging, expensive and envirorunentally
difficult and will become more so as the number and placement of landfills diminished over
time.
Consideration of Alternative Technolo�
The SWAB, at direction of the Board of County Commissioners has reviewed various
alternatives to landfilling over the past two years. In addition there has been strong citizen
interest in alternative methods of waste management. In 2008,the County contracted with
consulting firm, GBB to conduct a review of alternative technologies which concluded that only
mass combustion waste to energy was mature enough as a technology to handle the great
majority of the County's waste using a single technology and the net cost of implementing a
mass burn incinerator with energy recovery would be about$102 per ton in current dollars. The
analysis did review other technologies including plasma arc, large scale anaerobic digestion and
refuse derived fuel plus waste to energy. The County received this report in 2008.
Following the December 2009 decision not to site a transfer station in Orange County for at least
three to five years,various citizens and citizen groups have urged the County to consider other
alternative technologies for handling the county's solid waste and possibly other wastes such as
biosolids,medical waste and other difficult to manage materials. In Apri12010 the SWAB
hosted its first presentation of the plasma arc technology by inventor Dr.Louis Circeo of Georgia
Institute of Technology.Future technology reviews and presentations are also planned with a
report by the SWAB back to the board following completion of more comprehensive review.
14
Draft
Environmental Monitorin�
On-site inspectors at the working face scrutinize aIi incoming waste for the presence of regulated
recyclable materials.Penalties are levied on loads out of compliance or the haulers are given the
option to remove the offending materials.
County facilities have 36 monitoring groundwater monitoring wells and sample 28 wells semi-
annually foz the criteria pollutants of pH,conductivity,temperature,total metals as well as
volatile organics using EPA method 8260 and an inorganic analysis for 1ead, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead,mercury, selenium and silver.
To monitor methane we have 18 gas-monitoring probes on the north side and 19 gas
monitoring probes on the south side. We discovered in winter of Q9-10 a methane migration arzd
corttrolled it by installation of a localized trench system. Seven gas flares are currently used to
reduce odor problems, which have unfortunately persisted. There are also 45 passive gas-
venting pipes in the closed north MSW landfill that are not monitored directly but control gas
flow direction.A subsidence in 2009 at the closed MSW landfill was controlled with soil fill.
Plannin�Approach and Pro�ress Towards Waste Reduction and Disposal Goals �
i
, While Orange County is the lead agency in overall solid waste management in Orange County, it �
; continues to actively engage with its partners,the three Towns and UNC as well as citizens and '
� businesses overall.There is a general understanding since the first plan submittal in 1997,that a '�
single integrated plan will be submitted by all the partners and a specific reaffirmation of the
61%waste reduction goal in the resolution from each government attached to each plan
submittal. There is an operating interlocal agreement which stipulates all waste controlled by the
four local governments is to be delivered to the Orange County landfill.As long as the landfill
and other related facilities are operational,the partners will continue to deliver waste there.
When the MSW landfill is full,the partners will have to determine alternative disposal
arrangements and they are conducting those discussions currently. Other activities are anticipated
to continue at the current site and accept in-County waste and recyclables.
The active intergovernmental partnership is also manifested through the work of the Solid Waste
Advisory Board(SWAB). The SWAB advises the County on solid waste matters,budget and
policy and communicates through its members to the various Town governments.
Tn 2005,the Board of County Commissioners established the Solid Waste PIan Work Group to
further the specific objective of creating a more comprehensive solid waste plan. An interim plan
was sent forward in 2008. The Work Group continues to review technical materials and deliver
its opinion and recommendations on matters related to the reports referenced above.
A key recommendation of the work group, the full conversion to two-strearn recycling,was
accepted in 2008 has enabled recycling program expansion with minimal investment in new
equipment and no new staff. Recycling remained essentially unchanged in 2008-09 while waste
dropped 9%. Other changes to advance the waste reduction goal have been minimal.
The amount of attention that solid waste issues generate has resulted in ongoing debate over
almost every aspect of solid waste planning and consequently few decisions have been made in
the past five years. This process while cumbersome has resulted in development of some highly
15
Draft
refined technical analyses and a high level of public input opportunity that will be helpful in
future decision-making.
Changes in the Solid Waste Mana�ement Plan for MSW Reduction
Development of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Recycling and Waste Reduction
element
The focus of developing the recycling and waste reduction element of the County's integrated
solid waste management plan has shifted significantly from 2005 when the Solid Waste Plan
Work Group began.At that time,the primary question was whether or not Orange County should
build its own materials recovery facility(MRF) as the basis for planning future solid waste
reduction strategies. Once it was determined that the County is not planning to enter the MRF
business and that processing and marketing of recyclables we collect was better left to the private
sector,then the focus of the planning effort shifted to a broader,but more incremental approach
to the County's achievement of its sixty-one percent waste reduction goal. The work continues
to be led by the Solid Waste Plan Work Group, although this group may soon sunset with future
evaluations conducted by the SWAB.
Because the prior report was two years late,the planning period covered included 2005-06 and
2006-07, so the accomplishments of that period are not reiterated in this report.
Simultaneously,the County was also engaged in a multi-year transfer station siting process that
had identified several possible sites.By the end of 2007-08 the Board of County Commissioners
narrowed its site search to a set of three adjacent sites along Highway 54 West.Late in the
process,after one site along Highway 54 had been selected for detailed site analysis,the County
added two publicly owned sites near the existing landfill to its consideration. Ultimately in
December 2009,the BOCC decided not to construct a transfer station in Orange County in the
next three to five years following landfill closure,but to instead direct haul waste out of County
and consider other options and other technologies.A motion adopted to that effect is included as
Appendix A to this report.
Summary of Technical Reports presented since mid-2008
Beginning in mid-2008 and through 2009, solid waste plan development focus continued to be
relatively broad, covering topics ranging from development of a solid waste system-wide
financial projection and plan for the entire enterprise fund,to a set of options for commercial
recycling collections and an iterative series of options for managing both waste and recycling in
the unincorporated areas of the County. Detailed reports and presenta.tions were provided and
they are available from the Sold Waste Department. Those reports provide significant detailed
technical bases for completing the solid waste planning process. Those reports (all by RRS
except where noted) included:
1. Orange County Commercial Recycling and Solid Waste Strategy Options Summary(with
accompanying power point on"Commercial Recycling Expansion)
2. Franchised Commercial Waste Collection in the Incorporated Areas,by Olver Inc.
3. Alternative Waste Management Technologies Assessment GBB.
4. Implementation of Franchised Waste Collection in Rural Orange County,by Olver Inc
16
Draft
5. Rural Residential Waste Franchise
6. Introduction to Decision Points, Recommendations and Proposed Implementation
Timeline on Solid Waste and Recycling in Unincorporated Areas of Orange County(staff
memo)
7. Technical Summary Memorandum for Unincorporated Area Waste and Recycling
Planning
8. Recycling in the Unincorporated Areas (staff inemo)
9. Solid Waste Collection in the Unincorporated area(staff inemo)
10. Orange County Rural Area Solid Waste Management System Improvements
11. OC Solid Waste Plan-Unincorporated Area: Prioritizing/Weighting Program Goals
12.Follow-up to Decision Points,Recommendations and Proposed Implementation Timeline
on Solid Waste and Recycling in Unincorporated Areas of Orange County (staff inemo)
13. OC Solid Waste Plan-Unincorporated Area: Prioritized/Weighted Program Goals
14.Follow-up to November 17 Work Group meeting on Solid Waste and Recycling in
Unincorporated Areas of Orange County (staff inemo)
15.Update on Future of Design,Location, Operation and Financing of Solid Waste
Convenience Centers
Long-term financial analysis and re-organizational issues are critical areas of concern that have
not yet been thoroughly addressed. Some prior financial and organizational analysis was
conducted but is not included here as it currently being overhauled and reevaluated. A key
change is the addition of the Sanitation Division to the enterprise fund beginning in 2010-11.An
upcoming significant and mandatory expense is the closing the MSW landfill,the cost of which
will be a key determinant of the fiscal future of the solid waste enterprise fund.
Potential Future Areas for Solid Waste Plan Decision-Making
Planning and development of options for the unincorporated areas' solid waste has been very
detailed and received a lot of the Work Group's attention in the past year.. Despite detailed
reporting and analysis there has been no recommendation or action on the future of commercial
recycling. Further consideration of C&D management and regulatory measures to enhance waste
reduction has been deferred. Closure of the MSW lined landfill and subsequent alternative
management of MSW remains as major tasks on the near horizon.
Below is an annotated list of key issues that may be addressed as part of future solid waste
planning:
• Financial plannin�: When the MSW landfill closes, enterprise fund revenues will be
substantially reduced. While MSW operational expenses will sitmificantly reduce overall
costs assumin�the County remains committed to its 61%waste reduction �oal and other
pro�rams and obligations1wi11 necessitate development of new revenue sources or
pro�ram cuts to maintain fiscal solvency and sustainabilitv.
• Solid Waste Convenience Centers' financing, desi�n, location and oneration:this may be
the single most pressing element of the plan to undertake in the next twelve months and it
affects all of the County as all taxpayers support the convenience centers and they are
used broadly,
17
Draft
• Commercial recyclin�this element of the waste stream retains the largest potential for
waste reduction,without a more systematic approach to reducing commercial waste we
are unlikely to reach our waste reduction goal.By increasing collection efficiency in the
past two years,the County has managed to provide over 250 businesses with recycling
services but has reached its limit under currently configured staffing and fmancing,
• C&D mana ement: While C&D volume is declining,the C&D landfill,related recycling
processing for regulated materials and enforcement of rules pertaining to managing these
materials remain important counTy resources. If the reduction goal is maintained and local
disposal of C&D is an important characteristic of our solid waste system, means of
sustaining these programs must be determined. The County will be capable of managing
the recycling and disposal any abandoned manufactured housing delivered to the landfill.
• Landfill closure and long-term maintenance:While this inevitable,the County must
ensure means of managing the closed landfill for at least for thirty years according to
Federal law. If any environmental problems arise,the County must provide solutions.
• Conversion to sin�le-stream recvclin�: Long-term this does appear to be the direction that
most curbside programs are headed as they have been in other counties and typically it
includes conversion from bins to rollcarts along with automated collection. The Work
Group and various elected officials have expressed interest in this technique as well.
Currently there is not sufficient staff capacity to effectively plan and implement this
conversion even if it is adopted or recommended.
• Expansion of rural residential curbside rec �clin�there are two distinct phases to be
considered phase one being the near-term addition of about 1,000 homes that could be
added with no new staffing(provided existing staffing is restored)and a second tier that
expands to a near universal service encompassing as much as 90%of the rural areas,
excluding the most sparsely settled and hardest to serve areas.
• Franchised waste collections: if there is not to be a County operated solid waste facility,
then the direct benefit to the County of franchised collections is somewhat limited.
Franchises can provide significant benefits to the environment, greater enforcement of
local environmental rules, enable greater access to service, can stabilize and minimize
collection costs and are likely to reduce operations pressure on the convenience centers
which will increase when the landfill closes.
• Re�ulatorv and economic incentives to promote waste reduction:As corollaries to
implementing recycling collection programs,regulations and incentives can maximize
program results. Orange County began residential curbside cardboard collection in
November 2008 and banned it from the garbage in March 2009. Similar bans could be
implemented along with economic incentives such as Pay As You Throw waste
collection.There has been little short-term political interest in Pay-As-You-Throw over
the past year.
• Review of other alternative technolo�ies and consideration of re io�al a�proaches: The
SWAB has been tasked by the BOCC with conducting a review these two items due in
2010-11. Ultimately,use of large-scale alternative technologies may require regional
approaches to achieve sufficient economies of scale.
• Develo�ment of infrastructure to collect and manage source separated organic wastes:
This has been discussed in only very broad and abstract terms. It is very much a future
oriented issue, although privately contracted infrastructure exists now and is cost-
effective where wastes and their collection routes are concentrated.
18
Draft
Waste Reduction Goal Calculations
In 2008-09 Orange County's state-calculated waste burial rate was 0.625tons per capita,which is
equivalent of a waste reduction rate of 54%per capita compared to the County's base year waste
generation rate of 136 tons per capita in 1991-92. This is the County's highest calculated rate
yet reached. In June 2010 the Work Group recommended/reaffirmed
X��X��XXXXX��X
Summary of Chapters 1-4
Chapter 1 is a statistical summary of solid waste department activities and costs over the past two
years and provides descriptions of current operations and services.
Orange County Solid Waste Management program changes in recycling and landfill operations
including waste reduction efforts were noted in the bulleted lists at the start of the report
summary. They are detailed in Chapter 2. Table 2-a. Table 2-b summarizes work by individual
jurisdictions.
Chapter 3 describes the prior planning efforts in more detail and highlights recycling program
performance over the past two years along with discussion of future financial,operational and
disposal concerns.
Future program financing issues may include re-examining the 3-R Fee for commercial recycling
potential, considering other fees for convenience center improvements and examining ways to
hold costs down through program efficiency gains or program reductions if necessary.
Future disposal options will continue to include the County-owned and operated C&D landfill
for at least a projected 18 years and the lined MSW landfill until early 2013.After our MSW
facility reaches capacity,the County,the Towns and private haulers will truck MSW waste
directly to other transfer stations or landfills in the region. Further consideration may be given to
negotiating regional solutions with appropriate partners.Various adjoining or nearby counties
face different challenges and have had a variety of responses to the concept of regional solutions.
To date,none has been overtly positive about regional cooperation with Orange County. Most
counties seem to be comfortable with the current methodology for waste handling and want to
chart their own course for the foreseeable future.
Chapter 4 shows the plan approval process including the public involvement element and getting
final approval from the Board of Orange County Commissioners.
19
Draft
Chapter 1
Statistics and Information on Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Department Budget for 2008-09 Tables la-le
Table 1-a Summary of Revenues and Expenditures
Table 1-b Landfill Operations and Expenditures
Table 1-c Administration/Environmental Support Expenditures
Table 1-d Recycling Division Expenditures
Table 1-e Sanitation Division Expenditures
The Department is divided into four divisions,Landfill,Administration/Environmental Support,
Recycling and Sanitation. The budget is organized that way. The fund for recycling represents
the Departmental expenditures on recycling and waste reduction programs for all programs,
salaries, equipment, fuel,repairs,etc.All of its funding now comes from the 3-R Fee and
program revenues.
Cost of the solid waste education,programs, and planning are incorporated into the
administration/environmental support division's budget. The administration/environmental
support division's budget has been funded from a combination of landfill operating revenues,
recycling operating revenues,the General Fund contribution on behalf of Sanitation and
Departmental reserves as this division's effort supports each of its three major operations
divisions.
The Landfill Division is funded mostly by landfill tipping fees with a combination of white
goods and tire reimbursements, landfill penalty fees, licensing fees,mulch and metal sales and
interest on income making up the remainder.
Table 1-a Solid Waste De artment Bud et Summa
Division 2008-09 Actual 2009-2010 Approved
Bud et
Administration/Environmental 1,922,759 1,406,487
Su ort
Landfill 4,878,313 4,267,866
Rec clin 4,066,782 2,983,083
Sanitation 2,303,448 2,240,056
Total Ex enditures 13,171,302 10,897,792
Table 1-b Landfill O erations and Ex enditures
Item 2008-09 Actual 2009-10 A roved Bud et
Personnel 1,358,083 1,359,041
O erations 2,272,809 2,014,059
Ca ital/Contribution to Reserves 1,247,421 894,766
Total 4,878,313 4,267,866
20
Draft
Table 1-c Administration/Environmental Su ort Eg enditures
Item 2008-09 Actual 2009-10 A roved Bud et
Personnel 504,403 499,886
O erations 1,013,902 899,918
Ca itaUContribution to Reserves 404,454 7,683
Tota.l 1,922,759 1,406,487
Table 1-d Rec clin Ex enditures
Item 2008-09 Actual 2009-10 A roved Bud et
Personnel 823,446 871,714
O erations 2,739,063 1,732,063
Ca itaUContribution to reserves 1,260,833 379,306
Total 4,066,782 2,983,083
Table 1-e Sanitation Ex enditures
Item 2008-09 Actual 2009-10 A roved Bud et
Personnel 863,957 911,683
O erations 1,417,555 1,328,373
Ca itaUContribution to reserves 21,936 --
Total 2,303,448 2,240,056
Solid Waste Tonna�e Managed at the Oran e�untv Landfill FY 2008-09
During FY 2008-09,the Orange County landfill accepted for buria173,943 tons of waste
including 50,760 tons of MSW and 10,992 tons of C&D that includes mobile homes and inert
debris, a reduction of 7%below the prior year's total of 79,316.Another 21,637 tons are reported
as generated in Orange County were landfilled or processed out-of-county. See Table ES-1.
For the past five years, including two years since the last plan update submittal, MSW tonnage
generated averaged�63,186. In FY 2008-09 it was�65,987 with 50,760 landfilled in-County
and 15,227 going out of County(Table ES-1). Reported out-of-county disposal rose during the
past year. Over 5,000 tons from ITNC were delivered out of County after September 2008.
Despite the overall tonnage increase in MSW, Orange County's waste reduction rate per capita
was calculated at 54%for 2008-09,our best to date and third in the State.
Table 1-f MSW landfilled in Oran e Co.and outside Oran e Co. 2004-OS to 2008-09
Year MSW in MSW out of County Total MSW landfilled from
Coun Oran e Coun
2004-OS 56,308 6,498 62,806
2005-06 57,568 4,153 61,721
2006-07 57,301 5,555 62,856
2007-08 55,422 7,138 62,560
2008-09 50,760 15,227 (does not include the tons reported 65,987
as rec cled at mixed waste rocessors
21
Draft
We gained another two years of landfill airspace, due to a combination of requesting that UNC
deliver their waste to a private transfer station owned by their hauler, a continued lower-than-
expected rate of waste delivered to the County landfill,ongoing increased use of alternative daily
cover,the shift to heavier landfill compaction equipment and higher-than-expected rates of
landfill subsidence,which allowed reclamation of some air space from formerly completed and
covered landfill side slopes. Now the MSW lined landfill is projected to close December 31,
2012,as opposed to the mid-2011 closure date projected in the previous solid waste plan update
submittal. That is highly unlikely to be significantly revised again.
Construction and Demolition Waste
Due to the ongoing recession and the particularly depressed construction economy,as well as the
State DENR Apri12008 regulatory determination that anything from a retail store and any
padded furniture and similar residential waste like mattresses must now be classified as MSW,
the C&D waste buried in Orange County has fallen to about 1/3 of its former volume,totaling
only 10,9921ast year with an additional 6,410 tons going out of County for burial.About 3,500
tons of bulky wastes that were formerly buried with C&D were shifted to the MSW landfill in
2008-09. Based on the first ten months of 2009-10,the annual C&D burial rate is projected
down an additiona123%. Thus the C&D landfill is now projected to last about 18 years.
In-County C&D waste continues to decline,thus putting further financial pressure on the solid
waste system while keeping the facility open provides needed local services that serve especially
smaller builders and remodelers as well as those disposing of old mobile homes trailers. Overall
the C&D landfill and recycling program functions smoothly but the latest reduction in tonnage
has caused additional tipping fee revenue loss. Total incoming C&D tip fee revenue fell by
$261,000 or 33%in 2008-09; it totaled about$525,000. In 2007-08 it was about$786,000. Other
RRMO-related revenue generated from sale of scrap metal and clean wood along with the
various solid waste plan review fees, licensing fees and penalties for RRMO violations were also
down.
