HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-06-2010 - 7c � - -
� 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No. 7-G
SUBJECT: Adoption of Three-Year Update of County Solid Waste Mana ement Plan
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Resolution Adopting Plan
Draft Solid Waste Management Plan Gayle �Ison, 968-2885
(Under Separate Cover) Blair Pollock, 968-2885
PURPOSE: To present the draft Three-Year Update of the Solid Waste Management Plan to
the Board for consideration and approval by resolution so that the Plan can be submitted to the
State prior to January 1, 2011.
BACKGROUND: The Plan provides the County and the municipalities with a description of
developments in solid waste over the past three years (since the previous submittal) and
defines some of the issues facing the County and municipalities over the coming years. This
update was due in June 2009, making it 18 months overdue. Submitting it will ensure the
County's eligibility for grant funds. It also contains a specific plan component for recycling
electronics that is required for the County to be eligible for funds from the newly enacted
electronics recycling law. Without a plan in place, the County would not be eligible for those
funds.
Historically, since the State solid waste planning requirement was enacted in 1994, the Towns
and Orange County have acted in concert, all approving the same plan and subsequent
updates and all affirming and then re-affirming a collective commitment to the 61% waste
reduction goal. This three-year update is no different in those respects. The Towns of
Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough have already adopted resolutions. Once this Plan is
submitted, work will commence on the next update due in 2012.
In the past three years, solid waste issues have received increasing scrutiny due to the transfer
station siting process, focus on the reduced service hours available at the convenience centers
as a consequence of budget cuts, continued requests for additional waste reduction services,
and the ever impending closure of the municipal solid waste landfill. Healthy debate, discussion
with public involvement and analysis of these and related issues are continuing. The planning
document details some of these issues and reflects discussions with regard to redesigning
convenience centers, further recycling program improvements and meeting the 61% waste
- �
2 :
reduction goal, managing waste following landfill closure, financing of waste services and other
waste management issues and challenges confronting the County and the Towns.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no financial impacts associated with approval of the resolution
adopting the Plan, although there would be future costs associated with implementing various
options and concepts associated with solid waste management.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board adopt the attached
resolution approving the Three-Year Update of the Solid Waste Management Plan and
authorizing its submittal to the State.
� - -
� �� S- �ero- o� a
3
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE THREE-YEAR SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE TO BE SUMITTED TO THE
STATE 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
WHEREAS, 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, Plan development has included representatives from the County and all
three Town and the Towns' interests have thereby been represented in Plan development;
and
WHEREAS, the Towns and public have reviewed and considered the Plan and offered
recommendations and revisions that have been incorporated into the Plan document to be
submitted to the State for review; 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 18 months overdue from the original Plan
update due date of June 30,2009;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of
Commissioners adopts this Three-Year Solid Waste Management Plan Update on behalf
of the municipalities of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough and itself.
This is the 6th day of December, 2010.
- - �
1
�
.
DR:AFT
Three-Year Update of S olid Waste Plan
(For 2009)
Orange County, NC
REVISED
October 7, 2010
RE_-REVISED OCTOBER 25, 2010
Additional Revisions November 3, 2010
Further revisions November 16, 2010
1
.
4
Table of Contents
Summary...................................................................................................................................7
Chapter 1 Sta.tistics and Information on Solid Waste Management.........................................21
Chapter 2 Summary of Solid Waste Management Activities...................................................28
Chapter 3 Solid Waste Planning Update..................................................................................31
Chapter 4 Process for Development of the Plan.......................................................................42
Appendix A Copy of Motion to not build transfer station but send waste out of County
Appendix B Copy of Resolutions Adopting Plan), advertisement for public meeting on plan
and public comments on plan
Appendix C Map of Waste Sites used by Orange County ...................................................
Appendix D Waste Chazacterization Study Excerpts (1995. v. 2000 v. 2005 v. 2010)........
Appendix E Waste Reduction Goal Sheet............................................................................
AppendixF Plan Elements....................................................................................................
Appendix G Supporting Documentation—brochures,newsletters, other ............................
AppendixH Departmental Goal......•-•...................................................................................
Appendix I Financial plan discussion only(plan will not be submitted with interim report)
Appendix J Electronics Recycling Plan........................................................
Appendix K Recommendations by Work Group on Solid Waste Convenience Centers
2
,
. Reaort Summarv
The Orange County Solid Waste Management Department three-year update actually
encompasses the period July 200$ through June 2010. The 2006 upda.te 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 cazdboard from the trash,
• Achieved 50%waste reduction rate,highest in North Carolina that yeax,
• Led NC in pounds of plastic bottles recycled per capita with 291bs. '
• Completed landfill gas project negotiations and contract with iJNC,
' • Completed conversion of all recycling collection programs to 2-stream
recycling from 6-way separation,increasing collection efficiency at
commercial and drop off programs 80%, (Except that paper at dropoff sites is
still sorted 3 ways—newspaper and magazines, corrugated cardboard and
mixed paper to maximize revenues through lugh public compliance),
• Improved market delivery in 110 yard 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 fmal annual sale event.
• Completed Solid Waste Operations Center and occupied building with many
green design features, consolidating senior staff in centrallocation,
• 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).
3
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 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 6%to 482 tons over 2008-09 tonnage of 456
(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 Departxnent to investigate possibility for
solar photovoltaic array to be constructed at closed Construction and
Demolition(C&D)waste landfill on north side, developed RFP
In mid-September 2008, Orange County stopped accepting MSW generated at iJNC to save
landfill space. Over the previous five years,iJNC had delivered an average of 5,200 tons per
year of MSW to the Orange County Landfill. That was shipped to a private transfer station,but
still counted in the total waste generated here.
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 increase of 154% in use of out-of-county facilities from the prior
4
year. Because all that waste is still attributed to Orange County, it is counted in the calculation of
the waste reduction goa1.
Table ES-1 Waste Generated from Oran e Coun 2008-09 v 2007-08
Origin of Waste Tons 07-08 Tons 08-09 Comments
MSW landfilled in 55,422 50,760 LJNC stops waste delivery in Sept 2008,
Orange County MSW in 08-9 includes 3,486 tons of
bul items formerly classified as C&D.
C&D landfilled in Orange 16,756 10,992 Includes LCID and mobile homes
County
MSW landfilled outside 7,138 15,227 Reported to State DENR by other
Orange Coun facilities based on hauler re orting
C&D landfilled outside 6,984 6,410 Excludes C&D recycled at MWPs
Orange County
Total tons re orted as 86,300 83,388 3.4%decline
disposed from Orange
County
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 by NCDENR in calculation
Waste per capita. (July 0.68 tons 0.625 tons Base year 1.36 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 e� ment
� Orange County's overall rate of MSW generation had not increased in nine years until a 4.4%
gain during 2008-09 that includes in-county plus out-of-county. The amount landfilled in-County
continued to decline, dropping 9% in 2008-2009 below the 2007-08 fiscal year. For the past five
years, total MSW tonnage generated averaged�63,186;in-County averaged 55,470. Despite the
overall tonnage increase in MSW during 08-09, 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
County Orange County
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 recycled at mixed waste processors
At current rates of disposal,the MSW lined landfill is now projected to close in early to mid
2013, as opposed to the mid-2011 closure date projected in the previous solid waste plan update
submittal.
5
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 7,741 tons,
down an additional 26%. Thus the C&D landfill is now projected to last about 18 years.
Ta61e ES-3 Tonnages & Destinations of C&D from Orange Co 2007-08 v. 2008-09
Year Landfilled in- Landfilled out- Clean wood, Recycled 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 could
increase somewhat when the construction sector of the economy recovers.
The County continues field enforcement and education about the RRMO, conducting solid waste
plan reviews, 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 staffmay consider development of a plan for managing
abandoned manufactured homes.
Financin�of Solid Waste and Recyclin�Programs
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 half of
environmental support services(administration). 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
6
collection costs and the remaining costs of the Department's environmental support services. The
Sanitation Division budget has been integrated into the enterprise fund in 2010-11.
Table ES-4 Annual3-R Fees in Oran e County 2009
Fee T pe Fee amount Comments
Basic Fee(B) $37 Levied on a11 improved properties including non-
profits and those within Chapel Hill limits,but in
Durham Cvunty,no increase
Urban curbside (LT) $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 Family(1V� $19 Fee levied on each unit in complex,no increase
Landfill fees and financing
T'he 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 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. I
Table ES-5 Annual Landfill Fees in Oran e Conn 2009-10
Fee Ty e Fee Amount Comments
Municipal Solid Waste $50 per ton Includes state disposal tax of
$2 per ton
Construction and Demolition $44 per ton Includes state disposal tax of
Waste $2 er ton
Yard waste and clean wood $18 per ton No sta.te disposal tax charged
as it is not dis osed
Scrap metal and cardboard $0 Revenue rec'd from materials
Sale. Materials banned from
dis osal by Co. ordinance
Appliances and Tires $0 State law—disposal costs
covered through advance
disposal 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 countywide along with the solid
� waste convenience center services for residential waste management. The convenience centers
are used primarily by the residential sector in the unincorporated areas but available to all
County residents. The Solid Waste Management Department continues to manage the Sanitation
Division including these five rurally located solid waste convenience centers,the County
7
schools' and government buildings' waste collection and responsibility for litter control and
illegal dumping.
The County provides curbside recycling to all of the approximately18,500 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 computers for residents and businesses, compost bins sales and
education and outreach. The electronics recovery program is already positioned to meet�lie
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 ali 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. iJNC provides most waste
coilection and recycling services by contract. The majority of waste generated in Orange County
is delivered to the Orange County Landfiil (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 coilection service and all responded to the 2008 extension of the landfill ban to 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. UNC's MSW is now
hauled by contractor Waste Industries to the Waste Industries transfer station in Durham.
Generally the Work Crroup 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 majority of residential MSW generated in the unincorporated area from
its five staffed convenience centers throughout the County. In 2008-09 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
8
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 sma111oca1 haulers use the Orange County
landfill. Private customers account for an estimated 5,000 tons of MSW; an estimated 500 tons
of which was estimated as delivered to the Orange County landfill. The very small haulers are
predominantly cash customers,therefore harder to track precisely.
Convenience Center operations have been stable and no major improvements have been made
for two years. Site use declined less than 2%in 2009-10 when hours were cut over 30%. There is
increasing demand and markets for additional recyclables but the ability to expand is constrained
by lack of sufficient space at convenience centers and dropoff sites and management capacity.
Funds are not now available to re-expand hours or to capitalize convenience center
improvements that have been identified and analyzed as both being cost-effective and provided
safer,more efficient service. The Work Group has recommended future funding options, site
improvements, locations and operational concepts to the Board of Orange County
Commissioners. Those recommendation will be presented in November.
The Solid Waste Plan Work Group and SWAB have discussed and considered franchised solid
waste collection in the unincorporated areas and various concepts and options for expanding
niral curbside recycling and will continue those discussions along with their recommendation of
how to improve the solid waste convenience centers.
No Transfer Station
The BOCC adopted a motion in December 2009 not to construct a transfer sta.tion 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 fully determined, at least for this interim period of three to five years. 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 environmentally
difficult and will become more so as the number and placement of landfills diminished over
time.
Consideration of Alternative Technolo ies
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
9
refuse derived fuel plus waste to energy. The County received this report in August 2008 and it
is available on the County web site or on request.
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. The SWAB was directed, as
part of the decision to consider various alternatives further. In Apri12010 the SWAB hosted its
first presentation of the plasma arc technology by inventor Dr.Louis Circeo of Georgia lnstitute
of Technology. T'he SWAB will conduct future technology reviews and presentations with a
report back to the board projected in 2011 following completion of more comprehensive review.
In 2009-10 the County and LTNC concluded a landfill gas recovery agreement for Orange
County's lined MSW landfill and closed MSW unlined landfill. LJNC is to capitalize the project
and own the gas, infrastructure and any related carbon credits associated with recovering the
methane. Orange County will receive payment based on contractual provisions. Construction is
slated to start in November 2010 and gas recovery to begin in mid-2011. Gas will initially be
flared and then eventually piped to an off-site generator on University property to generate
electricity for use on iJNC property.
Environmental Monitorin�
On-site inspectors at the working face scrutinize all 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 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.
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 09-10 a methane migration and
controlled 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.
Planning Approach and Pro�ress Towards Waste Reduction and Disposal Goa1s
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 i1NC 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.
10
t
When the MSW landfill is full,the partners will have to deternune alternative disposal
arrangements and they are conducting those discussions currently As well they will consider
whether to adopt a revised interlocal agreement to continue a framework for waste management.
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) created in 2000 as part of the Interlocal Agreement,The SWAB
advises the County on solid waste matters, budget and policy and communicates through its
members to the various Town governments.
In 2005,the Board of Orange 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 from this group for the 2006 planning period and approved 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 as reflected in the 2006 report,.the full conversion to
two-stream recycling, was accepted in 2008 has enabled recycling program expansion an
investment in new equipment and no new staff. Recycling tonnage by the County programs
remained essentially unchanged in 2008-09 while waste disposed at the County landfill dropped
9%. Other changes to advance the waste reduction goal have been highlighted in the list on pages
3 and 4 of this report. The County is in compliance with the variety of new landfill bans enacted
by the State effective October 2009 including prohibitions on plastic bottles, oyster shells, oil
filters and wooden pallets. We provide recycling opportunities for all those materials and led the
state in plastic bottle recovery in 2008-09 at 29 pounds per capita..
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 refined technical analyses and a high level of public input opportunity that will be helpful
in future decision-making.
Chan�es 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 Crroup began. At that time, the primary question was whether or not Orange County should
build its own materials recovery facility (MKF) as the basis for planning future solid waste
reduction strategies. Once it was deterniined 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.
11
.
Because the prior report was two years late,the planning period covered included 2005-06,
2006-07 and 2007-08, 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
na.rrowed 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
fmancial 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 presentations 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 (a11 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
5. Rura1 Residential Waste Franchise
6. Introduction to Decision Points,Recommendations and Proposed Ixnplementation
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 memo)
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 Memo)
13. OC Solid Waste Plan-Unincorporated Area: PrioritizecUWeighted 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
12
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 is currently being overhauled and reevalua.ted. 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. No new funding
sources have been identified or specified to cover future projected costs.
Potential Future Areas for Solid Waste Plan Decision-Makin�
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. They have completed a
recommendation on the Solid Waste Convenience Centers that was delivered to the Board of
Orange County Commissioners and is included as Appendix K,but not on rural recycling
expansion or curbside waste collection. 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 rema.in 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. Solid Waste staff are currently working with the Finance
Department on development of a new financial model for sustaining remaining
operations. Further fmancial planning will be conducted with regard to waste reduction
program expansions toward achieving our 61%waste reduction goal. During the current
period of budget challenges various solid waste services are being evaluated for
improving efficiency and reducing redundancy. Efforts are being made to minimize
service/program reductions.
• Solid Waste Convenience Centers' fmancin ,g design,location and overation: 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 ta�cpayers support the convenience centers and they are
used broadly getting over 425,000 visits a year. The Solid Waste Plan Work Group has
made a recommendation to the BOCC to be considered in November 201 Q. but no action
has yet been taken on the SWCCs,
• Commercial rec cv lin�: 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 goa1. 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 staffmg and financing,
• C&D mana e� ment_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. In view of the County's aggressive waste
reduction goal and assuming local disposal of C&D remains an important characteristic
of our solid waste system, it will be a challenge to maintain these programs. The County
13
will be capable of managing the recycling and disposal any abandoned manufactured
housing delivered to the landfill as noted in the plan element for manufactured homes.
• Development of a new Interlocal agreement: As the current agreement is predicated on a
disposal facility to which all the signatories have pledged their waste, a new agreement
would have to be chartered based on alternative characteristics and for reasons other than
having a common, local,publicly owned disposal facility.
• 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 single-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
single stream 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. Solid Waste Advisory Board(SWAB) has endorsed it. 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 cly in�: the program is now stabilized covering
primarily the densest 2/3 of the County's unincorporated areas. While there is some
demand for expansion, a few homes have been added due to natural growth along
existing routes and some infill areas could be readily added to current routes,no long-
term, large-scale decisions have been made to expand
• Franchised waste collections: Franchises could be considered as a means to provide more
waste collection for both residences and businesses in unincorporated areas. While they
may provide significant benefits including: reducing truck miles traveled due to
elimination of overlapping/competing routes, enhanced enforcement of local
environmental rules, expanded access to service in sparsely settled or hard-to-reach areas,
more rigorous and accurate reporting requirements on waste disposal, stabilization and
minimization of collection costs. No decisions have been made. The one area of apparent
consensus among the Work Group was that any solid waste franchise would be voluntary,
wherein the potential customer could always self haul as an altemative to using the
franchisee(s).
• Regulatory 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 technologies and consideration of re iog nal approaches 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.
• Development of infrastructure to collect and manage source separated or�anic 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.
14
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 recommendedl reaffirmed the plan goal of 61%
waste reduction per capita..
Summary of Chapters 1-4
Chapter one is a sta.tistical 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 suminarizes 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 MS W 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.
—End Report Summary—
15
.
16 �
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 and
recycling operating revenues. The Sanitation Division's assumption of its share of administration
and environmental support overhead will be considered in the upcoming budget process.
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 Summary
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 cling 4,066,782 2,983,083
Sanita.tion 2,303,448 2,240,056
Total Expenditures 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
Operations 2,272,809 2,014,059
Ca itaUContribution to Reserves 1,247,421 894,766
Total 4,878,313 4,267,866
17
Table 1-c Administration/Environmental Su ort Ez enditures
Item 2008-09 Actual 2009-10 A roved Bud et
Personnel 504,403 499,886
Operations 1,013,902 899,918
CapitaUContribution to Reserves 404,454 7,683
Total 1,922,759 1,406,487
Table 1-d Recyclin Ez enditures
Item 2008-09 Actual 2009-10 A roved Bud et
Personnel 823,446 871,714
O erations 2,739,063 1,732,063
CapitaUContribution to reserves 1,260,833 379,306
Total 4,066,782 2,983,083
Table 1-e Sanitation Ez enditures
Item 2008-09 Actual 2009-10 A roved Bud et
Personnel 863,957 911,683
O erations 1,417,555 1,328,373
CapitaUContribution to reserves 21,936 --
Tota1 2,303,448 2,240,056
Solid Waste Tonna eg Managed at the Oran�e County Landfill FY 2008-09
During FY 2008-09,the Orange County landfill accepted for burial 61,751 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 14%below the prior year's total of 72,178. 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 50,7601andfilled in-County
and 15,227 going out of County. (Table ES-1). Reported out-of-county disposal rose during the
past yeaz. Over 5,000 tons from UNC 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. 2004-05 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 as 65,987
recycled at mixed waste processors
18
.
We gained another two years of landfill airspace, due to a corribination of requesting that iJNC
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 in early 2013, as
opposed to the mid-2011 closure date projected in the previous solid waste plan update
submittal.
Construction and Demolition Waste
Due to the ongoing recession and the particularly depressed construction economy, as well as the
State DENR April 2008 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. It totaled
only 10,992 in 2008-09 with an additiona16,410 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. In 2009-10,the annual C&D burial rate is projected down an additional
26%. Thus the C&D landfill is now projected to last about 18 years.
In-County C&D waste continues to decline,thus diminishing enterprise fund revenues while
keeping open a facility that provides needed local services for especially smaller builders and
remodelers as well as those disposing of old mobile homes trailers. Overall the C&D landfill and
recycling program fixnctions smoothly but the latest reduction in tonnage has caused additional
tipping fee revenue loss. Tota.l 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 property owners and/or County and municipal partners to ensure compliance with laws and
ordinances of Orange County and North Carolina. Revisions to the solid waste ordinances are
being developed and will be submitted to the BOCC during the upcoming planning period.
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 are in the process of
setting a protocol to remove mercury-bearing thermostats where they might have been in place to
control HVAC systems. County staff may develop a more comprehensive plan for managing
abandoned mobile homes in the upcoming planning period.
19
♦
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,plastic 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 in FY 2008-09. Provision of recycling collections and services by one agency across
multiple jurisdictions is relatively unusual in North Carolina,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.
20
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 azeas and a mix of public and private providers is used by
commerciaUnon-residential entities in the incorporated areas. LTNC provides most of its own
waste collection and recycling services by contract and some in-house. The waste hauling
contractor delivers UNC waste out of county and the recycling contractors haul and processes
materials themselves or sell to other markets. 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 fmancial
advantage to the community and some environmenta.l 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 fu11y containerized brush collection to reduce yard waste collection costs.
UNC's MSW is now hauled by contractor Waste Industries to the Waste Industries transfer
station in Durham. The Towns collect no measurable construction waste. Constxuction 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
21
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 stated intention to deliver its MSW and
bulky waste from County facilities to the City of Durham Transfer Station after the Orange
County Landfill closes. This option has been discussed with the City of Durham but there is no
agreement at this time.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 azea 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 because most of it goes out of County and
that data is presented in an agglomerated manner.
