HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-09-1999 - 1ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 9, 1999
Action Agenda
Item No. 1
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Matters
DEPARTMENT: County Manager /Solid Waste PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
As listed in "Background" John Link/Rod Visser, ext 2300
Gayle Wilson, 968 -2885
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Chapel Hill 968 -4501
Durham 688 -7331
Mebane 336- 227 -2031
PURPOSE: To discuss various solid waste management matters, as outlined in the
"Background" section of this abstract.
BACKGROUND:
a. 60 Acre Greene Tract Portion Set Aside as Solid Waste Management Site
The Board will continue the discussion it began on this topic during the November 3, 1999
meeting. The Board may also wish to discuss the process for, and timing of, the necessary
zoning of the designated 60 acres of the Greene Tract to permit certain solid waste activities, as
contemplated in the approved Solid.Waste Interlocal Agreement (see Attachment 1 -a).
b. Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Disposal Options
The Board requested a report on options available for the recycling and disposal of C &D waste.
Chapel Hill Solid Waste staff have prepared the report at Attachment 1 -b. Staff will be prepared
to respond to the Board's questions, and to accept the Board's direction on subsequent steps to
be taken related to C &D recycling and disposal. Staff will also present information on a
discussion between the County Manager and staff at the State's Solid Waste Division that
relates to the process and timing of the submission of a permit application for a possible
Eubanks Road C &D site.
c. "Future Search" Process for Solid Waste Management
Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) has convened regular meetings of the region's
local government solid waste planners since 1991. This group, the Triangle Region Solid
Waste Planners Committee, recently issued a report urging the Triangle's local governments to
work more closely on planning infrastructure to manage solid waste beyond the next ten years.
As a means to initiate productive action on a regional level, the Triangle Region Solid Waste
Planners Committee is proposing that the region conduct a "Future Search," which is a
dynamic, interactive process used by groups to identify trends, common ground, and action
steps. A "Future Search" is limited to 60 to 70 participants in order to allow everyone to fully
participate. In order to be effective, the event must include participants who are key decision -
makers, participants who have relevant information, and participants who are significantly
affected by the outcome. TJCOG requests that two Commissioners, as well as the County
Manager and Solid Waste Director, participate in this event which is planned for late February
2000. Staff will make a brief presentation about this process.
At the request of Commissioner Jacobs, the Board agreed to set aside time at this November 9
work session to discuss what "next steps" the Board should take related to various solid waste
management issues.
d. Owner's Request to Relocate High Rock Road Solid Waste Convenience Center
The owner of the site leased by the County for its solid waste site on High Rock Road has
indicated his desire to terminate that lease, and replace it with a lease for a different site about
1,000 feet further northwest on High Rock Road. The staff memo at Attachment 1 -d -1 provides
more background information about this request and indicates staffs plans to bring this item
forward for the Board's approval at the November 16, 1999 meeting. An informational flyer
(Attachment 1 -d -2) for citizens who use the site has been prepared for distribution.
This item is provided for information only — no Board action is required at this time.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with discussing these
items. However, subsequent Board decisions, particularly related to construction and
demolition waste management, will have significant impacts of the Landfill Enterprise Fund.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive and discuss the
reported information, and provide appropriate direction to staff.
41 Atf 0,
Make reports. The County will make, or cause to be made, any
reports or audits relating to the System as may be required by law.
The County, as often as may reasonably be requested, will furnish such
other information as the County may have reasonably available
concerning the System or its operation as the Advisory Board or any
Party may reasonably request. The County, which the Parties have
designated as. a local lead, agency, and the Towns will cooperate in
preparing and submitting any reports or solid waste plans that a Party
may be required to file with governmental authorities, such as the
State's Division of Waste Management.
Approve budget. The County will approve the 1999 -2000
System operating budget together with Chapel Hill.
Effective date. The County will assume solid waste management
responsibility the day following-the effective date of the zoning of
the property described in Exhibit E which makes solid waste management
uses, not including burial of mixed solid waste or construction and
demolition waste, a permitted use under the Chapel Hill Development
Code /Ordinance, as provided in Part 5 of this Agreement, so long as
that date is at least 180 days after the execution and delivery of
this Agreement by the current owners of the System and so long as the
Greene Tract Owners have agreed on the boundaries of the property
described in Exhibit E. The date the County assumes solid waste
management responsibility is the effective date of this Agreement.
Provided, however, the effective date of this Agreement will be
January 1, 2000 so long as this Agreement is executed by and delivered
to the current owners of the System on or before September 7, 1999,
the zoning change described above and in Part 5 of this Agreement is
adopted by the Town of Chapel Hill on or before January 1, 2000 and is
effective on or before January 1, 2000 and the Greene Tract Owners
have, on or before January-1, 2000, agreed on the boundaries of the
property described in Exhibit E. The Parties shall take actions
provided for in this Agreement, or which may otherwise be necessary or
appropriate, in a timely :fashion to permit the County's assumption of
solid waste responsibility on the effective date.
2. The Parties will deliver Solid Waste and County Recyclables to
the System.
The County and the Towns all agree to deliver, or cause to be
delivered, to System Management Facilities for disposal or processing,
respectively, all Solid_ Waste and County Recyclables under their
respective control. This delivery obligation includes (without
limitation) all Solid Waste and County Recyclables collected by any
Party's employees, Solid waste collection contractors, solid waste
collection licensees or solid waste collection franchisees. There is
no such obligation to deliver Other Recyclables. All Solid Waste and
County Recyclables delivered to System Management Facilities, or to
County employees, solid waste collection contractors, solid waste
collection licensees or solid waste collection franchisees, or
properly placed in a designated container at a convenience center,
will be County property upon such delivery.
3
S. The Greene Tract will remain a landfill asset. Sixty acres of the
Greene Tract will be' reserved for solid waste management
purposes, and the three owners will work together to determine
the ultimate use of the remainder.
The Parties agree that the Greene Tract remains a landfill asset.
Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the County (the "Greene Tract Owners ")
will transfer to the County title to that portion of the Greene Tract
described on Exhibit E, which contains approximately sixty acres. The
County may' use the property described on Exhibit E for System
purposes. The County states its current intention not to bury mixed
solid waste or construction and demolition waste on any portion of the
Greene Tract. The County states its recommendation to future County
Governing Boards that the County make no such burial.
The deed to this property will include a restriction prohibiting
the use of the property described on Exhibit E for burying mixed solid
waste or construction and demolition waste. This restriction becomes
effective at the same time that the. zoning change described in the
next paragraph is effective; and it will remain effective so long as
zoning remains effective which allows solid waste management uses,
other than burial of mixed solid waste or construction and demolition
waste, as permitted uses as described in the next paragraph.
Chapel Hill agrees to commence, and states its current intent to
complete, the process to make solid waste management uses not
including_ burial of mixed solid waste or construction and demolition
waste, but expressly including, -but not limited to, a solid waste
transfer facility and a materials recovery facility, uses of the
Exhibit E property "permitted" uses under The Chapel Hill Development
Code /Ordinance, subject,,.only to staff level site plan and similar
reviews and not subject. to special use or similar processes. Chapel
Hill agrees to provide'..," Ehe other Parties with a plan, including a
planned schedule of reviews and approvals, to process the zoning
change described in this paragraph.
The Parties agree-that nothing that they have agreed to herein
constitutes an agreement on the part of Chapel Hill to. zone the
Exhibit E property in a particular way. It is instead, an agreement
that if the Exhibit E property is zoned a particular way one event
will follow and if the Exhibit E property is not zoned in a particular
way another event will follow.
The Greene Tract Owners agree to bargain together in good faith
and with all due diligence, and to use their respective best efforts,
to determine an ultimate use or disposition of the remainder of the.
Greene Tract as soon as possible and in any event by December 31,
2001, or two years after the effective date, whichever is later.
During this -bargaining period," no Greene Tract Owner shall make any
use of the remaining portion of the Greene Tract without the consent
of the other Greene Tract Owners.
a
I
The Greene Tract Owners agree that among the issues to be
addressed in the bargaining process are (1) the specific future uses,
or ranges of use; to be made of the remainder of the Greene Tract
(including' issues of devoting different portions to different uses,
devoting portions to public uses and the possibility of making
portions available for sale or private use), and (2) whether to impose
specific use restrictions, either through deed restrictions or through
governmental regulation.-The Greene Tract Owners agree that during the
"bargaining period" each should provide.opportunity for public comment
on possible or proposed uses or dispositions.
During the "bargaining period," no Greene Tract Owner shall (1)
file any legal action or proceeding to force any sale or division of
the Greene Tract, or (2) enter into any agreement to sell, mortgage or
otherwise transfer all or any part of its ownership interest in the
Greene Tract, in either case without the consent of the other Greene
Tract Owners. To the extent permitted by law, Chapel Hill agrees not
to initiate any proceeding to rezone any portion of the Greene Tract
during the "bargaining period," without the consent of the other
Greene Tract Owners. Execution and delivery of this*Agreement by the
Greene Tract Owners constitutes consent of the Greene Tract Owners for
Chapel Hill-to rezone the Exhibit E property as described in this Part
S. Chapel Hill states its current intent to accommodate any agreed -
upon future uses or range of uses of the remainder of the Greene Tract
in its Development Code /Ordinances and states its recommendation to
future Chapel Hill Governing Boards to the same effect.
After the "bargaining period" is completed, namely, the day after
the last day of the bargaining period, no Greene Tract Owner shall (1)
file any legal action or proceeding to force any sale or division of
the Greene Tract, or (2) enter into any agreement to sell,.mortgage or
otherwise transfer all or any part of its ownership interest in the
Greene Tract, in either case without giving the other Greene Tract
Owners at least 60 days, 'rior notice of such filing or entering into
an agreement. In addition,.after__the "bargaining period" is completed,
any Greene Tract Owner may give 60 days' prior notice of an *election
to be no longer bound by the above restrictions pertaining to the uses
of and whether to impose use restrictions on the-remainder of the
Greene Tract, and such election shall be effective at the end of the
notice period.
The Parties agree that. any non System use of any portion of the
remainder of the Greene Tract or any disposition of any portion of the
remainder of the Greene Tract shall result in payment to the County of
the Reimbursement Amount Tor deposit in the System enterprise fund.
6. The County will finance community benefits from System funds to
the extent legally permissible.
The Parties will cooperate to provide public benefits to the
community of residents and property owners in the neighborhood of the
existing landfill.
9
ATTACHMENT 1 -b
Prepared for:
Board of Orange County Commissioners Work Session
Tuesday November 9, 1999
7:30 p.m.
Orange County Government Services Bldg.
Hillsborough, NC
Report on:
C &D Materials
Management
in Orange County
Prepared by:
Solid Waste Management Dept.
Town of Chapel Hill
(919) 968 -2885 phone, (919) 932 -2900 fax
306 N. Columbia
Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2113
Construction & Demolition Materials Management
November 9, 1999
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1. Status of C &D Management in Orange County
A. Waste Characterization
B. Waste Tonnage Projections
C. Current Recycling and Waste Reduction Practices
D. Connection to Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan/Goals
2. Temporary Options for C &D Management (key issues /costs)
A. Temporary option until new landfill developed
1) placing C &D in MSW landfill
2) suspension of acceptance of C &D
3) amending existing C &D landfill permit to allow modest vertical expansion
4) hauling C &D to Durham Transfer Station (this option was mentioned at a BOCC
meeting, however, staff level discussions with City of Durham have concluded
that this may not be an option that Durham's staff would recommend to their
Manager /Council)
B. Temporary option until MSW landfill full (assumes C &D will go into MSW landfill)
C. Temporary option of developing new C &D site (with capacity to coincide with
remaining MSW capacity)
3. Long Term Options for C &D Management (key issues /costs)
A. Selecting Eubanks Rd. Site
B. Permanently Ceasing C &D Management
C. C &D Transfer Station
D. Joint C &D/MSW Transfer Station
E. Regional Solutions
F. Initiating New Site Search Process
1) criteria
2) schedule
4. C &D Recychng/Waste Reduction (key issues /costs)
A. Prior Staff Research
B. Regulatory Measures
C. Processing/Sorting
D. Differential Fees/Bans
E. Available Grants
F. Successful Facilities Elsewhere
5 Solid Waste Advisory Board/C &D Task Force Role
6. BOCC Guidance to Staff
Executive Summary
Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Management
This report provides information about the current state of construction and demolition
waste management in Orange County, describes past studies and staff reports undertaken
on C &D both in the County and regionally, and outlines key issues regarding options for
future C &D management.
The report is primarily descriptive with no specific staff recommendations from among
the options described. We believe that the Board of Commissioners is at a critical
juncture regarding management of construction and demolition waste in Orange County
and moving towards concrete decisions at this time on management of C &D would
greatly assist both short and long -term planning for siting, financing and designing any
equipment and facilities that would be used in C &D management. Development of policy
tools that would complement the strategies selected to physically manage C &D could
also begin as decisions are made on facilities.
For each of the management choices for C &D we have outlined the key issues and
associated costs. The options are grouped as short-term disposal (Chapter 2), long -term
disposal (Chapter 3) and reduction/recycling options (Chapter 4). The cost estimates are
general and the key issues presented in a bullet form to highlight important points. We
await guidance from the Board before providing detailed analysis of specific options.
The staff has recently completed an engineering analysis of the current C &D site at
Eubanks Road and determined that is feasible to raise the height of the current working
area by 18 — 20 feet with no detriment to operations, surrounding aesthetics or the
environment. We plan, if there are no objections, to submit our permit application to the
State for this vertical expansion. We estimate a gain of up to eighteen months of C &D
landfill space by this expansion while remaining below the treeline and lower than the
finished grade for the MSW landfill on the south side.
While this vertical expansion, if approved by the State, buys us valuable time for
planning, siting and designing any new facilities, we believe it is wise to continue with
the C &D management decision - making process now underway. The options described in
this report can be broken into two general categories — management of C &D that must be
buried and methods for recycling, reusing and reducing the amount of C &D destined for
landfilling.
The categories complement each other. We believe this County would be well - served by
implementing a comprehensive, integrated approach to C &D management that combines
policy and fiscal tools to encourage reduction of C &D generation, a means and location
to recycle and process C &D that has markets or can be reused, and a secure, final
destination or transfer station to manage what cannot be reduced, reused or recycled.
Chapter 1 of the report estimates percentages of various materials in the C &D waste
stream, based on three separate analyses conducted in 1990, 1995 and 1996. From the
average of the three studies we estimated about 43% of the waste is inert including brick
rock dirt and concrete, 32% is wood of all types including 20% recyclable, and 12%
painted and treated wood, 12% is drywall and 2.5% metal. We outline how these
potentially recyclable fractions of the waste could be managed.
We project C &D waste for a 20 year planning horizon. Assuming a 10% waste reduction
over time, the C &D stream remains in the 30,000 ton per year range. On a per capita
basis, this means that C &D waste generated falls 34% per person to 464 pounds per year
compared with the base year of 1991, when it was estimated at 699 pounds per person per
year. Achieving our adopted 61% reduction goal would put it at 273 pounds per capita
and require significant additional effort to reach.
Chapter 2 discusses temporary, relatively short-term options for C &D management. If the
vertical expansion we are seeking is approved, the time frame to implement even the
remaining short-term options is lengthened to the point where we may not need to
implement them, if we proceed with deliberation on long -term solutions.
If the C &D area of the landfill closes we could combine C &D with MSW shortening the
projected life of the MSW landfill by two years. We could suspend acceptance of C &D at
our facility and thereby forgo $113,000 per month in revenue, risk increased illegal
dumping and incur mixing of C &D with MSW. A fourth short-term option would be to
haul C &D to Durham's transfer station. No formal arrangements have been made for this
option and we are aware that the Durham Transfer station's ability to accept any
additional waste is very limited to non - existent at this time. Finally, we could develop a
short-term, six -year C &D landfill site to coincide with closure of the MSW landfill.
There are no obvious advantages to this approach and it would entail all the siting and
development requirements of any larger facility.
Chapter 3 describes what we consider long -term options for C &D management. Those
include selection of the Eubanks 33 acre site, permanently ceasing C &D management,
building a C &D -only transfer station, building a joint MSW /C &D transfer station,
continuing to try regional solutions, and initiating a new site search.
The Eubanks Road site is the only one remaining from the last two site search processes
conducted over the past two years. The site is small, of limited life, readily available and
easily made operational due to ability to integrate into the current operation.
Permanently ceasing C &D operation is obviously the least expensive approach but would
result in annual revenue loss of $1.3 million and clearly increase costs to builders and
haulers in the County for C &D disposal.