The County continues field enforcement and education about the RRMO as well as taking the
lead generally in investigation of illegal dumping and burning complaints throughout the County
in conjunction with law enforcement agencies and the Fire Marshall. In addition, solid waste
staff responds to complaints regarding waste disposal complaints at private properties and works
with properiy owners and/or County and municipal partners to ensure compliance with lawa and
ordinances of Orange County and North Carolina. Revisions to the solid waste ordinances have
been completed and will go before the BOCC after summer recess to more clearly align local
provisions with NC General Statutes.
Disposal rates for mobile homes are on the increase as older trailers come out of service. We
accept mobile homes for disposal,verify removal of the white goods and have set a protocol to
remove mercury bearing thermostats where they might have been in place to control HVAC
systems. County staff will consider development of a plan for managing abandoned mobile
homes in 2010-11.
22
Draft
Environmental Monitorin�
On-site inspectors at the working face scrutinize all incoming waste for the presence of regulated
recyclable materials--cardboard,metal and clean wood as well as for State or Federally banned
materials including brush,batteries,tires,pallets,plastxc bottles, oil filters,appliances,hazardous
waste and infectious wastes. Penalties are levied on loads out of compliance or the haulers are
given the option to remove the offending materials. The exception is when a load contains
infectious or `red bag' waste,the whole load must be removed from the landfill by the hauler.
We have 36 monitoring groundwater monitoring wells as shown below. We sample 28 wells
semi-annually for the criteria pollutants of pH,conductivity,temperature,total metals as well as
volatile organics using EPA method 8260 and an inorganic analysis for lead,barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead,mercury, selenium and silver.
The wells are distributed as follows:
• South Side MSW(active, lined) 14 wells: sample— 13 including new well MW-112
Wells are sampled for Appendix I parameters twice per year until October,2009. That
landfill had to begin sampling for the Appendix II parameters in October, 2009,
• North side(closed MSW(1995)and closed C&D, (2005)unlined) - 17 wells: sample—
15 for Appendix I parameters once per year,and Appendix II parameters (bigger list)
once per year.
• New(2005) C&D north side - 5 wells: sample - 5 including new well MW 20-1R twice
per year for Appendix I parameters plus alkalinity,total dissolved solids,mercury,
chloride, manganese, sulfate.
(All three landfills have specific conductance,pH, and temperature measured at each well)
To monitor methane we have 18 gas-monitoring probes on the north side and 19 gas
monitoring probes on the south side. We take gas readings quarterly. Through this testing we
discovered in winter of 09-10 a methane migration at the operating C&D landfill edge and it is
being controlled by installation of a localized trench system. Seven gas flares are currently used
to reduce odor problems,which have unfortunately persisted. There are also 45 passive gas-
venting pipes in the closed north MSW landfill that are not monitored directly but control gas
flow direction. A subsidence in 2009 at the closed MSW landfill was controlled with soil fill.
Ongoing maintenance is required at both closed landfill sites to regrade the sites to minimize
unwanted water infiltration.
Waste Collection Service Provision
The County continues to provide recycling and landfill services county-wide along with the solid
waste convenience center services. The convenience centers are primarily for the residential
sector in the unincorporated areas but available to all residents. They received over 430,000
visits last FY. Provision of recycling collections and services by one agency across multiple
jurisdictions is relatively unusual,but continues to be effective here in terms of the economy-of-
scale and centralized provision of solid waste and recycling education and information. The
whole County has one phone number email and web address for any recycling, convenience
center and landfill information.
23
Draft
The Solid Waste Management Department continues to manage the Sanitation Division
including five rurally located solid waste convenience centers,the County schools' waste
collection and responsibility of litter control and illegal dumping.
Door-to-door solid waste collection services are all privately provided in unincorporated Orange
County. The three Towns all provide public waste collection to residential customers in their
respective incorporated areas and a mix of public and private providers is used by
commerciaUnon-residential entities in the incorporated areas. UNC provides most waste
collection and recycling services by contract. The majority of waste generated in Orange County
is delivered to the Orange County Landfill(see Table ES-2).
Incorporated areas
The Towns continue to deliver their MSW to the Orange County landfill as a key element of the
interlocal agreement adopted in 1999.Each of the three Towns continues to make marginal
improvements to their already relatively efficient, cost-effective waste collection systems.An
evaluation in 2008 of the option to franchise commercial waste collection showed little financial
advantage to the community and some environmental benefits from reducing the number of
haulers.
All three Towns operated their own municipal residential waste collection service and all
responded to the landfill ban on residential cardboard with passage and enforcement of their own
bans on putting cardboard in the garbage. They cooperated with the County in an intensive three-
month education and enforcement campaign that resulted in the Towns not collecting waste with
noticeable cardboard in it and notifying the offending household of the violation of the ordinance
using a variety of ineasures beginning with a `tag' and non-collection and escalating to a civil
penalty for continued violation.
Carrboro has automated 100%of its residential collection and integrated its commercial and
multifamily routes. The Town collects almost all the multifamily waste and continues to haul
waste from about half the commercial customers with a variety of private haulers holding the
other half of the commercial business. Hillsborough automated over 90%of residential routes in
2007 and in 2009 renewed its exclusive franchise contract with Waste Industries to continue
collecting non-residential waste within its corporate limits. Chapel Hill continues its semi-
automated residential collection and dominates the non-residential collection routes holding an
estimated 80%of customers;the remainder is privately collected. The Town of Chapel Hill
continues to consider fully containerized brush collection to reduce yard waste collection costs.
LJNC's MSW is now hauled by contractor Waste Industries to the Waste Industries transfer
station in Durham.The Towns collect no measurable construction waste. Construction waste
from projects on campus is handled by the particular construction contractor and the majority
goes out of County but is regulated similarly to Orange County's RRMO.
Generally the Work Group and Solid Waste Advisory Board(SWAB)have not addressed the
management of waste from within the incorporated areas except as it might pertain to a future
interlocal agreement. The Town and County Managers have discussed the delivery of their MSW
to out of county facilities but have not made any collective decision about whether to enter a
cooperative disposal arrangement. It is Orange County's intention to deliver its MSW and bulky
waste from County facilities to the City of Durham Tra�sfer Station after the Orange County
24
Draft
Landfill closes.No decisions have been made on where MSW collected by any municipal
government in Orange County will go after the landfill closes.Analysis demonstrated that it will
be more expensive for each government to transport its waste individually to remote transfer
stations, even where tipping fees are lower than Orange County's, than for the County to
construct and operate a transfer station to handle waste generated in Orange County.
Unincorporated Areas
The County collects the majority of residential MSW generated in the unincorporated area from
its five staffed convenience centers throughout the County. Last year that included 8,005 tons of
MSW and another 3,468 tons of bulky waste that were placed in the MSW landfill as well as
1,298 tons from the schools and County government buildings.An estimated 5,000 residences or
25%of unincorporated area households subscribe to a variety of private waste collection services
that generally haul waste out of County. A few very small local haulers use the Orange County
landfill.Private residential customers account for an estimated 5,000 tons of MSW; an estimated
500 tons of which was delivered to the Orange County landfill. The non-residential tonnage from
unincorporated areas cannot be reasonably estimated.
Convenience Center operations have been stable and no major improvements have been made
for two years. Minor improvements include improved signage,replacement of containers and
vehicles with more efficient equipment.All waste and recyclables are now containerized and
hauled to the landfill for disposal or processing for resale and marketing.
There is increasing demand and markets for additional recyclables that are constrained by lack of
sufficient space at convenience centers and dropoff sites and management capacity. Funds are
not now available to readily capitalize those center improvements that have been identified and
analyzed as both being cost-effective and provided safer more efficient service.Future funding
options, site improvements, locations and operational concepts are being discussed by SWAB
and the Work Group and a recommendation will be brought to the BOCC.
Table 1-g below documents monthly incoming materials and revenues derived from tipping fees,
sales, and penalties. Table 1-h and 1-i represent a comprehensive look at all the recyclable
materials managed by Orange County's Solid Waste Management Department.
25
i
Draft ,
T _ �i
able 1-g Sol►d Waste Landfilled and Managed by Type FY08 09
JiJLY ° Au ust Se tember October November December Janua Februa March A ril Ma June Total YTD '
S 6 `�' 35�Y �' .. -W�33"' t " :�w*' +���u BAkS' ffi ' 0 ,'�x'°y�'x",�,s.. �
S y$ it4:: ,'&f: w*Y,'`"„ ''a`^t�.,� "'i... y/� (�.y
':,U„�,YY" �.`.p:,�Y�,.T'.ro�'bq�'�':`�� °��` �W��yA�� i. "'saW��id.+�, .�,. .,..M�,S�.�w!
i in Fees-$49/ton 251 488.18 227 277.44 A 228 054.42 203 509.93 184 123.7 218 209.2 196 731.13' 178 358.56 206 569.40 198 127.14 204 926.3 228 647.00 2 526 022.62 ,
Revenue/Ton 49.74 49.93 49.65 49.9 49J 49.7 49.64 49.9 49.5 49.7 49.73 49.73 49.7 ',
TD 5 05628 9 608.34 14 201.79 18 277.0 21 975.4 26 357.81 30 321.03 33 890.4 38 055.7 42 040.91 46 161.9 50 760.2 50 760.20 I
/o of total tonna e 0.64 D.71 0.67 0.63 0.71 0.75 0.71 0.6 0.7 0.71 0.65 0.6
ear a o 4 702.00 4,704.29 4,149.86 4 751.1 4 432.26 4,426.5 4 509.9 4 209.44 4 340.53 5,081.34 5 20838 4 906.15 55 421.8
Incr/Decr from last ear monthl 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.01 0.12 0.15 0.04 0.22 0.21 0.06 0.08
;��:. �«hT,,,,. k�
�j, ��,;V�y °°�;wy'�., s;.,�,�';�, :�:; �.:?'s�-z.-:�` ':€2' >,._ .
, . . „ ;,,.., ,.
„ ... ,
S�+'��• �' ':�,. �,�Y�k;?R:�'�°'� i,'a` �:�"^
Construction&Demolition 1 283.85 886.02 1 13431 1 279.82 661.54 693.8 772.85 688.1 7193 597.95 846.52� 9192 10 48332
i in Fee-$43/ton 60 723.93 43 379.62 53 191.02 59 93639 32 120.1 33 022.9 36 252.74 33 053.7 34 625.6 29 865.9 40 291.5 44 386.1 500 850.03
Revenue/Ton 47.30 48.96 46.89 46.83 48.55 47.5 46.91 48.0 48.1 49.95 47.6 48.2 47.78 II
TD 1 283.85 2 169.87 3 304.18 4 584. 5 245.54 5 93938 6 712.23 7 4003 8 119.65 8 717.6 9 564.12 10 48332 �
/o of total tonna e 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.2 0.13 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.13 0.1
eaz a o 1 801.88 ]862.02 1 519.87 2 292.45 1 088.80 1 040.9 l 094.11 1 158.43 1 459.44 989.92 933.74 I 052.9 16 294.52
Incr/Decr from last ear monthl 029 0.52 0.25 0.44 0.39 0.33 0.29 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.09 0.13 036
'�. �;� caa�' ��a„�"� �:.�� ��� .;�Sr:;,. .:.,gsm h ��„ ��:�¢�:,� •��:� ��;;�. ,aaM;:%';•��;, . ..,�, a,�si � ' �i �«...- � � .,.��a.�..,�a �'.�,��•�v��a'
• ` '� .=;F` ..,�z �.. i , �.; ... ,. ,j�,� , '".�° 9�'�,`e''3.t' .€� . ���'ftx,,. �:r°�;�°i`�:a�, , .,W., . ,`�`,�'.rt� �9�";�'�' a'�a,r,a�..
Tires 14337 � 162.96 107.83 ]06.7 81.30 110.7 134.96 98.08 106.22 126.6 ]06.2 129.15 1414.2 �
i in Fees 23.00 584.00 0.00 0.0 192.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.0 0.0 176.0 1058.00
evenue/Ton 0.16 3.58 0.00 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 13 0.75
TD 14337 306.33 414.16 520.95 602.25 713.0 847.98 946.0 1 052.28 1 178.9 1 285.12 ]414.2
/o of total tonna e 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0
eara o 125.06 146.49 124.11 150.I 126.7 107.38 107.85 9835 118.78 ]07.35 114.83 115.93 1443.02 I
Incr/Decr from last ear monthl 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.29 0.36 0.0 0.25 0.00 0.11 0.18 0.08 0.11 0.02
pg �^ �' ':,1 @'. °.;.`a+-e.:S;'�,' ;a�. ;i.:;;° .';d;':,'a �r.'���e,'� � z° �T>:t° �;"� iy..:8.,a•�"^° ='t r�#Z sYS�j �,�R,<w -�,..., ��
.�„� a��,>; v;,:�•ft =.,y.�."� ,.`��,�"�:'.;,,��. ,a;. r`h,"°�.:�^�,, ,�.. �,. .�3. s�. '; �t2�>;,': ..�
Ve etative Waste I 045.92 63539 773.57 795.5 580.6 500.33 545.9 564.9 551.55 669.7 957.68 757.9 8 379.26
i in Fees 18 894.70 12 145.25 14 010.15 14 661.8 10 596.65 9 245.9 10 081.2 I 1 377.9 10 519.75 13 008.3 17 269.0 14 337.0 156 147.64
Revenue/Ton 18.07 19.11 18.11 18.43 18.25 18.4 18.4 20.1 19.0 19.4 18.03 18.91 18.64
TD 1 045.92 1 68131 2 454.88 3 250.47 3 831.0 4 331.4 4 877.3 5 4423 5 993.91 6 663.61 7 621.2 8 37926
/o of total tonna e 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.1 0.11 0.0 0.1 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.11
ear a o 655.64 508.69 443.31 521.00 518.62 418.2 481.8 640.73 693.06 760.43 87433 812.44 7 328.31
Incr/Decr from last eaz monthl 0.60 0.25 0.74 0.53 0.1 0.2 0.13 0.12 0.20 0.12 0.1 0.07 0.1 I
.'a ;�t°.a;�°,a z �, :�:"'..,;„�, ..�s��.,�& .;�r;<�.� �<.aw ,«< ,e.;, ,,.,
.� �. '�$'a ''�, .� ,;"�'^ .�, ��'�' ;.�.K� i�: ti$ � a��:,
,�, �1.�, i�Y. 9',.t; .'.4� b q;( �<'a',�:r., vE ,>':j"aCi'� Y'n�v ^''�': i��.
Clean Wood 128.29 119.87 118.58 124.68 96.54 ]00.6 ]02.38 141.62 137.t9 137.5 125.32 130.6 1 463.1
i in Fees 2 159.55 1 986.95 1 942.65 2 049.5 1 591.1 1 673.6 1 655.8 2 282.8 2 200.10 2 205.7 2 038.0 2 152.75 23 938.5
Revenue/Ton 16.83 16.58 1638 16.4 16.48 16.6 16.1 16.1 16.0 16A 16.2 16.4 163
26
�
I
�
I
Draft
D 128.29 248.16 366.74 491.42 587.96 688.5 790.94 932.5 1,069.75 1207.25 1332.5 1463.1 lii
/o of total tonna e 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.02
ear a o 13131 201.75 142.60 150.9 119.04 91.11 121.13 105.9 122.09 122.17 132.98 138.93 1 580.01
Incr/Decr from last ear monthl 0.02 0.41 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.1 0.15 034 0.12 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.07
w�,�.�. >;, '�:'� •iv,��.`+ .-.4�:�'+ :+nn� 's; „1;°.EF 'w' .;c�ndw�ox:�t+_`,:r:.r:«a<,'° ;:i€. �:°s,. �'l, c�s.k:•.
-�tn°o ;�� � e�.=r., �.°�,: "��aii �� .��Q •� �^.ss. s�,i^4'-:,},;,$-�"i;.;+fe�:.»-.'�c'w";y:�=.. ^y�. �,x,� ti F,a,,..°�a Fn.
;.�•, <:T'.�';�.'4�g..�; j;.� ��- P� �"m'�� �$'�� -�',,� s
Landctearin &Stum s 132.97 17.04 24.23 37.74 30.5 15.83 12.35 26.13 22.0 26.47 67.0 43.1 455.58 ,
i in Fees 5 70835 728.02 1 057.88 1 628.5 1 313.22 680.6 531.05 1 123.5 995.7 1 141.48 2 900.2 1 857.1 19 666.07 �,
Revenue/Ton 42.93 42.72 43.66 43.15 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 45.0 43.1 43.2 43.0 43.1
YTD 132.97 150.0t 174.24 2ll.98 242.52 258.35 270.7 296.83 318.92 345.3 412.3 455.58 I
/o of total tonna e 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.01
eaz a o 53.59 32.14 51.63 8.0 47.15 4.22 14,l6 14.43 41.12 13.15 29.8 35.49 345.04 I
IncdDecr from last ear monthl 1.48 0.47 0.53 3.68 035 2.75 0.13 0.81 0.46 1.01 1.2 0.2 032 I
:A .tArz P-,q�F'FP?,�4"<<�{`,"a�-k°.�..*�;%�,. ;r• ';�L' b�zt a�,°re�;w,,•�.<.A'�.:,�-, <e��� "=e°Y<.;,.;��;.,,;.� ..r;•,r,t; �r�,. .,,s,;s:,� .:>r?,;,a �
��.�t <.,��. ;,.,�.. "<�,�.' »s'�rt•.,s, .,g„�..� y� „�,�:.. '�.r., .�,'>°. °;e;=, .rs, az.�;.�N; I
&•;';1;::�'. ;,:�.le�:.
.S�lla C �.�� Y �.�� �.�� �.� �.0 �.� �.� p �.� �.�� ���.� �.�� �.� Q.�Q
i in Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Revenue/Ton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
YT'D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
/o of total toruia e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ear a o 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
nedDecr from last ear monthl NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
:.'S�.+R �a*�s;' ••p;q,• •,f�'y�'�f ,^�iw".:;ic e.,9r^ .:nE*,: ,lis,-. ("r iA>io .:3 ��11s-T.� r.»!;:'� '�,:< i? �:W°' �^ tTr�
,.&'< .� e f, s,'�i}�: �.9iz. ..?e?' � i2�.� �.,,, rs«�r.•.
