Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Phase I Report

NEW HANOVER COUNTY

Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan

Phase I ReportAugust 2013

5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 300

Raleigh, North Carolina 27612

tel: 919 787‐5620

fax: 919 781‐5730

August 22, 2013 Mr. Joe Suleyman, Director New Hanover County Department of Environmental Management 3002 US Highway 421 North Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Subject: Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Phase I Report Dear Joe:

CDM Smith is pleased to present the Phase I Report prepared as part of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan) for New Hanover County (County). As scoped, Phase 1 of the Plan includes a review of the existing solid waste program and financials; a high‐level review of current waste management technologies, strategies and processes; garnering stakeholder and public input via a stakeholder workshop, a public meeting, and an on‐line public survey; assessing need gaps; developing policy recommendations; and presenting to the New Hanover County Board of County Commissioners (Board).

Phase II of the Plan includes preparing a strategic plan outlining key strategies and policies based on the Boards’ overall direction for the solid waste program. Phase II work will begin following the Board’s direction on the recommendation to move forward with.

Primary Authors A number of local CDM Smith solid waste engineers and planners were engaged in this project. Martin Sanford, located in the Charlotte, North Carolina office, served as primary technical lead and author as well as lead facilitator in the stakeholder and public outreach meetings. Joe Wiseman, from the Atlanta, Georgia office, served as technical director during all aspects of Phase I. Kenton Yang, located in the Raleigh, North Carolina office, served as project manager and day‐to‐day contact with County staff as well as provided technical input for the report. Diane Mills, from the Charlotte, North Carolina office, supported Mr. Sanford in the development of the solid waste program financial model. Between Mr. Sanford, Mr. Wiseman, and Mr. Yang, there is a minimum of 60 years of solid waste management experience involved in the development of this Phase I report. Ms. Mills has 40 years of experience in financial analyses of local government solid waste and utility programs.

An important sub‐consultant was Jeremy O’Brien, with O’Brien Environmental LLC out of Charlotte, North Carolina, who applied his 35 years of national solid waste expertise to the evaluation of waste diversion and conversion technologies.

Mr. Joe Suleyman August 22, 2013 Page 2

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you and your staff on this project. If you have any questions or if you need clarifications, please feel free to contact me.

Respectfully,

Martin Sanford, P.E., BCEE Kenton J. Yang, P.E. Technical Lead Project Manager CDM Smith Inc. CDM Smith Inc.

ES‐1

Executive Summary

Purpose On February 6, 2013, New Hanover County’s Department of Environmental Management (Department) issued a request for proposal for the development of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan). The purpose of the Plan was to review available solid waste management technologies, practices and methods and outline a course of action that is in alignment with the New Hanover County’s strategic plan, vision, and values. The foundation of the Plan is that the recommendations must be based on sustainability, cost effectiveness, and preservation of landfill airspace. The Plan includes two phases and includes the following:

Phase I ‐ a review of existing solid waste management infrastructure, services, and methods; a comparative analysis of available waste management technologies, facilities, and processes, including fixed and variable costs, impact on waste disposal, benefits, constraints, and alignment with the County’s strategic plan; public/stakeholder outreach; a Phase I report; and a presentation of recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (Board)

Phase II – will commence following Board direction on recommendations

This report presents the work completed for Phase I.

County Background New Hanover County is part of the four‐county Cape Fear Region which includes Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender counties. Based on the Cape Fear Council of Government’s Cape Fear Region NC Tomorrow Plan, the region’s population grew by 28% or 91,000 residents during the 10‐year period between 2000 and 2010. During this period, New Hanover County grew at a rate of approximately 26%.

The current and future growth of the County places a significant emphasis on the need for public infrastructure to keep pace with development and growth. Higher levels of economic and population growth lead to more waste generation and a corresponding need for the capacity to manage the growing and varying waste stream.

The County’s population is approximately 210,000 people, which ranks the County as the 8th largest in the North Carolina. With a total land mass of approximately 192 square miles; the County is the 2nd smallest county in the state, and 4‐5 times smaller than its surrounding neighbors. This small land mass results in a densely populated county with a total population density of 1,094 people per square mile.

New Hanover County is similar to the average North Carolina county with 43% of the population located within unincorporated areas. According to the Office of State Budget and Management, the County has the 10th largest municipal population in the State with approximately 118,700 people. The remaining population resides in the four municipalities: City of Wilmington, and the Towns of Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, and Wrightsville Beach. The City of Wilmington is the largest municipality, and accounts for approximately 108,000 people or 52% of the total County population.

Executive Summary New Hanover County – Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan

ES‐2

New Hanover County is unique in that its unincorporated population is more typical of a suburban/urban area than a rural area with a population density that is six times greater than the average North Carolina unincorporated area. The population density of 653 people per square mile is the highest, by almost two to seven times, of any of the top 20 populated counties in the state.

Existing Solid Waste Program Review In order to identify gaps in services or potential needs and then to formulate potential recommendations, an understanding of the existing solid waste management program was necessary. This includes services that are provided but also the financial status of the program.

The existing solid waste management program provides many value‐added services to County citizens which include:

environmentally secure municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal at the Subtitle D landfill including sustainable leachate treatment using constructed wetlands;

recycling drop‐off centers strategically located throughout the County;

construction and demolition (C&D) material recycling;

scrap tires and white goods disposal;

processing of recyclable materials, electronic waste collection, and household hazard waste (HHW) collection at the Sustainable Energy Facility (formerly WASTEC);

yard waste drop‐off at the landfill for a composting operation pilot program;

free waste audits available to businesses; and

Disaster debris management.

CDM Smith conducted a review of the program financials and determined that the program is financially sustainable over the 20‐year analysis period. This assumes that the $59 per ton tipping fee remains constant and annual disposal tons increase 1.5% annually. Section 4 of this Phase I Report provides a financial evaluation of the current program business model including a breakdown of the current program costs covered by the tipping fee, which include landfill operation and maintenance (O&M), closure/post‐closure; landfill capital improvement projects, recycling and HHW activities, and WASTEC.

Based on our assessment of the current program, we have identified five key strategic focus areas that represent the key challenges facing the future of solid waste management within the County. The five focus areas are:

waste disposal;

enforcement of existing solid waste ordinance provisions;

availability of collection services in the unincorporated areas;

recycling operations and services; and

education and public outreach.


ES‐3

Specifically, some of the potential challenges/opportunities to consider are: landfill preservation; adequate closure and post‐closure funding levels; eliminating WASTEC risk management costs; variability in waste disposal tons; increasing C&D recycling and diversion; and increasing the capacity for processing recyclables.

Stakeholders/Public Input In addition to gaining an understanding of the existing solid waste program, gathering input from key stakeholders and County citizens is valuable to the process of identifying and further refining the community’s needs for solid waste management services. A stakeholder meeting was held on June 26, 2013 and included municipal leaders from the County, Town of Wrightsville Beach, and City of Wilmington; private haulers; Cape Fear River Watch; University of North Carolina‐Wilmington; and the Chamber of Commerce. A 2‐hour public meeting was held on July 30, 2013 at the main library in downtown Wilmington. The meeting was attended by several residents and resulted in an open discussion on the issues facing the County. Input from residents was also obtained through a public on‐line survey that was available from July 15th thru August 15th. A total of 348 responses (out of 8,000 postcards mailed out) were received yielding a representative sample size of the County population.

Based on stakeholder and public input, there appears to be common support for providing curbside recycling and yard waste collection services to the unincorporated areas; increasing education and public outreach; and increasing the ability to recycle more materials.

High‐Level Review of Solid Waste Management Strategies As part of the Phase I work, a high‐level review of current solid waste management tools was conducted to determine what potential strategies are available to fill the service gaps identified during the solid waste program review and stakeholder/public input process. The management strategies were screened based on the underlying foundation for developing the Solid Waste Management Plan (sustainability, cost effectiveness, and preservation of landfill airspace). A fourth criterion was included which identified if the strategy was proven and prevalent not only in North Carolina but nationwide. The management strategies can be categorized as follows: landfill engineering and operational activities that could maximize landfill capacity; waste diversion; waste conversion and processing; unincorporated collection practices options; and regionalization/privatization options. We also reviewed options associated with the beneficial use of landfill resources, which included landfill gas beneficial use. Finding beneficial uses for landfill resource does not necessarily preserve landfill airspace but programs such as landfill gas‐to‐energy can potentially enhance the overall solid waste program.

A screening matrix was developed to identify the most appropriate management strategies that could fill service gaps while also enhancing the program.

Results of the High‐Level Review As a result of the high‐level review, no viable waste conversion management strategy is currently suited for the County. Two policy recommendations were identified as the most aligned to the foundations of the Plan.

Continue existing Subtitle D landfill operations with supplement strategies to enhance the program, or


ES‐4

Utilize a privately developed and operated transfer station, located on the County landfill property, to haul all waste to a private regional landfill.

These two policy recommendations are not mutually exclusive and are two distinct paths forward. Regardless of which direction is chosen, expanding existing recycling and waste diversion programs could be implemented. Direction on which recycling and/or waste diversion options to investigate for Phase II is necessary since there is a wide‐range of options and each option has its own implications. Also combinations of options can be investigated.

Once a direction on which policy recommendation is most appropriate for the County, a number of supplemental strategies can be investigated. These supplemental strategies include: increasing public outreach/education; investigating the feasibility of mechanically‐stabilized earthen (MSE) walls that could potentially increase the southern expansion landfill airspace; evaluating the feasibility of landfill gas‐to‐energy projects; evaluating the adequacy of yard waste and composting facilities; increasing C&D recycling and diversion; evaluating future expansion of C&D recycling operations at the landfill; growing the recycling within county schools and government buildings; and updates to the solid waste management ordinance. More supplement strategies are provided in the report.

Evaluation of Waste Disposal Alternatives Recommendations Until April 2011, the foundation of solid waste management within New Hanover County was the combination of both WASTEC and the Secure Subtitle D landfill. Since operations at WASTEC have ceased, the County has been dependent upon the Subtitle D landfill to provide residents and businesses with proper, environmentally protective waste disposal services.

Given the County’s long‐term goal of landfill preservation, transferring waste out‐of‐the County to a permitted regional Subtitle D landfill is an option that should be considered from both a policy and financial perspective. The development of a detailed plan for managing the waste generated within the County must start with determining the appropriate disposal approach for waste remaining after recycling and composting. Given the importance of determining a long‐term waste disposal approach, CDM Smith conducted an analysis between two waste disposal alternatives:

Continue disposal of all waste at the County‐operated Secure Subtitle D landfill.


These two options are not the exclusive set of solutions that address waste disposal and preservation of landfill airspace; however they do offer a distinct comparison between two effective but competing alternatives for waste disposal responsibilities.

In order to compare the financial costs associated with each alternative, a comparison of the future annual costs was converted to the value of today’s dollar. This process is accomplished by determining the net present value (NPV) of each annual cost. Figure ES1 compares the present value of the annual costs for the county landfill and a turnkey private operation over a nineteen year analysis period. Section 6 of this Phase I report provides a detailed discussion on this alternative analysis.


ES‐5

Figure ES‐1. NPV Analysis of Waste Disposal Options

The NPV analysis of the two waste disposal options considered indicates that, over a 19‐year period, the lowest net present cost for waste disposal services is provided by the continued operation of the County landfill. The difference in net present value costs amounts to just over $43 million.

The results of this analysis only consider the operational costs associated with each option. The future economic value of preserved landfill airspace, associated with the transfer station option, was not considered in our analysis.

Non‐Financial Considerations Even though financial costs are often a primary consideration when making decisions regarding the future direction of a solid waste program, there are often other factors that must be evaluated against the financial concerns. The County’s decision regarding the appropriate long‐term waste disposal approach will also need to consider the following such as:

Long‐term Financial or Environmental Liability

Waste Flow Control

Funding for Important Support Services

For additional consideration in the evaluation of both waste disposal options, Table ES1 and Table ES2 provide summaries of the advantages and disadvantages associated with each option.


ES‐6

Table ES‐1. Summary of Advantages

Continue Disposal at County‐operated Landfill Utilize a Privately Developed and Operated Private Transfer Station

Offers the lower net present value of annual disposal costs

Maximizes operating life of County landfill

Maintains control over waste disposal and long‐term costs

Capital expenditures and future liabilities delayed

Maintains funding support for recycling, HHW, and other non‐disposal programs

Eliminates waste “flow control” concerns

Environmental stewardship – handling waste created by County

Table ES‐2. Summary of Disadvantages


Landfill airspace exhausted earlier Higher net present value disposal costs

Assume risk of variability in waste disposal tons Minimum landfill operations required to keep operating permit

New funding source will be required for non‐disposal activities

Long‐term contract restricts flexibility to take advantage of future waste conversion opportunities

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Section 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Plan .................................................................................................................................................. 1‐1

Section 2 Current Solid Waste Program Summary

2.1 Background of County ..................................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1.1 Demographics and Land Mass ........................................................................................................ 2‐2 2.1.2 Municipalities and Unincorporated Areas ................................................................................. 2‐2

2.1.2.1 Municipalities ........................................................................................................................ 2‐2 2.1.2.2 Unincorporated Areas ........................................................................................................ 2‐4 2.1.2.3 Households ............................................................................................................................. 2‐5

2.1.3 Countywide Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Trends ................................................... 2‐6 2.2 Legislative Requirements .............................................................................................................................. 2‐8

2.2.1 County’s Focus on Solid Waste Management ........................................................................... 2‐9 2.2.2 North Carolina Solid Waste Legislation ...................................................................................... 2‐9

2.2.2.1 North Carolina General Statutes .................................................................................... 2‐9 2.2.2.2 Local Government Responsibilities ........................................................................... 2‐10 2.2.2.3 Local Government Authority Granted by General Statutes ............................ 2‐11 2.2.2.4 North Carolina Waste Reduction Policies and Goals ......................................... 2‐12 2.2.2.5 Materials Banned from Landfill Disposal ............................................................... 2‐12

2.2.3 Division of Waste Management Reporting Requirements ............................................... 2‐13 2.3 Stakeholder/Public Input ........................................................................................................................... 2‐13

2.3.1 Stakeholder Workshop .................................................................................................................... 2‐13 2.3.2 Public Meeting ..................................................................................................................................... 2‐14 2.3.3 Public On‐line Survey ....................................................................................................................... 2‐14

2.4 Benchmarking Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 2‐17 2.4.1 Demographics ..................................................................................................................................... 2‐17 2.4.2 Disposal .................................................................................................................................................. 2‐18 2.4.3 Recycling ............................................................................................................................................... 2‐18 2.4.4 HHW and Special Wastes ............................................................................................................... 2‐19 2.4.5 Financial ................................................................................................................................................ 2‐19 2.4.6 Landfill Operations Staff ................................................................................................................. 2‐19 2.4.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 2‐20

Section 3 Countywide Solid Waste Management System Delivery

3.1 Environmental Management Department Organization ................................................................. 3‐1 3.2 County Services .................................................................................................................................................. 3‐3

3.2.1 Capacity of Existing Waste Disposal and Recycling Facilities ........................................... 3‐4 3.2.2 Disaster Debris Management ....................................................................................................... 3‐10

3.3 County Ordinances and Policies .............................................................................................................. 3‐11 3.4 Municipality Solid Waste Services .......................................................................................................... 3‐12 3.5 Local and Regional Private Sector Services ........................................................................................ 3‐14

3.5.1 Private Waste Haulers ..................................................................................................................... 3‐14

New Hanover County, North Carolina – Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Phase I Table of Contents

ii

Section 3 Countywide Solid Waste Management System Delivery (continued)

3.5.2 Material Recovery Facilities and Regional Landfills ............................................................ 3‐15 3.5.3 Yard Waste and Vegetative Debris Handling Facilities ....................................................... 3‐15 3.5.4 Recycling Facility ................................................................................................................................. 3‐15

3.6 Summary of Key Issues Facing the County .......................................................................................... 3‐16

Section 4 Financial Analysis

4.1 Existing Business Model ................................................................................................................................. 4‐1 4.2 Revenue Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 4‐1

4.2.1 Landfill Disposal Fees .......................................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.2.2 Statutory Trust Fund Revenue Sources ....................................................................................... 4‐2 4.2.3 Recycling Revenue ................................................................................................................................ 4‐2

4.3 Financial Analysis and Results ..................................................................................................................... 4‐2 4.3.1 County Financial Data ......................................................................................................................... 4‐2 4.3.2 Definition of Key Financial Terms ................................................................................................. 4‐3 4.3.3 General Assumptions .......................................................................................................................... 4‐3 4.3.4 Analysis of Contined Landfill Operation ..................................................................................... 4‐4 4.3.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 4‐8

Section 5 Highlevel Review of Technologies

5.1 Engineering and Operational Strategies to Maximize Landfill Capacity ................................... 5‐1 5.1.1 Alternative Daily Cover ...................................................................................................................... 5‐1 5.1.2 Leachate Recirculation ....................................................................................................................... 5‐2 5.1.3 Landfill In‐fill .......................................................................................................................................... 5‐2 5.1.4 Landfill Mining ....................................................................................................................................... 5‐2 5.1.5 Inward Gradient Landfills ................................................................................................................. 5‐3 5.1.6 Artificially Lowering the Groundwater Table ........................................................................... 5‐3 5.1.7 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall ................................................................................. 5‐4

5.2 Waste Diversion Potential ............................................................................................................................. 5‐5 5.2.1 Review of Waste Composition Study ............................................................................................ 5‐6 5.2.2 Preliminary Market Assessment .................................................................................................... 5‐7 5.2.3 Overview of Waste Diversion Approaches ................................................................................. 5‐7 5.2.4 Options to Increase Residential Waste Diversion ................................................................... 5‐8

5.2.4.1 Semi‐Exclusive Franchise Residential Waste Collection in Unincorporated Areas ........................................................................................................ 5‐9 5.2.4.2 Mixed Waste Processing ................................................................................................. 5‐11

5.2.5 Options to Increase Commercial Waste Diversion .............................................................. 5‐13 5.2.5.1 Mandatory Commercial Recycling ............................................................................. 5‐13 5.2.5.2 Mixed Commercial Waste Processing ....................................................................... 5‐15

5.2.6 Options to Increase the Recycling of Source‐Separated Organics ................................ 5‐15 5.2.6.1 Yard Waste Composting ................................................................................................. 5‐17 5.2.6.2 Food Waste Composting ................................................................................................. 5‐17

5.2.7 Options to Increase Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling ........................... 5‐20 5.2.7.1 C&D Waste Processing .................................................................................................... 5‐20

5.3 Waste Conversion and Processing Options ......................................................................................... 5‐22 5.3.1 Thermal Waste Conversion Processes ...................................................................................... 5‐22 5.3.2 Biological/Chemical Processes .................................................................................................... 5‐24 5.3.3 Physical Processes ............................................................................................................................. 5‐27


iii

Section 5 Highlevel Review of Technologies (continued)

5.4 Beneficial Use of Landfill Resources ...................................................................................................... 5‐30 5.4.1 Beneficial Use of Landfill Gas ........................................................................................................ 5‐30 5.4.2 Solar Power .......................................................................................................................................... 5‐32 5.4.3 Wind Power .......................................................................................................................................... 5‐33

5.5 Regional Solid Waste Management Strategies ................................................................................. 5‐34 5.5.1 Regional Waste Disposal Facilities ............................................................................................. 5‐34 5.5.2 Regional Consolidation of Waste ................................................................................................ 5‐36 5.5.3 Recycling Processing Facilities .................................................................................................... 5‐36 5.5.4 Grant Funding for Regional Solutions ....................................................................................... 5‐40

5.6 Collection Practices in the Unincorporated Areas ........................................................................... 5‐40 5.6.1 Current Practices ............................................................................................................................... 5‐41 5.6.2 Organized Franchise Collection in the Unincorporated Area ......................................... 5‐42

5.6.2.1 Curbside Collection System Performance and Costs ......................................... 5‐43 5.6.3 Expansion of Existing Drop‐off Sites ......................................................................................... 5‐46 5.6.4 Curbside Collection and Convenience Centers...................................................................... 5‐47

5.7 Alternatives Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 5‐47

Section 6 Alternative Operations

Section 7 Recommendations for Consideration

7.1 Waste Disposal ................................................................................................................................................... 7‐1 7.2 Expansion of Recycling and Waste Diversion Programs .................................................................. 7‐1 7.3 Supplemental Strategies to Enhance the Program ............................................................................. 7‐2

Appendices Appendix A – Public Outreach Documents Appendix B – Financial Model Documents


iv

Tables Table ES‐1 Summary of Advantages ................................................................................................................ ES‐6

Table ES‐2 Summary of Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... ES‐6

Table 2‐1 Comparative Population Data for Top 10 Counties ............................................................. 2‐4

Table 2‐2 Unincorporated Population Data ................................................................................................. 2‐5

Table 2‐3 Summary of Survey Highlights ................................................................................................... 2‐16

Table 2‐4 Benchmarking Study (FY11‐12) (Category – Demographics) ...................................... 2‐21

Table 2‐5 Benchmarking Study (FY11‐12) (Category – Disposal) .................................................. 2‐22

Table 2‐6 Benchmarking Study (FY11‐12) (Category – Recycling) ................................................ 2‐23

Table 2‐7 Benchmarking Study (FY11‐12) (Category – HHW and Special Wastes) ................ 2‐24

Table 2‐8 Benchmarking Study (FY11‐12) (Category – Staffing and Operations) ................... 2‐25

Table 3‐1 Municipality Residential Curbside Collection Services ................................................... 3‐12

Table 4‐1 Debt Service Payment Schedule ................................................................................................... 4‐5

Table 4‐2 Annual Operating Costs .................................................................................................................... 4‐6

Table 4‐3 Proforma – New Hanover County Dept. of Environmental Management ................... 4‐9

Table 5‐1 Waste Diversion in New Hanover County (2012) ................................................................ 5‐5

Table 5‐2 Major Waste Substreams in New Hanover County .............................................................. 5‐6

Table 5‐3 Major Recyclable Components in the Residential and Commercial Waste Substreams ............................................................................................................................................ 5‐6

Table 5‐4 Major Recyclable Components of the C&D Waste Stream ................................................. 5‐7

Table 5‐5 Waste Diversion Practices and Processes Reviewed ........................................................... 5‐8

Table 5‐6 Residential Refuse Collection/Disposal Weekly Fees* in Catawba County ............ 5‐11

Table 5‐7 GreenWaste MRF – San Jose, CA ................................................................................................ 5‐12

Table 5‐8 Primary Methods of Recovering Source‐Separate Organics from Municipal

Solid Waste ....................................................................................................................................... 5‐16

Table 5‐9 C&D MRF – St. Lucie County, FL ................................................................................................. 5‐22

Table 5‐10 Solid Waste Disposal, Tonnages and Tipping Fees ............................................................ 5‐35

Table 5‐11 Summary of Materials Collected from Drop‐off Sites ....................................................... 5‐41

Table 5‐12 North Carolina Counties with Unincorporated Area Franchised Recycling

Curbside Collection (NCDENR data) ..................................................................................... 5‐45

Table 5‐13 Alternatives Analysis – Screening Matrix .............................................................................. 5‐47

Table 6‐1 Cost of Disposal Only ......................................................................................................................... 6‐3

Table 6‐2 Summary of Advantages ................................................................................................................. 6‐5

Table 6‐3 Summary of Disadvantages ............................................................................................................ 6‐6


v

Figures Figure ES‐1 NPV Analysis of Waste Disposal Options ......................................................................... ES‐5

Figure 2‐1 2010‐2020 Project Population Growth................................................................................2‐3

Figure 2‐2 Distribution of Housing Units ..................................................................................................2‐6

Figure 2‐3 Waste Disposal and Recycling Trends for the County since FY2006‐07 ...............2‐7

Figure 2‐4 Per Capita Rates for the Top 10 Populated Counties .....................................................2‐8

Figure 3‐1 Department of Environment Organizational Chart ........................................................3‐2

Figure 3‐2 County Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Facilities ..................................................3‐5

Figure 3‐3 Chart of Recyclable Materials Tonnages FY2012‐13 .................................................. 3‐10

Figure 3‐4 Local and Regional Facilities ................................................................................................. 3‐18

Figure 5‐1 Residential Grid Map for the Unincorporated Areas ................................................... 5‐44

Figure 6‐1 NPV Analysis of Waste Disposal Options ............................................................................6‐5

This Page Left Blank to Facilitate Double-Sided Printing

1‐1

Section 1

Introduction

On February 6, 2013, New Hanover County’s Department of Environmental Management issued a request for proposal (RFP) for the development of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan). On April 22, 2013, CDM Smith was chosen as the qualified firm to contract with the County for the development of the Plan. The Plan includes two phases and includes the following:

Phase I: conduct a review of existing solid waste management infrastructure, services, and methods;

conduct a comparative analysis of available waste management technologies, facilities, and processes, including fixed and variable costs, impact on waste disposal, benefits, constraints, and alignment with the County’s strategic plan;

conduct a minimum of one (1) public comment meeting to assess citizens needs;

coordinate a minimum of one (1) meeting with affected stakeholders, including municipalities;

prepare Phase I report and submit to Environmental Management Director; and

present recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (“Board”).

Phase II: finalize the Plan based on the direction of the Board’s selected policy options, with the

completed Plan to include implementation timelines, proposed fee structure to support recommended services, and established goals and benchmarks;

prepare final report and submit to Environmental Management Director; and

present the finalized Plan to the Board.

This report presents the work completed for Phase I. The following section describes the purpose and breakdown of the Plan.

1.1 Purpose of Plan As stated in the RFP:

The purpose of the Plan is to review available solid waste management technologies, practices, and methods and outline a course of action that is in alignment with the County’s strategic plan, vision, and values. The Plan must be based on a foundation of sustainability, cost effectiveness, and preservation of landfill airspace.

Section 1 Introduction

1‐2

The Phase I Plan is presented as follows:

Section 2 – Current Solid Waste Program Summary – includes a background of the County; legislative review; stakeholder and public input; and benchmarking analysis

Section 3 – Countywide Solid Waste Management System Delivery – includes County services; County ordinances and policies; local and regional private sector services; and key issues facing the County

Section 4 – Solid Waste Program Service Costs

Section 5 – High‐level Review of Technologies – includes engineering and operational strategies to maximize landfill capacity; waste diversion potential; waste conversion and processing options; beneficial use of landfill resources; regional needs; collection practices in the unincorporated areas; and an alternatives analysis

Section 6 – Alternative Operations

Section 7 – Recommendations for Consideration

2‐1

Section 2

Current Solid Waste Program Summary

The County and regional economy is primarily dependent upon the following sectors: tourism and service; healthcare/biotechnology; education, and film. One unique aspect of New Hanover County that is important to the overall economic climate is the presence of the City of Wilmington deep water port that offers the region global access for the distribution of goods and materials. The port also offers a unique opportunity to explore various opportunities for additional recycling considering the myriad materials that flow through the port and can be recycled such as cardboard, food waste, and plastics. This section will provide a summary of current solid waste practices within the municipalities and unincorporated areas, address the solid waste legislative responsibilities for counties, and provide a benchmark analysis of comparable communities.

2.1 Background of County New Hanover County is part of the four‐county Cape Fear Region which includes Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender counties. The region’s population grew by 28%, or 91,000 residents, during the 10‐year period between 2000 and 2010. During this period, New Hanover County grew at a rate of approximately 26%.

The County is the 8th most populous county and 12th fastest growing (3.6%) county in North Carolina based upon the period between April 2010 and the July 2012 provisional county population estimated from the Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM). The County is part of a southeast regional area that has experienced high population growth rates. The counties of Brunswick, Pender, Onslow, and Jones, have all experienced growth rates in excess of 4% during the period between April 2010 and the July 2012.

The current and future growth of the County places a significant emphasis on the need for public infrastructure to keep pace with development and growth. Higher levels of economic and population growth lead to more waste generation and a corresponding need for the capacity to manage the growing and varying waste stream. While the recent economic recession and slow recovery has temporarily lessened the urgency for expansion of infrastructure and government services, nevertheless there remains a need to plan for future growth has not been totally eliminated.

The County’s population and community is a unique mix of growing urban and suburban areas along with a seasonal component from the strong tourism, film, and education sectors. This diversity of communities creates both opportunities and challenges in building a common system for solid waste management. Community characteristics such as housing density, types of housing units, and the mix of residential and business all contribute to the planning and provision of solid waste services. While the waste management needs of urban, suburban, and rural areas have some commonality, residents of each area have different expectations of service level, costs, and quality relative to the provision of waste collection and disposal services by the County and private providers.


2‐2

2.1.1 Demographics and Land Mass New Hanover County has a total population of approximately 210,000 people according to July 2012 provisional estimates from the OSBM. The County has a total land mass of approximately 192 square miles which makes it the 2nd smallest county in North Carolina, and 4‐5 times smaller than its surrounding neighbors. This small land mass results in a densely populated county with a total population density of 1,094 people per square mile. There are 4 municipalities within the County that account for approximately 118,655 people or 57% of the county population.

The unincorporated population accounts for 88,123 people or 42% of the county population. Further, the County has a total unincorporated land mass of approximately 135 square miles which yields an unincorporated population density of 653 people per square mile.

New Hanover County has seen its overall population grow by approximately 49,000 people from July 2000 to July 2012 which resulted in a growth rate of 30%. During the period April 2010 through July 2012, the County’s population increased by approximately 7,300 people.

As with other counties in North Carolina, the economic recession has caused a temporary decline in economic and population growth. However, the underlying reasons for the County’s previous strong growth, tourism, healthcare, and education are still intact and will drive future growth. The OSBM is projecting high growth rates (18.7%) for the County during the years 2010‐2020 with a growth in population equal to 37,850 people. OSBM population projections for this period indicate that the County will be in the top 10 for population growth in the State.

The projected high 10‐year growth rate means the County and the municipalities can expect to see continued growth of the incorporated and unincorporated areas, which mean increased amounts of waste and recyclable materials to be collected, managed, and disposed. Figure 21 shows projected population growth for 2010‐20201. The increase in population resulting from projected increases in tourism (currently 1 million people visit the county each year) also provide unique challenges to the County.

2.1.2 Municipalities and Unincorporated Areas North Carolina counties are predominately rural counties with large portions (45%) of the population living in unincorporated areas. New Hanover County is similar to the average North Carolina county with 43% of the population located within unincorporated areas. According to OSBM, New Hanover County has the 10th largest municipal population in the State with approximately 118,700 people.

Table 21 provides a summary of municipal and unincorporated population data for the top ten populated counties in North Carolina based on 2011 estimates from OSBM.

2.1.2.1 Municipalities

The largest municipality within the County is the City of Wilmington (City). The City accounts for approximately 108,000 people or 52% of the total County population. The City is the 8th largest municipality in the state and 10th in total growth (between April 2010 and July 2011) among the 553 municipalities in North Carolina, which reflects the overall strong growth of the County. The

1 Table/data from NC Office of State Budget and Management website


2‐3

Figure 2‐1. 2010‐2020 Project Population Growth


2‐4

remaining three municipalities (towns of Carolina Beach, Wrightsville Beach, and Kure Beach) account for approximately 10,300 people or 5% of the total County population. Overall, the County’s municipality population density is approximately 2,110 people per square mile of land.

Table 2‐1. Comparative Population Data for Top 10 Counties

County

July 2011

Pop. Est. # of

Municipalities Municipal Population

% of

County Unincorporated

Population

% of

County

Mecklenburg 940,697 9 896,442 95% 44,255 5%

Wake 925,938 13 733,974 79% 191,964 21%

Guilford 495,231 13 408,009 82% 87,222 18%

Forsyth 354,878 10 298,572 84% 56,306 16%

Cumberland 327,643 9 241,225 74% 86,418 26%

Durham 272,314 3 235,718 87% 36,596 13%

Buncombe 243,855 6 105,390 43% 138,465 57%

Gaston 207,506 14 129,125 62% 78,381 38%

New Hanover 206,774 4 118,651 57% 88,123 43%

Union 205,717 14 137,918 67% 67,799 33%

Since municipalities typically provide for residential solid waste collection and disposal services within their jurisdictions, county governments generally have the primary responsibility for ensuring that residential solid waste collection and disposal services are being provided to the unincorporated areas as no locality exists to address this function.

2.1.2.2 Unincorporated Areas

Residents in the unincorporated areas are responsible for selecting their own private commercial hauler for collection of garbage, recyclables, yard waste, and bulky waste. For the Environmental Management Department, that means ensuring that adequate services and facilities (public or private) are provided for approximately 88,000 people.

The unincorporated areas account for 71 percent of the County’s land mass and 43 percent of the population. The County has the 10th largest unincorporated population with a density of approximately 653 people per square mile. This density is relatively high given that the majority of unincorporated areas across the state consist of rural communities with an average population density of 100 people per square mile.

New Hanover County is unique in that its unincorporated population is more typical of a suburban/urban area than a rural area with a population density that is six times greater than the average North Carolina unincorporated area. The population density of 653 people per square mile is the highest, by almost two to seven times, of any of the top 20 populated counties.


2‐5

Population density is a key factor in determining the viability of curbside collection for solid waste and recyclable services for unincorporated residents. The average population density for North Carolina municipalities, who typically are responsible for providing curbside collection, is 1,340 people per square mile. Table 22 provides a summary of population data for 15 counties with the largest unincorporated populations.

Table 2‐2. Unincorporated Population Data

County Unincorporated Population Unincorporated Sq. Miles Unincorporated Density

Wake 191,964 538 357

Buncombe 138,465 586 236

Johnston 122,443 734 167

Davidson 103,238 501 206

Onslow 103,017 701 147

Iredell 100,035 521 186

Robeson 96,982 913 106

Harnett 94,851 576 165

Randolph 89,044 726 123

New Hanover 88,123 135 653

Guilford 87,222 378 231

Cumberland 86,418 459 188

Catawba 83,968 330 254

Wayne 80,309 517 155

Gaston (8) 78,381 254 309

2.1.2.3 Households

Based on 2010 housing data provided by the County, there are approximately 101,400 housing units in the County. Housing units included single‐family and multi‐family dwellings. Approximately 37% or 37,450 housing units are located within the unincorporated areas. The City of Wilmington accounts for 53,400 units or 53% of the total County housing. Figure 22 provides a distribution chart of housing within the County.

The City and unincorporated areas combined, account for 89% and 95% of the county households and permanent population, respectively. The towns of Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, and Wrightsville Beach account for the remaining 11% of the housing units.

Based on a 5‐year estimate from a 2006‐2010 US Census American Community Survey, over 62,000 or 62% of the county housing units were classified as 1‐unit detached or single‐family housing. The unincorporated areas consist primarily of 1‐unit detached housing units (~29,700 units or 81%) while the incorporated areas are almost evenly split between 1‐unit detached units (52%) and others (48%). The percentages of owner‐occupied and rental properties in the County are 61% and 39%,


2‐6

respectively. According to 2010 US Census data, seasonal housing units accounted for 6.6% of the housing supply.

2.1.3 Countywide Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Trends The New Hanover County Department of Environmental Management (DEM) tracks the monthly and annual quantities for waste disposal and recycling activities conducted by the department. The data collected includes waste tonnages received at WASTEC and the Secure Subtitle D Landfill (Landfill); materials recycled/diverted at the Landfill, and recycling from the various drop‐off sites.