It is possible to build a C &D -only transfer station but the material is bulky, hard to
compact, abrasive on both processing and hauling equipment and, tellingly, there are no
C &D -only transfer stations in the nation of which we are aware. Integrating C &D into a
transfer station designed for MSW is also possible but with a ratio of 2:1 MSW to C &D,
the station would still face the operational difficulties outlined in the C &D only option.
Regional solutions appear attractive, but we have been unsuccessful in eight years of
attempting to apply them to our solid waste problems. We continue to investigate the
options and our upcoming "Future Search" planned for February 2000 will bring together
70 people from throughout the Triangle to envision long -term solid waste management
solutions and then set plans to implement them. While we are optimistic about the
process, we view its potential for success over a longer term than we are able to wait. We
are also uncertain about the ability of this diverse set of interests throughout the Triangle
to meet our immediate C &D management needs.
Finally, it is possible to initiate a new site search. If that were the Board's decision, we
believe it would be necessary to move ahead quickly, even with the potential for 18
additional months of life at the current site. We believe, based on recent experience, that
another site search could cost $200,000 or more.
Chapter four summarizes three years of previous C &D research and details some
strategies for C &D reduction. The strategies are broken into regulatory approaches and
physical recycling measures. The regulatory approaches would mandate source -
separation of targeted recyclables including wood and metal with concomitant landfill
bans and incentive fees to reinforce separation by builders and haulers of C &D.
Recycling options include providing methods and facilities to accept source - separated or
mixed materials. Costs for managing source- separated materials are much less than for
separating and managing mixed materials at a centralized site. Markets for C &D
recycling are typically low -value and economically limited at this time to metal, wood
and drywall. In our piedmont region, availability of high quality rock and dirt for
construction especially limits markets for inert materials, the largest part of the C &D
waste. Equipment for centralized processing is expensive and successful facilities
elsewhere that handle mixed material typically manage far more tonnage than our current
and projected C &D waste stream. We believe the optimal approach would be one that
integrated regulations, economic incentives and processing capacity.
Chapter five and six outline immediate future steps for C &D management. The Board is
prepared to appoint a limited- duration task force specifically to examine the options for
C &D management. We understand that the BOCC may use the recommendations of this
task force to inform its future decision - making on C &D management. We await the
BOCC's guidance on how it wishes to pursue C &D management for Orange County.
Chapter 1 Status of C &D Management in Orange County
A. Waste Characterization
Since 1990, we have conducted three waste characterizations of construction and demolition
waste delivered to Orange Regional Landfill. In 1990 and 1995, the characterizations were
conducted as part of the waste study conducted. on contract with SCS Engineers. They
physically sampled the weights of C &D waste along with mixed solid waste during the first
three seasonal sorts in 1989 -1990; the fourth was a visual sort. In 1995 all sorting was visual and
volumes were converted to weights. In 1996, the staff conducted a visual waste sort for one
week of all loads entering the C &D area of the landfill. The data from those sorts are
summarized in the table on next page.
The percentages in each category of material refer to percentage by weight. Shaded categories
are those with near -term or immediate recycling potential.
The remander of this page is intentionally left blank.
Table la. Construction and demolition waste Orange Regional Landfill
Year of Sort
1990 (SCS)
1995 (SCS)
1996 (staff)
Average of %'s
Material Type by %
Inert
45.1
38.2
46.1
43.1
Rock
1.6
15.7
N/a
--
Dirt'.
&1,
Concrete
0.8
7.3
10.5
6.2
Block, Tile and
Brick
N /al
N /al
24.2
--
Asphalt
20.7
4.7
.74
12.72
Other Inert
15.9
N/a
N/a
--
INywail:
8.4
Wood
29.8
42.2
22.7
31.6
Pallets
12' . = :. `
014'
2.2
1.9'
SQIid`.umler° ; :
1.5:37
U.4-
13.6
Yard Waste
0.5
8.3
0.53
3.1
Other (painted &
treated wood included)
10.8
11.1
6.4
9.4
Metals
1.9
0.2
5.4
2.5
Ferrous
1.5
0.01 1
4.0 1 1
L.B
Non-ferrous,,,,,,
0.4.; ..
0.2;
1.4
.
Other'
5.1
11.3
17.4
11.3
Carpet
N /a°
N /a4
0.2
--
Plastics
1
0.4
0.25
0.6
Shingles
N /a5
N /a5
12.1
--
Paper
1
0.4
0.8
0.7
Miscellaneous.
--
3.9
4.1
--
NOTES: 1. Included in "other inert".
2.. Includes shingles.
3..." Other" is a `forced' category including everything not accounted for individually.
4. Included with other above
5. Included with asphalt in " inert"
Our ability to develop programs and policies that reduce the amount of construction and
demolition waste landfilled is based on the composition of waste and markets for those materials.
The first two studies by SCS Engineers are not exactly comparable to the third one conducted by
staff on all loads entering the C &D area, but some inferences can be made from the data to
determine the potential for diversion.
Inert Debris
Averaging the percentages of materials by category over the three sorting sampling events shows
that inert material, at, 43 %, is the largest category of C &D waste. While this material is
4
generically useful as road base or alternative daily /weekly landfill cover, the local market is very
limited by availability of high quality quarried stone and cheap cover material. We therefore
assume that with a semi - automated processing facility, a maximum of 35% of the 43% that is
inert (15% of all C &D waste) may be readily useful for some of the required weekly cover on the
C &D debris working face or other on -site uses. We believe the road -base grade material that
could be made from crushing the concrete, brick and rock could not at this time compete
economically with the locally available quarried aggregate, nor would it be likely to meet most
technical specifications for compaction, especially those for public road construction.
Clean Wood Waste and Pallets
The clean wood and lumber category represents an average 17 % by weight of the C &D waste.
This does not include painted and treated wood for which there are no markets. Due to its bulky
nature, wood takes up a disproportionate share of air space so diverting it has value above the
market value of the end - product. Wood has proven current markets as reusable lumber, boiler
fuel, mulch and similar low grade products. Potential future markets include particle board
furnish or finger jointed lumber. The actual product mix produced for a boiler fuel or mulch
would be determined by the specific market. We assume that an absolute maximum of 90
percent of this material could be diverted from landfilling for recycling, using a 10% tolerance
level at the landfill for discards and uncapturable material. That is 15% of the C &D waste.
There is almost no possibility of reaping net revenue from producing boiler fuel or mulch, once
grinding and transportation costs are accounted for. However the fact that there are markets
makes clean wood an attractive target for diversion.
Pallets average 2% of our waste stream or 670 tons. They can be marketed as whole pallets or
become part of the wood waste stream for mulch or boiler fuel if unsalable. We estimate we
could capture a total about 90% of them. We are now capturing 7% of them through the salvage
program. We realize $0.50 per pallet revenue for about 50% of pallets salvaged for reuse sized
40" x48" or grocery store types. The other sizes are given to the pallet re- manufacturer at no fee
or price.
Drywall
Drywall averages 12% of the waste stream. There are limited but proven negative markets for
this material if it is clean, unpainted and not contaminated with other construction waste. We
assume about 50% of this could be available for recycling either source - separated or through a
hand - separation process. The known market for separated dry wall is a negative market in which
we would have to pay a tipping fee of at least $12 per ton plus our handling and transportation
costs.
3
Metals
Metals represent about 2.5% of the waste stream on average. We assume a maximum of 90% of
that could be captured. We are now capturing an estimated 40% or 30 tons per month. The
markets are long -term and stable although prices vary widely, beginning at $30 per ton last year
down to $10 per ton now.
All other C &D materials
The remaining materials including carpet, insulation, plastics, treated and painted wood and
other unrecoverable materials make up an average 11% of the waste stream. While there are
some emerging markets for certain types of carpeting and other specialty materials, these are a
very small amount of our waste and must be thoroughly separated to have any market value at
all.
B. Waste Tonnage Projections
Below in Table lb, we present six years of data from separated landfilling of construction and
demolition waste from mixed waste. Prior to 1993, we combined C &D waste with mixed solid
waste, separating out only the inert debris, yard waste and stumps. Generally C &D has averaged
about one -third of the overall waste stream, excluding coal ash.
It is difficult to predict the flow of construction and demolition waste in Orange County.
We have presented a truncated table of possible future C &D generation based on a report
submitted previously to the Owners Group by Joyce Engineering as part of our C &D landfill
search. Their tonnages to be landfilled already assume a diversion rate of 10 %.
A review of the fluctuation in C &D waste landfilled in Table 1 b shows no correlation with the
population growth in Orange County. There is also no correlation with implementation of
construction and demolition waste reduction efforts except that, in general, C &D landfilled per
capita is below the baseline 1991 -92, for each year of record in which C &D was landfilled
separately from mixed solid waste.
rI
Table lb. C &D waste generation 1993- 2020 Orange Regional Landfill
Year
Tonnage
Populatio
n1
Pounds of
C &D/Person
% change from base year
1991 -92
34,1452
97,746
699 (est)
N/a
1993 -94
25,9633
102,598
506
-2%
94 -95
32,286
104,196
620
-11%
95 -964
31.207
105,769
590
-16%
96 -97
33,858
107,253
632
-10%
97 -98
30,168
108,752
555
-21 %
98 -99
33,576
110,581
607
-13%
99 -20 to date
7,652
112,436
N/A
N/A
99 -2000 est.
29,370
112,436
522
-25%
2000 -01
30,848
114,268
540
-23%
2004 -05
29,103
121,365
479
-31%
2009 -10
30,060
129,461
464
-34%
2014 -15
31,944
137,689
464
-34%
2019 -2020
33,974
146,440
1464
-34%
NOTES:
1. Population estimates from office of state planning
2. Estimated based on 1/3 of total waste as C &D
3. Combines C &D and inert debris plus stumps
4. Corrugated cardboard ban instituted March 1996
Section C. Current Recycling _and Waste Reduction Practices
This section summarizes the Landfill Owners Group's efforts over the past six years to reduce
the amount of construction and demolition waste landfilled in Orange County. The options vary
widely from projects conducted at the landfill, including the currently successful, but limited
salvage program to non - structural, and regulatory measures such as solid waste planning
component of The Town of Chapel Hill's development ordinance.
We have included as attachment 1 -1 a summary of regional C &D projects undertaken over the
past six years by Triangle J Regional Council of Governments. The COG's regional solid waste
planning effort has provided practical information to builders on how to reduce waste including
their Waste Spec manual and networking opportunities for solid waste planners in the region to
discuss C &D recycling. Further, the COG has attempted to develop and promote regional
solutions to some of the construction and demolition waste problems that all the counties in our
region now face. None of those has been successful.
1.Summary of Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction Activities in
Orange County 1992- 1999
1992: Town of Chapel Hill enacted a Solid Waste Planning requirement as amendment to its
Development Ordinance. This ordinance amendment requires any developments needing a
special use permit or zoning compliance permit to develop a solid waste management plan that
states how they will manage construction waste, how they will provide for on -site storage of
recyclable materials and how they will consider use of building materials with recycled content.
The ordinance has been effective primarily in the area of requiring storage for recyclable
materials in the finished development. The component detailing how construction and
demolition wastes could be recycled and reduced lacks strong enforcement provisions but is
currently undergoing revisions. Information on building materials with recycled content is
regularly provided to builders, but there has been limited opportunity to followup on their use at
our current staffing levels.
1995 —1996: Wood waste diversion. In 1995, we diverted a sample of unpainted, untreated
construction wood waste including both solid sawn lumber and plywood for testing. The material
was ground up, aged, mixed with yard waste and tested for heavy metals and volatile organic
compounds. The stormwater runoff was also sampled. The results of testing showed no heavy
metals or volatile organic compounds present in the wood samples. The State DENR ruled that,
in order to accept plywood or other engineered wood in the yard waste grinding program, we
would have to receive a special permit for composting at the landfill. There was speculation that
the material would not gain market acceptance as the yard waste had due to the presence of
recognizable chunks of plywood and long splinters of lumber. The project was terminated in
1997.
Marketing studies for wood waste were conducted in 1995 -6 and again in 1998. The second
round of market study identified several opportunities for wood waste diversion through
contractors and industrial use. Further wood market work is required to ensure that any
construction lumber diverted from landfilling is productively reused, composted, or recycled.
That work will occur this year.
November, 1995: Landfill and local governments enacted a ban on landfilling
non - residential corrugated cardboard. (implemented March, 1996) This ban, actually a penalty
equal to twice the tipping fee, has resulted in an almost complete elimination of the landfilling of
corrugated cardboard in the construction and demolition waste landfill. Cardboard that is included
in loads of construction and demolition waste delivered to the landfill can, to avoid the double tip
fee penalty, be diverted to dumpsters dedicated to recycling cardboard that we have located on the
landfill site. A 1999 amendment to the ban increasing the double tipping fee penalty by $400 for
large loads containing over 50% corrugated cardboard further decreased the volume of cardboard
disposed by a small group of violators.
0
June — August 1996: Conducted outreach to building and construction sector on developing
alternatives for managing construction and demolition wastes through a roundtable with local
builders and planning department regulators. At the roundtable, the builders' key point was they
preferred economic incentives and price signals to any further regulations.
September 1996: Issued a Request for Expression of Interest in development of construction
and demolition waste facility at Orange Regional Landfill. Most of the seven replies were not
directly responsive. One substantive reply from Phoenix Recycling, then of Havelock NC, now
of Charlotte, NC, required a waste stream of over 60,000 tons per year as a minimum and at tip
fee of $22 per ton.
[NOTES: The Havelock C &D recycling facility, still identified as Phoenix Recycling, operates
under different management and also accepts selected loads of construction waste containing
recyclable materials such as wood, metal and dirt but not very mixed loads with large amounts of
unrecyclable material. At their current Charlotte facility, Phoenix accepts mixed loads at $28
per ton and source separated loads at $15. They receive approximately 240 tons per day, but need
300 tons. By contrast we received approximately 120 tons per working day or 33, 600 tons last
year of C &D at Orange Regional Landfill]
1993,1998: Differential fees for recyclable construction wood and metal. In 1993, the landfill
implemented a ban on yard waste and initiated a lower tipping fee for separated yard waste than
solid waste. The lower fee was also applied to solid sawn lumber, excluding pallets and
engineered wood waste. That was to encourage separation of wood waste from construction.
The differential fee is now $12 v. $40 for mixed construction waste. Very little construction
wood is observed to be diverted in response to the differential fees.
1998: the Landfill Owners Group authorized reduction in tipping fees for separated metal to $0.
Eighteen percent of the scrap metal recycled at the landfill or 64 tons were diverted as a result of
eliminating the fee. The remaining 295 tons were salvaged by the landfill recycling materials
handler.
1997- 98: Establishment of salvage program at Orange Regional Landfill C &D working face.
One -man salvage operation averages 39 tons per month of scrap metal, pallets, reusable lumber,
doors, windows and other items. This represented 1.4% of C &D tonnage last year. The scrap
metal (77% of total) and pallets (8 %) are resold to scrap dealers. Reusable goods (14 %) are used
in landfill construction, donated to local area non - profits and businesses, or sold to the public. A
small amount ( <1 %) was test - ground as wood chips and sold to a local industrial boiler operator.
The chips did not meet the company's specifications. No more chips have been produced.
Section D Connection to Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan/Goals
In 1997, the governments adopted solid waste management goals of a reduction of waste by 45%
per person by 2001 and 61% per person by 2006 when compared with a 1991 -92 baseline. The
7
initial focus of the waste reduction effort was to be on mixed solid waste or what we commonly
think of as garbage. The plan framework adopted by the governments included methods for
reduction of mixed solid waste but not construction and demolition waste specifically. (see
attachment 1 -2)
Initially a lesser emphasis in the earlier phase of the solid waste plan was to be placed on
reducing construction and demolition waste, a target reduction of 20% per person was set in the
plan (see attachment 1 -3). The bigger reduction push for the C &D sector, was to follow
complete implementation of the elements of the plan to reduce mixed solid waste. However,
over the past six months, C &D issues have become more important due to the imminent closure
of the C &D landfill. Therefore, the short term emphasis is now on resolving construction and
demolition waste management efforts. That resolution may include a significant effort to reduce
C &D. Attachment 1 -3 shows a much greater projected reduction in C &D per capita to reach the
overall goal by 2006, going down from the 699 pounds per person per year to 300 pounds per
person per year by 2006.
One thing is clear from the table and from the nature of our waste stream consisting of one -third
C &D. We will not meet our adopted goals without a reduction in construction and demolition
waste landfilled.