�3., .;:', �'„"d,'„ 3? ,'�.R,�;- £�� �.4^h r ^.7,�`4 i��.°.H'' '4�°,;:,:�' :6<-.s�,.'e'�.v � .'°m`,#,"�>.w � y s' E '•a s:'
,a�> '�?,. 's;y,r�: ;�x_s e y.n<J .2�y`�, ;�«;1:��:�.. .:�?r' .c��'s�'�:,�"t,'`«�•y
White Goods Se re ated 23.16 26.74 21.80 21.0 23.16 25.75 31.7 24.9 24.34 27.95 34.18 5 29.79 314.58
TD 23.16 49.90 71.70 92.7 115.86 141.61 ]7338 1983 222.66 250.61 284.7 314.58 1939.27
/o of total tonna e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.00
ear a o 27.41 3439 2639 26.05 24.49 22.8 20.48 24.68 24.2 23.6 26.76 23.64 305.11 '
[nc/Decr from last ear monthl 0.16 0.22 0.17 0.19 0.05 0.13 0.55 0.01 0.00 0.18 0.28 0.26 0.03
^.J3 :P`� s.°. .'%a<>� C k, �'sd'f i?.5e > 'af' y,8^�r d<{� 'i��� r»'• ,y. P,. &&': +�#�+ * �„ ^� .. "� I
'.°.�,�.,, „ ' r"�-, - �. . .��>. - �t��,"QU.`NSficx�;�:�`aS�.i�`%%�.'°' -. £s<� c7`,w,r'�`�?�'rt.:j•"i�„"��r v�.,; ' ,�'�'•�.F'a�.�....'�'� i.= •�a�`•,.,y',`,'�,•�e < ' s�. �;�'&'� ��,t,`�":,,.�= ��^,',t ad';����., �4e.�".°: �:.r3;-�i-�t5«+`;'�'.-�r"'�i.�'��F,r;;,.;;';
Clean Metal 66.96 55.80 42 51 45.99 3634 39.0 47.63 45.42 50.65 66.45 58.5� 64.7 619.99
YTD 66.96 122.76 165.27 211.26 247.6 286.6 334.2 379.6 43034 496.7 555.29 619.9
/�of total tonna e 0.01 OA 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 OA 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
ear A o 71.27 68.95 57.33 53.1 45.4 37.01 41.81 45.15 53,0 48.98 61.48 65.0 648.72
Inc/Decr from last eaz monthl 0.06 0.19 0.26 0.14 0.20 0.05 0.14 0.01 0.05 036 0.05 0.01 0.04
"k^�< .kl�:`'�b�� ,.P�, _..o-i •� T I
3. �" -r'�9 •Ya: 3..., !S,! ;SVg:,-•x"}t": ..}a
.�y'�s,d„�t-- '�.vr% �ri',, ,.,^�a�'�,.. � d,c .L. ,��, a ,>?�� E�i:� :��`"'✓'� � �a ,a�� a�:''�r ,:r..:;'•'�•��K .� • ,.�'� •:.i� �z.�>: �
en�.. ��rv .;r, ,s' a i .';Z> .�,�,n.,.�.,�.�t?«;';, .viFc':•„�.�.x�-,t!F � . .��r�,.. ;�z �^b� �' .�"f.<,
,,,, ;3.r':::.;'. ,t�: '�,: �5�,;��
Mobile Homes 3.75 0.00 3.75 0.0 O.OKK �11.25 7.5 0.0 0.00 I 1.25 11.25 3.75 52.50
i in Fees I50.00 0.00 150.00 0.0 0.0 450.0 300.0 0.0 0.00 450.00 450.0 150.0 2100.00
Revenue/Ton 40.00 #DIV/0! 40.00 #DIV/01 #DIV/0! 40.0 40.0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 40. 40.0 40.0 40.00
umber of Mobile Homes 1.00 I.00 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 14.00
TD 3.75 7.50 18.75 26.25 37.5 48.75 52.5
/o of total tonna e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0
ear a o 3.75 ]I.25 0.00 15.0 3.75 7.5 63.75 0.0 7.5 0.0 3.75 0.0 116.25
Inc/Decr from last ear month 0.73 NA 0.5 0.88 A A 2.0 A 0.6
0.4. S'" ezy�, .,d`.g ;e`?r.ro .;S'3 ay'E'a ,:y; .;r. :y,.;>, f.•.;.�...� I
.. y . .. ... ., ,.•� . � . ..
��0 �� .4-. ��a a-��'*'3A` >�$.. ..wt": ",t:,�y...�'. '�"' :�, x�3:`:,
x�'" ,�.�+f 5,i �:�� �D",' s.�;.. ;'�:e' :,.. h:r" Fi?e°''n .::.,, ,t�n'r! :'��B ti. i
��,. 's.x., ,E�;' .�:`.'s' .�;��;, ys..
. ...�. . . . ,s5�'A?��.xrt.�e�x4.rr�:FH..'�.a.n[W �t; , v
r ,. �...._,
:; .,.. �: •A. :<, ,. H>,..^.:,., .p ,�, .. . „ s. .. ...:........ . . ....
' � . -� .�. >.. . „ � ,, ., . . ..
�<3, .x.• �� ^ •.
. . . .�., . .,., . , .. > ...,.. .� . ... ..... . .. .. ,.
.
`_: *i<
^, ;
' ,..e u�'.;�xx�A.,rar.x.a�ki. ,.,. , • � ;�»:[:,.�.R.'S.tid�::4.u�Rx::{�.�'.¢�§,v �a. '... . .�'�.iala�lz.dm.,.., wi�:�:.Faa;r..A:,x�..sri9rsv�'.�"�'�..'� '.�:m°.nsibss���:�," �6=.iie�ix�.�v�. . . ..!4. . �:w�'.. I
s�a.__.»..,u:;:.M.ra.ax
27 I
I�
I
I
Draft
TOTALlwo RW 7 884.55 6 455.88 6,820.03 6 486.91 5 208.33 5 879.82 5 618.63 5 158.71 5 776.60 5 649.12 6,327.72 6 676.5 73 942.8
i in Fees 339 147.71 286 101.28 298 406.12 28]786.18 229 936.95 263 282.44 245 551.92 226 196.60 254 910.71 244 881.61 267 875.23 291 706.11 3 229 782.86
evenue/Ton 43.01 44.32 43.75 43.44 44.15 44.78 43.7 43.85 44.13 4335 42.33 43.6 43.68
YTD 7 884.55 14 340.43 21 160.46 27 64737 32 855.7 38 735.52 44 354.15 49 512.86 55 289.4 60 938.58 67 2663 73 942.8 �
/o of total tonna e l.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ear a o 7 571.91 7 569.97 6 5]5.10 7 967.92 6463 6 155.83 6 454.99 6 297.15 6 859.8 7 147.01 7 386.14 7 150.58 83 482.84
[ncr/Decr from last ear monthl 0.04 O.IS 0.05 0.19 7.06 0.04 0.13 0.18 0.16 0.21 0.14 0.07 0.05
is sal Tax Com utation uarter 1 uazter 2 uarter 3 uarter 4
Tons Tons Tons Tons
C&
MS 14 201.79 12 156.02 1]697.89 12 704.5 50 760.2
C& 3 304.18 2 635.20 2 180.27 2 363.67 ]0 4833 I
L& 174.24 84.11 60.57 136.6 455.58
M 7.50 11.25 7.50 26.25 52.50 10 991.4 '
17 687.71 14 886.58 13 946.23 15 231.08 61 751.60
AX aid 35 375.42 29 773.16 27 892.46 30 462.16
Oct 31 2008 Jan 31 2009 A ri130 2009 Jul 31 2009 �
28 I
�
�I
I
Draft
Table 1-h and Table 1-i below are summaries of the annual tonnage of all materials by all
programs operated by Orange Community Recycling and others within Orange County. 2007-08
compared to 2008-09. The very slight 0.9%tonnage decline is partly attributable to the declining
economy and increased recycling activity. The smaller decline in recycling compared to declines
in waste could be partly due to addition of cardboard to curbside and increased recycling despite
the smaller newspapers, lighter weight containers,etc. The Toxics Reduction Improvements
Program(TRIP)tonnage increased 4%overall with the electronics component of it increasing
10%in 2008-09. T`he increase in electronic discards represents a clear response to technological
shifts to e.g. flat panel televisions and monitors replacing CRTs and DVD replacing VCRs.
Table 1-h Annual Re clin Tonna e Summa FY07-08
Pro ram Tons
Urban Curbside 4,737
Rural Curbside 1,843
HHW 113
Lead-Acid 35
D -Cell 12
Electronics 413.3
Oil 113
Oil Filters 10
Antifreeze 8
Pro ane Tanks 3
Food Waste 1,761
Animal Beddin 485
Multifamil , 1,241
Commercial 768
Gov Buildin s 99
Dro -off Blue Boxes 951
ONP#8 includes OMG 1,611
ONP#6 1,606
OCC 1,568
OMP 1,088
Glass—sold 1,037
Glass—Crusher 105
Aluminum 33
Steel 120
Plastic 192
Commin le 1,403
Total Tons Managed (above
individual program tonnages do
not match total as some are
inbound and some outbound
tons 16,697
Pro ram Totals Tons Percent of total Chan e from last ear
Urban Curbside 4,738 28% 15%
Rural Curbside 1,843 11% 28.6%
Multifamil 1,241 7% 14.8%
Commercial 768 5% 20.4%
Gov Bld S 99 1% 16.7%
Food/Animal Beddin 2,245 13% -1.7%
TRIP 706 4% 10.5%
DO 5,533 32% 31%
29
Draft
Table 1-i Annual Rec ctin Tonna e Summa FY08-09
Pro ram Tons
Urban Curbside 4,517
Rural Curbside 1,784
HHW 116
Lead-Acid 28
D -Cell 11
Electronics 456
Oil 105
Oil Filters 10
Antifreeze 4
Pro ane Tanks 3
Food Waste 1,702
Animal Beddin 553
Multifamil , PRIMARY TRUCK 1,294
Commercial, PRIMARY 925
Gov Buildin s 110
Dro -off Blue Boxes 1,000
ONP#8&OMG 1,352
ONP#6 1,617
OCC 1,528
OMP 1,010
Glass—sold 451
Glass—Crusher 5
Aluminum 17
Steel 53
Plastic 95
Commin led Containers 2,670
Total Outgoing (sold)does not
equal incoming program tons
due to different ways of
calculating
Total Tons Mana ed: 16,301
Percent of Change from �
Chan e from revious ear -0.91% total revious ear
Pro ram Totals
Urban Curbside 4,517 28% -4.7%
Rural Curbside 1,784 11% -3.2%
Multifamil 1,294 8% 4.2%
Commercial 925 6°/a 20.4%
Gov Bld s 110 1% 11.1%
Food/Animal Beddin 2,255 14% 0.4%
TRIP 733 4% 3.7%
DO incomin 4,891 30% -11.6%
End chapter one
30
Draft
Chapter 2
Summary of Solid Waste Management Activities Undertaken in the Past Two Years
Table 2-a provides an overview of the changes made in Solid Waste Management by the
County's Solid Waste Management Department. There was only one major change in solid waste
activities reported by the various municipalities during the period from FY 2008-09 through the
present;they all began enforcement of the ban on corrugated cardboard in the residential sector,
simultaneously with the County's enforcement of the ban on it from the landfill in March 2010.
Previously,the ban had been enforced on only non-residential cardboard although the Regulated
Recyclable Materials Ordinance did not distinguish between residential and non-residential
sources of regulated materials.The Town of Carrboro did change its ordinance to specifically
reflect this change in enforcement to make their ordinance internally consistent.Neither Chapel
Hill nor Hillsborough needed to make a similar change and both began enforcement and
education commensurate with the County's program changes. The various changes made at
Solid Waste Convenience Centers are incorporated into the Solid Waste Department's Table 2-a.
Remainder of this page intentionally blank
31
Draft ,
Table 2-a Summa of New Work Led b Oran e Coun Solid Waste Mana ement De artment 2008-2010 �
Year Landfill Operations Landfill and transfer Sanitation Recycling Operations Waste Reduction and
station design,permitting, Division--Orange Recycling Planning
study(includes gas County �
studies) (5WCCs and
other ,
2008-09 Ban landfilling of Selection of transfer station Move into Add� 100 new commercial Financial and operational
residential corrugated sites on Highway 54 for administration stops.Initiate curbside analysis of franchising for rural
curbside cardboazd. further study,followed by building cardboard recycling. areas and for commercial waste.
Fill subsided side selection and evaluation of Increase electronics Presented detailed coinmercial
slopes with waste, one specific site. Contract recycling 10%over prior recycling options.
gaining more air negotiations with IJNC for year. Began partnering w/
space. Direct UNC landfill gas project. Move CH Police on Shredding �
waste to private all senior staff into new confidential paper. Won
transfer to gain air Admin.Building along best community paper
space.Begin with recycling and admin recycling program award
construction of staff, improve from American Forest&
leachate sewer line. communications,eliminate Paper Association. Sell
rental costs. over 1,000 com ost bins.
2009-10 Identify and contain Two publicly-owned sites Reduce Add collection of rigid#2 Conduct week-long waste
methane migration added to transfer station convenience center and#5 plastic at dropoff composition study.
from C&D landfill. evaluation.Dec 2009, (SWCC)hours sites. (15 tons/month) Review&consideration of
Identify and develop BOCC decision not to build from 62/week to Consolidate magazine and detailed options for future
mitigation plan for a transfer station w/in 3-5 43.Eliminate newspaper recycling at design,operation, location and
resolving elevated years but instead direct haul mattress disposal dropoff sites.Add 50 more financing of solid waste
groundwater to regional transfer or and free residential commercial stops.Add `old convenience centers.
constituents.Landfill disposal facilities. Gas landfill permits at media' videotapes, Review of overall approaches
projected to close capture system designed SWCCs. Reduce cassettes,diskettes to to unincorporated area waste
Dec 31,2012. and bid with UNC. Bradshaw electronics recycling. and recycling management I'
Complete leachate Convenience Added oyster shell including expansion of
sewer line, close Center to 21 hours/ collection point at landfill. curbside,single stream
leachate pond. week. Improve Add Orange County conversion(urban&rural)
Work with Economic entry at Ferguson. Schools recycling
Development to Install security collection. Start permanent
consider solar array at cameras at all compost bin sales at new
closed C&D Landfill. SWCCs Admin/Su ort office.
End Chapter 2 ,
32
Draft
Chapter 3
Solid Waste Planning Update
Plannin�
This chapter follows the outline in the State plan guidance document. Thus it sta.rts with general
planning guidelines followed by description of the work by the Solid Waste Management
Department and the Solid Waste Plan Work Group on each plan element and includes a
timetable for the coming year along with a description of likely activities in years to come.
Appendix F contains the detailed descriptions of the various planning elements listed element by
element with source reduction,composting,recycling etc
Orange County's has maintained its long-term goal of 61%per capita reduction in solid waste
landfilled but has removed any timetable for achieving that goal. The prior date set for achieving
the goal was 2006. The County has continued to make progress towards the goal,reaching 50%
reduction per capita in 2007-08 and during FY 2008-09 achieved its highest waste reduction rate
ever of 54.2%per capita. These types of incremental improvements can continue as long as the
BOCC continues to enable the Solid Waste Management Department operation through its
budgetary and policy decisions and the Department retains the operational and fiscal flexibility
to pursue new opporiunities as they arise. Historically the people and businesses of the County
have responded well to new waste reduction and recycling initiatives or waste disposal
restrictions that are presented.
Extrapolating from the data collected in the 2010 one-week waste composition analysis, if about
50%of what is recyclable at the curb that now remains in the waste stream were able to be
recycled plus 25%of that recyclable at dropoff sites,the County could achieve a waste reduction
rate in the 57%+range.Reducing the final few percent to reach the goal would have to be gained
primarily through waste reduction, extraordinarily high recycling rates driven by regulation or
economic incentives, diversion of large amounts of organic material or opening of markets for an
array of materials that have been considered unrecyclable or,practically speaking,non-
recoverable. The recent additions of#2 (�IDPE)and#5 (PP) rigid non-bottle plastics at drop off
sites, adding old electronic media with electronics,the residential cardboard ban and
implementing permanent sales of backyard compost bins are examples of those strategies. It is
possible to achieve our goal, as it appears that our MSW generation rate remains steady while
population increases slowly at 1.5%to 2%per year. Until last year,the total amount landfilled
per capita had continued to decrease, even when what is landfilled out-of-county that we can
account for is included as it is in each year's state report.
Following projected landfill closure in early 2013, no plans have yet been made for long term
disposal. The County has conducted preliminary dialog with the City of Durham about use of
their transfer station for MSW transshipment and it appears the County will take the tons under
its control to the City of Durham transfer station. The various Town managers and the County
Manager have begun dialog on whether to develop a cooperative partnership to all ship waste to
the same location or determine that they should each make their own arrangement for disposal.
Those discussions are ongoing and have not yet resulted in any recommendations to the elected
bodies. Other operations now conducted at the Eubanks Road facility are projected to continue
including construction and demolition waste burial,yard waste and clean wood waste mulching,
collection and transfer of tires,white goods, scrap metal, and conventional recyclables.
33
Draft
Evaluation of Pro�ram Performance
Even without an implemented formal long-term plan, county solid waste efforts continue to
evolve and change. Cardboard was added to curbside recycling for a contract cost of$0.15 per
household in the urban areas and a slight hauling time penalty on the County-run rural routes due
to increased volume. Overall recycling tonnage dipped 0.9% in 2008-09 compared to 07-08.
Commercial recycling efforts expanded in the past two years to another 150 stops and tonnage
increased 20%last year. Market value for all commodities, especially paper has improved
dramatically in the past eight months and this year the County took on processing and marketing
of urban curbside tonnage, increasing its income over$20,000 a month. These two changes have
provided unanticipated revenue that will be used to enable more internal financing of recycling
services at convenience centers using the 3-R Fee revenues while stabilizing other existing
recycling program funding using these new revenues.
Various waste reduction and recycling programs have matured and continued to grow. 'The
County's hazardous waste program,known as the Toxic Reduction Improvements Program or
T.R.I.P. has added recovery of old media like diskettes,videotape and audio cassettes this year to
the existing collection of conventional Hazardous Household Wastes, automotive fluids, filters
and batteries collection from Convenience Centers and the electronics program at Convenience
Centers and the Landfill, Tonnage increased from 595 in 06-07 to 703 in 07-08 and 733 in 08-09,
a 23%increase.Further 18%increase is projected for FY 2009-10. (See table 3-B below)
Curbside recycling tonnage from both rural and urban curbside programs dropped slightly in
2008-09 compared to the previous year despite modest program size growth.It is projected to
fall again in 2009-10 for urban but increase slightly for rural. We believe the tonnage decrease
was due primarily to recessionary pressure resulting in reduced size and number of papers,
magazines,junk mail, etc and continued lightweighting of containers rather than any decline in
citizen participation. Multifamily tonnage surprisingly increased 4%in 2008-09 then is
projected to fall this year while the number of units served remained stable. Commercial tonnage
increased 20%due primarily to program expansion. Then will dip slightly in 2009-10 (Table 3-c)
due possibly to an overall decline in sales and related economic activity.
Table 3-a Rec clin Tonna e from Multi-Famil and Curbside Pro rams 2007-2010
Program Tonnage 08-09 %Change. 09-10 through Percent change for full
2007-08 Vs. 07-08 April 09-10 will be updated
when available
Urban Curb 4,738 4,516 -5% 3,460 tons thru -8%projected
April
4,152
extra olated
Rural Curb 1,843 1,784 -3% 1,363 tons thru 2%projected
April.
1,817
Multifamily 1,240 1,294 4% 942 tons thru -3%projected
April.
I,256
extra olated
34
Draft
The Toxic Reduction Improvements Program(TRIP), as shown below,continues to grow with
changing technology and expanding awareness of hazardous waste disposal services,particularly
in the small business sector.An increased diversion rate of 18% in hazardous and toxic wastes,
largely in electronics and dry cell batteries, is projected for the year.
Table 3-b Summary of Toxic Reduction Improvement Program (TRIP)
FY 2007-08 v. 2008-09
Program or Material Contractor Tons Tons % 09-10 Through Projected %for
Change March/April fu112009-10
actual percent
will included
when available
Motor Oil Holston 112.5 104.5 (-7%) 75.4 through (-4%)
March
100.6
eztra olated
Oil Filters(banned Holston 9.8 9.9 1% 9.24 through 12%
from NC landfills Oct April.
'09 I1.1 extra olated
Anti-Freeze Holston 83 3.6 (-57%) 2.2 through Feb. 6%
3.8 extra olated
Lead acid batteries Chatham 34.6 28.4 (-18%) 20.5 through (-18%)
Salvage April
23.4 extra olated
Dry cell batteries Battery 12.4 11.3 (-9%) 10.7 through May 26%
Solutions 14,3 extra olated
Electronics Recycling Synergy 4133 456.4 10% 304 Through Jan. 32%
600 extra olated
Hazardous Waste Eco-Flo 112.5 115.6 3% 91.9 through May (-5%)
110 extra olated
Pro ane Tanks 2.6 3 15% 3 (estimated) 0%
Totals 706 733 4% 866 extrapolated 18%
Tonnage from the commercial recycling program increased in 08-09 but declined in 09-10 due to
most likely to an overall decrease in economic activity, dropoff site tonnage declined in 08-09
then increased in 09-10,while food waste held steady in 08-09 but rose in 09-10 with addition of
some new sites.