Convenience Center operations have been stable and no maj or improvements have been made
for two years. Minor improvements include improved signage, landscaping and entranceways,
replacement of containers and vehicles with more e�cient equipment and installation of security
cameras. All waste and recyclables are now conta.inerized 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 re-expand hours or capitalize those center improvements that have
been identified and analyzed as both being cost-effective and provided safer more efficient
service. SWAB and the Work Crroup are discussing future funding options, site improvements,
locations and operational concepts including expanded hours. A specific recommendation will be
brought to the BOCC from the September Work Group meeting.
Table 1-g below illustrates monthly incoming materials and revenues derived from tipping fees,
sales, and penalties. Table 1-h and 1-i represent a comprehensive look at a11 the recyclable
materials managed by Orange County's Solid Waste Management Department
22
. i
Table 1-g Sohd Waste Landfilled and Managed by Type FY08-09
JULY ° Au ust Se tember October November December Janua Februa March A ril Ma June Total YTD I
'� ������#, �f �;��°'�„, '' � �� �s' I
���'��,� �R �-' "�. �. x�;�;�x<, wx ._,� �, �
����
= -µ�...
i in Fees-$49/ton 251,488.18 227,277.44 228,054.42 203,509.93 184,123.79 218,209.27 196,731.13 �178,358.56 206,569.40 198,127.1 204,92636 228,647.00 2,526,022.62
evenue/Ton 49.74 49.93 49.65 49.9 49.7 49.7 49.6 49.97 49.5 49.7 49.73 49.73 49.76
D 5,056.28 9,60834 14,201.79 18,277.09 21,975.40 26,357.81 30,321.03 33,890. 38,055.70 42,040.91 46,161.98 50,7602 50,760.20
/a of total tonnage 0.64 0.71 0.67 0.63 0.71 0.75 0.71 0.6 0.72 0.71 0.65 0.69 �
earago 4,702.00 4,704.29 4,149.86 4,751.1 4,432.26 4,426.5 4,509.90 4,209.4 4,340.53 5,081.3 5,20838 4,906.15 55,421.86
cr/Decr from last year(monthly) 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
„�'� M� ::�,�: �� �'�` _ � �" �,��= ' �,: ;-.�:
e 'n�: , .�V.. �,� � ���� .� ���.�;" ��. � � . �..e �� s
; w .,�.. ;. � R .. K . �;. , `� . ", =.,_,..�, >_=�:��� I
. a :.
.: . ._ . ... . . � .�,�` _ �:• ������>•.�. .>��
Construction&Demolition 1,283.85 886.02 �1,134.31 1,279.82 661.5 693.8 772.85 �~� 688.1 719.3 597.95 846.52 919.2 10,48332
i ing Fee-$43/ton 60,723.93 43,379.62 53,191.02 59,93639 32,120.19 33,022.98 36,252.7 33,053.75 34,625.67 29,865.9 40,291.56 44,386.19 500,850.03
evenue/Ton 47.30 48.96 46.89 46.83 48.55 47.59 46.91 48.03 48.1 49.95 47.6 48.2 47.78
TD 1,283.85 2,169.87 3,304.18 4,584.00 5,245.5 5,939.38 6,712.23 7,400.35 8,119.65 8,717.60 9,564.12 10,48332
/o of total tonnage 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.2 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.14 I
eara o 1,801.88 1,862.02 1,519.87 2,292.45 1,088.8 1,040.90 1,094.11 1,158.43 1,459. 989.9 933.7 1,052.9 16,294.52
cr/Decr from last year(monthly) (0.29) (0.52) (025) (0.44 {039) (033 (0.29 (0.41 (0.51 (0.40 (0.09 ' (0.13 (036)
�, A � A -��. . -
;;,�, -���.� � �,� • � Y�-�: -:�-�� �-��v�. -� .�.�.. _� :�� �, � �, . �„ ,. ,
S �#, _ 5., �Ar �tYn.. L _ :^'di;E3�. .��.�x° rv k�.rc� �'�"S"�' "g ..itie+e,� �'w's'�,+. �..����:.
��� '�s'h.. . , : ie. -� ;. � « _, as. . ... ; '' ' ... ,. n. . . '�.',,,.;+t-y. . . , r ' .a N_' _ -- .
• _ ,.,a "`b _�__ ... _ _
� Y - .� ..�c�� .A.
Tires 143.37 162.96 107.83 106.79 A813 110.77 � �� T134.9 V 98.0 10622 126. �106.20 �� 129_15 1,414.27
i in Fees 23.00 584.00 0.00 0.00 192.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 83.00 0.00 176.00 1,058.00
evenue/Ton 0.16 3.58 0.00 0.00 2.36 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.66 0.00 1.3 0.75 ,
TD 14337 306.33 414.16 520.95 602.25 713.02 847.98 946.0 1,052.28 1,178.92 1,285.12 1,414.27 �
/o of total tonnage 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
ear ago 125.06 146.49 124.11 150.1 126.79 107.38 107.85 9835 118.78 10735 114.83 115.93 1,443.02
cr/Decr from last year(monthly) 0.15 0.11 (0.13) (0.29 (036 0.03 0.25 (0.00 (0.11 0.18 (0.08) 0.11 (0.02
'�°�' �-. .;=F.�s�=�s=Y.. <d,:=:�-''�;- •r '• 'o-. ,�a:^�. ,:s.,�,_ ;.:< _ � �op..�.,z �,;ttw,,,. .,�_
°��:. �� - �� r=�m �� � ">� ::�W;`�< ..�s�, c� ��... �... i. .���' �.... � �- z.�,
.�. . .. . w,
. . _.. .,
�
... °' -
.. „ .:
:�. -na �:�+: �.. ��� ��
,_..
. .,..,.... . .:. ... s,: . • �• :+`.�SS' "" � .,�'F�F`t8.«.�.;�„.,^. `4`:�'.:4 " '.`-B '*�?e^�"- n�z �i�`r-
, ... ._ < ... � � _ :� "� > , ,".:-__ . .��. "p _,•� .�c'�. - '� .�,f.'v',a� °", � »:�`:�;'.�:i���:�'�`�' ° .„'<._ q.• ` '' � ... . .' .. -._...,.,,..:_,
� �=`�.�-:w;�:v . .. . �' ..�:�.. ._ -�.�.�. ��.�:�$;�{�. .
Ve etative VJaste 1,045.92 63539 773.57 795.59 580.60 500.33 545.97 564.99 Y�551.55 669.7 957.68 757.97 8,379.26 �
i in Fees 18,894.70 12,145.25 14,010.15 14,661.80 10,596.65 9,245.90 10,081.2 11,377.9 10,519.75 13,008.30 17,269.04 14,337.00 156,147.64
evenue/Ton 18.07 19.11 18.11 18.43 18.25 18.48 18.4 20.1 19.0 19.4 18.03 18.91 18.64
� 1,045.92 1,681.31 2,454.88 3,250.47 3,831.07 4,331.4 4,87737 5,44236 5,993.91 6,663.61 7,62129 8,379.2
/o of total tonn e 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.11
eaz a o 655.64 508.69 44331 521.0 518.62 418.26 481.80 640.73 693.06 760.43 87433 812.44 7,32831
cr/Decr from last year(monthly) 0.60 0.25 0.74 0:53 0.12 0.2 0.13 (0.12 (0.20 (0.12 0.10 (0.07 0.14
:,� 1 '.R. y� 5 �,
N�' 3.
��� '$ .xs'a;,., r� 'Y�- ,.;y�' ,s�
"�...;
23
• i
Clean Wood 12829 119.87 118.58 124.68 96.5 100.6 10238 141.6 137.19 137.50 125.32 130.60 1,463.17 I
i in Fees 2,159.55 1,986.95 1,942.65 2,049.50 1,591.10 1,673.60 1,655.8 2,282.8 2,200.10 2,205.70 2,038.00 2,152.75 23,938.50
evenue/Ton 16.83 16.58 16.38 16. 16.4 16.6 16.1 16.1 16.0 16.0 16.26 16.48 16.36
� 128.29 248.16 366.74 491.42 587.96 688.56 790.94 932.56 1,069.75 1,207.25 1,332.57 1,463.17
/o of total tonn e 0.02 0.02 0.02 0_02 0.0 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.0 0.02 0.02
year a o 131.31 201.75 142.60 150.9 119.04 91.11 121.13 105.9 122.0 122.17 132.98 138.93 1,580.01
cr/Decr from last year(monthly) (0.02) (0.41) (0.17) (0.17 (0.19 0.10 (0.15 034 0.12 0.13 (0.06) (0.06 (0.07)
, . ... .. .,.... -
~�.��.���:�:�,� ��`�'_..�-.�:�;; ,;., _.,. �,:. �. �, §,,,�w
;;a�:�s M"� "'��`"�,�-.b. �� r� `'.t�M - x��"�` � �,,;a,�.��; •:�.itr�r-':.�-• s�:"�-� �g u:%`z.� ��;:`5'�, °3:;-- ,�,:^'.��'� .::,��
_ � .s y.�:�-'-�w -
• �-_ �•. . .,F�, . . M z� �"- �.r��"•'-''"4�,-'�:�+o«¢v>a,���,, a yw�a��=g°�s .�'i'�":�;�=��� Y;_� �•.,�,t� .'�µ'_ :�� v��:r ���r -?`$'��`��.
Landclearin &Stum s p132.97 17.04 � S 24.23 37.7� 30:5 15.83 . 1235 � � 26.13 22.0 26.47 67.0 43.1 455.58
i in Fees 5,708.35 728.02 1,057.88 1,628.56 1,313.22 680.6 531.05 1,123.59 995.7 1,141.48 2,900.27 1,857.17 19,666.07
evenue/Ton 42.93 42.72 43.66 43.15 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 45.08 43.1 43.29 43.0 43.17
� 132.97 150.01 174.24 211.98 242.5 258.35 270.70 296.83 318.92 34539 41239 455.58
/o of total tonna e 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.01
ear ago 53.59 32.14 51.63 8.0 47.15 4.22 14.1 14.43 41.1 13.15 29.89 35.4 345.04
cr/Decr from last year(monthl ) 1.48 (0.47) (0.53) 3.68 (035 2.75 (0.13 0.81 (0.46 1.01 1.24 0.22 0.32
:-r`:.� �::Sr°"- :r. b$'xi' yt�..8,'�"w ;�_:- °:.ar�•�� ::.r-' •.ci.N.y;e��:. .�„�n; ;z-:':` ..,� ,..•h�,
�.s �'s «�+^� �`��"z *°-:�%� •�,, 4.�� ,�,°''' � .�'wg„��.�f:_..d .;r;` •-_�;Y..- ��x � _ ,•�:..,
<�'si"��,�'�; Vr ,x,..�..- -.�s=�= "'�a.e_:s-?�- �i°a.�, � r�. ,...� ,�'' g'��= � iY.�� .Msw-:' �`s"i,::r'; ..L°� :s.�•
- "@.<�-_� ..an a:4.�.,.e:?;�:�. .�i2"., �.�„� .FS�Y :��':.e .�" ._ �n.w'$y��.• ; �`
f"' .i. .. '�' �ZA�:',
_ � �;..:,.�_ ° .�� ,�:. .. _�r • ���;4��:'�:$���.;•�.• �•:� ;�_���:: ,.��• a�. Fk�;�„ �z:,�='��' �w
. N.a _,�.__,� ,. -� •`•� ....< ; > ....
Slud e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 e 0.00 a�0.00
i in Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 Q.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
evenue/Ton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00
TD 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I
/o of total tonna e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ear a o 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
cr/Decr from last year(monthly) NA NA NA NA NA NA N
.-�.,:. .......:.: . .:..�,-,�,.,-._._...
�,; >,�_;_ <-����; :F�� .�� � -r•-.°_� ��::� �° ...�,.„ �..; �--..,:n�. _.�. - NA __ NA NA NA NA N
���° s�.�.s. � ,�, ; ��N �£�°�. �. _�.,;�: �� _
�;,��,. �� ^-=� a� �.<�:' �,��� .c�,..,. ;�.k: -:3=.... :.,..3_
'���,.��'�:. y�;:.���-� '�„ �� M�`` °��r �� � ��cy _:�. �F- .,�r ;.��
- �' ��`: - ;-s r�.��,�> .x;t � a ��>�'�..,��^�>: ;��.. �� -°�'�-ti"-.��raw: -sT�R' �r�s'-�.. .p-�"'�:,� �; .;f m.,�„'`,� >;a; `�a:.: ya: :�'�.' Ki� h=�1�.e
.s . n � '_ .. �c�. .r'='. '.. `� �_ .�..�:� �.�s.�-<`,'�-..-.�..�`. .;.�'`RL.s,'..�,���;.i;�e.i�w�;6':n" :,r:m-�t;��;.��`�.;s:�a:y,
White Goods(Se e ated) 23.16 26.74 21.80 21.0 23.16 25.75 31.7 24.9 24.3 27.95 34.18 29.79 314.58
TD 23.16 49.90 71.70 92.7 115.86 141.61 173.38 198.32 222.6 250.61 284.79 314.58 1,939.27
/o of total tonna e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
ear a o 27.41 3439 26.39 26.05 24.4 22.8 20.48 24.68 24.2 23.6 26.76 23.6 305.11
c/Decr from last year(monthly) (0.16) (0.22) (0.17) (0.19) (0.05) 0.13 0.55 0.01 0.00 0.18 0.28 0.26
e:;�fi: `�� ,.�tmr'.4 �,«�s'.�y�rx3t ,..y�„r �, '«.��w;" ',`.�x ".'�°'� ':a'�.'�'�� ,r- .�` '�_^ �.03
...�a �� '��`� �a�. � '�� a.�„-"` y �"-., ti:r, :ar s.�r�"- .�,:.. �.�.
���=��....r,;�i �,�` �a- h�.� <� <c".� �ixi�.' ��r ;e:°:=a' y^ ,�@ :4�t ��¢:',�:ii?s� ':R, y��:�. ,� i.
A .� `N� :s�`e: � ..S.b"°°��. � �'aA.�AZ:..gd�i��9c. R�.;xr�'�iN'��i��� (S�:� ,.'Y ..�'., '.�.�.x .i3� >��:'��e a"�`�;F ..�..
� " ' � , `� �. - , _ _
• ' _i, :° K . , �,-;:� .. . '� � . _ .`�s.,.V'�?F: .�`.�z�". �W�. -�_�_�-a`�s'k'.. �-�-�.e.�.��,'�'�,`�."i �.;.�,? _.i.e�S�:;�•...,,,�m�`ts?-�M �s:.t., �s_, r:.:°�r`�:
. . . . . ��.._.�*- � • �.- - . �
Clean Metal 66.96 55.80 42.51 45.9 36.3 39.0 47.63 45.4 50.65 66.45 58.50 64.7 619.99
TD 66.96 122.76 165.27 211.26 247.60 286.6 334.27 379.69 4303 496.79 555.29 619.99
/o of total tonnage 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
ear A o 71.27 68.95 5733 53.1 45.4 37.01 41.81 45.15 53.0 48.98 61.48 65.0 648.72
c/Decr from last year(monthly) (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)
�.� a �� �" "' '°._ve;K' °���'-�.� _�:'_,'���'.h� F��re;�,'Z'�; �r �°`"`"',�e '�:
�, j..# pq '°'€°"�;''a > . • $,�.;�;;'»' . �a ��, "'�.
.y o���^-� �� aa � .."cl
Y-^ .3 ^y„ `_�.. ,u I
. � r� .
�� � � ��� � ��� ��
b�^v � �v
..�� �- a' n �� '
' , � s e "' r.,.,'"`b ;;'a ,�'., F
'.?� . . ;�, . 3�N,•2 "`�,'a
.=�, <.r�^ <�„• r.%?�' rx t �`�_...v.�'^^: ,�.�•.� �a :�s�`_��' _.�`42:e�. .a�"R..��-�� k;:�w:
24 �
Mobile Homes 3.75 0.00 3.75 0.0 0.00 11.25 7.5 0.0 0.00 1125 11.25 3.75 52.50
i ing Fees 150.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 450.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 450.0 450.00 150.00 2,100.00
evenue/Ton 40.00 #DIV/0! 40.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 40.0 40.0 #DN/0! #DN/0! 40.00 40.0 40.0 40.0
umber of Mobile Homes i.00 1.00 3.0 2.0 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 14.00
� 3.75 7.50 18.75 26.25 37.5 48.75 52.5
/o of total tonna e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
ear a o 3.75 11.25 0.00 15.0 3.75 7.5 63.75 0.00 7.50 0.0 3.75 0.0 116.25
c/Decr from last year(month) (0.73) 0.50 (0.88 A
,� „ ..�.�,A - -
A
. ._. e� ,�_ _.,.��d .,�.. ,�;
� ���. , -_ ��� �� ,� � � n;��.� ,a;, a�;��e<��:-� _ A 0.67
�� � •�" �, r�' r� �.: �.�.�s,�9��...y_ .�;;;_u ���:. �_
�.�3*'� ,=s... .i..,�• '�... ��� �pH �.4�'� ��;�' •�" =�:4 `^�.� :�''.*e� ",$:''` �,_,. .p,_;�..y..
��.�.. -�-. �.�az., .:�.... .zs�� .�`"a>fia�.'�?aq��"::s ,.�':.»�i``��� a'�.`� a�- �:;4s;or?���o� �_r� � ., . .�:�' ;s•� ..-a�� �:'��".: "�.���.����'�„�;
.. .,, y s. . . . , _
Q c« � _: z. __..�`a��-.-43'`, s>`�:�"�3rs.,as��'+,'�' ;�±`>M.v a��P't;'9`k,:� .;.����zs°�:�.?°„°a�..,'i�- •.�::��."�
TOTAL/wo RW 7,884.55 6,455.88 Y, 6,820.03 6,486.91 5,20833 5,879.82 � 5,618.63 5,158.71 5,776.60 5,649.12 6,327.72 6,676.5 73,942.87
i in Fees 339,147.71 286,101.28 298,406.12 281,786.18 229,936.95 263,282.44 245,551.92 226,196.60 254,910.71 244,881.61 267,875.23 291,706.11 3,229,782.86
evenue/Ton 43.01 4432 43.75 43.4 44.15 44.7 43.7 43.85 44.13 43.35 4233 43.6 43.68
TD 7,884.55 14,340.43 21,160.46 27,64737 32,855.70 38,735.52 44,354.15 49,512.86 55,289.46 60,938.58 67,26630 73,942.87
/o of total tonna e 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
ear a o 7,571.91 7,569.97 6,515.10 7,967.92 64637 6,155.83 6,454.9 6,297.15 6,859.87 7,147.01 7,386.14 7,150.58 83,482.84
cr/Decr from last year(monthly) 0.04 (0.15) 0.05 (0.19) 7.06
(0.04) (0.13) (0.18 (0.16 (0.21 (0.14) (0.07 (0.05)
is osal Tax Com utation Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
Tons ;� Tons Tons Tons
C&
MS 14,201.79 12,156.02 11,697.89 12,704.50 50,760.2
C&D 3,304.18 2,63520 2,180.27 2,363_67 10,4833
L&S 174.24 84.11 60.57 136.66 455.58
7.50 11.25 7.50 26.25 52.5 10,991.40
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 ril 30,2009 Jul 31,2009
25
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 attributa.ble 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. The increase in electronic discards represents a cleaz response to technological
shifts to e.g. flat panel tele�isions and monitors replacing CRTs and DVD replacing VCRs.
Table 1-h Annual Rec cling 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 g
Pro ane Tanks 3
Food Waste 1,761
Animal Beddin 485
Multifamil , 1,241
Commercial 768
Gov Buildin s gg
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 �92
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% 28.60�0
Multifamily 1,241 7% 14_80�0
Commercial 768 5% 20.4%
Gov Bldgs 99 1% 16.7%
Food/Animal Bedding 2,245 13% _�,7%
TRIP 706 4% 10.5%
DO 5,533 32% 31%
26
�
Table 1-i Annual Rec clin Tonna e Summary 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
calculatin
Total Tons Managed: 16,301
Percent of Change from
Change from previous year -0.91% total previous year
Program Totals
Urban Curbside 4,517 28% (-4.7%)
Rural Curbside 1,784 11°/a (-3.2%)
Multifamil 1,294 8% 4.2%
Commercial 925 6% 20.4%
Gov Bld s 110 1% 11.1%
Food/Animal Bedding 2,255 14% 0.4%
TRIP 733 4°/a 3.7%
DO incomin 4,891 30% (-11.6%)
—End chapter one—
27
.
28
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
29
Table 2-a Summa of New Work Led b Oran e Coun Solid Waste Mana ement De artment 2008-2010
Year Land�ll Operations Landfill and transfer Sanitation Recycling Operations Waste Reduction and
station design,permitting, Division--Orange Recycling Planning
study(includes gas County
studies) (SWCCs 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 cardboard. further study,followed by building cardboard recycling. areas and for commercial waste.