In the intervening two and a half years since the plan framework was adopted, management of
C &D has clearly become more a priority due to the impending closure of the C &D area of the
current landfill. Thus, the planning priorities for solid waste reduction may change in the short
run to focus more on methods to reduce C &D while we also look for a more permanent solution
for managing the non - recoverable C &D.
As of June 30, 1999, due only in some small part to our direct efforts at reducing C &D waste, the
C &D generation rate has fallen 15% to 607 pounds per person compared with the 1991 -92 base
year estimated generation rate of 699 pounds per person. Table 1 b shows a considerable
fluctuation in C &D per capita regardless of population in any given year. Our initial analysis has
shown a closer correlation of C &D landfilled per person with weather conditions, specifically
annual rainfall, than population growth.
Regardless of the causes of reduction in C &D to date, we will not meet our planned C &D goal of
300 pounds per person by 2006 without a plan, a strategy and resources in getting to the
reduction goals. Section 4 of this report addresses some possible strategies for moving towards
our waste reduction goals in C &D.
8
Chapter 2 Temporary Options for C &D Management
In evaluating potential options for managing C &D wastes on a temporary basis we have identified
three reasons for which a temporary solution may be necessary. Each of the reasons for a temporary
(interim) solution will be discussed in some detail, offering options for proceeding.
1) to provide for C &D wastes until a new C &D landfill is ready,
2) a decision is made to place C &D wastes into the lined MSW landfill, with the intention of
finding a final solution for both MSW and C &D wastes once the MSW facility is full,
3) a decision is made to develop a new C &D landfill site that is sized to reach capacity at the
same time as the MSW facility, with the intention of finding a final solution for both
MSW and C &D waste once the MSW facility is full.
A. Development of a New C &D Landfill Will Not Be Completed In Time
The only site currently still under consideration as a C &D landfill is the 33 acre Eubanks Road site.
Significant geotechnical and other permitting work has been performed and a site plan application is
ready for submission to the state for review, pending resolution of two permitting issues. If this site
is ultimately selected, we believe that a minimum of 8 months from the BOCC decision to choose
this site would be necessary to complete the design and construct the facility. Essentially, this
means that if the BOCC makes this decision prior to the winter holiday vacation, we believe the site
could be ready when needed (approx. July, 2000).
If a new siting process is initiated, we believe that having the facility ready when the existing
facility reaches capacity is improbable. It would be our estimate that a new siting process,
permitting, design, and construction would take a minimum of one year. It is unclear what the cost
of a new siting process might be until a process is more clearly defined.
1. Amending Existing C &D Permit for Vertical_ Expansion
We have recently evaluated the concept of vertically expanding the existing C &D landfill by about
18' -20'. It is our estimate that such a modest expansion would extend the life of the existing facility
by about 18 months (from July 2000 to January 2002). This expansion would still be 12' below the
adjacent closed MSW landfill and would also be well below the surrounding buffer of trees to the
north and east. The expansion would not be more noticeable from surrounding neighbors than the
current permitted C &D elevation.
Unless otherwise directed, we are proceeding to prepare our amendment for submission to the state
for approval. Our staff landfill engineer will draft the necessary documents and submit them by
Z
mid - November, assuming BOCC concurrence. We anticipate that the state will provide a timely
approval.
Key Issues
* additional capacity could obviate the need for a temporary solution and allow time to
finalize decisions regarding a new C &D landfill or other permanent solution
* relatively easy to prepare the amendment
* uncomplicated and noncontroversial nature of amendment anticipated to lead to prompt
state approval
* no lapse in fund tipping fee revenue
Costs
There would be virtually no cost related to this option, excepting the staff time involved preparing
the amendment and some limited survey work.
2. Placing C &D in MSW Landfill
In the event that a new C &D landfill would not be ready at the time that our existing facility is full,
one option is to simply shift the C &D wastes, for a few weeks to a few months, to the lined MSW
landfill. There are several key issues that we believe should be considered regarding this option.
Key Issues
* each two months C &D is diverted to the MSW area we would loose one month
(approximately) of MSW life
* the lined landfill is permitted to receive C &D wastes
* there would be no disruption of local disposal service
* there would be no interruption of enterprise fund revenue
* there would be no illegal dumping or other potential negative repercussions of not having
local disposal options
* there would be some modest reduction in C &D salvage opportunities
Costs
The only cost associated with this option is the difference between the value of MSW (lined)
airspace and C &D airspace. It is generally understood that a significant difference exists between
the value of lined landfill space and unlined landfill space. While precise calculations are not
readily available for our facility, the customary estimate of the difference that has been used in
professional journals and in discussions with other solid waste professionals is about $20,000-
40,000 /acre for unlined C &D space to about $250,000- $350,000 /acre for lined space.
10
3. Suspension of Acceptance of C &D
It is possible to suspend Orange County's provision of C &D disposal services for a few weeks or
months. Users could be provided a list of other available permitted disposal alternatives within the
Piedmont region and asked to take their materials there until a local facility becomes available. A
comprehensive list of permitted C &D facilities state -wide is included as attachment 2 -1
Key Issues
* some level of illegal disposal activity should be anticipated
* fund would forgo approximately $113,000 /month revenue
* inconvenience for Orange County users
* hauler could be mix C &D materials with MSW requiring disposal in the lined landfill
* relatively easy to implement
* would be the first time in 27 years that no local C &D disposal option is available
Costs
Other than the lost tipping fee revenue for Orange County, all other costs would be borne by the
haulers. These additional expenses would primarily be associated with increased hauling costs to
more distant facilities.
4. Hauling C &D to the Durham Transfer Station
Hauling Orange County C &D to the City of Durham transfer station is an option that the solid waste
staffs of both governments`have previously discussed. Several operational/contractual issues have
been raised regarding this option (as well as other joint transfer station concepts). Nevertheless, this
remains an option, notwithstanding concerns.
Key Issues
* staff of both governments raise concerns regarding any but the most short term use of this
option
* there would be disruption of local service
* fund would forgo $113,000 /month revenue
* it is uncertain what level of illegal disposal may occur
* relatively easy to implement
* we would anticipate a reduction in C &D salvage opportunities
* would require some formal agreement with the City of Durham
* inconvenience to Orange County haulers
* Durham's transfer station has limited capabilities for accepting any additional waste,
particularly C &D wastes
11
Costs
Orange County would experience a temporary loss of tipping fee revenue. The haulers would incur
additional hauling costs to the Durham transfer facility.
B. Placing_C &D in MSW Landfill for the Duration of MSW Capacity
This option assumes that the BOCC directs that C &D wastes be placed in the MSW facility until the
MSW facility reaches capacity. It also assumes that prior to capacity being reached, that a long
term solution for both C &D and MSW is formulated and implemented.
If, as is our understanding, the long term solution for managing MSW is to develop a transfer
station, then it is our recommendation that we quickley begin the transfer station development
process, including the necessary first step of formally selecting a site. As previously stated, we
estimate that for each two months of C &D waste going to the MSW facility, we would lose about
one month of MSW capacity. This estimation results from current C &D tonnages operating at
about half of the MSW tonnages.
Key Issues
* each two months C &D is diverted to the MSW area we would loose one month
(approximately) of MSW life
* the lined landfill is permitted to receive C &D wastes
* there would be no disruption of local disposal service
* there would be no illegal dumping or other potential negative repercussions of not having
local disposal options
* there would be some reduction in C &D salvage opportunities
* MSW landfill would reach capacity in 2004 rather than the currently estimated 2006
* preparations for the development of a transfer station must be advanced to become a
current priority
* the current transfer station financing scheme must be revisited
Costs
There are important costs considerations associated with this option.
By advancing the need to begin development of a transfer station, we must reexamine the current
financing strategy of paying for the facility from a reserve fund that is currently scheduled to have
the funds for the facility on hand in FY 2005/06 rather than 2003 /04. The new schedule would
leave us about $1,225,000 deficient in this reserve fund. Significant adjustments in the landfill fund
reserve fund would be necessary in order to fully fund a transfer station in 2004. Please see also the
earlier discussion regarding the relative values of C &D and MSW air space.
12
C. Develop a New Interim C &D Landfill Whose Capacity Would Coincide With the
Remaining Capacity of the MSW Landfill
This option would require a new C &D landfill be developed, however, the new facility would be
sized to reach capacity at the same time as the MSW (lined) landfill reaches capacity. It assumes
that a long term approach for both types of waste will have been developed and implemented by the
2006. It does not necessarily assume that there is one solution for both wastes, however, this could
be the case.
There is no apparent financial or operational benefit to developing such a short duration site except
that it could be done in order to coincide with the remaining capacity of the MSW facility.
Key Issues
* siting and permitting process/decisions for a small, approximately 5 -6 year site would be
virtually identical to that of a long term, permanent site
* presumably a smaller property could be developed, however, the minimum 200' buffer
requirements would still apply
* would result in two siting processes/decisions rather than one (interim and permanent) if
the long term C &D solution is to continue landfilling what cannot be recycled
* costs for siting/development/permitting for a smaller site similar to that of a larger site
with much less return on the public fund investment
* there would be no disruption of local disposal service
* small site development/operations would cost more per ton and generate less revenue per
ton
* there would be no illegal dumping or other potentially negative repercussions of not
having local disposal options
* could negatively impact the ability to salvage /recycle because of long term uncertainties
regarding location and the reluctance to develop permanent recycling facilities at a
temporary disposal site
* such a small site would still be committed to a 30 year post - closure
maintenance/monitoring required of C &D facilities and related expenses
Costs
The economics of siting, permitting, and operating a small, limited duration site would be very
unfavorable. In fact, we believe that there is no financial benefit to purposely developing a 5 -6 year
C &D disposal facility. We believe that it would be much less costly to simply divert C &D to the
MSW landfill and develop a final solution for both materials in 2004 rather than in going through
the difficulty and expense of developing a new C &D landfill for such a short period of time.
13
Chapter 3 Long Term Options for C &D Management (key issues /costs)
We have identified several possible options for long term management of C &D wastes which
cannot reasonably be recycled. As each option is examined, it may be useful to keep in mind
various long term considerations that are relative to each. These include:
* financial impacts/risks
* environmental impacts/risks
* operational reliability /sustainability
* consistency with overall goals /objectives
* local control
* community acceptance /need
* flexibility to accommodate future changes
* compatibility with waste reduction/recycling
Once the BOCC determines which of the options presented are of most interest, staff can provide
more detailed operational and cost information as necessary.
A. Selecting the Eubanks Road Site
Earlier this year the local governments instituted a C &D landfill siting study which resulted in two
sites being considered. These sites resulted from siting criteria developed by the Landfill Owners
Group. The BOCC subsequently removed one of the sites from further consideration. The
remaining site is a 33 acre site located adjacent to the current landfill on Eubanks Road. Depending
on the level of commitment to C &D recycling/waste reduction, the site could last from 14 to 19
years.
Key Issues
* only remaining site from recent siting process
* with minimal recycling/waste reduction site should be considered interim
* with significant commitment to recycling site could be considered permanent
* would require condemnation of three small parcels totaling about 14 acres
* would require agreement with Duke University regarding use of Duke property for buffer
area; Duke has agreed
* site could be quickly and inexpensively developed
* Rogers Road community opposed to site
* site could be integrated into existing solid waste operations
* selection of this site would resolve a major solid waste problem and allow attention to be
diverted to C &D/MSW recycling and waste reduction
* would continue to provide a source of revenue to the enterprise fund
* significant investment already made for preliminary geotechnical/engineering work
* will provide location for emergency /disaster waste response
14
Costs
Approximately $64,000 has been spent to date for permitting/engineering for this site. Additional
costs to acquire and develop this site would be approximately $350,000. We believe that no other
site in Orange County could be acquired and developed as inexpensively. This is due in part to
some of the proposed site already being owned by the Landfill Fund and Duke University providing
the buffer area. Additional savings are available due to the site's proximity to our existing landfill
infrastructure.
Funds are available in a Landfill Reserve Fund - Reserved for Acquisitions & Construction.
B. Permanently Ceasing C &D Management
The option of Orange County simply getting out of the business of managing C &D wastes has been
discussed previously. Since state law does not require Orange County to provide such facilities,
C &D waste management could be considered as not being an essential public service.
C &D waste for FY 1998 -99 totaled 33,577 tons, or 36.6% of all Orange County waste disposed. It
is clear that as Orange County continues it's rapid growth the production of C &D wastes will
continue.
In May of 1998 we conducted an analysis (attachment 3 -1) of the 2,089 C &D waste deliveries for
the month. Of the total, 1,255 (60.1 %) were loads of less than 1 ton. This indicates that the
majority of the loads are quite small. The analysis also indicated that the Orange County
government (permits) was the single largest identifiable small load customer at 286 loads or 23% of
all loads under 1 ton. This analysis would seem to conclude that the absence of a "local" C &D
disposal facility would most heavily impact customers with smaller loads of C &D waste.
Additionally, we also conducted a survey of all incoming loads for a one week period in June of
1998. The results of this survey are also included in attachment 3 -1.
Key Issues
* have provided local C &D management options since 1972
* no law requiring Orange County to provide these facilities
* no other Orange County C &D disposal options available
* limited regional C&D options available
* would likely result in use of illegal handling of C &D waste by illegal dumping, burning,
on -site burying, etc.
* continued generation of significant amounts of these wastes is likely given level of growth
in the county
* even if these wastes were hauled our -of -county they would still count against Orange
County in calculating progress toward waste reduction goals
15
* absence of a local disposal facility would likely result in significant reduction of local
C &D recycling opportunities
* even if major advances made in C &D waste reduction/recycling there will still be
substantial waste remaining needing disposal
* ceasing C &D operations would be relatively easy to implement
* would be likely to increase the cost of construction in the county
* would result in the loss of about $1,350,000 annually to the landfill enterprise fund
* will not provide for adequate means for emergency /disaster waste response
Costs
There would be a substantial loss of revenue to the landfill fund budget, estimated at about
$1,350,000 annually. Direct costs could include advertising the closure of the facility, cleanup of
illegal dumping, and stepped up enforcement of littering and other illegal acts.
Indirect costs could include increased cost of hauling and disposal for Orange County haulers that
would result in an increased cost for building construction.
C. C &D Transfer Station
We believe it is possible to construct a transfer station for C &D wastes. We have, however, been
unable to locate a transfer station dedicated to C &D materials anywhere in the United States. We
have spoken to public and private solid waste professionals, engineering consultants, and equipment
vendors nationwide in our pursuit of information regarding these facilities. Such a facility may
simply not exist. There are some municipal solid waste transfer stations that accept C &D wastes,
however, the percentage of C &D received is generally low primarily due to less expensive disposal
alternatives for C &D wastes.
We believe the primary reason that these facilities do not exist is due to the nature of C &D
materials. C &D waste is bulky, difficult to compact, abrasive, dense, and heavy. The transfer
equipment commonly used for municipal solid waste would have to be considerably strengthened
and enhanced to withstand the additional punishment of these materials. We think, however, that
these enhancements could be made.
Additionally, the trailers used to haul the materials would have to be made of 1/4" to 3/8" steel,
particularly the floors. This would add significant additional weight to the trailer. Given the strict
federal and state weight limits on these vehicles, the quantity of waste they could carry would be
diminished, resulting in excessively high costs for transportation. Whereas, the trailers used for
transporting municipal solid waste are made of aluminum, thus allowing a greater amount of waste
to be hauled in each load.
lull
Key Issues
* would likely require special equipment to be procured
* no such facilities exist which we could emulate; no apparent history
* hauling large quantities of these materials even short distances would be expensive
* permitted facilities which could receive our C &D waste exist within the region at a
reasonable tipping fee
* we believe it would be possible to build a transfer station that could handle both C &D and
MSW wastes
* will not provide for adequate means for emergency /disaster waste response
Costs
While we have not conducted the research necessary to provide reliable cost information, we are
certain that the costs to transfer this material would exceed the cost of a typical municipal solid
waste transfer station. We would expect the cost of disposal at the distant facility, however, would
be reasonable.
D. Joint C &D/MSW Transfer Station
Most of the issues surrounding transferring C &D waste were discussed in section C. above.
We believe that it would be possible to construct a transfer station capable of handling both C &D
and MSW.
Key Issues
* would likely require special equipment to be procured
* facilities do exist with receive MSW and small quantities of C &D
* hauling costs for MSW would be increased while disposal costs for C &D would be greater
* mixing C &D waste with MSW would require the C &D materials to be placed in an
expensive lined landfill at a greater distance from Orange County that if C &D were kept
separate
* will not provide for adequate means for emergency /disaster waste response
Costs
We believe that the costs for such a dual purpose facility would be significantly more than a MSW
only facility. Also, if the two materials were co- mingled, the C &D portion would be required to be
buried in a lined, Subtitle D landfill at a much greater cost that disposal in a C &D landfill.