According to the FY2012‐13 data, County residents and businesses sent a little over 208,000 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and demolition (C&D) waste to the Landfill. Since FY2006‐07, the WASTEC and Landfill facilities combined have handled, on average, 95% of the County’s waste disposal needs.2

The FY2012‐13 waste disposal amounts are down about 56,700 tons from 264,860 tons in FY2006‐07. The downward trend in waste disposal can be attributed to the overall economic decline, but increased recycling and waste reduction efforts are also contributing to the lower disposal rates.

2 Based on annual reports issued by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Waste Management (DWM)

Figure 2‐2. Distribution of Housing Units


2‐7

The recycling data collected by the DEM excludes yard waste, tires, and some special waste. Figure 23 shows the waste disposal and recycling trends for the County since FY2006‐07. The total recycling numbers represent material collected from the drop‐off sites and diverted at the landfill.

The DWM annual report for FY 2011‐2012 indicates that the County’s per capita waste disposal rate was 1.02 tons per person. A graph of the per capita rates for the top 10 populated counties is provided as Figure 24 as a point of comparison.

The County’s per capita waste disposal rate of 1.02 represents a 21% reduction from the 1991‐1992 base year per capita rate of 1.28. However, the County’s rate is above the North Carolina average of 0.98. NCDENR’s FY 2011‐2012 rankings for recycling per capita place New Hanover County 19th for both total public recycling and common household recyclables at rates of 171.1 and 124.9 lbs/person, respectively. For comparison purposes, Pitt County was ranked 1st in both categories with rates of 763.2 and 340.7 lbs/person.

Figure 2‐3. Waste Disposal and Recycling Trends for the County since FY2006‐07


2‐8

2.2 Legislative Requirements The development of legislative and local government policy goals regarding proper management of solid waste materials began under the directive of maintaining public health, which is why county‐level solid waste operations, in the past, were often part of the Health Department responsibilities. The success in addressing the public health and safety issues of the past has allowed the focus on waste management systems to be shifted away from public health concerns to material and resource management (recovery and reuse).

The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) hierarchy for waste management systems focuses on the following activities (in order of preference): source reduction and reuse; recycling and composting; energy recovery, and treatment and disposal. Legislative, regulatory, and policy goals at both the federal and state levels have been encouraging local governments to develop solid waste management plans that focus more on waste reduction, material recovery, and reuse. These policy objectives are also important to preserving the most critical asset: landfill airspace.

Figure 2‐4. Per Capita Rates for the Top Populated Counties


2‐9

Through state legislative and regulatory requirements, New Hanover County (County) will continue to have an active role in managing solid waste and recyclable materials. In the County’s 2012 Solid Waste Management Plan, a waste reduction goal of 25% was established for FY 2015‐16. Waste reduction and materials management (recovery) goals, such as the County’s, have created a need to develop long‐term strategic policies and operational plans that address the on‐going dynamics between reducing waste disposal and increasing resource recovery.

2.2.1 County’s Focus on Solid Waste Management The legislative requirements for solid waste management (discussed in the next section) provide the basic responsibilities and authorities of counties. However, legislative guidelines are not the defining limit on what role each county plays in managing solid waste. Establishing the County’s role in managing waste is important to setting the future direction on policy, strategic issues, and operations.

The evaluation of solid waste management strategies in this report was based upon an understanding that the County is focused on the following critical areas:

Preserving the operating life of the Subtitle D landfill through increased recycling and waste reduction efforts,

Developing a solid waste management program that is sustainable, cost‐effective, and consistent across the county,

Evaluating regional approaches to properly and efficiently manage waste and recycling materials through both public and private sector involvement, and

Utilizing proven technologies and solutions for the management, processing, and disposal of solid waste and recycling materials.

Understanding the North Carolina legislative requirements and policy goals is an important first step for the County in developing a long‐term strategic plan for managing recyclable and waste materials.

2.2.2 North Carolina Solid Waste Legislation For North Carolina, the late 1980’s was a time of significant change in the legislative responsibilities for local governments regarding solid waste management and recycling. Solid Waste Management requirements for the State of North Carolina (NC) are based upon the laws (or statutes) ratified and published by the North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA). The NC General Statutes establish not only the responsibilities for the State, but also for local governments regarding solid waste management within their jurisdiction.

The General Assembly passed the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989, which required all 100 counties to begin managing and planning for solid waste collection and disposal. The General Statutes were also amended to require that each county implement a recycling program for solid waste materials that can be economically recycled. However, the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Waste Management (DWM) is responsible for the actual implementation and enforcement of the NC General Statutes that govern the management and disposal of solid waste.

2.2.2.1 North Carolina General Statutes

Over the years, several Senate and House Bills have created legislation that addresses local government responsibilities regarding disposal and recycling requirements for residential,


2‐10

commercial, and industrial waste generators. The two primary General Statutes that speak to solid waste and local government responsibilities are: Article 9 of Chapter 130A (Public Health) and Article 15 of Chapter 153A (Counties). A list of key applicable General Statutes relative to local government responsibilities is provided below:

G.S. 130A‐294 – Solid waste management program

G.S. 130A‐309 – Cited as The Solid Waste Management Act of 1989

G.S. 153A‐136 – Regulation of solid wastes

G.S. 153A‐292 – County collection and disposal facilities:

G.S. 153A 293 – Collection of fees for solid waste disposal facilities and solid waste collection services.

Other General Statutes within Article 9 of Chapter 130A address scrap tire disposal, lead‐acid batteries, white goods (appliances) disposal, computer equipment and television disposal, abandoned manufactured homes, and plastic bag management.

2.2.2.2 Local Government Responsibilities

General Statute 130A‐309.09A

This Statute has assigned a variety of specific responsibilities to local governments. Since the passing of the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989, county and municipality governments have taken on different responsibilities regarding solid waste management. Typically, county governments manage overall disposal operations/activities and collection within the unincorporated areas, while the municipalities manage the collection of materials within their jurisdictions. County governments have also taken the lead regarding special waste programs, education efforts, and development of a county‐wide solid waste management plan. New Hanover County has taken on these typical responsibilities established by this General Statute and carried out by most of the other North Carolina counties.

The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners (Board) is responsible for assessing the solid waste collection services and disposal capacity available within the County, and for determining if the collection and disposal needs of the County’s citizens and businesses are being adequately provided while protecting public health and the environment. The Board is also responsible for taking the appropriate steps necessary to address any deficiencies in the provision of adequate collection services or disposal facilities within the County.

Per this General Statute, the County has been required to develop a 10‐year comprehensive solid waste management plan which is to be updated every three years. However, during the 2013 Session of the NCGA, the legislature ratified House Bill 321 on July 25, 2013 which repealed the requirement that local governments develop and maintain a comprehensive solid waste management plan. At the time of this report, the bill is awaiting the Governor’s signature before becoming law.

General Statute 153A‐292 ‐County Collection and Disposal Facilities

Counties can establish and operate solid waste collection and disposal facilities in areas outside the incorporated limits of a city. Ordinances may be used to regulate the use of a facility provided by the county. The Board can also contract for the provision of collection and disposal services for unincorporated areas.


2‐11

In order to generate sufficient funds to adequately support County collection and disposal facilities, the Board has the authority to impose fees (with certain limitations and requirements) for the following: collection of solid waste; use of a County‐owned disposal facility; and the availability of a disposal facility provided by the County. Disposal facility availability and use fees can be based on the combined costs incurred by the County for construction and operations of different facilities.

Under this Statute, counties and municipalities have the authority to jointly provide collection and disposal facilities for a specific areas of the county. The joint agreement must be in writing and executed by the governing bodies of the participating governments.

2.2.2.3 Local Government Authority Granted by General Statutes

General Statute 130A‐294(5b‐d)

This Statute allows the State to give counties and municipalities the authority to develop specific ordinances that require all solid waste generated within the local governments’ jurisdiction and that are designated for disposal shall be collected, transported, stored, and disposed of at a permitted solid waste management facility or facilities serving that jurisdiction. Ordinances are also widely used by local governments to establish acceptable waste and recycling practices for residents, businesses, and private waste management firms.

General Statute 153A‐136 – Regulation of Solid Wastes

This General Statute specifically outlines the ability of counties to regulate solid waste with the appropriate use of ordinances in establishing and implementing regulations. Ordinances may be used to regulate source separation of materials, recycling participation, collection, transportation, storage, and disposal of waste and recyclable materials. Under Statute 130A‐309.09D(a), the County has the authority to implement solid waste regulatory controls such as mandatory recycling or local disposal bans. Given this power to regulate solid waste and recycling activities, the State has established an expectation that counties should have the tools to implement programs and provide services that comply with the State’s overall solid waste management regulations and policies; and work towards achieving the State’s waste reduction goals,

Hauler License Fees and Franchise Agreements Counties are authorized to charge license fees to allow private commercial haulers to collect or dispose of solid waste. These fees can be used to offset the costs of monitoring the quality and regulatory compliance of services provided by private haulers to citizens and businesses. Counties are also authorized to enter into franchise agreements with private commercial haulers for the exclusive right to collect or dispose of solid waste or recyclables.

General Statute 153A‐292 ‐County Collection and Disposal Facilities

Implementation of Solid Waste Fees In order to generate sufficient funds to adequately support County collection and disposal facilities, the Board has the authority to impose fees (with certain limitations and requirements) for the following: collection of solid waste; use of a County‐owned disposal facility; and the availability of a disposal facility provided by the County. Disposal facility availability and use fees can be based on the combined costs incurred by the County for construction and operations of different facilities.

The General Statute states that “in determining the costs of providing and operating a disposal facility, a county may consider solid waste management costs incidental to a county's handling and disposal of


2‐12

solid waste at its disposal facility, including the costs of the methods of solid waste management specified in G.S. 130A‐309.04(a)of the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989”.

2.2.2.4 North Carolina Waste Reduction Policies and Goals

General Statute 130A‐309.04(c)

This Statute establishes the State’s overall municipal solid waste (MSW) reduction goal of 40% based on a per capita basis. There is currently no statutory requirement to establish waste reduction goals beyond June 30, 2006, however, the DWM is still requiring counties and municipalities to develop and implement solid waste management programs that collectively will move the State closer to its’ overall waste reduction goal of 40%.

General Statute 130A 309.09B

This Statute requires that local governments develop and maintain a solid waste reduction program that will enable the government to meet the reduction goals established in their solid waste management plan per G.S.130A‐309.09A. The recently ratified, but unsigned, House Bill 321 has removed the requirement that waste reduction programs must meet the reduction goals established in their solid waste management plan.

The State wants counties and municipalities to provide for the removal of recyclable material (plastics, glass, metal, and paper) from the waste stream. Recycling household yard trash and other organic solid waste into mulch or compost is another mechanism by which the State is looking for communities to reduce the amount of waste requiring landfill disposal.

2.2.2.5 Materials Banned from Landfill Disposal

General Statute 130A‐309.10

Over the years, the NCGA and DWM have developed a list of materials that are banned from disposal in a regulated landfill meeting the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D regulations (Subtitle D landfill). Local governments are responsible for providing citizens and businesses the means or mechanism by which the banned materials can be managed correctly.

The growing list of materials banned from landfill disposal requires that the County’s strategic plan will need to address the management of current and future banned materials. Below is a current list of items banned from disposal in landfills. The means and methods can consist of either public or private options.

Aluminum cans Used motor oil filters and oil

ABC beverage containers Antifreeze (ethylene glycol)

Recyclable rigid plastic containers Wooden Pallets

Plastic bottles Discarded computer equipment

Household hazardous waste Discarded televisions

Yard Trash Whole scrap tires

White goods Lead acid batteries

Oyster shells Mercury‐containing fluorescent lights and thermostats (unlined landfills)


2‐13

2.2.3 Division of Waste Management Reporting Requirements Local government jurisdictions are required to submit to the DWM an annual report on the implementation of solid waste management programs and waste reduction activities, specifically regarding how waste is being collected, transported, stored, and disposed of at a permitted solid waste management facility. The County is required to submit an annual report along with additional requirements.

Additional reporting requirements for the County include:

Solid Waste and Materials Management Annual Reporting Form which is due September 1st annually. The County would lose its eligibility to receive disposal tax distributions if this form is not submitted.

Annual Facility Forms are due August 1st.

Annual Fiscal Information Report (AFIR) is due March 1st. Failure to submit this form will cause the County to be ineligible to receive tax (tire and white goods) distributions and other grants.

2.3 Stakeholder/Public Input An essential portion of any comprehensive solid waste management plan is stakeholder and public input. The County requested for CDM Smith to gather input from the various stakeholders who are involved in generating and managing solid waste and recyclable materials within the County. Through this process, gaps in services, considerations for solid waste management options, and an assessment on current program can be garnered. For this plan, CDM Smith and County staff worked together on the following:

Stakeholder Workshop on June 26th – including stakeholders from municipalities within the County, environmental groups, and local private sector providers (haulers)

Public Meeting on July 30th – open meeting for all interested parties

Public On‐line Survey available from July 15th to August 15th

2.3.1 Stakeholder Workshop CDM Smith held a Stakeholder Workshop in Wilmington on June 26th and representatives from the following joined in the discussion: Waste Management, Waste Industries, Cape Fear River Watch, City of Wilmington, Town of Wrightsville Beach, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Chamber of Commerce, and Coastal Ladies Carting. The purpose of the workshop was to engage municipal leaders and private haulers in a discussion regarding their current thinking and ideas regarding garbage and recycling services with respect to the County’s role in providing such services. A few items were identified as considerations for the plan:

Yard waste pickup

- with enforceable yard waste ordinance, or

- franchising of curbside collection in unincorporated

Increasing/improving County‐wide solid waste (recycling) education

Curbside recycling

- with enforceable recycling ordinance, or


2‐14

- franchising of curbside collection in unincorporated

Another idea that was suggested was for the County to consider prescription medications drop‐off at the County’s new household hazard waste (HHW) operations. This enhancement to the HHW operations seems to be a good service for the County to provide in the future.

2.3.2 Public Meeting CDM Smith held a Public Meeting in Wilmington on July 30th to gather input from the general public. Since the County is primarily responsible for providing services to the unincorporated residents, the meeting focused specifically on soliciting input on the public’s interest in programs and infrastructure that drive waste reduction and recycling behavior in the unincorporated areas. Ten citizens attended and participated in the 2‐hour long meeting. Those citizens that spoke identified the following items that they thought should be considered as part of the plan:

Yard waste diversion

Mandatory County‐wide curbside recycling

Small or semi‐regional materials recovery facility

Transfer station within County to haul to the County landfill

Transfer waste out of County

Consider County operating all collection

Consider consolidating all services within County (partnership with City, etc.)

2.3.3 Public On‐line Survey To offer a greater opportunity for the public to provide input to the solid waste management plan, a community survey is a potentially powerful tool. The survey was conducted using the on‐line tool SurveyMonkey®. CDM Smith developed the questions based on another solid waste survey conducted recently but also with considerations to the unique aspects of New Hanover County.

The survey instrument was designed to capture residential preferences using a Likert scale response, with questions on the major solid waste focal areas. Demographic characteristics were also requested to enhance the characterization of the sample and support trending patterns.

CDM Smith assisted the County in developing a postcard to announce the survey and provided instructions to access the survey online. Utilizing GIS data, the County developed a random list of households within the unincorporated areas and municipalities, as determined by County staff. Below is a summary on the methodology used in distribution of 8,000 direct‐mail pieces on the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan survey:

1. All current addresses were filtered by the County IT Department for validity (i.e. eliminate addresses of vacant lots, fire hydrants, etc.) to ensure that all direct‐mail pieces were received by a head of household.

2. Each zip code was queried for population numbers within that zip code.

3. The percent of the total county population in any given zip code was calculated based on 2010 census data.


2‐15

4. The number of direct‐mail pieces was calculated as a corresponding percentage of the zip code’s population (some rounding occurred to allow for fractions).

5. The County IT Department randomized the pool of eligible addresses to ensure sufficient coverage over a given zip code.

A total of 348 responses were received yielding a representative sample of the County population. It should be noted that the response percentages provided herein are not based on the overall number of responses to the survey (348), but the actual number of responses to the question asked. The actual survey results are provided as Appendix A and should be referred to for more detail. A summary of survey highlights is provided in Table 23.

The majority of survey respondents owned their residence (90.1%) and almost half have lived within New Hanover County for over 15 years (49.3%). Respondents were generally equally split between areas inside and outside of corporate limits (45.3% and 52.3% respectively), with the vast majority of respondents receiving curbside garbage collection services (83.5%). In contrast, only about half of the respondents (51.2%) received curbside recycling services, which correlates well with the respondents living within the incorporated limits (52.3%) that receive curb side recycling from several of the municipalities.

Overall, respondents were willing to recycle with over 80% indicating that their household always recycles. The respondents also generally believed that garbage disposal should be managed by the government (64%) and felt that garbage disposal is an essential service for New Hanover County, like police, fire rescue and schools and would be willing to share in the costs for this service. These respondents are also concerned about reducing waste to the landfill and are supportive of increasing recycling. Although opinions on how to pay for services varied from including it within property taxes (27%), to a yearly availability fee paid by all (10%), to a user fee (13.8%), to paying based on the amount of garbage generated (34.4%); most respondents are willing to recycle provided the service is convenient – 46.3% were unwilling to drive to dispose of garbage and 45.3% we only willing to drive up to 10 minutes for this service.

In general, the majority of respondents were not satisfied with the level of recycling in the County (67.7%) with almost 50 percent (47.7%) indicating that they were not well informed about recycling services throughout the County and over 43% wanting to see curbside recycling within their neighborhood. In fact, 71.9% of the respondents indicated that they would recycle more, if provided curbside recycling. In addition to curbside recycling, 32% of respondents thought the level of service provided was important and based on the survey results, they believed level of service provided was second only to cost (44.7%). Additional collection and disposal services that many would like to see and were willing to pay for included bulky items (53%) and yard waste or brush (47.3%). The percentage of respondents desiring these additional services, correlates well with the number of unincorporated respondents (52.3%), which is reasonable given the fact that these services are currently not offered to residents outside the incorporated limits.


2‐16

Table 2‐3. Summary of Survey Highlights

Survey Summary Highlights Response Respondents1

Number of respondents that have lived in the County for more than 15 years 49.3% 345

Number of respondents living inside city/town limits 45.3% 344

Number of respondents living outside city/town limits 52.3% 344

Number of respondents living in their own home 90.1% 345

Number of respondents receiving curbside garbage collection 72.1% 315

Number of respondents receiving curbside garbage collection responding to

“other”

11.4%

(36)

315

Number of respondents who would like yard waste, recycling and bulky items

collected curbside

39.3% 285

Number of respondents stating that there are not enough trash and recycling

drop‐off sites close enough to their home

11.2% 285

Number of respondents that answered that the most important consideration

when selecting a collection service was cost

44.7% 228

Number of respondents that answered that the most important consideration

when selecting a collection service was extra services offered (recycling, bulky

waste, yard waste, etc.)

32% 228

Number of respondents that would not be willing to drive to dispose of their garbage

46.3% 296

Number of respondents that agree that “Garbage disposal is an essential service for New Hanover County, like police, fire rescue, and schools. All residents should share in the costs of this service.

74.4% 316

Number of respondents that answered that disagree with the statement “Waste disposal is a private citizen responsibility and should not be managed by the government.”

64.1% 313

Number of respondents that always recycle at their home 81.3% 310

Number of respondents that use drop‐off sites 47.5% 301

Number of respondents that indicated that they have not been informed about

recycling services throughout the County

47.7% 300

Number of respondents that are not satisfied with recycling services within the

County

67.7% 288

Number of respondents that would like to see curbside recycling collection 43.1% 281

Number of respondents that would increase recycling if they had access to

curbside recycling

71.9% 221

Number of respondents willing to pay for bulky item collection 53.0% 264

Number of respondents willing to pay for yard waste 47.3% 264

Note: 1. The responses are out of 348 total available responses.


2‐17

Based on the results of the survey, residents of the County are interested in the County reviewing the following opportunities in more detail:

Providing recycling, yard waste and bulky waste curbside collection services to the unincorporated areas of New Hanover County;

Expanding the types of recyclable materials collected within the County;

Providing manned drop‐off sites that would accept more materials;

Providing organic composting to manage yard waste and other vegetative debris; and

Increasing education within the County through direct mail, County website and information available at County facilities.

2.4 Benchmarking Analysis The New Hanover County Environmental Management Department is interested in ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of solid waste service delivery to the citizens of New Hanover County. One approach to improving the delivery of governmental services is by understanding and comparing how other communities successfully provide the same or similar services. In this regard, a benchmarking study was completed to document and compare solid waste services performance, level, and cost data for New Hanover County and near‐coastal counties of New Hanover, Brunswick, Columbus, Onslow and Pender. Buncombe and Gaston counties were also included because of their similar population and the fact that each own and operate a Subtitle D Landfill. Benchmarking was completed using Fiscal Year 2011‐2012 data. The primary source of data used in the benchmarking analysis was the NCDENR Local Government Solid Waste and Materials Management Annual Reports for the period July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. Additional data was collected from the Office of State Budget and Management, County solid waste department webpages, and County Ten Year Solid Waste Management Plans. A discussion and summary of observations from the comparison of county demographics; disposal, recycling and special waste programs and services; costs; landfill operations and other metrics is provided below.

2.4.1 Demographics Table 24 provides the population and geographic size of each of the five counties. Important points that are relevant to the comparison of solid waste services in these counties are summarized below.

New Hanover County is unique in that it has a much higher population density in the unincorporated area at 653 persons per square mile, compared to the other coastal and peer counties considered, which range from 55 to 236 persons per square mile. The population density in the unincorporated area of the County is higher than the average incorporated population density of Brunswick, Columbus and Pender counties. This suggests, but does not dictate, that organized curbside collection of garabge and recyclables could be performed with at least the same efficiency as in many of the municipal areas in neighboring coastal counties.

Population growth during the April 2010 to July 2011 period (2.5%) was highest in unincorporated New Hanover County, compared to the other counties considered. Population projections prepared by the Office of State Budget and Management suggest that New Hanover County’s total population will grow by 25% over the next 12 years.


2‐18

2.4.2 Disposal Table 25 provides general information related to solid waste disposal options and amounts. Several important distinctions and observations are summarized below.

New Hanover County generated 1.02 tons per person of MSW in FY11‐12, which is near the average (0.99 tons per person) of the other coastal and peer counties considered. The range of waste generation rates for all seven counties considered was 0.77 tons per person (Columbus) to 1.46 tons per person (Gaston).

Three of the seven counties (Brunswick, Buncombe, and Gaston) own and operate construction and demolition (C&D) landfills which accepted between 12,349 tons (Brunswick) and 79,713 tons (Gaston) of C&D waste during FY11‐12 – effectively reducing the amount of C&D waste taking up airspace in their MSW landfills. In New Hanover and Onslow counties, C&D waste is co‐disposed with MSW waste in their publicly owned and operated MSW landfill; however, New Hanover County operates a C&D diversion operation at the MSW landfill where certain loads are sorted on a concrete pad, and certain C&D waste is pulled aside for recycling. According the NCDENR Division of Environmental Assistance, this type of diversion operation is unique in North Carolina, although Pitt County is in the process of developing a similar diversion program.

While none of the seven counties offer curbside yard waste collection, five of the seven accept yard waste at drop off sites. Only New Hanover and Pender counties do not. New Hanover County is currently operating a pilot program to evaluate the feasibility of a yard waste collection program.

2.4.3 Recycling Table 26 provides general information related to recycling collection, drop‐off facilities, and the amount of recyclables collected. Several observations are summarized below.

Curbside collection of recyclables is only practiced in 1 (Buncombe) of the 7 counties considered. All other counties operate between 6 and 14 drop‐off sites.

New Hanover County has the highest density of drop‐off sites at 1 site per 28 square miles. The next closest density is Gaston County, which is more than double at 1 site per 59 square miles. Most of New Hanover County’s drop‐off sites are located on private property which is leased to the County. Although not confirmed, it is believed that most other counties own the property where each drop‐off‐site is located. Staffing and servicing of the drop‐off sites is completed by both county employees (e.g., Onslow) and private firms (e.g., Pender).

New Hanover and Brunswick Counties are the leaders in total pounds recycled per person (unincorporated area), at 259. It is interesting to note that drop‐off pounds per person of recyclables in New Hanover County (203) were significantly greater than the pounds per person of recyclables collected curbside in Buncombe County (76). By these measures, New Hanover County’s recyclables drop‐off and education programs are relatively effective at reducing the amount of tons going to the landfill, when compared to the other six counties considered.


2‐19

New Hanover County does not collect as much metals per person (7 pounds per person) as Columbus, Pender, and Gaston (15, 20, and 12 pounds per person respectively). This may be due to the presence of other competing outlets for scrap metals in New Hanover County. Given that metals return the highest value of all recyclables, any increase in metals will enhance revenues.

New Hanover County collected the lowest amount of TVs/Electronics of all seven counties considered during FY11‐12; however, electronics were only accepted one day (5 hours) per week. In May 2013, the County began accepting household hazardous waste (HHW) and electronics 6 days (24 hours) per week at the WASTEC facility and expects to see an increase in the amount of electronics collected.

2.4.4 HHW and Special Wastes Table 27 provides general information related to collection methods and collected amounts of hazardous household wastes (HHW) and special wastes. Several observations are summarized below.

Four of the seven counties considered offer HHW collection and at frequencies ranging from semi‐annually, quarterly, weekly to six days per week (New Hanover County, as of May 2013).

Of the four counties who collect HHW, New Hanover County collected the least amount of HHW per person (0.03 pounds); spends the least amount on HHW collected per person ($0.10); and spends the most per pound of HHW collected ($2.89). With the launch of the HHW program in May 2013, this data will change.

2.4.5 Financial Benchmarking financial conditions was attempted but in order to make a fair comparison on program financials without the actual detailed annual budgets of other counties is difficult. If the County is interested in measuring their operations on a financial basis, a “cost of service” study is recommended. General observations include:

Six of the seven counties considered use a solid waste enterprise fund.

Three of seven use some form of pay‐as‐you‐throw (PAYT).

2.4.6 Landfill Operations Staff Table 28 provides general information related to landfill operations staff. Several observations are summarized below.

Comparisons with regard to the number of landfill operations staff and the amount of waste that they manage were made for the four counties previously mentioned that operate Subtitle D landfills, plus Cumberland County.

No distinct differences were noted with regard to staff counts (as reported), except for the fact that New Hanover and Cumberland counties had more Maintenance Assistants than the other counties.


2‐20

Landfill staffing varies significantly depending on the programs and services offered at the landfill; unique facility requirements; the amount of contracted work (e.g., for equipment maintenance); and other factors. For example, New Hanover County landfill staff operate a wetland leachate treatment system (which requires wastewater‐certified staff) and a C&D processing pad at the landfill. Other counties in this comparison do not have such facilities and services. Because some counties operate recycling programs at their landfills while others do not, the number of staff devoted to recycling program operations were generally not included in the comparison.

New Hanover County uses 3.5 Heavy Equipment Operators per 100,000 tons of waste. This is fewer staff than the other three counties with data, which ranged from 3.6 to 4.1 Heavy Equipment Operators per 100,000 tons of waste. By this measure, New Hanover County is comparably efficient at managing MSW received at the landfill.

New Hanover County has 9.0 total landfill staff per 100,000 tons of waste. This is just below the average (9.1) of the other three counties with data, which ranged from 8.3 to 11.1 landfill staff per 100,000 tons of waste. New Hanover County is unique in that several of the landfill staff have wastewater certifications and associated licenses (e.g., Grade II and III Wastewater certification; B‐ and C‐well licenses and Physical/Chemical license). Several staff (3) also have bachelor’s degrees in biology or environmental sciences.

One program enhancement New Hanover County’s Environmental Management Department is considering involves the relocation and expansion of the C&D waste pad. If this occurs, an additional, designated equipment operator would likely be necessary, increasing the overall staff count at the landfill.

2.4.7 Summary The solid waste programs and services offered by New Hanover County are generally similar to those offered in the peer communities, with regard to level, cost, and performance standards – with several exceptions. New Hanover County does offer yard waste drop‐off services (a pilot program) and does not operate a C&D landfill. Particular aspects of New Hanover County’s solid waste program, such as the amount of materials recycled per person and the number heavy equipment operators are by statistical measures, more successful than in the other peer communities evaluated. Continued re‐evaluation of the type, level, and cost of services offered, and the resulting performance metrics is recommended.

Item

Population (July 2011) 206,744 110,140 57,657 184,228 53,437 243,855 207,506

Area of County 199 mi2 855 mi2 937 mi2 767 mi2 871 mi2 656 mi2 356 mi2

Unincorporated Area 135 mi2 714 mi2 909 mi2 701 mi2 845 mi2 586 mi2 254 mi2

Incorporated Area 64 mi2 141 mi2 28 mi2 66 mi2 26 mi2 70 mi2 102 mi2

Population of Unincorporated Area (and %) 88,093 43% 58,173 53% 41,475 72% 103,017 56% 46,633 87% 138,465 57% 78,381 38%

Population of Incorporated Area (and %) 118,651 57% 51,967 47% 16,182 28% 81,211 44% 6,804 13% 105,390 43% 129,125 62%

Unincorporated Population Density 653 persons/mi2 81 persons/mi2 46 persons/mi2 147 persons/mi2 55 persons/mi2 236 persons/mi2 309 persons/mi2

Incorporated Population Density 1,856 persons/mi2 369 persons/mi2 582 persons/mi2 1,234 persons/mi2 265 persons/mi2 1,508 persons/mi2 1,263 persons/mi2

Apr 2010 ‐ July 2011 Growth (Unincorporated) 2.5% 2.3% ‐0.8% 1.9% 2.4% 2.0% 0.6%

Apr 2010 ‐ July 2011 Growth (Incorporated) 1.7% 2.8% ‐0.6% 6.0% 1.9% 2.8% 0.7%

2025 Projected County Population 259,636 142,304 57,285 240,684 64,294 285,096 223,045

Projected Pop. Increase from 2011 to 2025 25.6% 29.2% ‐0.6% 30.6% 20.3% 16.9% 7.5%

Population of Each Municipality Wilmington 108,333 Leland 13,973 Whiteville 5,347 Jacksonville 74,610 Burgaw 3,928 Asheville 85,339 Gastonia 72,173

Carolina Beach 5,773 Oak Island 6,874 Tabor City 3,968 Swansboro 2,704 Surf City(Part) 1,606 Black Mountain 8,007 Mount Holly 13,887

Wrightsville Beach 2,494 Boiling Spring Lakes 5,540 Chadbourn 1,841 Richlands 1,567 St. Helena 397 Woodfin 6,266 Belmont 10,127

Kure Beach 2,051 Shallotte 3,785 Lake Waccamaw 1,465 Holly Ridge 1,294 Topsail Beach 374 Weaverville 3,721 Cherryville 5,775

Sunset Beach 3,661 Brunswick 1,120 North Topsail Beach 743 Atkinson 305 Biltmore Forest 1,369 Bessemer City 5,360

St. James 3,338 Fair Bluff 943 Surf City(Part) 293 Watha 194 Montreat 688 Dallas 4,544

Carolina Shores 3,113 Bolton 691 Wallace (Part) NA Cramerton 4,214

Southport 2,914 Sandyfield 447 Stanley 3,585

Belville 1,975 Cerro Gordo 204 Lowell 3,563

Calabash 1,816 Boardman 156 Ranlo 3,450

Navassa 1,552 Kings Mtn (Part) 1,057

Northwest 751 High Shoals 698

Holden Beach 582 McAdenville 655

Ocean Isle Beach 564 Spencer Mountain 37

Varnamtown 553

Caswell Beach 407

Sandy Creek 265

Bald Head Island 160

Bolivia 144

Table 2‐4. New Hanover County ‐ Benchmarking Study (FY11‐12) (Category ‐ Demographics)

Pender Buncombe GastonNew Hanover Brunswick Columbus Onslow

This Page Left Blank to Facilitate Double‐Sided Printing

Item

MSW and C&D Disposal1

Primary MSW Disposal Option

Tons

Secondary MSW Disposal Option

Tons

Primary C&D Disposal Option

Tons

Secondary C&D Disposal Option

Tons

Total MSW and C&D Disposed2

Tons/Person2

Yard Waste Management

Curbside Collection?

Accepted at County Drop Off Sites?

Destination

Tons Managed by County

Pounds Managed per person by County3

Table 2‐5. New Hanover County ‐ Benchmarking Study (FY11‐12) (Category ‐ Disposal)

2 Entire County (municipal and unincorporated areas).

200,737

1.09

WI Sampson County LF (Private)

21,720

‐‐

‐‐

Gaston

No No No No No No No

199,693

3 Based on population in unincorporated area only.

New Hanover Brunswick Columbus Onslow

Yes Yes No Yes

Buncombe

79

124,903

NA NA

Onslow County LF

(Public)

144,915

Camp Lejeune MSW LF

(US Military)

36,453

Pender

10,133

1.02

New Hanover County LF (Public)

209,968



43,883

‐‐

‐‐

44,541

0.77


112,406

Richland LF (SC)

(Private)

30,519

58 NA

New Hanover County LF (Public)Brunswick C&D LF

(Public)

WI Sampson County C&D LF

(Private)

Onslow County LF

(Public)


(Private)

0.57

0 453 11 114 0

5,600

Private FacilitiesCounty Compost Facility

and LCID Site

Palmetto LF (SC)

(Private)

113,288

Buncombe County LF (Public)

109,317

221,899

0.91

Gaston County LF

(Public)

142,903

Union County (SC) LF (Private)

43,185

303,914

Buncombe County C&D LF

(Public)

Gaston County C&D LF

(Public)

NA 78

1.46

0 1,596

23 143

LCID Site LCID Site Private Facilities County Mulching FacilityEnd User

(Farmer/ Homeowner)

No Yes

1.13

Yes

0 13,165 228

1 Data as provided in the Annual County Waste Disposal Report, July 1, 2011 ‐ June 30, 2012. The amount of C&D waste disposed at MSW landfills is not provided separately in the report ‐ only the amount of C&D waste disposed at C&D‐designated facilities. In most instances, the amount of

MSW waste reported includes some C&D waste. Some C&D waste may be recovered and recycled, but is not accounted for in the report. The "Primary C&D Disposal Option" listed for each County is the facility with the expected highest amount of C&D tons received. For example, most C&D

waste generated in New Hanover County is disposed at the New Hanover County Landfill; however, the amount of C&D waste is not reported.

