Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Solid Waste Characterization Study Fall 2015

Transcription

1 Report March 9, 2016 Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Solid Waste Characterization Study Fall 2015 Prepared for: Mecklenburg County Prepared by: Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc Arlington Boulevard Suite 304 Fairfax, Virginia (800)

2 GERSHMAN, BRICKNER & BRATTON, INC. Brown and Caldwell Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Fall 2015 Solid Waste Characterization Report Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc Arlington Boulevard Suite 304 Fairfax, Virginia Phone / Fax Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. GBB/ We Print on Recycled Paper

3 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary Major Findings Characterization of the Mecklenburg Waste Stream (Sampled Waste Stream) Characterization of the City of Charlotte s Residential Waste Characterization of the County s Other Sub-Streams Results and Comparisons of Recycling and Recyclables in County Waste Project Overview Introduction to Mecklenburg County Goals and Overall Approach Fall 2015 Waste Characterization Study Fall Waste Sort Evaluation of the Success of Internal Recycling Program Drop off Center MSW Waste Unincorporated Areas of the County Multifamily Fall Waste Sort Methodology and Implementation Sample Collection Waste Sorting Sort Categories Staffing Methodology to Assure Statistical Significance ASTM standards Confidence Level and Statistical Significance Approach to Site Visits Waste Characterization Results Waste Sorting Results Paper Characterization Plastics Metals and Glass Organics, Fines and Diapers Other Materials City of Charlotte Characterizations Overall and General Observations Recycling and Non-Recycling Week Results Differences and Significance of Results for the Two Week Waste Sorts Other Location Snapshots Jail Compactors, Schools, County facilities, and CPCC Matthews, Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson, Mint Hill, Pineville Multifamily Compactors and County Drop-off Centers Discussion of Results Recyclables in the Waste Stream MSW comparisons to Fayetteville, NC; and Fort Worth, TX Site Visit Observations i March 9, 2016

4 4.1.CMS/CPCC Site Visits County Drop Centers Multifamily Conclusions List of Appendices Appendix A: Sort Category Descriptions and Observations... A-1 Appendix B: Statistical Analysis of Averages from Recycling and Non-Recycling Weeks... B-1 Appendix C: Mecklenburg County Schools and CPCC Campus Composition and Site Visits... C-1 Appendix D: Mecklenburg County Recycling and Drop Center Site Visits... D-1 Appendix E: Multifamily Site Visits: Individual Locations... E-1 Appendix F: Compiled Data... F-1 Appendix G: CLT Garbage Routes for Waste Audit... G-1 Appendix H: Waste Characterization Protocol... H-1 List of Tables Table 1.1: Summary of Sampled Waste Stream Waste for Mecklenburg County Fall Table 1.2: City of Charlotte Residential Waste Characterization Summary Table 1.3: Comparison of Recyclables in Waste Stream between Recycling and Non-Recycling Weeks for the City of Charlotte, Fall Table 1.4: Summary of Waste Study results for County Facilities, Drop-Centers, Multifamily Complexes and County Towns. Percentage by Weight Table 1.5: Estimated Tonnages of Recyclable Materials disposed at Speedway Landfill FY 2015 (est. 366,737 total tons County MSW to Landfill) Table 1.6: Residential Recycling Rate (Percent Recovered at MRF) for Fayetteville, NC; Fort Worth, TX; and Mecklenburg County* (% by Weight) Table 2.1: Tuesday Waste Sort Route List from the City of Charlotte Table 2.2: List of Waste Categories Sorted Table 3.1: Overall Category Averages Sampled Waste Stream Mecklenburg County, Fall Table 3.2: Paper Category Averages by Weight Sampled Waste Stream Results - Mecklenburg County, Fall Table 3.3: Composition of Non-Recyclable Paper Category Table 3.4: Plastics Category Averages by Weight Sampled Waste Stream Results - Mecklenburg County, Fall Table 3.5: Metal and Glass Averages by Weight Sampled Waste Stream Results Mecklenburg County, Fall Table 3.6: Organics, Fines and Diapers Averages by Weight Sampled Waste Stream Results Mecklenburg County, Fall Table 3.7: Composition of Typical Fines Category Table 3.8: Textiles, C&D and Other Category Averages by Weight Sampled Waste Stream Results - Mecklenburg County, Fall Table 3.9: Results of HHW Collection over Two Weeks of Waste Sort, Mecklenburg County, Fall Table 3.10: Results of Electronics Collection Over Two Weeks of Waste Sort, Mecklenburg County, Fall Table 3.11: Composition of Average Waste Sample by Category and Material - City of Charlotte, Fall Table 3.12: Comparison of Recycling and Non-Recycling Week Results - City of Charlotte, Fall ii March 9, 2016