Table 3-c Rec clin Tonna e from Commercial and Dro -Off Sites
Program Tonnage 2008-09 %Change 2009-10 Through %change for full
2007-08 March/April 2009-10 Actual
will be included
when available
Commercial 768 925 20% 654 tons thru March -6%
872extra olated
Food&animal 2,245 2,255 0.4% 1,983 tons thru April 6%
beddin 2,380 extrapolated
Drop-Off Sites 5,533 4,891 -12% CCC tons thru March 22%
(blue box and 5,971 extrapolated based on
a er) blue box tons only
35
Draft
Financin�
The solid waste enterprise fund has functioned in a hybrid manner since taking over the
Sanitation Division from Public Works in July 2007.The system has functioned as an enterprise
fund for recycling and landfill services but used general fund monies to operate the Sanitation
Division. The general fund pays for waste collection from convenience centers, County
government buildings and the Orange County Schools,but the funds to pay for MSW collection
from the schools axe now fully recovered through a fee-for-service arrangement. The Board of
Commissioners has agreed to fully incorporate the Sanitation Division into the enterprise fund
beginning July 1,2010,with the general fund being billed on a monthly basis for SWCC
operations. Three-R(3-R)Fee revenues will begin to finance some recyclable material hauling
costs previously funded by the general fund for materials such as clean wood, scrap tires, scrap
metal,yard waste,and white goods beginning in 2010-1 l. The financial integration of the
Sanitation Division into the enterprise fund will continue to be refine d and adjusted as
necessary.
Tables in Chapter 1 detail the funding,revenue and expenses for the Solid Waste Management
Department in 2008-09.
Recycling Program Financing
Three-R fees wholly fund county recycling and waste reduction services and a portion of
Environmental Support Division expenses. There are currently no recycling program expansions
planned so 3-R Fee rates are likely to remain constant unless the shift of Sanitation Division
recycling-related service costs exceed current fee levels. The major change since the previous
plan submittal has been an increase in the various 3-R fees to provide for full recycling program
funding, including indirect costs, or to cover operating costs related to expanded programs. This
increase resulted in elimination in FY2009-10 of any recycling program reliance on landfill fees.
We believe natural growth in existing programs will now be fully covered by the 3-R Fee
charged to new units added to the various programs. E.g.the cost of serving a new single family
urban house with curbside recycling is $52 per year and that is the fee they will be charged for
that service plus the$37 basic fee that covers their portion of drop-off recycling, education,
hazardous waste, etc.
The exception is that there are two smaller commercial programs where the low level of 3-R fee
($37/unitlyear)does not reflect true program costs,but the tonnage diversion and longstanding
nature of the programs along with the strong relationships between the County and participating
businesses, have accounted for the continuation of those programs under the broader financing
umbrella. This arrangement is likely to continue until a broader commercial program is
established with a more comprehensive and targeted fee structure that enables significant
expansion beyond the 250 or so businesses now served. That could be part of future long term
planning considerations.
36
Draft
Table 3-d Annual3-R Fees in Oran e Coun 2009
Fee T e Fee amount Comments
Basic Fee(B) $37 Levied on all improved properties including non-
profits and those within Chapel Hill limits,but in
Durham Coun ,no increase
Urban curbside(tJ) $52 Weekly curbside residential recycling(increased
from$44 in 2007
Rural curbside(R) $38 Bi-weekly curbside residential recycling increased
from$26 in 2007
Multi Famil (1V� $19 Fee levied on each unit in com lex,no increase
There is a growing but unpredictable revenue stream from sale of recyclable materials. While in
good years it is substantial,we cannot forecast a year such as 2008 when international economic
conditions profoundly reduced value of recyclables, in some cases temporarily to negative
numbers--we were paying to dispose get rid of recyclables. That fortunately did not last long.
Nonetheless,this revenue stream remains a `wild card' in the budget but when conservatively
projected will be counted on to provide annual operating revenues.
Recycling collection from the Orange County Schools was taken over by the County Recycling
Division in November 2009. The resulting mutually beneficial fee-for-service contract has saved
the schools money while increasing recycling revenue to the Solid Waste Department from both
the value of the fees charged and the value of new materials. If similar self-financing
opportunities arise in the future and there are sufficient staff capabilities to operate and manage
the efforts,then the Recycling Division may be able to absorb these additional responsibilities
and supplement the enterprise fund to minimize the 3-R Fee rate.
Landfill Program Financing
Current tip fee revenue plus mulch sales,metal sales,white goods reimbursements/grants,tire
tax reimbursement/grants,boiler fuel sales and other minor revenues covers all current costs of
landfill operations.
The MSW tip fee rose in 2008 to $49 per ton from$47 per ton to accommodate the state
mandated$2 per ton surcharge on solid waste and the increased cost of operations. It increased
to $50 in 2009-10. Other fees rose as well,reflecting operating cost increases and the expected
cost of landfill closure. The table below illustrates the current landfill fee schedule. MSW
tonnage decreased 10%below 2007-08 and C&D tonnage dropped 35%causing a substantial
drop in revenues.
Table 3-e Landfill Fees in Oran e Coun 2009-10
Fee T e Fee Amount Comments
Munici al Solid Waste $50 er ton Includes state dis osal tax of$2 er ton
Construction and Demolition Waste $44 er ton Includes state dis osal tax of$2 er ton
Yard waste and clean wood $18 er ton No state dis osal t�char ed as it is not dis osed
Scrap metal and cardboard $0 Revenue rec'd from materials Sale.Materials
banned from dis osal b Co.ordinance
Appliances(white goods)and Tires $0 State law—disposal costs covered through
advance disposal fee. White goods
reimbursements do not cover ex enses.
37
Draft
Future of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Enterprise fund reserves as of June 30, 2009 were projected to be $6,958,498 to which the
equipment/vehicle reserve portion is$4,298,854. Sanitation Division equipment is not currently
included in this reserve as no contributions have been made. Cost estimates for the funding of
landfill closure, long term maintenance and environmental monitoring are awaiting final design
along with permitting of the closure plan and its associated costs. Closure expenses are assumed
to be substantially financed from reserves.
While there will be significant reduction in expenditures(personnel and equipment) once the
landfill closes,enterprise fund revenues sources will be diminished and are likely to fall below
expenses. An enterprise fund financial analysis will be conducted over the next few months to
evaluate and refine the enterprise fund's fmancial viability as necessary. The goal is to adjust the
level of services, fee rates and any other revenues to attain operational efficiencies to achieve a
fully-funded enterprise fund model for all county solid waste operations. Future convenience
center operations could shift further or entirely away from the general fund towards annual
household fees,fee based or Pay-As-You-Throw based systems or some combination. Those are
future decisions currently being analyzed in preparation for discussion with the Board of
Commissioners.
The Environmental Support Division provides both direct and indirect administrative and
environmental support to the other divisions that include education/outreach,enforcement,
planning,maintenance,utilities, insurance, facilities, financial,retiree health,janitorial services,
billing, clericaUadministrative,payroll, etc. support for the entire department.Funding for
Environmental Support is currently split between the Recycling and Landfill Divisions, but with
the addition of the Sanitation Division these support costs may need to be reallocated.
Current MSW and C&D landfill tonnages,thus revenues, are declining below projected tonnages
thereby requiring a reliance on reserves to cover any possible shortfalls in operating revenue.
Three-R Fees will continue to fund the not only the current recycling effort but also increasingly
the hauling of recyclable yard waste,clean wood, scrap metal,appliances and tires. Some
convenience center staffing and site operations costs proportional to the area of the sites used for
recycling services are also slated to be partly funded by the 3-R Fee for 2010-11 and beyond.
Table 3-f Revenue Sources for 2008-09 Solid Waste Mana ement
Source Amount(to nearest Comments
1,000)
Landfill Ti in Fees $3,481,000
3-R Fees $3,556,000 Charged to all improved properties to cover
rec clin ro am costs
Recycling&Mulch Sales $768,000 Includes all scrap metal,compost and wood
chips as well as `conventional recyclables—
a er,cans,bottles
White Goods&Tires $191,000 State reimbursements
Landfill Penalty Fees $174,000 For illegally landfilling measurable amounts
of cardboard,wood and scra metal.
Other:RRMO licensing,grants, interest $452,000 Estimated
income,compost bin sales,capital
contributions,sales of s lus e ui ment etc.
38
Draft
No Transfer Station
A decision was reached in December 2009 not to construct a transfer station in Orange County
for at least the next several years. The implications of that decision for each of the four local
governments in the County's interlocal solid waste agreement have not yet been determined.
Some inter governmental discussions have taken place,but the governments have not finalized
any decisions on the future destinations of waste once the landfill closes. It is clear that each
government will experience longer hauling distances and increased transport costs to move waste
to an out of County destination.It is not clear whether they will all seek a common solution after
the MSW landfill is closed in early 2013.
The County ceased its search for a site for an MSW transfer station via a motion adopted
December 7, 2009(see Append�A) subsequent to a motion passed by the Board of Orange
County Commissioners (BOCC) in 2001 stated that no new MSW landfill would be constructed
in Orange County. The County now seeks alternative long-term means of managing its
municipal solid waste along with that of its current three municipal partners in the interlocal
agreement: Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough.
C&D Disposal and Materials Mana�ement
Orange County has sited and operates an unlined C&D landfill at the current location on
Eubanks Road. That landfill is now predicted to last 18 years or more with the marked decrease
in C&D tonnage from an average of about 31,000 tons a year prior to implementation of the
RRMO in 2002 to 10,483 tons last year and a projected 7,700 this year. Obviously part of the
steep decline is due to recession, but part is also due to waste shifting to less costly, less
environmentally rigorous disposal facilities with fewer regulations.
The County plans to also continue managing recyclables,hazardous wastes,tires, clean wood,
scrap metal and yard waste from all across the County at its current facility for the foreseeable
future. There is an ongoing multi jurisdictional commitment to continue to reduce the amount of
waste disposed by 61%per person in an effort to conserve resources,reduce the amount of waste
to be transferred,protect the environment and save the remaining landfill space until a suitable
alternative can be developed. The biggest challenge will be to finance those operations that are
not self-financing,but have depended upon MSW disposal revenues to make up any potential
operational deficits.
Inter�overnmental Cooperation
The Interlocal Agreement, signed in 2000 by the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and
Hillsborough and Orange County continues to function and provide a strong fiscal and
governance foundation for the current solid waste operation. The four signatories to the
agreement, as well as i7NC, although it is not a signer,have all pledged the waste under their
control to an Orange County-run facility. This pledge has stabilized the amount of waste coming
to the landfill. The interlocal agreement and state statute also stipulate that Counties are
responsible for providing disposal facilities.The County and the Towns are now in discussion
over the viability of the Interlocal Agreement now that Orange County has elected not to provide
a local disposal facility.
39
Draft
The Town of Hillsborough has continued its contractual obligation for its franchised non-
residential hauler,Waste Industries,to deliver waste from Hillsborough to the County landfill as
part of the renewed agreement with Waste Industries. The Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro
deliver waste they collect to the landfill, but other private haulers operating in those jurisdictions
are currently under no such obligation. Some of the waste they collect,primarily from the non-
residential sector is delivered to Orange County,while an increasing fraction goes to other area
transfer stations or landfills.In September 2008,UNC,by mutual consent,began sending its
waste out of County to a private transfer station operated by its contract hauler to conserve
landfill space.
While UNC is not a signatory to the interlocal agreement nor as of September 2008, does it any
longer deliver waste to the landfill, it continues to be a participant in solid waste activity through
its presence on the Solid Waste Advisory Board,the joint landfill gas project, as a recipient of
County-provided collection services that divert over 900 tons of food waste and lab animal
bedding from landfilling and informal ongoing cooperation between the educational and
outreach arm of the County Solid Waste Department and the University's Office of Waste
Reduction and Recycling.
Privately collected waste in the unincorporated areas is generally assumed to go elsewhere as
haulers currently have no obligation to bring it to Orange County although they are licensed by
the County. Typically where hauling routes end on the fringe of the County,private haulers take
advantage of lower tipping fees elsewhere. Those with their own landfill or transfer station go
there. Telephone surveys with the two largest private haulers operating in the County confirm
this.Micro-haulers defined as those with fewer than 500 customers tend to use the Orange
County landfill generally but those in the northeast portion of the County report using the
Durham Transfer Station or the private MSW lined landfill in Person County near Roxboro.Both
facilities are cheaper for them, closer to their respective customer bases and do not have the
extensive environmental ordinances that they are subject to in Orange County.
The Solid Waste Advisory Board consisting of eight formally appointed citizens members,two
each selected by the four jurisdictions plus an ex-officio member from LJNC, offers ongoing
policy guidance and comment on staffwork. They also provide recommendations and ideas to
the BOCC on solid waste matters.Each set of two SWAB members also periodically reports
back to their respective jurisdictional elected bodies on matters affecting them such as the
County's overall solid waste management plan. With the re-examination of the current Interlocal
Agreement,the future of the SWAB is somewhat uncertain.
RRMO as a model of intergovernmental coo erp ation
As the Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance(RRMO) and Solid Waste planning
requirements have strengthened and matured over the eight years since its inception, each of the
jurisdictions has formalized its means of informing the Couniy of permitted construction or
demolition projects within its boundaries and collecting solid waste plan fees for the County's
effort. Through ordinance and formal agreements,the various jurisdictions now provide
notification and allow plan review of new construction and demolition to ensure adherence to the
County's mandate to recycle wood,metal and cardboard as well to ensure the new or
substantially renovated projects provide adequate, accessible outdoor storage space for
recyclables to be collected.
40
Draft
The County Solid Waste Department regularly receives lists of development applications for all
non-single family building projects so they can ensure a solid waste plan is filed, inspect job sites
and provide education and enforcement of the aspects of the RRMO. Solid waste staff from
Carrboro, Chapel Hill and UNC continues to inspect dumpsters and rolloff containers under their
respective jurisdictions' control for the presence of regulated materials and routinely tag such
containers to prevent their collection until such materials are removed. Tagging reduces the
landfill tip fee penalties the Towns or the University may incur and, for C&D waste, ensures
accountability for where waste is delivered.
Solid Waste Convenience Center staff educate,urge and direct the public to separate regulated
materials at the Convenience Center sites, as the trucks delivering waste from the sites to the
landfill are treated similarly to any other non-residential truck and routinely penalized for
presence of regulated materials in their loads. LTNC employs its own staff to educate contractors,
building operators, students and faculty and monitor those containers under its jurisdiction to
keep them free of regulated materials or they too incur penalties or sanctions invoked by UNC
staff.
In general,the various Towns also support the County-wide recycling program by passing
ordinances correlated to the County ordinances, for example the County ban on landfilling
residential cardboard was coordinated with collection bans in all three jurisdictions. The Towns
of Carrboro and Hillsborough distribute recycling bins from their offices.All three Towns notify
the County of new residences slated to receive collection and provide recycling information to
new residents as they move in along with the jurisdiction's own solid waste information. Each
Town's web site also has a link to the recycling and solid waste management web page.
Consideration of Alternative Technolo�ies
In 2008,the Solid Waste Advisory Board commissioned a study of alternative technologies by
consultant Gershman,Brickner and Bratton(GBB)that identified incineration of waste with
energy recovery as the most effective near-term solution. Total cost for building a waste
combustion plant was calculated at about$100 per ton,approximately twice the cost of current
landfill disposal at the relatively small scale that Orange County operates of about 50,000 tons a
year of MSW.
GBB also concluded that only mass combustion of waste-to-energy was mature enough as a
technology to handle the great majority of the County's waste using a single technology though
analysis did review other technologies including plasma arc, large scale anaerobic digestion and
refuse-derived-fuel.
Following the December 2009 decision not to site a transfer station in Orange County for at least
three to five years,various citizens and citizen groups have urged the County to consider other
alternative technologies for handling the county's solid waste and possibly other wastes such as
biosolids,medical waste and other difficult to manage materials. As part of the motion the
Board adopted in December, 2009,the Board requested that the SWAB undertake a more
complete review of alternative technologies during 2010-11. In April 2010 the SWAB hosted its
first presentation of the plasma arc technology by inventor Dr.Louis Circeo of Georgia lnstitute
of Technology. Future technology reviews and presentations are also planned with a report by
the SWAB back to the board following completion of more comprehensive review.
Alternative technologies may come to play a role in managing waste and recycling options will
doubtless increase,but most likely there will always be some residual to manage as well as a
41 `
Draft
variety of very difficult-to-manage materials such as dead animals,obsolete mobile homes and
disaster debris. Possible regional solutions are not clearly delineated nor are the potential
partners as each jurisdiction has its own needs and wants and the geographically likely partners
are in different place on the solid waste decision-making/spectrum.
Plannin�A�proach and Progress Towards Waste Reduction and Disposal Goals
While Orange County is the lead agency in overall solid waste management in Orange County, it
continues to actively engage with its partners,the three Towns and L1NC as well as citizens and
businesses overall. There is a general understanding since the first plan submittal in 1997,that a
single integrated plan will be submitted by all the partners and a specific reaffirmation of the
61%waste reduction goal in the resolution from each government attached to each plan
submittal. That goal or another goal will be adopted as part of the current plan submittal.
In 2005,the Board of County Commissioners established the Solid Waste Plan Work Group to
further the specific objective of creating a more comprehensive solid waste plan. An interim plan
was sent forward in 2008. The Work Group as it's known continues to review technical materials
and deliver its opinion and recommendations on matters related to the reports referenced above
jurisdictions and technical staff from each jurisdiction's Sanitation/Solid Waste Division. The
Work Group may sunset in the fall 2010 following review and input to the preparation of the
2010 solid waste management plan update.
In 2008,the County adopted the Work Group recommendation,originally recommended by its
technical consultant,Resource Recycling Systems,to switch to two-stream recycling(paper in
one bin and cans and bottles in the second at all types of locations except dropoff sites)and by
December 2008,all programs were converted to that collection mode from the six-way
separation that had existed in one form or another since the inception of public recycling in 1987.
This change created a much more efficient means of collection and enabled continued growth in
the number of stops on rural curbside routes and commercial routes using existing staff and some
new equipment to process and move material to market more efficiently. The equipment,
including a leased road tractor,walking floor trailers and a rubber tire loader was capitalized
from current budget allocations and capital reserves with no new funds needed. Over 150 new
commercial stops and 1,000 rural residential curbside stops were added. Some commercial stops
serve multiple businesses.
Several small staff initiated program changes were made in congruence with the general
approach of adding new recycling materials when markets arise,but they were not made in
accordance with any particular planning dictate. Thus there is now a program to collect non-
bottle#2 and#5 plastics at drop off sites, old media such as videotape is collected with
electronics and newspaper and magazine collection were combined at the dropoff sites, because
the paper buyers sell the combination all to newsprint mills. Thus there was no price reduction,
in fact pricing is maximized for this grade of material and hauling became more efficient.
In prior years the work Group had broadly reviewed the concept of building an in-County MRF,
commercial recycling and waste management in the unincorporated areas. In 2009,the Work
Group's emphasis focused more sharply on waste and recycling management in unincorporated
Orange County due partly to impending service reductions at convenience centers. Due to these
increased fiscal and operational pressures,the main emphasis was on how to manage, improve
and finance the solid waste convenience centers along with a lesser emphasis on rural curbside
waste collection and expanding and improving curbside recycling.
42
Draft
Discussion of capitalizing the necessary improvements at convenience centers and developing
predictable, sustainable and reliable sources of funds to operate the convenience centers began to
take a more prominent role as the County's general fund financial picture worsened in 2008-09.