Fi11 subsided side selection and evaluation of Increase electronics Presented detailed commercial
slopes with waste, one specific site. Contract recycling 10%over prior recycling options.
gaining more air negotiations with UNC 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 improved from American Forest&
leachate sewer line. communications& Paper Association. Sell
eliminated 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 tonslmonth) 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, and diskettes to to unincorporated area waste
� Dec 31,2012. and bid with UNC. Bradshaw electronics recycling. and recycling management
Complete leachate Convenience Added oyster shell including expansion of
sewer line, close Center to 21-hoursi 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-- -
30
,
Chapter 3
Solid Waste Planning Update
Plannin�
This chapter follows the outline in the State plan guidance document. Thus it starts 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 decisions likely in
the 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 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 and the goal was recently re-affirmed by the Solid Waste Plan Work Group in
September 2010.No objection or alternative goal was presented at the Public Meeting on
September 29. 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. Data.for 2009-10 is not available.These types of incremental
improvements may likely 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 as well as management capacity to
pursue new opportunities 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. At times,the public has led the call for expanded services or new materials
recycling.
Extrapolating from the data collected sector-by-sector in the 2010 one-week waste composition
analysis(see Appendix D), if about 50% of paper, cans and bottles that are now landfilled but are
readily recyclable at the curb (or in carts)were actually recycled plus 25% of that recyclable at
dropoff sites that is now landfilled were recycled including metal, lumber, electronics and non-
bottle plastics and 5%of residential food waste composted,the County could achieve a waste
reduction rate in the 57%+range. That is another�6,350 tons shifted from the garbage pail to the
recycling bin. See table 3-a next page. Reducing the final few percent to reach the 61%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.
31
Table 3-a Potential Additional Tons that are readil recyclable
Sector Residential Multifamily Commercial Total
Materials
50%of paper, cans 2,200 800 2,200 5,200
bottles now landfilled
25%of clean lumber, 500 150 300 950
metal,non-bottle
plastics&electronics
now landfilled
Food waste to 200 200
backyard com ostin
Total potential new 2,900 950 2.500 6,350
recycling tons
The recent additions of#2 (HDPE) 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 appeazs 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 we account for what is landfilled out-of-county included as it
is in each year's state report.
Following projected landfill closure in early to mid 2013,no final formal agreement has 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 transslupment and the County has stated its
intention to 1 take tlie 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 the Towns should each make
their own arrangement for disposal. Those discussions aze ongoing and have not yet resulted in
any recommendations to the elected bodies.
Other operations now conducted at the Eubanks Road facility axe 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 processing and
transfer.
Evaluation of Program Performance
Even without an implemented formallong-term plan,county solid waste efforts continue to
evolve and change. Cardboard was added to curbside recycling in 200$-09 for a contract cost of
$0.15 per household in the urban areas. County-run rural routes experienced a slight increase in
hauling time due to increased volume from cardboard causing trucks to have to leave routes and
dump sooner than they did before the additional volume was added. Overall recycling tonnage
dipped 0.9%in 2008-09 compared to 2007-08 (tables 1-h and 1-I). 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
32
.
its income by over$20,000 a month. These two changes have provided unanticipated revenue
that may be used to enable more internal fmancing 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-c 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-b Rec clin Tonna e from Multi-Family and Curbside Pro rams 2007-2010
Program Tonnage 08-09 %Change. 09-101 Percent change
2007-08 Vs. 07-08
Urban Curb 4,738 4,516 -5% 4,121 -9%
Rural Curb 1,843 1,784 -3% 1,818 2%
Multifamily 1,240 1,294 4% 1,301) 1%
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. A slightly increased diversion rate of 1 in hazardous and toxic
wastes, largely in electronics and dry cell batteries, is calculated for the year
33
,
Table 3-c Summary of Toxic Reduction Improvement Program (TRIP)
FY 2007-08 v. 2008-09
Pro am or Material Contractor 07-08 Tons 08-09 Tons % Chan e 09-10 Tons %Chan e
Motor Oil Holston 112.5 104.5 (-7%) 92 _12%
Oil Filters(banned Holston 9.8 9.9 1% 11.3 14%
from NC landfills Oct
'09)
Anti-Freeze Holston 83 3.6 (-57%) 2.7 _25o/a
Lead acid batteries Chatham 34.6 28.4 (-18%) 22.5 (_21%)
Salva e
Dry cell batteries Battery 12.4 11.3 (-9%) 15.1 39%
Solutions
Electronics Rec clin S er 4133 456.4 10% 482 6%
Hazardous Waste Eco-Flo 112.5 115.6 3% 114.6 -1%)
Pro ane Tanks 2.6 3 15% 3 (estimated) 0%
Totals 706 733 4% 741 1%
Tonnage from the commercial recycling program increased in 08-09 but declined 6%in 09-10
due to most likely to an overall decrease in economic activity, dropoff site tonnage declined in
08-09 then increased 4% in 09-10,while food waste held steady in 08-09 but rose 5%in 09-10
with addition of some new sites.
Table 3-d Rec clin Tonna e from.Commercial and Dro -Off Sites
Program Tonnage 2008-09 %Change 2009-10 %Change for
2007-08 2009-10
Commercial 768 925 20% 873 _6%
Food&animal 2,245 2,255 0.4% 2,357 15%
beddin
Drop-Off Sites(blue 5,533 4,891 -12% 5,090 4%
box and a er)
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 operation of the solid waste convenience centers and waste
collection from those centers, County government buildings and the Orange County Schools, but
the funds to pay for MSW collection from the schools are 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 2010-11. The
financial integration of the Sanitation Division into the enterprise fund will continue to be refined
34
�
and adjusted as necessary.No changes to current financing approaches or addrtional fees to
finance any aspect of the program have yet been determined.
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 major 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
collected from the units ($37/unit/year) does not reflect true program collection 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.
35
.
.
Table 3-e Annual3-R Fees in Oran e Caunty 2009
Fee T e Fee amount Comments
Basic Fee(B) $37 Levied on a11 improved properties including non-
profits and those within Chapel Hill limits,but in
Durham County,no increase
Urban curbside (LT) $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 Fanuly(Nn $19 Fee levied on each unit in com lex,no increase
There is a generally growing but unpredictable revenue stream from sale of recyclable materials.
While in good years it is substantial, we cannot forecast a yeax 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 forlunately 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 some 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 landfill tip fee revenue plus mulch sales, metal sales,white goods
reimbursements/grants,tire tax reimbursement/grants, boiler fuel sales and other minor revenues
covers a11 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. C&D tonnages are impacted by the economic climate as well as
rigorous enforcement of Sta.te and local bans. The waste declines due to less building activity or
shifts to out of County disposal facilities from local facilities.
36
r
Table 3-f Landfill Fees in Oran e County 2009-10
Fee Type Fee Amount Comments
Municipal Solid Waste $50 per ton Includes state disposal tax of
$2 er ton
Construction and Demolition $44 per ton Includes state disposal tax of
Waste $2 per ton
Yard waste and clean wood $18 per ton No state disposal t�charged
as it is not disposed
Scrap metal and cardboard $0 Revenue rec'd from materials
Sale. Materials banned from
dis osal by Co. ordinance
Appliances (white goods) and $0 State law—disposal costs
Tires covered through advance
disposal fee. White goods
reimbursements do not cover
expenses.
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 replacement 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. Sta.ff has assumed
that closure expenses are to be substantially fmanced from reserves.
While there will be significant reduction in expenditures (persorinel and equipment) once the
landfill closes, enterprise fund revenues sources will be diminished and aze likely to fall below
expenses. An enterprise fund financial analysis will be conducted over the next few months in
cooperation with the Orange County Finance Department to evaluate and refine the enterprise
fund's fmancial viability. 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.No decisions have been made.
The Solid Waste Advisory Board does recommend a short-term focus on re-expansion of service
hours as a top funding priority. The Work Group recommendation includes an annual per
household fee as a major means of supporting SWCC operations and capital needs. The notion of
offsetting ta��reductions if fees are instituted has not yet been discussed or deternuned because
the analyses have not been done and the BOCC has not addressed the issue.
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 Sanita.tion Division these support costs may need to be reallocated.
37
�
Current MSW and C&D landfill tonnages,thus revenues, are declining below projected tonnages
and may require a reliance on reserves to cover any possible shortfalls in operating revenue.
Three-R Fees will continue to fund 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 staffmg 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- Revenue Sources for 2008-09 Solid Waste Mana ement
Source Amount(to nearest 1,000) Comments
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
rec clables— 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, $452,000 Estimated
interest income,compost bin
sales, capital contributions, sales
� of s lus e ui ment etc.
No Transfer Station
A decision was reached in December 2009 not to construct a transfer station in Orange Counfiy
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
although County hauling analyses show an additional annual cost in the $135,000 to $140,000
range for hauling waste from the Convenience Centers to the Durham Transfer station. Some
inter-governmental discussions have taken place, but the governments have not finalized any
decisions pn 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 a11 seek a common solution after
the MSW landfill is closed in early to mid 2013.
T'he County ceased its search for a site for an MS W transfer station via a motion adopted
December 7, 2009 (see Appendix A) subsequent to a motion passed by the Board of Orange
County Commissioners (BOCC) in 2001 sta.ted 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.
38
,
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 yeax 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. Along with that on-site effort,the County is committed to continuing to work with the
building community on solid waste plans and enforcement of its Regulated Recyclable Materials
Ordinance focused primarily on reducing construction and demolition waste and encouraging
recycling and reuse of what is produced.
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 LTNC, 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.
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, IJNC,by mutual consent with Orange County,
began sending its waste out of County to a private transfer station operated by its contract hauler
in order to conserve landfill space.
While iTNC 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(SWAB),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
39
.
outreach arm of the County Solid Waste Departrnent 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 the County licenses
them primarily to ensure they comply with the requirement to separate cardboard,metal and
clean wood for recycling. Typically where hauling routes end on the fringes of the County,
private haulers take advantage of lower tipping fees elsewhere. Those with their own landfill or
transfer station use them. Telephone surveys with the two lazgest private haulers operating in the
County confum this. Micro-haulers defined as those with fewer than 500 customers tend to use
the Orange County landfill generally but those serving the northeast portion of the County along
with nearby areas of Durham or Person 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. They are aware of the County ordinances prohibiting
disposal of cardboard,metal and clean wood with waste.
The Solid Waste Advisory Board consisting of up to eight formally appointed citizens members,
up to two each selected by the four jurisdictions plus an ex-officio member from iJNC, offers
ongoing policy guidance and comment on staff work. 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 how the SWAB will be constituted is somewhat uncertain.
RRMO as a model of inter�overnmental coo eration
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 County 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.
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 iJNC continue 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 sta.ff 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. iJNC employs its own staff to educate contractors,
40
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 IJNC
staff.
In general,the 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 a11 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 recycling as well as waste 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 Technologies
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 yeazs, 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 Apri12010 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 projected in
2011.
Alternative technologies may come to play a role in managing waste and recycling options,but
most likely there will always be some residual to manage as well as a 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. Further,the geographically most-likely partners are in difFerent places
on the solid waste decision-making spectrum.
Planning Approach and Progress Towards Waste Reduction and Disposal Goals
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 iTNC as well as citizens and
businesses overall. There is a general understanding since the first plan submittal in 1997,that a
41
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 by all jurisdictions as part of the resolution
with 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. The Work
Group, as it's known, consists of an elected representative from each jurisdiction, technical staff
from each jurisdiction's Sanitation/Solid Waste Division and the total membership of the
SWAB. An interim plan was sent forward from the Work Group in 2008 for the 2006 submittal
and was adopted by all jurisdictions as the plan update. T'he Work Group has reviewed technical
materials and delivers its opinion and recommendations on matters related to the reports
referenced above. The Work Group may sunset in the fa112010 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 some new multifamily stops were added from the efficiency gains
realized by converting to two-stream collection.
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 of those two types of paper 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 azeas. 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 fmance the solid waste convenience centers along with a lesser emphasis on rural curbside
waste collection and expanding and improving curbside recycling.
The Work Group made no recommendations pertaining to either expansion of rural curbside
recycling or implementation of franchised waste collection. Their lengthy and detailed
deliberations on these issues reflect important differences of opinion in the group on how to
proceed. There was ample public input as well on these points over the past two years.
42
Discussion of expanding operating hours, expanding materials collected at the sites, capitalizing
possible 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 fmancial picture worsened in 2008-09. Once the MSW landfill
closes in early to mid 2013,hauling e�ciency will become a very important element in a11
decision-making for the County controlled wastes. With no changes in hauling practices, costs
will increase a projected $135,000 to $140,000 per year just for hauling waste from the
convenience centers to Durham's Transfer Station. Increasing that efficiency is a paramownt
efFort in the next two years so it is ready when the landfill closes. Hauling as we do now, l��ads 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 mea�ns 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 Solid Waste Convenience Centers. In September the Work Group develo�ped a
recommendation to the Board of Orange County Coxnxnissioners, on improving the SWCC's and
financing those improvements. The details of the issues around siting, design, operation an.d
financing of convenience centers, including work group recommendations, will be present��d and
discussed with the BOCC over the next few months. Recommendations on the related issues of
franchising waste collection or expanding curbside recycling may be determined during th��next
planning period.
Movin�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
or decisions 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 wiill 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 reportin;g 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 decisic►ns 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 recYcling_ this element of the waste stream retains the largest potential. for
waste reduction,without a more systematic approach to reducing commercial wastf;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 busin�esses
with recycling services but has reached its limit under currently configured staffing and
43
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
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. There was a recent
request from a property owner for publicly provided cardboard recycling service as an
example of one direction that commercial programs might take. Alternatives included
privately-operated programs with strict disposal bans that essentially require recycling to
comply with those 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 ement, While C&D volume is presently declining not only in Orange
County, but also nationally,the need continues to provide local means to manage
recyclable and waste C&D materials. For the County to sustain its ability to manage the
recyclable C&D like metal and wood along with the C&D landfill, it will be important to
address the question of financing these programs in view of ongoing equipment operating
costs and declining tonnage with concomitant declines in revenues.
• Landfill closure and lon�-term maintenance• The County is now planning for closure and
has funds available, but post-closure monitoring and maintenance and hauling of local
wastes to out of County disposal facilities are being further evaluated. Post-closure
monitoring is required for a minimum of thirty years according to Federal law. If any
environmental 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 that we address it. 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 recvcling_while it appears that this approach to recycling is
the trend nationally and has been endorsed by the SWAB, we do not plan an immediate
conversion due to staffing constraints for both management and operations. It is not
obvious that single stream is a`best' solution, but certainly evidence shows that it
increases tonnage into the recycling container. The collection efficiency gained from
single stream conversion, at least in urban areas where it would be almost universal, is
likely to be able to cover the cost of converting from two recycling bins to rollcarts. 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 rec cling: While some possibilities exist for marginal
expansion to rural curbside recycling along or adjacent to existing routes including
simply infill and natural growth up to an estimated 800 or 900 additional homes, any
significant expansion that would encompass much of the remaining third of unserved
households is a larger policy decision that has not been thoroughly discussed. The Work
44
Group has made no recommenda.tions and the BOCC has made no decisions on the
direction of this program. It will be a continued topic of discussion in the next plamung
period. Providing the service has added benefits of increasing recycling convenience,
reducing reliance on the SWCCs and providing one clear county-wide message abo�ut
residential recycling service provision but issues of decreased density, effective use;of the
service, consideration of making any fizture expansion subject to a voluntary payme;nt of
the nual curbside 3-R fee and access from longer more rural driveways remain to be
discussed. .
• Franchised waste collections: Franchises could be considered as a means to provide
mare efficient waste collection for both residences and businesses in unincorporated
areas as well as potentially reducing pressure on SWCCs by reducing usage. VVhile
franchises may provide significant benef ts including: reducing truck miles travelecl due
to elimination of overlapping/competing routes, enhanced enforcement of local
environmental rules, expanded access to service in sparsely settled or hard-to-reacln areas,
more rigorous and accurate reporting requirements on waste disposal, stabilization and
minimization of collection costs, no recommendations or decisions have been mad.e. The
one area of apparent consensus among the Work Group was that any solid waste
franchise wouid be voluntary, wherein the potential customer could always self haul as an
alternative to using the franchisee(s).
• Financin�, design 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 tl�e
entire County as a11 taxpayers support the convenience centers. They are used broa�dly by
urban as well as rural residents, and there is a strain on the general fund as the prirriary
means of funding. When the Iandfill closes there wili be increased pressure on thenn and
the greater hauling MSW distance will result in increased costs. There is a general
agreement in recommending that expanded hours be the highest single priority as fanding
becomes available.
As part of shifting the Convenience Centers to the Enterprise Fund, even if some 3-R Fee
revenues are shifted to cover some recycling-related costs of convenience center
operating and hauling costs, re-expanding hours, as well as making possible 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, financing 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 district/neighborhood approach.
Design of the centers needs to be upgraded for them to function more safely and
efficiently and enable collection of a broader range of materials. Suggested near te�rm
additional materials include used cooking oil,textiles and shoes, lights containing
mercury(LCMs), vegetable oil and food waste . Currently having the same amount of
traffic during 30%fewer hours creating more conflict between site users and hauli�ng
vehicles. Expansion of hours to reduce some operating pressures would be a priorily
consideration if funds become available. Upcoming longer hauling distances to rer.note
transfer stations once the landfill closes will significantly increase costs up to an
estimated$140,000 and cost reduction would require more use of compactors for
efficient hauling of larger loads.
45
Changes in design, sta.ffing and location are intimately connected to operations issues —
Should all centers have identical hours? Should some have extended hours? Should at
least some 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? Should all centers compact a11 wastes, or should some centers accept only MSW
while some accept larger and bulky items using heavier compaction equipment to densify
the loads.
Finally the issue of how to fund the needed expansion of hours and materials, designs and
changes is critical because the current funding levels do not a11ow any expansion of
hours, 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.
Work Grouu Recommendation on Solid Waste Convenience Center future desi�n,
location, oneration and funding
The Work Group reviewed nutnerous scenarios for future Solid Waste Convenience
Center design, location and funding and received a lot of public input and has
recommended to the BOCC:
• a district/neighborhood arrangement with
• two lazger district centers at the existing sites at Walnut Grove Church Road
and Eubanks that have a full suite of services including expanded materials
collection to include at least textiles, cooking oil, food waste and LCMs, and
• three neighborhood centers at existing sites at Bradshaw Quarry Road,
Ferguson Road and High Rock that have fewer services but are more
convenient to the more rural areas.
• Use of annual household fees for part or all of the fiscal needs of convenience
center operations
A variety of financing options were also reviewed that included continuing to
rely mostly on the general fund or switching to reliance on a variety of types of
fees including gate fees,per bag fees and, annual household fees The Work
Group recommended a scenario that relied on some level of annual household
fee to finance both current operation and new capital needs. The potential
impact on the general fund tax burden is not yet obvious. Means to levy such a
fee could be tied to the current 3-R Fee billing structure. Financing the SWCCs
is a key decision if any improvements are to be made and it seems imperative
to make them.
• Re�ulatory 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 appears to be little political interest in PAYT at this
46
time. Further, it is not obvious that there is management, enforcement, and billing�md
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—
47
48
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 a11 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. The 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 early to mid 2013.
This iteration of the three-year update can provide more definition and direction for a plar,i 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.
This plan submittal is more than descriptive, but does not become fully prescriptive. It dof�s call
out all the key issues on which decisions are needed and offers options for recommendatic►ns 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 pos:�ibly
beyond as well as 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 September 29, 2010; comments were
incorporated, and the resulting plan was reviewed by all three Town elected boards. (Drafit
resolutions attached as Appendix B along with comments from the public on the plan). It will be
(was)presented to the Board of Orange County Commissioners for a fmal review and adoption
on December 6, 2010 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 stil�l in the
process of being addressed. A series of technical memoranda and presentations over the past two
years provide more background to enable decision-making. Those are incorporated by refe;rence.
Following adoption and submission of this plan, the planning process will continue into th.e
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 fmancially stable solid waste enterprise fund following MSW land.fill
closure and integration of the Sanitation Division into the Enterprise Fund
• Revision or redevelopment of the Interlocal Agreement among the local governme:nts that
will be relevant following the closure of the Orange County MSW landfill
• How much further to expand rural curbside recycling
• Whether or not to implement single stream recycling in both urban and rural curbsiide
programs and when
• Expansion and full funding of commercial recycling
• Implementing additional regulatory or incentive measures to promote waste reduction
and recycling
49
�
• Alternatives to direct hauling of waste to other transfer stations
• Technological Alternatives to Landf ll Disposal and Regional Cooperation
• 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 fmancial 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 Solid
Waste Advisory Boaxd may fill that ongoing role. The Board of County Commissioners will
determine the final plan elements 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 Appendix F that may be
incorporated into the integrated plan along with a fiscal analysis to deternune how the needed
expansions and changes could be fmanced. The solid waste planning process will not likely have
a fixed endpoint, but will continue to be dynamic and ongoing, responding to changing
conditions,technologies and community priorities.