NA 12,349 112 NA 6,221 22,348 79,713


(Private)


(Private)WI Sampson County LF (Private)


(Private)WI Sampson County LF (Private)

Palmetto LF (SC)

(Private)BFI Lake Normal LF

2

5,893


Item

Service Details

Curbside Collection of Recyclables

Type of Collection

Drop Off Locations (and no. staffed)

Total County Area served by Each Location 28 mi2 per location 61 mi2 per location 156 mi2 per location 77 mi2 per location 73 mi2 per location 328 mi2 per location 59 mi2 per location

Number of Residents per Drop Off Site

(Unincoporated Pop.)12,585 residents/site 4,155 residents/site 6,913 residents/site 10,302 residents/site 3,886 residents/site 69,233 residents/site 13,064 residents/site

Drop Off Sites Serviced By

Sectors Served by Drop Off Sites

Material Totals

Total

Pounds per

Person 1Total

Pounds per

Person 1Total

Pounds per

Person 1Total

Pounds per

Person 1Total

Pounds per

Person 1Total

Pounds per

Person 1Total

Pounds per

Person 1

Total Tons Recycled 11,429 259 7,524 259 473 23 9,677 188 2,149 92 14,235 206 2,921 75

Curbside Tons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,243 76 0 0

Drop Off Tons 8,959 203 6,772 233 303 15 9,194 178 2,015 86 879 13 2,765 71

Other Program Tons 2,470 56 752 26 170 8 483 9 134 6 8,113 117 156 4

Recycling by Material (if reported)

Glass 1,974 45 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 273 7

Plastic 909 21 NA NA 42 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 517 13

Metals 319 7 NA NA 306 15 199 4 456 20 321 5 469 12

Paper 3,667 83 NA NA NA NA 3,980 77 NA NA 8,003 116 1,506 38

Wood (Pallets) 3,867 88 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TVs/Electronics 58 1 228 8 125 6 106 2 134 6 94 1 156 4

Other 636 14 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1 Based on population in unincorporated area only. Notes: Notes:

Recycled tonnage may be under‐

reported

Notes:

Curbside collection was offered in

FY12‐13 by Waste Industries.

Cardboard is 56% of total tons

recycled, and mostly from

commercial drop‐off sites.

Buncombe

2 (2 staffed)

County Staff and Contractor

Residential

No No No Yes

One franchised hauler for

unincorporated area‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Contractors

Residential

6 (6 staffed)

County staff

Residential and Commercial

County Staff and Contractor

Residential

10 (10 staffed)

County staff

ResidentialResidential and Commercial

New Hanover Brunswick GastonPenderOnslowColumbus

14 (5 staffed)

‐‐

No

Residential

County staff Contractor

6 (6 staffed)

No

‐‐

No

‐‐

7 (1 staffed) 12 (12 staffed)

Table 2‐6. New Hanover County ‐ Benchmarking Study (FY11‐12) (Category ‐ Recycling)


Table 2‐7. New Hanover County ‐ Benchmarking Study (FY11‐12) (Category ‐ HHW and Special Wastes)

Item

HHW Program

County Offered HHW Collection?

Permanent Collection Site?

Frequency of Collection

Quantity of HHW Collected (pounds)2

Pounds of HHW Collected per Person1,2

Cost of HHW Program

Cost of HHW per Person1

Cost of HHW per pound

Special Wastes Collection

Total

Amount per

Person 1 Total

Amount per

Person 1 Total

Amount per

Person 1 Total

Amount per

Person 1 Total

Amount per

Person 1 Total

Amount per

Person 1 Total

Amount per

Person 1

Used Motor Oil (gallons) 1,228 0.01 500 0.01 3,561 0.09 2,420 0.02 18,206 0.39 4,254 0.03 22,497 0.29

Used Antifreeze (gallons) 100 0.001 55 0.001 NA NA 65 0.001 NA NA 338 0.002 1,650 0.02

Lead Acid Batteries (number) NA NA 1,200 0.021 123 0.003 31 0.000 140 0.003 381 0.003 177 0.002

Lead Acid Batteris (pounds) 4,420 0.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dry Cell Batteris (pounds) NA NA 3,590 0.06 NA NA 300 0.003 NA NA NA NA 900 0.01

Fluorescent Bulbs/Mercury Bulbs (pounds) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3,937 0.05

Fluorescent Bulbs/Mercury Bulbs (bulbs) NA NA 1,123 0.02 NA NA 30 0.000 NA NA 10,568 0.08 NA NA

Propane Tanks (number) NA NA 90 0.002 NA NA NA NA 330 0.01 NA NA 150 0.002

Used Vegetable/Cooking Oil (gallons) NA NA NA NA NA NA 360 0.003 NA NA 154 0.001 3,300 0.04

NCDA Pesticides Containers (pounds) 749 0.01 NA NA 12,800 0.31 NA NA 4,848 0.10 432 0.003 NA NA

NCDA Pesticides (pounds) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3,240 0.02 1,203 0.02

Latex Paint ( pounds) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 40,000 0.51

Latex Paint ( gallons) NA NA 1,950 0.03 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA1 Based on population in unincorporated area only.2 The pounds of HHW collected in New Hanover County is for FY11‐12, when HHW was only accepted at one County‐sponsered annual event. Since May 2013, the county has been accepting HHW at the WASTEC facility six days per week.

Buncombe Gaston

$2.89 $1.28 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ $0.34 $0.71

Yes

New Hanover Brunswick Columbus Onslow Pender

Yes No ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Yes Yes No No Yes

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.99 0.62

No

48,955‐‐ ‐‐ 275,596

Yes

‐‐ ‐‐ 52 per year 4 per year

Yes

6 days per week (as of 5/13) 2 per year

$0.10 $0.89 ‐‐

$8,800 $51,900

3,040 40,656 ‐‐

0.03 0.70 ‐‐

‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ $0.67 $0.45

‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ $92,661 $35,000


Table 2‐8. New Hanover County ‐ Benchmarking Study (FY11‐12) (Category ‐ Staffing and Operations)

Item

Staffing1

Total No. of Landfill Operations Staff

No. of Categorized (FTE) Staff:

Weigh Masters

Landfill Manager and/or Supervisor

Heavy Equipment Operators

Maintenance Assistants

Other Additional (FTE) Staff:

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Landfill Operation Metrics

Tons Managed (FY11‐12)

Heavy Equip. Operators per 100,000 tons of MSW

managed

Total LF Operations Staff per 100,000 tons of MSW

managed

Years Open

Tons in Place

CumberlandNew Hanover Onslow Buncombe Gaston

18 12 10 NA 16

‐‐

1

6

1

‐‐ Light Equipment Operator (1) Solid Waste Utility Worker (1)

6

1

6

2

Scale House Administration

Supervisor (1)

‐‐

3 3 2 NA 3

3.6

199,693 144,915 139,674109,317

NA3.5 4.1 5.5

14.5

1,551,071 2,180,423

2

7

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

142,903

Solid Waste Inspector (1)

Gas‐To‐Energy Generator Operator

(1)

Bioreactor Manager (1)

NA

30.8 14.2 14.6

9.1 NA

4,922,114 1,741,539 1,919,736

1

5

7

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

11.1

1 Landfill staffing varies significantly depending on the programs and services offered at the landfill; unique facility requirements; the amount of contracted work (e.g., for equipment maintenance); and other factors. For

example, New Hanover County landfill staff operate a wetland leachate treatment system (which requires wastewater‐certified staff) and a C&D processing pad at the landfill. Other counties in this comparison do not have such

facilities and services. Because some counties operate recycling programs at their landfills while others do not, staff devoted to recycling program operations were generally not included in the comparison.

NA‐‐‐‐ ‐‐ NA

NA

14.7

9.0 8.3


3‐1

Section 3

Countywide Solid Waste Management System

Delivery

New Hanover County (County) and its municipal partners provide directly, or through contractual agreements, for the collection and disposal of garbage and recyclable materials. The County and municipalities efforts combined together are working to provide adequate services and programs that support waste reduction, reuse, and recycling activities.

The County owns and operates several facilities that support the management of solid waste generated by all four municipalities. A section below provides a discussion on the collection services provided by the City of Wilmington, and the Towns of Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, and Wrightsville Beach.

As shown in the table below, the City of Wilmington and the unincorporated areas account for 90% of households in the County. Residents within the four municipalities are provided a certain level of consistent curbside collection services while residents in the unincorporated areas subscribe to private haulers for garbage curbside collection services. The unincorporated residents reside in approximately 37% of the County’s housing units, and depend upon County facilities or private haulers to provide solid waste and recycling collection services.

Jurisdiction Number of Housing Units % of Housing

Town of Carolina Beach 5,626 5%

Town of Kure Beach 2,213 2%

City of Wilmington 53,400 53%

Town of Wrightsville Beach 2,751 3%

Unincorporated 37,446 37%

Total County 101,436 100%

3.1 Environmental Management Department Organization The New Hanover County Environmental Management Department (Department) provides solid waste services to the County. The Department’s organization consists of a department director, landfill manager, solid waste planner, Sustainable Energy Facility (SEF) supervisor, business manager, twenty‐six full‐time staff, seven temporary recycling staff, and three temporary guards. An organizational chart for the Department is provided in Figure 31.

The Department is operated as an enterprise fund, which means no County General Funds are used to support the Department’s operations.


3‐2

Figure 3‐1. New Hanover County Environmental Department Organizational Chart


3‐3

3.2 County Services Even though all of the municipalities provide for residential collection service, they do not own or operate waste disposal or recycling processing facilities. The County continues to take on the responsibility to provide county residents and businesses with solid waste disposal services to ensure proper disposal of the waste generated within the County. The Department also provides recycling processing services to manage a portion of the recyclables collected within the County. The Department has an established and productive set of core operations along with several innovative operations that provide citizens and businesses with a comprehensive system for managing waste and recycling materials. The following operational areas represent the key areas of the system:

1. Landfill operations, including a C&D recycling operation

2. Full‐service convenience center at the landfill

3. White goods and scrap tire disposal

4. Permanent HHW facility

5. Recycling drop‐off sites

6. E‐waste collection and recycling

7. Waste audits for commercial and industrial businesses

8. Disaster debris management

During Fiscal Year 2012‐13, the County managed approximately 222,000 tons of materials through its system. The major categories and quantities of materials were:

208,194 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and demolition (C&D) material disposed in the Subtitle D landfill

5,174 tons of sheetrock, wood waste, cardboard, and carpet recycled from C&D waste

3,412 tons of tires

5,076 tons of recyclables

The County owns and operates the Secure Subtitle D landfill located on US highway 421 North in Wilmington. The landfill operates under DENR Solid Waste Permit No. 65‐04, which was initially issued in August 1981. The County’s waste‐to‐energy facility (WASTEC) handled approximately 40‐50% of the MSW and C&D disposal until the facility was placed in a lay‐up condition in April 2011.

The Department also operates five unmanned recycling collection sites throughout the County that provide residents and businesses in the unincorporated areas convenient facilities to bring their recyclables. There is also a manned recycling drop‐off site at the SEF (formerly the WASTEC facility); and a manned convenience center at the landfill. The convenience center offers a more comprehensive list of accepted materials that includes waste, used oil, electronics.


3‐4

The County opened a permanent household hazardous waste (HHW) facility on May 15, 2013. The facility operates six days a week: Mondays through Fridays from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., and Saturdays from 8 a.m. to noon. Through August 8, 2013, the HHW facility has served 1,129 residents (an average of 15 per day) and managed the proper disposal of the following types and quantities of HHW:

Electronics – 98,000 lbs or 49 tons

Paint – 1,380 gallons

Flammable liquids, aerosols, pesticides, etc. – 1,710 gallons

Rechargeable batteries – 236 pounds

Motor oil and anti‐freeze – 306 gallons

Alkaline batteries – 760 pounds

The HHW facility has proven to be a successful waste management program that has provided citizens with a valuable and environmental safe outlet for the disposal of common household hazardous materials. Figure 32 provides a map of the County solid waste facilities.

The Department contracts with private vendors for tire and white goods (appliances) disposal. Tires and white goods are picked up at the landfill facility and processed by the vendor. Tires collected at the landfill are shipped off to Central Carolina Tire for processing. White goods received at the landfill are placed into designated roll‐off containers and Freon is removed prior to sending the materials to Southern Metals Recycling.

Electronic waste (E‐waste) from residents is accepted at the permanent HHW facility. The E‐waste materials are shrink‐wrapped on pallets and placed in a trailer located on the SEF property. The County contracts with Electronics Recyclers International for removal of the materials.

3.2.1 Capacity of Existing Waste Disposal and Recycling Facilities Subtitle D Landfill

The County has always taken a leadership role regarding waste disposal since 1981, when the County installed the first double‐lined landfill in North Carolina. The County has also implemented an innovative constructed wetlands leachate treatment system, which provides a sustainable solution to the ongoing challenge of leachate disposal. The landfill is permitted to receive residential and commercial MSW and C&D, industrial waste, agricultural waste, and water treatment plant sludge generated from within the County.

Essentially, all MSW and C&D waste generated within the County is delivered to the County’s Secure Subtitle D Landfill for final disposal. On average, 700 tons of waste per day was received at the landfill during FY2012‐13. Since WASTEC operations were ceased, the Subtitle D landfill is now the primary disposal facility assigned to serve the long‐term disposal needs of the County. The current permitted operating life (including Cell 6E) of the landfill will last until approximately January 2019 based on current disposal rates and operating practices.

The Department is currently working to permit a substantial expansion of the Subtitle D landfill onto property south of the existing disposal area. The proposed expansion will provide nine 10‐acre cells that are estimated to extend the operating life of the landfill by 40 years or until the year 2059.

Figure 3‐2. County Solid Waste Disposal and

Recycling Facilities



3‐6

The County operates a C&D recycling program at the landfill. C&D material delivered to the landfill is diverted to a concrete pad processing area where recyclable materials are recovered from the waste material. The following materials are typically recovered from C&D waste material: drywall, wood waste, scrap metal, carpet, shingles, and cardboard.

In FY12‐13, the C&D recycling program diverted approximately 5,200 tons (or almost 2.5% of the incoming landfill tonnage) of material from disposal in the landfill. The drywall material was hauled to the McGill Environmental composting facility, scrap metals were sold to Southern Metals Recycling, and cardboard was taken to the County’s processing facility. The wood waste was ground up, on site, by American Property Experts and transported for use as boiler fuel at the International Paper Riegelwood Paper Mill and/or Coastal Carolina Clean Power. The County can increase C&D diversion at the landfill with a pad that is closer to the scales and with more staffing to help with sorting operations. Based on conversations with a private hauler that services commercial and residential construction sites, there is significant volumes of recyclable C&D material that is sent to the landfill. As the construction market continues to recover, the County consider the addition of mechanical sorting equipment, if the volumes and landfill space savings make the investment economically feasible.

Cash customers, including small vehicles and pick‐up trucks with trailers, account for only 10% of the revenues, but 42% of the over 66,000 transactions at the landfill during FY2012‐13. A portion of the small vehicle traffic ends up on the working face where they can create safety concerns and operational issues when these vehicles get stuck or impede the traffic flow of the primary commercial customers with larger vehicles.

The Secure Landfill is a well‐run, innovative facility that provides for the safe and efficient disposal of waste materials. The County has invested in the staff, equipment, and development of this landfill facility for the long‐term benefit of the community. The planned expansion of the landfill will provide residents and businesses with valuable disposal airspace well into the future. The County’s commitment to waste reduction and recycling programs will continue to divert materials away from the landfill thereby further extending the landfill’s operating life.

WASTEC

The WASTEC facility, which has been renamed the Sustainable Energy Facility, no longer functions as a mass burn waste‐to‐energy facility. The buildings and associated property were repurposed to support the ongoing HHW and recycling processing operations.

In support of the ongoing operations at the SEF and the protection of former WASTEC equipment and infrastructure, the County provides the following additional functions:

Security provided by temporary guards to protect the facility against vandalism and deterioration of the equipment;

Fire protection per the insurance carrier’s requirements. The temporary guards assist Department staff in monitoring the readiness of the fire protection system and equipment along with conducting equipment inspections.

A formal facility assessment was not conducted of the SEF structures and property; however, visual observations appear to indicate that the facility is in adequate enough condition to continue HHW and recycling operations.


3‐7

Recycling Processing

The Department has been operating a pilot mini recyclable processing operation at the SEF where cardboard, plastics, glass, aluminum, mixed paper, and aluminum are processed for sale on the open market. The Department processes almost 6,500 tons of material annually with 5,000 tons coming from County collection efforts and an additional 1,500 tons of materials delivered from other sources.

Cardboard, mixed paper, and plastics are baled utilizing a County‐owned Marathon 2‐ram baler, and shipped out in trailers. The Department also utilizes temporary labor to operate a 3‐man sort system for plastics with the goal of increasing sorting of plastics to create a higher value plastic commodity. Glass is stored outside in bunkers until transported to market. Aluminum cans are crushed and blown into a trailer. Once the trailer is full, the aluminum is sold to a private recycler.

The processing operations at SEF are spread out across the site with plastics sorting in one building, baling operations in a second building, and material storage bunkers on the opposite side of the property away from the processing areas. With limited mechanical equipment and labor, processing capacity for recyclables is currently limited at the SEF. As a result, the staff has to prioritize the order in which materials are processed. Current operations require that fiber materials are processed first because of the high volume of fiber material received from the drop‐off sites. Since the Department has only one baler for fiber and plastics and limited storage space for fiber materials, the baler has become the production “bottleneck” in the process. Once fiber materials are at a manageable level, aluminum cans are processed followed by plastic containers. This process order creates a significant delay in getting plastics baled.

The current material recovery set‐up, as a pilot study, is insufficient to effectively process significantly higher quantities of recyclable materials. No public or private processing options currently exist within the County. The Waste Management Recycle America facility in Wilmington only bales single‐stream recyclables and then transports the material to their material recovery facility (MRF) in Raleigh.

Two important aspects of successful recycling programs is that there are adequate markets for the materials collected and that efficient and effective access to those markets exists. Gaining greater access to and control of processing capacity and commodity markets will be key to successfully expanding the quantity and/or types of material collected either through curbside collection or drop‐off sites.

Yard Waste Pilot Program

The Department has begun a six‐month pilot yard waste program to evaluate the community demand (potentially available material) and operational requirements for a yard waste composting operation at the Secure Landfill. Yard waste is banned from being placed in a Subtitle D landfill in North Carolina; therefore, alternative approaches are required to manage this material. Composting vegetative materials is an environmentally sustainable approach to managing vegetative materials. The most common method of composting, windrows, requires a significant amount of land depending on the quantities of material processed.


3‐8

The pilot program is targeted at the yard waste material being placed in the residential waste stream and ending up at the landfill. Commercially generated yard waste and land clearing debris materials are not target waste streams for the pilot program. Commercially generated materials are taken to private facilities within the County that are permitted to receive the material. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) have given approval for conducting the pilot program. Material will be ground up and allowed to decompose into compost material that will be used as a soil‐amendment for poor landfill cover soils.

The Secure Landfill provides sufficient land space, equipment, and infrastructure to operate a pilot compost operation. Removal of yard waste and vegetative debris from the waste stream will help with the preservation of landfill airspace and compliance with the state’s yard waste landfill ban. If the pilot program demonstrates that the community has expressed a demand for this service, then the County should further evaluate the specifics of a full‐scale operation such as site location, stormwater management, equipment, utilities, labor, and potential revenues. An assessment of these program specifics is necessary before a determination can be made regarding the long‐term viability of a yard waste facility.

Recycling Drop‐off Sites

The County operates five unmanned recycling drop‐off sites, throughout the unincorporated area, that are open 24 hours a day and seven days a week. These unmanned sites are not located on County‐owned property. The five sites provide recycling containers for the following materials: cardboard, glass, mixed paper, plastics (#1‐7), aluminum cans, newspapers, and rechargeable batteries.

Mixed paper containers will often contain a mix of sorted white ledger with newsprint and magazines. According to the Department, 60% of the plastic materials collected are PET bottles. Department staff pull containers from each site on a daily basis to ensure that adequate container space is always available for residents. The location of the unmanned drop‐off sites are:

Castle Hayne

Monkey Junction (Moose Lodge)

Murrayville (Lowes grocery store)

Murray Middle School, and

Ogden (Blair Middle School)

The Murray Middle School site, established in 2009, is the newest drop‐off site and serves the southern portion of the unincorporated area. In addition to the unmanned sites, the County also has two manned drop‐off locations at the landfill and SEF.

The original intent of the drop‐off sites was to serve the residents of the unincorporated areas; however, Department staff has noticed that businesses are using the sites for cardboard and plastics recycling. While the collection of source‐separated cardboard and plastic materials does provide financial and environmental benefits to the County, the added volume of materials also increases the Department’s operating costs for servicing the drop‐off sites. Businesses are benefiting from the shorter transportation distance by utilizing the drop‐off sites, especially the Moose Lodge site. Department staff is trying to encourage businesses to bring the material directly to the SEF recycling center.


3‐9

The City of Wilmington website indicates that “residents who are not offered curbside recycling may use the recycling drop‐off centers located throughout the county.” This allows for the possibility that some City residents may be utilizing the sites.

For FY 2012‐13, the county collected approximately 5,000 tons of recyclable materials from the seven drop‐off sites, cash customers (small private haulers without accounts), and the New Hanover County jail. The recyclable material tonnages according to source are as follows:

4,159 tons of from the 5 unmanned drop‐off sites

76 tons from the convenience center site at the landfill

349 tons from the recycling facility at SEF

379 tons from cash customers, and

43 tons from the jail.

Cardboard, glass, and plastic account for almost 80% of the weight for FY2012‐13. Cardboard is the largest material collected, by weight, at 37% of the total weight. Glass is 2nd accounting for 23% of the overall weight.

Three of the unmanned drop‐off sites account for 72% of the materials collected from the seven drop‐off sites. These three busiest sites are:

Monkey Junction (Moose Lodge) at 27%

Ogden (Blair Middle School) is 2nd at 24%, and

Murrayville (Lowes Food) site is 3rd at 21%.

Figure 33 provides a chart of recyclable material tonnages collected from each of the seven drop off sites during FY 2012‐13. The Moose Lodge and Blair Middle School sites are located adjacent to and just inside the City of Wilmington which offers a level of convenience for City residents and businesses that may not receive curbside collection services.

The drop‐off sites are the primary recycling outlet for the majority of unincorporated residents. In order to estimate the percentage of unincorporated households that utilize the drop‐off sites, the FY2012‐13 recyclable tonnage data for the seven sites was analyzed by CDM Smith. The total recycling tonnage was reduced by 25% to account for use by business and incorporated residents. The 25% estimate was based on the Department’s staff experience at the sites. The remaining tonnage was assumed to be provided by unincorporated households. Assuming that the average household generates 6‐7 lbs/week of recyclables, the recycling drop off sites are used by approximately 19,000‐22,000 households or 50‐60% of the unincorporated housing.

Since the drop‐off recycling sites are not located on County‐owned property, the County can’t control the access and operating hours of the sites. While 24/7 access to the sites offers residents a high level of service convenience, uncontrolled access also provides opportunity for illegal dumping at the sites.

The sites experience little contamination of the recyclable containers; however, one of the key operational concerns at the sites is the illegal dumping of bulky waste and white goods. These materials must be picked‐up and hauled to the landfill which creates an additional operational cost for


3‐10

the Department. Not owning the sites also limits the County’s ability to expand the types of recyclable materials collected or other landfill banned materials that are not collected curbside.

In May 2013, the Department conducted an informal survey of patrons at the Moose Lodge, Blair Middle School, and the Lowes Food sites. One question asked of patrons was “what other materials would you like to be able to recycle?” A few of the more common responses were batteries, steel cans, plastic bags, and yard waste.

3.2.2 Disaster Debris Management The County’s Department of Emergency Management and Environmental Management Department work together to properly manage debris materials generated during a disaster. The Department is part of the Emergency Support Function (ESF) that addresses Public Works and Engineering. The Department is responsible for removing or temporarily storing disaster debris; permitting and operating staging and storage sites; and potentially sorting and grinding material. There are five temporary debris staging sites located within the County. One primary site is at the Secure landfill, and the other primary site, to service the southern portion of the County, is located at Battle Park. The Department manages pre‐positioning contracts with private contractors for the collection and disposal of large‐scale debris materials. These contracts are activated in the event of a debris‐generating emergency.

In order to conserve the County’s landfill airspace, the City of Wilmington and other municipalities are advised to send C&D material from large storms or disasters to the Waste Industries Sampson County landfill. The County has a contracted disposal rate with Waste Industries for storm debris from large events.

Figure 3‐3. Chart of Recyclable Material Tonnages


3‐11

3.3 County Ordinances and Policies Solid Waste ordinances and policies provide guidance and direction on how residents and businesses should manage their waste and recyclables. Chapter 44 of the County Code of Ordinances addresses a variety of solid waste provisions including general requirements; collection and disposal; yard waste and banned materials; and out‐of‐county waste. The County most recently updated Article III of the ordinance in January 2013 to update regulations or practices regarding yard waste and banned materials.

The effective and successful development and implementation of solid waste management strategies is dependent on a solid foundation of ordinances and policies that establish the required infrastructure, service standards, and behaviors necessary to accomplish long‐term goals. As the County continues to grow and state requirements evolve, the solid waste ordinances will be a useful tool to provide guidance on how solid waste and recyclables should be managed within the county.

The current Articles of Chapter 44 of the code of Ordinances that pertain to solid waste management are identified below:

Article I – In General

Article II – Collection and Disposal

- Division 1 – Mandatory Residential Service

- Division 2 – Additional Solid Waste Provisions

Article III – Yard Waste and Other Selected Banned Materials

Article IV – Out‐of‐County Waste

Article II of the ordinance provides detailed requirements regarding mandatory residential service including eligibility for service, normal residential service, and collection practices. According to the Article, all single‐family homes and duplexes shall receive residential service unless otherwise exempted based on certain conditions. Section 44‐43, under Article II, outlines the services that are considered “normal” residential services that will be provided to all eligible residences. These services include refuse, recyclable, yard waste, and bulky item collection.

The status quo for residential service in the unincorporated areas is that residents subscribe directly with a franchised/licensed private hauler for curbside collection service. However, the level of service obtained by residents varies with few residents actually receiving the full suite of mandatory residential services that include refuse, recyclable, yard waste and bulky waste collection. The variance in service level is attributed to both some private haulers not providing all services, and to residents not willing to pay the higher additional costs for recycling, yard waste, and bulky waste services. This inconsistency between the ordinance’s requirement that mandatory residential services be provided and received by eligible residences, and the actual minimal provision of curbside collection services to residents should be addressed by the County.

Enforcement of the mandatory residential service provisions can provide consistent and expanded collection services throughout the unincorporated area which would help increase recycling and yard waste diversion. The service level would also match the level of service provided by the City of Wilmington. From the perspective of private haulers, enforcement of the provision may impact small,


3‐12

independent haulers who may be unable to cost‐effectively provide all of the required services due to significant capital expenditures and increased labor costs for additional trucks and drivers.

Further, the current ordinance does not provide for an approved fee schedule for the County solid waste facilities. Local governments often develop ordinance language to address the establishment and collection of solid waste fees.

3.4 Municipal Solid Waste Services The four municipalities within New Hanover County directly provide a range of solid waste collection services to both residential and commercial customers. The services provided differ among the municipalities but cover curbside garbage, recycling, yard waste, and bulky waste collection. The Town of Carolina Beach is the only municipality that contracts out curbside garbage collection services to a private hauler. Solid waste collection services are provided to some commercial customers by the City of Wilmington (City); Town of Wrightsville Beach; and Town of Kure Beach. Commercial entities, not serviced by municipal programs, contract collection services with one of the franchised/licensed haulers authorized to operate within the county.

With the exception of the City of Wilmington, residential curbside recycling collection services within the municipalities are contracted out to private haulers. All four municipalities offer some form of residential curbside collection of yard waste and vegetative debris. The municipalities provide effective solid waste collection services to their residents and businesses. Table 31 provides a list of the municipalities and the residential collection services provided.

Table 3‐1. Municipal Residential Curbside Collection Services

Municipality Collection Provider

Collection Services Housing Units

(est.)

City of Wilmington City staff Weekly garbage and yard waste

Bi‐weekly recycling

Bulky waste weekly upon request

53,400

Town of Wrightsville Beach

Town staff Twice per week residential garbage

Vegetative material, per request

2,751

Town of Carolina Beach Waste Industries

Town Staff

Weekly garbage and bi‐weekly recycling

Bulky, white goods, and C&D upon request

Quarterly vegetative debris service

5,626

Town of Kure Beach Town staff

Waste Management

Weekly garbage

Weekly bulky and yard waste by request

Weekly recycling

2,213


3‐13

City of Wilmington The City focuses its collection on properties that have trash carts excluding single‐family homes located on private roads, which are serviced by private haulers. Because of the residential properties excluded from service, the City actually serves approximately 31,000 households. Commercial accounts with front‐end containers are serviced by the private sector. The Central Business District is provided 7‐day collection service through a Blue Bag program provided by the City.

The City offers customers a volume‐based pay‐as‐you‐throw (PAYT) program with 2 trash cart sizes (95‐gal and 35‐gal). Residents, who recycle more, can lower their solid waste costs by getting the smaller cart size. The City has a voluntary curbside recycling collection program which was expanded on January 7, 2013 to provide bi‐weekly single‐stream collection utilizing 96‐gallon carts at no additional cost. The single‐stream program is expected to increase the amount of recyclable materials collected by 25% over the next 3 years. The City has a contract, through June 30, 2015, with Waste Management Inc. to process single‐stream recyclables at their Recycle America material recovery facility (MRF) on River Road. The City pays $20/ton for the material to be transported to Waste Management’s Raleigh single‐stream MRF for processing and marketing of materials. The City regularly brings the County glass, collected in 6‐cubic yard mini‐compactor trucks, from the downtown ABC collection program.

The City also has a contract with American Property Experts (a division of Diversified Biomass Company) to dispose of collected vegetative material. Material processed at their facility is sold as mulch and boiler fuel. The City’s contract with Property Experts expires around April 2015.

In FY 2012‐13, the City delivered approximately 27,000 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) to the Secure Landfill, and 750 tons of glass to the SEF.

Town of Wrightsville Beach The Town of Wrightsville Beach does not provide curbside recycling collection services for residential or commercial customers; however, they do provide a 24/7 drop‐off recycling facility for residential and commercial customers. The facility provides the following recycling containers: cardboard (2); newspaper (2); mixed paper (1); shared glass/aluminum containers (2). The drop‐off site accounts for 99% of recycling material collected in the Town. The recyclable materials are sent to the County’s SEF site for processing free of charge.

The Town does have a franchise agreement, which was implemented in 2010, with Green Coast Recycling to provide residents an option for weekly curbside recycling utilizing 18‐gallon bins for an additional monthly charge. Green Coast provides curbside recycling to only about 2% of the households. Commercial entities are also allowed to procure recycling services through Green Coast. The Town also provides for curbside collection of vegetative materials that are taken to Wilmington Materials for the production of mulch.

In FY 2012‐13, the Town delivered approximately 3,800 tons of MSW to the Secure Landfill.

Town of Carolina Beach The Town of Carolina Beach provides mandatory weekly curbside trash collection services (with 90‐gallon containers) to permanent households through a contract with Waste Industries. Seasonal rental properties are provided 90‐gallon cart service twice per week. Bulky waste materials (including white goods) and C&D materials are picked‐up by Town staff based on scheduled appointments.


3‐14

Bulky materials are taken to the Town’s operations yard where material is transferred to 40‐cubic yard containers which are serviced by Waste Industries. Town staff also service public trash containers located along the beach strand.

Waste Industries provides weekly curbside recycling collection utilizing 90‐gallon bins for permanent residents and twice per week for seasonal residents.

Curbside collection of vegetative debris is provided by Town staff once per quarter. Collected material is taken to 30‐cubic yard containers at the operations yard, and Waste Industries transports full containers to American Property Experts for processing into mulch or boiler fuel.

Town of Kure Beach The Town of Kure Beach provides residential garbage collection once per week; however, business garbage collection schedules are based on the tourism season. During the tourist off‐season, garbage is collected twice a week while garbage is collected five times each week during the tourist season.

The Town contracts with Waste Management for curbside recycling for residences and businesses. Residences use 65‐gallon cart for recycling. The Town uses staff to collect residential yard debris which is transported to American Property Experts.

In FY 2012‐13, the Town delivered approximately 1,370 tons of MSW to the Secure Landfill.

3.5 Local and Regional Private Sector Services Private sector waste management companies have an important role in the management of solid waste, and the provision of key services and infrastructure. Local and regional private sector services offered to residents and businesses of the County include residential and commercial collection of waste and recycling, processing of vegetative debris, and material recovery facilities.

3.5.1 Private Waste Haulers Private waste hauling companies provide residential curbside and commercial business collection of waste and recyclable materials within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County. The County’s solid waste ordinance requires that a private for‐profit hauler shall have a franchise in order to operate lawfully within the county.

Franchises are mandatory for both residential and commercial collection. According to Department staff, there are a total of 17 assigned franchisees to private haulers. Several of the franchisees no longer conduct business in the County such as Republic Services who sold their local business to Waste Industries about 2 years ago.

Waste Industries is the only private hauler providing residential curbside garbage collection within a municipal jurisdiction. The unincorporated areas of the County along with the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors receive the bulk of private collection services. Based upon FY 2012‐13 landfill customer data provided by the Department (through June 20th), four customers accounted for 73% of the tonnages and 76% of the revenues. The City of Wilmington ranked 2nd overall and accounted for 13% of the tonnages and revenues. The top 3 private haulers are provided below:

Waste Industries is the County’s largest customer at the landfill representing 42% of the incoming waste tons and 44% of the revenues.


3‐15

Waste Management is the 2nd largest customer and account for 13% of the incoming waste stream and 14% of the revenues.

Coastal Ladies Carting is the 3rd largest customer and account for 5% of the incoming waste stream and revenues.

The top 3 private haulers represent 60% of the incoming waste stream and 63% of the disposal revenues while only accounting for approximately 32% of the scale house transactions.

3.5.2 Material Recovery Facilities and Regional Landfills There are two material recovery facilities (MRFs) within the region. The Waste Management Recycle America facility on River Road in Wilmington has operated as a MRF since 1996. According to DENR annual facility reports, the MRF accepted approximately 13,100 tons of single‐stream materials and sorted glass, plastic, and cardboard in FY2011‐12.

The Onslow County MRF, which is owned by Onslow County but operated by Sonoco, is an alternative facility available to the County for processing recyclable materials. According to Sonoco representatives, the MRF has a monthly processing capacity of 4,000 tons. Some recyclable materials collected within the County are taken to the Onslow County MRF for processing. The MRF has limited capacity available for accepting additional materials.

The Waste Industries Sampson County landfill is the closest private Subtitle D landfill and is located about 60 miles from the Secure Landfill. Figure 34 provides a map of the local and regional facilities.

3.5.3 Yard Waste and Vegetative Debris Handling Facilities There are several private facilities that receive and handle yard waste, wood pallets, and vegetative debris materials from County residents and businesses. Three facilities are identified below:

Diversified Biomass (operates as American Property Experts) is the primary private facility in the County. The facility is located on Sunnyvale Drive in Wilmington and receives yard waste from the City of Wilmington, Carolina Beach, and Kure Beach.

Wilmington Material, located on Highway 421 North, operates under a Yard Waste Notification permit with an allowable yard waste area of 2 acres. The facility has received vegetative debris from Wrightsville Beach.

Seaside Mulch Compost Facility is located on North Green Meadows Drive.

No Type III compost facilities capable of accepting food waste and other organic materials are located within New Hanover County.

3.5.4 Recycling Facility There are several facilities within the County that accept various recyclable materials such as scrap metals, compact fluorescent lights, and batteries. A few of the private recycling operations are listed below.