Once the MSW landfill closes in early 2013,hauling efficie�cy will become a very important
element in all decision-making for the County controlled wastes. Increasing that efficiency is a
paramount effort in the next two years so it is ready when the landfill closes.Hauling as we do
now, loads of 1 to 2 tons of bulky wastes in rolloff containers or even six to seven ton loads in
underused front end loaders that have ten tons of capacity will have to be supplanted by more
efficient means of hauling.
Much of the past two years' Work Group planning effort has focused on the unincorporated area
including detailed discussions of franchising waste collection, expansion of recycling and
renovation of the convenience centers.No recommendation has been made on any of these
matters. The issues around siting, design, operation and financing convenience centers should
have a planning priority. The BOCC has recently requested staffto analyze the future role for the
SWCCs including design concepts and cost information.
Moving Ahead
The overall joint solid waste planning process is very deliberate and has worked in a manner
designed to gather ongoing input not only from the local governments but from citizens and
citizen groups. The amount of attention that solid waste issues generate has resulted in ongoing
debate over almost every aspect of solid waste planning and consequently few recommendations
in the past five years since inception of the Work Group. This process while cumbersome has
resulted in development of some highly refined technical analyses that will be helpful in future
decision making.
While the County continues to make steady numerical progress towards its 61%waste reduction
goal and new programs such as the rigid plastics at drop off sites are actively publicly embraced,
a number of significant issues remain that could impact solid waste services and programs.
Noting that there has previously been considerable technical detailed analysis and reporting on
waste management in the unincorporated areas and commercial recycling and that a
comprehensive solid waste financial model is still in the works and that many other decisions are
pending,the overarching suggested direction for this plan update is to acknowledge the need for
future consideration of these program elements
Annotated List of Solid Waste Issues
• Commercial recvcling: This element of the waste stream retains the largest potential for
waste reduction,without a more systematic approach to reducing commercial waste we
will be challenged in meeting our waste reduction goal.By increasing collection
efficiency in the past two years, the County has managed to provide over 250 businesses
with recycling services but has reached its limit under currently configured staffing and
financing. A set of options for expansion of commercial recycling have been analyzed
and the various businesses surveyed have generally favored development of a model
similar to the public model for residential and drop off recycling services. The opinion
surveys, focus groups and related analytical work were undertaken prior to the recession
43
Draft
and the concept of paying additional fees for services may not be as popularly received as
when the work was done.
One future planning challenge/decision point will be regarding long term development of
a publicly funded and operated commercial recycling program.Alternatives included a .
privately-operated program with strict disposal bans that essentially require recycling to
comply with the disposal bans as is now the case with cardboard or some type of
franchised program that avoids public investment in equipment and labor but still results
in diversion of materials from the landfill via franchised recycling haulers.
• C&D mana eg ment: While C&D volume is presently declining across the state,the need
continues to provide�local means to manage recyclable and waste C&D materials. It will
be important to address the question of how to manage the valuable resource that is the
C&D landfill as the repository for those construction wastes that cannot be recycled and
the considerable investment in processing area and equipment for regulated materials
including wood, scrap metal and white goods.
• Landfill closure and long-term maintenance: The County is now planning for closure but
it will be an expensive task including closure,post closure monitoring and maintenance
and hauling of local wastes to out of County disposal facilities.Post closure monitoring is
required for a minimum of thirty years according to Federal law.If any environmenta.l
problems arise,the County must provide solutions,which are typically not inexpensive.
This is an area intimately tied to the long term financial planning and is mandatory. Thus
any long term plan will have to take account of these elements and future staff work will
provide some options for developing this long term funding.
• Conversion to single stream recycling_ While it appears that this approach to recycling is
the trend,we do not plan an immediate conversion due to staffing constraints for both
management and operations.Long-term single stream does appear to be the direction that
curbside programs are headed as they have been in other counties and states. It is not
obvious that it is a `best' solution,but certainly increases tonnage into the recycling
conta.iner. The single stream conversion at least in urban areas is likely to be able to cover
the cost of converting from two recycling bins to rollcarts from increased automated
collection efficiency. That issue is more complex in the rural areas as not all areas are
suitable for cart-based collection. That sub-issue is undecided at this time and can be
determined if the overall conversion to single stream is embraced using carts.
• Expansion of rural residential recvcling: There are two phases possible. The first would
enable expansion to an additional 1,000 homes focused on infill along existing routes and
areas that have expressed interest in curbside. That can be done with no staffing changes
provided currently vacant positions can be re-filled. The larger issue is a more universal
embrace of rural area curbside recycling to as much as 90%of all households.Now about
65%are served.As expansion to less densely settled areas increases,cost-�ffectiveness
of curbside collection declines,but providing the service has added benefits of increased
recycling convenience and there is one clear message county-wide about service
provision. Levying the 3-R fee on new households would self-finance the expansions.
• Franchised waste collections: If there is not to be an in-County operated solid waste
disposal facility,then the direct benefit to the County of franchised collections is limited
44
Draft
because in the short run at least there is no public facility to which to direct the waste
that would help pay for the facility.Franchises can provide significant benefits to the
environment through more adherence to local environmental ordinances, efficient routing
and increased collection density,enable greater access to service and are likely to reduce
operations pressure on the convenience centers which will increase when the landfill
closes. Due to the currently reduced hours and services,those pressures are already
showing signs of increasing.
� Financin ,g desi�and operation of the convenience centers: This may be the single most
pressing element of the plan to undertake in the next twelve months and it affects all of
the County as all taxpayers support the convenience centers. They are used broadly by
urban as well as rural residents,and there is a strain on the general fund as the primary
means of funding. When the landfill closes there will be increased pressure on them and
the greater hauling MSW distance will result in increased costs.
As part of shifting the Convenience Centers to the Enterprise Fund,even if some 3-R fee
revenues are shifted to cover some convenience center operating and hauling costs,the
long-term upgrades to design and location will have to be funded by new capital that is
not now available.Four key issues are under discussion for the convenience centers--
location, design, fmancing and operation.Previous options have been presented of
locations using the current five locations or adding a sixth in northeast part of the County
if there is a conversion to a districtJneighborhood approach.
Design of the centers needs to be upgraded for them to function safely and efficiently.
Continued traffic increases and shorter hours of operation and fewer staff inean more
conflict between site users and between hauling vehicles and site users. Upcoming longer
hauling distances to remote transfer stations once the landfill closes will require more use
of compactors for efficient hauling.
Changes in design and location are intimately connected to operations issues —should all
centers have identical hours, should centers be open on a rotating basis, should some
centers have more services than others and function as district centers while others are
smaller neighborhood centers? Finally the issue of how to fund the needed designs and
changes is critical because the current funding levels do not allow any expansion of
services or locations or improved operations while increased traffic demands that these
changes be made sooner rather than deferred. In the past fiscal year several services were
eliminated and operating hours reduced over 30%due to current budget problems.
Additional operating costs result from increased site maintenance,wear and tear on
overused small open top dumpsters that fill with water and gravel surfaces that must be
continually regarded and pot holes refilled.
The Work Group has reviewed three potential scenarios for future Solid Waste
Convenience Center design and location. The three scenarios include:
l.A districdneighborhood arrangement with two larger district centers that have a full
suite of services and four neighborhood centers that have fewer services but are more
convenient to the most rural areas.
2.A second scenario fully modernizes four of the five existing centers and maintains
essentially the current level of services at all sites with little room for expansion.
45
Draft
3.A third scenario has very minimal modernization including only compactors to
increase waste hauling efficiency but makes no improvements in site safety,customer
convenience,unloading efficiency or maintenance.
Financing options include maintaining the majority of funding that is not going to be
shifted to the 3-R Fee to come from the general fund.Alternatives reviewed include
adding a variety of tiers and types of household fees to fund various segments of the
remaining operational and capital costs. For example a single flat fee per household
regardless of type or location could be used or a more complex fee structure similar to the
3-R Fee where the amount levied was related to the likelihood or necessity of use. For
example,rural residents are the most likely users so their fees might be highest while
urban single family use sites less and multifamily are the least likely users, so they would
pay lower fees. These options were all previously addressed. Fees could be used to
capitalize imprqvements which would mean no reduction in the tax burden. If fees were
used to substitute for general fund contributions,there would be no net new funds for
capital improvements. That is a key decision if any improvements are to be made and it
seems imperative to make them and determine how to pay for them.
• Regulatory and economic incentives to promote waste reduction: As corollaries to
implementing expanded recycling collection programs,regulations and incentives can
optimize program results by driving greater usage. Orange County began residential
curbside cardboard collection in November 2008 and banned it from the garbage in
March 2009. Now cardboard is less than 2%of residential waste. Similar bans could be
implemented along with economic incentives such as Pay As You Throw waste
collection. In the short run,there is no political interest in PAYT at this time.Further, it is
not obvious that there is management,enforcement,billing and collection infrastructure
to enable more regulation or incentives. But these tools are available for future means to
increase recycling and decrease waste.
End Chapter 3
46
Draft
Chapter 4
Process for Development of the Plan
Plan development in Orange County is an ongoing process. The process is complicated by the
fact that all four jurisdictions remain interested in fashioning a fully integrated plan that
cooperatively incorporates all elements of solid waste management from waste reduction through
landfilling, encompassing all the sectors of the economy in each jurisdiction. T'he County is the
lead agency but the three Towns remain fully involved in the recycling programs and
determining if they are all going to send their waste to the same destination when the Orange
County Landfill closes in 2013.
This iteration of the three year update can provide more definition and direction for a plan that
will provide the County with blueprints for action on a variety of solid waste issues still facing it.
This iteration will not provide a precise timetable or implementation plan for most of those
actions. But an overall approach is presented here.
The previous three-year update acted as a short-term plan interim descriptive document. This
plan submittal is more than descriptive,but does not become fully prescriptive. It does call out
all the key issues on which decisions are needed and offers options for recommendations for
each issue.When those individual issues are decided they could be pulled together to constitute a
plan that will drive the County towards its sixty one percent waste reduction goal and a long term
more sustainable approach to solid waste management.
Following the review and comment on this planning document by the Solid Waste Plan Work
Group,the document was presented at a public meeting on August , comments were
incorporated, and the resulting plan was reviewed by all three Town elected boards. (resolutions
attached as Appendix B). It was be presented to the Board of Orange County Commissioners for
a final review and adoption on September_prior to submittal to the State.
This iteration of the plan,while containing some substantive material,primarily elucidates the
remaining issues.Major issues detailed in the list at the end of the previous chapter are still in the
process of addressed.A series of technical memoranda and presentations over the past two years
provide more background to enable decision-making.Those are incorporated by reference.
Following adoption and submission of this plan,the planning process will continue into the
future. Potential key issues for future for decision-making are:
• The future of solid waste convenience centers design, operation, financing, and location.
• How to create a financially stable solid waste enterprise fund following MSW landfill
closure and integration of the Sanitation Division into the Enterprise Fund
• How much further to expand rural curbside recycling
• Whether or not to implement single stream recycling in both urban and rural curbside
programs and when
• Expansion and full funding of commercial recycling
• Implementing additional regulatory or incentive measures to promote waste reduction
and recycling
• Alternatives to direct hauling of waste to other transfer stations
� Technological Alternatives to Landfill Disposal and Regional Cooperation
47
Draft
• Development of comprehensive organics management program that includes food waste
and additional compostable materials
The consultants' overall advisory work on the plan will conclude with this process. Future work
on detailed implementation may involve further engineering and financial expertise once specific
decisions are made on for example convenience center design and commercial recycling
programs. The Work Group may not continue following submittal of this plan update. The final
plan elements will be determined by the Board of County Commissioners with input from the
public,the Solid Waste Advisory Board and the three Town governments.
All the key issues listed above along with the elements detailed in Append�F that may be
incorporated into the integrated plan along with a fiscal analysis to determine how the needed
expansions and changes could be financed.
End Chapter 4
End Report
48
Draft
Appendices
Appendix A Motion by Board of Commissioners to not build an in-County transfer station but
negotiate near term MSW transfer with the City of Durham
Appendix B Copy of Resolutions Adopting Plan and advertisement of public meeting on plan
Appendix C Map of Waste Sites used by Orange County
Appendix D Waste Characterization Study Excerpts (1995.v. 2000 v. 2005 v. 2010)
Appendix E Waste Reduction Goal Sheet
Appendix F Plan Elements
Appendix G Supporting Documentation—brochures,newsletters, other
Appendix H Deparhnental Goal �
Appendix I Financial plan (not complete and will not be submitted with interim report)
Appendix J Excerpt of Previous Plan memo summarizing decisions points
49
Draft
Appendiz A
Board of County Commissioners Motion to transfer waste to Durham City transfer station
December 7,2010
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to
approve adopting option B- City of Durham Transfer Station:
(1)Authorize the County manager to proceed with validating an interlocal agreement between
Orange County and the City of Durham formalizing future arrangements as an intermediate
solution (3-5 years). Staff should seek in such discussions to assure to the greatest extent
possible Orange County's continued leadership in reducing solid waste and promoting recycling.
(2) Direct County Management to begin working with the towns on amending the 1999 Interlocal
Agreement as necessary with regard to the County obligation to provide solid waste disposal
facilities and formalizing waste stream flow commitments so that any agreement with the City of
Durham provides the towns and county with the best rate possible over the course of a long
term agreement.
(3) Reengage the towns as full, proactive participants in the Inter-Local Agreement and in solid
waste planning, and determine what they are willing to support, knowing already what they
oppose.
(4) Direct County staff and the Solid Waste Advisory Board to establish a discrete timeline and
framework for a public process to evaluate alternative methods for solid waste disposal, with
an emphasis on strategies that are environmentally sensitive, socially responsible, cost-
effective, and multi jurisdictional across county lines. Said framework for evaluation to
return to the Board no sooner than September 2010.
(5) No additional funding for consultants to pursue these matters shall be authorized without
explicit direction from the Board.
A friendly amendment was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger:
(6) To exclude the Millhouse Road -Rogers Road-Eubanks Road communities from any
future solid waste facilities.
Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Hemminger agr�ed with the friendly amendment.
Commissioner Gordon said that she came into the meeting with some thoughts that she wanted
to share, but she has decided to cover only the highlights of her statement. She said that the
County Commissioners had agreed to site a WTS in Orange County and made a commitment to
a defined site selection process. Of the candidate sites, she did not believe that there was one
that was ideal, but she did believe that following the site selection process means rejecting the
site in Eubanks Road area.
A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier to add a friendly amendment. She said that
there is still a landfill in Orange County, and if the County Commissioners want to stick with their
values, they need to take care of their own trash. She said that in the interim, and with the
study between the jurisdictions, they need to specify to look at the possibility for a landfill in
Orange County. She said that if everyone is concerned about having trash in their own
backyard, they should be concerned about where they are sending it. She wants to stick to the
values.
50
Draft
Commissioner Jacobs did not accept this as a friend/y amendment. He said that his
motion does not preclude considering a landfill.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he too is concerned about the long-term solution for trash and
Durham County is only an intermediate solution. He said that he would have been very pleased
to have accepted Commissioner Jacobs' motion, but now he is concerned about adding on
commitments that may tie the hands of some future Board of County Commissioners and will
raise expectations among certain people that they are off the table. He said that if there is going
to be a clear, transparent, fair process, nothing should be off the table. For this reason, he is
hesitant to support the motion as stated.
Chair Foushee said that she is happy that they are finally removing the Rogers-Eubanks-
Millhouse Road community from the site list. She said that this is a consideration of
environmental injustice.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1(CommissionerYuhasz)
51
Draft
DRAFT
Appendix B
RESOLUTION ADOPTING TI�THREE-YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
UPDATE to be submitted to Sta.te of North Carolina,
WHEREAS North Carolina statutorily requires each County and Municipality to update its ten
year solid waste plan every three years, and
WHEREAS Orange County and its municipalities have historically cooperated closely on solid
waste management including plan development,and
WI-�REAS the plan to be adopted reaffirms the goal of 61%waste reduction per capita
originally established in 1997 and reaffirmed in 2000, 2003 and 2008 (for 2006 submittal),and
WHEREAS the Board of Orange County Commissioners has created a representative solid waste
management plan work group that has worked for five years on the comprehensive, integrated
long term plan,and
WHEREAS the Orange County Solid Waste Department,the Work Group and the Solid Waste
Advisory Board have developed a draft interim plan for consideration by the Town,and
WHEREAS plan development has included representatives from the Town and the Town's
interests have thereby been represented in plan development, and
WHEREAS,the Town has reviewed and considered the plan and offered its recommendations
and revisions to be incorporated into the plan document to be submitted to the State for review
after consideration by the Board of Orange County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS,this plan submittal is a living document and recognizes that the County's overall
integrated solid waste management plan will continue to evolve,and
WHEREAS the current submittal is about 15 months overdue from the original plan update due
date of June 30, 2009,
THEREFORE NOW BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of adopts and
recommends this solid waste management plan update pending adoption by the Board of Orange
County Commissioners.
This is the of , 2010.
52
Draft
Appendiz B continued
Advertisement of Public Meeting on Solid Waste Plan
Once the advertisement of the public meeting(s) is published it will be inserted here
This advertisement for the public meeting on the solid waste plan ran in:
News of Orange
CH Herald `wrap around of Durham Herald that circulates in Orange County, Circulation
Carrboro Citizen Circ.
CH News semi-weekly 20,000 circulation in southern Orange, urban and rural
53
Draft
Appendix C Map of Landfill
�
� ��/���' ;! ,, :;�_�,' �' �. ',�. I
=�•{ �:\ j
_j`�'�/ - _ _ �.: - �:_
, - - —__..::;..:k ;,���-: r. : �
--- "� �,'�
--- : ��:���-,,: '� .-
°-�'"r. , �� '::_: �::; :'s:; _ . CLOSED �
� ;r...="r-• , ' ;"�.. - A C&D
;^===�" _-- �• ��''�` �;���, _ LANDFILL
��' - : �-- _ � - � i
' '.��-• - '-f ; ����; _,`. '�i'l.
�'I, `��� � __ 1_,
�t ; ; : ^/' �-,� � ;;�;' ;',1
CLOSED � �. . � °'�• ��- � �`. I
LANDFILL %a9�, :t,r; �;_ ,: ::^r`\, � '\,,
a., 'i �
NORTFI �.,,.' '�, _ 'i �'`; .:.�.`` _ >.�,4: ^ - I
� _- _ ' - ', ''- j
' --- �7�-:5:'�! -- ''�•, � _ JI
='s�~ - -- , �' - -- =�����' `,•_ \,,�` i
� _ _ . � ' ti ---- --�s's'?' �. _-.- / __-"�,• �•k1�' �
' �,:.�'=,, l .,
. ���' /.:� ,;y'ii, � ;'�? _ .~ ,� � � I
�'�t� � . .[ _,��=ir;.:_�^_`` .::., !=;;�a%Y;:; �, I
-_ --"' c:%*=������, '• _ ).. "_ _. ��' _�—.��� ::%,.'- _�_� i
_ .' ;�. I -� '.+� '�_.i _ ., .';i:.�' _ / - I
;i t: _ - '��;,. '. '-v' = F� _ � y.;,' ',
' ,!- � ` - -- " __
j � ( �'; - _�i . ` �'::�: {� I
� .. i�� ,,.y ���_ ._ � ,:.;.��,; ;�..__.7,. ' i
~�1 . ,. 'i' � �/'� I
� # pi l�.'•: ' �� -__ � � — r�s'� !
,.: . A '/ " ..:- : - �r.,:; ' r. ,',_%�: ;-'��.` ,.• �
' 1"+.. � �� . ♦ ,�r' -�, '.% �
�a.. {'s — �o y.� 'r''r..'''�'i.