—End Chapter 4—
End Report
50
�
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, advertisement of public meeting on plan and
record of public meeting and other public written comments on the 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 Departmental Goal
Appendix I Financial plan (discussion of long-term financing methods are underway ar�d will
not be submitted with this report.)
Appendix J Electronics Recycling Plan
Appendix K Recommended Strategy for Improvements to Solid Waste Convenience Centers
51
52
Appendix 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 betwveen
Orange County and the City of Durham formalizing future arrangements as an intermedia�te
solution (3-5 years). Staff should seek in such discussions to assure to the greatest exteint
possible Orange County's continued leadership in reducing solid waste and promoting re�cycling.
(2) Direct County Management to begin working with the towns on amending the 1999 In�terlocal
Agreement as necessary with regard to the County obligation to provide solid waste disp��sal
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 lo�ng
term agreement.
(3)Reengage the towns as full, proactive participants in the Inter-Local Agreement and in solic� waste
planning, and determine what they are willing to support, knowing already what they
oppose.
(4)Du�t County staff and the Solid Waste Advisory Board to establish a discrete timeline ��nd
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)rro 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 agreed with the friendly amendme�nt
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 w��s one
that was ideal, but she did believe that following the site selection process means rejectir�g 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 specifically 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.
53
Commissioner Jacobs did not accept this as a friendly amendment. He said that his
motion does not preclude considering a lan�ll,
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he too is concemed 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)
54
Appendix B
DRAFT
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE THREE-YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
UPDATE to be submitted to State 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,
WHEREAS 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,integr�ated
long term plan, and
WHEREAS the Orange County Solid Waste Department,the Work Group and the Solid`�Jaste
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 recommenda�tions
and revisions to be incorporated into the plan document to be submitted to the State for rf;view
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 upd;ate 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 oi'Orange
County Commissioners.
This is the of , 2010.
55
tl __L- TtJ�t�fh1 C�F CAf�RBt�RC}
.,�� •�,� PtORTH CRROLINA �
�� �� ��.
. '�!�*r;� �.a+�
-.._�cw_.^v�'..
+�.
SUL�D�'VASTE F'LAI�T`W(�ItK GRQUP LlPD�T�
�:
T�purp4se of this item was for f)range County Solid R�'aste personnel tc�prov�de a re�art on
the state-tzaandated thrce year�pdate to(h'ange Co�ty's Ten Year Solid t�aste Plan and for the
Tnwti to cansider a xesolu�an ace�pting the plan a�d o;�er any cc�m�r��nts.
Gaylc Wiisc>n,�ran�e County Solid Wast�e Director,made the presentation.
'I73e ti�llt�vvittg resol.ution was in�aducesi by Ald�rman Dan Coi�m�n aaucci duly seconded by
Aldertx�.an Lydia l.avellc.
�RESULU`ITO�I AD4PTING THE THRF�-YEAR SOLID WASTE�riANAGE1v�FNT PLAN .
`C�I]�LTE
Resolntic�n R`o.30l2(}10»2(?11
QL�R�1S`i�orth Carol;intx�t�tiutorily requires�ck�County and Municipatity tc�t�pciate its ten
year sol�d:waste plan every threc yeaaz�ss;and : `; . .
�'t��F.REA�s Clranga�c>wtty a�td it�miinicipaliti�s l�ave historic�iiy coopei�a#ed closely ari stilid
waste mai�agement iz�cluding plan developmen#,�nd -
�VHER�;AS the plan to be adc�pted r�affirms the gvat of 61°lo wast�red�:ctian per capita
originaliy estublished in 1997 and xeaffirm.ed in Z(}00,20(}3 and 20f3$ (frir 2406 submittalj,and
�VHEREEIS the Boaxd af Orange Ccsunty Commis,5ianers has creatad a r�presen#ati�re salid��vaste
m�nnage�:ment plan work group that has w�orked for five years.on the ccsm�rehensive,inte�,rated
��ng term pts.�-�,az?tC
1.'�JHEREAS the�ran$e Gouniy Sc�lid'1�`aste lle�artment,the�Vork G�nup and the Sotid'GVaste
�d�isory Board ha��e developed a draft interim piau for consideration by the Tow�t,a,�id
�'�HEREA�pl�n develapm�rit has included repr�sentatives fro�a the ToH°n and the Town's
inierests h�ve thereby been represented'zn plarc der�elapment,and
��HER�AS,the Tavv�c�has ieviewed and considered the p(an and offered its recommendations•
and revisions to be ine�vrporated in#o the plan document to be submittecl to the StaL�for review
after consid�ratiori by the�uai'd at()ratige County Cori�mission�rs,and
�1 iN.MRiN STR��T;GARRBORO, IVG 2751 O.{919}94Z-$541 •FAX(919�918-4458•TC>C7 [8003 626-765:
A!V EGiUAL OPPC3F2TU3JI'Y'Y F'RQiIID�Ft .
, 56
.
VVHERER,S.this pIan subrnittat is a lavz�g document and r�vgnizcs tha�th�County's o��erall
integra�e.�soIic�waste man�enne�t plan��ill continu�lo euol.ve,and
��RE,�1S the currcnt s�bnuttal is abaut 15 xr�onths c�verdue from the t�ri�inal plan update due
dafe of Ju�ze 30,2f}Q9,
TH�RE�OIZE Irl'OW l3E IT RESOLVED that the Town of Carrbr�ro ad�pts and recommends this
solicl waste;manag�m�nt pl�n update pending�ioptz�n by the Board of Oran�e Cuunty
Cv�nrnissianers.
Tktte foregc�ing resoh�tion having been submitted to a vc�te received th�follawing�c�t�e�and was
duly adc�pfed ihis �2�'day o£`4ctober 2010:
Aycs: Dan Coleman,Sammy Slade,Lydia Lavelle,I�7ark Chil.tan,Jacqu�ty�t Crist�Randee
�-�aven-0'1�an�ell
��es: I�Tone
Abse�t or�xcused. �oa1 I�Iail Broun
�IOTIflN�'VAS NIADE B�ALDERI��_'�T HAVE�O'DON,Iti'ELL A.�'V�SECCII�DED BY'
ALI3E17;MAN C(�LEMAN TG1 SUPPORT THE REC(�ivIIvIEAbI}ATIO?�TS FRC3M THE EAB
REGARDII`TG ENSiJRII�TG C�NTFNUED SUPPORT FdIt A RESPD:�TSIBLE RES(}URCE
:��ANAG�M.�h'1"�'I.,A.N tLNT�N UNT,�iIVG�`(?I2.`I'�I�SClLI�,7'W,AS`I�.P�'OC�`rRAM�,`TI-����1 E
SELECTION F{,�R A TRA��SFER STATIUN,A:.'�tD THE AV�ES�1�fENT IN THE SHIFT T{)
SINCsLE STREAM CULLECTIDN,CAPTG�2ING MORE RECYGLABLES FROM THE
GC31v'[I�i.�RGIAi,S�CTEJR,ANU D4lNG A BETTER.TOB BIVER.TIIti=G F4(3D V►IASTE AlVD
OTHER QRGANIGS FRC}M THE LANI?FILL.�'OTE:AFFIR�TIVE�I�,ABSEI�TT QNE
(BROLI�I}.
*a����*�*�*
I Catherine Witson,da he�•eby cercify tt�at the faxegaing es a true and cc�rrect copy af an�xc,�rpt fram the
t}�tober.l2,2010 minutes of the Carrh�ro Board of Aldermen. ,
./ �-��'�'��"^�-�...
Town C1erk
�'�t�ut�r�nrr�rre�,f�r
ti�,ati�` �}� Clt,�A f�`,y�
ti��a��p,,.....s..+.�t4i r.
:'1 r.
•''.`f`P�`l��efts'�p�,e,.��*�(�{%
�
su ��E
' '���'� �
� : sr �
. � . �
1 �� .4
��',������ �����ti``�`
"�!�lHFlt11t1ritUt�
5�
I, Amy T. Harvey, Acting Town Clerk of the Town of Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of(2010-
10-27/R-6) adopted by the Chapel Hill Town Council on October 27, 2010.
This the 3rd day of November, 2010.
Amy T. Harvey
Acting Town Clerk
• •
�
�y�•
50
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE THREE-YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEM:ENT
PLAN UPDATE TO BE ADOPTED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COIUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND SUBMITTED TO STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA(2010-10-
27/R-4)
WHEREAS,North Carolina statutorily requires each County and Municipality to update it:s 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
WHEREAS,the plan to be adopted reaffirms the goal of 61%waste reduction per capita
originally established in 1997 and reaffirtned 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�JVaste
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 re��iew
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town of C'.hapel
Hill adopts and recommends this solid waste management plan updates pending adoption lby the
Board of Orange County Commissioners.
This is the 27`"day of October, 2010.
59
.
Hillsborou�h Resolution
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE THREE-YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
UPDATE to be submitted to State 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
WHEREAS 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 recommenda.tions
and revisions to be incorporated into the plan docuxnent 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 Hillsborough adopts and recommends
this solid waste management plan revision dated November 5, 2010 pending adoption by the
Board of Orange County Commissioners.
This is the 8�'day of November, 2010.
��
�`�ii S n�, a �
60
,
Advertisement of Public Meeting on Solid Waste Plan
�"'�1���� ����1��
�� ��� T�r��-�+��� 1��+��t� �� t��
�����'���C1�1�`� �€��1� ����� ���1����'1'��t'��
Pl�r� f�� �r�r��� ���r��
��+����+��t�, �����t��+�� ��
���� �►��.
��li+� �'���� �+��i�i��r��i�� ��il�ir��
�[ ���i' ��t����� ff����, �i����1 [�ill
T�« �� �n �p�����i� f�►r r�����r��� ��+d
b���ir������ �� �r�r��� ���r��y� �+� ���� ���au� f�r
��� ����� ���r� ������ t� �I�� �����'� �����
����� F�l��. �'h� ����t ��� �� �+������� ��
�r�n� �+� �r���� �� ��1r����li��I�r�r����u�.���
����� �n '����id '�1���� �'1�r�� �'��r P'I�r� I�p��t�"a.
������� ��� ��f��� tc� ������� � ���+��' ����, ��
��r�+� �� ��� ��f�� �r ��� �c���1 ���li� ������ ��
r��i��r � ����r �� tf�� ���� ���n.
�r���� +�c�un� ���[d 1�'�I��t� I���a��tn��t
� 1���` Eut���t�c� �d� ������ Fl�ll ��� �����,����.
��'� ��1�� ���-���� � . -
�+�����i���cc�.c�r�n��.�+�,us .
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 ruralDaily Tar Heel UNC; daily
newspaper circulation 20,000
61
Solid Waste Management Plan
Public Meeting Record
September 29,2010
A public meeting on the plan was held at the Solid Waste Administrative Building on September
29 as advertised. It was well attended and 13 Orange County residents spoke. A summary of
their comments along with some limited replies by staff to specific questions noted by Mssrs.
Wilson and Pollock from the Solid Waste Management Department..
Mr. L. Shackleford: This has been an issue with me for a long long time. I've heard what you
said but I'm not sure I'm in the right meeting. Does this include basic fees and rural curb fees?
That is what I like to address. I have two issues. One is a mandatory fee for a voluntary service
some of which are never used or needed. Secondly for churches and retired persons with small
mobile homes that still applies. The church is not an ordinary business or a home. Where does it
end? Do we have other fees for collecting additional items? I would propose that the churches
become ineligible [for the rural curbside recycling fee] so they wouldn't have to participate in
this program.
Bonnie Hauser: We are trying to do our part as residents. The rural residents because we live in
the country near the land we are a little closer to some of this than folks in town. They have their �
garbage picked up all the time. Last year we did a survey, 881 households in the community
participated in the survey for trash and recycling services. The results were presented to SWAB
and to the Solid Waste Work Group. We didn't see a lot of those results incorporated into the
plan. The main thrust of the survey was that the models that you use in town for waste and
recycling don't naturally translate to the rural community. We would like to see some of that
shift.
A summary of the results of the survey are that people highly value the convenience centers.
They are clean, safe and cost-effective ways to handle the trash and recycling. Eighty-five
percent of the respondents said they recycling regularly and half of them compost. Rura1
residents are not interested in trash or recycling services. The disinterest was statistically tied to
the length of the driveways and gravel roads. People also object to new fees of any kind. I
noticed in the plan there is still talk about PAYT fees which we hear not only are the rural
residents not interested in but the town residents as well. The survey results contradict the notion
that waste franchise will reduce the use of convenience centers. As you reported less than 25%
of rural residents use curbside trash pickup. There are several vendors small and large that will
pickup our trash and they serve our area well. So why do we need franchises. Even the work
group dispelled this so why is it still in the plan.
Since the survey was issued residents have had experienced with reduced hours at convenience
centers. In general we support the County's recycling goals in principal and in practice but we
do not believe that the plan accurately reflects the problems or the priorities of rural residents.
The actions that you are proposing may not be the ones that will take us to those recycling goals.
I would like to offer help from our group if you like to get more input from us on the plan and
what makes sense for us. We will be there to help.
62
Alex Castro: I have seen in the press where Chatham County is looking at establishing a solid
waste landfill and I wondering if the County is in contact with them. Are they participatin€;in
any discussions with them concerning this? Also has anything been done in that regard wiith
Alamance County and the use of their solid landfill. Are you looking at establishing a regional
landfill that might be used by all the counties in the immediate area?
Wilson responds that we are aware of what Chatham County is doing and try to keep up with it a
good deal. It is my understanding they're in the process of deciding what they're going to do, if
they are going to build a transfer station or a landfill or whatever. We're in ongoing
communication with them at the staff level,but I don't know what's going on at the highei•
levels. As far as Alamance, I speak to my counterpart there regularly. Four years ago their
elected officials conveyed that their citizens did not want our waste brought into their County.
"We don't really want your out of County waste coming over here."In Randolph County they
have decided to site a new landfill. Randolph is not quite as convenient,but it's not that far away
either. We do try to maintain awareness of what's going on in other communities around uis.
Stan Cheren: As a resident of rural Orange County I'd like to take the curbside recycling idea
that was brought up earlier and expand on it. Rural recycling pickup is a great service but only
in town where people have trash collection[meaning curbside recycling,not `rural' as stal;ed].
Similarly if you live in a rural area and you take your trash to the convenience centers it is�most
convenient to also take your recycling. Rura1 [curbside] recycling is not an effective servi.ce for
most rural residents. Because it is not advancing the County's recycling goals we ask that you
modify the plan and replace the option of expanding recycling with the option of turning it into a
voluntary service.
For comparison we found benclunarks on rural recycling for unincorporated areas for two� other
counties—Catawba and Forsyth,both only offer curbside recycling to residents who recei;ve
curbside trash collection. In Catawba County residents who use curbside recycling receive a$4
per month discount in their curbside collection fees. In Forsyth County where they are looking
at the service now Commissioners are considering whether to make it voluntary.
In rural Orange County you've reported that only 5,000 out of 21,000 households use curbside
service for trash. Yet the curbside recycling service is already mandatory [meaning the ff;e is,
not the service per se] for 13,500 households along with the mandatory$38 fee whether the
service is used or not. Only 60% of the residents that get the service use it and most of thiem use
convenience centers too.
Given that the service is marginally effective,why do we want to extend curbside recycling to
14,500 and ultimately 19,000 households? Rura1 residents are strongly committed to rec.ycling
but not the curbside service. There are many services that are not funded and we'd like to see
t�es and fees spent on services that are critical. We ask the language in the plan about
expanding [curbside) recycling be removed and replaced with language that suggests the Couniy
explore making the service voluntary, so that only residents that want the service receive it and
pay for it.
Steve Graf: As a resident of the county the services you provide are the most tangible be,nefit
that I get from my property taxes. Thank you for allowing us to participate in the Solid`JVaste
Work Group meeting two weeks ago. We were pleased to see expanded convenience ce:nter
hours to the Work Group report,but disappointed that the commitment wasn't added to the three-
year plan update. I understand it is import for the county to spend time and effort to upgrade the
63
centers,we question the priorities and do not believe the proposed spending will improve service
or recycling. The plan raises fmancing, design, safety, location and funding issues as critical.
There is no evidence that these issues exists although they appear to be the basis to justify the
$2.5 million in convenience center improvements and new fees that the County can't afford
especially when there isn't enough money for critical services likes schools and ambulances.
Our convenience centers are busy places and with reduced hours they are crowded especially on
Saturdays. While they may reduce hauling costs the overall economic benefit to the County or
convenience benefits for citizens is questionable for the compactors especially because they are
so heavily used. We fear that replacing 20 bins with two trash compacts at Walnut Grove and
Eubanks will cause delays and traffic problems for everyone. Residents are concerned the
compactors will reduce the safety of the centers especially for children who often help. Given
that the County can't afford the convenience center improvements and the improvements are
questionable please consider leasing one or two compactors to test their economic benefit and
utility.
Proposed improvements like composting and vegetable oil and others are great ideas and should
improve recycling and should be inexpensive to implement;more education would help too.
There is too little discussion of this in the plan for convenience centers. For convenience centers
we support a long-term strategy that starts with a return to expanded hours rather than pursing a
multi-million dollar upgrade we ask that you begin a pilot compactor program to determine
whether they will work for Orange County. In the meantime please proceed with simple and
inexpensive service improvements for recycling such as composting which benefits town users
as well.
I can't reconcile in my head that we don't have the budget to keep the centers open but we are
going to get more money to fix them up.
Tish Galu: I am here to talk about one of the statements that Steve made about education to be
an important part of the plan as you go forward. We applaud the community and the board on
the 54%recycling and believe even more recycling and composting can take place throughout
the county if we increase educating our churches, large institutions and our school children and
staff on how, when and why we recycle. With the help of the Orange County recycling we have
new recycling bins for paper, bottles and cans and composting bins for the new parish ha11 and
kitchen. We are beginning an educational program for parishioners and have a program of
recycling in the school. We are integrating that with our garden program.
Perhaps the program at St. Thomas Moore School for recycling and composting can be a pilot
program on a county-wide basis. It doesn't cost a lot of money and it targets institutions who
have traditionally been large trash producers. The number of activities that occur at churches can
include hundreds of people. When we have an activity it can involve 300-600 people.
Continued education of the members of our community will help meet and even exceed the goal
of 61% in recycling and in particular we get our future generations to think about the three Rs—
reduce, reuse, recycle. Once you get in the habit of recycling, composting and conservation it
becomes an everyday event and that is what we are hoping to do. Programs like this can offer
the greatest opportunity for improvement and could be expanded county-wide through groups
like Justice United, Orange Congregation and Missions and Orange County Voice.
64
Norxna White: I am a resident of the Schley community and regularly use the Walnut Gro`�e
Convenience Center. Thank you a11 for your great efforts on our behaif. At the same time I say
thank you I say you are not listening to the rural population. We have [made] quite [a]
considerable effort in making that survey available to everybody and I don't hear that message
being reflected in that plan. The rural Orange County people and their needs are not what�the
municipalities and urban centers use or need. We don't need recycling. We have our own ability
to do that. Reflections of what rural Orange needs is not been clearly reflected in any of tl�is
proposal and urge you hard to look at it carefully.
Hank Rodenburg: I came here to get educated not make comments. I would Iike to ask tu�o
questions. I was happy to see that the total waste collected from 07-08 to 08-09 was reduced
from 86,000 to 83,000 tons but then I read on the side line that it mid-September you stopx�ed
collecting from UNC 5,200 tons. Did that have an affect on the 83,000 tons? If you have still
collected would there have been an increase instead of a decrease?
Pollock states that the 83,000 tons does include the LTNC waste that went out of County after no
longer came to the landfill.
� My second question is can you gi've a little update of the results of the study under conside;ration
of alternative technologies particular as it related to the mass combustion and incinerator. Are
there any definite results out of the study or if it is still ongoing?
Wilson states that the County conducted a study a little over a year and a half ago that was, a
preliminary assessment of the available technologies at that time and the potential for bein�g
appropriate for Orange County and/or the region. Since that time we've had at least one visiting
speaker come in to explain a particular pyrolysis technology, staff has visited a presentation
recwently in Greensboro and the BOCC has assigned the Solid Waste Advisory Boaxd to make a
recommendation on a plan to continue and more comprehensively assess available techno:logies
and the SWAB has that on an upcoming agenda. The plan will probably involved bringin€;in
additional experts to make presentations to citizens and the SWAB and at some point the]BOCC
may discuss it and give staff further instructions on how they would like to proceed to narrow it
down to further to those technologies that might of particular interest and appeal.
Robert Campbell: Regarding the direction of the County Commissioners to not place a transfer
station in Orange County and to contract with Durham to take our trash, can you give us t:he
current status of that agreement and any contingency plan in place should this fall through? The
closure of the Orange County landfill has many environmental and financial implications for the
county and especially the Rogers Rd. community. Can you give us the date certain for thf�
closure of the landfill and any possible issues that would make it impossible to stay on schedule
far closure? I understand you want to keep it open for euthanized animals and hurricane debris. I
understand you wanted to vent the gas,but why did the vents get placed at the back end of the
landfill,near the community.