Southern Metals Recycling located on Highway 421 North in Wilmington. They accept a variety of scrap metals such as copper piping, stainless steel, brass, and aluminum.

Horton Iron and Metal Company located on Highway 421 North in Wilmington. They also accept scrap metals, aluminum waste, cast iron appliances, and computer scraps.


3‐16

Southeast Recycling Technologies, Inc. provides commercial recycling of mercury‐containing lamps and other hazardous post‐consumer products. The company has a plant in Burlington, North Carolina.

3.6 Summary of Key Issues Facing the County Each community has a unique mix of residents, businesses, and industries that present different challenges and thus require different approaches for managing waste and recyclables depending upon the overall goals of the community. The goal of addressing the issues identified below is to ensure that the residential, commercial, and industrial waste streams are managed in a comprehensive way that complies with regulations, protects the environment, effectively utilizes both public and private resources, and contributes to the overall quality of life for the citizens of the County and is cost effective whenever possible.

Waste Disposal Landfill expansion and airspace preservation to address the projected exhaustion of permitted

disposal airspace in January 2019.

Cash customers (small vehicles and pick‐up trucks with trailers) account for only 10% of the revenues, but 42% of the transactions. A portion of small vehicle traffic ends up on the working face.

Improve access to the landfill convenience center to allow for increased traffic volume associated with diverting small pick‐up trucks away from the working face.

Increase C&D diversion at the landfill with a pad that is closer to the scales and also have more staffing to help with sorting.

Enforcement of Existing Solid Waste Ordinance Provisions Address the inconsistency between the limited provision of curbside collection services within

the unincorporated areas and the County’s ordinance provision that appears to require mandatory residential services including trash, recycling, yard waste, and bulky waste. Ordinance needs to be enforced or re‐written.

Availability of Unincorporated Collection Services Trash and recycling curbside collection is by subscription service in the unincorporated areas.

Yard waste and bulky waste curbside collection is either unavailable or an additional service that some residents are unwilling to pay a high additional monthly fee.

Limited yard waste curbside collection provided to some homeowners associations (HOAs) in the unincorporated areas. Yard waste materials are banned from landfills; therefore, it is important that residents have the necessary access to collection options and education to keep yard waste out of the waste stream. Increased yard waste diversion will be an important aspect of reaching lower waste disposal per capita rates.

Recycling Operations and Services Drop‐off recycling sites are not located on County‐owned property; therefore, the County can’t

control access and operating hours. Unattended sites provide opportunities for illegal dumping (bulky waste and white goods) at the sites. There is an additional cost for Department to manage the illegal dumping. Signs should be added that indicate dumping of waste is illegal.


3‐17

Recycling containers at the drop‐off sites are properly labeled regarding what materials are acceptable. However, additional pictorial signage, on the containers, would provide visual confirmation of what specific types of materials are acceptable. Signage could also provide increased education to residents as to what items are recyclable.

Lack of convenient outlets for residents to properly dispose of banned materials (such as yard waste, e‐waste, and motor oil and filters) not collected curbside without having to travel to the SEF. Addressing this issue will require establishing manned convenience center sites located on County‐owned property.

Increase recycling from the residential and commercial sectors sectors utilizing approaches such as increased education efforts, development of public school recycling programs, mandatory recycling ordinances, and countywide residential collection programs. The County’s system of unmanned drop‐off sites is not the most effective method of increasing residential recycling.

Commercial recyclable material is being placed in the waste stream for disposal at the landfill. This situation creates an opportunity for the County to develop a market, by implementing a mandatory commercial recycling ordinance, for increased commercial recycling, especially for fiber (cardboard and paper).

Department’s current processing operations and available capacity for accepting higher volumes of recyclables is limited. Consolidation of the recyclable material collected within the County to gain better access to higher processing capacities and commodity markets will be one important part of increasing the collection of residential and commercial recyclables.

Education and Outreach Increased education/public information campaign efforts to improve communication with the

general public and engaging them in waste reduction and recycling efforts.

Increased marketing to businesses about the waste audit service available from the Department.


3‐18

4‐1

Section 4

Financial Analysis

4.1 Existing Business Model The Environmental Management Department (Department) is operated as an enterprise fund which means that all operational and capital expenditures need to be covered by revenues generated from fees charged to the users of the solid waste system and reimbursement revenues from the State; thus, it is a self‐sustaining fund within the County Government organization. The Department functions include both on‐going solid waste operations discussed in Section 3 as well as the long‐term maintenance and monitoring of the closed portions of the landfill.

The Department currently is dependent upon the use of net revenues from the landfill operation to support the administration section and the recycling program. The Department’s business model is based on the premise that the recycling program services benefit the entire community and advance the goals of public health and safety, resource recovery, and environmental protection. In addition, the landfill revenues are now also supporting the ongoing operation, maintenance and debt service costs for the WASTEC facility since no revenue is derived from that facility.

4.2 Revenue Resources The Department’s sources of revenues fall into four main categories: landfill disposal fees, State trust fund distributions, recycling fees and miscellaneous fees such as interest earnings. The landfill disposal revenues from user fees and State trust fund distributions (discussed below in paragraph 4.2.2) account for the majority of the system revenues. For FY 14, landfill disposal fees represent 93% of total department revenues and trust fund distributions represent 3%. The County estimates interest revenue for FY 13‐14 as $150,000. Total estimated department revenues budgeted for FY 2014 are $12,856,180.

4.2.1 Landfill Disposal Fees The current Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) tipping fee is $59 per ton.

Tonnage projections were based upon the tonnage that was the basis of the county fiscal year 2014 budgeted revenues with a 1.5% growth factor for the years after 2014 unless otherwise noted in the narrative for the alternative.

The C&D landfill tipping fee is $59/ton, including the $2 per ton NC Solid Waste Disposal Tax. Clean concrete/brick/dirt and clean shingles are assessed at $30/ton.

Certain types of waste are received at no charge such as antifreeze (recycled), appliances (white goods), household or lead acid batteries (recycled), tires from homeowners and waste oil (recycled).

Scrap tires from businesses are charged a fee of $83.00/per ton.


4‐2

4.2.2 Statutory Trust Fund Revenue Sources The North Carolina Solid Waste Management Trust Fund (Fund) was created by the Solid Waste Management Act to support local governments with the implementation of a variety of solid waste management activities. The Fund receives money from disposal taxes paid at the time of purchase of new tires and white goods (appliances), solid waste disposal tax, and a virgin newsprint tax. Based on the State’s per capita approach to distributing the taxes, the County estimates it will receive approximately $395,000 to support the proper disposal of tires and appliances. The County received revenue distributions from the following Fund sources:

Scrap Tire Tax – North Carolina imposes a tax of either 2% or 1% (depending on size) on new tires of which 72% of the money is distributed quarterly to counties on a per capita basis to pay for proper disposal. For FY 2013‐14, the County estimates it will receive $320,400.

White Goods Tax ‐ North Carolina imposes a $3 fee on new major appliance purchases of which 72% of the money is distributed quarterly to counties on a per capita basis to pay for proper disposal. For FY 2013‐14, the County estimates it will receive $35,000.

Solid Waste Disposal Tax – All waste materials placed in a North Carolina landfill are subject to a $2 per ton disposal fee. The State distributes 37.5% of the funds quarterly to municipalities and counties for operation of solid waste and recycling programs. For FY 2013‐14, the County estimates it will receive $35,000.

4.2.3 Recycling Revenue The recycling revenue consists of two sources:

Electronics Recycling ‐ For FY 2013‐14, the County estimates it will receive $5,000 from the State as its distribution of this revenue.

Sale of Scrap ‐ For FY 2013‐14, the County estimates revenue from this source to be $560,630.

4.3 Financial Analysis and Results A financial model was developed to establish the baseline for the ongoing operations and to assess the long‐term sustainability of the current business model. The financial model was subsequently used to assess the impacts of potential and selected program changes as discussed in Section 6.

The analysis projected operating costs, capital project outlays and funding of the closure and post‐closure accounts, and developed a long‐term financial plan to meet the twenty year CIP projections.

The long‐term projections for fund balance and surplus provide the most direct assessment of the financial impacts to the enterprise fund resulting from testing of elasticity of tonnage growth projections and other proposed solid waste management changes examined in other sections in this report. The total projected fund balance provides a cushion for unexpected decreases in annual landfill tonnage or other changes in fluctuations in revenues and costs.

4.3.1 County Financial Data Several financial reports and data were reviewed as part of the overall financial analysis. The list of key documents reviewed is identified below:

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) FY 2012


4‐3

Adopted Budget FY 13/14

Actual Revenues and Expenses FY 12/13 and FY 11/12

Environmental Management Debt Service Schedule from FY 13‐14 Recommended Budget Summary

CIP Summary FY 13 through FY 32

Future Capital Outlay Summary for Equipment FY 14 through FY 34

4.3.2 Definition of Key Financial Terms Several key financial terms are used throughout this financial analysis section and in the spreadsheets provided in Appendix B. The key terms and a brief definition of each are provided below:

Enterprise Fund Balance ‐ Assets less liabilities of the Enterprise Fund.

Accumulated Fund Balance – The total value of the enterprise fund balance resulting from all the years of operation.

Closure and Post‐Closure Liability ‐ Future costs for landfill closure and 30 years of maintenance & environmental monitoring.

Committed Fund Balance – Committed fund balance are the components of fund balance that are used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by formal action for the government’s highest level of decision‐making authority.

4.3.3 General Assumptions There were a number of basic assumptions that were common to all of the options that were evaluated.

The CIP used for the base case was submitted by County staff and included 4% inflation per annum.

Fiscal year 2014 expenditures and revenues were based on the official county budget. Projections for expenditures after 2014 were based on a 5% inflation factor for labor categories; 3% for all other operating categories except for the indirect cost expense which was inflated at a rate of 1%. Solid Waste Disposal tax was based on annual tonnage at $2.00 per ton.

The WASTEC cost center only has operating costs which were inflated at 1% and debt service which is based on the outstanding debt as shown in the annual budget document.

Debt Service is based on the schedule in the FY 13/14 budget which is paid off in FY 2018 with the exception of the WASTEC debt which is completed in FY 21.

For the base case it is assumed all future CIP and capital equipment is funded pay as you go from operating revenues.

Capital Equipment as shown in the operating budget is based on the long range capital equipment plan submitted by County staff, through FY 18 for the Landfill and Administration cost centers and through FY 22 for the Recycling Cost Center.

The transfer to the Closure/Post Closure reserve is based on a $700,000 estimate from the County.


4‐4

Revenues from Interest Revenue, State Reimbursement Electrical Recycling, and Sale of Scrap were all based on the FY 2014 with a growth percentage applied for future years.

Interest Revenue earnings was assumed to grow at 4% per annum, State white goods disposal tax distribution at 2%, State scrap tire disposal distribution at 1%, the Solid Waste Disposal Distribution at 1%, State reimbursement for Electronics recycling at 4% and Sale of Scrap at 1%.

4.3.4 Analysis of Continued Landfill Operation A long‐term financial model was developed based on the information gathered from the County and projections were made for key factors such as tonnage, revenues, operating expenses, debt service, the long term capital improvement plan and equipment purchase plan based on the assumptions outlined above. A proforma was developed based on all these inputs of data.

In Appendix B detailed tables show the basis for the proforma:

Table 1 Projected Waste Disposal Tonnage

Table 2 New Construction and Closure Project Plan

Table 3 Capital Outlay Equipment Schedule

Table3A Capital Outlay Equipment Summary with Inflation Included

Table 4 Debt Service Payment Schedule

Table 5 Annual Operating Costs

Table 6 Annual Revenue Projections

Table 7 Proforma

Table 8 Transfers

Operating Costs

Operating costs were projected based on the FY 2014 budget with inflation factors applied as noted in Section 4.3.3. The transfer to the General Fund shown in previous years under the Landfill Operation budget is not continued as the FY 2014 pays off that obligation. Our projections also include a transfer of $700,000 a year to the closure/post closure reserve to fund this obligation. The Administrative Reserve budgeted in FY 2014 is not continued in our projections in order to more clearly show the years of surplus or deficit based on the revenue needs of the Department each year.

The operating budget also includes the current debt service payment schedule. The installment loan payments are fully paid off in FY 2018 and the outstanding debt service for the WASTEC facility is paid off in FY 2021. Table 41 summarizes the outstanding debt.


4‐5

Table 4‐1. Debt Service Payment Schedule – New Hanover County Environmental Management Department

Purpose 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

WASTEC:

2010 COPS WASTEC $78,457 $75,364 $72,263 $68,511 $65,040 $61,352 $61,411 $58,557

Installation Loans for

Equipment

2005 COP Scraper 35,106 35,130 35,074 35,142 35,072

Compactor 826G‐Landfill 251,434 251,434

Articulated Dump Truck‐Landfill 62,086 62,086 62,086 62,086

2014 Installment Loan 184,476 368,952 368,952 184,476

Subtotal 533,102 717,602 466,112 281,704 35,072 0 0 0

TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $611,559 $792,966 $538,375 $350,215 $100,112 $61,352 $61,411 $58,557

For FY 2015 through FY 2032 capital equipment is based on Table 3A Capital Outlay Equipment including inflation. The capital outlay schedule shown on Table 3 and 3A is a major cost for both the Landfill operation and the Recycling program. These two operations require a significant inventory of equipment, mainly heavy equipment that must be maintained and replaced at the end of the equipment’s useful life. Table 3 is an itemized schedule of these purchases and Table 3A summarizes the purchases and adds 3% for inflation per year both of these tables are found in Appendix B. Over the twenty year study period this represents over $25 million including inflation, about 11% of the total operating budget.

The full twenty year operating costs table is shown in Appendix B, but for illustrative purposes the first five years, FY 2014 through FY 2018, is shown in Table 42.

Capital Improvement Program

The detailed capital improvement plan (CIP) found in Appendix B itemizes capital projects planned for the twenty year study period. These projects are comprised of both projects for construction of new cells and also the closure and partial closure of cells during that period. The total inflated costs for the CIP for the twenty year period is $50,488,000.

As the CIP varies from year to year depending upon the projects to be initiated in those years, the financial model incorporates a Capital Reserve for CIP. The model shows a transfer to this reserve in the years where the amount of funds needed for projects is low which can then be used in future years where the net operating cash demand is higher; this allows projects in future years to be funded without issuing debt. These transfers to the Capital Reserve for CIP are shown on the Operating Costs table.


4‐6

Table 4‐2. Annual Operating Costs – New Hanover County Environmental Management Department

Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Administration

Salaries and Benefits $391,220 $410,781 $431,320 $452,886 $475,530

Operating Expenses 557,169 573,884 591,101 608,834 627,099

Capital Equipment ‐ ‐ 95,481 ‐ ‐

Indirect Cost 479,698 484,495 489,340 494,233 499,176

Subtotal 1,428,087 1,469,160 1,607,242 1,555,953 1,601,805

Landfill Operations

Salaries and Benefits 1,067,440 1,120,812 1,176,853 1,235,695 1,297,480

Operating Expenses 2,400,138 2,472,142 2,546,306 2,622,696 2,701,376

Solid Waste Disp Tax State 450,000 414,628 420,848 427,162 433,568

Debt Service‐Installation Loans 533,102 717,602 466,112 281,704 35,072

Capital Equipment 191,000 1,752,545 753,239 320,169 906,035

Capital Improvements 115,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Transfer to General Fund 231,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Subtotal 4,987,680 6,477,729 5,363,358 4,887,426 5,373,531

Recycling Programs

Salaries and Benefits 415,447 436,219 458,030 480,932 504,978


Capital Equipment 90,400 566,500 362,872 52,451 168,826

Subtotal 1,040,767 1,542,989 1,366,575 1,084,511 1,230,445

WASTEC Adm

Salaries and Benefits


Debt Service 78,457 75,364 72,263 68,511 65,040

Subtotal 707,372 710,568 713,819 716,483 719,491

Subtotal Operating Costs $8,163,906 $10,200,446 $9,050,994 $8,244,373 $8,925,272

Transfer to Capital Reserve for CIP 250,000 ‐ 1,500,000 ‐ 2,000,000

Annual Landfill Closure/Post Closure Transfers

150,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000

Administrative Reserve 1,222,495 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Subtotal $1,622,495 $700,000 $2,200,000 $700,000 $2,700,000

TOTAL ANNUAL CASH REQUIREMENTS $9,786,401 $10,900,446 $11,250,994 $8,944,373 $11,625,272


4‐7

Proforma of Operations

The Proforma table (Table 43) summarizes the data calculated from the tables listed above. The purpose is to analyze the total cash needs for operating, debt service and capital improvement projects and calculate the annual surplus or deficit. Although some years may show a deficit based on the projections, in the budget process each year the equipment replacement or capital project needs would be adjusted to present a balance budget.

In FY 2019 transfers to fund balance in years where other cash demands are lower allow the Department to begin building the fund balance towards the goal of 21% set for the General Fund. The model assumes that the fund balance is beginning at zero in FY 2014 and any transfers due to surplus will accumulate from that beginning balance.

The Proforma table also summarizes the annual cash CIP needs and the offset of those needs from transfers from the two reserve accounts that were established. In years where the cash demand is high the demand is offset by transfers from either the CIP reserve or the Landfill Closure reserve or both depending upon the projects included in that year. The Landfill Closure reserve funds are only used for closure projects.

The total resulting revenue surplus or deficit for the twenty year period is summed at the bottom of this table. The twenty year surplus of $10,000,000 is in addition to the $3,500,000 fund balance reserve accumulated through the direct transfers. The net present value of both the surplus of twenty years and the fund balance is $10,232,000.

The Landfill operation supports the recycling function which doesn’t bring in sufficient revenue to cover the total operating costs.

WASTEC

The WASTEC operation even though shut down is a drain on the department resources since there are still associated operating costs for security, insurance and maintenance of over $700,000 per year and debt service payments on the remaining $541,000 of debt.

Transfers

During the development of this long‐term financing plan several reserve accounts were established and discussed earlier in this section. Table 8 Transfers shown in the Appendix B is a summary of the reserve accounts set up in this analysis for transfers to fund balance, CIP reserve and the closure/post closure reserve. At the end of the twenty year study period it is projected that there will be just under $10 million dollars in the CIP reserve which may be used for future CIP. The Fund Balance reserve is estimated to be $3.5 million, on target for the estimated 21% goal of operating costs in that year. The Closure and Post Closure fund has an estimated balance of $6.2 million to fund future closure projects and the thirty year post closure requirement.

Landfill Tipping Fee

Based on the analysis of the current operations, the current $59 per ton is sufficient for the sustainability of the future operations of the department through the twenty year study period without an increase in fee. Changes in annual tonnage or operating or capital costs as presented here may influence the projected outcome.


4‐8

The following graphic depicts the breakdown of the $59 tipping fee and the elements of costs it supports. For purposes of this calculation, the department administrative costs was allocated to the three functional areas and other landfill revenue was netted against the landfill operating costs. The costs shown for recycling is recycling operating costs less recycling revenue.

$33.70

$3.29

$12.31

$5.60$4.10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

FY 2015

Allocation of Tipping Fee

Landfill O&M Closure/Post Closure Landfill CIP

Recycling Support WASTEC Subsidy

4.3.5 Recommendations It is recommended funds from annual user fees from the landfill be set aside to fund the estimated future costs of closure and post closure. These reserves should be tracked in the fund balance in a committed fund balance reserve count in order to segregate these funds. Interest accruing on these funds annually should also be allocated and set aside in this reserve account.

Although funds set aside for future capital improvement projects as is shown in the transfer table as a reserve cannot be considered a committed reserve unless designated as such by the Board, they should be identified in some manner so the department can easily determine the available balance of this fund during budget preparation that may be transferred in a fiscal year to offset cash capital project requirements when necessary.

Table 4‐3 Proforma – New Hanover County Environmental Management Department

Budgeted Projected Projected

Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Revenue

Recycling $ 565,630 $ 571,400 $ 577,300 $ 583,200 $ 589,200 $ 595,200 $ 601,300 $ 607,500 $ 610,800 $ 614,100 $ 617,400 $ 620,800 $ 624,200 $ 627,600 $ 631,000 $ 634,400 $ 637,900 $ 641,400 $ 645,000 $ 648,600

Landfill 12,290,400 12,473,700 12,659,300 12,847,600 13,038,600 13,232,600 13,429,600 13,629,500 13,832,200 14,037,900 14,246,700 14,458,700 14,673,800 14,892,300 15,113,700 15,338,700 15,566,800 15,798,600 16,033,700 16,272,300

Total Environmental Mgmt Operating Revenue 12,856,030 13,045,100 13,236,600 13,430,800 13,627,800 13,827,800 14,030,900 14,237,000 14,443,000 14,652,000 14,864,100 15,079,500 15,298,000 15,519,900 15,744,700 15,973,100 16,204,700 16,440,000 16,678,700 16,920,900

Operating Expenses

Administration 1,428,087 1,469,160 1,607,242 1,555,953 1,601,805 1,649,386 1,698,770 1,750,035 1,803,259 1,858,528 1,915,930 1,975,555 2,165,819 2,101,866 2,168,757 2,238,284 2,310,561 2,385,707 2,463,850 2,545,120

Landfill Operations 4,987,680 6,477,729 5,363,358 4,887,426 5,373,531 5,622,396 4,832,592 6,241,651 5,953,032 5,413,193 6,184,290 7,183,726 7,531,188 6,745,480 7,903,344 6,586,039 7,295,337 8,595,143 8,040,266 7,733,912

Recycling Programs 1,040,767 1,542,989 1,366,575 1,084,511 1,230,445 1,834,369 1,237,136 1,385,609 1,383,062 1,679,535 1,805,170 1,584,195 1,631,145 1,450,917 2,397,928 1,919,811 1,954,364 1,833,647 1,721,383 2,397,458

Westec Adm 707,372 710,568 713,819 716,483 719,491 722,348 729,017 732,839 681,025 687,835 694,713 701,661 708,677 715,764 722,922 730,151 737,452 744,827 752,275 759,798

Transfers:

Transfer to Capital Reserve for CIP 250,000 0 1,500,000 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,200,000 1,700,000 0 0 2,600,000 0 1,000,000 0 1,700,000

Annual Landfill Closure/Post Closure 150,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000

Administrative Reserve 1,222,495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Transfer to Fund Balance 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000

Total Environmental Mgmt Operating 9,786,401 10,900,446 11,250,994 8,944,373 11,625,272 13,028,499 9,197,515 13,810,134 10,520,378 13,839,092 13,300,103 14,345,137 14,436,829 11,714,027 14,892,951 15,274,285 12,997,714 15,759,325 13,677,774 16,336,288

Non Operating Revenues 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340

Net Operating Revenues After Expenses 3,069,779 2,144,814 1,985,776 4,486,607 2,002,718 799,501 4,833,595 427,086 3,922,852 813,148 1,564,247 734,623 861,441 3,806,153 852,039 699,115 3,207,296 680,995 3,001,256 584,952

Capital Improvement Plan 3,069,779 2,620,000 1,667,000 7,137,000 2,200,000 0 8,296,000 0 5,647,000 0 1,899,000 0 499,000 5,518,000 2,137,000 0 3,401,000 0 6,397,000 0

Less:

Transfers From CIP Reserve 1,500,000 3,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000

Transfer From Landfill Closure 1,500,000 1,000,000 0 1,200,000 0 0 0 1,500,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0

Net From Annual Revenue 3,069,779 2,620,000 1,667,000 4,137,000 1,200,000 0 3,596,000 0 3,647,000 0 399,000 0 499,000 3,518,000 137,000 0 3,401,000 0 2,397,000 0

Revenue Surplus/Deficit $ (0) $ (475,186) $ 318,776 $ 349,607 $ 802,718 $ 799,501 $ 1,237,595 $ 427,086 $ 275,852 $ 813,148 $ 1,165,247 $ 734,623 $ 362,441 $ 288,153 $ 715,039 $ 699,115 $ (193,704) $ 680,995 $ 604,256 $ 584,952

Total Revenue/Surplus All Years $10,190,214

NPV Surplus Plus Fund Balance Reserve $10,232,000

5‐1

Section 5

High Level Review of Technologies

This section presents a high‐level review of available solid waste management strategies, technologies, and processes. These strategies, technologies, and processes will be discussed further as solid waste management policies. The compiled policies will then be screened for cost‐effectiveness, applicability and alignment with New Hanover County’s (County) strategic plan and a short‐list will be developed.

5.1 Engineering and Operational Strategies to Maximize Landfill Capacity Preserving and maximizing landfill capacity is key to the financial stability of a solid waste management program when a landfill is the cornerstone of the program. CDM Smith reviewed the County’s current landfill design, operational practices and strategies and compared them to practices and strategies being utilized in the industry for maximizing landfill capacity. The following section presents some landfill engineering and operational strategies.

One strategy that the County has recently permitted is steepening exterior landfill side slopes from 4 to 1 to 3 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). This operational strategy will help maximize the landfill within its currently permitted footprint and increase overall volume once the south expansion is permitted.

5.1.1 Alternative Daily Cover The County currently uses an alternative daily cover (ADC). Posi‐shell, a cement‐based, spray‐applied ADC, is used at the County’s landfill five consecutive days per week, with soil cover being used on Saturdays. Posi‐Shell provides a thin cover that hardens over the covered waste surface.

Posi‐shell is commonly used in the industry and conserves landfill airspace by replacing the typical 6‐inch‐thick daily soil cover with a thin cementitious cover (approximately ¼‐inch‐thick). As a result, volume once needed for soil, can be used for waste, therefore increasing the amount of waste placed within the fixed, permitted volume. Other landfill operations in the State have been able to demonstrate to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Solid Waste Section (SWS) that soil cover can be used less frequently than weekly with positive results. In fact, one facility is permitted to use Posi‐shell continuously for up to 30 days before placing soil cover. CDM Smith recommends that the County investigate extending the period that Posi‐shell can be used between soil cover applications to maximize waste volume within the landfill. Disadvantages to Posi‐shell include limited use during heavy rain and material purchasing and storage.

Example North Carolina Landfills benefiting from Posi‐shell: Onslow and Buncombe County.

The County’s current waste disposal ranges from 1,154 to 1,372 pounds of municipal solid waste (MSW) per cubic yard of airspace(lbs MSW/cy). The range for landfills that utilize Posi‐shell is typically between 1,400 to 1,500 lbs MSW/cy.

Section 5 High Level Review of Technologies

5‐2

Currently, the County determines waste disposal density, or airspace utilization factors (AUFs) annually. CDM Smith recommends that the County consider semi‐annual AUF checks. This increased frequency of checks may benefit the County in keeping track of AUF trends.

5.1.2 Leachate Recirculation Leachate recirculation is used to reduce the quantity of leachate requiring treatment and to expedite biodegradation of disposed waste and generation of landfill gas for beneficial use. This strategy has yet to demonstrate vast landfill volume preservation in way of waste settlement and subsequent “re‐gain” of used space; however, it can reduce leachate quantity that needs to be disposed. Wetting improves compaction prior to degradation. The benefit is most obvious in dry regions but helps during dry periods in other regions as well. Currently, the County is permitted to recirculate leachate and has surficial injection trenches in Cell 4B. Typically, they use recirculation during emergency situations to lower leachate levels in the lagoon. Recirculation has occurred sporadically. CDM Smith recommends that the County consider a leachate recirculation investigation portion in a potential landfill gas end uses feasibility study.

Example North Carolina Landfills benefiting from leachate recirculation: Buncombe County.

5.1.3 Landfill In‐Fill Landfill in‐fill occurs when area is available between two adjacent landfill mounds. Typically, in‐fills result in a low cost to benefit ratio since construction costs are low compared to the volume that is gained. This assumes that disposal on existing landfill mound side‐slopes are permittable.

In the Cell 6E Landfill Expansion Permit Application/Operations Permit Amendment prepared by SCS Engineers, PC dated March 2, 2012; two in‐fill areas are identified. CDM Smith recommends that these areas be considered as viable options to maximize landfill volume within current County property.

5.1.4 Landfill Mining Landfill mining involves the excavation and processing of landfilled waste and cover soils so that existing cells can be refilled with new waste. In some instances, landfill mining temporarily removes hazardous material so that proper environmental containment can be installed and the waste replaced. Also, landfill mining can recover valuable recyclable materials and soil and reclaim landfill volume. A series of processing equipment is set up as waste is excavated to sort salvageable material. The unsalvageable material is disposed back in the landfill.

Due to its high processing costs, potential issues with environmental containment (odor and vector control), and potential damage to the landfill base liner and operational (leachate and landfill gas) systems, landfill mining is currently not pervasive in the region. CDM Smith recommends that the County consider this as a potential management tool in the future and monitor the region to determine if the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Solid Waste Section (NCDENR SWS) would be willing to consider landfill mining since it is not proven as of yet in the State. The County could complete a landfill mining feasibility study to determine if it would work in their management strategy and begin discussions with the SWS.

Example North Carolina landfills with mining operations: None


5‐3

5.1.5 Inward Gradient Landfills The design of inward gradient landfills involves constructing the landfill base at a lower elevation than the seasonal high groundwater table. This could increase the landfill volume significantly as well as reduce construction costs where fill material is required for groundwater separation requirements.

Since the landfill base is within the groundwater table, the pressure of the groundwater is on the outside of the landfill base liner. If there is damage to the base liner, groundwater movement would be into the landfill (inward), instead of outward which would result in additional leachate escaping the containment of the landfill and contaminating the surrounding groundwater.

Inward gradient design is not widely practiced in North Carolina; therefore, precedence for this design has yet to be established. Major concerns are excessive leachate generation due to leaks, potential environmental impacts to surrounding sensitive areas if the groundwater table is disturbed, and uplift of the base liner prior to waste disposal.

Based on aforementioned concerns, CDM Smith does not recommend considering inward gradient design for the County landfill. If, at some time in the future, the design becomes more common in the state, the County could determine the viability at that time.

Example North Carolina Landfills with inward gradient design: None

5.1.6 Artificially Lowering the Groundwater Table Artificially lowering the groundwater table is another method to increase landfill volume. Typically this is done by installing a cut‐off wall and operating a long‐term dewatering system which would allow the landfill base to be constructed lower. The construction cost savings for reducing fill required for the groundwater separation may be offset by the cut‐off wall and long‐term dewatering system.

Waste Industries’ Sampson County landfill has artificially lowered the groundwater table, but site conditions allowed for a gravity drain system without a long‐term mechanical dewatering system. NCDENR Solid Waste Section’s primary concern is the operations and maintenance of the long‐term dewatering system (pumping) and seems to be receptive to a limited maintenance gravity drain system.

CDM Smith recommends the County evaluate historical groundwater contour maps, historical groundwater levels, and site topographic information to determine if sufficient swings in groundwater elevation would warrant pursuing this strategy. If technically viable and permittable, the County could conduct a cost‐benefit analysis based on the value of the airspace and the soil gained versus the cost of construction and maintenance of gravity drain system.

Sampson County is located in the Inner Coastal Plain where elevations can rise up to 300 feet above mean sea level. New Hanover County is partly in the Inner Coastal Plain and the Outer Coastal Plain. The likelihood of this strategy being viable for the County is lower than Sampson County but merits at least some examination.

Example North Carolina Landfills that lower groundwater: Waste Industries’ Sampson County Landfill


5‐4

5.1.7 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls are earthen walls constructed with artificial reinforcement (including steel or geosynthetics). Their advantage is the ability to construct near vertical earthen walls using the technology, therefore reducing the amount of land required for embankment construction. MSE walls are widely used in highway projects in urban areas where limited right‐of‐ways or high property values justify the expense of constructing this type of wall. MSE walls have been used in landfill applications where additional airspace was needed but the purchase of additional land was not possible or prohibitively expensive. MSE walls are constructed on the outside limit of the landfill liner and allows the operator to start the toe of waste higher in elevation, thereby gaining height to the landfill and volume.

There are several advantages that make construction of an MSE wall attractive, including:

Allow a vertical expansion of the landfill without increasing the landfill footprint. This will enable the current buffers to be maintained and avoid committing additional acreage to landfill development. Essentially only property already impacted by waste disposal operations will be affected.

Provides aesthetic benefits for the neighboring property owners. The MSE wall will serve as a visual and noise barrier for future landfill operations located closest to the property line. The face of the wall could also be vegetated to make the structure blend in with established buffer vegetation. Also, very little clearing of the existing buffer area vegetation would be required for MSE wall construction.

Some disadvantages include:

Additional maintenance requirements such as the periodic removal of unsuitable vegetation from the face, periodic inspections for wall integrity, and additional leachate pumping costs.

Limit access to the landfill. Traffic will most likely be required to enter and exit the landfill from permanent locations built into the design or from locations where the MSE wall does not exist. Operational difficulties resulting from narrow working faces and the necessity for long and frequently changing haul roads should be evaluated.

Incorporating an MSE wall design into the expansion of an existing landfill is limiting options for future expansion. Once an MSE wall is in place, future lateral expansions become difficult and impractical. Retrofitting a wall to provide gravity drainage and lining the steep outer slopes of the wall present obstacles.

Currently, the southern landfill expansion does not have a landfill height limit. Based on this, an MSE wall could be incorporated if the landfill design demonstrates that the landfill could have additional height. CDM Smith recommends a feasibility study be completed to determine:

SWS receptiveness for MSE walls;

constructability based on landfill design;

and cost analysis.

Example North Carolina Landfills with MSE Walls: None


5‐5

5.2 Waste Diversion Potential The County has historically been a leader in diversion of waste from landfill disposal within North Carolina. It was the first county in the State to construct a waste‐to‐energy facility to recover the energy value from the waste stream, as well as divert and stabilize the waste mass. In addition, in conjunction with the City of Wilmington and other towns in the County, it has implemented an effective residential recycling program through which residential recyclables and yard waste are collected curbside.

In the past year, however, the amount of waste diverted from landfill disposal has dropped significantly ‐ by about 30,000 tons per year ‐ due to the closure of WASTEC. As a result, the 2012 diversion rate ‐ as presented in Table 51 ‐ was approximately 15%.

Table 5‐1. Waste Diversion in New Hanover County (2012)1

Waste Diversion Program Tons Percent

City of Wilmington 20,365 8.6%

Kure Beach 384 0.2%

Carolina Beach 556 0.2%

Wrightsville Beach 909 0.4%

County Landfill Recycling (Drop‐off facilities and landfill recycling including C&D) 13,786 5.8%

Total Diverted 36,000 15.3%

Waste Disposed 199,700 84.7%

Waste Generated 235,700 100%

Note: 1 The tonnages estimated within Table 5‐1 are based on FY 2012 data from New Hanover County and the

municipalities. The tonnages include traditional recyclables, yard waste and materials banned from the landfill (i.e.

tires, white goods and wooden pallets).

For the County to meet or exceed its stated diversion goal for 2015/2016 of 25%, it must identify and implement additional waste diversion programs. As a component of the Solid Waste Management Plan, the County is interested in investigating opportunities that could conserve landfill disposal capacity by increasing the amount of waste recovered and/or recycled from within New Hanover County. This section summarizes CDM Smith’s review of the County’s waste stream and opportunities for increasing waste recycling and recovery within the County. As part of this section, CDM Smith has:

reviewed the Waste Composition Study (SCS, 2012);

identified opportunities for increasing reuse and recycling based on types and amounts of waste received and market opportunities; and

provided relevant case studies, which have been successfully implemented.