17
E. Regional Solutions
Several efforts at regional waste management have been pursued in the triangle area over the past
few years, with little apparent success:
1. Greater Triangle Regional Council - Solid Waste Management Task Force
This Council was established in 1997, producing a report dated September 1997. The Council did
not address C &D waste management but focused on MSW.
2. Triangle J Council of Governments
a) We believe the most successful regional effort regarding C &D waste management is
Triangle J's Waste Spec. This is a publication that contains model specifications for construction
waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. The Solid Waste Department routinely refers this document
to architects and engineers.
b) The Triangle Region Solid Waste Planners Committee is a permanent committee
consisting of solid waste managers/directors from the triangle area. It has on several occasions
discussed regional opportunities for managing C &D wastes, including creation of a special C &D
Task Force. Due to the nature of C &D waste and its high cost of transportation these groups have
been unable to identify practical alternatives for regional cooperation.
c) Triangle J's Solid Waste Planners Committee released a report dated April 12, 1999 titled
"Regional Cooperation in Municipal Solid Waste Management in the Triangle J Region —
Recommendations for Longterm Planning" This report included C &D waste management in its
discussions. The report recommended additional work by Triangle J in developing desirable future
scenarios that could eventually lead to future research or action. The timeframe for completion of
the work is uncertain.
d) Triangle J is sponsoring an event called Future Search. This event will bring together
about 70 people from the Triangle J area to 1) envision how we should be managing our solid waste
one or two decades from now, and 2) begin planning how we might act together to achieve this
vision. The group will consist of a diverse group of stakeholders including elected officials and
staff from Orange County governments.
I Informal Discussions Between the City of Durham and Orange County
Please see discussion in Chapter 2.A.4
18
F. Initiating a New Site Search
It would be possible to initiate a new C &D landfill site search. A decision by the BOCC to do so
would likely need to begin as soon as possible due to the remaining capacity at the current facility.
However, if we obtain the vertical expansion of our existing facility and gain and additional 18
months, a new siting process could be concluded and new site permitted and developed without any
interruptions.
If this option is considered the BOCC should, as soon as possible, begin to contemplate the county
screening and selection criteria that would guide the search. A schedule should also be considered.
Given the Orange County governments past lack of success at siting solid waste facilities, there is
little indication that such a new process would be successful.
Key Issues
* would create another difficult siting process for both citizens living near the identified
sites as well as elected officials and staff
* no assurance of success in identifying a site, particularly as property must be freely
offered
* some new site could be discovered that could provide long term security for C &D
disposal as well as accommodate expanded recycling programs
* could expend $200,000+ in the search process
Cost
The costs associated with a comprehensive C &D landfill siting process would likely exceed
$200,000. If a long term facility is identified and developed, it would provide a permanent
source of supplemental revenue for the landfill enterprise fund.
19
Chapter 4 C &D Recycling Report Recycling/Waste Reduction
A. Prior Staff Research
The staff has conducted a significant amount of research on construction and demolition waste over
the past four years. A descriptive list of the research is included below. Work related to the recent
C &D siting process is not included in this list.
List and Description of Studies and projects on Construction and Demolition Waste Undertaken by
the Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste Management Department 1996 —1999. Prepared October 5,
1999. Updated October 21, 1999.
March, 1996: Implemented pilot program to divert 200 tons of asphalt roofing shingles from
landfill by charging lower tipping fee and working with roofers to prepare shingles for diversion.
Project ended in 1997 with no long term market available for old shingles.
June 20, 1996: Options for reducing construction and demolition waste. This memorandum
outlined regulation of waste on -site, use of differential tipping fees to encourage source separation,
processing of mixed construction waste, development of a new C &D landfill and establishing a
C &D waste reduction goal to complement the MSW waste reduction goal.
July 11,1996: Establish construction waste reduction goal of 25% reduction, recommend that local
governments adopt an ordinance strengthening the solid waste planning ordinance.
August 15, 1996: Alternatives to Landfilling Construction and Demolition Wastes at Orange
Regional Landfill: This memorandum describes several alternatives to pursue including burial in
the lined landfill, acquiring additional land for burial, banning C &D waste, acquiring additional
land for a recycling facility.
September 1996: Solicitation of expression of interest in C &D recycling in Orange County. 60
requests packets sent out. Seven replies received. One feasible proposal from among those. That one
required 60,000 tons per year of C &D.
October 1996: Week -long visual survey by staff of all loads entering C &D area. Data compiled
and translated from volume estimate to weight estimate.
November 21, 1996: Presentation of results of construction waste sort conducted in October 1996.
This showed a diversion potential of approximately 25% of the waste stream — wood, metal and
drywall.
December, 1996: Presentation of construction waste reduction options with cost estimates
attached. Building a semi - automated facility could cost $1.5 million. Estimate and concept plan
were reviewed by consulting engineers with expertise in C &D processing.
20
January, 1997: Established public forum on construction and demolition waste management and
provided information for the forum.
January, 1997: Regulating C &D through ordinances: This resolution urges the boards to pass
C &D ordinances that require separation of C &D and incorporates solid waste plan regulations
into all the plan development processes.
January, 1997: Selection of C &D waste management options: developed cost estimates for five
options for Orange County — expand landfill at existing site, new landfill, no- build, semi -
automated recycling facility, transfer station.
February, 1997: presentation by Richard Franck of Chapel Hill Town Council on Regional
Approaches to construction and demolition waste. Review of option in Sarasota County Florida
(Slides only, no written report) Presentation of data on potentially recyclable construction waste.
(previously presented, November 1996)
May, 1997: Budget items for Construction and Demolition waste separation program: passed,
staff hired December 1997 and program initiated. First quarter 1999, average diversion of 45
tons per month averaging. 50% metal. 40% pallets, 10% reusable items including other lumber,
furniture, and fixtures.
May, 1997: Construction waste reduction program: Request to establish source - separation and
enforcement program and ordinances for each jurisdiction, not passed.
June, 1997: Consideration of funding mechanisms for source separation and enforcement
program other than use of tipping fees. One approach presented was use of a surcharge on
building permits. That approach later found to be not allowed by statute. Revenue from permits
was not closely enough tied to expenditure for C &D waste prevention.
February, 1998: Alternatives for a C &D disposal facility: Options for locating a C &D disposal
facility. Resolution by LOG to local governments recommending search for a new site.
*Included Joyce Engineering Report on " Study of Solid Waste Management Options for Greene
and Neville Tracts, Orange Co. NC" submitted Feb 4, 1998. Part of report specifically about
C &D landfill options for this site including conceptual plan.
March, 1998: Search for a C &D disposal site. This memorandum to the Chapel Hill Town
Council presented the State's criteria for a C &D site and requested Council authorization to
proceed with a search for a stand -alone C &D landfill site.
May, 1998: Consideration of Future C &D sites. Joyce Engineering study of five potential C &D
sites resulting from previously authorized search for property in Orange County for C &D
landfill. By the time of the meeting, two sites were sold, two were available, one was too wet for
a landfill.
21
May, 1998: Survey of C &D origin of loads: surveyed all trucks for one week carrying C &D to
landfill. One conclusion: 50% of vehicles were pickup trucks.
June, 1998: Funding for C &D site acquisition
September, 1998: Public hearing on C &D sites with preliminary engineering/information
reports on Eubanks, Blackwood and site off Old NC 86.
October, 1998: Regulating Construction and Demolition Wastes: Memo recommends that
Owners Group consider regulating construction and demolition wastes to reduce their generation.
Ordinance prepared for Chapel Hill by attorney /intern for Solid Waste Dept. and given to County
Attorney for review.
December, 1998: Update on construction and demolition waste options. Re- presented previous
information on regulating C &D for source - separation and semi - automated, centralized,
mechanical separation.
December, 1998: Engineering report on additional C &D siting options with maps of various
sites.
February 1999: Letter report from Orange County Planning Department regarding: Burying
C &D materials in Orange County.
March, 1999: Request for information on C &D landfill siting. Description of criteria used for
identifying potential sites for a C &D landfill. Reply to LOG member query. That stated 16 sites
were identified, none of which was ultimately found suitable.
May, 1999: Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction Program and Ordinance
The report summarizes the possible approaches to regulating construction and demolition waste.
The resolution from the LOG recommends that the County develop a single county -wide
ordinance regulating C &D waste rather than have each jurisdiction establish its own regulatory
procedures.
B. Regulatory Measures
One of the two general approaches to reducing construction wastes involves use of a
combination of regulatory measures and pricing tools to control the management of C &D debris.
One C &D management model couples use of these regulatory and pricing measures with source -
separated processing and marketing of materials at a centralized, publicly controlled site. The
other general approach is to construct and operate a centralized sorting facility to separate and
process mixed C &D materials. The sorting facility approach is addressed in section C2 below.
Section B immediately below focuses on the first approach. Section C1 focuses on the corollary
processing and sorting of the source - separated materials.
22
Construction and demolition waste can be regulated in four ways:
* using planning requirements,
* by requiring job site separation,
* requiring separation by the hauler, and
* at the landfill /management site.
In addition, prior information and education of designers, builders and developers can take place
that creates the potential to reduce waste through efficient design. An example of this approach
is Waste Spec, the publication produced by Triangle J Council of governments that provides
designers and architects with model specifications for how to handle every aspect of construction
and demolition waste. Use of these specifications has been proven in specific case studies
documented by the COG (attachment 4 -1) to reduce waste management costs at most
construction projects where the specs were applied. The most effective approach to reducing the
amount of construction waste landfilled would integrate all these methods.
1.Plannin,Q for waste reduction:
As a condition of granting permits to develop, a government could require that each developer
submit a plan demonstrating how they intend to manage the discards from the construction and
demolition process at the proposed development. For example: The Town of Chapel Hill now
requires a solid waste plan submittal for any project requiring a special use permit or zoning
compliance permit. The Solid Waste Management Department manages this function as well as
provides information on construction materials with recycled content.
The Town's Development Ordinance requires that the project developer submit a solid waste
plan that states:
How he /she will reduce and recycle construction and demolition waste generated at the job site.
How recyclable materials generated at the completed facility will be handled, including the
number and location of containers and how service vehicles will be able to access them.
The Town's solid waste plan requirement creates an opportunity to educate designers, developers
and builders on construction waste reduction and recycling, but as it is currently written, there is
no requirement to implement the parts of the plan that address how material could be recycled
from the job site. Only section b, requiring that some outdoor space be allocated for recycling, is
enforceable undercurrent Town Development Ordinance. The solid waste plan requirement is
currently being re -written to strengthen and streamline it.
W
Key Issues:
A solid waste planning requirement could be adopted by other jurisdictions in the County as a
condition of issuance of development permits. This would require coordination among
jurisdictions to adopt similar ordinances and staff to enforce the ordinances.
The Planning and Building Inspections Departments would need to be involved to track when
and where developments were permitted, scheduled and initiated.
Costs
Staff would be required for effective implementation of these ordinances.
Generally a requirement to plan is useful if either economics or enforcement of regulations
results in implementation of its measures. The sections below outline how those regulations
might be implemented.
2.Requiring waste separation at the source.
It is possible to require that builders separate recyclable materials. This would essentially be a
mandatory recycling ordinance for construction, and possibly demolition, waste. It could be
enforced by requiring source separation of certain marketable materials as a condition of
issuance of the building permit or as part of a general ordinance regulating construction and
demolition waste management in Orange County.
There are some nuances as to how this type of regulation may be implemented and enforced by
local governments. An attorney, working as an intern in the Solid Waste Mangement Department
previously (October 1997) developed a memorandum analyzing local authority to implement such
regulations. Subsequently he drafted an ordinance (Feb. 1998) that would regulate construction and
demolition waste separately from the building inspections framework. The draft ordinance was
written in the context of the North Carolina municipal code which may differ from the County code.
We have requested a review of this ordinance by the County attorney to determine its applicability
to County code of ordinances.
Key Issues:
We believe that mandating source - separation of construction waste it is better pursued as a
separate ordinance under the police powers of the County, because it appears strategically,
politically, and legally difficult to make a mandatory source - separation ordinance part of the
building code for only Orange County or anywhere in North Carolina as long as approval of the
Building Codes Council is required.
24
A single county -wide ordinance could be used to require source - separation that each jurisdiction
would adopt by reference.
Costs:
Staff would be required to ensure enforcement of separation. If building inspection staff were
used to enforce the source - separation requirements, considerable inter - departmental coordination
would be required.
3. Licensing Waste Haulers in the County and making separation of construction and demolition
materials a condition of the license.
This is a measure that would be necessary along with the mandatory source - separation requirement
for builders to further ensure proper separation. There is so much construction that on -site
inspection of all sites is not practical. It is also possible that haulers could go to disposal locations
other than the local landfill so enforcement at the only the landfill would also be insufficient.
Requiring separation by haulers is part of the draft ordinance referred to above. The point of
enforcing the source separation ordinance for haulers is to create another legal tool for separating
construction and demolition waste. It may be difficult to enforce source - separation at the building
site only. Under the draft ordinance, haulers would have to be licensed to do business in Orange
County, and the license would be revocable if the hauler were found hauling improperly segregated
materials.
Key Issues:
Licensing of haulers is an additional administrative function that would have to be applied to
those based in the county as well as doing business here. Many nuances to the licensing
procedure would need to be worked out before it could be properly constructed and applied.
Inspection of loads and enforcement would be potentially complex.
Costs
Licensing costs are likely small and could be integrated into existing issuance of business
licenses and other similar permits. Enforcement of source - separation by haulers would require
staff.
4. Providing Differential Tipping Fees and Material Bans at the C &D Landfill
These measures are corollary to requiring waste separation at the construction site. They are
discussed in more detail in section D. Bans and fees would be necessary to provide waste
reduction incentives at the local, publicly -owned landfill, but not sufficient because the C &D
waste may have a different destination. Regardless of where construction and demolition waste
generated in Orange County is disposed it will count against our waste reduction goals no matter
25
where it is disposed. Further, disposal at sites other than a local site simply shifts the location but
does not contribute to waste reduction.
Mandatory source - separation of multiple C &D materials is not practiced anywhere in North
Carolina. The only places in the country we are aware of now requiring source separation of
construction and demolition wastes are Portland Oregon and Passaic New Jersey. Any strategy
based on policing of C &D waste to ensure proper separation for recycling or reuse, would
require significant enforcement infrastructure.
Key Issues:
This is the simplest aspect of regulatory measures to implement as we have control over the
existing C &D landfill. The Board of Commissioners could enact disposal bans or additional fees
for improperly separated loads. Too rigorous a set of enforcement regulations could result in
illegal dumping, loss of revenue from materials going to other facilities or numerous conflicts
over tolerance levels for "banned" materials. e.g. "How much wood is too much mixed in a load
where clean construction wood was "banned ?"
Costs:
We believe that if bans or differential fees were implemented, we would be obligated to provide
alternative management facilities and techniques for the source - separated materials. Those
facilities would require staff and capital investments to be effective.
C. Processing and Sorting
Construction and demolition materials may be source - separated as result of regulation, economic
incentives and disincentives, or desire of construction and demolition contractors to conform to
environmentally sound practices. Separated materials are typically delivered to a processing site.
Even when source - separated, additional handling and processing are required before such materials
are marketable.
C &D materials may also be mixed together at the work site and delivered to a disposal or recycling
facility and disposed or separated there. Typically, it is less expensive and more efficient to
processing and recycling operations at a disposal site to eliminate need to further handle and
transport residues and unrecyclable loads.
1. Source Separation
Under either the source - separated or mixed debris processing scenario, there are expenses
associated with sorting and processing materials for markets. It is typically simpler and less
expensive to manage source - separated materials than mixed materials received at a recycling site
because the sorting costs have been " shifted" upstream to the generator or hauler.
26
Providing differential fees or bans on landfilling of certain materials can result in source
separation. Whether bans are state - mandated or locally passed; they can be effective with
rigorous enforcement. For example, The Orange Regional Landfill has had success with the
state - mandated ban on yard waste and the local ban non - residential corrugated cardboard. We
now convert over 5,000 tons annually of yard waste to marketable mulch and divert enough
corrugated cardboard to have saved eight months of landfill space over the remaining life of the
landfill. Many C &D facilities throughout the country routinely offer lower tipping fees to attract
source separated material.