I would like to join with others speaking this evening emphasizing the importance of incr��asing
the hours of the convenience centers. People are finding places in our community to thro�w their
bags into the woods. When trash trucks go up and down Rogers Road and Eubanks Road,,trash is
being spilled up and down the road. It fa11s on the community to pick that up and last timf;we got
six pickup trucks of trash. It tells us that workers at Solid Waste axe not picking up trash
alongside the road.
65
The RENA compostong program has targeted homes in our community where 85 homes will use
kitchen compost devices to bring compost out to our garden and we're going to turn that into a
usable compost. We're going to reduce the stream of organics going into the landfill which we
believe will be a model that other communities could use. If Solid Waste Management would
help and give a little more help to communities that want to do communities that want to do
composting that will help reduce waste and creates a useful product. Once you begin composting
you also begin to thinking about how to reduce waste. We can reduce waste and go higher than
61%.
Where is the Rogers Road representative on the Solid Waste Advisory Board and who is to
replace Ms. Bonnie Norwood?Is there an opportunity for an at-laxge person to be on this board?
Wilson states he can answer some of the questions. The first couple include status of
arrangement for hauling to Durham. The Towns are still examining their options. The County
has commited to hauling to Durham. The Towns will decide if they want to join the County or go
some other way. The SWAB has been examining the existing interlocal agreement and will
conclude some recommendations to the BOCC on how and if the governments should work
together once there is no landfill.
On the issue of closing the landfill. There is a permitted capacity and once that capacity is
reached,the landfill will have to close. The landfill has extended its life in a variety of ways, we
have improved compaction to squeeze more pounds into a cubic yard,the economy is poor so
tonnage is down. Decomposing of the waste creates additional space.No landfill can give you a
date certain that it's going to close. You can narrow the range as the date gets closer. Once we
reach the permitted geometry it will close. If the BOCC says"Make preparations to close as of
February 1,then we will do so,but you can't predict with certainty when it will close."
Frank Tozzolina: We had single stream in Orange County California and they had high
numbers, a large facility on 4-5 acres and there was little left over after it went across their
conveyor belts and it provided jobs for people and reduced pollution.
A concern of mine is the OCV had done a survey about a year ago. The rural county the
driveways are very long. I have to drive my recycling to the curb. The concern that people who
are in government aren't usually elected and some are appointed there is a difference between
governing and representing people.
We have a feeling we're being governed but not represented. Why are the needs represented by
the rural county being ignored? We do not need trash pickup we don't need recycling. A
voluntary program would be the best idea.
I'm asking you to consider if you were an educator how would you treat your students. We are
asking as a rural community that you take care of our needs. The convenience center at two days
a week just doesn't work for working people. Instead of investing more money on a very tight
budget but it seems when the county needs more money they just raise the taxes. I can't do that
with my income. We ask that you think about all the people who are on fixed income. The rural
county needs a special fit.
Bob Weickert: From the practical immediate issues I will go back to Mr. Wilson's question if
the 61%goal is right. My question is why wouldn't it be 100%? I know there are communities
and people in this community that think the goal should be 100%. If it is not 100%,would there
be sufficient waste left to furnish to energy for an incineration plan that there might be some
66
cooperation with Carolina North. We would solve a waste problem and Carolina North would
solve an energy problem using that differential between 65% and 100%. I'd like to put tha�t on
the table as a long term direction with two benefits.
Patrick Mulkey: Curbside recycling in rural county doesn't make any sense. If you want t��do
curbside recycling in the areas that are the planning areas of the towns the future annexatic�ns of
the towns that's one thing. Once you get out those areas that is what I consider rural part of
Orange County. You need to take the common sense approach.
Chris Heaney: I noticed that there is a section in the update about the environmental monitoring
on the landfill. I would like to provide an update and also a request to present results of a]:�ealth
study of air pollutants near the landfill and impacts on health among the residents neighboring
the landfill. I would like to request an audience before Orange County, Carrboro, and Chapel
Hill at some point and possibly before SWAB and get some feedback.
67
.
�. ORANGE/CHATHAM SIERRA CLUB GROUP
` P. O. Box 1303
���� Chapel Hill, NC 27514
���� www.sierraclub-nc.or�
Et]13FfltE3 ItaT
The Orange/Chatham Sierra Club is pleased to have the opportunity of discussing possible future
directions of Solid Waste Management in Orange County through the Three Year Update of the
Solid Waste Plan Revised on September 22, 2010
(http•//www co orange nc us/recycling/documents/SWWorkGroup/Draft solid waste plan revis
ed 9 22.pd fl.
Of the list of key issues for future discussion(pp. 13-14),we find ourselves most interested in
these:
• reviewing the support and operation of the Solid Waste Convenience Centers. Since the
centers are well-used, it makes sense to develop them before attempting to expand rural
residential curbside recycling with regular pick-up routes that might increase miles
traveled;
• commericial recycling,for the reason stated in the report,the potential reduction of
waste;
• conversion to single-stream recycling, for its potential to increase participation and
reduce the waste stream;
• development of infrastructure to collect and manage source-separated organic waste.
We realize that the latter two options may not be feasible immediately,but seem to have great
promise for future waste reduction.
Thank you for taking the mandate for the report so seriously and engaging citizens in
deliberation about it.
Judith Ferster for the Executive Committee
919-929-6648
jferster(a�ncsu.edu
68
,
8I01 Reyx�ard Road
Chapzl Hill,1�C
S�ptember�9,20I0
I'a W'hvm It vlay Concern:
Subject:Public Gomau�nt on Solid�Vast�Plan
LTnfomu�ataly I cannvt attend the meering in person but���ish ta su�imii conunu��nt.The i-italit�of our
conunuuity depends on cantinuect su�poit for thi�gs lilee eduration and a respousible resource
tIIi3Tt3�E1't�11���2122.HO�iT�i'8 ffiilTtd��Otlr Si:85IQJi�50ill'C�S 11T1PTCtS�0�75,aur ec�ncamy,and otir ahitity to
do our part to mitigate clirnate change.
t�i�ti�e cic>siu�af the landfill I an�concerned about tlxe lonb teru��cial support for resauree
u�nagement in€3range Cotu�ty.I�'e aeed to recc��er as much as gossible rather tliau ship more�-aste
to�other cflnuuuuity,�c=hich�c°ill create s7igni�'icant cast�the lc�ng run.�'4'e nee�ta i�vest in the stuft
io si�gle srream callection,capture more recyelables fram the canunerciai seeior,and do a t�tter job of
ciiverting fc3od�saste and othex orgaxucs from the landfill.The cc�vnty shauld consider frat�chise
�greenients a�ith gtivate haulerslsert�ce pro��iders to im��ros-e effxcieney.
Comuiuuities��ith the hig�est di��ersiaa rates(e¢.>5an Franeisco,CA�I2dG8 SSLrIiCIl�t0 SII1L;le stream
recyeling.stran�Iy sul�t convniercial recycling,�td have aide spreaci organics colle.ction pragr�ms.
lhey also ha�7e fianeluse a��nents.
I au1 se�y provd of our county's histarical effores ta ma�age��ast�.��e ara���into a�e�p�ase •
and no�more t2�an evver�-e must cledicate the resources necessary#t��nsure a stmn�fizture.
Sincerely.
•-°'' /�a F�t
�-..�.-"9: e""'*w.�.
NIIlc��8�[ICCl$III�2I'
Cu�boro Reside�t
Member of tf�e C�rboro En��iroumeutal Adviso Board
��r
Pro�am D"u�ctar.l��ioare R�eyclin�Associates,
Fvrmer Vice—Presid�nt�af the I�Qnhen�C�Recycling A�saciation
69
• Town of Carrbora � .
Ptanning D+eparintent
�.;��.�r�t '�
EMORANiDUN� .
oate: o���r 7,zo3a �
Ta; Baard afAldermen
From: EnviranmeMal Advisory Boerd(�AB} .
Thmugh: Rarxfy Qadd�Ernriror�mental Pianner
Subje� Solid Was�e Management Plan tevi�w comments
The FAB provkJes tl�fol�uring r�vie�vcarrsrr�ants for the snAd v�aste rnau�a��nertt plan.
Tbe EAB xecomr�et3tis the Board o�'Aidesmsn ettsvice eauUaued support fox a respons�le reso�
m�ag�neat gl�st end fusxling for ihe Solid Waste Program.With the 41o�u+e af the Iandfil3 the long- .
tersn fsneacial stebiJity of our county's snlid waste anema�nt is iu ques(ion. How we manage our•
wastdresa�rces impscts jobs,rnsr�momy,aad out ab�itp ta do our part te mirigate clima�r,hange.
The fiAB enconregcs ihe�oazd to�Spo�f siic selxtioa fbr s traasFer s�tic�n.We need to xecover as
much as possiblasather thau shig morc wsst�to anothes��nnity,which vriU creaEe signifieant cost in
the Saag ruu,. . .
'k��ftB recrsmmends il�e Boarct of Alde,�non cansider fr�nch�x agreements with privatc haui�rst
service gmvide�rs to improve effici�ency. We need to invc�in the shi8 tn single sfceamE colle�tian,
eapturo mare recyclables from tbe cumracaciat acetor,ead do a better}ob of dives�ting fobd waste m�d
vtttar a��ganics fram the Ise�Ifill. ' .
Cammunities with the highes#dit+trsiaa xate�(e.g.,Saa�iaco,CA}bave switchetl ta single st�ni
rexyc)ing,have stronglY supFaif.f.ed cx�u�mercial recycli�,and�ave widc spread arg�nics coJleetion
PmBramg•
VOTE: AYES(4)Artssb�ge�',Barger',S{idPra�r►�Butler,NOES{0�;ABSEMT(3)MuAen,Gflser,
Well�'
" 1 !� f'z�
Arr�s rgerAding,Ch ir Oate
�u�4o�1 • -
70
Appendix C Map of Landfill
Site Map goes here
;.. �,�.:i� :�; �i,;,�. .
,_ , ;� ,``-, �.� ^` '� �� i
rii �`'is� —;,�, I
;;. „i„�, - _ _'- -_ . - °, -\
' __ �_ '�.__'''-.. �r3,'�.;,'�" i��-. i
':I(;--;-_.� +`:'' i
:=_'� . �;A. -,�;�``'F,; _.s.�• ':�. ,�- �
:e^�s �;�' - ,. CLOSED
--- _ _ r,,;;�:�_ ,"�•;• ,`�,°'�;.- - ' �/� I�, C&D
, � ��. �' , %, - LANDFILL
n r S'�u�",.__:.c ._ ".._ . °=.c:: -
- : -_ =�\Y,_ ` ` '�� /
;, . _ ::".;. ;�.;I,
,�,I� ;~ �.Q, t„_, '�. i --. � .
i'; '"��: ; -' - r.;.Y.' '_�
�i� `� ' ar. �.�. �`�.. � )� 1
�� . �'W,. �I!
CLOSED ' ' �;..<' : �:= �,.` _-\ p I
LANDFILL �fi'r.1�;�,.� ---�' �t ''�� ��`� �.t�� I
NORTH ;� �: .';�.� .° �� :,:; !�y t
�>r �,=�� ;� i. i
/� - _, -, - � ��. _ .''',;;_.��.': -
_ -- - -" - -'"-_/';,'';r.":":.;"- � '��{�
„ __= ---- - :z'",.:;%;-=�-"`:_' ;`; ' -_ ' i
"� - _ --- - -.i:;;,.�; -"-=��`', - ���� 1
- -y, �' -- - -� -''''�`�== ��� I '.,U �
.'"�'JJ / i:�'. '1� I� '`- -�.:�j ` •v '�
l�� �/��,�, -_ ��'� � �� �`��i.;,.:._ ="'_� - - _ I
. .��-• •,l�, ^' _- - _- ^ y��`%'�-_ �,�,.
-- ' �'O" ry�^�!t�? .` ~ _ - � ,': '"/"\ �
- � ` �, � `i¢.: - - --- .; '.� ",/.�_ - , .. �
�j 1��' '� _ �=t�Z�~. - ' .:I.. _ ',Jt�?, ,�• �
� • = ��
'i y �1� �� '�� - ' —� `r ',�' .`�', I
�� ' :,� �,_ - -�- __ �, • ,,�,:`' ;`�_ -,1��! I
_.�• _ _ - ;��./'� _- -� �' _ �(' ',��� �' I
�, _�'\--� ��.� � _ _ - �. .�I;.i/,.f/'.`� I
-- '-�' . ',•-��' ,%_ \, f t i' - ;; ,'::
..jy r .,,; .9 .. ,,;:' '",,.' /,i
� ,;; � . �;'t, .'� , - _y.._ ;� ;:. !: .,. .
��-},• � „l �. 5.�..J�^.
� . ` � ' �3� �•� ,../ ..:� � ',��..t'� �..1'\,'
ACTIVE �( - `l'.� -.A�:.�t,_ - � -. a;- i�
�` , ;r�;:; t'si.,;�t'` .f%r:
C&D _ - - _ , ,;;;�','1 _ = '� ., < '� ,•.,
LANDFILL `. - ��� •;',':.�' ;:�'•� ':_`.. ��;
� , ,�,�'�. �
� _�'•:_;.-: ::.•. ' ..�-��.�i ' ' _l';`� ''�'� ',�_
N . _ _ ��-��.
P �•', _�,'�.6�.+.../�J•'r�� . . 1�`•.rJ�'t� � ���^``.
�'— . � .
� 3W 0 300 600 1200 i; ��,4,��_
� `� � ACTIVE �� ��
� � ' �;=..�;-''', -_
LANDFILL .-;�.:..�....:.::'.��-;.,:.�.:. '�.
� Aerial topography provided by: Spatiai Data Consultants SOUTH _-- _.t�,.,�:-:c;` ;.�____.-;_'''�°I,`;
Date of photography: April 5,2007 •
�.�'ti .
�' Scale of photogrephy: 1'=600' �_:-- -�' ��_ '``-__';':;`.''•`'; i
� Ground Control provided by. Sutdes Surveying,PA �� ,__ �°�° � � ��`�\`' ' I
i o;; •,, !�':;.:1„`;,.,:
�
� OVERALL SITE MAP sc,a�e: i•=soo�
� ORANGE COUNTY LANDFILL PROJECT: R00592-56
$ ORANGE COUNiV,NORTH CAROLINA
8
Q Draper Aden Associates oES�GNEO: N�A FIGURE:
��, F.ngineering•Swrvrying •EnvironmenmlServices ���� HW I
� �00 Hartls Sue�,Suhe E emc�,�p,vn CHECKED: WGH 1 I
Cnaeottesnne,vn 22sat �^^b^4�� DATE: 04-01-OS
434-2950700 Fax:434-2952105 Hampton Roeds.VA i
d �
I
I
, I
71
�2
Appendiz D Solid Waste Characterization
EXHIBIT A-2
ORANGE COUNTY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY-APRIL 2010
RESIDEN7IAL WASTE COMPOSITON
Mean Standard 95%Confidence Limik:
Materiat Components Composition Deviation lower Upper
Paper
Newspap�/Print 1.4% 1.1% 1.0°� 1.8%
Glossy Magazines 1.7 k 1.7°k 1.0°,6 2.3%
RecyclabieCortugatedCardboard 1.8°� 1.8% 7.1% 2.5%
Non�tecyclable Cardboard 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5%
Phone Books 02% 0.8% <0.1% 0.5%
Paperboard 2.8% 1.3% 2.3°k 3.3%
Other Books 0.3% 0.6°,G <0.1% 0.5%
WhiteLedger 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 1.0%
Mixed Office Paper 4.0% 2.5% 3.0°,6 4.9%
Other Paper(includes hardback books) 92% 5.2% 7.3% 11.2%
Total Paper 22.4% 16.1%
Plastics
All Plastic Bottles 2.2� 1.6% 1.5% 2.9%
Film 7.9% 3.3% 6.7% 9.2%
All Cups&Tubs 2.6% 2.9% 7.5°� 3.6%
All Other Plastic(includes styrofoam) 5.6% 3.3% 4.4% 6.9%
Total Plastics 18.3% 11.396
Organics
Food Waste 20.9% 13.7% 15.7% 26.1%
Textiles/Leattier 6.3% 6.1% 4.0% 8.6%
Diapers 5.2% 3.7°.6 3.8 k 6.6%
Other Organics(includes rubber) 4.7% 3.6% 3.4 k 6.t°k
TotalOrganics 37.1% 27.7%
Ferrous Metal
FoodContainers/Bi-Metal 1.1% 0.9% 0.8% 1.4�
Aerosols 0.5% 0.7% 0.2°.6 0.7%
Other Ferrous 2.0% 2.5°� 1.0% 2.9%
Total Ferrous Metal 3.5% 4.0%
Non Ferrous Mefal
Aluminum Cans 0.7% 0.7% 0.4% 0.9%
Aluminum Foil 0.7°� 0.7% 0.4% 0.9%
Other Non-Ferrous 0.7% 0.8% 0.4% 1.0%
Total Non Fertous Metal 2.1% 22%
Glass
All Bottles&Jars 3.4% 3.6% 2.1°h 4.8%
Other Glass 02 k 0.4% <0.t% 0.4%
Total Glass 3.7% 4.0%
W ood
Pallets <0.1% <0.1°k <0.1°k <0.1%
Lumber 2.8°� 52% 0.9h 4.8%
Painted/Treffied 2.7% 5.5% 0.6% 4.8%
Stumps/HeavySections <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% �0.1%
Total Wood 5.5% 10.7%
Inert
Brick,concrete,dirt,asphalt,etc. 3.0% 3.1% 1.8% 4.2%
Yard Waste
(includes gress,leaves,small branches) 2.6°k 3.9% 1.1% 4.1%
Special Waste
Lead-Acid Batteries �0.1°�6 <0.1% <0.1% <0.1°k
Dry Cell Batteries <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Oil Filters <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Other Hazardous Waste <0.1°� <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Infectious Waste 0.4% 1.1% <0.1% 0.8%
Reusable Waste <0.1% <0.1°k <0.1% <0.1%
Total Special Waste 0.4% 1.2'k
Brown Goods
ElecVOnic Goods 7.4% 7.5% 0.8% 20%
TOTALS 100.0%
Notes: 1. Composition based on 27 samples.