5‐6

5.2.1 Review of Waste Composition Study The purpose of the 2012 Waste Composition Study was to estimate the types and quantities of recyclable materials and C&D waste that were being disposed of at the County's Landfill, as these materials represent additional diversion opportunities for the County.

Based on data provided in the County's 2012 Solid Waste Management Plan, the County estimates that the MSW generated in the County consists of three major substreams, as presented in Table 52.

Table 5‐2. Major Waste Substreams in New Hanover County

MSW Substreams (2012) Percent Tons/Year

Residential 30% 70,710

Commercial 30% 70,710

Industrial 5% 11,790

C&D 35% 82,500

Total 100% 235,7001

Note: 1 235,700 is an estimate for FY 2012 and accounts for waste disposed at the County’s landfill and waste diverted

through recycling, special waste collection (i.e. tires, white goods, etc.) and yard waste collection. The estimate is

derived using the 2012 Solid Waste Management Plan and FY 2012 values provided by the County.

The 2012 Waste Composition Study indicated that both the residential and commercial substreams contain significant quantities of putrescible organics, paper, and plastics, as indicated in Table 53.

Table 5‐3. Major Recyclable Components in the Residential and Commercial Waste Substreams

Residential Waste 1 Commercial Wastes2

Waste Stream Component Percent Tons/Year Percent Tons/Year Totals

Putrescible/Organics 38.6% 15,720 36.4% 25,740 41,460

Paper 19.6% 7,980 22.2% 15,700 23,680

Plastics 20.7% 8,430 21.8% 15,410 23,840

Other 21.1% 8,590 19.6% 13,860 22,450

Total 100.0% 40,720 100.0% 70,710 111,430

Notes: 1 The current residential recycling tonnages for FY 2012 (29,980 tons) were subtracted from the RSW total tonnage for

FY 2012 (70,710 tons) to calculate the additional residential tonnage (40,720 tons) that can be processed for

recycling.

2 Commercial waste diversion is generally unknown, therefore the commercial waste stream that can be processed

for recycling was approximated by multiplying the percent waste composition by the total estimated commercial

waste stream provided in Table 5‐2.


5‐7

In contrast, the major components of the C&D waste stream that can be targeted for recycling include clean wood, drywall, and cardboard (see Table 54.)

Table 5‐4. Major Recyclable Components of the C&D Waste Stream

Waste Stream Component Percent Tons/Year

Clean Wood 14.8% 12,210

Drywall 5.0% 4,120

Cardboard 2.6% 2,140

Other 77.6% 64,020

Total 100.0% 82,500

5.2.2 Preliminary Market Assessment The first step in the implementation of any waste diversion strategy is to identify and understand the secondary materials markets that exist for the materials that will be recycled. As a rule, the secondary materials markets follow the fluctuations of their corresponding primary materials markets with respect to demand and pricing. These fluctuations are created by changes in the global, national, regional and local manufacturing which, in turn, are influenced by a variety of factors that determine the demand for the manufactured products. To compete, local governments that enter this marketplace must be prepared to implement recycling facilities and systems that produce high quality secondary materials. In addition, their budgets must be able to accommodate significant fluctuations in the revenues received for these materials. Finally, their systems must be able to store unmarketed products on a temporary basis as well as economically ship materials to buyers who are often located overseas in China, Indonesia and other Pacific Rim countries.

The 2012 Waste Composition Study indicates that significant quantities of paper and plastic products are still being landfilled in New Hanover County. Based on a preliminary review, local buyers exist for secondary paper and plastics that can be recovered through additional waste diversion programs. Of special benefit to the County in this regard is the Port of Wilmington that can efficiently ship secondary materials to overseas markets. Prior to implementing any of the diversion strategies identified herein, CDM Smith recommends the County conduct a detailed market study for the products and materials targeted for recovery.

5.2.3 Overview of Waste Diversion Approaches For the County to reach its stated goal of 25% diversion of the MSW stream from disposal, it must implement diversion programs that target all three waste substreams ‐ residential, commercial and construction and demolition (C&D) wastes.

The purpose of this section is to present diversion program options for the County to consider. All of these options utilize commercially proven technologies and have been successfully implemented by other local governments in the U.S. The types of waste diversion facilities that the County may want to consider are listed in Table 55 and described below.


5‐8

5.2.4 Options to Increase Residential Waste Diversion The 2012 Waste Stream Characterization Study indicates that about 50,000 tons of paper and plastics are still being disposed at the County's landfill and could potentially be recovered. There are two basics approaches that can be used by jurisdictions such as New Hanover County to recover these additional materials: 1) source separation and processing of recyclables and 2) mixed waste processing.

The source separation and processing of recyclables from residential customers has been practiced in the County for many years. The City of Wilmington is following the current trend of collecting recyclables in a "single stream" (i.e., mixed in one container) and reducing the frequency of collection to an every‐other‐week basis.

Instead of being processed by the County, however, the recyclables are baled and shipped to a materials recovery facility (MRF) in Raleigh owned and operated by Waste Management. By not owning and operating the MRF, the County is missing out on revenues that are being received from the sale of the recovered recyclables.

Table 5‐5. Waste Diversion Practices and Processes Reviewed

Residential

Waste

Commercial/

Industrial

Wastes C&D Waste

Residential Recycling

Exclusive Franchise Collection in

Unincorporated Areas

X

Mixed Waste Processing X X

Commercial Recycling

Mandatory Commercial Recycling X

Franchised Commercial Waste

Collection

X

Organics Recycling

Yard Waste Composting X X

Food Waste Composting X X

C&D Recycling

C&D Recycling Plans X

Mandatory C&D Recycling X

C&D Mixed Waste MRF X


5‐9

The source separation and recycling of materials from the residential waste stream is a well established practice in the incorporated areas of the County. However, in the unincorporated areas, residents must bring their recyclables to one of the County drop‐off centers or pay for an individual curbside recycling service in order to participate in recycling.

Based on these observations, the County could consider the following additional approaches to increase the diversion of residential recyclables in New Hanover County:

Exclusive Franchise Residential Waste Collection in the Unincorporated; and

Mixed Residential Waste Processing.

5.2.4.1 Semi‐Exclusive Franchise Residential Waste Collection in Unincorporated Areas

Description

Solid waste collection franchising can be defined as:

“The right or license granted to one or more companies or organizations to provide waste collection services to specified waste generators – such as residences or businesses ‐ in a defined geographic area.”

There are three types of waste collection franchises:

exclusive franchises;

semi‐exclusive franchises, and

non‐exclusive franchises.

In an exclusive franchise, the right to provide waste collection services to a specified type of generator in a designated area is granted to a single company or organization. For semi‐exclusive franchises, the collection service area is divided into a small number of districts with the right to service accounts in a given district granted to a single agency. In a non‐exclusive franchise, the right to provide services in a franchise district is granted to more than one company or organization. A non‐exclusive solid waste collection franchise approach is similar to the free market approach, except that levels of service and fees are defined in the franchise license agreement.

Significant cost reductions and efficiency improvements are typically achieved when a community converts from a free market solid waste collection approach to solid waste collection provided through an exclusive franchise. In the U.S., the majority of incorporated areas are provided with residential waste collection services through one or more exclusive franchise agreements.

The unincorporated areas of New Hanover County are currently provided with residential waste collection services through non‐exclusive franchise agreements. By dividing up these areas into a small number of exclusive franchise service areas, it is possible that three curbside collection services ‐ residential waste and every‐other week recycling/yard waste collection ‐ could be provided for the same price that residents are paying for weekly waste collection alone. The provision of a regularly scheduled curbside collection services for recyclables and yard waste to the residents in the unincorporated areas will significantly increase the quantities of these materials that are diverted from landfill disposal due to the increase in the convenience associated with participating in these programs.


5‐10

Benefits

Increase in waste collection service levels

Significant increase in customer convenience regarding participation in recycling and yard waste diversion

Can be used as a mechanism to implement or enforce other waste programs (e.g. recycling, waste bans) which are not self supporting

Reduced service costs

Reduced vehicular emissions

Reduced traffic and wear and tear on roads

Establishment of uniform levels of services (including recyclables collection services)

Provides a means through which a local government can exercise control over the collected waste.

Drawbacks

Reduced market share for some haulers (could especially hurt small haulers)

Possible reduction in number of waste collection service choices

Transition from a non‐exclusive franchise approach can be contentious

Costs

Based on other programs that have converted from non‐exclusive to semi‐exclusive franchise arrangements, it is likely that the residents will pay the same for two weekly collection services under the exclusive franchise as they are now paying for one weekly collection service under the non‐exclusive franchise.

Status

The establishment of semi‐exclusive franchise services areas for residential waste collection is commonly practiced by local governments.

Case Study ‐ Catawba County, North Carolina

Catawba County, North Carolina has a franchise agreement with GDS (Republic Services) for the collection of residential and commercial waste in the unincorporated areas of the County.

GDS has been the County’s hauler, under agreement, since 1969. The County passed Ordinance No. 2003‐18 in 2003 which granted the exclusive franchise to Republic Services of NC, LLC, for Solid Waste Management and Disposal Services. Chapter 32 of the County Code provides that the Board of Commissioners may grant an exclusive franchise for the provision of waste management.

The Board prefers a single franchise for the provision of such services. County officials indicate that Ordinance 2003‐18 was passed to update the franchise agreement, and have it on the books. The franchise contract with GDS stipulates that the hauler own and operate a MRF and provide curbside recycling in the entire unincorporated area of Catawba County. GDS, in fact, must “promote and sell those services to all of said residences in the County.” Monthly fees for residential service for 2004 are presented below.


5‐11

Table 5‐6. Residential Refuse Collection/Disposal Weekly Fees* in Catawba County

Basic Collection Fee Landfill Fees Total Monthly Fee

Residential Recyclers $12.18 $2.90 $15.08

Residential Non‐Recyclers $12.18 $8.25 $20.43

*Effective July 1, 2004 , however these are the same rates as in 2003‐2004

GDS also collects bagged yard debris upon request, for an additional fee ($1.50 per bag), and bulky items, upon request, for a $25.00 fee.

5.2.4.2 Mixed Waste Processing

Description

Mixed waste MRFs are designed to recover materials and/or energy from unsorted municipal solid waste generated by both the residential and commercial sectors of a community. Of the 633 MRFs in the U.S. in 2011, 43 were mixed waste MRFs.

The processing technologies for mixed waste MRFs has improved dramatically over the last twenty years. Rotating disc screens, polishing screens, drum separators, bag breakers, windshifters and optical sorting equipment are among the new technologies that are being incorporated into mixed waste MRF processing lines.

As a result, more communities are considering abandoning source separation in lieu of mixed waste processing. For example, the City of Houston recently announced its intention to implement a "One Bin For All" recycling program that will process unsorted waste from its residents.

Benefits

Eliminates the costs and local environmental impacts of providing separate collection services for recyclable and yard waste.

Easier for residents and businesses ‐ no source separation of materials required.

By definition, 100% participation by residents and businesses.

Ability to recover recyclables (e.g. bicycle frames) not targeted in curbside recycling.

Ability to divert HHW and materials/products banned from landfill disposal.

Ability to produce an engineered process fuel and/or a compostable residue stream.

Reported landfill diversion rates as high as 75%.

Drawbacks

Larger facility needed to process entire MSW stream.

Compost produced is of lower quality ‐ generally only suitable for landfill cover.

Some concern over quality of recovered materials ‐ may be unjustified for newer facilities.


5‐12

Costs

When both capital and operating costs are included, MRF processing costs are on the order of $50 to $100 per ton or more. Depending on local recycling markets, the types of materials recycled and economic conditions, revenues from the sale of the recovered recyclables are also typically on the order of $50 to $100 per ton.1

Status

The processing of residential waste for materials recovery is well established and commercially proven. There is less experience with respect to the performance and costs of the newer technologies listed above. However, these technologies are ‐ for the most part ‐ also considered commercially proven.

Case Study ‐ GreenWaste MRF (San Jose, California)

The City of San Jose has a Zero Waste goal by 2022. Prior to construction and operation of the GreenWaste MRF, the city had an established Pay‐As‐You‐Throw (PAYT) program for curbside recycling as well as commercial recycling. Despite outreach to multi‐family complexes, the city was only able to achieve 18% waste diversion for this sector. With start‐up of the new GreenWaste MRF in 2008, the city reportedly has reached 75% diversion for multi‐family complex and an overall diversion rate of nearly 80%.

Table 5‐7. GreenWaste MRF ‐ San Jose, CA

Start‐up date 2008

Site Size 6 acres

Facility Size 95000 sq. ft. (2 MRF buildings)

No. Process lines 2 – One MSW and One Single Stream Recycables

Permitted capacity 1,400 TPD (recyclables, C&D, green waste)

Throughput MSW ‐ 400 TPD

Single Stream ‐ 150 TPD

Diversion Rate 75% (50% to compost and 25% recyclables)

1 Tim Goodman and Associates. Material Recovery Facilities Operation Assessment Final Report and Optimization Guide. St.

Paul, MN: Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, August 11, 2003. In this report, the gross MRF processing costs for

four MRFs in the state ranged from $89 to $314 per ton while the recovered material revenues ranged from $40 to $94 per

ton.


5‐13

5.2.5 Options to Increase Commercial Waste Diversion Most local government recycling programs that have been implemented over the last twenty five years have targeted the residential waste stream. A major reason is that, in most communities, businesses individually contract with haulers to provide collection and disposal services. Another reason is that the composition and quantities of waste generated by businesses varies significantly, making it difficult to establish across the board guidelines for all businesses.

The 2012 Waste Composition Study conducted for the County found that significant quantities of organics, paper and plastics contained in the commercial waste stream ‐ over 60,000 tons per year ‐ were still being landfilled (see Table 5‐3).

Based on a review of recycling programs across the U.S. that have targeted the commercial waste stream, CDM Smith recommends the County consider the following approaches for increasing the diversion of commercial waste.

Mandatory Commercial Recycling

Mixed Commercial Waste Recycling

5.2.5.1 Mandatory Commercial Recycling

Description

Local governments can assist businesses, institutions, and industries in their jurisdictions to achieve higher recycling levels by requiring that commercial waste haulers identify and separately charge for the disposal costs that are included in their collection service prices.

In addition, some communities – such as Mecklenburg County, North Carolina – have implemented mandatory business recycling ordinances to encourage this sector to recycle. The County may want to consider the implementation of a similar ordinance.

In comparison to other programs, this approach has the potential to result in a significant amount of waste diversion. Relative to other programs, the implementation costs of this option are modest, consisting mainly of costs for program administrators and support staff.

GreenWaste MRF ‐ San Jose, CA


5‐14

Benefits

Relatively easy and simple way to increase commercial waste diversion rates.

Approach relies on existing infrastructure to divert and process commercial recyclables.

Drawbacks

Pushback may be experienced from private sector for additional regulatory requirement.

Mandate adds to the costs of doing business in the County.

Costs

Based on data from Mecklenburg County, the net cost of a mandatory commercial source separation ordinance is on the order of $350 per participating business per year.

Status

The ordinance has been in place and shown effective results in Mecklenburg County for over 10 years. A number of other communities (Dane County, WI; Collier County, FL; Onondaga County, NY; San Luis Obispo County, CA) have implemented similar Source Separation Ordinances (SSOs) for businesses in their communities.

Case Study ‐ Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Mecklenburg County passed its own regulatory policy addressing business recycling in 2002 with the implementation of the Mecklenburg County Mandatory SSO which requires businesses contracting for the collection of large quantities of waste materials to separate office paper and corrugated cardboard from their trash for the purpose of recycling. This is meant to address the large amount of fiber being left in the waste stream, as determined by the County's waste characterization study.

Specifically, the regulation applies to businesses that contract for 16 cubic yards or greater per week of garbage collection service unless the business qualifies under one or more of the exemptions.

Business entities include all commercial, governmental, industrial, and institutional entities. The SSO targets the entity that contracts for garbage service, as this would be the organization able to make any necessary changes to their service contract. Consequently, the rules and regulations provide special provisions for property managed facilities. Property managers must provide a recycling system for their tenants and provide notification to their tenants of the recycling system and how to use it.

A business entity may either contract with a vendor to pick up their corrugated cardboard and office paper or they may take these materials to a recycling facility including one of the County’s recycling drop‐off centers. A business is allowed to commingle corrugated cardboard and office paper with the rest of their trash if they are contracting with a certified mixed waste recycler who will do the separation for them. Otherwise, once separated, these materials may not be mixed together.

Mecklenburg County will provide businesses with three notices before penalties will be assessed. Each notice will be accompanied by an offer of technical assistance. A civil penalty of $50 per day will be assessed if a business fails to comply with the ordinance within thirty days of receiving a third notice of violation.


5‐15

There are several exemptions to the SSO as follows:

If a business is contracting with a certified mixed waste processor, the processor will do the sorting for the business.

If a business generates less than 500 pounds of corrugated cardboard per month, it does not have to separate corrugated cardboard.

If a business generates less than 500 pounds of office paper per month, it does not have to separate office paper.

If doing business from a temporary location.

If physical space constraints preclude the business entity from complying.

If the ordinance would require them to violate other codes or regulations.

If no collection or processing system exists.

There have been several positive consequences of the SSO. Since its effective date, there has been an increase in the number of recycling collection companies in the County and the number of materials they accept. Perhaps due to this competition, prices for paper fiber collection services have also declined. In an effort to create their own niche, recycling companies have found ways to differentiate themselves, some take only particular grades of paper fiber while others accept a mixed load of all grades.

Businesses that are exempt from the SSO can choose to utilize County‐sponsored commercial recycling drop‐off centers for their recycling needs. Commercial recycling drop‐off centers are free of charge and accept the same recyclable materials as Mecklenburg County’s single stream recycling program. Full‐service and unstaffed County drop‐off centers may also be used for recyclables.

5.2.5.2 Mixed Commercial Waste Processing

The option to process mixed commercial waste for materials recovered is presented in Section 5.2.4.2.

5.2.6 Options to Increase the Recycling of Source‐Separated Organics Interest is growing in the processing and recovery of the organic fraction of the MSW stream for a number of reasons. The organic fraction of MSW (which include food scraps, yard trimmings, wood waste, and mixed paper) is roughly 40 to 60 percent of the waste stream by weight. As a result, the processing and recycling of these materials can play a significant role in the achievement of high waste diversion goals.

In the last decade, interest has grown in the collection and processing of source‐separated organics. One primary reason is the difference in quality of the compost products produced by source‐separated organics systems. The compost quality from these systems is generally good, which means that not only can the compost product be moved, but that it can generate revenues.

As indicated in the table below, source‐separated organics systems that incorporate anaerobic digestion (AD) can produce a renewable energy product in addition to a marketable compost product.


5‐16

Table 5‐8. Primary Methods of Recovering Source‐Separate Organics from Municipal Solid Waste

Approach Technology

System Requirements Recovered Products

Separate

Collection Dirty MRF

Rigid In‐

Vessel

Required

Energy

Recovery Compost Quality

Processing of

Source‐

Separated

Organics

Composting Yes No No No Yes Good

Anaerobic

Digestion/

Composting

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Unknown

Dedicated

Bioreactor

Cells

Yes No No Yes Yes Unknown

When considering the recycling of organics from the MSW stream, there are two main drivers that are often at odds – namely, the production of a quality compost versus the diversion of organic wastes from landfill disposal.

For example, there is a company in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania – AgRecycle, Inc. – which has been in business since 1991 producing quality compost from source‐separated organics. The company accepts food residuals, paper, clean wood waste, yard debris, corrugated paper, and manures from selected sources from which it produces a variety of compost products that sell for $31.50 to $42.75 per cubic yard. The company also provides an organic waste collection service using front‐load collection trucks. The company's ongoing economic success is dependent on the revenues it receives from its compost products in addition to its tipping fees.

To ensure the quality of its compost products, the company screens generators and only accepts food residuals from “generators of consequence.” For example, food waste is only accepted from restaurants and grocery stores with over ten employees and only after they have been screened and approved.

In contrast, organics recycling programs that are driven by waste diversion goals or regulations often must sacrifice compost quality to achieve these goals. For example, the state of Vermont just passed a law phasing in mandatory recycling and composting of food and organic waste, eventually banning those materials from landfills. Such laws require organics recycling facility managers to accept banned organic materials from all sources and do not allow them to be selective. As a result, the production of quality compost products often becomes a secondary goal in deference to the primary goal of waste diversion.

There are two composting options that CDM Smith recommends that New Hanover County consider with respect to increasing the diversion of organics from landfill disposal:

Yard waste composting; and

Food waste composting.


5‐17

5.2.6.1 Yard Waste Composting

Description

Yard trimmings include grass, leaves, and tree and brush trimmings from residential, institutional, and commercial sources. In 2009, the EPA estimated that 33.2 million tons of yard trimmings were generated – representing 13.7 percent of the MSW stream, with almost 60 percent of this material being recovered as compost, mulch, and bio‐fuel for industrial boilers. The EPA estimates that the average composition of yard trimmings is about 50 percent grass, 25 percent brush, and 25 percent leaves on a weight basis.

Yard waste composting is an extremely common practice. In 2011 about, 3,090 yard waste composting programs were documented. These programs managed approximately 52,900 tons per day of yard waste in 2011.

New Hanover County is in the process of conducting a pilot program on yard waste processing at the New Hanover County landfill.

Benefits

Enables County to comply with the State ban on the landfilling of yard wastes.

Produces a high quality compost and mulch that can be sold as a soil enhancer and a fuel.

Commercial yard waste is already collected separately by lawn maintenance companies who are likely to pay lower tipping fees at the compost facility than at the landfill.

Drawbacks

Requires the separate collection of yard waste at the curb from residential customers. This separate collection service costs over $100 per ton and results in increased local air pollution, road wear and tear, and potential for truck accidents.

Costs

Yard waste composting facilities can typically break even with compost/mulch sales and tipping fees in the $30‐$50 per ton range.

Status

The composting of yard waste is a well established practice among County governments.

5.2.6.2 Food Waste Composting

Description

The most common approach to increasing organics recycling is to add the collection and recycling of food wastes to existing yard waste diversion programs. According to the EPA, food wastes represent about 40 percent of the organics in MSW, but only about 2 percent of food wastes are currently being diverted from landfill disposal.

The EPA defines food scraps as including:

Uneaten food and food preparation wastes from residences, commercial establishments such as grocery stores and sit‐down/fast food restaurants.

Institutional sources such as school cafeterias.


5‐18

Industrial sources such as factory lunchrooms.

Pre‐consumer food waste generated during the manufacturing and packaging of food products is considered industrial waste and therefore is not included in the EPA's food scrap estimates.

Food waste characteristics that are of importance with respect to organics recycling systems include the following:

Moisture Content – Food waste has a moisture content that ranges from 37 to 90 percent and typically is 70 percent. This characteristic has important implications for organics recovery programs. For example, if the organics processing facility is located remotely, it may make sense to “de‐water” the food wastes at a transfer station before shipping it to the organics recovery facility.

Biodegradable Methane Potential –Food scraps have the highest biodegradable methane potential of any MSW organic component. For this reason, they are ideally suited to the anaerobic digestion process, which is designed for methane production and recovery.

One of the major concerns with respect to the composting of food waste is the generation of odors. To address this concern, it is generally recommended that the food waste composting process be conducted in a vessel where odors and process factors such as temperature and moisture content can be directly controlled.

In‐vessel composting systems contain food and organic wastes in impermeable enclosures during the active composting stage, thus allowing for better control of the composting process as well as the capture and treatment of exhaust gases and odors. The initial investment required for in‐vessel systems can be high (especially for rigid systems), and the throughputs are typically low when compared to traditional windrow systems.

In‐vessel systems historically have been designed with rigid containers made out of concrete or steel. More recently, flexible containers, consisting of impermeable flexible membranes, have grown in use.

In flexible in‐vessel systems, compostable waste is ground up and then extruded into long, impermeable bags or placed under impermeable cover systems. Plastics pipes are inserted in the bags or under the cover systems to supply air to the composting waste while water is fed to the waste during the grinding operation. The waste is composted in the bags or under the cover systems for at least 8 weeks, cured for another 4 to 9 weeks in curing windrows, and then screened to produce the final compost product.

The bags and cover systems provide for temperature, moisture, and odor control and are touted as requiring only one‐third the surface area of traditional windrow systems.

Ag‐Bag Environmental (Warrenton, Oregon) is a major supplier of flexible compost systems. The company lists 19 operating Ag‐Bag composting systems in the United States on its web site and offers modular systems ranging in capacity from 50 to 500 tons per day.

W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc., is another major flexible compost system supplier. Its patented GORE Cover System is being used in over 130 composting and mechanical biological treatment systems.

Benefits

Can potentially result in significant waste diversion.


5‐19

Enables community restaurants to "close the loop" by using their food waste to produce compost that can be used to grow new produce.

By employing anaerobic digestion, food waste can be used to generate both an energy product (biogas) as well as compost.

Drawbacks

Difficulties in handling food waste separately at the source and collecting it separately can be significant.

Odor issues associated with the separate handling and processing of food wastes.

Costs

Processing costs for rigid in‐vessel systems are reported to be high ‐ over $200 per ton. Costs for flexible in‐vessel systems and windrow compost systems are significantly lower. These costs do not include the additional costs of instituting a separate collection program for food waste.

Status

Currently, there are 30 municipalities with source‐separated organics programs in the United States:

15 in California

10 in King County, WA (including Seattle)

4 in Minnesota

1 in Michigan

Also, there are twelve operating composting facilities that process residential source‐separated organics that include household organics beyond yard trimmings in the U.S.

Case Study ‐ San Francisco, CA

The City of San Francisco has instituted one of the most comprehensive organics diversion programs of any metropolitan area in the United States. The City’s comprehensive program, which began in the mid‐1990s and has been expanding ever since includes:

An edible food redistribution program.

A food‐waste recovery program for cattle feed.

A bakery discards recovery program for dry animal feed products.

A food‐service grease and meat collection program for rendering processes.

On‐site landscape debris mulching program for the City’s Parks Department.

On‐site composting programs for residences, schools, and university cafeterias.

Clean wood recovery program for use as compost bulking agent or boiler fuel.

A commingled food‐ and yard‐waste collection program for residences, businesses, and schools.

The residential food‐waste collection program is part of a citywide service, which provides three color‐coded, wheeled carts (called the “Fantastic 3”) to participating single and multifamily residences and businesses. Residents are provided with a 32‐gallon green cart for compostables collection along


5‐20

with a 2‐gallon kitchen pail for collecting food scraps; a 32‐gallon blue cart for commingled recyclables; and a 32‐gallon black cart for non‐compostable and non‐recyclable trash. Residential surveys have indicated a 90 percent preference for the 3‐cart system over the old system.

All residential program costs are included in the fees that residents pay for solid‐waste collection and disposal. Compostables collection and processing programs were reported to cost more than $300 per ton in the year 2000, compared to a total cost of $200 per ton for residential waste collection and disposal. The per‐ton costs of compostables collection are projected to decrease to less than $250 per ton as the program becomes more efficient and is implemented city‐wide.

The compostables collected from the City’s residents and businesses are hauled by transfer trailers 65 miles to a composting facility near Sacramento, which is owned by Norcal, Inc. and which employs the “Ag‐Bag” composting method. Some of the produce grown with the resulting compost is then sold to the City’s restaurants, completing the nutrient recovery cycle.

5.2.7 Options to Increase Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling C&D waste is generated during the removal of existing structures and the building of new structures and renovations. While the waste types of demolition and construction activities are similar – lumber, metal, concrete, drywall, shingles, etc. – the ability to segregate and recover materials is different.

Construction waste offers greater potential for recovery since excess material can be easily stockpiled according to material type. Demolition waste is typically more difficult to recover for several reasons. The materials have been combined and may not be easily segregated and, depending on the age of the structure, some of the materials may be hazardous and require special handling. Understanding these differences helps better define the waste stream and understand potential opportunities and markets.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011‐2012, New Hanover County generated over 90,000 tons of C&D wastes. As indicated in Table 5‐4, at least 20,000 tons of this material could be recovered and sold to established recycling markets.

Recyclable materials can be recovered from the C&D stream through a number of ways. Policies can be instituted to require contractors to place recyclable materials in separate containers at the construction site. Similar to what is done in New Hanover County, disposal organizations can pick through C&D waste piles before they are disposed. Finally, as described below, C&D MRFs, that utilize both mechanical equipment as well as manual sorting to recover C&D recyclables, can be implemented.

5.2.7.1 C&D Waste Processing

Description

Construction and demolition waste material recovery facilities (C&D MRFs) are designed to recover materials and/or energy products from unsorted construction debris generated by both the residential and commercial sectors of a community.

The six major constituents of C&D waste (wood, asphalt, concrete, metals, gypsum wallboard, and corrugated cardboard) have all been recovered and processed into recycled‐content products that have been marketed throughout in the United States.

The materials most frequently recovered and recycled are concrete, asphalt, metals, and wood. To a much lesser degree, gypsum wallboard and asphalt shingles have been processed and recycled. The


5‐21

technologies to recover and process these materials for reuse are commercially available. The major barriers to increased recovery rates at this time are:

The cost of collecting, sorting, and processing.

The low value of the recycled‐content material in relation to the cost of virgin‐based materials.

The low cost of C&D waste landfill disposal.

The number of recycling facilities for C&D waste has grown in recent years. In 1996, it was estimated that there were at least 1,800 operating C&D recycling facilities, including more than 1,000 asphalt and concrete crushing facilities, 500 wood waste processing plants, and 300 mixed‐waste C&D facilities.

The estimate of 1,800 C&D facilities does not include quarry rock crushing plants, brush/tree tub grinding plants, or pallet grinding operations. The asphalt and concrete crushing plants handle large quantities of road waste, but also concrete recovered from building construction, renovation, and demolition.

Benefits

Eliminates the costs and difficulties associated with keeping recyclable C&D materials separated at the construction site.

100% participation by residents and businesses

Ability to recover recyclables not targeted in source separation programs.

Ability to divert HHW and materials/products banned from landfill disposal.

Ability to produce an engineered process fuel and/or a compostable residue stream.

Drawbacks

Large facility needed to process entire C&D stream.

High variability of C&D waste stream makes facility difficult to size and finance.

Costs

For a 250 ton per day facility in 2009, total processing costs for an open air facility was about $12 per ton, with $7 per ton in revenues, leaving net costs of about $5 per ton.

Case Study ‐ St. Lucie County, Florida

St. Lucie County is one of the fastest growing counties in Florida. As a result of accelerated residential and commercial development, capacity at the County’s C&D landfill was being rapidly depleted. At its peak, the County was receiving 1,500 tons per day of C&D waste at its Glades Cut‐off Road Landfill site, which includes a MSW baling facility, an MSW landfill, and a C&D landfill. Approximately 10 percent of the C&D waste was recycled or otherwise diverted from landfill disposal through a dump and pick operation. The County wanted to boost the C&D diversion rate to 60 to 80 percent through the implementation of a mechanical C&D processing facility.


5‐22

In 2003, the County conducted a waste composition study of the C&D waste received at the baling and recycling facility site.2 The evaluation concluded that the major sources of C&D waste in the County included residential (45%) and commercial (22%) construction while recoverable materials include untreated wood (8%), concrete (38.2%), roofing material (6.4%), non‐ferrous metals (5.2%), and ferrous metals (3%).

In 2004, the County constructed a state‐of‐the‐art C&D processing facility. This facility uses screens, conveyors, an air separator, manual sorting stations, and a rotary shear grinder to process 300 tons per day of mixed C&D waste for materials recovery.

Table 5‐9. C&D MRF ‐ St. Lucie County, FL

Start‐up date July 2004

Facility Type Open Air Facility

Permitted capacity 300 TPD

Throughput 45 TPH

Diversion Rate 80%

5.3 Waste Conversion and Processing Options In recent years, several reports and studies have been conducted to identify waste conversion processes and summarize the commercial state of the practice. The commercial state of practice can be generally defined as proven, emerging or new. Proven waste conversion technologies are considered to be those which have been fully tested and successfully operated under design conditions for several years. Emerging and new technologies are considered to be those which have not been successfully operated under design conditions for several years, but currently reside in some stage of testing (at pilot, demonstration, or commercial scales). Within these reports and studies the processes identified can generally be aggregated into three main categories in which waste technologies are typically classified: thermal processes, biological / chemical processes, and physical processes. A comprehensive list of the currently marketed waste conversion technologies are discussed provided below.

5.3.1 Thermal Waste Conversion Processes Advanced Thermal Recycling (ATR)

ATR is an advanced combustion technology that combines the processes of earlier generation solid waste‐to‐energy (WTE) traditional mass‐burn technology with modern air pollution controls. Similar to traditional WTE mass‐burn facilities, the process employs complete combustion of solid waste at temperatures of 1,300°F to 2,500°F in an oxygen‐rich environment to produce an exhaust composed primarily of carbon dioxide and water, along with inorganic materials converted into bottom and fly ash. The heat from the hot gasses is recovered in a boiler for steam generation to supply a turbine generator for production of electricity. The combustion gasses are then cleaned by an advanced emission control system for control of sulfur compounds and acid gasses, nitrogen compounds, volatile organic compounds, particulates, and mercury.

2 Grotke, E. et al. Implementation of Advanced C&D Debris Recycling System: A Year in Review. SWANA Symposia Presentation.


5‐23

ATR represents the current state of the art in advanced combustion, which has been commercially proven in approximately 86 plants in the U.S. and hundreds of location in Europe and Asia. An ATR facility requires significant up front capital expenditures and requires a consistent flow of refuse. ATR facilities are generally more desirable in areas with limited landfilling capacity, favorable electricity generation rates ($0.11/kW) and comparably higher tipping fees.

New Hanover County’s WASTEC facility represents the earlier generation WTE facility, which ATR is derived from. In 2012, the County decided to move away from WTE technology as a solid waste management tool.

Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is a thermal process in which organic materials are converted to a synthetic gas (syngas), tars and oil, and ash. The process is driven by an indirect external heat source, typically at temperatures ranging from 750 to 1650 degree F and in a starved oxygen environment. Under these conditions volatile compounds are driven off and form a syngas mostly comprised of hydrogen (H2) carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4). Some of the volatile components form tars or oils that can be recovered and used as fuels. After proper cooling and cleaning the syngas can be used to fuel boilers, gas turbines, or internal combustion engines, or to make chemicals. Inorganic materials form a bottom ash that requires disposal. Some pyrolysis ash is used in the manufacturing of brick.

Commercial pyrolysis facilities have been developed for select homogeneous wastes and feedstocks, such as plastics, tires, and wood wastes for the production of bio‐oils. The oils from these facilities can be used for boiler fuels, or refined into higher value chemicals and liquid fuels.

The use of pyrolysis systems to process MSW has occurred mostly in Japan, where landfill space and resources are limited. In examining the three largest suppliers in Japan, the capacities of their plants represent more than two million tons of material each year, with additional plants being planned. Much of this capacity has been installed in the past ten years.

There are no successful commercial pyrolysis waste conversion facilities in the US. A number of such facilities were constructed over the past 20 years, but all of them have been shut down due to technological and economic difficulties.