Salvage operations at the working face or tipping floor can also be effective ways to divert
reusable and recyclable materials from the waste stream. The three centralized processing
facilities described in the table below, Iowa Central Demolition and Recycling facility,
Mecklenberg County's C &D recycling facility and the Gabbert and Meyer facility in Sarasota
Florida referenced below all have a hand- picking salvage component upstream of their
centralized processing areas. Very few facilities that manage C &D have only a hand - picking
operation or source - separated processing only. It is most often an integrated component of a
larger centralized processing system.
The section below draws examples of processing needed to further manage source - separated
loads from primarily our staff experience at Orange Regional Landfill C &D area. The handling
and market quality issues we have identified are typical of those faced by any C &D processor.
At the working face of our current C &D landfill, we collect for diversion to recycling or reuse
approximately 40 -50 tons per month of scrap metal, reusable goods, pallets and dimension
lumber. Some of this material arrives at the landfill source- separated, some is picked from the
working face and some is identified as an easily separable part of the load and contractors are
requested to separate the material further. Some small contractors voluntarily source - separate
with no additional incentives other than to avoid landfilling of potentially reusable materials..
Under any conditions, even source - separated materials require further handling and processing,
therefore costs before they can be marketed.
Metals: At a minimum, metals recycled at the landfill now must be inspected by staff for
contaminants, drums, and other types of metal objects prohibited by the scrap buyer. Once materials
are inspected, we load and compact metal in rolloff containers prior to collection by the scrap
dealer. A zero tipping fee for metals provides some separation incentive. About 20% or 64 tons of
the 332 tons of scrap metals collected at the landfill last fiscal year, were brought in source -
separated and received the zero tipping fee.
Clean Wood: All the potential markets we have identified have stated, wood waste must be
free of painted and treated wood and most also require that most nails and other be removed.
Some potential markets accept only solid lumber and no plywood or other engineered wood
products may be accepted even if unpainted and untreated. Rigorous inspection would be
27
required to ensure any separated wood was free of unwanted materials. Our current incentive fee
of $12 per ton for separated wood attracts almost no separated loads of wood waste.
Wood markets are so depressed that in most cases, we must pay to grind the wood and load it
into trailers before it is marketable. Typical market value is about $10 per ton delivered.
Grinding costs routinely exceed $10 per ton. The nearest solid fuel boilers are at least 40 miles
away. The one whole -board market we have identified in Charlotte requires that lumber be free
of nails and over 4 feet long and pays nothing for the wood.
Wooden shipping pallets must be mostly intact, to the point where they are stackable and staff
must stack and sort them by size once they are deposited at the landfill. We are paid a price of
$0.50 for only one popular size of pallet that makes up an average of about 50% of the load. The
other sizes are taken at no fee. We must load them and the company hauls them to Greensboro.
Drywall must be source - separated and free of contaminants. Typical handling includes dumping
drywall on a covered concrete tip floor, screening for contaminants, loading into a shipping
container, keeping drywall dry and shipping a minimum of 35 miles one -way to a market in
Goldston. The tip fee is $12 per ton their gate plus the hauling costs. We estimate a development
cost of about $100,000 for a drywall processing facility and transportation equipment.
Additional staff requirements would be determined by the development of other operations
situated in proximity to a drywall facility.
Inert Debris: Recycling of this material costs about $7.00 per ton according to national studies.
Locally quarried stone for road base and other construction applications is typically available for
less than this cost. Dirt which would compete with the fines or small particles produced as a by-
product in any C &D processing operation is cheaper and more readily usable than fines. Any
separated inert materials such as brick, block concrete, must be crushed for market and meet
various engineering specifications. It must compete against locally quarried, high quality rock
products. State and local engineering specifications often limit the applications of crushed inert
products to very low impact areas such as under sidewalks.
Other: There are niche markets for plastic buckets, free of residues and debris, vinyl pipe and
siding, and certain types of carpeting. Market specifications are rigorous. We receive relatively
small amounts of these materials and source separation would entail a large storage and
preparation area with little material potentially available for diversion. No viable market has yet
been identified for post - consumer shingles.
It is possible to use a series of regulations and economic incentives to cause some source -
separation. The per ton cost to process these materials at a central site is probably less than if a
centralized facility to process mixed C &D were built.
Key issues:
Tolerance levels for receiving materials as source separated require rigorous inspection.
28
Costs
With the exception of metals, all the materials markets are fairly low -value unless a capital
intensive, value -added processing line, such as producing wood furnish for particle board, is
added to the separation facility.There are costs associated with handling all types of materials,
source - separated or commingled.
2. Centralized Processing for mixed C &D Center
There are a number of semi - automated C &D processing facilities around the nation. In our
December 1998 report to the Landfill Owners Group, we reviewed three of them. All have a
specific relation with the public entities in whose jurisdiction they operate, ranging from being
co- located at a public landfill to free County land to flow control ensuring that C &D waste enters
the facility. All offer differential fees for source - separated materials. That economic incentive
can be sufficient to encourage separation if the fees for mixed materials are high enough and the
alternative destinations for materials are far enough away to cause haul costs to exceed the lower
tipping fees such facilities might offer. The results are shown in a table below and have been
updated for the current year.
Semi - automated recycling facilities for management of mixed construction and demolition waste
can divert from 25% to 95% of incoming materials from landfilling, depending on what is
permitted to enter the facility, prevailing tipping fees, available markets, and other specific local
conditions. The three facilities from which we gathered information handled a minimum of
50,000 tons per year each. We accept about 30,000 tons per year of in- county C &D only. To be
cost - effective, these capital- intensive facilities typically handle more than our waste stream alone
would provide.
The remander of this page is intentionally left blank.
Q,
Table 4 -1 Construction and Demolition Waste Processine Facilities
Name and location
Tons per
Tipping Fee
Percent
Types of
Remarks
year
Diversion
Materials
Recycled
Phoenix, Charlotte NC. Free land
45- 50,000
$25 per ton
25%-35%
Wood, metal,
Manager says
donated from Mecklenberg Co.
Inert debris,
they need to be
adjoins County compost facility
drywall, cardboard.
at a landfill.
where wood waste can go.
They ship out
residues for
landfilling
Meyer & Gabbert, Sarasota FL.
55,600
$44 per ton or
95%
Everything except
Inert material
Special contract with County. Co-
$9.65 per cubic
carpet, insulation,
used at
located at public landfill
yard
ungrindable paper,
adjoining
plastic sheeting,
publicly owned
filter cloth,
landfill for
furniture and
cover and road
buckets
materials
Central Demolition and
93,500
$30 per ton
45%
Yard waste, Wood,
Recycling rate
Construction. Des Moines, Iowa
mixed waste,
"recovered"
metal, drywall,
is that reported
(All private at private landfill).
$20 per ton for
for reuse,
corrugated
to State of
Has flow control arrangement
all -wood loads
recycling, or
cardboard. Asphalt
Iowa. Landfill
with local solid waste authority.
from select large
diversion e.g.
shingles (20% of
to close within
customers, $45
43% used for
recovered
two years.
per ton for
cover
materials) now
Opening new
stumps. Wood
material used
used in road blend
recycling plant
used for binder
for cover at
for dust control on
on 50 acre site
in compost,
MSW
local County gravel
in 2000.
marketed
&C &D
road. Will blend
Facility is self
cooperatively
landfill. <1%
with black top in
supporting
with private
organic
paving parking lots
from tip fees
composter,
content.
and bike paths. Test
plus revenues
wood fuel and
every load for
for material
furnish for fiber
asbestos.
sold. Have
board.
contractual
relationship
with the public
sector requiring
material to go
there.
C &D processing facilities are capital- intensive and relatively high -risk operations. Most of those
surveyed have a specific relationship with the public entities in their region that reduces risk and
shares costs. One possible approach to developing a facility. might be to solicit bids, contract with a
company to establish a construction and demolition waste management facility on land that we own
and allow them to own and operate the facility and charge a tipping fee. This would enable greater
9TO
control over facility operations than if a private facility were simply encouraged to set up operations
and accept C &D wastes originating in Orange County. Other public - private partnership
arrangements are also possible. Any public - private arrangement would require using a contractor
with a proven track record in this arena due to the high risk of such operations and high failure rate
acrooss the nation. There is often a differential between reported true recycling and actual practice.
For example materials reported as "beneficial fill" may go to improve a road on -site or fill in a
" low area".
Another approach could entail building, owning and operating our own facility. Under this
sceanrio, any revenue from tipping fees or sale of materials would come to us. In December
1996, staff conducted an analysis of constructing a semi - automated construction and demolition
waste recycling facility with some hand - picking and some automated sorting.. (The whole
December 1996 memorandum is available on request) An update to the costs of the facility
shows an estimated first year cost of $2.09 million including land, equipment, labor and
maintenance. Annual costs including an eight year amortization would be about $650,000.
The cost per ton estimate is increased from $53.00 per ton to about $56 per ton, assuming one-
third of incoming materials can be recycled, including wood, metal, drywall and reusables. This
does not include the heavy construction debris of rock, block, brick and concrete that could be
used as aggregate in road construction because the crushed mixed inert loads won't passs
NCDOT compaction regulations and the cost of locally available rock is currently too low to
make crushing the inert fraction a worthwhile endeavor. Inert debris is much cheaper to landfill.
If this material becomes marketable, the percentage recyclable could increase to an estimated
70 %.
Key issues:
Siting, designing, building and operating such a facility is a major undertaking. Most facilities
investigated take in far more than the 30,000 tons per year of C &D we average. Many restrict
materials to exclude the heterogeneous mix with accept to landfill now.
Cost:
Processing facilities are capital and equipment intensive. They can also employ a significant
amount of manual labor to hand -pick materials, high grade metal loads and perform the many
other tasks associated with such a maintenance - intensive operation. A more detailed, updated
cost estimate could be provided if the Board were interested in this approach to managing C &D.
D. Differential Fees/Bans
It is certainly feasible to extend the current set of differential fees and bans at the landfill to
include a greater variety of materials than the yard waste and corrugated cardboard now banned
from landfilling. Similar bans /penalties could be extended to include regulation of haulers and
31
prohibition on mixing C &D wastes at the building site (see Section B). Those on -site bans would
be more difficult to enforce than landfill bans and would certainly require additional staff to be
successful. Differential fees are practically applicable only at the gate of a C &D debris
management facility.
We believe that use of differential feesibans such as now applied to yard waste and corrugated
cardboard could be practically applied to clean wood and metal wastes within certain limits to
encourage greater diversion. A ban on drywall could also be considered. All would probably
have to have a certain tolerance level to be practically acceptable by builders. It is impractical
to institute too wide a range of materials bans as enforcement and determination of contaminant
levels would become an issue with each hauler on each load.
Use of the differential fees and bans to ensure source - separation must also include additional
processing as noted in section C.2 above and additional staff, equipment and facilities would be
required to manage the larger amount of materials that are separated and must be processed.
E. Available Grants:
Periodically both State and Federal grants are available for C &D management. This an area now
receiving much more attention as recycling of the municipal solid waste stream begins to mature.
In general we plan to pursue such grants as available.
We have recently applied for a grant from the State of North Carolina Division of Pollution
Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) for $17,000 to encourage separation and
diversion of wood wastes for grinding and marketing. The grant would cover the cost of
grinding approximately 1,000 tons of wood waste. Staff effort would be involved in separating,
inspecting and loading materials. The hauler would charge no additional fee to take the wood
chips to market. We will also experiment with coloring some of the chips for sale as a colored
mulch product.
If we receive the grant, and the project is successful and we proceed with additional wood waste
diversion, then we would incur ongoing handling, grinding and loading costs for each ton of
wood diverted. Those costs including grinding, handling and marketing, would likely exceed the
current $12 per ton fee charged for source - separated clean wood wastes.
F. Successful Facilities Elsewhere:
In section C above we have provided basic information about three successful recycling
processing facilities we are aware of. We have also attempted to get more information about
another Phoenix Recycling facility in Havelock, NC, no longer directly associated with the one
in Charlotte. They have not returned our phone calls.
32
There are many other examples of successful and failed C &D recycling facilities throughout the
country. They often have much higher throughputs than the 30,000 tons of mixed C &D material
per year we receive at Orange Regional Landfill. Our current tip fee of $40 per ton is probably a
fee level that could support on -site C &D recycling efforts in addition to those now undertaken, if
revenues from C &D management were not otherwise used to support critical solid waste
management operations now underway. A detailed budgetary analysis of processing options
would show what types of programs could be undertaken and their estimated costs. As with
other options in this report, we will pursue detailed analysis of C &D processing at the Board's
request.
33
Chapter 5 Solid Waste Advisory Board/C &D Task Force Role
It is our understanding that the Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) will perform as an advisory
board, reporting directly to the Board of County Commissioners. The Interlocal Agreement
establishes the board and contains provisions relating to its membership, responsibilities, terms,
voting, and procedures. The board may adopt its own rules of procedure not inconsistent with the
provisions of the Interlocal Agreement or policies and procedures governing the various boards and
commissions of the Board of County Commissioners.
Regarding the C &D Task Force, we understand that it also will advise the BOCC directly, but with
a more limited charge relating to construction and demolition recycling issues. Additionally, the
Task Force will not be permanent, as is the SWAB, but exist only for a limited duration of 6
months.
The Solid Waste Management Department will assist the County Manager in providing staff
support for both groups.
34
Chapter 6 Board of County Commissioners Guidance to Staff
Following the November 9 work session, staff will be available to conduct additional research or
provide any other additional information the BOCC may request. We will be prepared to explore
new or modified C &D recycling/waste reduction options. We will be prepared to examine new or
modified temporary/permanent scenarios for the management of C &D waste that cannot be
recycled and must be disposed. We are also prepared to immediately began providing staff support
to both the C &D Task Force and/or the Solid Waste Advisory Board.
If the BOCC can agree on some fundamental elements of a C &D management system they wish to
pursue, we will welcome the opportunity to formulate a comprehensive operational and financial
analysis for further consideration and possible implementation.
35
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 -1
C &D Related Projects by Triangle J Council of Governments
Prepared by Judy Kincaid, Solid Waste Projects Director, TJ COG, October 1999
* Produced WasteSpec: Model Specifications for Construction Waste
Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling, an award- winning, comprehensive manual
for architects and engineers.
* Produced ten case studies of construction projects from around
the United States that successfully used the WasteSpec manual without
increasing project cost.
* Produced a guide to construction and demolition waste recycling
and disposal sites in the Triangle region, including a map.
* Partnered on the production of an instructional video on taking
down old buildings and salvaging the materials for reuse.
* Produced a state - funded project to study construction and
demolition waste reduction strategies in four Triangle counties.
* Conducted a field study illustrating the cost equivalence of
recycling versus not recycling on a residential construction site in
Durham.
* Initiated a study conducted by the National Association of Home
Builders Research Center on reducing residential remodeling waste.
* Assisted with the production of a 12- minute video in Spanish and
English aimed at giving construction workers basic information on how
and why their waste should be reduced and recycled.
* Organized a site visit to Wilmington for Triangle entrepreneurs
to learn about the economics and practicalities of starting a
construction site clean-up and recycling business, which had been
established for Wilmington contractors.
* Organized, with the Wake County Solid Waste Management Division,
a day -long workshop on green building for architects who design local
government buildings in Wake County.
ATTACHMENT 1 -2
Chapter 3
Each plan shall be designed to achieve the solid waste reduction goals established by the
plan.
The basis for the overall reduction goals of 45% by 2001 and 61% by 2006 is a desire by all
governing bodies in the County to substantially reduce the amount of material that has to be
landfilled. Implementation of the plan would thereby lessen the impact of any future landfill
that might be built in Orange County or elsewhere and divert valuable materials for reuse and
recycling. Those percentage goals were set to conform to the State base year.
Table 2 -1 shows the percent reduction by sector necessary to meet the per capita goals in the
target years of 2001 and 2006. The plan framework shown immediately below addresses
reduction of mixed solid waste Construction and demolition waste is addressed separately.
I. Mixed Solid Waste Plan Framework for Orange County, North
Carolina
[This framework was approved by the Landfill Owners Group May 281997 and recommended to the local
governments. Each individual local governments considered and approved this plan framework
throughout the month of June 19971
raoie s -i
VASTE PREVENTION
(To be decided by individual
govenunents)
• Collection Bans
• Volume based fees
of vranee %;ountv's Bona waste rian for mixea Bona waste xeaucaon
COLLECTION I PROCESSING
(To be decided by individual governments)
• Convenience centers for rural residential
solid waste
• Yard waste and bulky item collections (for a
fee ?)
