Amending the Source Separation Ordinance

(SSO)In Mecklenburg County

March 28, 2013

Lower Threshold of SSORemove or Reduce 500-lb Exemptions

Expand Materials AffectedRemove Temporary Site Exemption

Tracking & Measurement of Commercial Waste Stream

Potential Changes to Ordinance Identified in 2012 SWMP

Impact of Changes Related to Threshold & 500-lb Exemptions

Threshold # Businesses Tons OCC/Yr Tons Office Paper/Yr

16 CY 4,900 7,156 2,526

8 CY 1,700 2,483 876

Total 6,600 9,639 3,402

Threshold# Businesses Reduction in Emissions

for OCCReduction in Emissions for Office Paper

16 CY 4,900 -22,758 -10,687

8 CY 1,700 -7,897 -3,706

Total 6,600 -30,655 -14,393

DSM found the average cost to a small business for recycling was $73/month.

The DSM study found that when considering additional private hauler wages and benefits and indirect and induced spending, the net economic impact to the County was zero to:◦ Reduce threshold to 8 cubic yards.◦ Remove 500-lb exemptions.◦ Include mixed paper.◦ However, this is reflective of businesses utilizing

Commercial Drop-Off Centers, whose availability would be reduced with changes to the SSO.

Impact of Changes Related to Threshold & 500-lb Exemptions

Lower Threshold of SSO

Pros Cons

Re-energize recycling and compliance among 16 CY & larger customers

Bring in additional recycling tonnage

Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions

Simplify enforcement

Greater enforcement needed

Economics of recycling less dramatic for lower-generating businesses; may cost businesses more

Space constraints may reduce options for some businesses & increase screening costs

Remove or Reduce 500-lb Exemptions

Pros Cons

If cut-off was dropped to 8 CY but 500-lb exemptions remained, only 300 new businesses impacted

Bring in additional recycling tonnage

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Simplify enforcement, reduce administrative costs

Could increase expenses for businesses that generate small amounts of designated materials

Items included in State Landfill Ban, Session law 2005-362 ◦ Motor Vehicle Oil filters◦ Rigid Plastic Containers◦ Wooden Pallets◦ Oyster Shells◦ Used Oil◦ Yard Trash◦ White Goods◦ Antifreeze◦ Aluminum Cans

Expand Materials Affected

◦ Whole Scrap Tires◦ Lead Acid Batteries◦ Beverage Containers

Under ABC◦ Discarded Computer

Equipment◦ Discarded Televisions◦ Fluorescent Lights◦ Thermostats that

Contain Mercury

Recycling Requirements under ABC Permitting, Session Law 2005-348◦ An Act to require holders of Certain ABC Permits

(permits for on-premises consumption) to separate, store, and provide for the collection for recycling of all recyclable beverage containers of all beverages sold at retail on the premises.

Expand Materials Affected

# of Private Vendors

Motor Vehicle Oil Filters 8Used Oil 9Antifreeze 7Lead Acid Batteries 26Whole Scrap Tires 7Fluorescent Lights 12Mercury Thermostats 6Computers & TVs 13

Vendors for Materials

# of Private Vendors

White Goods 27Plastic Bottles 25Aluminum Cans 37ABC Beverage Containers 9Wooden Pallets 19Yard Trash 13Oyster Shells 5

Vendors for Materials

Locating Recycling Vendors

Impact of Changes Related to Expanding Materials Affected

Threshold Tons Mixed Paper/Yr Tons Bottles/Yr Tons Can/Yr

16 CY 8,630 180 148

8 CY 2,994 62 52

Threshold# Businesses Reduction in Emissions

for Mixed PaperReduction in Emissions for Bottles

Reduction in Emissions for Cans

16 CY 4,900 -30,690 -280 -2,027

8 CY 1,700 -10,647 -97 -703

Total 6,600 -41,337 -377 -2,730

FY 16/17 Projected Tons

% Diverted by Expanding SSO + Education/Outreach Tons Diverted

Paper 193,121 -18% 34,641

Glass 17,119 -10% 1,712

Plastic 81,737 -1% 880

Metal 48,070 -3% 1,291

Organics 196,320 -8% 16,380

Hazardous Waste 2,687 -8% 204

Other Waste 85,384 0% 0

Problem Materials 13,227 -54% 7,181

Total 637,665 -10% 62,289

Impact of Changes Related to Expanding Materials Affected

Expand Materials Affected

Pros Cons

Encourage compliance with state laws and goals underlying the laws

Bring in additional recycling tonnage, some in high value areas

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Relatively small tonnage gains in all but mixed paper

Could be gaps in infrastructure to address some materials

Greater enforcement needed, increased administrative costs

Impact of Changes Related to Removing TSEs

Threshold # Businesses Tons OCC/YrTons Office Paper/Yr

Tons Mixed Paper/Yr

Tons Bottles/Yr Tons Can/Yr

16 CY 4,900 7,156 2,526 8,630 180 148

8 CY 1,700 2,483 876 2,994 62 52Temporary Site Exemption (TSE) 1,300 9,100 6 21 14 12

Total at 8 CY + TSE 7,900 18,739 3,408 11,645 256 212

Reduction in Emissions # Businesses Tons OCC/Yr

Tons Office Paper/Yr

Tons Mixed Paper/Yr

Tons Bottles/Yr Tons Can/Yr

Temporary Site Exemption (TSE) 1,300 -28,940 -25 -75 -21 -164

Remove Temporary Site Exemptions

Pros Cons

Overall positive impact to the County based on economic gains to hauling & processing community & savings in disposal costs

Bring in additional recycling tonnage

Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions

Level the playing field

Difficult to enforce – not all events require permitting, how do we determine applicable thresholds

To evaluate the successfulness of any changes, the County needs access to better recycling data. This could be accomplished by:

◦ Requiring reporting by haulers◦ Requiring reporting by businesses◦ Requiring reporting by processors

Tracking & Measurement of Commercial Waste Stream

Tracking & Measurement of Commercial Waste Stream

Pros Cons

Actual numbers to track effectiveness of recycling initiatives

Concerns by haulers and processors related to proprietary data

Difficulties for haulers in providing County-specific data due to varying routes

Administrative costs for County to review individual business recycling plans

Set next meeting Identify any additional information needs

Steps Moving Forward