73
EXHI&T A-77
ORANGE COUNTY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY-APRIL 2005
COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL WASTE COMPOSITIONS
1995 2000 2005 2010
Material Components ComposiBon Composition Composition Composition
Paper
Newspaper/Print 5.3% 4.8% 4.9% 7.4%
GlossyMagazines 6.1% 4.4% 4.7% 1.7%
Recyclable Cortu9ated Cardboard 4.5% 4.7% 2.4°� 1.8%
Non-Recydable Cardboard WA 12°� 0.7% 0.3%
Phone Books N/A 0.3% 02°.6 02%
PaPerboard N/A 5.1% 3.6% 2.8%
OtherBooks WA 0.4% <0.1% 0.3%
White Ledger N/A 2.0% 1.9% 0.8%
Muced Office Paper 1.7% 4.5% 3.3% 4.0 h
Other Paper(incl�uies hardback books) 24.6% 9.0°� 13.1% 92%
Total Paper 422% 36.5% 34.9% 224%
Plastics
All Plasfic Bottles 2.6� 2.9% 2.4% 2.2%
Film 4.3% 5.7% 5.6% 7.9%
All Cups&Tubs 0.7% 2.7% 7.0°� 2.6%
All Other Plastic(includes styrofoam) 4.4% 4.6% 5.9% 5.6%
Total PlasUCS 12.0% '15.9% 14.9% 18.3%
Organics
Food Waste 11.2% 17.8% 22.2% 20.9%
Textiles/Leather 3.3°6 5.4% 5.1% 6.3%
Diapers 3.5% 3.5% 4.4% 5.2%
Other Organics(includes rubber) 8.3% 4.6% 7.3% 4.7%
TotalOrgamcs 26.396 31.3% 33.0°,6 37.1%
Ferrous Metal
FoodContainers/Bi-Metal 2.7% 1.8% 1.4% 7.1%
Aerosols N!A 0.4% 0.4°� 0.5%
Other Ferrous 2.9% 2.0% 1.3% 2.0%
Total Fertous Metal 5.696 4.296 3.1% 3.5%
Non Ferrous Metal
Alianinun Cans 0.8°� 1.0% 0.7% 0.7%
Aluminum Foil N/A 0.9% 0.7% 0.7%
OtherNon-Ferrous N/A 0.2% <0.1% 0.7%
Total Non Ferrous Metal 0.8% 2.196 7.456 21%
Glass
All Bottles&Jars 5.6% 4.3% 4.3% 3.4%
Other Glass 0.5% 0.8% 02% 0.2%
Total Glass 6.3% 5.1°G 4.5% 3.7°G
Wood
Pallets N/A 0.2% <0.1% <0.1%
Lumber 1.9% 1.3% 2.3% 2.8%
PaintedlTreated 1.1°,6 <0.7% <0.1% 2.7°�
StumpsMeavy Sections N/A <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Total Wood 3.096 1.5% 24% 5.5%
Inert
Brick,conuete,diA,asphaR,etc. 2.6% 0.796 22% 3.0%
Yard Waste
(includes grass,leaves,small brand�es) 1.0% 0.9% 1.8X 2.6%
Special Was[e
Lead-Acid Batteries N/A <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Dry Cell Batteries WA 0.2% 0.2% <0.1%
OiIFiRers WA <0.1% <0.1°,6 <0.1%
Other Hazardous Waste 0.3� 0.6% 0.4% <0.1%
Infedious Waste <0.1% NA <0.1°h 0.4%
Reusable Waste N/A <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Total Total Special Waste 0.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.4%
Brown Goods
Electronic Goods N/A 0.9% 1.4% 1.4%
TOTALS 700% , 700% 100% 100% �
74
EXHIBIT A-12
ORANGE COUNTY WASTE CHARACTERIZATfON STUDY-APRIL 2005
COMPARISON OF MULl1-FAMILY WASTE COMPOSITIONS
1995 2000 2005 2010
Material Components Composition Composition Composition Composition
Fyper
Newspaper/Print 7.3% 5.6°k 2.9°� 2.5%
GlossyMagazines 5.0°k 4.1°� 3.8% 1.0%
Recyclable Corrugated Cardboard 7,2% 2.8% 1.6% 1.6%
Non-Recyclable Cardboard N/A 2.0°,6 0.9% 0.4%
Ptrone Books WA 0.5% 0.4% 0.1°�
Paperboard WA 4.6°� 37% 3.0%
Other Books WA 0.4% 0.7°� <0.1%
White Ledger N/A 3.896 2.7% 0.8%
Mixed Office Paper 1.3% 5.5% 52% 2.4%
Other Paper(includes hardbadc books) 23.6% 6.8°,G 10.4% 8.8%
Total Paper 44.4% 36.2% 323% 20.5%
Plastics
AIIPlasticBottles 2.6% 4.3% 3.1°6 2.9%
Film 5.5% 4.8% 5.7� 6.6%
All Cups&Tubs 1.0°� 1.9% 1.0% 1.9%
All Other Plastic(includes styrofoam) 4.5% 4.0°,6 3.5% 5.6%
Toql Plasdcs 13.6% 15.1% 13.3% 17.1%
Organics
Food Waste 9.7% 212% 24.5% 22.5%
Textiles/Leather 3.3% 4.9% B.Bb 7.6%
Diapers 2.8% 2.5°,G 2.2% 5.3%
Other Organics(inGudes r�ber) 7.8% 22% 0.3% 3.9%
TotalOrganics 23.6% 30.8X 35.79G 39.2%
Ferrous Metal
FoodContainers/Bi-Metal 2.6% 2.0% 1.2% 0.8%
Aerosols WA <0.1% 0.1% 0.4%
Other Ferrars 1.9% 2.0% 0.3% 0.8%
Total Ferrous Metal 4.5;G 4.1% 1.6% ZO°,G
Non Ferrous Metal
Aluminum Cans 1.0°h 1.3% 0.7% 1.6%
Aluminum Foil N/A 0.7°,G 0.6% 0.3%
Other Non-Ferrous N/A 0.4% 0.4% 1.3%
7otat Non Ferrous Metal 1A°6 24X 1.8% 3.3%
Glass
All Bottles 8 Jars 5.8% 6.9% 8.2% 6.7%
OtherGlass <0.1% 1.2°� 0.4% <0.1%
Total Glass 5.89G 8.1% 8.69G 6.7%
Wood
Pallets WA 02% <0.1% <0.1%
Lumber 0.696 t2% 0.2% 1.9%
PaiMedlTreated 0.8% <0.1% <0.1% 0.8 k
Stumps/HeavySections N/A <0.7% <0.1% <0.1%
Total Wood 7.4°/. 1.4% 0.2% 27%
Inert
Brick,concxete,dirt,asphatt,etc. 3.2% 0.5% 22% 21%
Yarcl Waste
(includes g2s5,leaves,small branches) 22% 0.3% 23% 3.9%
Special Waste
Lead-ACid Batteries WA <0.1% <0.1°� <0.1%
Dry Cell Batteries WA 0.3% <0.1� <0.1�
Oil FiRers WA <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%
Other Hazardous Waste 0.1% <0.1°k 1.0% <0.1%
IMectious Waste <0.1% NA <0.1% <0.1 k
Reusable Waste N/A <0.1% �0.1% 0.4%
Total Total Special Waste 0.1% 0.4% 1.19: 0.5%
Brown Goods
ElecVonic Goods WA 0.8°G 0.8% 21%
TOTALS 100�L 100.0% 100�.. 100%
-end Appendix D-
75
76
Appendix E Waste Reduction Calculation 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 tonnage landfilled MSW
Ori in of Waste Tons in 08-09 Comments
MSW landfilled in Orange County 50,760 L1NC stops waste delivery iri Sept
2008, MSW in 08-9 include;s 3,486
tons of bulky items from SV�JCCs
mostly, formerly classified��s C&D.
C&D landfilled in Orange County 10,992 Includes LCID,mobile homes,water
plant alum sludge
MSW landfilled outside Orange County 15,227 Reported to State DENR by other
facilities based on hauler re�orting
C&D landfilled outside Orange County 6,410 Excludes C&D recycled at rvlWPs
Total tons Reported as disposed from 83,389 Does NOT 1NCLUDE TON S
Orange County RECYCLED AT Mixed Waste
Processors(MWPs)
Tota1 Tons Calculated as Disposed 80,864 Does include tons recycled.�t MWPs
and this is the tonnage used for the
official waste reduction calc;ulation
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 goa.l in
tons = 78.141 tons
Projected additional tonnage to be managed via recycling, reduction, composting, etc,no't
landfilled to meet 61% goal in that year= 14,007 tons
—end Appendix E—
77
7R
I
Appendix F Plan Elements I
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
✓Reduction Disaster Response Illegal DisposaULitter Disposal Collection
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Collection of Computer Equipment and Purchasing Recycled Special Waste i
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 lOTH 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, economic Many are adopting these
backyard composting incentives and strategies anyway for
workshops and periodic further regulatory economic reasons,e.g.
newspaper articles that measures. use of personal water
emphasize reduction Help builders with bottles increased during
strategies as environmentally inventory control recession and as people
and economically effective. strategies to keep realize the cost of
Also give away promotional materials such as bottled water is high.
items including chip clips dry wall from Construction is sharply
with the'buy in bulk" being spoiled. diminished due to the
message on them and travel recession.
mugs to encourage
reuse/reduction of single
serve cups.
Promote smarter building and
construction strategies to �
reduce construction waste
through pre construction mtgs
and solid waste plan process.
Banned cardboard,scrap
m�t�l an�l clPan wnnrl fi nm �
landfill(2002)RRMO and
required recycling or reuse.
Revisited Pay As You Throw I
as a strate '�
79 ,
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal DisposaULiter Disposal Collection
✓Transfer outside geographic Education with cornmunity& 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
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 somewhere 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 resoiving 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 governments now have landfill is SWAB preparing agreement. SWAB to impact on diversion except
an interlocal agreement projected to close. recommendation on ILA recommend revisions to that by 2013-14, 100%of
(LILA)requiring delivery to They will be this fall. current Interlocal MSW will be diverted from
Orange Co.Landfill. forced to make Agreement Orange County for several
that deterznination. years at least.
ITNC,in Sept 2008,on The Town&
request from the County to County managers
help conserve landfill space, are meeting to
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 IJNC to one location to
had directed its waste to perhaps get better
Orange County(5,200 ave pricing for a long
tpy) term larger
contract.No
SWAB considered some decisions have
variations on flow control been made.It is
perhaps integrated into not obvious how
franchise hauling. much leverage
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 ears. No local closest facilit that
g0
govemments 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.
81
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 witt�/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured Recycling and Reuse
recovery Homes i
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETET KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN IOTH YEAR
County continues to accept Program is fully Permitting requirements Further waste Next solid waste plan Commercial compostable
source separated yard waste operational for for composting facilities reduction measures update in 2012 tonnage could be up to 2,000
and clean wood waste for yard waste and are more onerous than for could include to 3,000 more tons(1/4 to 1/3
grinding,mulching and sale clean wood waste. mulching facilities and expanding food waste of food and wet paper
as finished mulch or boiler Yard waste by there is adequate coverage collection to more remaining in the commercial
fuel or feedstock for colored state law and clean by private sector under commercial waste stream. !
mulch.� 10,000 TPY in. wood waste by contract to collect& customers and �
County collects over 2,200 County ordinance. process commercial food residential organics Residential tonnage could be
tons of food waste from No action has been waste.Current hauler collection combined another 2,000 to 3,000 tons
businesses&institutions to taken to consider could collect more with with containerized (1/4 to 1/3 of residential food,
divert for composting with expanding greater funding,but yard waste collection. other organics and wet paper)
private contractor and sells programs to funding is now remaining in the residential
compost from contractor include collection constrained by budget Neither item is part of waste stream. Some could be
�1,000 tpy. from other sectors considerations. the near term solid diverted to backyard
County conducted annual or processing other waste plan composting
backyard compost bin sale organics on site. Further the current site is consideration
for twelve years,now sells constrained physically and
discounted bins permanently politically from expanding
from office. Over 1,000 sold its solid waste operation.
last FY. I
County staff conducts several Any residential collection �
backyard comopsting and of organics would be �
vermicomposting workshops combined with yard waste.
annually for adults,schools, That would require
town employees,farmer's containerized collection&
markets,etc. a local processing facility.
Towns and Solid Waste Neither is being
Convenience Centers all considered in the near
collect residential yard waste term.
at no charge for delivery to
Coun landfill
PLANNING ELEMENTS
82
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 ACTIOPIS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN lOTH YEAR
Completed Disaster Debris Finalize and Pending joint approval Complete plan Unscheduled n/a
Management Protocol&draft adopt plan acceptance by all
plan document; across relevant Deparhnents
PLAN Table of Contents: departments,
Article I Emergency including Develop RFP and award
Operations Plan Emergency proposal for disaster
Art. II Employee Call Back Management, debris processing and
Art.III MSW Guidelines Asset staging site operations
Arti.IV Temporary.Transfer Management& Fa112010
Station Siting Purchasing and
Art.V Temp.Construction and Sheriffs Dept.
Demolition Siting
Art.VI Temp, Siting for
Vegetative/Land Clearing
Debris
Art,VII Emergency Household
Hazardous.Waste Collection
Art,VIII Equip't Vehicle List
Art.IX Disposal Site Capacities
Orange County/Alternate
Emergency Disposal Site
Arti.X Special Waste
One on County property is
permitted,reviewing others on
County property.
Verbal,non-contractual
a,:a:,ge:..er.ts in p?zee f�:
nearby transfer stations to
accept waste from Orange
Coun .
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ,
83
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 INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN IOTH YEAR
THESE ARE ANNUAL, Annual Programs and policies Publish annual Fa112010 It is difficult to estimate the
Generally recurring measures: newsletter were changing too newsletter and mail to impact(or lack of impact)of
Conducted over 100 tours and mailed to all rapidly over the past all households and outreach programs. Since 1989,
presentations to various County residents two years to have a businesses in County. Orange County has recognized
audiences including schools. timely newsletter and the value of outreach and
Placed over 500 print there was too much Expand electronic Ongoing education by creating such a �
advertisements in local general uncertainty about future mailing list. position.We have achieved a
interest print publications. measures e.g.transfer consistently high waste
Initiated on-line advertising in station siting,financing Experiment with social Fa112010 reduction rate as a result.
local print media offering this. of solid waste centers. media e.g.Facebook It is reasonable to suggest that I
Conducted two radio campaigns page. an annual 1%diversion or 500-
for recycling confidential paper 600 tons could be attributed to
and compost bin sales. Expand on-line Ongoing the existence of a strong
Published 36 newspaper articles advertising and explore education and outreach
Conducted 14 radio programs other alternative forms pro��, �
including monthly scheduled of advertising.
show on WCOM local Carrboro
community station. Conduct more outreach 2012,pending a 1/2
Published monthly recycling directly into the schools time schools outreach '
blurb in Town Talk for Chapel and work more closely position being created.
Hill employees and bimonthly with school recycling
in Orange Alive for Orange Co. programs to improve I'
employees program performance. �
Provided recycling at large '
scale publicly sponsored events
such as street fairs,festivals,
etc.
Established electronic monthly �
mailing list for voluntary solid '
waste updates,with 1,500
members as of May 2010. �
Participate in WLJNC TV piece
on plastic bottle recovery for
NC Now news show.
84 ,
I
Led SWEETS--Solid Waste
ar►d 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. '
Solid Waste Advisory Board of
citizen volunteers meets
monthly
Two C&D progams with 85
unique participants.One hosted
by OCSW and co-sponsored
with UNC titled""Get the
Green Edge:The Hows and I
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 County and Central ,
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.
85 .
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
area through school Televisions Products Special Waste �
Composting and Mulching `�Incineration with/without Management of Abandoned Manufactured
energy 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 lOTH 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
altemative 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,
ongoing.
Considered requests from
citizens to review various
technolo ies 'i
86 '
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT ZQ YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response ✓Iilegal Disposai/Litter Disposal Coilection
Transfer outside geographic Education with community& Cotlection 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
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.
UNC staff of on-campus .
construction sites for Tarping of loads
violations of Regulated being delivered to
Recyclable Materials convenience
Ordinance centers
Reclassified Recycling
Specialist to Environmental
in�'nr��mPnt C1F_fi_�Pr,
Proactively patrolled county
for violations of solid waste
regulations. i
Count enforcement staff can �
87
issue civil fines where names
are on litter e.g.junk mail. ' '
,�
City and County 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
from sites and from inside the �
recycling containers.
County Solid Waste Dept. '
collects litter along public
road adjoining landifll twice a I�
week and adjacent road I
monthly.
I
County staff coordinates with �!,
Chapel Hill Stormwater Dept.
staff to recycle cans and �
bottles recovered from Clean I
Up events held along local
streams.
I
�
88 '��
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 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 lOTH 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 penaIties 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 manual,video and Get more sections of
to spilts or dumping into 2)Specific storm signage for restaurants highways Adopted by
storm drains and citation drain ordinance to be the adopt a highway
procedures in place. passed by Council 2)In process of being program
developed;currently '
NC Bie Sweep annual fall using TOCH Code of
clean up to remove litter from Ordinance Sec. $-j4:
roads and waterways since Deposits prohibited in
1990;also conduct year- storm drain,manhole,
round cleanups with ditch or median.No
interested groups person shall throw,
dis ose or swee from -
89
Outreach to schools,clubs, any household,yard,
camps&other groups using sidewalk or elsewhere, '
Enviroscape watershed model garbage or
promotes litter prevention. miscellaneous refuse
into a storm drain,
Storm drains marked with manhole,ditch or '
"No Dumping! Drains median within the Town
Directly to Creek!"(includes of Chapel Hill.(Ord.of
a no litter symbol) 10-26-70) ,I
Routine street
sweeping+special event clean '
up �
Carrboro '
This is our policy for illegal Carrbaro 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
within the town or on any
property owned or operated
by the town or any other i
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
90 �
the acts prohibited in this
section a misdemeanor,
punishable by fine of not
more than$200.00. �,
Therefore,this section may
be enforced by the town only
through civil penalties or
injunctive relie�.
�
Hillsborough reports no '
dutnping 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. �
I
.
91 ,
.
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
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DAT�DUE ESTIMATED TONS DIVERTED
IN lOTH YEAR
All types of electronics carrying Plan to receive Program has not been Implement state-wide June and July 2011 Brown goods represent well over
voice or data are collected from funds from developed yet. ban on landfilling 1.5%of waste discovered in 2010
residences at a115 convenience electronics CRTs,computer waste sort. Assuming this is cut
centers since 2006. recycling monitors or televisions, 50%that would reduce remaining '
All types of electronics are collected legislation publicize through electronic waste of all types(not
from businesses and residences at newspaper articles, just TVs and monitors)from 700
the landfill,sorted,processed& radio shows and tons landfilled to 350 tons a year.
shipped for recycling since 2004. advertisements. TVs and monitors represent 72%,
We are prepared for landfill ban in so just that fraction could be 250
July 2011 having been collecting for Work with Finance When new law comes into tons.
seven years now. Department to establish effect July 2011.
account for state funds
Old media like videotape and and funding and �
diskettes were added to the expenditure tracking
electronics collection in 2009-2010. protocols
All electronics program costs are
covered by the 3-R Fees and income
from sale of certain materials like
CPUs and copper wire.
Collected 456 tons of all electronics
in 2008-09 including 10,900 TVs � '
and monitors or about 269 tons.
Adding other computer equipment
and CRTs it's 320 tons or 72%of
electronics On track to collect over
500 tons in 2009-10.Contractor
provides regular reporting of
materials. �
All town overnments' solid waste
92
web pages now linked to County
site to provide recycling info.
Including electronics. Towns
routinely refer calls to County staff
for electronics recycling.
IJNC and both local school systems
also collect and manage their own
computers.Research Triangle Park
Foundation's semi-annual
collections also yield 5%
participation from Orange Co.
residents working in the Park or two
tons/year from Orange County
including about 55 monitors and
TVs/year.
Citizens directed to PTA thrift shops
and other local charities that accept
functional electronics for donations.
Non-working or unsold ones they
reject of can't sell,picked up by
Orange County for recycling.
County provides program brochures
(English&Spanish),web site info
and some print ads about the
program.Highly visible electronics
collection trailers at SWCCs are
their own advertisement.
Program is high functioning and
collects more electronic waste/capita
than any other known in NC and in
the top tier of known programs
nationally i.e, over 71bs/capita.This
tonnage does not include UNC or
local school systems.
93 `
PLANNING ELEMENTS � -
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element
Reduction Disaster Response Illegal DisposaULitter 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
p g g recovery Manufactured Homes Recycling and Reuse
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETE7 KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN I OTH YEAR
Preliminary discussions with No formal plan for Further inter- Solid Waste Dept.will 2010-11 determine need 100 tons a year(30
Planning and Housing managing deparhnental review to continue to evaluate the for plan and if so, homes/year recycled/buried)
Departments on scope of abandoned mobile be undertaken. issue of abandoned mobile develop and implement
problem and pl�n concepts. homes has been homes in Orange County. one or continue to
developed In concert w/the Planning monitor.
We've accepted mobile Awareness and training and Housing Departments
homes for recycling and Have not ensured concerns and other interested parties,
disposal at landfill since removal of the Departments will
1999. Strip off undercarriage mercury bearing consider and evaluate
and ensure no white goods or thermostats. development of a plan for
other MSW or HHW in the abatement of
homes before burial. abandoned mobile homes
in Orange County based on
Average 30 per year the results of this
evaluation and in
Charge$150 tip fee,raised to conformance with state
$250 as of Jul y 2010. statutory requirements,
including method to
Most are brought in and paid identify the homes,plans
for by owners of homes or for deconstruction,plans to
mobile home parks remove mercury
thermostats(see below),
Housing Office and Planning plan for disposing homes
Staff evaluated/home not deconstructed
problem and believe there Made determination to
may be up to 400 abandoned begin thermostat removal
units. assurance along with white
goods and hazardous
materials.
PLANNING ELEMENTS
94
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 '
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 l OTH YEAR
County operates MSW and Develop and No fmal long-term Hire engineering firm to June 2010 50,000-60,000 tons MSW
C&D landfills for waste finance closure and closure plan has yet develop closure plan. to be landfilled elsewhere that
disposal.MSW due to close long term care plan been developed or Develop plan. Submit 2010-11 were formerly buried in
early 2013. for current MSW funding estimate for approval Orange County.
landfill. completed.Engineering Conduct closure of Spring 2013
firm hired in June 2010 MSW landfill
to develop closure plan. �
No alternative disposal site No decision taken yet Determine if all FY 2010-11
Choose alternative by any elected board in governments
MSW transfer& any jurisdictions now partner/coordinate
disposal sites when using the Orange delivery of MSW
Active C&D landfill estimated landfill closes. County Landfill. Develop agreement for
to have 18 year life(2028)at transfer and disposal as
current rate of use(<8,000 tpy) necessary
Closed C&D landfill may be
used for solar array in 2010-11. In progress Accept proposals for
Develop RFP solar installation and Fa112010-
award contract
Closed &active MSW landfill Construct solar array if
will be used for methane gas acceptable proposal 2011
capture beginning 2010-11.Bid received
process completed by UNC
iJNC to begin Pending November Construct landfill gas Spring 2011
Ongoing groundwater construction of 2010 recovery system on
monitoring from 35 wells and landfill gas capture closed north side and
methane gas monitoring at four system active south side
sites. disposal unit.