Universal at- the - source solid waste collection for
urban commercial and residential sectors
• Mulching facility to handle yard and
wood waste (already in place)
Not part of plan now but may
be considered at a future date;
• Centralized Organics Composting to
handle MRF mixed paper residuals
and other organics
Planning level cost data for program implementation are provided following the description of
the program framework.
The waste reduction plan framework for mixed solid waste includes:
3 -1
A. Waste prevention: [The first three items below can be considered by the Landfill
Owners Group. The last two -- mandatory recycling and volume -based solid waste costs -
could, under current agreements, be enacted by the individual local governments only.]
1. Public education: increases in the amount, type and targeted audiences.
2. Differential landfill fees: We have these in place now for yard waste, clean
wood waste and corrugated cardboard. Higher or lower fees could be applied to other
materials to encourage their diversion from the landfill in favor of some type of separation.
3. Non - economic incentives : This includes all the other strategies for influencing
waste reduction such as the solid waste plans now required for new, non - residential
construction in Chapel Hill.
4. Mandatory recycling, Also known as collection bans individual governments
could apply a variety of bans in each sector -- residential, commercial or apartments. Some
enforcement would be necessary for success.
5. Volume -based fees: Also known as pay -per- throw, treats solid waste as a
utility. Under this approach, local governments would set up a system of user fees under
which residents and businesses would pay for varying amounts of garbage collected. A proper
fee structure with good enforcement has proven to reduce waste in many other communities.
B. Collection: [Of solid waste and recyclables]
The Owners Group has recommended and the governments adopted a strategy that includes
weekly universal recycling collection in incorporated areas for residential, commercial and
apartments and also for commercial recycling in unincorporated areas. For the unincorporated
areas, in the near term, the Owners Group recommends continuation of every other week
curbside recycling in the relatively densely settled subdivisions, combined with the system of
sanitation sites such as now exist for solid waste and recycling collection. This means about
50% of residences in the unincorporated areas will receive curbside recycling in the short run.
In the longer term, the unincorporated areas may receive more widespread curbside recycling,
leaving only those estimated 10%u of homes that are physically inaccessible by large recycling
trucks to use solid waste collection centers. Recycling tonnage and costs shown in Table 3 -2
assume this more universal recycling in the unincorporated residential sector.
Currently, there is no universal commercial recycling. That would be the biggest single new
collection expense; it would also have the greatest potential for increasing recycling.
Solid waste collection and management would continue to be under local government control.
Their programs are described in each local government's report. It is possible that large
increases in recycling may reduce the need for solid waste collection so the local governments
may save on collection and disposal costs as the rate of waste generation goes down.
3 -2
C. Processing:
If the amount and types of recyclables is increased significantly to reach the overall 61 %
reduction goal by 2006, then Orange County would need a processing facility to sort out the
recyclables and make them market- ready. Collection at the curb or business is, in some ways,
the easiest part of the recycling cycle. Processing, sale and reuse are more challenging, since
that is where the real "business" of recycling is. Sorting and processing are especially
important if we are to achieve a long -term stable market for mixed paper.
D. Disposal
Any comprehensive solid waste management plan must account for final disposal of residuals
remaining following waste reduction, recycling, composting and other volume reduction
measures. The plan described for Orange County assumes that the Orange Regional Landfill
will continue to be the final disposal facility as long as it is available. The current projection
shows it lasting until 2005, without inclusion of construction and demolition wastes. At this
time, there is no additional disposal facility selected, so we cannot state definitively how will
handle disposal during the last two years of the ten year horizon stipulated in this plan.
E. Goal for mixed solid waste
1. The goal for 2001 for all of Orange County is to reduce solid waste per capita
by 45% by 2001. This includes a reduction in mixed solid waste from the current 1,100 pounds
(0.55 tons) per person to 920 pounds (0.46 tons) per person by 2001. (see table 2 -1)
2. The goal for 2006 is to reduce waste 61% per capita when compared with
1991 -92. This includes further reduction of mixed solid waste to 760 pounds (0.38 tons) per
person by 2006. According to the state of North Carolina, through the end of 1995 -96, we
have reduced mixed solid waste per capita by 19% compared to 1991 -92.
F. Timetable for Meeting the Mixed Solid Waste Reduction Goals
Meeting the timetable for achieving the mixed solid waste reduction rates is dependent upon
increasing waste prevention efforts, broadening recycling collections and development of a
materials recovery facility that can process and market both commingled and source - separated
recyclables. Meeting the 2001 goal assumes the following schedule:
1997 -98: Evaluate the alternatives for ownership, operation and design of the materials
recovery facility (MRF) acquire facility construction agreement,
1998 -99: Construct MRF
1999 -2000: Open it for operation
3 -3
ATTACHMENT 1 -3
Table 2 -1 Comparing Waste Reduction Goals Using 1988 -89 v. 1991 -92 as Base Year
Waste reduction goals are shown for each sector for each target year. Row 9 shows the percent reduction in
mixed solid waste compared to the 1991 -92 base year. Note that the total tons of mixed solid waste landfilled
(Row 6) and the per capita landfilled (Row 7) are the same; the percentages change only due to a change in the
base year. Similar information is presented for construction and demolition waste (Rows 10 -13), the total of
mixed waste and construction and demolition waste (Rows 14 -17) and Total Waste as defined by the State
(Rows 22 -25).
-End Chapter 2-
2 -2
A
B
C
D
E
F
GI
H
I
J
I K
3
LOG
NC
4
Base year
Base Year
Goal Year
Goal Year
5
Year
1988 -89
1991 -92
1995 -96
2401
2M
6
Mixed Solid Waste tons
67,502
'
65,981
'
58,372
`
53,783
47,794
7
Mixed Solid Waste (tons/capita
0.76
0.69
0.55
0.46
0.38
8
Percent reduction versus 1988 -89
n/a
10%
28%
40%
50%
9
Percent reduction versus 1991 -92
n/a
n/a
19%
33%
44%
10
Construction &Demolition Waste tons
31,624
34,145
31,452
34,075
18,621
11
Construction & Demolition tons/ ita
0.36
0.35
0.30
0.29
0.15
12
Percent reduction versus 1995 -96
n/a
n/a
n/a
4%
50%
13
Percent reduction versus 1991 -92
n/a
n/a
n/a
20%
58%
14
ITotal MSW + C &D landfilled tons
99,126
100,126
89,824
87,858
66,415
15
Total MSW + C &D landfilled tons/ca ha
1.12
1.04
0.85
0.75
0.53
16
Percent reduction versus 1988 -89
n/a
7%
24%
33%
53%
17
Percent reduction versus 1991 -92
n/a
n/a
18%
28%
49%
18
Other Materials base year/landfilled)
19
Coal Ash,Yardwaste,White Goods
9,996
�'�
30,206
c3'
-
20
Tires
-
736
557
649
1 692
21
Total Other Materials
9,996
30,941 1
557
649
1 692
22
Total Tons Managed bs Aandfilled
109,122
131,067
90,381
88,506
67,106
23
Total tons mane edlla dfilled (per capita)
1.23
1.36
0.85
0.75
0.54
24
Percent reduction versus 1988 -89
n/a
-10%
31%
39%
57%
25
Percent reduction versus 1991 -92
n/a
n/a
37%
45%
61%
26
27
Population
88,484
96,302
105,821
117,500
(s
125,300
29
Notes:
30
1. This tonnage includes recycled materials
in the base rar, per guidance from
State Solid Waste section
31
2. This tonnage is estimated at 1/3 of tonne a landfilled.
32
3. This tonnage includes an estimate for white goods although they were diverted.
33 14.
This tonnage includes waste landf Hied out of county from state records..
34 15.
Future population projections from Office of State Planning May 1997.
Waste reduction goals are shown for each sector for each target year. Row 9 shows the percent reduction in
mixed solid waste compared to the 1991 -92 base year. Note that the total tons of mixed solid waste landfilled
(Row 6) and the per capita landfilled (Row 7) are the same; the percentages change only due to a change in the
base year. Similar information is presented for construction and demolition waste (Rows 10 -13), the total of
mixed waste and construction and demolition waste (Rows 14 -17) and Total Waste as defined by the State
(Rows 22 -25).
-End Chapter 2-
2 -2
Construction and Demolition Landfills
H
Z
W
4
Q
Page 1 01.3
Construction and Demolition Landfills
COUNTY
SITE NAME
PERMIT
SITE
ADDRESS 11SITE
CITY
ST
CONTACT
PHONE
FAX
ITITLE ADDRESS
CITY
ALAMANCE
QUARTER C &D
UNIT
0104
S.R. 2148
SAXAPAHAW
C
ALVIN CAGLE
2701 AUSTIN
I QUARTER RD
esi ent, o e s Foster 's
GRAH
Foster 's
ALAMANCE 11L
ANDFILL
0105
Store Road
Liberty
�C
Kent Coble
3365654750
3365654752
Sandrock Inc Store Road
Libert
ADM BLDG
255
ALEXANDER
CHARLES
LILEDOUN
ALEXANDER
COUNTY CDLF
0201
SR 1620
TAYLORSVILLE
C
MASHBURN
7046329332
7046320059
ROAD
TAYL
COUNTY C &D
MOUNTAIN
COUNTY
AVERY
LANDFILL
0603
ROAD
INGALLS
NC
DON BAKER
8287338202
8287338209
MANAGER PO BOX 640
WL
FRUNSWICK
BRUNSWICK
COUNTY CDLF
1007 ISR
1401 11SUPPLY
�C
JIMMY
I VARNER
9102532000
9102537022
COUNTY
MANAGER 11PO BOX 249
BOLI
PANTHER
BUNCOMBE
RANCH
COUNTY C &D
ROAD SR
LANDFILL 30 VALLEY
BUNCOMBE
UNIT
1107
1745
ALEXANDER
C
TERRY MEARS
7042555066
7042555722
MANAGER STREET
ASHE
IBURKE
COUNTY CDLF
1203 11SR
1505
MORGANTON
NC
DALE MEYER
7044394394
7044394396
PO BOX 1486
FOR
JBFI-
CHARLOTTE
5105
TOR
MOREHEAD
DAVE
[M51005HEAD
RECABARRUS
SPEEDWAY
1301
ROAD
CONCORD
C
CONRAD
7047822004
7047822177
AD
HARK
11CABARRUS
CABARRUS
COUNTY CDLF
1302
SR 2411
CONCORD
�C
RICK PAYNE
7047823811
7047864955
PO BOX 707
[CONC
CLEVELAND
COUNTY CDLF
2301
C 180
SHELBY ]PC
LOCKRIDGE
7044805478
7044823432
PO BOX 1210
SHEL
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY C &D
698 ANN
WJOHNBITTLE
698 ANN
CUMBERLAND
UNIT
2601
STREET
FAYETTEVILLE
9104834897
STREET
FAYE
CUMBERLAND
C &D LANDFILL
2608
ROAD
GINEER AFZA -PW
OF
DIRECTOR PO BOX 1000
F
NC
BILL SQUIRE
9103963702
9194731101
919473521$
FORT
MANT
DARE
C &D LANDFILL
2803
INC 264
STUMPY POINT
JEDWARD
MANN
FDAVIE
I
C &D LANDFILL
3003
S.R. 1605
IMO CKSVILLE ]PC
GERALD CARD
336988262
3369987560
DIRECTOR P.O BOX 937 imoc
EDGECOMBE
EDGCOMBE
COUNTY CDLF
3301
SR 1601
TARBORO
PIHATHAWAYI
LARRY
9198274253
9198230228
PO BOX 10
TA
WINSTON-
SALEM CITY OF
SALISBURY
UTILITIES
FORSYTH
C &D LANDFILL
3412
ROAD
WINSTON -SALEM
C
STEVE DULIN
3367278418
3367278432
SUPERINTENDENT PO BOX 2511
WINS
GRANVILLE
COUNTY'CDLF
3902
ISR 1004
BUTNER ��C
JASON FALLS
9196031354
9196908610
PO BOX 906
10
6-//wastenot.ei&1W.hc.us/S
O
dfaclst.htm
n(JESSIE
1 1
/7/99
on and
GUILFORD
��1 L
CITY OF CDLF
103
1SR 1239
STREET
JISNOW HILL
GREENSBORO
1U1TYNDALL
NC
COGGINS
9197475720
3363752244
9197475720
3363752215
BLDG.,STI�.
STREET ][GREE
y�
HALIFAX
COUNTY CDLF
204
P.O. Box 327
HALIFAX
�C
Frank Ralph
9195864748
9195862184
P.O. Box 70 ][IALlf
HARNETT CO
ANDERSON
CRK C &D
JERRY
SOLID WASTE
HARNETT
LANDFILL
4303
S.R. 1164
LILLINGTON
NC
BLANCHARD
9108937536
9108934992
DIRECTOR
PO BOX 940
LILLI
GENERAL
HARNETT
JERRY
SERVICES
COUNTY
HARNETT
COUNTY CDLF
302
SR 1725
DUNN/ERWIN
NC
BLANCHARD
9108937536
9108143967
DIRECTOR
11OFFICE BLDG.
LILLI
IREDELL
COUNTY C &D
RONALD
EPOBOX
[STAT
IREDELL
UNIT
903
S.R. 2319
IREDELL
C
WEATHERMAN
7048785430
7048785429
788
KSUN
COUNTY
401
LANDFILL
SOLID WASTE
GRINDSTAFF
lSYLv
JACKSON
CDLF
5002
US441
DILLSBORO
NC
CHAD PARKER
7045867577
7045867528
DIRECTOR
COVE ROAD
COUNTY C &D
ISR
RICK
JOHNSTON
LANDFILL
5101
1503
SMITHFIELD
NC
PROCTOR
9199344576
9199347174
PO BOX 2263
SMIT
LEE
LEE
C LZA NDFILL
5301
S.R. 1177
LEMON SPRINGS
I]CICHERRY
9197748440
9197746526
LANDFILL
PO BOX 1968
S
IL ENOIR
UNOIR
COUNTY CDLF
W:]ISR
1524
LAGRANGE
aC
BRAFFORD
99195271290
PO BOX 757
KINST
NORMAN
QUARRY
DAVID
FACILITY
=7UARRY
[STAN
LINCOLN LANDFILL
5504
LANE
STANLEY
C
CRADDUCK
7048223033
7048223013
MANAGER
OLN
COUNTY C &D
CITIZENS
LINCOLN UNIT
5503
SR 1169
LINCOLNTON
C
STAN KISER
7047329030
7047329048
CENTER
LILAC
MACON Landfills
5704
Drivelerra
Franklin
aC
LARRY LAKEY
8283492215
8283492185
ST!
DIRECTOR
S5 TWREESF T 7FRAN
SON
COUNTY C&---D
BRIGMAN
MARSHALL
101 BRIGMAN
[MARS
MADISON UNIT
5803
PROPERTY
TOWNSHIP
C
JIM BROWN
7046492311
7046492311
FARM ROAD
MA
COUNTY C &D
MARTIN LANDFILL
5901
S.R. 1440
WILLIAMSTON
NC
DONNIE
PITTMAN
9197921901
PO BOX 668
WILLI
NORTT-I
MECKLENBURG
HOLBROOKS
LARRY
00
HOLBROOKS
[HUNT
MECKLENBURG
C &D LANDFILL
6013
ROAD
HUNTERSVILLE
C GRIFFIN
7048753367
7048753358
ROAD
N INASH
COUNTY
C&D LANDFILL 116403
11
ASHVILLE
aC GREG GRIFFIN
9194599899
9194599834
1PO
BOX 849
ASH
N
as County
CDLF Unit
6401
IS.R.1411
a
Greg Griffin
r I
o Waste aste
Director
P.O. Box 849 16hvi
306 NORTH
COUNTY C &D
GAYLE
COLUMBIA
[CHAP
ORANGE
UNIT
6801
S.R. 1727
CHAPEL HILL
NC WILSON
9199682885
9199322900
STREET
n: / /wastenot.e
.sta e.nc.