� �1 �I 1� '' ~ ^ ��`�'�`, I
� AcrivE : " - -- �_ ;' . �' "�:ja! �,�� �
;i...;_:-..., ;�. I
_ . " ,,;x,..,
C&D ' -- _ ___ - ;�;=�'�•,; --..��� � - � �,.
LANDFILL �:,. _ - - - :,` .,�,�;' :-:.�1.;��i; `':_ �-., (
� ' �.�_"_ �¢-- -'"... _�—�`�� , �. .i.: C\\ ��,`\'!;.��. I
y � • �' � :�`I , .—l� ` .`�.
� � �•\:'t
� '�°_=�.`��``�.--.��;l;� ;� �: . . '�'y .
� 300 0 30D B00 1200 , .� .��' t
ACTIVE r� '
� LANDFILL �,;\-J�'.' - - I
� Aerial topograpfiy providad by: Spatial Data Consultants SOUTH ��'•�s"::?'...':'�"'•,•<�'
� Date of photography: Aprii 5,2007 =- - -- _=;:, \. �
,.'�',
�' Scale of photogrePhY ��=600' -_-- -- — = - ;;:�'':J`',
� os�: -__=;�ti•_:;= :-: ,.�,;,, �
Ground Control provided by. Suttles Surveying,PA "'�
� �- _ �;q'„'!�l��t.';�c;;":%';
� . �
� OVERALL SITE MAP scu.E: r=soa �
� ORANGE COUNTY LANDFILL
� PRQIECT: R00592-56
ORANGE COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA �
$ a.,�► Draper Aden Associates DESIGNED: WA FIGURE
� Engineerfng.Surveying •BmironmenmfServicar DRAWN: HW I
��� 70o He�s saen,Sune E ��+�o•�A CHECKED: WGH �
CnaAottes�Nie,vq a2go3 �•�� DATE: 04-01-OB I
6 aa+-zss-o�oo r-ex:+�a-zssa�os N�m�n�maY� �
�
�
� i
54
Draft
Appendix D
Solid Waste Characterization
EXHIBIT A-16
ORANGE CAUNTY WASTE CHAR4CTERIZATION STUDY-APRIL 2005
COMPARISON OF COMMERCUIL WASTE COMPOSITIONS
1995 2000 2005 2010
Material Components Composition Composition ComposiSon Composition
Paper
Newspaper/PriM 6.1% 4.7% 3.4% 3.0%
GlossyMagazines 2.8% 2.5% 2.4% 0.8°k
RecydableCortugatedCardboard 10.7% 3.5% 3.1% 2.6�0
Nor�-RecyGable Cardboard N/A 1.8% 1.8� 0.4%
Phone Books N/A
<0.1� <0.1% <0.1%
paperboard N/A 3.5% 22% 22%
Other Books WA 1.9% <0.1% 0.4%
White Ledg� N/A 2.6% 42% 1.6%
Mixed Otfice Paper 3.3% 3.2°k 2.8% 22%
Other Paper(includes hardback books) 25.1� 9.5% 13.0% 14.5%
ToWI Paper 48.0% 33.5% 33.0% 27.6°k
Pla�ics
All Plastic Bottles 2.2% 3.4% 3.4% 3.2%
Flm 4.8% 7.8% 6.� 9.5%
AII Cups$Tubs 0.8% 2.9% 1.9% 22%
All Other Plastic(indudes styrofoam) 6.2% 4.4% 8.8% 5.8%
Total Plastics 14.0% 18.5% 20.2X 20.8 h
Organics .
Food Waste 122% 20.4% 23.7% 25.5%
Tex61es/Leatt�er 2.7% 5.0°h 3.5% 3.5%
Diapefs 1.4% 2.1% 1.1% 2.3%
Other Organics(indudes rubber) 4.5% 4.1�0 2.4% 3.5%
TotalOrganics 20.8% 31.6% 30.7% 34.7%
Ferrous Metal
FoodCoMainers/Bi-Metal 1.6% 1.2% 1.7% 0.8°k
Aerosds NIA 0.5% 0.3% 02%
Oth�Ferrous 32% 1.6% 2.1% 0.6%
Total Ferrous Metal 4.8% 3.3% 4.1 k 1.596
Non Ferrous Metal
AlumirnimCans 0.7% 1.2% 0.7% 0.8%
Aluminum Foil WA 0.8% 1.0% 0.8%
Othe�Non-Fertous N/A 02% 0.5% 0.4%a
Total Non F�rous Metal 0.7% 23% 21% 2.0%
Glass
All Bottles 8 Jars 4.0� 3.8% . 3.5% 3.4%
OtherGlass 0.4°h 0.8% 1.0% 02�
ToWI Glass 4.4% 4.6% 4.5% 3.6%
Wood
Pallets WA 0.5% <0.1% <0.1%
Lumber 1.6% 1.7� 1.1% 1.1%
Painted/Treated 1.2% 0.3% <0.1% 0.3%
Stumps/Heavy Sections WA <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Total Wood 28% 25k 1.1% 1.5k
IneR
Brick,concrete,dirt,asphalt,etc. 1.4� 7.5h 1.0% 22°�
Yard Waste
(ncludes grass,leaves,small brar�ches) 0.8% 1.3% 0.496 2.7%
Special Waste
LeaG-Aad Batteries WA <0.1 Yo <0.1 h <0.1%
Dry Cell Batteries WA 02% <0.1% <0.1q
OilFlters N/A <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Othet Hazarclars Waste 1.5% <0.1� <0.1% <0.1%
Infectious Waste 0.7% NA 1.8% 2.O�o
Reusable Waste WA <0.1�0 <0.1% 0.3%
Total Total Special Waste 22% 0.3% 20°k 24%
Brovm Goods
Electronic Goods WA 0.6% 1.1% 1.4%
TOTALS 100% 700% 100% 100%
55
Draft
EXHIBIT A-11
ORANGE CAUNTY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY-APRIL 2005
COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL WASTE COMPOSITiONS
7995 2000 2005 2010
Material Compone�rts Composition Composition Composfion Composition
Paper
Newspaper/Print 5.3% 4.B�o 4.9% 1.4%
Glassy Magazines 6.1% 4.4% 4.7°k 1.7%
Recyclable Corru9ated Cardboard 4.5°h 4.7% 2.4% 1.8%
Non-RecyGableCardboatd WA 1.2% 0.7% 0.3%
Phone Books N/A 0.3% 02% 0.2%
Paperboard WA 5.1% 3.6% 2.8%
p�y gpp� N/A 0.4%
<0.1% 0.3%
White Ledger WA 2.0% 1.9% 0.8%
Mixed Office Paper 1.7% 4.5% 3.3% 4.0%
Other Paper(ncludes hardhack books) 24.6% 9.0% 13.1% 92%
Total Paper 42.2°,6 36.5% 34.9% 224%
Plastics
All Piastic Bottles 2.6°k 2.9% � 2.4% 22%
Film 4.3% 5.7% 5.6% 7.9�0
All Cups&Tubs 0.7% 2.7% 1.0% 2.6%
All Other Plastic(inGudes styrofoam) 4.4% 4.6% 5.9% 5.6%
ToWI Plasdcs 120% 15.9% 14.9% 18.3%
Organice
Food Waste 11.2% 17.8% 222% 20.9%
� Textiles/Leather 3.3% 5.4% 5.1% 6.3%
Diapers 3.5% 3.5% 4.4% 52%
Other Organics(indutles rubbe� 8.3% 4.6% 1.3% 4.7%
TotalOrganics 26.39G 37.3� 33.0% 37.1%
Fertous Metal
Food Containers/Bi-Metal 2.7% 1.8% 1.4� 1.1%
Aerosols WA 0.4% 0.4% 0.5°k
Other Ferrous 2.9% 2.0% 1.3% 2.0%
ToWI Ferrous Metal 5.6% 4.2% 3.1� 3.5X
Non Ferrous Metal
AluminumCans 0.8% 1.0% 0.7�0 0.7�
Aluminum Foil WA 0.9% 0.7% 0.7%
Other NorFFertous N/A 0.2%
<0.1% 0.7%
Totat Non Ferrous Metal 0.8% 2.1% 1.4% 21%
Glass
All Bottles&Jars 5.8qo 4.3�0 4.3% 3.4%
OtherGlass 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 02%
Total Glass 6.3% 5.1% 4.596 3.7%
Wood
Pallets ' WA 0.2% <0.1°/ <0.1%
Lumbef 1.9% 7.3% 2.3% 2.6°k
Pairrted/Treated 1.1% <0.1% <0.1% 2.7%
Stumps/FieavySections WA <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Total Wood 3.0% 1.5% 24 h 5.5�
Inert
Brick,concrete,dirt,asphalt,etc. 2.6� O.Tk 22% 3.096
Yard Waste
(indudes grass,leaves,small branches) 1.0% 0.9°k 1.8°/. 26%
Special Waste
Lead-Acid BaHeries PUA
<0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Dry Cell Batteries N/A 02% 02% <0.1%
Oil Filters N/A
<0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Otlier Hazardous Waste 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% <0.1%
Infectious Waste <0.1% NA <O.tYo 0.4%
Reusable Waste N1A <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Total Total Special Waste 0.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.4%
Brown Goods
Eledronic Goods N/A 0.9% 1.4% 1.4X
TOTALS 100% 100% 100% 100%
56
Draft
EXHIBIT A-12
ORANGE CAUNTY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY-APRIL 2005
COMPARISON OF MULTI-FAMILY WASTE COMPOSIitONS
1995 2000 2005 2070
Materfal Components Composition Composition Composition Composkion
Paper
Newspaper/Print 7.3�0 5.6% 2.9% 2.5%
Glossy Magazines S.O�o 4.1% 3.8qo 1.0%
Recydable Cortugated Cardboard 72% 2.8% 1.6% 1.6%
Non-RecyGaWe Cardboard WA 2.0% 0.9% 0.4%
PFwne Books WA 0.5Yo 0.4% 0.1%
Paperboard WA 4.6% 3.7% 3.0%
Other Books N/A 0.4% 0.7% <0.1%
Whde Ledgef N/A 3.8Yo 2.7% 0.8%
Mixed Office Paper 1.3% 5.5% 5.2°h 2.4%
Other Paper(inGudes hardback books) 23.6� 6.8% 10.4% 8.8%
ToWI Paper 44.4k 36.296 323k 20.5%
Plastics
All Plastic Bottles 2.6% 4.3% 3.�% 2.9%
Flm 5.5� 4.8% 5.7% 6.6%
All Cups 8 Tubs 1.0% 1.J% 1.0% 1.9�
All Other Plastic(inGudes styrofoam) 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 5.6%
Total Plastics 13.6% 15.1% 13.3% 17.1%
Organics
Food Waste 9.7% 21.2% 24.5% 22.5%
Textiles/Leather 3.3% 4.9% 8.8% 7.6%
Diaper5 2.8% 2.5% 22% 5.3%
Other Organics(ncludes rubber) 7.8% 2.2% 0.3% 3.9%
ToGlOrganics 23.6� 30.8% 35.7°� 39.2°k
Ferrous Metal
Food Containers/Bi-Metal 2.6% 2.0% 1.2% 0.8%
Aerosols N/A <0.1% 01% 0.4%
OtherFerrous 1.9� 2.0% 0.3% 0.8%
Total Ferrous Metal 4.Sk 4.1% 1.6% 2.0%
Non Ferrous Metal
Aluminum Cans 1.0°h 1.3% 0.7% 1.6%
Aluminum Foil WA 0.7% 06% 0.3%
OtF�Non-Fertous WA 0.4q 0.4% 1.3�
Total Non Ferrous Metal 7.0 k 24% 7.8% 3.3%
Glass
All Bottles&Jars 5.8% 6.9% 82% 6.7%
OtherGlass <0.1% 12% 0.4% <0.1%
Total Glass 5.8% 8.1% 8.6� 6.7°6
Wood
Pallets WA 02� <0.1% <0.1%
Lumber 0.6% 1.2% 02% 1.9%
PaiMedlfreated 0.8% <0.1% <0.1% 0.8%
Stumps/HeavySections WA <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
ToWI Wood 1.4% 1.4%, 0.2% 27%
Inert
Brick,concrete,dirt,asphalt,etc. 3.2% 0.5X 22% 2.1%
Yard Waste
(inGudes grass,leaves,small brenches) 22% 0.3X 2.3% 3.9%
Special Waste
Lead-Aad Batteries WA <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Dry Cell Batteries WA 0.3% <0.1% <0.1%
OilRlters WA <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
OtherHazardousWaste 0.1% <0.1% 1.0% <0.1%
IMectious Waste �0.1� NA <0.1% <0.1%
Reusable Waste WA <0.1% <0.1% 0.4qo
Total ToUI Speciat Waste 0.1 k 0.4% 7.1� 0.5%
Brown Gootls
Electronic Goods WA 0.8% 0.8% 2.1%
TOTALS 100% 100.0% 100% 100%
57
Draft
Appendix E Waste Reduction Catculation for Orange County NC
Original ten year plan reduction and goal for FY 2001-2002 45%per capita � �
Original ten year waste reduction goal for FY 2009-10 61%per capita
After considering your government's current and projected solid waste activities resources
population and economic growth will the FY 2009-10 goal change.NO but the date of the goal
has been rescinded. There is no year for the goal to be met.
Why? Primarily because the various local governments have not determined a timeline for
implementing an integrated solid waste plan. The County has been making steady progress
towards its goal, achieving 48%in 2006-07, 50%reduction in 2007-08 and 54.2%in 2008-09.
CALCULATiNG and SETTING A NEW 2018-19 SOLID WASTE REDUCTION GOAL
FY 2008-09 tonnna e landfilled MSW
Ori in of Waste Tons in 08-09 Comments
MSW landfilled in Orange County 50,760 UNC stops waste delivery in Sept
2008,MSW in 08-9 includes 3,486
tons of bulky items from SWCCs
mostl ,formerl classified as C&D.
C&D landfilled in Orange County 10,992 Includes LCID,mobile homes,water
lant alum slud e
MSW landfilled outside Orange County 15,227 Reported to Sta.te DENR by other
facilities based on hauler re ortin
C&D landfilled outside Oran e Coun 6,410 Excludes C&D rec cled at MWPs
Total tons Reported as disposed from 83,389 Does NOT INCLUDE TONS
Orange County RECYCLED AT Mixed Waste
Processors (MWPs)
Total Tons Calculated as Disposed 80,864 Does include tons recycled at MWPs
and this is the tonnage used for the
official waste reduction calculation
Waste per capita (pop= 129,296) 0.625ons Base year 1.36 tons/capita --
2008-09 Waste Reduction Rate: 54%
v. 2007-08 rate @ SO%per capita
Establish a FY 2018-19 per capita waste reduction goal by determining
FY 2018-19 population projection 147,436(from State census data.)x per capita estimate for that
year of 0.625 tons,assuming no further waste reduction from FY 2008-09 = 92,148 tons
FY 2018-19 population projection 147,436 x per capita estimate(0.53 tons)projected goal in
tons = 78,141 tons
Projected additional tonnage to be managed via recycling,reduction,composting,etc,not
landfilled to meet 61%goal in that year= 14,007 tons
58
Draft
Appendix F
Plan Elements
Reduction
Transfer Outside Geographic Area
Composting and Mulching
Disaster Response
Education With Community&Through Schools
Incineration With/Without Energy Recovery
Illegal DisposaULitter
Illegal DisposaULitter—Towns
Collection of Computer Equipment and Televisions
Management of Abandoned Manufactured Homes
Disposal
Purchasing Recycled Products
Recycling and Reuse
Collection
Special Waste
59
. . i
Draft
PLANNING ELEMENTS �
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element '
✓Reduction Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/Litter Disposal Collection ,
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste
area through school Televisions Products I
Composting and Mulching Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured Recycling and Reuse
recovery Homes
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS �
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS il
DIVERTED 1N IOTH YEAR
Generally promote waste More aggressively Reduction does not get Increased public 2011 and onward Waste reduction initiatives �
reducing behaviors such as promote reduction the intense public education and make it are difficult to quantify.
bring your own bag to shop, through public response that new more systematic.
buy in bulk,etc.through education and recycling programs do.
education programs and economic Many are adopting these I
periodic newspaper articles incentives and strategies anyway for
that emphasize reduction further regulatory economic reasons,e.g. �
strategies as environmentally measures. use of personal water '
and economically effective. Help builders with bottles increased during
Also give away promotional inventory control recession and as people
items including chip clips strategies to keep realize the cost of I
with the'buy in bulk" materials such as bottled water is high. I
message on them and travel dry wall from Construction is sharply I,
mugs to encourage being spoiled. diminished due to the
reuse/reduction of single recession. ,
serve cups. �
Promote smarter building and ��
construction strategies to 'I
reduce construction waste.
Banned cardboard,scrap
metal and clean wood from
landfill(2002)RRMO and �
required recycling or reuse. '
Revisited Pay As You Throw
as a strate
. ��
I
i
60
I
I
Draft �I
PLANNING ELEMENTS I',
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/Liter Disposal Collection I
✓Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste '
area through school Televisions Products I
Composting and Mulching Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured Recycling and Reuse
recovery Homes i
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS I
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMI'LETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS I
DIVERTED IN lOTH YEAR
Orange County hauled MSW None of the three The landfill has not Local governments Late 2010-early 2011 n/a.All tons of MSW hauled
will go to Durham Transfer Towngovernments closed yet.There are at determine if they want by local governments will be
Station once Orange has determined least 2.5 years for this to work together to directed somewl�ere else for
County's landfill closes. where they will decision to be made, direct all waste to a at least 3-5 years per Board of
Private companies haul waste send their MSW although Orange County single destination, Commissioners resolution
out of County when it is to after December is interested in resolving develop a contract to do while other options are being
their advantage. 2012 when the this as soon as possible. so and sign an considered.There is no direct
Local govemments have an landfill is agreement.Reconsider impact on diversion except '
interlocal agreement projected to close. current Interlocal that by 2013-14, 100%of ��
requiring delivery to Orange They will be Agreement for Solid MSW will be diverted from
Co.Landfill. forced to make Waste Management Orange County for several '
tl�at determination. years at least. �,
UNC,in Sept 2008,on The Town& ,
request from the County to County managers I
help conserve landfill space, are meeting to I
began directing their MSW to decide if they want
the private transfer station to work together �,
owned by their hauling and send all waste '
contractor.Formerly UNC to one location to
had directed its waste to perhaps get better I
Orange County(5,200 ave pricing for a long ,
tpy) term larger 'i
contract.No
SWAB considered some decisions have '�
variations on flow control been made.It is I
erha s inte rated into not obvious how
61
, . �
Draf I
t
franchise haulin . much levera e II
g g
County decided not to build a they will get from
transfer station when landfill going together v.
closes in 2013.This was the savings to each
stated to be an interim term going alone to the
decision 3-5 years. No local closest facility that
govermnents have made will accept their
alternate plans although waste.
surrounding Counties have
been approached about
receiving Orange County
waste.There is some
rece tivi but not much.