Gasification (Conventional)

Conventional gasification is a thermal process in which organic materials are converted into a synthetic gas mostly comprised of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO). Residue from the process includes an ash or slag by‐product. The process occurs at temperatures of 1400°F to 2500°F which are generated by partial combustion of the waste and which are substantially higher than those required for pyrolysis. Also, in contrast to pyrolysis, the gasification process relies on the utilization of a limited supply of air/oxygen. The limited supply of air/oxygen is less than required for complete combustion to take place and results in the production of the synthetic gas (syngas) which, after proper cooling and cleaning can be used to fuel boilers, gas turbines, or internal combustion engines, or to make chemicals and liquid fuels. The inorganic materials in the waste are converted to ash or a solid vitreous slag if the operating temperature is higher than the melting point of the inorganic materials. Most gasification systems are closed loop and as such do not generate waste gases or air emission sources except for that produced by the downstream energy conversion system for power production.


5‐24

There are numerous gasification technologies in operation in Europe and Japan which currently process pre‐treated solid waste. However, there are no commercially operating conventional gasification facilities which process solid waste operating in the US today. Small and modular systems are being developed for combustible wastes but not yet commercially proven. For these reasons, gasification is currently not considered to be a commercially proven conversion technology by the US solid waste industry. Large sized gasification facilities have recently been investigated by several large US municipalities (City and County of Los Angeles, Chicago, Orlando, and New York), but no projects have been permitted or financed to date.

5.3.2 Biological / Chemical Processes Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion has been used extensively for decades to process wastewater biosolids and sludge. It is a biological process in which biodegradable mass is converted by bacteria into a “biomethane gas” comprised of methane (CH4) and carbon Dioxide (CO2) and a residue consisting of inorganics, non‐degradable organics, non‐degraded biodegradables, and bacterial mass termed biosolids. Because the process is biological in nature, it is only applicable to waste materials that can be broken down by bacteria in the absence of oxygen. With minimal pretreatment, the biogas can be burned onsite to generate electricity and heat. The biogas can also be purified to pipeline quality and pressurized to a natural gas (CNG), a vehicular fuel. The residue generally requires a dewatering or filtration step, providing a reduction in overall volume and a product with a higher concentration of solids. The dewatered material can be formulated into compost and marketed to the public if sufficiently free of objectionable items, such as colorful plastics. The final residual material can also be burned or gasified or used as landfill cover.

AD facilities that process the organic fraction of the MSW stream have been operating on a commercial scale in Europe for about 20 years. For all of Europe, the installed capacity has grown from 1.1 million tons per year in 2000 to 2.8 million tons per year in 2004 – an increase of more than 250 percent in four years.

There are numerous anaerobic digestion facilities in operation around the US at public and privately owned wastewater treatment facilities; however there are currently no anaerobic digestion facilities in operation within the United States used for exclusively treating the organic fraction of MSW. The low energy prices in the U.S. make it unlikely that a dedicated municipal organic solid waste (MOSW) digestion facility would be cost‐effective without substantial incentives, subsidies, or possible credits associated with the sale of renewable energy; however; several municipalities in the U.S. have demonstrated that MOSW can be successfully blended with sewage sludge and treated in existing digesters at wastewater treatment plants.

Composting

Composting can be defined as the biological decomposition and stabilization of organic wastes in a controlled environment to produce a marketable or usable product. As the definition indicates, composting is a biological process. The process involves the metabolism of waste by microscopic organisms such as bacteria and fungi. While composting can technically involve both aerobic and anaerobic decomposition processes, in this report, the term is used to refer only to the aerobic decomposition of organic waste.

Engineered compost systems accelerate the naturally‐occurring composting process through controlling the temperature, pH, moisture content, and oxygen levels of the waste. The characteristics


5‐25

of the waste to be composted are also controlled through the addition of bulking agents and bacterial inoculums.

As also indicated in the definition, organic wastes are stabilized through the composting process. This means that wastes are converted to by‐products that, for the most part, are not biodegradable. The capacity of composting to stabilize wastes is an important benefit of the process. Composting has been successfully implemented in various programs throughout the US. A more detailed description of composting is provided in Section 5.2.

Waste‐to‐Biofuels

Biofuels are fuels whose energy is derived from biological carbon, as compared to sequestered carbon materials such as coal, petroleum oil, and natural gas. Biofuels include solids (biomass, wood wastes, agricultural wastes and purpose grown energy crops, and municipal solid waste), liquids (biodiesel, ethanol, synthetic diesel and gasoline), and gasses (syngas, landfill gas, and biomethane from anaerobic digestion).

Many of the currently planned projects are based upon the production of syngas, which can be converted into a variety of liquid fuels (ethanol, methanol, jet fuel, synthetic gasoline, and diesel) and specialty chemicals. The majority of the emerging technologies are chemical engineering processes. The strong interest in biofuels and bio‐products is fueled by the global focus on clean and renewable carbon based energy systems.

A biofuel process has yet to be commercially developed in the United States. However, there are two commercial scale waste‐to‐biofuel projects planned for startup in 2013, one ethanol project in the U.S., and the other in Canada.

Biochemical Conversion

The biochemical pathway employs traditional fermentation technology, with two options available to release the sugars which are bound up in biomass materials. These two processes are acid hydrolysis, which has been practiced over the years, versus enzymatic hydrolysis, a more recently developed technology. Two disadvantages of the biochemical pathway are that ~33% of the carbon is lost to carbon dioxide emissions and the process has a high water demand. The biochemical conversion technology has been developed and proven since 1940 and commercially proven on corn, sorghum, wheat, and other starches/grains. However, the process has not been commercially proven using MSW. The process will only be able to convert the organic fraction of MSW (vegetative waste, wood waste, and biomass) and will require the removal of inorganics, plastics, metals, glass, and other non‐processible materials, either by source separation or in a mixed waste recycling process.

Thermochemical Conversion

The thermochemical pathway also has two competing variations, with syngas converted to ethanol via biological fermentation versus catalytic synthesis. Both of these processes have yet to be commercially demonstrated, however, they may have advantages over the biochemical pathway due to their low water demand and ability to convert all of the carbon into ethanol. Examples of recently proposed thermochemical conversion projects include:

Fulcrum BioEnergy – This firm has a thermochemical demonstration facility outside of Durham, NC. Their thermochemical process uses gasification with steam reforming to produce syngas for conversion via Fisher – Tropsch process into ethanol, jet fuel, and specialty chemicals. They are developing 16 projects in the U.S. Their first project is in Reno Nevada will cost ~ $200M and


5‐26

produce 10.5 million gallons per year (mmgpy) of liquid fuel. Other projects are planned in Denver (17 mmgpy jet fuel), Toronto (30 mmgpy jet fuel), San Francisco (30 mmgpy ethanol), and Vancouver (30 mmgpy jet fuel). The Fulcrum gasification process will require removal of non‐organic materials, and control of moisture content prior to gasification. The first project in Reno is in partnership with WMI which will deliver 1,000 ton per day of MSW at zero cost under a long term supply agreement. Reportedly, the process is capable of yielding 100 gallons per ton.

Ineos Bio – Ineos is a $43B firm based in England which develops chemical process technologies and refines petroleum. Their technology is a hybrid of thermochemical conversion of biomass followed by heat recovery for energy production and gas cleanup for conversion into ethanol via a proprietary naturally occurring microbe. The process was developed at the University of Arkansas, and has been pilot tested at a 1.5 ton per day scale under a wide variety of feed stocks over the past 15 years. Their first commercial scale project is located in Indian River County Florida and will make 8 mmgpy of ethanol, and 6 MW of electricity using vegetative waste. The project is located on a former citrus processing facility adjacent to the Indian River County landfill. Landfill gas is also captured and used as a supplemental fuel in their power production plant. The ethanol process is continuous, and fast, requiring only 7‐10 minutes from time that syngas is generated to conversion of ethanol.

Enerkem – The first commercial scale waste to biofuels project in Canada is under construction and will start up in the summer of 2013. Enerkem will process refuse derived fuel (RDF) produced by the City of Edmonton for conversion to methanol and then ethanol using a fluidized bed bubbling bed reactor with air and oxygen injection. Their facility can store up to seven days of RDF. Approximately 48% of the post recycling waste stream can be processed to ethanol or other chemicals with the Enerkem process. They also plan to start construction on a similar waste wood to ethanol facility in Mississippi in the summer of 2103. The Mississippi plant reportedly will process 300 tpd of wood waste and will cost ~ $100M.

Thermal and Catalytic Depolymerization

Catalytic depolymerization is a process in which direct transformation of material into a liquid fuel, typically diesel fuel, is performed by means of a dry solid catalyst with the addition of heat. This was initially performed in the 1930s with coal and used oils. The advantage of this technology is that conversion of the material occurs at low temperatures and is purported to be more efficient as the solid does not have to change into a gas phase (gasification) before turning into diesel.

Heat is employed to thermally depolymerize carbon‐containing organic compounds which are then converted into light liquid oil under conditions of high heat and low pressure. Catalytic depolymerization employs the same process, however under lower temperature and pressure conditions. Long chain polymers of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon decompose into short chain petroleum hydrocarbons. A distillation column is used to refine the synthetic diesel into a high grade mineral diesel which can be used for both transportation fuel and liquid fuel for production of heat and/or power. This technology is relatively new and is currently undergoing commercial size demonstration testing in Europe and the US. The commercial sized unit will require approximately 25 – 45 tons per day of hydrocarbon type waste to produce approximately 3,000 gallons of mineral diesel fuel.


5‐27

5.3.3 Physical Processes Densification / Pelletization

These processes imply the use of compression or extrusion under high force in order to improve the handling characteristics, density/transport costs, and physical stability of the material.

Densification can take the form of: dozers at the landfill compressing the delivered loads, waste compactors improving payload of containers, balers compressing material into large blocks, or briquettes forming the material into smaller "bricks" as the name implies.

Pelletization takes densification one step further and forms very dense small pellets in the range of 3/8 inches to about 1.5 inches in diameter, in either round or square shapes. In order to pelletize, several of the other physical processes must be employed as discussed below. Waste will typically be mechanically separated, shredded, and dried before and/or after pelletizing. MSW is typically in the 30‐40% moisture range and needs to be approximately 15‐20% for successful pelletizing. Similarly, the pellet diameter dictates the approximate size required for shredding. All of these operations require cost, so the end product must have economic value or avoided cost to support production.

Commercially, densification and pelletization has been done with MSW for decades with some success, but also many more failures due to economics. In the past this material has solely been targeted for incineration markets in the waste to electricity arena. There are still approximately a dozen facilities still operating in the US and most are dedicated units supplying a sister "burn" facility to produce electricity. None of these facilities typically supply a commodities market.

However in recent years, new emphasis on bio‐fuels has spurred interest in processed waste. Pelletized waste has been targeted as an ideal means to feed a thermal type process (gasification) in order to produce high value fuel. Since the end product is potentially much more valuable than selling electricity, the added cost of processing can be absorbed.

Drying

Drying of waste is typically only required when pelletizing or "long term" storage of waste is required, or possibly when subsequent processes are sensitive to variations in moisture content. If not dried, the waste can begin "composting" itself if stored more than a few days and in rare cases actually catch on fire. Pellets, if not dried, can either turn to "mush" in the pelletizer and/or fall apart after production. Moist pellets themselves can also compost and catch fire similar to bulk MSW/RDF.

Most bulk drying of processed MSW is done via indirectly heated rotating drum or controlled/aerated composting (called mechanical biological treatment or "MBT"). Drying of waste is also advantageous when combined with any subsequent thermal process as you are not using energy at that point to "burn" water off. The energy used to dry waste is typically a fuel source such as burning part of the dried waste product itself or natural gas/propane. Electric drying is not common due to the cost, although there is the potential for bulk microwave drying which is being used on sewage sludge at present. Other methods of drying can include solar, but this seems to very costly due to the land/building area requirements involved and typically must be done under roof with waste materials.


5‐28

Drying technology has been commercially applied for decades, but mostly overseas. It is not very common in the US due to the added cost of processing/fuel. There are some small communities, mostly in the midwest, which have used Lundell MSW pelletizing systems which may still be operational. These systems typically use a portion of the dried pellets as a fuel source to dry the incoming waste.

Mechanical Separation

This operation can be seen at any recycling plant, whether it is a clean curbside material or a "dirty" MRF where raw MSW is processed. Most typical separation is done via sizing, gravity, magnets, or air flow.

Sizing is accomplished by screens of various types including flat deck or rotating drums (called trommels). The screens themselves can be wire mesh or steel plate with various hole sizes/shapes.

Gravity can be used to separate materials based on shape and is typically used with an angled conveyor where flat materials tend to "stick" and bouncy materials hit the angled conveyor and roll off. The conveyor can also be "thumped" from below to help the process work more efficiently.

Magnets are used to separate iron/steel in a continuous fashion off of a conveyor belt, and specialized magnets are also used to sort non‐magnetic material such as aluminum.

Air flow can also be used to either blow lighter materials away from heavier things or used in a suction mode. It is often used with gravity by blowing material as it is propelled off the end of a conveyor with heavies falling in a normal arc, and the air blowing lighter materials sideways. When used in this fashion it is called an air "knife".

Mechanical separation is fairly well established and such equipment is common throughout the US and can be seen at any recycling plant. Plants handling raw MSW are not as common, but there are still a few operating. All MSW RDF plants will have some sort of mechanical separation to improve the quality of the RDF and remove inerts. A large non‐RDF recycling facility that handles/sorts raw MSW is the Western Placer County MRF in California.

Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)

RDF is any material that is recovered from the waste stream and used as fuel. This can mean material sorted from mixed MSW or targeted waste products from an industrial source like scrap wood/sawdust from a sawmill. The fuel was typically used in the past for simply incineration to produce heat and/or electricity. It can be burned alone or in combination with coal or other fossil fuel. Blending with coal in a fossil fuel plant in order to reduce regulated emissions has been fairly common. Another example of a successful RDF product has been the use of shredded tires as a fuel in cement plants.

The RDF can be used loose or densified/pelletized as described earlier. The pelletizing step alone can add more than $10‐$15 per ton to the processing cost of the RDF. Although there are still RDF plants in operation, when compared to mass burn or other fuels for energy/electricity production, it still remains a costly option.


5‐29

Again, the resurgence of interest in RDF is being mainly driven by the push for bio‐fuels and the more valuable products that can be produced. As of yet, there are no true MSW RDF bio‐fuel plants operating commercially in the US right now. Most such proposed facilities are targeting separated organic waste such as greenwaste or foodwaste.

Size Reduction

Size reduction is typically accomplished by targeting the small fraction from a mechanical screening operation or when the full waste stream needs reducing by large shredders. Shredders come in many variations, but can be typically lumped into two categories: slow speed shear shredders, and high speed hammer mills. Slow speed shredders can handle a wide variety of waste and feed sizes, but as the name implies, can be fairly slow with low output. High speed hammer mills can process MSW extremely fast, over 100 tons per hour for large units. They are also more dangerous and explosions from vaporized waste materials are not uncommon. A recent trend when using shredders is to use smaller units in series, with one shredder feeding another to reduce the material sizes gradually. This can increase throughput with several smaller units doing the work of one huge machine.

Size reduction is important to help reduce transport costs by increasing bulk density. Another advantage is by shredding and mixing the waste, you are creating a more homogenous product for subsequent use, whether it is for burning or other biological processes, such as yardwaste/wood chips for composting.

For pelletizing, the waste product has to be shredded to approximately the same diameter as the finished pellets. Shred sizes required can vary from 12‐18 inches, down to 1/2‐3/4 inches. Naturally the smaller the shred size, the higher the processing costs. Shredding costs also rise rapidly as you get below 6‐8 inches.

In the past, it was also thought that shredding, and/or baling, before landfilling would increase a landfill's capacity. This may be the case in the very short term, but over time, a landfill's normal self‐weight compaction and biological degradation will actually produce higher in‐place densities than shredding/baling can produce. These methods of landfilling have fallen out of favor due to the added cost of shredding/baling. There are some instances where baling or simpler compactors may be used for landfilling due to long distance haul costs, but shredding is not required or desired in these cases.

Commercially, there are many facilities that use shredders and have been doing so for decades. There have been gradual improvements in metallurgy and design, but for the most part this is a stable, well‐known process.

Steam Processing / Autoclaving

This type of processing was initially used for biologically hazardous waste stream such as medical waste in order to sanitize it for disposal along with regular MSW or as a fiber fuel type product. Recently, several companies have been attempting to utilize the methods for regular MSW to produce RDF or bio‐fuel feedstock. The process can be accomplished either in batch format or as a continuous process. Batch processing is typically slower, but also produces a more controlled end product.

Commercially, this technology has only been operational for a decade or so for regular MSW, and mostly in the UK and Europe. A single US supplier, WastAway from Tennessee, operated a plant from 2003 to 2008. Apparently they reduced operations at that time to research improvements for planned facilities in Aruba and the Virgin Islands.


5‐30

The process still requires mechanical separation before and after to remove various materials such as inerts, metals, plastics, etc. As with any process, this method can be costly and the end products must provide enough revenue (or other cost avoidance) to justify the operation.

5.4 Beneficial Use of Landfill Resources For New Hanover County, the landfill is the centerpiece asset for the solid waste management program. There are other potential assets from resources in conjunction with the landfill and landfill property. The following are noted resources and are further discussed below:

Landfill gas (LFG) – as a fuel or heat source

Landfill mound and surrounding property – the open space associated with the landfill mound and surrounding property could be used for: (1) solar panel arrays to harness solar power and/or (2) windmills to harness wind power

5.4.1 Beneficial Use of Landfill Gas LFG generated from decomposing landfilled waste has started to become a solid waste management program asset instead of a potential liability. LFG can be applied in virtually any process that requires a fuel or heat source. Environmental concerns regarding the use of fossil fuels are creating more opportunities for LFG as a renewable fuel source. On‐site projects can be explored as well as attracting an energy user to locate at, or adjacent to the landfill site. The following is a list of potential beneficial use projects.

on‐site LFG energy facility for power generation in reciprocating engine or turbine driven generators and direct firing in industrial boilers

conversion to vehicle fuel for fleet vehicles

conversion to pipeline quality gas

specialty incineration – Incineration is a process in which waste materials are reduced in volume and, to a great extent, sterilized through a direct flame process. Applications for LFG used as a fuel in incineration include hazardous waste, medical waste, and crematories

process and space heating

asphalt pavement production ‐ Since asphalt is a product of petroleum and the finished products do not come in contact with any noncompatible materials, the sensitivity of asphalt product manufacture to impurities in landfill gas is virtually nonexistent. No significant LFG cleanup is required prior to use in asphalt heating. Applications for LFG used as a fuel in asphalt product manufacture include road pavement, roofing shingles, and sealants.

rotary kiln ‐ Rotary kilns have been used for nearly 100 years in cement, lime, and lime recovery plants, to name a few.

fume incineration ‐ Direct fired afterburners, also commonly known as fume incinerators or vapor incinerators, are air pollution control devices which use the combustion process to destroy the combustible materials in gaseous effluents from various processes. Applications for landfill gas used as a fuel in afterburners include:

- Lithograph printing ‐ destruction of solvents from inks, paints and dyes

- Surface coating ‐ destruction of solvents from inks, paints, dyes and plastics


5‐31

- Paint ovens ‐ destruction of solvents from paints

- Chemical vapor deposition ‐ destruction of vaporized binders, carbonaceous compounds and furnace atmosphere gases

- Carbon fiber production ‐ destruction of vaporized binders and furnace atmosphere gases

- Smokehouses ‐ destruction of smoke and grease emissions

- Coffee roasters ‐ destruction of tars and oils

Glass production ‐ Since many of the components of glass, such as silica, are similar to the impurities found in LFG, glass production using LFG as a fuel source can be compatible.

Examples of less common uses of LFG include: greenhouse heating, biosolids drying, leachate evaporation, brick manufacturing, animal crematoriums, and pottery kilns.

The principal points that need to be considered for beneficial use projects are:

Identifying and locating potential combustion based energy user facilities

Matching landfill gas production to energy demand

Locating available site space

Quantifying the potential for the creation of new jobs

Discussion items for financial participation

In May 2008, SCS Engineers conducted a LFG feasibility study for the County. The results indicated that the landfill was a good candidate for a LFG beneficial use project. The feasibility study was conducted when WASTEC was in operation and assumed the facility would be operating in perpetuity, hence the waste stream to the landfill included residual ash and the reduced amount of municipal solid waste. Since WASTEC’s lay‐up condition in early 2012, the waste stream to the landfill has dramatically changed. If it is assumed that WASTEC is to no longer be a management tool for the County, CDM Smith recommends either conducting a new LFG feasibility study or updating the previous study with the new waste stream. The feasibility study should determine the potential for a project as well as identify options for beneficial use. The May 2008 study explored a pipeline to transport LFG to nearby industries and an on‐site generator options. The County property is in an advantageous industrial location, thereby there may be many potential use options.

It should be noted, at the time of preparing this report; the County staff was contacted by an independent LFG developer asking to obtain and analysis LFG samples from the landfill free of charge. The results of the LFG samples will be additional support information for project feasibility. Additionally, in the May 2008 study, LFG samples were obtained and analyzed for reduced heat value, methane, sulfur compounds, siloxanes, and volatile organic compounds.

Example of NC Landfills with LFG Beneficial Use: Onslow, Robeson, Johnson, Sampson, Buncombe, Cumberland, Gaston


5‐32

5.4.2 Solar Power Utilizing landfill mounds and surrounding tracts of land required for buffers as potential solar photovoltaic arrays is a growing trend. Economical feasibility of solar power becomes more attractive as supplemental to LFG beneficial use projects, namely LFG to energy. There are namely two types of solar panels that have been used on landfills: flexible and rigid, whereas rigid is currently the mainstay because of its flexibility in adjustments to maximize solar exposure.

Republic Services/Allied Waste installed one of the first that incorporates flexible solar panels on an exposed cap project at the Tessman Road Landfill outside of San Antonio, Texas. The solar panels are flexible, thin, and weather resistant laminated polymer solar strips designed to conform to uneven contours of the landfill surface.

Since installation at the Tessman Road Landfill, the manufacturer determined that flexible solar panels/exposed cap combination was not financially feasible and has stopped work in this area. Therefore, the remainder of this section will discuss rigid solar panel applications.

There are a number of design considerations regarding solar arrays on landfills:

Anchoring system and mounting system

Wind loading

Waste composition and differential settlement projections

Slope stability

Solar access/potential and slope orientation

Presence of a final closure cap and characteristics

Area available for array

Stormwater management

Lightning protection

Integration with landfill management systems (leachate and LFG)

Existing utility interconnection

Operations, if the landfill is still in operations

If the County elects to conduct a LFG feasibility study as stated in the previous section, CDM Smith recommends a portion of that study include solar power feasibility to determine if there could be a landfill area that could be developed and also the solar power potential. CDM Smith does not recommend developing a stand‐alone solar power project because typically they are not financially feasible.

Example of Solar Panels on NC Landfills: Evergreen Packaging in Canton, NC


5‐33

5.4.3 Wind Power Investigating the potential for harnessing wind power at landfills is a growing trend as owners try to diversify in generating revenues from their solid waste management program assets. The primary assets include a mound that is higher than the surrounding area and large tracts of land surrounding that mound. For this discussion, a potential windmill on the County’s landfill is assumed. The following are a few considerations:

Wind loading and foundation system stability

Public perception, positive and negative (unsightly obstruction of view, renewal energy, etc)

Average wind speed

Local and regional permitting

Waste thickness and settlement

Power distribution system connection

Final closure protection and integration

Construction constraints

Landfill restoration

Foundation system stability is one of the most critical design considerations. In order for the foundation system to achieve the stability required to ballast the weight of the wind turbine and wind loading, bedrock is typically used to support a pile‐supported foundation system. A shallow depth to bedrock is key to project viability for this type of system. A fatal flaw with a windmill on the County’s landfill would be the liner penetrations in order to support the foundation.

A fatal flaw for wind power potential is an average wind speed of 6.0 m/s at a height of 70 meters (230 ft). Current resources indicate that the location of the landfill would be near this average. A wind data monitoring station could be set up to determine viability, windmill size and electric generation feasibility.

Local and regional permitting is to be considered as well as any wind turbine bylaws. Federal Aviation Agency permitting for structures above 200 feet above ground surface could potentially be a consideration.

A windmill on the County’s landfill would not be feasible without means to secure the foundation. Windmills on landfills are not prevalent in North Carolina. A potential could be to install a windmill(s) at the WASTEC property since it’s a relatively large parcel of land and power distribution connection is present. CDM Smith recommends that the County consider wind power at the WASTEC property, conduct a wind power feasibility study which would include gauging public receptiveness and installing a wind data monitoring station as two of the first tasks.

Example of Windmills on NC Landfills: None


5‐34

5.5 Regional Solid Waste Management Strategies New Hanover County is part of the four‐county Cape Fear Region which includes Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender counties. This region experienced a 28% growth in population from 2000 and 2010. During this same period, New Hanover County grew at a rate of approximately 26%. The Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM) is projecting that the County’s population will be 290,200 by July 2033, which is a total grow rate of approximately 38% from the 2012 provisional estimate of 209,900 people or over 80,000 people, during the next 21 years.

The Department has the responsibility of managing the collection, processing, or disposal of approximately 220,000 tons of waste and recyclable materials consisting of municipal solid waste (MSW), construction and demolition (C&D), recyclables, white goods, tires, household hazardous waste (HHW), and electronic waste (e‐waste).

Partnerships with local municipalities and surrounding Cape Fear Region counties should become an important part of the conversation regarding the future of solid waste management. Local and regional partnerships can be useful because of the potential benefits associated with greater coordination; an increase in efficiency and cost‐effectiveness; and shared commitment regarding the provision of disposal and recycling services.

A regional approach could involve the use of interlocal agreements or the development of a regional authority. The County and municipalities can enter into interlocal agreements to agree that all residential waste and recyclables collected through municipal curbside programs will be delivered to the appropriate County facility.

North Carolina General Statute 153A Article 22 authorizes the creation of a regional solid waste authority. The statute states that “any two or more units of local government may create a regional solid waste authority by adopting substantially identical resolutions to that effect”. A regional solid waste authority involving surrounding counties such as Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender would require a significant level of cooperation and coordination between the participating counties. The only two solid waste regional authorities in North Carolina are Coastal Environmental Partnership (CEP) and the Albemarle Regional Solid Waste Management Authority. A complete evaluation of a regional authority structure would require a separate study to address the advantages and disadvantages including structure, memberships, start‐up costs, and funding sources.

Regional approaches to waste disposal generally involve the transportation of waste from a local community to a distant landfill. Typically waste is transported over roads by large transfer trailers; however, rail transportation is another method available to communities with convenient access to a rail system. This discussion on regional strategies focuses on transportation by trailers, which is the most common method of transporting waste and recyclables in North Carolina. CDM Smith understands that the Department has already prepared a white paper on the feasibility of rail transportation for waste disposal; therefore, we have not addressed transportation by rail in our study.

5.5.1 Regional Waste Disposal Facilities One of the primary solid waste responsibilities of the County is to assess the solid waste disposal capacity available within the County, and for ensuring that the disposal needs of the County’s citizens and businesses are being adequately provided while protecting public health and the environment. Disposal capacity can be provided in the form of a local or a regional landfill.


5‐35

Development, construction, operations, maintenance, and environmental compliance activities associated with a modern Subtitle D landfill are too expensive an endeavor for most communities. As a result of these high costs, there are only 40 Subtitle D landfills located in North Carolina. The majority of Subtitle D landfill facilities in North Carolina are publically‐owned; however, approximately 60% of available permitted waste disposal airspace is controlled by the private sector. The development of large, privately‐owned regional landfills is the reason why the private sector controls the majority of permitted disposal airspace in North Carolina.

A community’s access to a regional landfill is often provided through the use of a local transfer station that allows waste materials to be consolidated from small route trucks into larger transfer trailers. One of the primary cost drivers for transferring waste is the travel distance to the final disposal location. The counties located within the Cape Fear Region only have reasonable access to one regional landfill, which is the Waste Industries landfill located in Sampson County. The landfill is approximately 60 miles from the County’s Secure Subtitle D Landfill. The travel distance for the next two closest private regional landfills is three times as far as the Waste Industries landfill. The two landfills and their one‐way travel distances are:

East Carolina Regional Landfill in Bertie County – 170 miles

Uwharrie Environmental Regional Landfill in Montgomery County – 180 miles

The regional landfill located in Sampson County is currently the regional solution for Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender counties. Bladen and Duplin counties also transfer their waste to the regional landfill in Sampson County.

Based on FY11‐12 NCDENR County Waste Disposal Reports, the Waste Industries landfill received a total of approximately 178,000 tons or 3,400 tons per week of waste generated in Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender counties. This tonnage volume is equivalent to a 560 ton‐a‐day landfill. The table below provides a summary of the FY 2011‐12 waste tonnages shipped from each county’s transfer station along with the associated tipping fees (including the $2/ton state tax).

Both the Brunswick and Columbus County transfer stations are owned by the counties but operated by Waste Industries. The total tonnage transferred from the three transfer stations is less than the total tonnage received at the Waste Industries landfill due to some waste that bypasses the transfer stations and is direct‐hauled to the landfill.

Table 5‐10. Solid Waste Disposal, Tonnages and Tipping Fees

County Annual Tonnage Tipping Fee (per ton)

Brunswick 75,443 $56

Columbus 35,863 $58.93

Pender 21,380 $72

The County’s Secure Landfill received about 200,000 and 208,000 tons of waste materials during fiscal years 2011‐12 and 2012‐13, respectively. The County accounts for another 650 tons per day of waste in the region that is placed in a landfill. Combining the waste tonnages from the 4‐county Cape Fear region, the region could support a 1,200 ton‐a‐day landfill, which would provide significant economies


5‐36

of scale and leverage at this size. This economy of scale is probably why a private waste management firm was interested in building a regional landfill in Columbus County several years ago.

This region (New Hanover, Columbus, Brunswick, and parts of Bladen and Pender) provides sufficient waste tonnages to support a regional landfill instead of shipping waste to Sampson County. However, the siting and construction of a Subtitle D landfill is a long, difficult process that involves both public and regulatory approval. The various challenges (regulatory, cost, and public approval) associated with building a new Subtitle D landfill in the region will probably prevent or significantly delay the development of a regional landfill alternative to the Waste Industries landfill in Sampson County. As a result, the only current viable regional approach to waste disposal is to transfer waste materials to Sampson County.

5.5.2 Regional Consolidation of Waste Private landfill owners and operators are in the business of efficiently selling landfill disposal airspace; therefore, private landfills are interested in maximizing the disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) and other value‐added waste materials in their landfills.

Subtitle D landfill tipping fees in North Carolina have steadily increased over the years, except for a brief decline in FY2012 due to the economic recession. Based on NCDENR data for FY 2012, the average tipping fee across the state was $40 excluding the $2/ton state tax. This average fee does not account for lower fees negotiated by private landfills with customers under long‐term contracts.

According to NCDENR FY 2011‐12 data, the reported “gate rate” tipping fees, excluding the $2/ton tax, at the three previously discussed private landfills were:

Sampson County Landfill ‐ $41.19

East Carolina Regional Landfill in Bertie County ‐ $61.38

Uwharrie Environmental Regional Landfill in Montgomery County ‐ $33.00

Based upon conversations with industry participants, the average tipping fee for private regional landfills is estimated to be in the range of $35‐$40 per ton. Private landfills, more than public facilities, will negotiate varying tipping fees with customers to secure the waste volumes necessary to meet their business objectives.

The Pender County transfer station in Hampstead, NC is 25 miles away from the County’s landfill facility; and, the Brunswick County transfer station in Bolivia, NC is 31 miles away. The close proximity of both the Pender and Brunswick County transfer stations (compared to the 60‐mile trip to Sampson County) may make them viable candidates to consolidate with New Hanover County if a regional transfer station was ever developed within the County.

5.5.3 Recycling Processing Facilities The City of Wilmington (City), Town of Carolina Beach, and Kure Beach have curbside recycling collection programs. The Town of Wrightsville Beach provides a 24/7 drop off facility for residents and businesses to bring recyclable materials. The City’s curbside recycling collection program was expanded in January to provide bi‐weekly single‐stream collection utilizing 96‐gallon carts. The single‐stream program is expected to increase the amount of recyclable materials collected by 25% over the next 3 years.


5‐37

According to NCDENR FY 2011‐2012 recycling data, the local government recycling programs within New Hanover County collected approximately 12,900 tons of traditional household recyclable materials. The County and City of Wilmington accounted for 89% of the materials collected. The breakdown by local government program is provided below.

New Hanover County – 5,700 tons

City of Wilmington – 5,800 tons

Town of Wrightsville Beach – 590 tons

Town of Carolina Beach – 550 tons

Town of Kure Beach – 260 tons

The residential recyclable materials collected within the County are taken to one of the following facilities:

New Hanover County processing facility at the Sustainable Energy Facility (SEF).

Waste Management transfer station on River Road in Wilmington which is directly across the street from the City’s operations yard. The facility is 13 miles one‐way from the SEF.

Onslow County Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is County‐owned and operated by Sonoco, and about 58 miles one‐way from the SEF.

Sonoco MRF and Waste Management Recycle America MRF in Raleigh. These facilities are 128 miles and 133 miles away from SEF, respectively.

The Department has been operating a mini recyclable processing operation at the SEF where about 6,500 tons of cardboard, plastics, glass, aluminum, mixed paper, and aluminum are processed for sale on the open market. The Department processes material from County collection sites along with material from the Town of Wrightsville Beach, glass from the City’s downtown ABC collection program, and other miscellaneous sources.

Aside from the County’s processing facility at SEF, the other recycling facility within the County or region is the Waste Management Recycle America facility in Wilmington which bales single‐stream recyclables and then transports the material to their MRF in Raleigh which is approximately 130 miles from the County’s SEF. The City has a contract, through June 30, 2015, with Waste Management for processing of the collected single‐stream recyclable materials at a cost of $20/ton.

The Town of Kure Beach also has a contract with Waste Management for collection and processing of recyclable materials collected curbside. The Town of Carolina Beach’s curbside recycling collection program is provided by Waste Industries who takes the recyclable material to the Onslow County MRF in Jacksonville.

As discussed in Section 3.6, the Department’s processing operations lack the capacity to effectively process significantly higher quantities of recyclable materials than what they are currently handling. Two important aspects of developing long‐term successful recycling programs is that there are adequate markets for the materials collected and that efficient and effective access to those markets exists. Gaining greater access to and control of processing capacity and commodity markets will be keys to successfully expanding the material collected either through curbside collection or drop‐off sites.


5‐38

Recyclables are commodities that are subject to variations in price, and prices for recycling materials have been down compared to last year. Across the industry, most recycling processing operations are also seeing increased costs associated with China’s Green Fence Initiative which imposed restrictions on non‐conforming recycling materials. The volatility of revenues requires that owners of transfer/processing facilities must have the ability to operationally survive the periods of low commodity prices. Swings in revenues can create financial struggles for MRF operations that are not sufficiently capitalized to ride out the periods of low market prices.