OME/
dfaclst.htm
1]6/7/99
and
4peidn
ills
MIKE
rag
a U1 .3
[nstruction
ASQUOTANK
LANDFILL
7002
S.R. 1144
ELIZABETH CITY
iC
ETHERIDGE
9193381144
9193350866
PO BOX 39
ELIZA
ROBESON
ROBESON
COUNTY CDLF
7803
C 20
ST. PAULS
W.C. BAXLE�
8006822014
9108655126
DIRECTOR
1PO BOX 366
ST. PA
RU HERFORD
COUNTY C &D
DON
18282876125
601 NORTH
[RUTH
RUTHERFORD
UNIT
8103
SR 2203
RUTHERFORDTON
C
BAYNARD
8282876312
MAIN STREET
BFI-SAMPSON
7437—
COUNTY C &D
ROSEBORO
DISTRICT
[ROSE
SAMPSON
UNIT
8203
HIGHWAY
R
NC
WADE ROGERS
9105254132
9105254150
MANAGER
PO BOX 2096
S
SCOTLAND
CDLF
8301
$R 1611
MAXTON
JIM
BLACKWELL
OUNTY
ENGINEER
PO BOX 489
LAUR
STANLY 11CITY
OF, CDLF 118401
11SR
1740
LBEMARLE
P
JAMES COBLE
[70498496671
7049849445
DIRECTOR
STREET
ALBE
3322 OLD
GRIFFIN FARMS
RICHARD S
CAMDEN
[MON
UNION
C &D LANDFILL
NC 200
NC
GRIFFIN
7042892595
7042912108
OWNER
ROAD
UNION
UNION
COUNTY C &D
19002
PNC
GORDON
7042964222
7042964232
fUNION COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS
11PO BOX 987
M
VANCE
IVANCE
COUNTY CDLF
9101
INC39
1HENDERSON
a
TODD CLARK
9194307171
9194925873
COURTHOUSE
YOUNG
STREET
H
BFIHOLLY
SPRINGS
WRODGER
WADE
[RTP
WAKE
DISPOSAL INC
9214
CSR 1153
HOLLY SPRINGS
9195570519
9195570619
PO BOX 12018
WAKE
CDLF
19203
C 55
FELTONSVILLE
WOODLIEF
9198566186
9198566233
DEPARTMENT
PO BOX 550 ]FRALEI
SHINGTON
COUNTY C &D
COUNTY
[PLYM
WASHINGTON
LANDFILL
9404
S.R. 1363
ROPER
C
LEE SMITH
9197935615
MANAGER
PO BOX 1007
FWATAUGA
COUNTY C &D
"—]BOON
17, 842 W.
[B:0:0N
LANDFILL
9502
E
C
BOB FRYE
8282645305
8282641702
KING ST
EWAYNE
WAYNE
11SRI
SOLID WASTE
LANDFILL
[DUDL
COUNTY CDLF
9601
129
DUDLEY
NC
LLOYD COOK
9196892994
9196892995
MANAGER
ROAD
W
TY CDLF
9801 11SR
1503
WILSON :::]p
CLAYTON
9193992823
9193990904
WCAC & LEC
BOX 1728 IWILS
YADKIN
COUNTY C &D
LARRY
SOLID WASTE
[YADK
YADKIN
LANDFILL
9902
S.R. 1589
YADKINVILLE
C
ADAMS
9106794243
9106796005
DIRECTOR
PO BOX 146
YANCEY
YANCEY-
MITCHELL C &D
LANDFILL
10002
C
TOM TIfTONJ
8286789180
8286824301
PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR
COUN TY
COURTHOUSE
BURN
Last Updated on 1011199
By Rebecca Gagliardi
http: / /w.astenot.ehnr. state.nc.us /SWHOME /Cdfaclst.htin 10/7/99
,4
To: Gavle Wilson
From: Ed%vard Pullan
Date: June-29,1998
ATTACHMENT 3 -1
Re: C&D Tickets from May, 1998; and
Construction and Demolition Waste Survey
C &D Tickets from May. 1998
A preliminary review of the C&D deliveries for the month of W. 1998 show that there had been 2,089
C&D deliveries to the landfill during the calendar month, the majority of those coming from smaller
loads.
Of 2,089 total C&D deliveries, 1,255 (60.1 %) were less than one -ton.
In terms of the number of customers potentially impacted: 116 different landfill customers delivered C&D
waste to the landfill during the month and 80 (69.0 %) has deliveries of 1 -ton or less.
The greatest number of small loads were received, not unexpectedly, from "Miscellaneous Cash
Customer" and "Orange County."
Customer (Cult. #) Total Loads Less than 1 -ton
Misc. Cash Customers (044) 908 662 (72.9 %)
Orange County (107) 325 286 (88.0 0/6)
Other landfill accounts that appear likely to deliver smaller C&D loads include public agencies and
smaller non -profit organizations:
Customer (Cost. #)
Total Loads
Less than 1 -ton
Town of Chapel Hill
62
59 (95.2 %)
Carrboro
21
12 (57.1 %)
UNC and Hospital
42
19 (45.2 0/6)
CH- Carrboro YMCA
4
4(100%)
PTA Thrift Shop
5
4(80.0%)
It would appear that the absence of a "local" C&D disposal facility would most heavily impact customers
with smaller loads of C&D waste to dispose of as the additional cost and distance to transport that waste
to a distant facility would be most burdensome and add to their costs of operations.
Construction and Demolition Waste Survev
A surrey of all in- coming loads of C&D waste was conducted at the landfill between Friday and Tuesday
(June 26's to 30`s). consisting of the questions and possible responses outlined below. The responses to
each question have been tabulated to show the raw number of each type of response and the percentage of
particular responses to each question.
s�
uestion 1: What is the origin of this load?
Responses
Responses: remodeling e.,dsting home
new home construction
General residentail cleanup
Commercial contractor, small
Commercial contractor, large
Other
Total
- page 2 -
of Response Percentage
82
37.27%
23
10.45
77
35.00
16
7.27
8
3.64
14
6.36
220
99.99
Ouestion 2: Estimated Number of Annual Trips to this Landfill?
(Responses were permitted in an open format, but
for convenience of tabulation, the responses have been grouped
into the following categories.)
Responses
of Response
Percentage
Responses: 1 to 2
41
18.64%
3 to 5
25
11.36
6 to 10
25
11.36
11 to 20
25
11.36
21 to 50
42
19.09
51 to 100
25
11.36
101+
37
16.82
Totals
220
99.99%
Ouestion 3: What would hauler do if there were no C &D landfill in Orange County and
the nearest permitted facility was 35 miles away?
Responses
: of Response
Percentage
Responses: drive to adjacent county
99
45.00%
don't know
35
15.91
other
86
39.09
Totals
220
100.00%
In addition to these questions, the survey allowed the respondent to provide any additional information
which they cared to, or to clarify their response of "other" concerning what would they do if there were no
UD landfill within Orange County. In reviewing those free -form responses, they were grouped into the
categories shown below, with the number of responses and percentage of those prodding comments
shown for each.
Other
of Response
Percentage
Responses: Burn it
23
22.33%
Dump it (illegal)
20
19.42
Bury/Dump it on property
7
6.80
Rent dumpsters / have someone else haul it
12
11.65
Stop hauling / Go out of Business
12
11.65
increase prices / pass it along
7
6.80
'.1 in a series of 10 case studies
Erickson's Headquarters
Hudson, WI
How specifications were used to
reduce construction waste
The specifications required the successful bidder to submit draft and final
waste management plans. The contractor hired an independent waste
manager to work with the subcontractors and contractor to set a realistic
waste reduction goal and see that it was met. A 75% waste reduction goal
was set, and it was achieved primarily through weekly site meetings, written
updates to all site employees, and free lunches. The contractor reported that
the waste manager improved his company's ability to recycle waste on all its
projects. Another benefit reported by the contractor was increased quality,
safety and productivity. For example, to reduce waste, the contractor
ordered many items on pallets instead of in boxes. This saved labor time
unboxing and also made parts more visible and therefore easier to locate.
This building incorporated other aspects of sustainable design such as
energy efficiency, indoor air quality, and use of recycled materials and
native landscaping.
ATTACHMENT 4 -1
()Printed by Triangle J Council of Governments, publishers of WasteSpec: Model
Specifications for Construction Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling. For further
information or a WasteSpec order form, call 919 -549 -0551 or visit our Website at
www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/TJCOG /.
Printed on 20% post- consumer recycled paper
.` 2 in a - series of 10 case studies
Tidyman's Grocery
Spokane, WA
How specifications were used to
reduce construction waste
When the project went out to bid, each subcontractor was required
to include a line item for disposal costs. This amount was
subtracted from the final bid and an independent waste manager
was hired to handle all waste recycling and disposal. The waste
managers set up recycling containers and met with subcontractors
at their weekly safety meetings to discuss problems and report
progress toward recycling goals. The waste manager also posted
regular updates on the amount of material recycled so all
employees could see the results of their efforts. Waste manage-
ment costs were 56% less than they would have been with the
original bids.
Printed by Triangle J Council of Governments, publishers of WasteSpec: Model
Specifications for Construction Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling. For further
information or a WasteSpec order form, call 919 -549 -0551 or visit our Website at
www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/TJCOG /.
Printed on 20% post- consumer recycled paper
` 3 in a series of 10 case studies
Public Health Clinics
Austin, TX
ssa
Ate. _.
i
� l
3 ((:SYwLrVATICN _
'1 �iN i:CV ♦'uh
-_- _7'LY
How specifications were used to
reduce construction waste
Specific materials were required to be recycled. These included branches
and trees; lumber; bricks and blocks; metal; cardboard; plastic; and paints,
stains, solvents, and sealants. The specifications also followed the City of
Austin's Green Builder Program guidelines in requiring other waste
reduction measures such as setting aside lumber cut -offs for use as blocking
or spacers. As a general requirement, the specifications stated that an
"underlying commitment to sustainable architecture and construction
practices shall be reflected in all aspects of the project." The bids on the
project were comparable to what they would have been otherwise.
Printed by Triangle J Council of Governments, publishers of WasteSpec: Model
Specifications for Construction Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling. For further
information or a WasteSpec order form, call 919 -549 -0551 or visit our Website at
www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/TJCOG /.
Printed on 20% post- consumer recycled paper
4 in a series of 10 case studies
Four Times Square
New York, NY
How specifications were used
to reduce construction waste
Contractors were required to efficiently use resources and energy "to
the fullest extent possible," which included recycling waste
generated during the demolition and construction process. The
contractors and subcontractors were also required to track what was
recycled and where it went. The tracking report for demolition
reported recycling of 1,800 tons of steel; 95 tons of scrap metal;
8,000 cubic yards of brick, concrete, and dirt; and 1,000 doors,
beams, and copper and stone architectural elements. This building
also incorporates state -of -the -art energy saving and environmentally
sensitive building design elements.
Printed by Triangle J Council of Governments, publishers of WasteSpec: Model
Specifications for Construction Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling. For further
information or a WasteSpec order form, call 919 -549 -0551 or visit our Website at
www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/TJCOG /.
Printed on 20% post - consumer recycled paper
V 5 in a series of 10 case studies
Police Station
Issaquah,. WA
How specifications were used to
reduce construction waste
The specifications merely " encouraged" disposal alternatives to landfilling,
with reuse and recycling to the extent practical. However, this language
was followed up by verbal encouragement at the pre - demolition meeting
and thereafter. The contractor was also told to document recycling and
reuse measures. The contractor was creative and therefore very successful
in achieving salvage on the project. For example, bulletproof glass from
the old police station was reused in fish tank construction.
i
Printed by Triangle J Council of Governments, publishers of WasteSpec: Model
Specifications for Construction Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling. For further
information or a WasteSpec order form, call 919 -549 -0551 or visit our Website at
www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/TJCOG /.
Printed on 20% post- consumer recycled paper
`6 in a series of 10 case studies
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI
How specifications were used to
reduce construction waste
The specifications required the contractor to separate and salvage or
recycle waste materials. The contractor required each subcontractor to
separate and salvage or recycle its own materials. Subcontractors reported
that their bids did not increase due to the salvaging measures and that they
were getting used to recycling on the job. Individual workers responsible
for contaminating bins were fined to cover the cost of cleaning up the
contamination.
i
Printed by Triangle J Council of Governments, publishers of WasteSpec: Model
Specifications for Construction Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling. For further
information or a WasteSpec order form, call 919 -549 -0551 or visit our Website at
www.tjcog.dst.nc.usMCOG /.
Printed on 20% post- consumer recycled paper
19 7 in a series of 10 case studies
Community Centers
New York, NY
How specifications were used to
reduce construction waste
The specifications required the successful bidder to submit draft and final
waste management plans aimed at salvaging, reusing, and recycling as many
materials as possible in order to minimize landfilling of wastes. Materials
required to be included in the plans were cardboard, clean dimensional wood,
land clearing debris, beverage containers, concrete, bricks, concrete masonry
units, asphalt, and metals. The successful bidder reported that these
requirements did not increase the amount of the bid.
Printed by Triangle J Council of Governments, publishers of WasteSpec: Model
Specifications for Construction Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling. For further
information or a WasteSpec order form, call 919 -549 -0551 or visit our Website at
www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/TJCOG/.
Printed on 20% post- consumer recycled paper
8 in a series of 10 case studies
YMCA
San Francisco, CA
How specifications were used to
reduce construction waste
The specifications required the successful bidder to submit draft and final
waste management plans aimed at reusing, salvaging, or recycling as
many wastes materials as economically feasible. Materials required to be
included in the plans were cardboard, land clearing debris, clean
dimensional wood, beverage containers, concrete, bricks, concrete
masonry units, asphalt, drywall, carpet, plastics, and metals.
Printed by Triangle J Council of Governments, publishers of WasteSpec: Model
Specifications for Construction Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling. For further
information or a WasteSpec order form, call 919 -549 -0551 or visit our Website at
www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/TJCOG /.
Printed on 20% post - consumer recycled paper
'` 9 in a series of 10 case studies
House Museum
Villanova, PA
How specifications were used to
reduce construction waste
The specifications required that the following items be salvaged, reused, or
recycled: tree limbs, wood, concrete, asphalt paving, stone masonry, gravel,
and metals. The specifications also required the successful bidder to submit a
waste management plan. Bidders were provided with a list of local recycling
firms for information only.
Printed by Triangle J Council of Governments, publishers of WasteSpec: Model
Specifications for Construction Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling. For further
information or a WasteSpec order form, call 919 -549 -0551 or visit our Website at
www.tjcog.dst.nc.usMCOG /.
Printed on 20% post- consumer recycled paper
" 10 in a series of 10 case studies
Antioch University
Seattle, WA
How specifications were used to
reduce construction waste
The specifications required the successful bidder to submit draft and final
waste management plans. The plans were required to include recycling of
at least the following items: clean dimensional lumber, concrete, bricks,
concrete masonry units, and metal. The contractor also recycled drywall,
acoustical ceiling tile, and fluorescent light bulbs. The light bulbs were
advertised to local businesses which took all of them for replacing
outdated models no longer sold in stores. Recycling measures reduced
project costs by 25 to 50 percent.
Printed by Triangle J Council of Governments, publishers of WasteSpec: Model
Specifications for Construction Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling. For further
information or a WasteSpec order form, call 919 -549 -0551 or visit our Website at
www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/TJCOG /.
Printed on 20% post- consumer recycled paper
Orange County
Public Works Depa►'"en
INTRODUCTION , Jr., the Public Works Department is proposing to
At the request of property
owner, Carl Walters roximately 1000 feet northwest
to the High Rock. Solid Waste Convenience Center app
reloca Mr. Walters.
High Rock Road, to a site also owned by
Orange. County currently .leases from Carl Walters the High Rock Solid Waste Convenience Center
property as well as another parcel on Saddle Club Road. December 21, 1987 and was converted to
■ The High Rock Road lease originally commenced on DO Ober 1993. The most recent renewal
one of the staffed solid waste convenience' centers in
June 30, 2003. The monthly lease cost for this site is currently $200. on
lease expires on 1995 and expires
■ The Saddle Club Road lease originally commenced on January 1'
December 31, 2005. The monthly lease amount is $ 200. (The Sadd le Club Road site was
nter with a stationary
originally leased with the intent-�fo establish a solid waste convenience center
compactor rather than front -end containers). Both leases contain a termination clause whereby
the lessor or the lessee may terminate the lease upon submitting a ninety- (90) day written notice
to the other party.
Mr. Walters has stated his wish to terminate the lease agreements for these two properties and en ei
into a new agreement for the proposed relocation site only. The proposed lease agreement would bt
for an eight -acre parcel, with only one acre being used for the actual convenience center due to
12.5% impervious surface limitation. The existing solid waste and recycling containers as well as the
fence gates would be relocated. In addition to landscape buffer materials and surfacing materialE
some additional solid waste containers and chain link fencing would be required.
Since receiving Mr. Walter's .request, the Public W
orks Department has proceeded to determine if the ,
Proposed site would be suitable for use as a solid waste convenience center.