�I
I
I
iI
62 �i
i
�
�
Draft
i
PLANNING ELEMENTS ��
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN I
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/Litter Disposal Collection i
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste
area through school Televisions Products
✓Composting and Mulching Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured Recycling and Reuse
recovery Homes
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN l OTH YEAR
County continues to accept Program is futly Pennitting requirements Further waste reduction Next solid waste plan Commercial compostable
source separated yard waste operational for for composting facilities measures could include update in 2012 tonnage could be up to 2,000
and clean wood waste for yard waste and are more onerous than expanding food waste to 3,000 more tons(1/4 to 1/3
grinding,mulching and sale clean wood waste. for mulching facilities collection to�nore of food and wet paper
as finished mulch or boiler Yard waste by and there is adequate commercial customers remaining in the commercial
fuel or feedstock for colored state law and clean coverage by private and residential organics waste stream.
mulch.� 10,000 TPY in. wood waste by sector under contract to collection combined
County collects over 2,200 County ordinance. collect and process with containerized yard Residential tonnage could be
tons of food waste from No action has been commercial food waste. waste collection. another 2,000 to 3,000 tons
businesses&institutions to taken to consider Current hauler could (1/4 to 1/3 of residential food,
divert for composting with expauding collect inore if there Neither item is part of other organics and wet paper)
private contractor and sells programs to were greater funding, the near tenn solid remaining in the residential �,
compost from contractor include collection but funding is now waste plan consideration waste strealn.Some could be
�1,000 tpy. from other sectors constrained by budget diverted to backyard
County conducted annual or processing otl�er considerations. coinposting
backyard compost bin sale organics on site.
for twelve years,now sells Further the current site
discounted bins permanently is constrained physically
from office.Over 1,000 sold and politically from
last FY. expa�iding its solid
County staff conducts several waste operation.
backyard comopsting and I,
vermicomposting workshops Any residential '
annually for adults,schools, collection of organics
town employees,farmer's would be combined
markets etc. with ard waste and that
63 �'�,
i
. ,
Draft '
�
Towns and Solid Waste would require
Convenience Centers all containerized collection
collect residential yard waste and a local processing
at no charge for delivery to facility,neither of which
County landfill is being considered in
the near tenn.
I
I
64
Draft
PLANNING ELEMENTS i
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN I
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction ✓Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/I.itter Disposal Collection
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste
area through school Televisions Products
Composting and Mulching Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured Recycling and Reuse
recovery Homes
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN IOTH YEAR
Completed Disaster Debris Finalize and adopt Pending joint approval Complete plan Unscheduled n/a
Management Protocol and plan across acceptance by all
draft plan document; deparhnents, relevant Departments
PLAN Table of Contents: including Develop RFP and award �I
Article I Emergency Emergency proposal for disaster
Operations Plan Management, debris processing and '
Article II Employee Call Asset Management staging site operations
Back &Purchasing and Fa112010
Article III MSW Guidelines Sheriffs Dept. I
Article IV Temporary
Transfer Station Siting
Article V Temporary I
Construction and Demolition '
Siting
Article VI Temporary Siting
for Vegetative/Land Clearing '
Debris
Article VII Emergency
Household Hazardous Waste !
Collection '
Article VIII Equipment
Vehicle List I
Article IX Disposal Site
Capacities Orange
County/Alternate Emergency
Dis osal Site
65
� Draft i
I
Article X Special Waste
Remote sites for disaster
debris management have
been secured and one on
County property is permitted
Verbal,non-contractual
arrangements in place for
nearby transfer stations to
accept waste from Orange
Coun .
66
i
Draft
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/Litter Disposal Collection
Transfer outside geographic ✓Education with community Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste
area &through school Televisions Products
Composting and Mulching Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured Recycling and Reuse ,
recovery Homes
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMI'LETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN l OTH YEAR
TI�SE ARE ANNUAL, Annual newsletter Programs and policies Publish annual Fa112010 It is difficult to estimate the
Generally recurring mailed to all were changing too newsletter and mail to impact(or lack of impact)of
measures: County residents rapidly over the past all households and outreach programs. Since
Conducted over 100 tours and two years to have a businesses in County. 1989,Orange County has
presentations to various timely newsletter and recognized the value of
audieuces including schools. there was too much Expand electronic Ongoing outreach and education by
Placed over 500 print uncertainty about future mailing list. creating such a position.We
advertisements in local measures e.g.transfer have achieved a consistently
general interest print station siting,financing Experiment with social Fa112010 high waste reduction rate as a
publications. of solid waste centers. media e.g.Facebook result.
Initiated on-line advertising page. It is reasonable to suggest
in locai print media offering that an annual 1%diversion
this. Expand on-line Ongoing or 500-600 tons could be
Conducted two radio advertising and explore attributed to the existence of
campaigns for recycling other alternative forms a strong education and
confidential paper and of advertising. outreach program.
compost biu sales.
Published 36 newspaper Conduct more outreach 2012,pending a 1/2
articles directly into the schools time schools outreach
Conducted 14 radio programs and work more closely position being created.
including monthly scheduled with school recycling
show on WCOM local programs to iiuprove 'i
Carrboro community station. program performance.
Published monthly recycling
blurb in Town Talk for
Cha el Hill em lo ees and
I
67 ',
Draft
bimonthly in Orange Alive
for Orange Co.employees
Provided recycling at large
scale publicly sponsored '
events such as street fairs,
festivals,etc.
Established electronic
mailing list for voluntary
solid waste updates,with
1,500 members as of May
2010.
Participate in WiINC TV
piece on plastic bottle
recovery for NC Now news
show.
Led SWEETS--Solid Waste
and Environmental educators
of the Triangle
Conduct door to door
outreach at poorly performing
apt complexes and and face
to face at dropoff sites for
new programs.
Two C&D programs with 85
unique participants.One
hosted by OCSW aud co-
sponsored with UNC titted
""Get the Green Edge:The
Hows and Whys of
Construction Waste
Management in Orange
County"connected builders
and waste haulers directly
with C&D recyclers Case
studies and references for
diversion processes.
Workshop co-sponsored by
Chatham Coun and Central
68
�
i
i
Draft I
Carolina Community
College.focusing on building
material reuse
In addition,c/d staff
presented at two webinars
and gave private
presentations to two c/d ,
facilities and a major waste �'�
hauler. �
69
. . li
Draft '
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/Litter Disposal Collection I
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste
area through school Televisions Products
Com ostin and Mulchin ✓Incineration with/without Management of Abandoned Manufactured
p g g energy recovery Homes Recycling and Reuse ,
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY AC'ITONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN l OTH YEAR
Solid Waste Advisory Board Complete SWAB tasked with Outreach to other Pending Solid Waste 10,000 tons about 20%of
(SWAB)developed evaluation of other development of adjoining or nearby NC Advisory Board report waste can be biologically
evaluation criteria for all alternative waste framework for communities to consider to BOCC on alternative digested where 40,000 tons or
alternative technologies management evaluation of inethods regional partnerships technologies,probably (80%of waste can be
including incineration. technologies. due to Board of using alternative during 2010-11.Will 'destroyed'/reduced using
SWAB commissioned, Commissioners after technologies at a larger include local as well as today's incineration
reviewed and evaluated a September 2010. scale than the SO,OOOtpy regional scale technology.
report on alternative waste from Orange County. approaches.
disposal technologies by Future of SWAB and
GBB Fa112008. the interlocal agreement
under which it functions
SWAB invited presentation is uncertain.
on plasma arc technology by
inventor/academic Dr.Louis
Circeo Apri12010
SWAB considered methods
for evaluating other waste
management technologies,
ongoiug.
Considered requests from
citizens to review various
technolo ies
i
70 I,
Draft �,
i
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN I
� PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response ✓Illegal Disposal/Litter Disposal Collection
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste
area through school Televisions Products
Com ostin and Mulchin Incineration witl�/witl�out energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured I
p g g recovery Homes Recycling and Reuse
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTTONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY AC'ITONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN lOTH YEAR
Completed Revisions to the Multiple iterations and Increase enforcement of Ongoing n/a
solid waste major changes to illegal dumping,
Investigated 8 to 10 new ordinance have ordinance have burning and littering as
complaints of illegal been proposed and extended review time. possible
dumping,illegal burning will go before the
and/or litter. All cases closed BOCC in the fall.
successfully.
Ongoing investigation of all New provisions to
construction sites in Orange parallel state
Co.for compliance with disposal bans have
recgulated recyclable been added and
materials ordinance.Issued additional
550 verification tags enforcement
authority has been
Weekly inspections with requested.
ITNC staff of on-campus
construction sites for Tarping of loads
violations of Regulated being delivered to
Recyclable Materials convenience
Ordinance centers
Reclassified Recycling I
Specialist to Enviromnental �I
Enforcement Officer. ;
71 '
Draft I
�
Proactively patrolled county '�
for violations of solid waste �
regulations.
County enforcement staff can �
issue civil fines where names I
are on litter e.g.junk mail.
City and Cout�ty enforcement '
staff work with recycling
staff to deter littering of
recycling sites using civil ,
fines for willful
contamination of recycling.
(per County ordinance)
Recycling division devotes
1/3 FTE to cleaning the five '
unstaffed dropoff recycling
sites.Removing over 50 tons
of illegally dumped,non-
recyclable materials annually I
from sites and from inside the
recycling containers.
County Solid Waste Dept.
collects litter along public
road adjoining landifll twice a
week and adjacent road
monthly.
County staff coordinates with
Chapel Hill Stormwater Dept.
staff to recycle cans and ,
bottles recovered from Clean I
Up events held along local I
streams.
�
72
�I
I
Draft
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response ✓Illegal Disposal/Litter-Towns Disposal Collection
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer EGuipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste
area through school Televisions Products
Com ostin and Mulchin Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured
p g g recovery Homes Recycling and Reuse
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN I OTH YEAR
FOR TOWNS
Chapel Hill
Remove litter or dumped
material as soon as possible
to prevent additional
dumping.
Try to determine origin or 6/30/2010
owner and send a letter Consider starting new n/a
regarding actions they may KAB Chapter in Orange
take to prevent illegal County
disposal.
Increase anti-littering n/a
Enforcement Citations for signage throughout the
civil penalties also issued. County,not just in
Town
Town of Chapel Hill began 1)Formal outreach 1)Currently working n/a
its NPDES permit illicit and education with UNC's Institute for Publicize penalties
discharge detection and packages the Environment under received by litterers
elimination(IDDE) grant to develop '
component in 2009-response mavual,video and Get more sections of
to spills or dumping into 2)Specific storm signage for restaurants highways Adopted by
storm drains and citation drain ordinance to be the adopt a highway I
procedures in place. passed by Council 2)In process of being program '
developed;currently ',
NC Bi Swee annual fall usin TOCH Code of
73
i
. . '
Draft
clean up to remove litter from Ordinance Sec.8-34:
roads and waterways since Deposits prohibited in
1990;also conduct year- storm drain,manhole,
round cleanups with ditch or median.No
interested groups person shail throw,
dispose or sweep from
Outreacl�to schools,clubs, any household,yard,
camps&other groups using sidewalk or elsewhere,
Enviroscape watershed model garbage or
promotes litter prevention. miscellaneous refuse I
into a storm drain, I
Storm drains marked with manhole,ditch or �,
"No Dumping!Drains median within the Town
Directly to Creek!"(includes of Chapel Hili.(Ord.of
a no litter symbol) 10-26-70)
Routine street
sweeping+special event clean I
up
�I
i
Carrboro
This is our policy for illegal Carrboro reports no ��
dumping and littering. violations and no
Section 11-3 Dumping or other planned actions
Littering on Public or Private
Property
No person may place, '
discard,throw,drop,or
deposit,or cause to be placed,
discarded,thrown,dropped or '
deposited any solid waste on:
(1)Any public street or I
within the town or on an !
74
Draft I��
property owned or operated
by the town or any other il
public property,except in
properly designated
receptacles;or
(2)Any property not owned �
by him without the consent of
the owner,occupant,or lessee
thereof. ,
(Note: G.S. 14-399 makes '
the acts prohibited in this
section a misdemeanor, �
punishable by fine of not '
more tha��$200.00.
Therefore,this section may
be enforced by the town only
through civil penalties or
injunctive relie�.
Hillsborough reports no
dumping or much littering �'
They clean up at rights of
way when littering occurs and
is reported.
A lot of participation in Big
Sweep and concentrate along
the Eno River and near
schools or where trash
roblems are evident.
75
Draft
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/Litter Disposal Collection
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& ✓Collection of Computer Equipment Purchasing Recycled Special Waste
area through school and Televisions Products
Composting and Mulching Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured Recycling and Reuse
recovery Homes
i
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS �I
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS I
DIVERTED IN lOTH YEAR
All types of electronics are None Program is high Implement state-wide When new law comes Brown goods represent well ,
collected from residences at all functioning and collects ban on landfilling into effect July 2011. over 1.5%of waste
five convenience centers. more electronic CRTs,computer discovered in the waste sort.
All types of electronics are waste/capita than any monitors or televisions Assuming this is cut 50%that
collected from businesses and other known in NC aud would reduce remaining
residences at the landfilll.We in the top tier of known electronic waste of all types
are prepared for landfill ban in programs nationally i.e. (not just TVs a�id monitors)
July 2011 having been over 7 Ibs/capita.This froin 700 tons to 350 tons a
collecting for five years now. tonnage does not year.TVs and monitors
include LJNC or local represent 72%,so just that
Old media like videotape and school systems. fraction could be 250 tons.
diskettes were added to the
electronics collection in 2009-
2010.All electronics program '
costs are covered by the 3-R I
fees and income frotn sale of
certain materials like CPUs and
copper wire.
Collected 456 tons of all I
electronics in 2008-09
including 10,900 TVs and
monitors or about 269 tons.
Adding other computer
e ui ment and CRTs it's 320 I
��
76
Draft
tons or 72%of electronics On
track to collect over 500 tons in �i
2009-10.See attached spread ',
sheets for details.
LJNC and both local school
systems also collect and
manage their own computers.
Research Triangle Park's semi-
annual collections also yield 5% '
or two tons/year from Orange
County including about 55
monitors and TVs/year.
PTA thrift shops and other local
charities accept functional
electronics for donations.Non- ,
working or unsold ones they
reject of can't sell,ultimately
come to Orange County for
rec clin .
I
77
Draft
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/Litter Disposal Collection
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste
area through school Televisions Products
Composting and Mulching Incineration with/without energy ✓Management of Abandoned Recycling and Reuse '
recovery Manufactured Homes
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN lOTH YEAR
Preliminary discussions with No formal plan for Further inter- Solid Waste Dept.will 2010-11 determine need 100 tons a year(30 �I
Planning and Housing managing abandoned deparhnental review to continue to evaluate the for plan and if so, homes/year recycled/buried)
Departments on scope of mobile homes has be undertaken. issue of abandoned develop and implement
problem. been developed mobile homes in Orange one or continue to
County.In concert w/ monitor.
We've accept mobile homes Have not ensured Awareness and training the Planning and
for recycling and disposal at removal of inercury concerns Housing Departments
landfill since 1999. Strip off bearing thermostats. and other interested �
undercarriage and ensure no parties,the Departments
white goods or other MSW or will consider and
HHW in homes before burial. evaluate development of
a plan for the abatement
Average 30 per year of abandoned mobile
homes in Orange
Charge$150 tip fee,raised to County based on the
$250 as of Jul y 2010. results of this evaluation
and in conformance
Most are brought in and paid with state statutory
for by owners of homes or requiremeuts.
mobile home parks
Housing Office and Planning
Staff evaluated/home
problem and believe there �
ma be u to 400 abandoned
I
78
Draft '
units. Made internal
determination to begin
thermostat removal
assurance along with
white goods and
hazardous materials.
I
ii
I
I
I
79
Draft
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element '
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/Litter ✓Disposal Collection
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste '
area through school Televisions Products
Composting and Mulching Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured Recycling and Reuse
recovery Homes
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMI'LETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN lOTH YEAR
County operates MSW and Develop and finance No final long-term Hire engineering firm to June 2010 50,000-60,000 tons to be I
C&D landfills for waste closure and long term closure plan has yet develop closure plan. landfilled elsewhere that were �
disposal.MSW due to close care plan for current been developed or Develop plan.Subinit 2010-11 formerly buried in Orange
early 2013. MSW landfill. funding estimate for approval County.
completed.Engineering Conduct closure of Spring 2013
firm hired in June 2010 MSW landfill
to develop closure plan.
No alternative disposal site Choose alternative No decision taken yet Determine if all FY 2010-11
MSW transfer& by any elected board in governments
disposal sites when any jurisdictions now partner/coordinate
landfill closes. using the Orange delivery of MSW
County Landfill. Develop agreement for
Active C&D landfill transfer and disposal as
estimated to have 18 year life necessary
(2028)at current rate of use
(<8,000 tpy)
Closed C&D landfill may be Develop RFP In progress Fa112010-
used for solar array in 2010-
11. Accept proposals for
solar installation and 2011
award contract
Closed MSW landfill will be LJNC to complete bid In progress Construct solar array if Fall/winter 2010
used for methane as ca ture rocess and award bid acce tabie ro osal
80
I
Draft �
I
i
beginning 2010-11 for landfill gas received
capture system with
Ongoing groundwater County Construct landfill gas
monitoring from 35 wells and recovery system on Spring 2013
methane gas monitoring at closed north side and
four sites. active south side
disposal unit.
81
Draft i
�I
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN I
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/Litter Disposal Collection
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and ✓Purchasing Special Waste
area through school Televisions Recycled Products
Com ostin and Mulchin Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured
p g g recovery Homes Recycling and Reuse I
I
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACT'IONS WHY INCOMPLET'E? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN lOTH YEAR
Orange County Purchasing There is no formal County purchasing l�as Consider formalized 2011 i�/a
Division of the Asset County policy to effectively implemented process to mandate
Management and Purchasing purchase recycled broad guidelines for consideration of
Department now buys almost content materials purchasing recycled recycled content
all paper products with or products. content products products in operations
recycled content. informally. and in construction.
Purchasing Division provides Further document use of Ongoing
other departments with recycled content
compostable tableware for products in County
various County events and projects and operations
Solid Waste Department may
arrange compost collections.
All County building projects
are to consider recycled
content materials for
construction.
Recently completed
(2009)Solid Waste
Administration buidling used
reclaimed wood,recycling
content carpet,recycled
rubber arkin sto s reen
82
I
Draft
ground glass, low VOC
paint.
County deconstructed several
buildings in the past seven
years and used reclaimed
wood for storage buildings
and other in-house
applications and sold surplus
at auction,donated other
materials to charities.
il
I
83 I
Draft ,
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element �
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/Litter Disposal Collectiou 'i
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste
area through school Televisions Products
Com ostin and Mulchin Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured '
p g g recovery Homes ✓Recycling and Reuse
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS ''�
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS I
DIVERTED IN l OTH YEAR
County operates Commercial No formal program with Consider expansion as 2011-12 2,000(50%of available dry �
comprehensive recycling recycling serves sustainable,predictable part of future solid tons in waste stream--per I
programs serving all only 10%of funding for commercial waste plan activity waste sort)
residents,all multifamily and businesses has been adopted
some commercial sector. directly.
Operates cross (but all must Local markets do not ��
jurisdictionally--Carrboro, recycle cardboard) consistently want Wait until markets and n/a 200 tons assuming capture of
Chapel Hill,Hillsborough& injection molded& processing capabilities 25%of cups and tubs with '
unincorporated areas. Non-bottle plastics blow molded to be change curbside implementation I
All programs are 2 strea�n cannot be recycled commingled
except dropoff which has at the curb with
source-separated fiber and commingled Program expansion 1,100(Assume pro rated
rigid plastics in addition to limited by budget Expand when budget 2011-12 share of current generation
commingled cans&bottles constraints,.capital allows to at least the rate)
Urban Curbside weekly 35%of rural freezes,personnel next 1000 homes. ,
collection �18,500 homes households are not freezes I
4,500 tons per year(TPY) served by curbside I
Rural curbside biweekly recycling 200 tons or 10%of clothes
�11,500 homes 2011-12 and shoes now wasted
1,800 tpy �
Multifamily 15,000 units �,
weekly 1,200 tpy ��,
Dropoff sites(5 staffed,5 No materials No room or managerial Reconsider when fiscal '
unstaffed)5,000 tpy. expansion at capacity to conduct constraints are less �
Commercial paper,containers staffed dropoff expansions at staffed stringent and as part of 1,200 Assumes a 20% I
&food waste 3,100 t sites sites.Markets and overall needed SWCC 2012-13 increase in volume due to cart I
84 i
i
Draft
I
(Local)Govt bldgs 100 tpy e.g.clothing& demand are there. improvements implementation in existing �i
Orange Co.Schools 12 shoes,construction curbside programs:
schools 100 tpy waste exchanges, �
Hazardous 800 tpy. fluorescent bulbs, Reconsider when fiscal
Construction waste-metal, vegetable oil constraints are less
wood,cardboard:2,100 tpy stringent
Added rigid plastic at dropoff
sites Feb 2010
Cardboard at curb Nov 2005. ',
Compliance with new state I
bans on filters,pallets,plastic
bottles and oyster shells by
providing recycling facilities
and regulating pallets since
2002. '
Oyster sheil collection point I�,
new in 2009-2010.