The economic viability of a full or mini‐ MRF depends on the local conditions; access to end markets, reasonable labor costs, and access to capital funding. The minimal annual tonnage generally required for a recovery/processing facility to be economically viable is at least 20,000 tons. As the annual throughput capacity increases at a facility, the economies of scale justify using more elaborate mechanical equipment to eliminate labor. Automated single stream MRFs require such a significant capital investment (building and equipment) that these types of MRFs may require at least 30,000 tons. Some of these newer single stream systems have a throughput capacity greater than 25 tons per hour or 70,000 tons annually.

Recycling Transfer Station

In addition to the 12,900 tons of recyclables collected from New Hanover local governments, the counties of Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender also have local government programs that collect household recyclables. During FY 2011‐2012, NCDENR data indicate that these counties collected 8,373 tons of commingled and fiber recyclables. The breakdown of the other counties in the region is provided below:

Brunswick – 6,772 tons of cardboard and commingled recyclables

Columbus – 42 tons of plastics

Pender – 1,559 tons of comingled recyclables

The local government recycling programs in the four‐county region combined have access to almost 21,300 tons of recyclables annually. As curbside collection and drop‐off site programs continue to grow in the region, the amount of recyclable materials requiring processing will continue to grow. For example, Brunswick County has recently begun a countywide bi‐weekly curbside recycling collection program.

There is an opportunity for either the public or private sector to develop a recyclable transfer station or small processing facility to support the recycling efforts of municipalities and businesses throughout the region. Consolidating the residential and commercial recyclable materials collected in the region will provide more cost‐effective access to processing capacities and commodity markets which could mean lower costs or even revenue‐sharing opportunities for the region’s local governments.

Developing a regional transfer station for all fiber and commingled recyclables will provide the region with increased capacity to handle more recyclable materials (volume and types of materials) from within the counties depending on the ultimate process facility. A long‐term solution for the region is the establishment of a fully automated single‐stream MRF once sufficient recycling (residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional) volume has been established to justify the capital investment.


5‐39

The County can partner with the City and other local governments in the region to combine recyclables to maximize revenue/minimize costs in processing the materials. The City’s contract with Waste Management expires June 30, 2015; therefore, their actual participation in a regional recycling facility would more than likely have to wait until after June 30, 2015. Other existing local government contracts may impact the schedule for implementing a regional facility.

Implementing a unified approach amongst the governmental entities might result in several efficiencies and economies of scale which should improve market access and lower costs. The quantity and composition of recoverable materials from the solid waste stream impact the potential income that can be expected from a recycling transfer/processing facility. A few key points regarding the pursuit of a recyclable facility are:

Facility could be developed as a public/private partnership (PPP) or a 100% private facility. The PPP option allows the County to remain the owner but allow the private sector to have a larger role in building, operating, and maintaining the facility including marketing the recyclable materials.

Acceptance of out‐of‐county recyclables (no waste) to improve the economics of a facility and make the project more beneficial to a public or private entity.

Higher material volumes offer improved revenue opportunities and accessibility to the regional processing facility market. Higher efficiencies and receiving capacities will support increased volumes from curbside recycling programs in the City of Wilmington and potentially in the unincorporated areas.

Revenue‐sharing agreements can vary significantly across the regional processing market depending upon commodity market pricing; material tonnage and quality; and costs to transport and process the material. If material volumes are high enough, processing contracts can also be structured to include a floor price (guaranteed revenue), or additional revenue sharing if the market price for recyclable materials exceeds an established threshold.

Provide space at the facility to accept clean white paper, other high quality paper, cardboard, drywall, wood, and metal from commercial and industrial businesses. Clean segregated materials carry a higher value to processors.

Some potential sites for a recycling transfer facility are Waste Management’s transfer station, the County’s former WASTEC facility, a County virgin site, or other private company sites and facilities. Waste Industries has formally proposed that they have property that could be utilized for such a facility. Waste Industries also collects and controls the recyclables from Brunswick and Pender counties that they may be willing to bring and support such a facility.

If there is support from the local municipalities, one approach the County may consider is to put out an initial Request for Expression of Interest (REOI) for firms to show their interest and propose specific ideas regarding a regional recycling facility. After reviewing the REOI responses, a focused RFP could be developed or the County could consider self‐developing the facility.


5‐40

5.5.4 Grant Funding for Regional Solutions The NCDENR Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service (DEACS) provides financial assistance to local governments in the form of grants. The DEACS issued a 2013 Community Waste Reduction and Recycling Grants RFP for projects that will expand, improve, or implement waste reduction and recycling programs. One of the grant categories is the Special Large Project Option 1: Hub and Spoke Recycling Systems.

The DEACS offers this special large project grant to help local governments that don’t have local or close access to MRFs increase recycling program efficiency by developing a commingled recycling transfer station that serves as a regional recycling consolidation point for two or more local government recycling programs. The Hub and Spoke recycling systems grant funding is for a maximum of $100,000 in support of capital equipment and infrastructure associated with the project. Recipients of the grant funding are required to provide a funding match equal to or exceeding 20% of the requested funding. Of course, the availability of grant funding is heavily dependent upon the annual state legislative budgeting process.

5.6 Collection Practices in the Unincorporated Areas The vast majority of unincorporated areas in North Carolina are considered rural areas with low population and household densities. For these rural areas, counties utilize convenience centers to provide an alternative to curbside garbage and recycling services to residents. Convenience center sites have been effective in servicing rural communities. However, as population growth has moved outside of the municipalities, some rural areas have become more suburban/urban with an increasing population density.

A portion of the population growth in once rural parts of North Carolina is due to the increasing trend of people from other parts of the country moving to North Carolina. Many of these transplants move from areas where curbside collection of garbage and recycling was a standard service, often provided by the local government. New residents of North Carolina unincorporated areas are often surprised by the requirement to either subscribe with a private hauler for garbage and recycling services, or “self‐haul” to the local convenience center.

Even though convenience centers are still the “workhorse” for garbage and recycling collection in the rural unincorporated areas, there is a growing expectation for curbside collection services to be provided in the more “suburban” unincorporated areas. The two primary mechanisms by which

some counties are providing curbside garbage collection and recycling services to unincorporated areas are franchise agreements and private hauler licenses. North Carolina legislation allows county

governments to charge license fees to private haulers, and enter into franchise agreements with

private haulers.

Franchise agreements are formal agreements (procured through a formal bid process) that grant one

or more private haulers the right to provide collection services to a particular area of the county.

Agreements are typical granted for contract periods of five to ten years. Collection service licenses

issued to private hauler allow counties to monitor that certain vehicle standards are being met and

residents are receiving an appropriate level of service. Both franchise agreements and licenses can

also be used to establish “ceiling” prices to be charged for residential collection services, and require

that private haulers offer recycling service to customers. In the County private haulers are required to obtain a “non‐exclusive franchise” license to operate in the unincorporated areas.


5‐41

5.6.1 Current Practices The County has a total unincorporated land mass of approximately 135 square miles which yields an unincorporated population density of 653 people per square mile, which is more typical of a suburban/urban area than a rural area. The unincorporated area housing consist primarily (about 80%) of single‐family housing units.

Residents in the unincorporated areas are responsible for selecting their own private commercial hauler for collection of garbage, recyclables, yard waste, and bulky waste. Currently 17 private haulers have a “franchise” license to operate in the unincorporated areas. The County also has an ordinance requiring mandatory residential services that appears to include trash, recycling, yard waste, and bulky waste collection. However, the status quo for residential service in the unincorporated areas is that the level of service obtained by residents varies with few residents actually being provided the full suite of refuse, recyclable, yard waste and bulky waste collection.

Enforcement of the mandatory residential service provisions would provide a consistent and expanded level of collection services throughout the unincorporated area which would help increase recycling and yard waste diversion.

Currently, recycling collection services are provided through the seven drop‐off sites located throughout the County. The five unmanned sites account for approximately 83% of the recycling tonnage collected, and serve approximately 50‐60% of the households in the unincorporated areas. Table 511 below provides a summary of the materials collected from the five unmanned drop‐off sites over the past three years.

Table 5‐11. Summary of Materials Collected from Drop‐off Sites (Tons)

Fiscal Year ONP OCC Mixed Paper Glass Plastics Aluminum Total

2012‐13 356 1,340 703 849 841 70 4,159

2011‐12 349 1,339 713 906 889 84 4,280

2010‐11 405 1,278 740 929 927 103 4,382

A waste composition study was conducted in 2012 for the County. The study was conducted over two sampling periods which occurred in August 2011 and March 2012. Based on the results of the study, the three largest material components of the overall residential composition are: other MSW (39%); plastic films (10%); and corrugated cardboard (6%).

The results from the August 2011 (vacation season) and March 2012 sampling events varied in terms of the three largest components. The 3 largest components of the residential waste stream during the August 2011 sampling were: other MSW (43%); office paper/mail/misc. paper (8%); and plastic films (7%). During the March 2012 sampling event, the 3 largest components of the residential waste stream were: other MSW (35%); plastic films (13%); and brush (6%).

According to the waste composition study, there are opportunities for increased material recovery from the residential waste stream from common household recyclable materials such as fiber, plastic, metal, glass, and yard waste. An estimate of potential materials available for recovery from the residential waste stream is provided below. The estimates are based on the material percentages from the 2012 Waste Composition Study and the assumption that 30% of the County’s total waste stream


5‐42

(235,700 tons – reference Table 5‐2) is from the residential sector. Accounting for materials already removed from the residential waste stream (29,980 tons – reference Table 5‐3) through existing diversion programs, the materials within the residential waste stream readily available for processing are as follows:

19.1% of residential waste stream is recyclable paper/fiber materials = 7,780 tons

4% of the residential waste stream is No. 1 and No. 2 plastic = 1,630 tons

3% of the residential waste stream is metal = 1,220 tons

3% of the residential waste stream is glass = 1,220 tons

5% of the residential waste stream is yard waste = 2040 tons

Estimate of common household recyclable material in the residential waste stream = 13,890 tons or about 20% of the residential waste stream

Steel cans, rigid plastics, and aseptic containers are recyclable materials not currently collected at the recycling drop‐off sites.

5.6.2 Organized Franchise Collection in the Unincorporated Area Mandatory, single‐stream, cart‐based curbside collection programs are the most effective way to increase the amount of residential recycling for a community. A single‐stream cart program provides residents with greater storage capacity for recyclables, and more easily allows for programs to be expanded to accept additional materials. The importance of curbside collection programs towards increased recycling across the state was conveyed in NCDENR’s 2011‐12 Annual Report where the report stated that “curbside recycling programs contributed more towards the recovery of traditional recyclable materials in North Carolina than any other type of recycling effort”. The report also states that the increased presence of curbside programs has “decreased reliance on drop‐off programs for the recycling of traditional materials”.

Population and household densities are key factors in determining the viability of a curbside collection program for unincorporated residents. The average population density for all North Carolina municipalities, who typically are responsible for providing curbside collection, is 1,340 people per square mile. Even though the overall unincorporated population density is 653 people per square mile, the residential housing density is generally sufficient enough to make curbside collection cost‐effective for most of the unincorporated area.

Figure 51 provides a residential grid map for the unincorporated areas which shows the number residential address points within a 1,000 square foot grid. Even though there are still rural/low density areas, the majority of the unincorporated areas have a residential density between 360 and 3,401 residences per square mile, which is adequate for the provision of curbside collection.

According to data from the NCDENR Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service (DEACS), 18 counties provide unincorporated residents with recycling services through the use of franchised or contracted curbside recycle collection. Table 512 provides a summary of the 18 counties that provide franchised recycling services. Most of the counties also offer trash collection as a franchised service. The programs are a mix of exclusive and non‐exclusive franchises. The effectiveness of curbside recycling programs is shown in the fact that seven of the programs rank in top 20 for per capita recycling.


5‐43

5.6.2.1 Curbside Collection System Performance and Costs

An average single‐stream curbside collection program will generate about 400‐500 pounds of material per household per year. A high‐performing program, with informed residents and a wide range of accepted materials, can generate upwards of 700 lbs/year/household. For FY 2011‐12, the City of Wilmington collected 4,900 tons from 15,000 households for a collection rate of about 650 lbs/yr/household.

According to data from DEACS, the single‐stream cart‐based curbside recycling programs in North Carolina collect on average approximately 445 lbs/year/household, or 8.5 lbs/week/household. In counties with organized curbside collection in the unincorporated areas and at least 35% participation, the average lbs/household/yr is about 330. The lower collection rate for unincorporated programs is probably due to the use of bins instead of carts in many programs.

The success and cost of a single‐stream curbside recycling collection program is dependent on several variables such as household density; variety of materials collected; mandatory or voluntary participation; complementary ongoing public education and outreach; and price or reward incentives for participation in recycling. Even when curbside recycling collection is provided to residents, the program will not have 100% participation unless participation in the program is mandatory. Without a mandatory requirement for residences, participation levels could range from 40%‐80% which will affect the overall performance and cost‐effectiveness of the program.

In addition to participation levels, the cost to provide curbside recycling services is based on several variables such as household density, participation levels, use of bins or carts, frequency of collection, and cost to deliver the materials to a material recovery facility for processing. Any final unincorporated franchised collection agreements will specifically address these variables along with the standard level of service. Price ceilings for residential services provided by franchised haulers can also be stipulated in the agreement.

Based on conversations with private haulers that service the unincorporated areas, the current market prices for curbside collection of garbage and recycling are:

Garbage collection ranges from $18‐25 per month for once per week service.

Recycling collection ranges from $7‐12 per month. This price could vary depending on whether the service is weekly bin or bi‐weekly cart service.

Other North Carolina communities that have unincorporated single‐stream curbside recycling service have costs in the range of $4‐7/month with franchise arrangements. Depending on the final requirements and conditions of a franchised collection program, unincorporated residents could see lower prices for the provision of curbside collection services, or more service provided for close to current costs.


5‐44

Figure 5‐1. Grid Map


5‐45

Table 5‐12. North Carolina Counties with Unincorporated Area Franchised Recycling Curbside

Collection (NCDENR data)

County Type of

Collection

Est. of

Households

Served

Est. of Household

Participation (%)

Population

Density

(people/sq. mi)

Per Capita

Recycling &

Rank (1)

Alamance Franchise 1,228 5% 158 60.6 (46th)

Alexander Franchise 1,500 10% 137 125.9 (18th)

Buncombe Franchise 8,400 8% 236 183.4 (7th)

Cabarrus Franchise 5,400 41% 196 149.4 (14th)

Catawba Franchise 12,857 38% 254 229.2 (4th)

Craven Contracted

Collection 43,290 100% 68 156.6 (12th)

Currituck Contracted

Collection 3,765 100% 90 173.2 (9th)

Dare Franchise N/A N/A 47 262.2 (2nd)

Davie Contracted

Collection 9,500 69% 133 94.4 (28th)

Durham Contracted

Collection 8,500 62% 208 115.6 (23rd)

Forsyth Franchise 1,600 7% 263 91.3 (30th)

Guilford

Licensed

Hauler

System

21,738 83% 231 175.1 (8th)

Martin Contracted

Collection 7,048 70% 34 45.7 (67th)

Northampton Contracted

Collection 8,000 75% 30 13.3 (92nd)

Orange County

Collects 24,200 63% 145 190.5 (6th)

Rockingham

Franchise

(trial

program)

291 1% 107 25.7 (87th)

Tyrrell Contracted

Collection 2,036 N/A 9 28.9 (83rd)

Washington Contracted

Collection 2,332 50% 24 38.4 (72nd)


5‐46

A single‐stream, cart‐based program offers the County an opportunity to provide residents with effective, convenient, and sustainable recycling collection. The convenience of curbside, single‐stream recycling has been shown across the country to significantly increase the amount of recycling collected in a community. The general analysis conducted below shows the potential for increased recycling through a curbside collection program.

Estimate of unincorporated households – 37,450

% single‐family homes – 80%

Estimate of single‐family homes – 29,960

% single‐family home participation in the program varies from 65%‐90%

Estimated households participating ranges from 19,475 to 29,960

Average annual single‐stream recycling per household – 500 lbs

Estimated annual tons collected – 4,900 to 7,500

Increase in unincorporated recycling collection tons = 1,290 to 3,920

% increase recyclables collected ranges from 36% to 109%

The increase in recycling collection tons is based on the County collecting approximately 3,580 tons from unincorporated residents. This value assumes that a portion of the material delivered to the drop‐off sites was from commercial sources. In addition to increasing recyclable materials, a curbside collection program that includes yard waste collection will increase the diversion of yard waste from the landfill.

NC General Statute 160A‐327 Displacement of Private Solid Waste Collection Services states that local governments must wait for a period of 15 months after the first notice before implementing a franchise collection service. The County will also need to obtain a legal opinion of the potential impact of this requirement on any plans to franchise collection. Franchising in the unincorporated areas must adhere to NCGS 160A‐327 and the 15‐month timeline.

5.6.3 Expansion of Existing Drop‐off Sites An extensive network of convenience center sites is another approach to increasing recycling in the unincorporated areas. Pitt County is ranked #1 in common household recyclables collected from local government programs with a per capita ratio of 340.7 lbs/person. Pitt County does not have a curbside collection program for the unincorporated areas, but does have a system of 14 collection and recycling centers throughout the county. These collection sites offer residents a convenient way to dispose of trash, yard waste, and drop‐off a variety of recyclable materials.

If the County does not pursue a franchised curbside collection program, another approach to increasing recycling and yard waste diversion would be for the County to develop several convenience center sites on county‐owned property as replacements for the recycling drop‐off sites. Convenience center sites would provide convenient manned and secured facilities where residents could properly dispose of trash, recyclables, yard waste, and other banned materials not collected curbside. Since aluminum cans are a valuable commodity, the convenience centers would offer a level of protection against scavengers removing the aluminum before the County can recover the material. A fee would be charged for trash and yard waste disposal while recycling would remain free. Other materials may be charged a fee or be free depending on the costs to manage the materials.


5‐47

The existing recycling drop‐off sites have been an important component of the County’s overall recycling program. If the County keeps the current system of recycling drop‐off sites, a few minor improvements could help increase recycling.

Add pictures of what types of materials/items can be dropped off. Pictures are easier for people to understand which household items are recyclable. The pictures would be affixed to the actual containers. In addition, add signs indicating that dumping of non‐recyclable materials (white goods and bulky waste) is illegal.

Provide one dumpster for commingled recyclable containers (mixed paper, plastics, alum, and steel). Keep separate containers for glass and cardboard collection. This improvement would work in partnership with developing a single‐stream recycling transfer station.

Consider re‐locating sites to County‐owned or other private property where access can be controlled with gates. The hours of operation could be reduced to eliminate the 24 hour, seven days a week access which may reduce the amount of illegal dumping.

5.6.4 Curbside Collection and Convenience Centers A few recycling drop‐off sites and/or full‐service convenience center sites can still play a critical role even with a franchised curbside collection program in the unincorporated areas. These sites would address the needs of multi‐family housing units without curbside collection, and provide convenient locations for residents to take banned materials. For example, Alamance, Alexander, Catawba, Dare, Durham, Forsyth, and Orange counties offer multiple convenience centers or drop off sites in addition to their franchised collection programs.

Brunswick County, which ranks 5th for per capita recycling of common household recyclables, contracts with Waste Industries for curbside trash collection to all residents and businesses including in the municipalities. Brunswick County also has four convenience centers which are staffed by Waste Industries employees. The centers accept trash, recycling, yard waste, bulky waste, and C&D waste.

As the long‐term solid waste planning process continues, an important question to be answered regarding the recycling drop‐off sites is: what happens to the cardboard material from small businesses if franchised collection is instituted and the drop‐off sites are shut down? One approach may be to provide strategically located cardboard only drop‐off containers for small businesses that the DEM would service.

5.7 Alternatives Analysis The previous sections provided a high‐level review of solid waste management strategies, technologies, and processes and also identified possible service gaps based on public and stakeholder input. Screening criteria were developed by CDM Smith based on the County’s strategic plan which includes sustainability, cost effectiveness, and preservation of landfill airspace. An additional criterion was developed to assist in screening which was appropriate for the history of the solid waste management program and was called “proven and prevalent nationally and in North Carolina”.


5‐48

The following are defined:

Sustainability – meaning maintaining or supporting financial position of the solid waste program and environment protection. Strategies, technologies, and processes were screened on if they would maintain the current financial position and environmental protection compared to the current operations.

Cost effectiveness – compares relative costs of strategies, technologies, and processes versus the current operations. This is a high‐level review and a detailed cost analysis comparison was not in the scope therefore the cost effectiveness comparison was completed based on best engineering and planning assumptions.

Preservation of landfill airspace – identifies if the strategies, technologies, or processes preserve the landfill airspace volume

Proven and prevalent nationally and in North Carolina – strategies, technologies, and processes were screened based on permit‐ability, general prevalence and public acceptance not only nationally but in North Carolina

CDM Smith screened these strategies, technologies, and processes as presented in Table 513.


5‐47

Yes

No

UD Undetermined

N/A Not Applicable

Table 5‐13. Alternatives Analysis ‐ Screening Matrix

Solid Waste Management Strategies, Technologies, and Processes

Screening Criteria

Sustainability Cost

Effective Preservation of Landfill Airspace

Proven and Prevalent Comments/Recommendations

Nationally North Carolina

Landfill Engineering and Operational Strategies

Continue On‐going Operations with Supplement Strategies

Y Y Y Y Y RECOMMENDED for Comparative Analysis. Supplement strategies will preserve landfill

Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Y Y Y Y Y Currently County uses ADC, recommend investigating increase frequency of use

Leachate Recirculation Y Y Y Y Y Determine feasibility of recirculation program

Landfill In‐fill Y Y Y Y Y Currently permitted for landfill in‐fill

Landfill Mining UD UD Y Y N A financial analysis needs to be conducted

Inward Gradient Landfills UD UD Y Y N A financial analysis needs to be conducted

Lowering Groundwater Table UD UD Y Y N A financial analysis needs to be conducted

MSE Wall UD UD Y Y N A financial analysis needs to be conducted, could be investigated for the south expansion

Diversion

Mixed Waste MRF (Commercial and Residential) UD UD Y Y Y A financial/market analysis needs to be conducted

Organics Composting Facility (Commercial) UD UD Y Y Y A financial/market analysis needs to be conducted. Currently County conducting a pilot program composting yard waste

C&D Diversion Y Y Y Y Y Currently County is processing C&D with a diversion pad

Waste Conversion and Processing

Thermal

WTE / Advanced Thermal Recycling (ATR) N N Y Y N WASTEC was a early technology of ATR

Pyrolysis N N Y N N Not recommended for further review

Gasification (Conventional) N N Y N N Not recommended for further review

Biological / Chemical

Anaerobic Digestion for MSW N N Y N N Not recommended for further review

Composting UD UD Y Y Y A financial/market analysis needs to be conducted. Currently County conducting a pilot program composting yard waste

Waste‐to‐Biofuels N N Y N N Not recommended for further review

Biochemical Conversion N N Y N N Not recommended for further review

Thermochemical Conversion N N Y N N Not recommended for further review

Thermal and Catalytic Depolymerization N N Y N N Not recommended for further review



5‐48

Solid Waste Management Strategies, Technologies, and Processes

Screening Criteria

Sustainability Cost

Effective Preservation of Landfill Airspace

Proven and Prevalent Comments/Recommendations

Nationally North Carolina

Physical

Densification / Pelletization N N Y N N Not recommended for further review

Drying N N Y N N Not recommended for further review

Mechanical Separation (MRF) Y UD Y Y Y A financial/market analysis needs to be conducted

Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) N N Y N N Not recommended for further review

Size Reduction (Shredding) N N Y N N Not recommended for further review

Steam Processing / Autoclaving N N Y N N Not recommended for further review

Beneficial Use of Landfill Resources

LFG Use

Landfill Gas to Energy UD UD N/A Y Y A financial analysis needs to be conducted, recommend feasibility study

Conversion to Fleet Fuel UD UD N/A Y N A financial analysis needs to be conducted, recommend feasibility study

Conversion to Pipeline Quality Gas UD UD N/A Y N A financial analysis needs to be conducted, recommend feasibility study

Other Beneficial Uses UD UD N/A Y N A financial analysis needs to be conducted, recommend feasibility study

Solar Array UD UD N/A Y N A financial analysis needs to be conducted

Windmills UD UD N/A Y N A financial analysis needs to be conducted, recommend feasibility study at WASTEC site

WASTEC future N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Eliminate WASTEC costs

Regional / Privatization

MSW TS/Minimal Landfilling UD UD Y Y Y RECOMMENDED for Comparative Analysis. A financial/market analysis needs to be conducted.

TS Recycling Materials UD UD Y Y Y A financial/market analysis needs to be conducted

Franchised Curbside Collection in Unincorporated Areas Y Y Y Y Y


6‐1

Section 6

Alternative Operations

Until April 2011, the foundation of solid waste management within New Hanover County was the combination of both WASTEC and the Secure Subtitle D landfill. Since operations at WASTEC have ceased, the County has been dependent upon the Subtitle D landfill to provide residents and businesses with proper, environmentally protective waste disposal services.

As discussed in Section 5.5 Regional Solid Waste Management Strategies, approximately 60% of available permitted waste disposal airspace is controlled by the private sector through regional landfills. Regional landfills are a viable alternative to the high cost of building, operating, and maintaining a modern Subtitle D landfill. Many communities in North Carolina utilize the services of regional landfills to meet their waste disposal needs.

Given the County’s long‐term goal of landfill preservation, transferring waste out‐of‐the County to a permitted regional Subtitle D landfill is an option that should be considered from both a policy and financial perspective. The development of a detailed plan for managing the waste generated within the County must start with determining the appropriate disposal approach for waste remaining after recycling and composting. Given the importance of determining a long‐term waste disposal approach, CDM Smith conducted an analysis between two waste disposal alternatives:

Continue disposal of all waste at the County‐operated Secure Subtitle D landfill.


These two options are not the exclusive set of solutions that address waste disposal and preservation of landfill airspace; however they do offer a distinct comparison between two effective but competing alternatives for waste disposal responsibilities.

There are many different options that include private operations of the Secure landfill; transferring the MSW portion of the waste stream while landfilling the C&D waste stream; a county‐owned and operated transfer station; and a private transfer station on private property. In fact, the County has received several proposals in the past that cover the myriad of waste disposal options from qualified waste management firms.

CDM Smith considered evaluating the option of transferring the MSW portion and placing only C&D materials in the Subtitle D landfill. The operational reality of split operations is that, due to economies of scale, landfill per ton operating costs will most likely not be reduced to levels comparable to the reduction in MSW tonnages (i.e. revenues). As a result, the per ton costs for C&D operations are likely to be higher than the per ton costs for the existing Subtitle D operations. The higher C&D costs will be in addition to the costs associated with transferring the MSW waste.

CDM Smith’s alternatives evaluation does not include an analysis of these various waste disposal alternatives. A detailed analysis of all waste disposal options would require a separate study.


6‐2

Financial Analysis of the Alternatives CDM Smith’s analysis of the two waste disposal options evaluated the financial costs for projected operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, capital project outlays, funding for future closure and post‐closure liabilities. For the County landfill option, detailed costs from the Environmental Management Department (Department) FY 2014 budget were used in the analysis.

For the privately developed and operated transfer station option, per ton costs from a Waste Industries proposal letter (dated May 29, 2012) were utilized in the analysis. CDM Smith assumed that the per ton costs offered by Waste Industries included all O&M costs, capital costs, closure/post‐closure liability costs, and the current $2 per ton state tax.

The intent of our analysis was to provide a direct comparison of the costs to provide waste disposal services for a 19‐year period from FY 2015 through FY 2033. Since the private sector cost proposal is strictly for the disposal of MSW and C&D materials, our analysis excludes any County costs not associated with MSW or C&D disposal such as white goods, scrap tires, HHW, recycling, or WASTEC.

Some of the key assumptions made in our analysis of the waste disposal alternatives are:

Since FY 2014 has already begun, the comparative analysis covers the 19‐year period from FY 2015 through FY 2033.

Tonnage projections were based upon the tonnage that was the basis of the County fiscal year 2014 budgeted revenues and a 1.5% growth factor for the years after 2014.

Fiscal year 2014 landfill disposal expenditures were based on the official county budget. Projections for expenditures after 2014 were based on a 5% inflation factor for labor; 3% for all other operating expenses; and indirect costs were inflated at a rate of 1%.

Capital improvement project (CIP) costs associated with current closure liabilities (partial closures of existing landfill areas) or projects unrelated to the provision of landfill disposal airspace where excluded from the analysis. CIP costs associated with the expansion of the landfill were included in the analysis.

The starting FY2015 per ton cost used for the private transfer station option is $42.07, which reflects a $39/ton cost in 2012 escalated to FY2015.

The private sector per ton costs was inflated at a rate of 2.6%, which reflects the average annual consumer price index‐all urban consumers (south area) for the past 9 years.

Net Present Value (NPV) analysis used a discount rate of 2.7%.

In order to compare the true cost of the County’s landfill disposal only operations to a private transfer station operation, the disposal‐related costs had to be separated from other Department costs. Table 61 provides a partial summary of the results of that calculation.

6‐3

Table 6-1. Cost of Disposal Only Budgeted Projected Projected

Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Landfill Operations

Landfill O&M $4,987,680 $6,477,729 $5,363,358 $4,887,426 $5,373,531 $5,622,396 $4,832,592 $6,241,651 $5,953,032 $5,413,193 $6,184,290 $7,183,726 $7,531,188 $6,745,480 $7,903,344 $6,586,039 $7,295,337 $8,595,143 $8,040,266 $7,733,912

Annual Landfill Closure/Post Closure Transfer 150,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000

Less Tire Disposal/White Goods (245,400) (252,762) (260,345) (268,155) (276,200) (284,486) (293,020) (301,811) (310,865) (320,191) (329,797) (339,691) (349,882) (360,378) (371,190) (382,325) (393,795) (405,609) (417,777) (430,310)

Allocation of Adm/Adm Reserve 1,961,430 1,087,180 1,189,360 1,151,410 1,185,340 1,220,550 1,257,090 1,295,030 1,334,410 1,375,310 1,417,790 1,461,910 1,602,710 1,555,380 1,604,880 1,656,330 1,709,810 1,765,420 1,823,250 1,883,390

CIP for New Cells (1) 0 50,000 917,000 4,769,000 0 0 0 0 5,647,000 0 1,899,000 0 499,000 5,518,000 2,137,000 0 3,401,000 0 6,397,000 0

Total Landfill Disposal Costs $6,853,710 $8,062,147 $7,909,373 $11,239,681 $6,982,671 $7,258,460 $6,496,661 $7,934,870 $13,323,577 $7,168,312 $9,871,283 $9,005,945 $9,983,016 $14,158,482 $11,974,034 $8,560,044 $12,712,352 $10,654,955 $10,145,739 $9,886,991

Annual Landfill Tonnage 204,250 207,314 210,424 213,581 216,784 220,037 223,338 226,688 230,088 233,539 237,042 240,597 244,206 247,870 251,588 255,362 259,193 263,081 267,027 271,033

Cost of Disposal Per Ton $33.56 $38.89 $37.59 $52.62 $32.21 $32.99 $29.09 $35.00 $57.91 $30.69 $41.64 $37.43 $40.88 $57.12 $47.59 $33.52 $49.05 $40.50 $38.00 $36.48

Average Cost Per Ton $40.48

(1) CIP for new construction Southern Property and closure related to that area


6‐4

This analysis includes the operating costs for the landfill, the allocation of the Department administrative costs, and transfers to the closure/post closure fund. Our analysis also includes the portion of the CIP that is related to opening new cells and closure costs for those new cells. It does not include closure for cells already open as those are an obligation or liability due to past landfill operations and would remain an obligation to the County even if the landfill were closed.

The results of this analysis show a County landfill average cost per ton for the 19‐year comparative analysis period of $40.48 per ton with the FY 2015 costs per ton equal to $38.89. By comparison, the private transfer station average cost per ton for the 19‐year comparative analysis period was $53.52 per ton with the FY 2015 costs per ton equal to $42.07.

Net Present Value Analysis The total costs of the 19‐year period for the two alternatives were:

Continue disposal of all waste at the County‐operated landfill = $183,300,000

Utilize a privately developed and operated transfer station = $244,600,000

A comparison of the total annual costs provided above for each disposal option is a straightforward way of comparing the two options to determine the lower cost alternative. However, a simple comparison of annual costs does not account for the time value of money. In order to determine the value of the cumulative annual costs in today’s dollars, all of the future annual costs must be converted to the value of today’s dollar. This process is accomplished by determining the net present value (NPV) of each annual cost. Figure 61 compares the present value of the annual costs for the county landfill and a turnkey private operation over a nineteen year analysis period.

NPV Analysis Summary The NPV analysis of the two waste disposal options considered under this alternative analysis indicates that, over a 20‐year period, the lowest net present cost for waste disposal services is provided by the continued operation of the County landfill. The difference in net present value costs amounts to just over $43 million.

The results of this analysis only consider the operational costs associated with each option. The future economic value of preserved landfill airspace, associated with the transfer station option, was not considered in our analysis.

Non‐Financial Considerations Even though financial costs are often a primary consideration when making decisions regarding the future direction of a solid waste program, there are often other factors that must be evaluated against the financial concerns. The County’s decision regarding the appropriate long‐term waste disposal approach will also need to consider other areas such as:

Long‐term Financial or Environmental Liability

Waste Flow Control

Funding for Important Support Services


6‐5

Figure 6‐1. NPV Analysis of Waste Disposal Options

For additional consideration in the evaluation of both waste disposal options, Tables 62 and 63 provide summaries of the advantages and disadvantages associated with each option.

Table 6‐2. Summary of Advantages


Offers the lower net present value of annual disposal costs

Maximizes operating life of County landfill

Maintains control over waste disposal and long‐term costs

Capital expenditures and future liabilities delayed

Maintains funding support for recycling, HHW, and other non‐disposal programs

Eliminates waste “flow control” concerns

Environmental stewardship – handling waste created by County


6‐6

Table 6‐3. Summary of Disadvantages

Continue Disposal at County‐operated Landfill

Utilize a Privately Developed and Operated Private Transfer Station

Landfill airspace exhausted earlier Higher net present value disposal costs

Assume risk of variability in waste disposal tons

Minimum landfill operations required to keep operating permit

New funding source will be required for non‐disposal activities

Long‐term contract restricts flexibility to take advantage of future waste conversion opportunities

7‐1

Section 7

Recommendations for Consideration

New Hanover County (County) owns and operates several facilities that support the management of solid waste generated by all four municipalities. The County has taken on the responsibility to provide residents and businesses with a system of disposal facilities and programs to ensure proper management and disposal of almost 210,000 tons of materials each year.

The current County solid waste program provides value‐added solid waste management services to residents and business that include waste disposal, C&D recycling, convenience center and recycling drop‐off sites, HHW collection, and business waste audits. As the County plans for the future provision of solid waste management services, consideration will need to be given to a variety of business and policy decisions dealing with landfill preservation, level of services and programs provided to citizens, and how those services are delivered.