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN �' ' !
95 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
area throu school Televisions Special Waste
� Recycled Products
Composting and Mulching Incineration with/without energy Management of Abandoned Manufactured
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 lOTH YEAR
Orange County Purchasing There is no formal County purchasing has Consider formalized 2011 n/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 II
recycled content. informally. and in construction.
Purchasing Division provides Further document use of Ongoing
other departments with recycled content I
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 parking stops,green
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
96
applications and sold surplus
at auction,donated other
materials to charities.
97 ,
PLANNING ELEMENTS
NC LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10 YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN '
PLANNING YEARS 2008 through 2018
Check appropriate element �I
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 I
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 lOTH YEAR
The Town of Chapel Hill has Chapel Hill Fleet Division NA Unknown
a purchasing policy which is working to recycle its �
requires all copy/printer used motor oil and
paper to have at least 30% antifreeze through the
post consumer content. State Surplus Property
Agency.
In 2010,Chapel Hill Transit �
began recycling used motor Chapel Hill's Sustainable
oil through the State Surplus Operations and Services December 2010 Unknown
Property Agency (SOS)Team,a committee
tasked with I
institutionalizing ���
sustainable practices
town-wide,is developing
an environmentally
preferable purchasing
policy for the Town '�
Manager's consideration. I
��
The SOS Team is also '
working to reduce paper '
waste by developing
paperless alternatives and
is piloting demonstration
compost and worm bins at December 2010 Unknown ,
1-2 Town facilities. �
98
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 I
recovery Homes I
COMPLETED ACTIONS INCOMPLETE ACTIONS NEW/REVISED ACTIONS I
ESTIMATED TONS
KEY ACTIONS KEY ACTIONS WHY INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE DNERTED IN lOTH 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
programs serving all only 10%of funding for commercial waste plan activity waste sort)
residents,all multifamily and businesses has been recommended i
some commercial sector. directly. to BOCC '�,
Operates cross (but all must
jurisdictionally--Carrboro, recycle cardboard) Local markets do not Wait until markets and n/a �
Chapel Hill,Hillsborough& consistently want processing capabilities
unincorporated areas. Non-bottle plastics injection molded& change
All programs are 2 stream cannot be recycled blow molded to be
except dropoff which has at the curb with commingled i
source-separated fiber and commingled �
rigid plastics in addition to 2011-12 200 tons assuming capture of
commingled cans&bottles Conversion to No staff capacity to Reconsider when fully 25%of cups and tubs with
Urban Curbside weekly single stream manage transition staffed curbside implementation
collection �18,500 homes recycling 1,200 Assumes a 20%
4,500 tons per year(TPY) increase in volume due to cart
implementation in existing
Rural curbside biweekly 35%of rural Program expansion Further discussion of curbside programs:
�13,500 homes households are not limited by lack of rural considering 2011-12
1,800 tpy served by curbside area consensus,support expansionnwhen ��
recycling and interest shown in budget allows to
areas near Hillsborough, Reconsider when fiscal 1,100(Assume pro rated
Efland and east/central constraints are less share of current generation
county adjoining stringent and as part of rate) !
existing routes for overaii needed S w��
expansion collection improvements
efficiency
considerations,
geographic constraints Reconsider when fiscal
Dro off sites 5 staffed, 5 No materials bud et constraints, constraints are less
99 , �,
unstaffed)5,000 tpy. expansion at capital freezes, stringent 012-13
staffed dropoff personnel freezes '
sites
e.g. clothing& No room or managerial
shoes,construction capacity to conduct
waste exchanges, expansions at staffed
fluorescent bulbs, sites.Markets and
vegetable oil,food demand are there. 200 tons or 10%of clothes
waste and food and shoes now wasted
waste at schools
Multifamily 15,000 units
weekly 1,200 tpy
�
Commercial paper,containers
&food waste 3,100 tpy
(Local)Govt bldgs 100 tpy
Orange Co. Schools 12
schools 100 tpy ,
Hazardous 800 tpy.
Construction waste-metal,
wood,cardboard:2,100 tpy
Added rigid plastic at dropoff ;
sites Feb 2010 i
Cardboard at curb Nov 2008. �
Compliance with new state
bans on filters,pallets,plastic
bottles and oyster shells by
providing recycling facilities ,
and regulating pallets since
2002.
Oyster shell collection point
new in 2009-2010. �
�
100
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 INCOMPLETE? KEY ACTIONS DATE DUE ESTIMATED TONS
DIVERTED IN lOTH YEAR
County collects MSW from 5 Recommendation No funding available Consider a plan to 2010-11
Solid Waste Convenience made to examine and no specific direction modernize,expand hours
Centers.MSW(8,005 tpy)& modernization of provided for and upgrade
bulky items and C&D(3,925 centers to improve modernization or convenience centers
tpy)in rolloffs. From County hauling efficiency presentation to BOCC including funding.
Schools&gov't bldgs(1,298 and safety. decision BOCC consideration
tpy)in from en loaders(FEL) and adoption
Revisit the issue as time
Town of Chapel Hill collects Consider No policy direction nor and funding permit
all residential MSW and containerization of funding provided. ,
bulky items(7,195 in semi- yard waste
automated rear loaders w/68 Consider
gal. carts&80%of non-res. downtown public
MSW(7.235 in dumpsers recycling
using FELs. All residential receptacles
yard waste(2,925 in rear
loaders. �
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
..i ...,a i nnoi
VU11ll11G1V10.10.11u lvv/v ,
multifamily MSW(4,146)
using FELs and dumpsters.
All res.yard
waste(778)
101 ,
Town of Hillsborough Nothing planned
collects all residential MSW
&bulky items,90% in
automated side loaders w/
95ga1 carts(1,751 tpy)All
res.yard waste(790)and by
franchise all non-res MSW
(6,002)
Private haulers collect about Consider No policy direction Review the options in 2011-12 N/a
6,900 tpy non-res.MSW to franchising given or next planning period �
bring to OCLF.Another est. recommendation made
10,700 tpy non-res MSW by BOCC
goes out-of-County and est. '
4,500 private rural res.MSW
oes out-of-Count
I
I
I
102
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
Transfex 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 lOTH 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
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 landfrll and is open contractor and
to all Orange County fluorescent tube
residents and small collection costs would
businesses(only permanent decline by 60%per
program in NC for small pound to$0.24/lb.
business HV�. ,Residential
electronics at aIl 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(1 i tpyj at aii
SWCCs and Radio Shacks,
Whole Foods and Weaver
Street Market
Total tonnage last year 732, '
up 4%from prior year.
Pro'ected 18%increase for '
103
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
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(620 tpy)is
banned from Orange
Co.Landfill and collected and
sold by County. Also
collected at Convenience
Centers
—End Appendix F--
104
APPENDIX G
Supporting documents: brochures,flyers, etc. by reference (most are available electronically at
www.co.orange.nc.us/recycling).
� #�.
�
Urban curb brochurel2_08.pdf ruralcurb brochurel2_08.pdf RigidBrochure4_2010.pdf
� �.
,. -� �� .r`�-. `�
Earth_ProductsSpanish2010.pdf Earth Products2010.pdf Drop-off Guide with map.pdf HHW Brochure.pdf
� � '' q,'�`" " ;,�,...
mmmercial recycling brochure.pdf 2010_OCSchools_brochure.pdf Oops cards back.pdf Oops cards orange front.pdf
� F .
ElectronicsBrochure_online version.pdf
105
,
106
Appendix H
Departmental Goal:
61%per capita waste reduction in no specific time frame.
107
108
.
.
Appendig 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 are 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%, CTP 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 Ievied on each improved property according to
the type of recycling services provided. All improved properties, regardiess of type,have a basic fee of$37
per unit per year. In addition, if the property 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. That
revenue funds 100%of recycling program operating and capital costs.
� Addition of the County's Sanitation Division to the Departrnent has created an expense and corollary source of I
revenue from the General 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
($2,240,056)FY 2009-10 budgeted. County schools collections are fully funded by a fee for service
arrangement that is paid to the general fund to support the Sanitation operation.
The 3-R Fee beginning FY 2010/11 will newly fund recycling related convenience center services. For
example, expenses related to hauling of scrap metal, wood,brush,white goods and tires would 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-t�based) funding methodology,recycling markets, etc. Staff will 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.
109
.
110
Appendi�e J
Electronics Recycling Plan
Electronics Recvcling Plan for Oran eg County
Submitted for review 10/27/10 Reviewed by DENR 11/1/10 Comments incorporated 11/2/10
1. Information on Existing Programs to recycle or reuse discarded computer equipment,televisions and
other electronic devices, how program is operated and how equipment is marketed.
Orange CounTy has a drop off program for recycling computers,televisions and other electronic equipment in
place with six locations for residents to bring all types of electronics at no cost. The sites include all five
staffed solid waste convenience centers that are open to only residents of the County,but not businesses and
the drop off site at the Orange County landfill which is open to businesses and other non-residential generators
of electronics as well as residents. The drop-off program has been in place since 2004 and last year collected a
measured 482 tons of electronics of a11 kinds including obsolete or unwanted media such as video tape, audio
tape, compact disks, digital video disks, etc. The program is funded exclusively from the County's 3-R
recycling fee basic level fee that is charged to all improved properties within the County. The County intends
to keep operating this program in its current form for the foreseeable future.
The program employs one man full time driving a pickup truck towing sma11 open top trailers to collect
� electronics and media from all the sites and return materials to a central warehouse at the landfill. The
operator runs a route and swaps the trailers fu11 of scrap electronics for empty ones,returns to the processing
warehouse located at the landfill to unload, sort,process,palletize and prepare the goods for market. A high
level of sorting by County staff ensures bettex pricing from the vendor. We paid nothing last year due to the
positive value of items like CPUs, copper wire and circuit boards offsetting the costs of disposal of CRTs and
`junk' like old printers or VCRs with little value. We also sell bales of scrap plastic collected when it falls off
the equipment being processed.
The County contracts solely with Synergy, a North Carolina based company with its TSO 14001 certification
and R certifications in place to collect,process, and market all the electronics received at the drop-off sites and
landfill site. Monthly Synergy furnishes a list showing the amount of materials brought in by Orange County
and that information is compiled annually. A complete report and summary table is included below for FY
2009-10. -
The University of North Carolina, UNC Hospitals and the public school systems generally have their own
electronics waste management systems so they don't use the Orange County system as a general rule. Some
individual exceptions do occur. There are also other informal networks for cell phone recovery using drop-off
points on the UNC campus, at Whole Foods,the Family Violence Prevention Center, etc.
111
---
� — - —
2. Information on public awareness and education
The electronics drop-off program has existed since 2004 at the landfill and 2005 at the convenience centers. In
2006, fees for businesses to drop-off CRTs were eliminated, bringing in more material. At the inception of the
permanent program,print advertising,newspaper articles,posters,the County web site, a printed brochure in
English and Spanish and news releases were used to publicize the program along with the annual Waste
Matters mail out to all addresses in Orange County at that time.
Electronics recycling program brochures (copy attached—to be updated) are placed at all drop-off sites and
distributed at all public events and pertinent drop-off locations. E.g. Spanish language brochures placed in
display racks at stores patronized by Spanish speakers.
Each time there is a program change similar tactics are used to inform the public. A new monthly electronic
solid waste newsletter is also now available on request to anyone that will contain any program updates to the
electronics program as well as other programs.
The trailers themselves at the Convenience Centers act as advertising as well. They are very visible with big
signs and usually occupy a relatively prominent position at each convenience center. At the landfill the trailer
is immediately across from the scalehouse, thus every landfill user can see it from the scale that they must
cross to use the facility. Periodically the County reviews program results publicly and includes information
about the electronics program. The tonnage has increased from 170 tons in FY 2003-2004 to 482 tons in FY
2009-10. Thus by defuution,public awareness is increasing and volume is increasing.
3. Information used to track tonnage
Orange County requests that the contractor, Synergy provide detailed data reports including listing the
televisions separately from other items they recycle. Synergy in response to this request provides information
broken down by material and weight with each outgoing load. See attached spreadsheet an example of how the
County manages the data received from Synergy. Below is the annual summary from FY 2009-10
Oran e County NC Annual Electronics Collection Totals FY 2009-10 (tons)
Material Monitors TVs LCD CPUs/ Printers Battery Wire Circuit Low Plastic SONY Total
Monitors La to s backu s boards Grade
Amount 88.9 177.3 1.7 48.9 1.8 23 9.2 4.3 142 43 1.5 4822
(tons)
Units 5,121 5,167 125 Na Na na na na na na na
4. Interaction with other units of local government to provide or receive services
Orange County is the lead agency for solid waste management. As such, it has developed and operates all
publicly run recycling programs used by residents of Orange County and some non-residential users and
businesses;this includes electronics recycling programs. All three municipalities have linked their web page to
the County's site for information and the various Town information offices routinely refer calls about
electronics recycling to the County. This would include the part of the Town of Chapel Hill in Durham
County. The three municipalities all provide bulky waste collection service and when a television or computer
is placed at the curb for collection it is routinely dropped off at the recycling point at the landfill when the
112
J
bulky goods trucks enter to pay for disposal. Both Carrboro and Chapel Hill charge residents to coliect these
items as well as any other bulky item that will not fit in a trash roll cart. The Town of Hillsborough does not
charge for bulky item collection. The Towns occasionally bring their own governments' outdated computers
and other equipment to the County drop-off program for recycling. This is not a regular occurrence, but they
usually alert us when they're bringing an in-house load. While the two public school systems are quasi-
governmental agencies,they provide most of their own electronics recycling collection and also occasionally
use the County program.
The County interacts closely with the PTA Thrift shops operated to benefit the Chapel Hill Carrboro Schools,
encouraging those with relatively new computers, over a certain speed and memory capacity to donate them to
the Thrift Stores for resale and reuse. To accommodate the Thrift Shop, as they get a lot of outdated,
unmarketable electronics,the County also has sited a trailer at the Carrboro branch of the Thrift Store to bring
a11 unsold electronics to the County for recycling.
5. How units of loca.l government will account for expenditure of funds under this program
The County will establish a revenue account in the Solid Waste Management enterprise fund under its
standard accounting practices to accurately receive and track any revenue incoming from the North Cazolina
electronics recycling program revenues. Expenditures using these grant funds will be tracked specifically by
designating a notation in the purchase order system on any requisitions and subsequent purchases made usin
g
the funds. Only four people,the recycling programs manager or his designee,the recycling programs
supervisor, and the solid waste planner or his designee,the Solid Waste outreach and education specialist, will
be likely to make requisitions involving expenditure of these funds. The recycling programs manager and solid
waste planner will keep an annual record of all purchases related to use of the funds. A
All requisitions are authorized by the Solid Waste Management Director and tracked by the Department's
Administrative Assistant. The Administrative Assistant will also keep a record of purchases that staff
designates to be made using the electronics recycling grant funds. Certain accounts have been identified as
most likely areas in which to expend including supplies, capital, advertising, maintenance and fuel costs. All
the individuals involved will mutually develop a specific designation to be used within the potentially affected
accounts. E.g. an"E"next to the purchase order number assigned. The County Finance office will also be
informed of this special designation. Thereby an internal capability will be developed to account for all
funding expended in this program from the State fund. A totaling of the expenditures will be made at mid-year
as part of usual the-end-of-year budget projections and also to meet any State Reporting requirements for these
funds.
113
.
Appendix K
SQLID WASFE Wf3RK GROUP S1NCC RECt3MMENDATlQNS
rHF r�RO�os���canr
FOR OR4NGE CUUIUTYSOLIfl Wi4STE CONYE�ItEl1iCE CENTERS
CORF A55UlV�FTlON: The Solid Waste Work Group believes that the SWCCs are a core
County service worth supporting as publicfy awned and operated centers far primari3y
residentia[waste and predominantfy from unincorparated Orange Count}r.
WORI(6ROtIP RECOMMEIVDATI�NS SUNlMARY. The Solid Waste Work Group has
faflowed a twa-year process in considering options for the future of the so(id u�aste
convenience centers(SWCCsj and is novr providing the following recommendation to the Board
of Commissianers on their location,design,operation and funding.
1. LC#CATIDAt AND DES(�N
a. A tatai c,f 5 sites in a"District/Neighborhood"arrangement
i. 7wa targer District�enters at exizting sites(Walnut Grove and Euhanks} that
have a fu[I package o€services
ii_ Three smaller Neighbarhood centers at Bradsha.v Quarry Rosd,Ferguson Road
and High Rock that have fewer services but are more tonvenient to rura(areas
b. Design outcomes that are believed ta be necessary include:
i= Efficiency improvements from campaction: Compaction of bath MSW and
buiky waste in stationary compactors should be implemented as soon as
praciical and no later than the close af FY 2D13/i4 to control SWCC
transportation costs when use of Durham Transfer Station begins
ii. Site irnprovements tc� increase diversion oppartunities, improve safety,
eliminate vermin,increase efEiciency and catherwise lower eost are necessary-
inc[udiszg paving,improved loading heights,enhancad traffic ftow vvith multiple
lanes to speed site usage and minimize waiting times,etc.
iii. Ability to expand di�ersion by adding recyclable materials(at District Centers�
including at [east textiles, cooking ail, residential food vraste, fluorescent
lamps,and enhanced salvage(ex�hange opportunities
iv. Safety/ADA improvements that meet County Master Aging Plan goals
v. Improved signage at each aite wit11 locations,hours and instnadions far all siias
vi. Education will be key for use of the new system and during transiiian
c. [3esign Process
i. Conceptual site drawingsJphotos of impraved sites have been reviewed by the
War[c Group and are endorsed as starting points far design process
ii. Education and citize�invo(vement is key in Lhe design/approval process
iii. Tours af improved sites are recommended as part of the design pracess
10/27/i0 ORARIGE COUhlTY 5C3LtD WASTE Page i af 8
114
.
SE3LtD WASTE lot�QRK GRL7UP SWCC RECt3NItYlENL�ATIUNS
2. t?PERA'�i01Y
a. Goal is access io a site at least 6 or 7 days a week for both noRhem and southern
tiers accomplished thraugh overlapping hours/days r�f aceess
i. Strive for simplicity and consistency in hours af access
ii, Some of these hours could e3ctend uniil 7 pm in the evening
iii. Pubtic input+Xill be used{or ir�entifyi€tg in►portani access hours
iv. User,as weEi as aperator,needs wifi be considered in proeess
b. To reach this goa[,priority woutd be given to adding days and hours af operation
from curreat base starting point(reduced due ta budget eonstraints} as funding
becomes available
c. Starting poini for access is:
i. I3istrict centers urauld be open 6 days per+�veek
ii. Neighborhood centers woutd b�open up ta 4 days a week
d. Methodotogicat "recurring evaluatian" woutd be completed the year after each
phase of u�grades+s campleted and periadically thereaftar to evaluate aecess and
adjus2 haurs as needed to reach goa(,to increase recyc(ing capacity,etc.
3. FUAiDfNG - Tfie Work Group recammended a scenaria that rel+es on an annuat
househofd fee,tied,if possibte,to the current 3-R Fee bitGng structure{aka a"4-R"fee}
to cover SWCC operation and capit�t requirements for upgrades with the ex}�ectation of
reduced andJar eventual elimination of General fund support. Keyfeatures include:
a. 3-R Fee changed ta incorporate SWCC operating and funding requirements
b. Enterprise fund based and use of the General Fund reduced�ndJor eliminated
c. Cauld have"tevel of use component"
i. Based on type of user{ruraf,urban,muiti-famiiy�
d. Aflow charging for certain types of itemsfcustomers
i. A{lour smal!commercial users and charge on using an account system
ii. Wauld f�e ok ta charge for large hard-to-handle items(e.g,large bu{kies)
RECQM�1�1E1VIJED PHASlNG ANi7 TlMFLtIVE
The Work Group recommends the follouuing iiming for phasing in the SWCC upgrades:
PHASE t—NaRTHERN TIER STRRTfGY
• 1Nainut 6rc�ve SWCC fu1ly modernized District SWCC Site by close of FY 2012/13
�� Sncludes added materials,at grade dumping,eompactors,HHNf,mu[ch sa[es,paving
c Open six days a week(cCosed�Nednesday)
14/27/20 ORANGE COUNTI SOUD WASTE Page 2 of S
115
,
SrJIla WASTF WORK GRDUP 51NCC RECOtVfMENDATICIIVS
' High Rock SWCC is first Neighborhoad SWCC Site — also by close of F1' 2012/13
redevelopment in conjunction with Walnut Grove
o Limited to compacted MSW,bu[kies that fit in compact�r and sing(e stream reeycling
and current SWCC TRIP materials inc[uding maior oil,filters,antifreeze, batteries
and etectronics
a Open four days a week
• Requires design and funding approval during FY 2011/12
PHASE 2-SOUTNFRN TfER STRATEGY
' Eubanks SWCC fully modemized District SWCC Site by close of�1(2D13/14
o Based on lessons learned and determina#ion of success with Walnut G�ave
o Qpen six days a week(dosed Wednesday or alternate day)
• Ferguson SWCC is second NeigRbarhood SWCC Site by clase of FY 2U13j14
• Bradshaw Quarry SWCC is third lVeighbarhood SWCC Sita by close of FY 2013/14
� Requires design and funding approva)durirtg FY 2t312{13
BAS/S FOR RfCUMMENE?ATIDIIt—DECtSlON CRITERtA
The Work Group evaluated many different configurations and approaches both on design and
tocatian as well as funding. Qecisiort criteria were used to achieve consensus on the
recommended option. The Einal recotnmendation is rated at 4.26 on a scate of I to 5 for
flesign,L�apon and Operation,the highest of any tonfiguration that was examined during our
24month process.