I
i
I
�i
I
i
I
85 �I
• . I
Draft
PLANNING ELEMENTS ��
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/Litter Disposal ✓Collection
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste
area through school Televisions Products
Com ostin and Mulchin Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured i
p g g recovery Homes Recycling and Reuse
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEWBEVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS W� KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
INCOMPLETE? DIVERTED IN l OTH YEAR
County collects MSW from 5 Examine No funding available Consider a plan to 2010-11
Solid Waste Convenience modernization of and no specific modernize and upgrade
Centers.MSW(8,005 tpy)& centers to improve direction provided for convenience centers
bulky items and C&D(3,925 hauling efficiency modernization including funding.
tpy)in rolloffs. From County and safety. Revisit the issue as time
Schools&gov't bldgs(1,298 and funding permit �
tpy)in from en loaders(FEL) Consider
containerization of
Town of Cl�apel Hill collects all yard waste No policy direction �'
residential MSW and bulky Consider nor funding provided. I
items(7,195 in semi-automated downtown public
rear loaders w/68 gal.carts& recycling
80%of non-res.MSW(7.235 in receptacles
dumpsers using FELs. All
residential yard waste(2,925 in I
rear loaders.
86
Draft
�,
Town of Carrboro Collects all Reroute planned '
residential MSW and bulky �
items(2,705 tpy)in automated
side loaders w/95 gal carts and
50%of cornmercial and 100%
multifamily MSW(4,146)using ��I
FELs and dumpsters. All res.
yard �I
waste(778)
Town of Hillsborough collects Nothing planned
all residential MSW&bulky
items,90% in automated side !
loaders w/95ga1 carts(1,751 I
tpy)All res.yard waste(790) '
and by franchise all non-res I
MSW(6,002) �,
Private haulers collect about
6,900 tpy non-res.MSW to
bring to OCLF.Another est.
10,700 tpy non-res MSW goes
out-of-County and est.4,500 i
private rural res.MSW goes
out-of-County
i
i
I
87
Draft
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
� PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal Disposal/Litter Disposal Collection
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled ,/Special Waste
area through school Televisions Products
Composting and Mulching Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured Recycting and Reuse
recovery Homes
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN l OTH YEAR ,
Operate the T.R.I.P.program Add fluorescent Demand exists,but Hiring for existing but 2010-11 possible 1,000(projected to increase �
for"Toxic Reduction lamp and used there is no staff currently frozen with population)
Improvements Program"to vegetable oil management or positions would enable
reduce all types of hazardous collection at collection capacity and staff to expand to collect I,
and other toxic wastes from SWCCs very limited space at these materials from �
all sectors of Orange County SWCC s for more SWCCs as well as at ;
economy materials to be added HHW(for which we
Program includes HHW, pay$0.60/lb)
electronics,automotive
wastes and dry cell batteries. Vegetable oil at SWCC
Collection facilities vary: would be no charge by ',
HHW at landfill and is open contractor and ',
to all Orange County fluorescent tube
residents and small collection costs would i
businesses(only permanent decline by 60%per
program in NC for small pound to$0.24/lb.
business HW).,Residential
electronics at all SWCCs,
Business electronics at
landfill only,
Residential automotive waste
(147 tpy)at all SWCCs and
HHW and private businesses
e.g.Auto Zone,dry cell
batteries 11 t at all
88
Draft
SWCCs and Radio Shacks, I
Whole Foods a�id Weaver
Street Market '
Total tonnage last year 732, ,
up 4%from prior year.
Projected 18%increase for
09-10 '
Tires(1414 tpy) are '
collected at Orange County
Landfill and shipped out
under contract with US Tire
for chipping&sale as a TDF
for combustion
White goods(315 tpy)are
collected at landfill and i
brought there from,
convenience centers by
County staff,and from in-
Town residents by
appointment from each
Town.Freon removed at
landfill,shipped out for
recycling by County or ,
contractor �
Scrap metal(G20 tpy)is
banned from Orange
Co.Landfill and collected and
sold by County. Also
collected at Convenience
Centers
89
Draft
APPENDIX G
Supporting documents: brochures,flyers,etc. to be attached (most are available
electronically).
Urban curb brochurel2_08.pdf
� rural curb brochurelZ_08.pdf
�
RigidBrochure4_2010.pdf
.,��
Earth_ProductSSpanish2010.pdf
.�
Earth Products2010.pdf
1�
Drop-off Guide with map.pdf
J s..
HHW Brochure.pdf
.��
commercial recyGing brochure.pdf
�
2010_OCSchools_brochure.pdf
�s..
Oops cards badc.pdf
r''^:
�
Oops cards orange front.pdf
90
Draft
Appendiz H
Departmental Goal:
61%per capita waste reduction in no specific time frame.
91
Draft
Appendiz I
Financial plan to be finalized as part of the final, integrated solid waste management plan.
The Solid Waste Department operates as an enterprise fund.In 2010-11 the Board of
Commissioners has incorporated the Sanitation Division into the enterprise fund,with primary
funding continuing to be transferred from the General Fund, at least until alternative funding
sources axe identified. During FY 2008-09 various sources of revenue contribute to funding
county solid waste services including landfill tipping fees (31%), 3-R Fee (31%),recycling
materials sales,mulch sales,penalties and licensing fees, interest on income, state
reimbursements for tires and white goods(9%),fund balance appropriation 6%, CIP 4%,general
fund for Sanitation 19%.
The 3-R Fee is s unique county-wide funding mechanism established to fund recycling programs
and services in throughout the county. It is a tiered fee created in 2002 and levied on each
improved property according to the type of recycling services provided.All improved properties,
regardless of type,have a basic fee of$37 per unit per year. In addition, if the properiy receives
weekly curbside recycling, it incurs a$52 additional cost, biweekly curbside, $38 annual cost or
multifamily cart type service an additional $19 per unit cost. Those revenue funds 100%of
recycling program operating and capital costs.
Addition of the County's Sanitation Division to the Departrnent has transferred an expense and
corollary source of revenue from the General Fund to the Enterprise Fund,which had been
earmarked specifically to cover costs of operating the convenience centers as well as waste
collections from the County school and County government buildings. County schools
collections are fully funded by a fee for service arrangement that is paid to the general fund to
support the Sanitation operation.
Recycling related convenience center services will be newly funded by the 3-R Fee beginning
FY 2010/11. For example, expenses related to hauling of scrap metal,wood, brush,white goods
and tires will now cease to be funded by general fund contributions.
More work will be conducted over the coming year to refine Sanitation's integration into the
enterprise fund, including internal allocation of indirect costs.
Other challenges for future financial planning include convenience center improvements,
financing a broad public commercial recycling effort, MSW landfill closure, shifting
convenience center operating revenues to a more user based(non-tax based) funding
methodology,recycling markets, etc. Staffwill be conducting further financial analysis over the
summer and fall of 2010 to assess the future viability of the enterprise fund and to develop a
long-term financial model.
92
Draft
Appendix J
FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
Excerpt from Guidance Document Memo from Previous Plan Submittal (2006 plan
submitted 2008). Current status of plan differs. This is submitted for comparative purposes
only and includes no work done by the Work Group after June 2008.
Options for Commercial Waste and Recycling Collection. Jim Frey of RRSI presented a set of
options for collecting recyclables and waste from the non-residential sector. Staff and RRSI
developed options with input from focus groups held in October 2007 and presented in an
electronic survey to all businesses and other non-residential entities in Orange County(and
Chapel Hill part of Durham County) administered during January,February and March. Options
include:
� Mandatory recycling with business' choice of licensed recycling and waste haulers,No
County role in collection,just enforcement.
• County, with Towns, selects franchise haulers for waste and/or recycling.Use of
franchise recvcling hauler(s) is optional; other haulers may be selected but franchisee(s)
must offer recycling.No County role in collection,just billing, education and
enforcement.
• County-provided recycling with choice of licensed waste hauler. County administers
recycling fees based on size and intensity of business.
• County-provided recycling and franchise haulers for waste collection with fees based on
service levels.
The commerciaUnon-residential sector is the sector with the fewest publicly provided recycling
services,thus the greatest opportunities for additional recycling tonnage to be collected.
Currently the County mandates recycling of corrugated cardboard, scrap metal and clean wood
but does not collect those. Generator must manage them as separated items for recycling. County
provides recycling program services to only part of the bar and restaurant sector for cans,bottles
and paper and, for a smaller sub-sector, food waste recycling. The Work Group is considering
the means of expanding collection in the commercial sector as a key purpose of the March 26
meeting. For further consideration, as a corollary need, are ways to control waste flow through
either franchising or licensing with a public destination to be designated as a way to exert more
environmental scrutiny and fiscal control over solid waste.
One-hundred-foriy six businesses and other non-residential entities replied to the survey and
there was no clearly favored option. Thus RRSI will present the results of the survey and its
analysis and opinions of the various options based on the respondents' preferences and RRSI's
own experience designing and implementing commercial waste and recycling systems
elsewhere.
We request that the Work Group review the options and if prepared, express its preference for
one or more of the options if there is a clear preference among the members. The expression of
preference and/or the need for more information will provide the staff will appropriate guidance
to take the next steps in developing what could be the most complex and challenging single
element of the overall solid waste plan.
93
.
' Draft
Agenda Item 3.Franchise Commercial Waste Collection. The study from Jeremy O'Brien of
Olver Incorporated, one of the County's technical advisors on solid waste, focuses on comparing
the option of developing a franchise(s) for commerciaUnon-residential solid waste collection in
Orange County to the current system for that sector, which varies among the jurisdictions. A
franchise did not appear economically effective but it does have positive potential
environmental effects.A summary of potential effects identified include:
• reducing costs to customers(this turned out less cost effective than
predicted),
� reducing garbage truck traffic,
• limiting competition,
• controlling oversight and waste flow,
• presumably directing waste to a County-operated facility.
Recycling could be part of the franchise or not. The `fairness' issue of how to parcel out
franchises to the current haulers active in the County will be one issue that helps determine the
acceptability of franchising as a tool to manage solid waste locally.
Last year, Jeremy presented results of research that demonstrated it is not cost-effective to
provide franchised in only the unincorporated non-residential sub sector of Orange County.
There are not enough potential collection stops to create an economy of scale that makes this
more attractive than the current open market approach to waste collection. It could be included
in a larger system of franchising,but would not stand alone.
The Town of Hillsborough operates an exclusive franchise with a contractor for non-residential
waste within Town limits;waste is directed to the Orange County landfill as part of their
obligation under the interlocal agreement. The Town is currently evaluating its franchise
arrangement and hauler.
LTNC also maintains an exclusive MSW hauling contract for on-campus wastes. The evaluation
also found UNC's waste contract is also cost-effective compared to study alternative costs.
LTNC's waste is currently directed to the Orange County landfill as part of their contract.
The current study evaluates the efficacy of franchising if some or all parts of the non-residential
sector throughout the County participate and the franchise is divided between two franchisees.
That approach may or may not be attractive to all potential users. Some combination of any or all
of the three municipalities and the University may opt into a franchise,while the others may
decide that their current system is suitable.A final system cost and environmental evaluation will
depend partly on the number and proximity of potential customers;that will be determined by
which jurisdictions opt in or not.
We request that Work Group members express their preference for further development of the
franchise concept, state if they are not interested in their government or entity pursuing this
further andlor if they need further information to make a decision. Those preferences would give
the staff and advisors more guidance on the scope of any future franchise analysis.A secondary
set of issues involves the administration, level of centralized control and billing,types of services
offered and whether or not recycling is included.Franchisee selection will be handled fairly and
competitively to ensure the best pricing for the County and an equitable solution among haulers.
94
Draft •
Planning Process Issues for Recommendations by the Work Group
The list of issues described below are those that the Work Group has received information about
and on which they have either made a recommendation or will need to further evaluate for
development of an overall draft plan. RRSI and Olver have provided technical papers and
analyses on all these issues over the past year.
• Processing Recyclables: One recent key recommendation the Work Group made in
November 2007,was to support development of a shipment point at the Eubanks Road
facility to a merchant MRF for all commingled recyclables that the County now collects
and is likely to collect in the next year.As program tonnage grows more than 10%over
the current tonnage level, it will be necessary to develop expanded recycling transfer
capacity at the current site or another site. The decision of whether or not the County
should build its own Materials Recovery Facility is hereby deferred as we can use this
short-term transfer opportunity to gain experience with the private market and focus on
program expansion. Commirigling collection allows us the labor to both expand the
number of collection sites in existing programs and possibly add programs to increase our
recycling tonnage and further decrease landfilling. The Board of Orange County
Commissioners has requested the staffto return in April with a detailed implementation
plan for this action.
• Rural Residential Waste Services: Last year the Work Group received a technical report
from Olver Inc. about providing universal rural residential waste collection using a
franchise with one or more haulers with exclusive territories. That solution was evaluated
compared to the current system that is a mix of convenience centers and open-market
private haulers and found to provide an economy-of-scale that made it economically and
environmentally attractive, if collection were provided county-wide. Such a system works
best when it is either required to be used, i.e.paid for by all eligible users or there are fees
charged by volume for garbage disposed at solid waste convenience centers. Charging a
fee to cover waste management costs at the centers could then often economically justify
households' decisions to subscribe to waste collection from the exclusively franchised
hauler(s)rather than self-haul. The Work Group made no recommendation on this,but
will need to address this issue as part of completing a plan.
• Solid Waste Convenience Centers and Dropoff Sites:As a corollary to making a more
efficient rural residential waste collection system,RRS prepared a technical report on
convenience centers and dropoff sites issued in May 2007. Various options on how to
manage convenience centers included limiting the number of centers, charging a fee for
solid waste and providing more recycling opportunities at the centers.Along with this
was a proposal to close one or two of the least used unstaffed recycling dropoff sites to
improve collection efficiency. Initiating collection of corrugated cardboard at the curb
could further obviate the need for the extensive dropoff site system now in place.
Charging waste disposal fees at the convenience centers could make rural residential
waste collection at the house more efficient and economically attractive to the residents
than the cunently perceived `free' convenience center system that an estimated 70%of
households use. Rising gasoline prices and concerns about increased carbon
consumption may add to this attractiveness.Adding more services such as hazardous
waste and rigid,bulky plastic recycling could have the contrary effect of making the
centers more popular,but having fewer centers could make the trips more infrequent. The
95
r
a
Draft
Work Group has made no recommendation on these matters yet; they are pending as part
of the plan development.
The table below summarizes the status of various solid waste management issues described
above and issues that remain pending and suggests areas where the Work Group will face
recommendation to make the draft plan complete.
Table l. Solid Waste Issues for Recommendations b Work Grou recent and near-term)
Item Status and Action b Work Grou Comments
Recyclables Processing,current action Work Group recommendation Detailed implementation plan due
completed from 11/07 received by BOCC to from staff to BOCC for 08-09
transfer commingled recyclables budget consideration
from existing facility with
necess modifications.
Rural Residential Waste Franchising Report received from Olver in May High level of interaction with
2007.No action taken,Needs function of Solid Waste
Action Pending further discussion arid Convenience Centers.Decisions
recommendation from Work must be made together
Grou
Expansion of Rural Recycling to all SWAB determined this to be Works in concert with rural
households near term priority waste franchising
recommendation
Drop off recycling and Convenience Report received from RRSI May High level of interaction with
Centers 2007.No action taken.Needs function of Solid Waste
Action Pending further discussion and Convenience Centers.Decisions on
recommendation franchise and SWCC operations
must be made to ether.
CommerciaUnon-residential waste Report from RRSI outlining At this time, no further direct
collection options March 2008.Work Group Work Group or survey takers
recommends retaining current on non-residential waste
Current Work collection practices following collection recommend work,
overall sentiment from as there appears to be
survey responses eHe-er�e�e satisfaction with the current
s stem.
Commercial/non-residential recycling Next step is development of Large-scale commitment to
collection detailed options with costs program expansion, significant
Current Work and implementation concepts financial implications.Major Work
Group focus
Commercial Waste Collection Franchising Report from Olver evaluates May provide less costly service
franchise compared to current with lower environmental impact.
system. No real financial Significant cooperation&
Current Work savings shown coordination among jurisdictions.
Recommendation from Could involve any combination of
+�eeded-�Work Group is to jurisdictions and/or IJNC.Study
continue current collections identified no major cost
��gl�a�r: savings. Some of the other
benefits could be achieved
throu h licensin a reements.
The issues presented in the table below are integral to a comprehensive long-term solid waste
plan. They are issues on which the Work Group will need to make recommendations at some
future point. They are presented here to provide a perspective on future solid waste work. We
96
i
A
Draft
have indicated which ones, in our opinion, are integral to completing the current plan,which
could be deferred to a future planning effort, once the current plan is approved and submitted,
and which are optional for the Work Group to consider.
Table 2. Future areas for Work Grou Consideration
Future Items for discussion in current plan Status and Action by Work Comments
Grou
Financing Recycling and Solid Waste No report yet made to Work Financing options will be part of any
Services Group.Any recycling plan elements considered.Future work
ex ansions will re uire fundin b staff&consultants needed.
Regulatory Issues No report yet made to Work Work Group may decide whether to
Group.Mandatory recycling is increase regulatory oversight.Flow
most likely measure to be control would improve financial
considered but flow control, stability&bring more environmental
PAYT,and other measures also oversight of waste disposal and
critical. increased recycling/diversion._ ______ _ __
------------------------------------------------ -----------�-----------�---------- ---�--------------
Accelerating Rural Curbside Recycling No report yet made to YYork Work Group may recommend
Expansion Moved by SWAB Group. Staffreport, if accelerated expansion, even in current
recommendation into items to be requested. Currently�65%of planning cycle. Current expansion of
considered in the near term. unincorporated homes served 500-1000 homes/yr.No acceleration
and financed by 3-R Fee. means all(590%)homes reached with
frve years. Expansion implies new
trucks and types of collection._ _ __ ____
----------------------------�--------------- ---------------------�-------- -----��------ ----
Recycling Program Materials Expansion No report yet made to Work Two-bin,two-stream system works
and Container Selection(bins v. carts) Group.Not necessary to well for current programs.Future
SWAB considered moving into determine specifics for current programs may require reconsideration
current decisions but determined plan submittal. of bin and cart types. $1.5 million to
decision could be separate and buy carts for all current customers.
made later
Items for future planning cycles Status and Action by Work Comments
Grou
Organics Management No report yet made.Highly Organics diversion,collection and
technical and complex work processing must be considered as part
required. of any long-term strategy to achieve
Coun oals.
Items which may not need Work Group Status and Action by Work Comments
attention but are integral to Solid Waste Group
Plannin
Urban Residential Waste Collection Each Town determines its own. Future Pay as you throw may bring
No action necessary by Work more coordinated action
Grou
Transfer Station Siting and Development No recommendation required by This is a BOCC led process,but future
Work Group uses of site may involve Work Group
in ut.
END PLAN HERE
97