Director of Public Works, and Paul Thames, County Engineer Wilbert McAdoo,
determined that the site would be suitable. Aland serve have inspected the proposed site and
developed. Y as been performed and a site plan
At their request, Public Works Department staff already discussed the proposed relocation with some
residents of the High Rock community, including residents of the Cotton Run area. General concerns
identified include type of buffer, lighting, noise, unpleasing odors, rodent control, roadside litter, storm
water run -off and traffic. Based on experience I at the six existing Convenience Centers, staff feels
these concerns can be mitigated to the satisfaction of all parties.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed relocation would be beneficial to the County. In recent years significant growth has
been experienced in this area. As a result, the solid waste containers at this site now have to be
emptied prior to opening on Sundays. The proposed site would allow placement of some additional
Haste containers, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for weekend dumping, and would allow
iew and /or expanded reuse and recycling opportunities (i.e. add additional recycling containers to
accommodate the volume of recyclables, addition of a salvage shed). A larger site would also
)rovide improved traffic flow.
'he existing High Rock Road site is the only solid waste convenience center easily accessible to the
midents of the northwest area of .'the County. If the High Rock Road convenience center is not
,located as requested by the property owner, residents of the High Rock Road community would
ive to travel to one of the five other sites to dispose of their household waste and recyclables until
iother site could be identified and developed. The closest solid waste convenience centers to the
'gh Rock Road site are located on Walnut Grove Church Road, Bradshaw Quarry Road and
ghway 57. Usage at these sites has also increased significantly in recent years. Additional waste
►m the High Rock Road area would likely necessitate additional collection service at these locations
well increase congestion.
ould the Board wish to proceed with the proposed relocation:
an application for a minor subdivision plat would be submitted to the County Planning Department;
signs would be installed at the existing and proposed site to inform the surrounding community of
the proposed relocation;
• informational notices would be hand delivered to residents living within 500' of the proposed site;
• informational notices would be mailed to residents living beyond 500' but within 1500' of the
proposed site;
• informational notices would be made available at the High Rock Solid Waste Convenience Center;
• cost estimates for site relocation would be developed; and
• a new lease agreement for the proposed new site would be drafted; such lease to contain a
termination clause for the present High Rock and Saddle Club Road lease agreements to coincide
with execution of anew agreement; the term of the new lease shall be five years and the monthly
lease amount $ 200.
The Public Works Department request that we present this proposed relocation request to the Board
at their November 9 work session to consider for approval at their November 16 regular meeting.
In October 1993, Orange County began operating
six Solid Waste Convenience Centers throughout
the County, including the site at High Rock Road.
The High Rock Road site was developed on
property owned by Carl Walters, Jr. The County
also holds a lease on property on Saddle Club Road
that was previously proposed for use
—A, as a solid waste convenience center.
R ia,
I Toga
44 jme.n+1",:L- 2
OF
1
SOLIDWASTE
At the request of the property owner, Orange County is proposing to relocate the
existing Solid Waste Convenience Center approximately 1000 feet northwest on High
Rock Road to a new site. The County is proposing to lease an eight -acre parcel with
one -acre used for the actual convenience center. The leases on the existing site and
the Saddle Club Road site would be terminated following relocation to the new site.
The proposed relocation would allow Orange County to pro)
improved, more efficient service to Convenience Center use
including greater reuse and recycling opportunities such as a
salvage shed and yard waste collection area. The new center
would also provide improved traffic flow.
If you have questions, or would like additional information about
the proposed relocation, please contact Orange County Public Works at 245 -2625.
L
�Em
I
IW PA
I
0
1�
, -W
,.AM% %I- -
DM NmLfsbff�
aene � cz z5way,pive
Buffar Ontions-
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Fax:919- 967 -8406 Nov 9 1999 13:53 P.02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
REGARDING A NEW ZONING DISTRICT FOR A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
FACILITY (99 -11 -8 -104)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposed amendment to
the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to provide for a new zoning district for a new land use
called Solid Waste Management Facility, and finds that the amendments are appropriate due to
changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally and achieve
the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Section 2 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 2.121.2 to read as follows:
"2.121.2 Solid Waste Management Facility: Solid Waste Management Facility shall be
operated by or on behalf of a governmental agency and shall include, but not be
limited to, a solid waste transfer facility and a materials recovery facility. A
solid waste management facility shall not include the burial of any waste
material."
Section 2. Section 3.1 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance is hereby amended be adding
a new Subsection 3.1.9.1 to read as follows:
"3.1.9.1 Materials Handling District (MH)
The Materials Handling (MH) district is intended to provide for public
operation of a Solid Waste Management Facility."
Section 3. Section 12.3, Use Group A, B, and C of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance is
hereby amended to add MH to the current column containing RT.
Section 4. Section 12.3 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance is hereby amended to list, as
"Permitted Principal Use" in the Materials Handling (MH) zoning district, "Solid Waste
Management Facility" as Use Group C and as "Permitted Principal Use" and "Permitted
Accessory Use" for Agricultural : Livestock and Non - Livestock as Use Group A.
Section 5. Section 12.3 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance is hereby amended to
provide the following additional language to the "Key" at the bottom of each page of the
schedule:
"'Key: "--" Not Permitted; "A" Permitted as an Accessory Use; "P" Permitted as a
Principal Use if floor area of proposed development is less than 20,000 square feet and
area of disturbed land is less than 40,000; otherwise, permitted as a Special Use in all
districts except 01 -3 and MH and for all uses except existing Elementary and Secondary
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Fax:919 -967 -8406 Nov 9 1999 13:54
N
Schools. In 0I -3 and MH "P" Permitted as a Principal Use, "S" Permitted as a Special
Use. For existing Elementary and Secondary Schools "P" Permitted as a Principal Use."
Section 6. Subsection 13.11.1, Use Group A; Subsection 13.11.2, Use Group B; Subsection
13.11.3, Use Group C, Schedule of Intcnsity Regulations are hereby amended to provide for a
new zone called MH, the same requirements as the current RT provisions.
Section 7. Section 19.2 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance is hereby revised by adding
the following language at the end:
"g) Any development of a Solid Waste Management Facility on a zoning lot."
Section 8. The first paragraph of Section 14.12.2 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"A buffer is a strip of land together with the screening required thereon. Except as
otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, the type of buffer required between a
proposed development and adjacent streets, land uses or zoning designations shall be as
specified in Subsection 14.12.6, Schedule of Required Buffers. Where the proposed
development site and the adjacent land are both located within either Town Center
District, no buffer shall be required. Where the proposed development site is located in
the Residential -High Density -12 zoning district, no buffer shall be required. Where the
proposed development site is located in the Materials Handing (MH) zoning district, a
204 foot landscape bufferyard shall be required_"
Section 9. Section 14.13.7 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance is hereby amended to read
as follows:
"14.13.7 Signs in Residential, Materials Handling, and Rural Transition Districts
and in PD -H Developments
No sign shall be erected or displayed in any Residential, Materials Handling,, or
Rural Transition district or in any Planned Development- Housing except as
allowed under subsection 14.13.4 or as provided below:
Section 1 i .Development identification signs containing the name and/or logo of a
subdivision, multi - family development, or planned development,
provided such signs are limited to one free - standing sign at each
principal point of access to the development, sixteen (16) square feet
in area per display surface, and a maximum height of six (6) feet above
finished grade; or two (2) signs mounted on wooden, brick, or stone
entry walls, eight (8) square feet per display surface, and a maximum
height of six (6) feet above finished grade.
Section I (.Nonresidential signs identifying nonresidential uses permitted as a
.principal or special use in Residential, Materials Handling„ or Rural
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Fax:919- 967 -8406 Nov 9 1999 13:54 P.04
3
Transition districts or as an accessory use in PD -H developments
provided such signs are limited to one ground or wall sign per zoning
lot and sixteen (16) square feet in area per display surface.
Section 11.Lighting of signs in Residential, Materials Handling, and Rural
Transition Districts and in PD -H Developments is permitted if
illumination levels are low, all fixtures are concealed, and spill -over of
light is minimal."
Section 14. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed.
Section 11. That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 80' day of November, 1999.
7!0 HILL Fax:919- 967 -8406
3
Nov 9 1999 13:54 P.05
1-1 �
NEVILLE
SZG4TW1NG VUTM USE bF T
GREED
�•� A UWLUTIO N
TiMCTS (9g- llal8tR -S.1) 14ju tw the Coun& wisbes to 90
IT RESOLVED by ft COUnci1 of the Town Of ft of ft y
$ back to the Orange County C002i
reprding the Cwem Tract; and
BE 1T MRTHER MOLD that the
� � mom Raving the Gee Tract as a of
th Irrterlocal with the
Ft7RTHFSt RESOLVED that du COQ Mould lace to have a mexliated ° H Town
BE rT pnp� to discuss ft Caem T� and how the
O�►ge County ttte Ora County a wO& tom: and
Couuctl
d desires to use the following y$� 4S s�S
BE Tf FURTHER RESOLVED that the Cow 1 HiU and the Oran$
points for a discussion between the Tow" of Chape
to examiue the highest and best Uses for the Greene mrd Neville `Tracts. The following goals
agreements that we could collectively reach.
1. that the Greene and Neville Tracts are p�reeious coutmmmty assets and shoe not be
Agee
used for solid waste activities.
Z. Agroc
that these two tracts of land be kept intact and as publicly -owned land.
I Agee that the Greene Tract will be kept largely in a natural state with selected areas used for
a mixture of housing for low and moderate income single citizens and families.
4. Ague that the Neville Tract should be used at► a park with both passive and active r -On
facilities when its use as landfill cover is cvenpleted. This sbouid include very large buffet
for U,"S W* and rm lightms for any Raying Ad& that we built.
S. Agree to unde+ uke both a cnitnral and cm kmncnta1 amt of the Greek Tract to he*
. set goals and determine uses.
b. Agree that the Ckeene Tract will be put in a community knd trust developed exclusively for
these two tracts, a land utter which could aver both the preserved land and the land
developed for housing, which would keep the botttung dkrdable. This Ind host should be
made up of elected of bls, f man the tax gout ng bodies in pr+epo&m to ownaship,
neighbors of the tracts, as well as residem of dw tract if love and moderate kwotne housing is
built, and citizens from throngbout the Cowsy who an the owners of this tae paid land.
U
M
TORN OF CHAPEL HILL
Fax:919 -967 -8406 Nov 9 1999 13:54
3
A RESOLUTION REGARDING FUTURE USE OF THE GREENS. &IN EVILLE
TRACTS (W114" S.1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council wishes to go
back to the Orange County Commissioners to discuss the part of the interlocal Amt
regarding the Greene Tract; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council reconsiders having the Greene Tract as a part of
the Interlocal Agreement; and
BE rT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council would h1w to have a mediated dialogue with the
Orange County Commissioners to discuss the Greene Tract and how the Chapel Hill Town
Council and the Orange County Commissioners work together; and
BE rr FURTHER RESOLVED first the Council desires to use the following goals as starting
points for a discussion between the Town of Chapel MR and the Orange County Commissioners
to examine the highest and beat uses for the Greene and Neville Tracts. The following goals are
agreements that we could collectively reach:
1. Agree that the Greene and Neville Tracts are precious community assets and should not be
used for solid waste activities.
2. Agree that these two tracts of land be kept intact and as publicly -owned land.
3. Agree that the Greene Tract will be kept largely in a natural state with selected areas used for
a mixture of housing for low and moderate income single citizens and families.
4. Agree that the Neville Tract should be used as a park with both passive and active recreation
facilities when its use as landfill cover is completed This should include very large buffers
for u ighlm" and rho lighting for any playing fialds drat arc built.
S. Agree to undertake both a cultural and envirvnmeatal awcssmamt of the Greene Tract to help
set goals and determine uses.
5. Agree that the Greene Tract will be put in a community land trust developed exclusively for
these two tracts, a land trust which could administer both the preserved land and the land
developed for housing, which would keep the housing affordable. This land trust should be
made up of elected officials from the three governing bodies in proportion to ownership, neighbors of the tracts, as well as residents of the tract if low and moderate income housing is
built, and citizens fiaat throughout the County who are the owners of this tax paid land.
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Fax:919- 967 -8406 Nov 9 1999 13:55 P.06
4
7. Agree that ariy building built on these tracts would be built acowding to green building
standards, which would include, but not limited to, certified green building materials, the W
highest energy efficiency standards passible, and use of renewable energy.
This the 8a' day of November, 1999.
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Fax:919- 967 -8406 Nov 9 1999 13:55 P.O?
A RESOLUTION REGARDING FUTURE USE OF THE GREENE AND NEVILLE
TRACTS
(99- 11 -O81R * *)
BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council
wishes to request the Orange County Commissioners to consider alternate sites for
transfer stations and other solid waste operations at a suitable site, and;
BE IT RESOLVED that if the Commissioners site a transfer station on the Green tract it
be a state of the art facility which addresses air pollution and noise concerns of the
neighbors, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests Orange County and Carrboro
enter into facilitated discussions as to how the remainder of the tract will be used.
i
`10
/ r
.i
ism_ / �
113
-TOM OF CHAPEL HILL Fax:919 -967 -$406 Nov 9 1999 13:54 P.05
3 Qf�
A, RESOLUTION REGARDING FUTURE USE OF THE GREEhiE. l 'KII.LE
TRACTS (W- 114MR -SI)
BE rr RESOLVED by die Coin of ft Towa of Cbapd Hill that the Coil wisba to $o
beer W. the_ OraW Cody Canmriseioaaa�s to disc= dna pert of the kiNdocal A
rig the Greece Tract and
BE rr FURTM RESOLVED thal'tbe Coin re000aW= hxviag the Cueane Tract as j pmt of
the tift loc it and .
BE rT FURTMM USOLVED than the Cconcg would iiloe so la " a mediated Mbw wft the
Oraoga Coamy Comn*sioaata to Maim ft ; Otemx Trsct and how ere C hWd RM Toga
Cauncil.and the Oraup County CocmWssionm wvdc togp&er; ana
BE U MRTM RESOLVED tW the Count it desires to um ft following pab as as tfaq;
points foci a boa belvvatmt do Town of Chapel HM and ft tkaoge Cmay Cosmm ssia�cs
to usimiue dia b4bm t nand beat vies for the (kode slid Neville Tracts. Tbc 20mft V* are
dud we col tdllecdver reach:
1, AS= that the tlnr m ad Neville Trees m pimciam cor malty asps And shale not be
used for solid waste se iviities.
2. Agrce that these two tracts of land be kept intact and as pubbcbwwncd hod.
3. As= dw the C%nt Tract will be kopt largely in a.nslmal state with sdocftd mm used for
a miatme *fbousing for low and mod eaft income single citizens And f3tmilies.
4. Agm.*d tic Neville Troia should be used as a pAtk with loth passive And active recra don
heffities when its use as lmdfill coma is complmd. This should include very liege bye
&r =iigis my aid no Usbdns for =v pbwb* mtti built.
S. Aguas to u *& both a cultmul and IWAV"vrm taI anessiu t of &a Oro= T=CL to bfp
set Book and determine woes.
�. Arm that the Greene 'treat will be put is a conximity hoed trust dovdoped emAnively £oc
these two use% a land first Which could aft*idw -both the pe amwed lmd and doe hod
dowla d for housing, which, would keep the hotmg Wlxdable This bed um dmM be
n� up .of dected oi8ocue firm► the dose govetmng bodies in prapottion to ownaaltip,
of the tracts, as well As rte: of the tract if low and modecme hmm h ft is
built,
and ciduns from thmaglout dw County who an the amas of this tax paid land.
L
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
Fax:919 -967 -8406 Nov 91999 1355 P.07
I Tao4wu
A RESOLUTION REGARDING FUTURE USE OF THE GREENE AND NEVILLE
TRACTS
(99-11 -Og/R * *)
BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council
wishes to request the Orange County Cossioners to consider alternate sites %r
transfer stations and other solid waste operations at a suitable site, and;
BE IT RESOLVED that ifthe Commissioners site a transfer station on the Green tract it
be a state of the art facility which iddresses air ponution and noise concerns of the
ncighbors, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests Orange County and Cwzboro
enter into facilitated discussions as to how the remainder of the tract will be used.
�
film ��
ally
.....................
a ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑
❑ 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y' 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y o Yard
ti�
Q
vQ Waste
Q�
m
n
�o
o
�n�
ZI
h
0
Vl D
ry z
a
Bulk
IteMs
White
Goods
Scrap
Metal
Tires
Ispolo(k rere
LEE]
� a
\ 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y by 6Y 6Y 6Y /® 8Y 8Y C:1
Fence Line & Edge of Gravel Surf ace
Z..............
oe of
........... ................. . x
% ........... +
FRI
m
0
FRI
Pl
S Edge CW umvet 3urf4=