� �� N.��� .� � �� ■�
� �
. . .. . . a x
- _ . . . _....
�.,�,,,,4...,....,�, . � -
Tabte 1:Rukng rhe Final Racammmtdation agairst W�gkt�d Flan Gonls
. . :.. _
...:. •_ -
;�s -�
'WCI tiYedu ,. '` et�h6o1'hCHfdJ.
9 �►�a � �"'° Wetg�at .L�istric,�5'W"CC:
x -j' _
. ,... , .,.. __ ....>,.� .,
Develop a sYSiem thae encourages recyciang--ia reach 6i b waske
reduction g�al z8•�p� �•�Q
Qroma[e safe and ett&ctive materizls handt:n,�3c hcme,ax conveniance
cenYers antl aloay[ol!edion rovtes by msiGentS,#xt5ir.ess flrwrxrs a�d �g 70� 5.00
sYatY°e.g.low loapmg t�rtcs.clased con;ainers,cars�lated fram
bi truCkS gt SWCCS taRY irnYead M bins,CtC.
ProvipQ more cifivent cos'.sfiective o;�eraiions^b�.ver�ratfrg wsis �$.6go 3.09
sviih inveshnent af ca�i:a#nriiere recuired
Provld�sustarrA�le,preG�.aEle sources o!tesrtlsng-retain xnd expand
program senKes 4o reaeh goals an4 avoid cutting seniaes duNng �$.2°la 3.25
6u et criss
RecEUCt ersv�ronmsn:al�sreaacts of waste arxl recyCinA-a�s pW�uCipn. 12.6% 5_Dd
noisp,traffr,rdrbcm feo nnt toad n�e8r aryd tear,Ctc,
Create Cosa Equity-'Thase n�hn�ase i;more wqutd pay more� 5.9% 3.0�
10U.0�fa 4.26
10/27/IO ORANGE COUNTY SdLID WASfE Page 3 of 8
116
J
Sf)Lla W�CS7'"E WC)RK GRQClP St�/G�RECQMM�ENL1A7Et?N.S
BAS(5 FOR RECQMltrlEN�ATf01V—FIN,�14tCtA1 PERFOItMANC�
The Work Group evatuated the projected �pitat and expected casts and operatiana!
efF':ciencies for ttre tina[recommendation. 7�he capita)and operating projett+ons developed by
staff and consu�tant are the basis for the Work Group reeommendation and are endorsed 6y
the Wor�c 6roup as a starting point for moving forward_
Efficiencies and cost savings are key to the Work Group's fina[recommendation. The$220,8U5
in projeeted sauings in hauling labor and equipment(2010 dollars)shgwn in Tabte 2 is reatized
from a projected reduction of 74,00(}miies each year in hauting.
These savings are in addition tn $14O,OOQ in avoided hauling casts incsease that cautd
otherwise 6e ex�cted if na changes are made to the S{NCCs or hauling scheduies once the
tar�dfil!doses—that wil!be avnided with implementation of the final recomrrsendat€an.
Ta6te z:Finat Ifer.ommendativn operating cosr srrvirras
�Phen Fully Imgte»terat�d)
-,� ru�^ y�� 4�',� r ;�,'�' ,�. �i����+.«°a 'Y.e..�7 ,*��;�, S �� �ss� � �.'.
� ,� �' ����� z� � r i `� � �� � x ��1�� za. �y- �
� � �
t: � �,�.,.�'`„��`*s�„ r��_� ,�. �a �.. ���,, _
Ofmct COStsG�
Rcduced MSLN and Eulky TriRS $ 65,419 Reduccd Fuc�JMaint fmm from 74 213 fewer truck milcs
�6crbar Gosts
Reducad MSWJBukky Collect9on labor $ 74,679 1.3 Eess dri�et FTE rleeci?d,inc►udin,�,6enefrts
Reduced flCC CoNection labor $ 15,583 U.3 lass dr6ver FTE needed,indudtng t�nefKs
fquipment Swings
Eliminatr_?Fmnt I�ad Tn�rkS � �'1,R76 Fliminatr�7@$77(],550 rar,h($45,913 artniially�
Add 1 Hoak LiR Rotl-aff $ (29,707} /ulds 1 Hook Lift Roll-off @ 1&7,2]S{$?9.707 annuaUy}
IdET ANNUAL SkViNGS $ 220,805
This total of$360,8t}5 in projected net savings(the$220,805 io annual savings from Table 2 and
the$140,(HH}in increased costs that wauld be avoided)justifies the$2_5 M in capitat required
to rnove forward with tbe upgrades — the "business case" for the finai recammendation,
provid'+ng a payback of tess than 3f?years and a reasonable "retum on investment" for this
gublic service.The projected amortization is detailed in separate upgrade cost projections and
differs for equiprnent and site improvemencs at each site.
Tabte 3:�t Recomr�edaSors Crr�itul�t Prnjectian
� - s��v �� �� � . � � �
+�6�l���� �� e ""°�s ��n z �1T11��Q��.. �.��Dh -
_ �' <;° �, � _ � _,
Eubanks district $1,084,949 �79,798
Walnut(district} $862,570 �G2,581
Fer usan nei hbqrhood) '194.124 $12.914
hti h Rock(nei hbortTOOd 216,112 �13,924
8radshaw nei hbartrood} $152,d14 �t2,964
Total costs $2,504,1fi8 5182.180
1Oj27l10 DRAN6E COUNTI SOLID WASTE Fage 4 of 8
117
,
SQLIt.)WASTF WURK�'RDUP SV!(CC RECQMJVIEIVI3ATIt�MS
MOVItVG fORWARD—THE ENTERPRfSE FUNLt A/V�A HtJUSEHOLD FEE
In arriving at its finai recornmendation, the Work froup considered differenf funding
appraaehes and has recommended retiance or�an annual househotd fse,tied,if possible,to tf�e
current 3-R Fee biiling structure(aka a°4-R"feej that would caver SWCC operation and capital
requirements for upgrades integrated into ihe current Enterprise Fund approach.
The recammendation includes moving to�nrards comptete independence from the Genera[Fund
(GFj —either i€nmedRately{as shown in Table 4 belowj or aver a multi-year transition periad
(shown in Tabte 6 6ebw). Notes on each af the Iine items in these two tabfes are provided
belovsr as weft. The primary difference between tha two is the amount of funding sourced from
tl�e recommended per household fee.
Tabla 4 shows the 7-Year Enterprise Funtf forecast#or the SWCC system with no Genera!Fund
cantribution aL al!—starting in year I. The bottom line shows the potentiat drop i� Generai
Fund support achieved for eaeh year,with current year GF support as the baseline,and then
the GF support drop shown cumulatively over the 7-year period.
Tobie 4:7-F�ar Extet�»�:'se Fu�uf For°ecasr,for Finat Recarr,mendatio�s
u�iih'Ua GEm�rrl Fuxd:Ss�ppat7-GF Eiimfaaated:n Year I
,c,
:: Y.. ,..::&•'- ... ,�Iian � :� .� .� 6anilei7on; Serdia#on Ncba
'._ .. .. ,..
� a:::,:""-=:"W':u.,�:'.'F��liii� Pl'�1?�78 7=Y�013t'#4'FYZQi41�8 Ft'?117$f15 �72Q19t77' FY'LU371'18 ,s;
-. r
_>-�...a,�,�.�:�.. .
_._._ ..._.._ :.�..--:..�....-,�.�-.:....... _::;.,,.,»-,.�,�,.,.�,.
,.�..�.- _
tar�eted txperses -
�Q�eralm9 b2.1b0.312 E2,323,578 S2.427,5�''i9 S251C,3g$ $2,578.p63 $2,6S5,4p5 52.735,Q6T #1
-New Caµ(al De�l Retitei��eirt SSB4,360 5384,386 $364.36Q 5364,380 $366,360 5364,560 $3&F,380 �2
- . _ . . .. _ ... . . ._ .... .. .
...__ _ . ._.
zpenses7otal 52.524.673 SY,687.878 32<791,929 $2.87&.74H gP,Sd2A2d SJ,Q19,766 53.0°9,428
TarFMetl Rcvcnucs
-Cnrrent 3-R F� 52o1,fl00 5267,D� SZBt.DOQ $2b1,000 5281,4Q0 5267,4d0 526t,00q �3
-Fixed Gt�r�Fund Obliaai3on Sp S(y Sp §a yp t,�p yp �
-tiousehotd SYVCC Fce 52.400,ODQ 52.400,0(?0 52.EiQ0,OQD 52600,�fl0 $2,GOQ,000 62,750.600 52,7a0,004 �5
-Account-Fess(Canme:ri�11} St� .>22.�0 533.75f! S59.Ob3 $103.354 S1t8,863 �136.693 #�6
Revetft�e TOfat $2.861,(%10 $2,6�f.5pp 52.684.750 $2,82Q.p63 52.964>359 $3,123.863 53,147.693
NET:URPLUS/{DEFICI7) 5138,327 i$+i,379) 5142.SZ1 541.314 521.@36 Si1Q,Q96 545.265 #7
CUMULATlVE FUND BALfWCE $13G,327 $t31,949 y234,770 :27GA84 5298,D2Q $4Q8,117 54;�f'i,382 #8
P�?7E33TIALGF7A7CUR6P f2164.0�0 $2.73p�0 52.16D,ryiSO S2,t69.t3U0 $2.1f+0.00D 52.16U.C�.lO 52.16D.t1043 #g
CUA4ULATIYE GFTAX pR4P Ez,�ee.una ga,�o.oao �+s.asa,�a SB.EM19.P.Q0 $16,BOO,oao saz,ac�,00� 515.7?0.906 �9p
Table 5 sliows the 7-Year Enterprise Fund household fee required for the SWCC sysiem when
there is na General Fund contri6ution at all—starting in year 1. Ttwo types of fee estimates are
slio�vn—a flat fQe as well as a tiered fee. The flat fee shows the Hausehold SWCC revenue
requirement from Ta61e 4 a[lacated equatly to al!54,15t�residential parcefs. The fee increases
in three s€eps as ihe required�unding increases aver the 7-year period. The tiered fee shovrs
the same revenue requirement altocated proportionally among ruraE singEe-fami(y dw�llings,
urban single family and multi-famify parce[s according to an estimated intensity of SWCC use.
Again with step increases each two-year period as the General Fund cantribution is eliminated.
IOJ27/10 ORANGE COUN7Y SOCID WASTE Psge 5 of$
118
1
St1LID WASTE Wt}RK GROUP�WCC RECt?MlVfENflA71t)t�1S
Tabte S:7-l'sar Enterprrse F'i�nd fFvure?urtdFee Aequired fcv�Ynat�rnmerrdatarm
with N'o Gerteral�S�ap�ort-GFElirninated in Yaar 1
�� `�.��; s�� ._�, a��y�,��4 ��d7'!1'1� F1F���{#$ EY2f)��[�� �Y��*�6 �-'9f��1$���?',:.�f�D17�t�'
�
Flat Fcc
E-ia[Fec-al1 kou,chold, 5aa Sas �ut Se� 5aH 35� �tii
r,��d r��
i'rer�!Fid-ttut:�i 3Tg 579 $Stl ��tl S&3 587 391
Tleretl Pee-llrban §�5 S35 $38 $38 538 540 ���
Tier�d Fea-Multi Family �7 $T $7 S7 S7 S7 S7
Table 6 shows the 7-Year Entergrise Fund #arecast for ihe SWCC system with 6enerai Fund
suppart phased out by the close of the sixth year. Years 1 and Z have$1,200,000 in GF support
declirting to$SOU,000 in years 3 and 4,$4(�,4�D in years 5 and 6 and zero GF support in Year 7
and after. Again,tfie bottom line shows the potentiai drop in 6eneral Fund support each year
and cumulatively over the 7 year period.
Tiabde 6:?-Year�hrerprise Fund ForecastforFinat Recorrun�sdr�tiort
1*ith Gerzerai Frmd Suppnrt Phus¢d Ghrt aver 6-YerAPQriod
;�� � � ����,�� y��3�9 ya�3y�� g�'; �s���auna y '/qi� �eyi��t1� 1g�y �Ib�n N�e;,
+�� �h=��. ,.W�'�..x11, s��` ���,�, H.�uv tRE�������'ZmR,"+± ��'�,+�_!5�,�!+�{ii?a �'4Yp�� ������,�E�:£��.
> . , . .... . .r, . ,, _,
largeted Experue� � ... .. . . .. ..
•O�erating 52.1fi0,3S2 52.323.51& 52.427.559 52,514,388 52,578,663 S1,E55,4J5 $2<7?5.667 il4
-New Ca�ibl!'lAh!Retimment $45f�36ti S=�id.36t1 5_3Rd.3C,(I 5.�'id,3fi0 5364.36U $3fid.'i60 $3E'sd 360 #2
Eacpanss&Ta1ad 52,524.673 52.687.878 52,79t.g29 $2.878.748 52.942,A2A 53.014.766 u3.Q99.428
Fargatod Rovorwes
-Curr6�i�t3-�RFtiO 5251.D00 5261,D00 S261,U00 $261,flW $261,Q00 5261,OCA $2fi'I,O(iQ C3
-Fized GeriErat Furxf Oftli�ahr�n 51.20Q,00�? �1200.L�00 5800.LH10 58C}0.0(IQ 5QU4.4�4 540�.0(10 Sa 17d
-Househoid SWGC Fee $1.200.000 51.20€).000 51,80f1.000 51,�30.f1�D 52.2D6.000 52.200.000 52,754.IXI0 ft5
-Acco�n!-FeaslCOfltmetsaa!} $0 322,5Qfl 533.750 558.063 51Q3.3,58 31t8,#t63 513fi.693 it6
AsvsnGwTatal Y2.66t.000 S2.fi83,500 5�.$&1.750 5�.9�O.OG3 $2�864.35A �y2>979,863 53,ti7,693
1JETSURRLUS!(LlE61CIT) $i3fi.327 (54,378) 5702.821 $b1,314 S21,836 (539.902} SS8,2S5 �T
CUML'1RTlVE FUMD BALJ�NCE S13&,327 5937,998 5234,770 S2TG.09d 5298.026 $2�i8,17T S306.382 #8
POTENTIAL Gf TAX OROP t360,a50 LJo6.oa0 S1.3s0.a00 S7.:ts�,aDO S1,7so.000 S�,7tiQ.oC�6 52.19o.flno N9
CUMI:LAT}VEGFTAX6ROP 54fi4,00p 51,920,Q0�1 53260.000 SA.&10,�00 $6,AOQ.OUO 58.190,QG0 S1C,33D.0�0 #10 .
Table 7 shows the 7-Yea�Enterprise Fund household fee required for the 5WCC system when
the General Fund support is phased out 6ythe seuenth year_ Again,two types of fee estimates
are shown—a flat fee as wett as a tiered fee. The flat fee shows the Household SWCC revenue
requirement from Table 4 allocated to atl 54,15D residentia!parceLs_ The fee increases in three
steps as the reguired funding inereases over the 7-year period. The tiered fee shaws the sams
revenue requirement ailapted proportionally to rural, ur6an and multi-family parcels, again
with step increases each two-year period as the 6enera[Fand contribution is eliminated, In
bath the fiat and tiered fee,estimates are initiatly(ower in this"6f support phase aut°strategy,
but eventua!!y reach the same leve!in year 7 as the earlier"no 6F support"strategy.
IQ(27l10 ORANGE C�UNTY SOl1D WASTE Page 6 of 8
119
r
St7Llt? WASTE iNQRIC GRtJUP S11�C+�RECQMNIENQAT1t3NS
Znbte 7.•7-Year F.r�tslazse Frmd Flc�usehatd F�Re�uised for�Fnat Recommerrdution
with C�erre�at�'unc155igpnrfPhased Oivaver 6-Y�E'�rfod
...,;.. ,,.,...... . :w;:,s,
<°r�•'';•' : „� FY�1if'M2 F�!'2A!`,+J�� �13h# £'I'20A{J16 fit?QIti1B f�11!�7�7 �2t1t�148
�.
,; . . -..,d.... _.,
Fiat Foc
F1ot�cc-nll Haiac#iotd� $'1:2 S'L' 43S S33 SA1 S41 $S9
Fiat Fee
tit�rad Fce Kur� S:SS S.sS �59 $6J S�1 $72 $y7
nerec�ea-um3n #�r S7r �ze � Saz Saz �o
r�s�Pe-na�ib��„�y ,� s� � s7 Sz s� s�
The folfowing notes#1 throvgh#10 provide background on the line items and numbered note
re#erences shawrt in the 7-Year Enterprise Fund forecast in both scenarios.
L Operating costs that incorporate the savings projeded for the more efficient sites are
showm,building from a base[ine direct cost structure in FY 2010 of$1,793,649 increased at
3% per year, pius the Sanitation Division's atlaation af emrironmenta[ services
administrative charges(currently funded only by the Iandfil[and 3-R programsj to arrive at
ihe$2,016,312 identified in the FY 2011/12 expense 3ine item in Table 4 and Table 6.
2. Capital debt retirement for the SWCC upgrades that is assumerJ to 6e the annuaEized
amo€tization of rapital for the Neighborhood/District SWCC System financed over 10 years
@ 59fi ($323,751j ptus amartizaiion for replacement of existing SWCC capita! {Sanitation
Qivision rolling stock amortization estimated at$40,600J_
3. The 3-R fee Contribution is pro-rated based on the portian of each SWCC site used for
recycling_That has been fuced at$26I,�each year,thougFt it cauld increase based on the
square footage at the SWCCs that's taken up by recycling ac[ivities induding woad,metal,
ei�in addition to€he convent6onal recyclables.
4. The General Fund contribution is assumed to be eliminated effective year 1 in Table 4 and
phased out over six years as shawn in Table 6.
5. The Proposed Hausehold Fee,discussed as part of an expanded 3-R Fee,is calculated based
on required funds,shawn in Tables 5 and 7 as bath ftat fees across all parce[s or pra-rated in
a tiered structure to tt►e different seetors as a function of frequenty of use_
6. The Accaunt-Based Fees would come fro¢rs fees charged to small commerciat and
institutional users ihat woutd now be allowed to use the larger District sites - with an
assumption of 15,00�uses and a$10 net revenUS(over cosu}for each use of the senrice,
Use is projected ta escalate Zil°rb per year as these small haulers learn how to use che site
after the iandfiit closes and the�urham Transfer Station is the next nearest disposal site.
7_ The Nei SurplusjjDeficit)shows revenues minus costs for that year—indicating whether the
Enterprise Fund has covered its abligations for that year or would need to draw on
cumulatir+e Enterprise Fund reserves if a deficit is shov�rn_
8. The Cumutative Net SurplusJ(Deficitj shaws any build up of reserve in ihe Enterprise Fund
generated from the SWCC program,funds which serve as a contingency should a deficit
resutt in any one year.
1Oj27/fQ OW1N6E COUNTY Sf?LID WASTE Page 7 af 8
120
.
SOLtD WASTE WORK GRt?UP SINCC RECUNIMFN�ATfD1VS
9. The Potential Generat Fund Tax Drap shows the arnount af Generai Fund suppart that
previausly would have gone to SWCC funding{$2,160,000 in ihe curreni ftscal year} that
would be freed up if the recommendaiion is imp[emented as shown in that scenario.
I0.The Cumulative Patential General�und Tax Drop sho�as the total amount,acwmulated over
the multi-year periad of these General Fund tax dol[ars that would no longer be spenc an �
the 51rVCC system if the recammendation is implemented as shown in that seenario.
The forecast shows a sustainable fee based SWCC system operating within the Sa[id Waste
Enterprise Fund structure,with no GeneraE Fund contribution. This epproach,recommended by
the Wark Group,wauld altow the SWCC system to be operated in a way thai meets the primary
core objective that the Wflrk 6raup identified-that the SWCCs ere a core County service wortE�
supporting as publicly owned and opera#ed centers primarity far residentia! waste,
predominant[y#rom unincorporated Orange Cocanty with some small commercial user waste.
10/27Ji0 OFtAN6E COUNTY SOLI�WASTE Page$of 8
--END PLAN HERE --
121