CDM Smith has conducted a comprehensive review of the solid waste program, evaluated the financial sustainability of the current program, and reviewed several different waste management strategies. Based upon our analysis, we have identified several strategic recommendations for consideration by the County. These recommendations were developed with goal of developing a long‐term comprehensive solid waste management plan that is sustainable, cost‐effective, and preserves landfill airspace. The recommendations provided in this section are organized by the following three strategic focus areas: waste disposal, expansion of recycling, and waste diversion programs.

7.1 Waste Disposal As discussed in previous sections, the County has two recommendations to consider for the future management of solid waste.

Continue existing Subtitle D Landfill operations with supplemental strategies to enhance and improve program and services.

Utilize a privately developed and operated transfer station to haul waste to a regional landfill out of the County.

Section 6 provided an alternative analysis of both waste disposal options along with a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each option. These two options are mutual exclusive, and the decision will affect the selection of some of the other program recommendations.

7.2 Expansion of Recycling and Waste Diversion Programs The expansion of recycling and waste diversion programs includes establishing a franchised collection system in the unincorporated areas; increasing commercial waste reduction and recycling; increasing public outreach and education; and, improving access to the recycling processing markets. The recommendations discussed below are mutually exclusive to the above waste disposal options and can be considered regardless of which waste disposal option is chosen. The improvements include:


7‐2

Implement curbside collection for trash, recycling, yard waste, and bulky waste through one of the following approaches:

- Enforcement of mandatory residential service ordinance.

- Develop a non‐exclusive unincorporated franchise system with 3 or 4 private haulers from which residents can choose a hauler to provide required trash, yard waste, and recycling services.

- Mandatory participation of residents is important to creating collection efficiencies necessary to deliver a suite of collection service cost‐effectively. Without mandatory participation requirements, the program would need to build‐in incentives to encourage residents to select services beyond garbage.

- Consider incorporating a pay‐as‐you‐throw (PAYT) structure with two cart sizes similar to the City of Wilmington.

Implement mandatory commercial recycling that targets fiber (cardboard and paper) and plastic materials. Work with business groups and private haulers to assess the current provision of commercial recycling services prior to developing an ordinance.

Develop a regional transfer station or material recovery facility (MRF) for commingled recyclables with an option of keeping cardboard separate to maintain the high market value of this commodity value.

- The financial viability of a future regional recycling processing facility will be dependent upon establishing sufficient recycling (residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional) volume to justify the capital and operating costs.

- For a regional recycling transfer station, pursue state grant funding for Special Large Project Option 1: Hub and Spoke Recycling Systems. Grant funding availability is dependent on annual state legislative budget allocations.

7.3 Supplemental Strategies to Enhance the Program The following are supplemental strategies that can be included to potentially enhance or improve the current program. The major goals behind these management strategies and supplemental recommendations are: sustainable long‐term management of solid waste; the preservation of landfill airspace; resource recovery; and increased waste reduction/recycling.

Financial Recommendations 1. Reduce or eliminate over $500,000 in annual WASTEC operating costs for security and

insurance on the facility. Work with the County’s insurance company to determine the best course of action to reduce these costs.

2. Continue setting aside revenues from landfill tipping fees to accrue sufficient funds to meet the estimated current and future costs of closure and post closure activities.


7‐3

Secure Landfill Facility Recommendations 1. Facility and Operational Improvements

a. Re‐configure the convenience center site at the landfill to improve the operational efficiency by allowing small vehicles to unload without having to go to the working face.

b. Evaluate the feasibility and implement (as appropriate) landfill airspace utilization and expansion strategies such as: increasing the frequency of Posi‐shell use, landfill in‐fill, and MSE walls (specifically determining the feasibility of MSE walls for the southern expansion).

2. Expand construction and demolition (C&D) diversion and recycling operations in the future as the housing and construction markets rebound.

3. Evaluate the feasibility of landfill gas‐to‐energy projects along with investigating the potential of leachate recirculation. This can be completed by conducting a new LFG feasibility study or updating the previous study with the new waste stream. A portion of this evaluation could be to determine if there is a landfill area that could be developed for solar power, as supplemental to landfill gas.

Public Outreach and Education Recommendations 1. Focus on educating residents and businesses on the availability of infrastructure and services;

materials that should be recycled; and why it’s important to recycle (diversion, resource recovery, resource conservation, etc.).

2. Continue to support education initiatives with the municipalities and County school system.

3. Encourage backyard composting with the development of composting education programs. Work with the New Hanover Cooperative Extension to educate residents about composting.

4. Advertise waste audit services to the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors.

Solid Waste Ordinance Recommendations 1. Expand franchise reporting requirements to include quantity data on recyclable materials

collected from the residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sectors. Consideration will need to be given to addressing the “confidentiality” of this type of private hauler information.

2. Consider implementing a C&D recycling provision with a focus on marketable materials such as concrete and clean wood.

3. Evaluate the current enforcement levels of existing ordinances and determine how any new ordinances could be enforced.


7‐4

Additional Recycling and Waste Diversion Recommendations 1. Increase special event, school system, and government recycling.

a. Work with special event companies to increase recyclable material collection at public events.

b. Provide recycling containers for collection of white paper, mixed paper, and cardboard at schools and County government buildings.

2. Evaluate the continued use of a few strategically located recycling drop‐off sites to provide recycling outlets for small businesses and residents in multi‐family/apartments who don’t have access to curbside recycling services. Consideration should be given to locating the sites on county‐owned property to control access and minimize illegal dumping.

3. Consider as a part of the long‐term solid waste plan, an evaluation of the potential for mixed commercial waste recycling.

4. Ensure sufficient and efficient access to Type I composting facilities to handle wood and yard waste materials generated within the county. Long‐term future would also include access to a Type III compost facility that can accept different sources of food waste.

Appendix A Stakeholder Workshop Agenda

AGENDA New Hanover County Solid Waste Workshop

9 AM - 12 PM, June 26, 2013

1. Introduction to Purpose of the Meeting and Group Welcome

2. Solid Waste and Recycling Infrastructure and Services within New Hanover CountyCounty-operated facilities and servicesMunicipal waste and recycling collection servicesPrivate sector waste and recycling collection, disposal, and processing servicesNon-profit services

3. Accomplishments and Primary Challenges Facing Each JurisdictionNew Hanover CountyCity of WilmingtonTown of Wrightsville BeachTown of Carolina BeachTown of Kure Beach

4. What New Strategies are Needed for Future Management of Solid Waste and Recyclables?Common ordinances between County and municipalitiesEducation outreachSustainability/environmental stewardship effortsImproving commercial, industrial, and institutional waste reduction and recyclingRecycling processing facilityPublic/Private partnerships in disposal and processing facilitiesOther ideas

5. Next Steps and Wrap-up

Appendix A Survey Postcard

Appendix A

On‐Line Survey Results

Table B-1

Scenario/Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Residential 139,040 141,126 143,243 145,392 147,573 149,787 152,034 154,315 156,630 158,979

Construction 48,590 49,319 50,059 50,810 51,572 52,346 53,131 53,928 54,737 55,558

Other Waste

Mattresses, Compactor Cans 2,820 2,862 2,905 2,949 2,993 3,038 3,084 3,130 3,177 3,225

Shingles, Clean Concrete, Brick 8,800 8,932 9,066 9,202 9,340 9,480 9,622 9,766 9,912 10,061

Asbesto, Sludge 5,000 5,075 5,151 5,228 5,306 5,386 5,467 5,549 5,632 5,716

Deposited in Landfill 204,250 207,314 210,424 213,581 216,784 220,037 223,338 226,688 230,088 233,539

Notes: Tonnage for 2014 tied to County estimated tipping fee revenue budgeted for FY 2014 and escalated at rate of 2% annually.

Other Waste categories: Mattrresses, compactor cans charged at $59/ton, Shingles, Clean Concrete $30/ton and Asbestos, Sludge $80/ton

Projected Waste Disposal Tonnage

New Hanover County Dept of Env Mgmt

Table B-1 Continued

Scenario/Fiscal Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Residential 161,364 163,784 166,241 168,735 171,266 173,835 176,443 179,090 181,776 184,503

Construction 56,391 57,237 58,096 58,967 59,852 60,750 61,661 62,586 63,525 64,478

Other Waste

Mattresses, Compactor Cans 3,273 3,322 3,372 3,423 3,474 3,526 3,579 3,633 3,687 3,742

Shingles, Clean Concrete, Brick 10,212 10,365 10,520 10,678 10,838 11,001 11,166 11,333 11,503 11,676

Asbesto, Sludge 5,802 5,889 5,977 6,067 6,158 6,250 6,344 6,439 6,536 6,634

Deposited in Landfill 237,042 240,597 244,206 247,870 251,588 255,362 259,193 263,081 267,027 271,033

Projected Waste Disposal Tonnage


Table B-2

Projects 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Leachete Trmt System Upgrade $500,000 $750,000 $750,000

Southern Property Permitting, Ph 2 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000

Cell 1 and 2 Southern Property Design (Initial) $867,000

Cell 1 Southern Property Construction (Initial) $4,744,000

Cell 2 Southern Property Construction $4,760,000

Cell 3 and 4 Southern Property Design

Cell 4 Southern Property Construction

Cell Closure Design for Entire Northern Property

Cells 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 + Vertical $512,000

West Side Partial Closure 6A, 6B, 6C $2,058,000

South End Partial Closure 5B, 6A $1,820,000

West Side Partial Closure 6D, 6E $2,368,000

North Side Partial Closure 6E, 2 $2,200,000

Final Closure over Vertical All Cells Northern $8,296,000

Cell 1 Southern Partial Closure


Cell 2 Southern Partial Closure

Cell Closure Design for Southern Property (cells 1-4) $887,000

Cell 1 & 2 Southern Property Final Closure

Total Per Year $3,070,000 $2,620,000 $1,667,000 $7,137,000 $2,200,000 $0 $8,296,000 $0 $5,647,000

Total All Years $50,488,000NPV Total All Years $40,775,000

Note:Partial Closure Cell 5, West Side 6E Eng and first year Southern Ph2 Permitting funded in previous years

New Construction and Closure Projects Plan


Table B-2

Projects 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

Leachete Trmt System Upgrade

Southern Property Permitting, Ph 2

Cell 1 and 2 Southern Property Design (Initial)

Cell 1 Southern Property Construction (Initial)


Cell 3 and 4 Southern Property Design $499,000


Cell Closure Design for Entire Northern Property

West Side Partial Closure

South End Partial Closure

West Side Partial Closure

North Side Partial Closure

Final Closure over Vertical

Cell 1 Southern Partial Closure $1,899,000


Cell 2 Southern Partial Closure $2,137,000

Cell Closure Design for Southern Property (cells 1-4)

Cell 1 & 2 Southern Property Final Closure $3,401,000

Total Per Year $0 $1,899,000 $0 $499,000 $5,518,000 $2,137,000 $0 $3,401,000 $0 $6,397,000

New Construction and Closure Projects Plan


Table B-3

Capital Outlay Equipment

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Administration

Scale Replacement $0 $0 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Landfill Operations

Bulldozer - replacement (new) $700,000 $790,000

Bulldozer - rebuild 350,000 350,000

Compactor -new 800,000

Compactor - rebuild 610,000 610,000

Loader 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000

Excavator 320C new 320,000

Mini Utility Vehicle 16,500 16,500

Sm Bulldozer replacement (new) 200,000

Roll-off Truck-replacement (new) 170,000

Roll-off Truck-replacement (used) 75,000

Posi-shell Equipment Enhancement 165,000 165,000

Posi-shell Truck (replcmnt) used 30,000 30,000

Articulated Dump Truck -new 410,000

Water Truck (used)

Tractor - replacement (new) 40,000

Pump (lagoon) - John Deere 20,000

Irrigation System - Upgrade 15,000

Roll-off Containers 26,000 28,000 26,000

Property and Grounds improvements 40,000

White Goods Projects 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000

Subtotal Landfill $1,216,000 $1,701,500 $710,000 $293,000 $805,000 $895,000 $75,000 $1,085,000 $691,000 $121,500


Table B-3 Continued


2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Administration

Scale Replacement $0 $0 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Landfill Operations

Bulldozer - replacement (new) $790,000 $700,000

Bulldozer - rebuild 350,000

Compactor -new 800,000

Compactor - rebuild 610,000

Loader 210,000 210,000 210,000

Excavator 320C new 320,000

Mini Utility Vehicle 16,500

Sm Bulldozer replacement (new) 200,000 200,000

Roll-off Truck-replacement (new) 170,000

Roll-off Truck-replacement (used) 75,000

Posi-shell Equipment Enhancement 165,000

Posi-shell Truck (replcmnt) used 30,000 40,000

Articulated Dump Truck -new 410,000

Water Truck (used) 75,000

Tractor - replacement (new) 40,000 40,000

Pump (lagoon) - John Deere 20,000 20,000

Irrigation System - Upgrade 15,000 15,000

Roll-off Containers 28,000 $26,000 28,000

Property and Grounds improvements

White Goods Projects 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000

Subtotal Landfill 555,000 1,123,000 1,195,000 485,000 1,095,000 75,000 371,000 1,001,500 500,000 163,000


Table B-3 Continued


2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Recycling Programs

Club Wagon XL/ ATV Gator $16,500 $21,350

F250 w/liftgate 45,000 45,000

Roll-off 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000

F-150 pick-up 40,000

Ranger pick-up

Maxi Van

Forklift 45,542 45,542

Skidsteer S205 30,000 35,000

Skidsteer 773 35,000 35,000

744H 4wd Loader 400,000

1T28G Loader 200,000

Terrant telescoping forklift 200,000

Forklift 46,275

2 Ram Baler 400,000

Recy containers 60,400 0 48,000 0 0 48,000 0 48,000

Subtotal Recycling $240,400 $550,000 $342,042 $48,000 $150,000 $640,000 $94,275 $185,000 $150,000 $344,892

Total Environmental Management (1) $1,456,400 $2,251,500 $1,142,042 $341,000 $955,000 $1,535,000 $169,275 $1,270,000 $841,000 $466,392

(1) Annual estimates supplied by County.


Table B-3 Continued


2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Recycling Programs

Club Wagon XL/ ATV Gator $21,350

F250 w/liftgate 45,000

Roll-off 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000

F-150 pick-up 40,000

Ranger pick-up

Maxi Van

Forklift 45,542

Skidsteer S205 35,000 35,000

Skidsteer 773

744H 4wd Loader 400,000

1T28G Loader 200,000

Terrant telescoping forklift 200,000

Forklift 46,275

2 Ram Baler 400,000 400,000

Recy containers 48,000 48,000 48,000

Subtotal Recycling $400,000 $200,000 $198,000 $40,000 $635,000 $279,275 $261,892 $150,000 $48,000 $400,000

Total Environmental Management (1) $955,000 $1,323,000 $1,483,000 $525,000 $1,730,000 $354,275 $632,892 $1,151,500 $548,000 $563,000


Table B-3A

Department Section 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Administration $0 $0 $95,481 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Landfill Operations $1,216,000 $1,752,545 $753,239 $320,169 $906,035 $1,037,550 $89,554 $1,334,413 $875,338 $158,530

Recycling Programs $240,400 $566,500 $362,872 $52,451 $168,826 $741,935 $112,569 $227,527 $190,016 $450,006

Total Environmental Management $1,456,400 $2,319,045 $1,211,592 $372,620 $1,074,861 $1,779,486 $202,123 $1,561,940 $1,065,354 $608,536

(1) Annual estimates supplied by County, added 3% inflation per annum.

Capital Outlay Equipment Summary


Table B-3A

Department Section 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Administration $0 $0 $128,318 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Landfill Operations $745,874 $1,554,495 $1,703,784 $712,239 $1,656,286 $116,848 $595,346 $1,655,327 $851,217 $285,821

Recycling Programs $537,567 $276,847 $282,301 $58,741 $960,494 $435,101 $420,260 $247,927 $81,717 $701,402

Total Environmental Management $1,283,440 $1,831,341 $2,114,403 $770,980 $2,616,780 $551,949 $1,015,606 $1,903,254 $932,933 $987,224

Capital Outlay Equipment Summary


Purpose 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

WASTEC:

2010 COPS WASTEC 82,233 $78,457 $75,364 $72,263 $68,511 $65,040 $61,352 $61,411 $58,557

Installment Loans for Equipment

Landfill:

2005 COP Scrapper 35,159 $35,106 $35,130 $35,074 $35,142 $35,072 $0 0 0

Bulldozer and Loader -Landfill 171,363 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0

Compactor 826G-Landfill 261,993 $251,434 $251,434 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0

Articulated Dump Truck-Landfill 66,796 $62,086 $62,086 $62,086 $62,086 $0 $0 0 0

2014 Installment Loan $184,476 $368,952 $368,952 $184,476

Subtotal 535,311 533,102 717,602 466,112 281,704 35,072 0 0 0

TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $617,544 $611,559 $792,966 $538,375 $350,215 $100,112 $61,352 $61,411 $58,557

NOTES:

(1) Existing debt service for Env Services obtained from New Hanover County Finance Department.

(2) It was assumed that all future equipment purchases and CIP would be funded pay as you go, therefore there is no debt service once the existing debt is paid off.

Table B-4

Debt Service Payment Schedule


Table B-5

Annual Operating Costs

Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Administration

Salaries and Benefits $390,433 $391,220 $410,781 $431,320 $452,886 $475,530 $499,307 $524,272 $550,486 $578,010

Operating Expenses 972,568 557,169 573,884 591,101 608,834 627,099 645,912 665,289 685,248 705,805

Capital Equipment (4) - 95,481 - - - - - -

Indirect Cost 443,957 479,698 484,495 489,340 494,233 499,176 504,167 509,209 514,301 519,444

Subtotal 1,806,958 1,428,087 1,469,160 1,607,242 1,555,953 1,601,805 1,649,386 1,698,770 1,750,035 1,803,259

Landfill OperationsSalaries and Benefits 1,032,641 1,067,440 1,120,812 1,176,853 1,235,695 1,297,480 1,362,354 1,430,472 1,501,995 1,577,095 Operating Expenses 2,831,735 2,400,138 2,472,142 2,546,306 2,622,696 2,701,376 2,782,418 2,865,890 2,951,867 3,040,423 Solid Waste Disp Tax State (2) 400,000 450,000 414,628 420,848 427,162 433,568 440,074 446,676 453,376 460,176 Debt Service-Installation Loans (4) 535,311 533,102 717,602 466,112 281,704 35,072 - - - - Capital Equipment (4), (5) 50,000 191,000 1,752,545 753,239 320,169 906,035 1,037,550 89,554 1,334,413 875,338 Capital Improvements 213,780 115,000 Trsf to General Fund 38,500 231,000

Subtotal 5,101,967 4,987,680 6,477,729 5,363,358 4,887,426 5,373,531 5,622,396 4,832,592 6,241,651 5,953,032

Recycling Programs

Salaries and Benefits 400,655 415,447 436,219 458,030 480,932 504,978 530,227 556,739 584,576 613,804


Capital Equipment (4) (5) 223,250 90,400 566,500 362,872 52,451 168,826 741,935 112,569 227,527 190,016

Subtotal 1,185,603 1,040,767 1,542,989 1,366,575 1,084,511 1,230,445 1,834,369 1,237,136 1,385,609 1,383,062

WASTEC Adm

Salaries and Benefits 187,483


Debt Service (4) 82,233 78,457 75,364 72,263 68,511 65,040 61,352 61,411 58,557 -

Subtotal 997,042 707,372 710,568 713,819 716,483 719,491 722,348 729,017 732,839 681,025

Subtotal Operating Costs (1) (3) $9,091,570 $8,163,906 $10,200,446 $9,050,994 $8,244,373 $8,925,272 $9,828,499 $8,497,515 $10,110,134 $9,820,378


Table B-5


Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Transfer to Capital Reserve for CIP $1,489,000 $250,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000

$0 $150,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000

Administrative Reserve $3,046,572 $1,222,495

Subtotal $4,535,572 $1,622,495 $700,000 $2,200,000 $700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $700,000 $3,700,000 $700,000

TOTAL ANNUAL CASH REQUIREMENTS $10,582,583 $9,786,401 $10,900,446 $11,250,994 $8,944,373 $11,625,272 $12,528,499 $9,197,515 $13,810,134 $10,520,378

NOTES:

(2) FY 2015 forward based on $2/ton


(3) All data for FY 2014 from adopted budget

(4) Beginning in FY 2015 capital equipment and debt service are from Tables 3A and 4, Capital Outlay Equipment and Debt Service, respectively

(6) Closure/Post Closure transfers are based on estimate from County.

(5) Equipment Budgets shown for FY 14 are net of equipment purchased through lease purchase

Annual Landfill Closure/Post Closure Transfers (6)

(1) All operating costs except for capital equipment, debt service and solid waste tax escalated at 5% for personnel costs and 3% for other

Table B-5 Continued


Fiscal Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Administration

Salaries and Benefits $606,911 $637,256 $669,119 $702,575 $737,704 $774,589 $813,318 $853,984 $896,683 $941,518 $988,593

Operating Expenses 726,979 748,789 771,252 794,390 818,221 842,768 868,051 894,093 920,915 948,543 976,999

Capital Equipment (4) - - - 128,318 - - - - - - -

Indirect Cost 524,639 529,885 535,184 540,536 545,941 551,400 556,914 562,484 568,108 573,790 579,527

Subtotal 1,858,528 1,915,930 1,975,555 2,165,819 2,101,866 2,168,757 2,238,284 2,310,561 2,385,707 2,463,850 2,545,120

Landfill OperationsSalaries and Benefits 1,655,950 1,738,747 1,825,685 1,916,969 2,012,817 2,113,458 2,219,131 2,330,088 2,446,592 2,568,922 2,697,368 Operating Expenses 3,131,636 3,225,585 3,322,352 3,422,023 3,524,684 3,630,424 3,739,337 3,851,517 3,967,062 4,086,074 4,208,657 Solid Waste Disp Tax State (2) 467,078 474,084 481,194 488,412 495,740 503,176 510,724 518,386 526,162 534,054 542,066 Debt Service-Installation Loans (4) - Capital Equipment (4), (5) 158,530 745,874 1,554,495 1,703,784 712,239 1,656,286 116,848 595,346 1,655,327 851,217 285,821 Capital ImprovementsTrsf to General Fund

Subtotal 5,413,193 6,184,290 7,183,726 7,531,188 6,745,480 7,903,344 6,586,039 7,295,337 8,595,143 8,040,266 7,733,912

Recycling Programs

Salaries and Benefits 644,495 676,719 710,555 746,083 783,387 822,557 863,684 906,869 952,212 999,823 1,049,814


Capital Equipment (4) (5) 450,006 537,567 276,847 282,301 58,741 960,494 435,101 420,260 247,927 81,717 701,402

Subtotal 1,679,535 1,805,170 1,584,195 1,631,145 1,450,917 2,397,928 1,919,811 1,954,364 1,833,647 1,721,383 2,397,458

WASTEC Adm

Salaries and Benefits


Debt Service (4) -

Subtotal 687,835 694,713 701,661 708,677 715,764 722,922 730,151 737,452 744,827 752,275 759,798

Subtotal Operating Costs (1) (3) $9,639,092 $10,600,103 $11,445,137 $12,036,829 $11,014,027 $13,192,951 $11,474,285 $12,297,714 $13,559,325 $12,977,774 $13,436,288


Table B-5 Continued


Fiscal Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Transfer to Capital Reserve for CIP $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,200,000 $1,700,000 $2,600,000 $1,000,000 $1,700,000

$700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000

Administrative Reserve

Subtotal $3,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,900,000 $2,400,000 $700,000 $700,000 $3,300,000 $700,000 $1,700,000 $700,000 $2,400,000

TOTAL ANNUAL CASH REQUIREMENTS $13,339,092 $13,300,103 $14,345,137 $14,436,829 $11,714,027 $13,892,951 $14,774,285 $12,997,714 $15,259,325 $13,677,774 $15,836,288

Annual Landfill Closure/Post Closure Transfers (6)


Table B-6


Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Interest Revenue $150 $160 $170 $180 $190 $200 $210 $220 $230 $240

Recycling RevenuesState Reimb Elect Recycling $5,000 $5,200 $5,400 $5,600 $5,800 $6,000 $6,200 $6,400 $6,700 $7,000Sale of Scrap $560,630 $566,200 $571,900 $577,600 $583,400 $589,200 $595,100 $601,100 $604,100 $607,100

Subtotal Recycling Revenues (1) $565,630 $571,400 $577,300 $583,200 $589,200 $595,200 $601,300 $607,500 $610,800 $614,100

Landfill RevenuesState Disposal Tire Rebate (1) $320,400 $323,600 $326,800 $330,100 $333,400 $336,700 $340,100 $343,500 $346,900 $350,400State Disposal White Goods Reb (1) $35,000 $35,700 $36,400 $37,100 $37,800 $38,600 $39,400 $40,200 $41,000 $41,800Solid Waste Disposal Tax (1) $35,000 $35,400 $35,800 $36,200 $36,600 $37,000 $37,400 $37,800 $38,200 $38,600

Residential Trash Revenue (2) $8,203,419 $8,326,400 $8,451,300 $8,578,100 $8,706,800 $8,837,400 $8,970,000 $9,104,600 $9,241,200 $9,379,800C&D Waste Revenue (2) $2,866,574 $2,909,800 $2,953,500 $2,997,800 $3,042,700 $3,088,400 $3,134,700 $3,181,800 $3,229,500 $3,277,900Other Waste Revenue (3) $830,007 $842,800 $855,500 $868,300 $881,300 $894,500 $908,000 $921,600 $935,400 $949,400

Subtotal Landfill $12,290,400 $12,473,700 $12,659,300 $12,847,600 $13,038,600 $13,232,600 $13,429,600 $13,629,500 $13,832,200 $14,037,900

TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE $12,856,180 $13,045,260 $13,236,770 $13,430,980 $13,627,990 $13,828,000 $14,031,110 $14,237,220 $14,443,230 $14,652,240

(1) These revenues are increased by a conservative estimate annually(2) Projected Revenue based on estimated annual tonnage times current tipping fee ($59) per ton(3) Other Waste revenue:Mattrresses, compactor cans charged at $59/ton, Shingles, Clean Concrete $30/ton and Asbestos, Sludge $80/ton

Annual Revenue Projections

Table B-6 Continued


Fiscal Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Interest Revenue $250 $260 $270 $280 $290 $300 $310 $320 $330 $340

Recycling RevenuesState Reimb Elect Recycling $7,300 $7,600 $7,900 $8,200 $8,500 $8,800 $9,200 $9,600 $10,000 $10,400Sale of Scrap $610,100 $613,200 $616,300 $619,400 $622,500 $625,600 $628,700 $631,800 $635,000 $638,200

Subtotal Recycling Revenues (1) $617,400 $620,800 $624,200 $627,600 $631,000 $634,400 $637,900 $641,400 $645,000 $648,600

Landfill RevenuesState Disposal Tire Rebate (1) $353,900 $357,400 $361,000 $364,600 $368,200 $371,900 $375,600 $379,400 $383,200 $387,000State Disposal White Goods Reb (1) $42,600 $43,500 $44,400 $45,300 $46,200 $47,100 $48,000 $49,000 $50,000 $51,000Solid Waste Disposal Tax (1) $39,000 $39,400 $39,800 $40,200 $40,600 $41,000 $41,400 $41,800 $42,200 $42,600

Residential Trash Revenue (2) $9,520,500 $9,663,300 $9,808,200 $9,955,400 $10,104,700 $10,256,300 $10,410,100 $10,566,300 $10,724,800 $10,885,700C&D Waste Revenue (2) $3,327,100 $3,377,000 $3,427,700 $3,479,100 $3,531,300 $3,584,300 $3,638,000 $3,692,600 $3,748,000 $3,804,200Other Waste Revenue (3) $963,600 $978,100 $992,700 $1,007,700 $1,022,700 $1,038,100 $1,053,700 $1,069,500 $1,085,500 $1,101,800

Subtotal Landfill $14,246,700 $14,458,700 $14,673,800 $14,892,300 $15,113,700 $15,338,700 $15,566,800 $15,798,600 $16,033,700 $16,272,300

TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE $14,864,350 $15,079,760 $15,298,270 $15,520,180 $15,744,990 $15,973,400 $16,205,010 $16,440,320 $16,679,030 $16,921,240

Annual Revenue Projections

Table B-7ProformaNew Hanover County Dept of Env Mgmt

BudgetedFiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

RevenueRecyling 565,630$ 571,400$ 577,300$ 583,200$ 589,200$ 595,200$ 601,300$ 607,500$ 610,800$ 614,100$ Landfill 12,290,400 12,473,700 12,659,300 12,847,600 13,038,600 13,232,600 13,429,600 13,629,500 13,832,200 14,037,900

Total Envirnomental Mgmt Operating Revenue 12,856,030 13,045,100 13,236,600 13,430,800 13,627,800 13,827,800 14,030,900 14,237,000 14,443,000 14,652,000

Operating ExpensesAdministration 1,428,087 1,469,160 1,607,242 1,555,953 1,601,805 1,649,386 1,698,770 1,750,035 1,803,259 1,858,528Landfill Operations 4,987,680 6,477,729 5,363,358 4,887,426 5,373,531 5,622,396 4,832,592 6,241,651 5,953,032 5,413,193Recycling Programs 1,040,767 1,542,989 1,366,575 1,084,511 1,230,445 1,834,369 1,237,136 1,385,609 1,383,062 1,679,535Westec Adm 707,372 710,568 713,819 716,483 719,491 722,348 729,017 732,839 681,025 687,835Transfers:Transfer to Capital Reserve for CIP 250,000 0 1,500,000 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 3,000,000 0 3,000,000Annual Landfill Closure/Post Closure 150,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000Administrative Reserve 1,222,495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Transfer to Fund Balance 500,000 500,000

Total Environmental Mgmt Operating 9,786,401 10,900,446 11,250,994 8,944,373 11,625,272 13,028,499 9,197,515 13,810,134 10,520,378 13,839,092

Non Operating Revenues 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240

Net Operating Revenues After Expenses 3,069,779 2,144,814 1,985,776 4,486,607 2,002,718 799,501 4,833,595 427,086 3,922,852 813,148

Capital Improvement Plan 3,069,779 2,620,000 1,667,000 7,137,000 2,200,000 0 8,296,000 0 5,647,000 0Less:

Transfers From CIP Reserve (1) 1,500,000 3,500,000 2,000,000Transfer From Landfill Closure (2) 1,500,000 1,000,000 0 1,200,000 0 0 0

Net From Annual Revenue 3,069,779 2,620,000 1,667,000 4,137,000 1,200,000 0 3,596,000 0 3,647,000 0

Revenue Surplus/Deficit (0)$ (475,186)$ 318,776$ 349,607$ 802,718$ 799,501$ 1,237,595$ 427,086$ 275,852$ 813,148$

Total Revenue/Surplus All Years 10,190,214$ NPV Surplus Plus Fund Balance Reserve 10,232,000$

(1) Transfers from Capital Reserve funds set aside for future CIP(2) Transfers from Closure/Post Closure Reserve for Closure Projects

Projected

Table B-7 ContinuedProformaNew Hanover County Dept of Env Mgmt

Fiscal Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

RevenueRecyling 617,400$ 620,800$ 624,200$ 627,600$ 631,000$ 634,400$ 637,900$ 641,400$ 645,000$ 648,600$ Landfill 14,246,700 14,458,700 14,673,800 14,892,300 15,113,700 15,338,700 15,566,800 15,798,600 16,033,700 16,272,300

Total Envirnomental Mgmt Operating Revenue 14,864,100 15,079,500 15,298,000 15,519,900 15,744,700 15,973,100 16,204,700 16,440,000 16,678,700 16,920,900

Operating ExpensesAdministration 1,915,930 1,975,555 2,165,819 2,101,866 2,168,757 2,238,284 2,310,561 2,385,707 2,463,850 2,545,120Landfill Operations 6,184,290 7,183,726 7,531,188 6,745,480 7,903,344 6,586,039 7,295,337 8,595,143 8,040,266 7,733,912Recycling Programs 1,805,170 1,584,195 1,631,145 1,450,917 2,397,928 1,919,811 1,954,364 1,833,647 1,721,383 2,397,458Westec Adm 694,713 701,661 708,677 715,764 722,922 730,151 737,452 744,827 752,275 759,798Transfers:Transfer to Capital Reserve for CIP 2,000,000 2,200,000 1,700,000 0 0 2,600,000 0 1,000,000 0 1,700,000Annual Landfill Closure/Post Closure 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000Administrative Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Transfer to Fund Balance 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000

Total Environmental Mgmt Operating 13,300,103 14,345,137 14,436,829 11,714,027 14,892,951 15,274,285 12,997,714 15,759,325 13,677,774 16,336,288

Non Operating Revenues 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340

Net Operating Revenues After Expenses 1,564,247 734,623 861,441 3,806,153 852,039 699,115 3,207,296 680,995 3,001,256 584,952

Capital Improvement Plan 1,899,000 0 499,000 5,518,000 2,137,000 0 3,401,000 0 6,397,000 0Less:

Transfers From CIP Reserve (1) 2,000,000 4,000,000Transfer From Landfill Closure (2) 1,500,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0

Net From Annual Revenue 399,000 0 499,000 3,518,000 137,000 0 3,401,000 0 2,397,000 0

Revenue Surplus/Deficit 1,165,247$ 734,623$ 362,441$ 288,153$ 715,039$ 699,115$ (193,704)$ 680,995$ 604,256$ 584,952$

Projected

Table B- 8


Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

CIP Reserve

Transfers to Reserve from Operating Budget $250,000 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $3,000,000Transfers from Reserve to Fund CIP $0 $0 $0 -$1,500,000 $0 $0 -$3,500,000 $0 -$2,000,000 $0

Balance in CIP Reserve $250,000 $250,000 $1,750,000 $250,000 $2,250,000 $4,250,000 $750,000 $3,750,000 $1,750,000 $4,750,000

Fund Balance

Transfers to Reserve from Operating Budget 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 500,000

Accumulative New Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000

Closure ReserveTransfers to Reserve from Operating Budget $150,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000Transfers from Reserve to Fund Closure Projects -1,500,000 -1,000,000 -1,200,000

Balance in CIP Reserve $150,000 $850,000 $1,550,000 $750,000 $450,000 $1,150,000 $650,000 $1,350,000 $2,050,000 $2,750,000

Transfers

Table B- 8 Continued


Fiscal Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

CIP Reserve

Transfers to Reserve from Operating Budget $2,000,000 $2,200,000 $1,700,000 $0 $0 $2,600,000 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $1,700,000Transfers from Reserve to Fund CIP $0 $0 $0 -$2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$4,000,000 $0

Balance in CIP Reserve $6,750,000 $8,950,000 $10,650,000 $8,650,000 $8,650,000 $11,250,000 $11,250,000 $12,250,000 $8,250,000 $9,950,000

Fund Balance

Transfers to Reserve from Operating Budget 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $0 $500,000

Accumulative New Fund Balance $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000

Closure ReserveTransfers to Reserve from Operating Budget $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000Transfers from Reserve to Fund Closure Projects -1,500,000 -2,000,000

Balance in CIP Reserve $1,950,000 $2,650,000 $3,350,000 $4,050,000 $2,750,000 $3,450,000 $4,150,000 $4,850,000 $5,550,000 $6,250,000

Transfers