5 Table 3.13: Waste Composition of MSW from County Facilities in Mecklenburg County, Fall Table 3.14: Recyclable and Non-Recyclable Totals from County Facilities Fall Table 3.15: Snapshot Results from Mecklenburg County Towns, Fall 2015 (% by Weight) Table 3.16: Snapshot Results of Recyclables and Non-Recyclables in MSW from Mecklenburg County Towns Fall, 2015 (% by Weight) Table 3.17: Results from Multifamily and Drop-Center Compactors in Mecklenburg County, Fall Table 3.18: Snapshot Results of Compactors from Multifamily Units and Mecklenburg County Drop-off Centers Fall, 2015 (% by Weight) Table 3.19: Estimated Tons of Recyclables, by Type, in Disposed MSW, Fall Table 3.20: Comparison of Recycled and Estimated Disposed Recyclable Materials by Category Table 3.21:Comparisons of Residential MSW Compositions including Recovered Recyclables for Mecklenburg County, Fort Worth, TX and Fayetteville, NC List of Figures Figure 1.1: Summary of Waste Characterization for Sampled Waste Stream Results Figure 2.1: Fort Mill Transfer Station Layout Figure 2.2: Bay 4 of Transfer Station with Sort Tables Figure 2.3: Sample Selection Quadrant Guide Figure 2.4: Tipped Load in Bay Figure 2.5: Sort labor at sorting table Figure 2.6: Truck Load Being Emptied Prior to Sampling Figure 3.1: Overall Category Averages Sampled Waste Stream Mecklenburg County, Fall Figure 3.2: Paper Category Averages w/ Confidence Interval Sampled Waste Stream Results - Mecklenburg County, Fall Figure 3.3: Composition of Non-Recyclable Paper Category Figure 3.4: Plastic Materials Averages w/ Confidence Interval Sampled Waste Stream Results Mecklenburg County, Fall Figure 3.5: Metal and Glass Averages w/ Confidence Interval Sampled Waste Stream Results Mecklenburg County, Fall Figure 3.6: Organics, Fines and Diapers Averages w/ Confidence Interval Sampled Waste Stream Results Mecklenburg County, Fall Figure 3.7: Composition of Typical Fines Category Figure 3.8 Textiles, C&D and Other Materials with Confidence Interval Sampled Waste Stream Results - Mecklenburg County, Fall Figure 3.9: HHW Materials Collected during Waste Study Figure 3.10: Categories of Electronics Collected during Waste Sort Figure 3.11 Percentages of Items w/ Confidence Interval City of Charlotte, Fall Figure 3.12: Percentages of Paper Items w/ Confidence Interval City of Charlotte, Fall Figure 3.13: Percentages of Plastic Items w/ Confidence Interval City of Charlotte, Fall Figure 3.14: Percentages of Metal and Glass w/ Confidence Interval City of Charlotte, Fall Figure 3.15: Percentages of Organics, Fines and Diapers w/ Confidence Interval City of Charlotte, Fall Figure 3.16: Percentages of Textiles, C&D and Others w/ Confidence Interval - City of Charlotte, Fall Figure 3.17: Comparison of Recyclables in City MSW between Recycling and Non-Recycling Weeks Figure 3.18: Histogram of Standardized Samples for ONP Figure 3.19: t-test Probability Results between Recycling and Non-Recycling Weeks Figure 3.20: County Facility Recyclables Results Comparison iii March 9, 2016

6 Figure 3.21: Comparison of Sort Results between Mecklenburg County Towns and City of Charlotte Figure 3.22: Recyclable Material Sort Results Comparison between Multifamily and County Drop-off Centers and the City of Charlotte Figure 3.23: Composition of Sampled Waste Stream Figure 4.1: South Mecklenburg High School Figure 4.2: 8CY Trash and Recycling Containers Figure 4.3: Foxhole Drop-off Center Figure 4.4: Recycling Carts at Several Multifamily Complex Locations iv March 9, 2016

7 1. Executive Summary Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB), in conjunction with Brown and Caldwell, were hired by Mecklenburg County Solid Waste Division, North Carolina (the County) to perform a waste characterization study (waste sort) to ascertain the current breakdown of the County s residential and institutional waste by material types. Knowing what is in the waste stream is the foundation for planning a successful integrated waste management system. By investing in this waste characterization study, the County has obtained a wealth of information from which to assess and improve its materials management system. The information was gathered, in part, to gauge the effectiveness of waste diversion programs, and to gain an understanding of the quantities and types of materials in the waste stream that are being landfilled. The County will use the data collected regarding the diversion-potential and composition of the residential and institutional waste streams to make informed solid waste planning decisions, including guiding local government staff in making educated recommendations to elected officials on solid waste policies. Part of this waste characterization study uses a unique approach that relies on a combination of both hand-sorting of the waste and visual surveying of select government buildings, schools, residential dropoffs and multifamily units. Since the City of Charlotte (the City) represents 80% of the County s residential population, the County wanted a detailed understanding of the City s household generation of garbage and recyclables, and to have a very accurate comparison between the on-week and off-week of its every other week recyclables collection. Therefore, a two-week sampling approach was used. For the City s sampling protocol, the City and the County collaborated to select a geographically and demographically diverse range of garbage collection routes to be sampled each week. These same routes were selected for sampling again in the second week so that the data between the two weeks could be compared. A total of 82 loads were sampled from the City. For the other waste streams of interest within the County, select loads or compactors were diverted to the waste sort area for sampling. This included loads from select County facilities such as the jail facilities, Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) and from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS). Also included in the study were municipal solid waste (MSW) loads from the county drop-off centers and from multifamily housing complexes. The study of the wastes from these locations also included site visits to ascertain how layout and participation may affect the recyclables in the waste stream. A total of 35 loads were sampled from these other locations. The County wished also to include samples from the unincorporated areas within the county but it became logistically impossible to divert the private haulers from these regions to the location of the waste sort. The waste streams were sampled according to the Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste (ASTM D ). This approach provides a costeffective but still statistically significant picture of the waste and recyclables streams. The GBB team physically sorted the samples of MSW into forty-six (46) separate categories and weighed the materials in each category to determine the material percentage within the total waste sorted. 1-1 March 9, 2016

8 1.1. Major Findings Characterization of the Mecklenburg Waste Stream (Sampled Waste Stream) The waste characterization study collected samples from the following waste streams: The City s residential MSW waste; County government buildings, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools, the Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) campuses, and the Sheriff Department; Drop-off Center MSW waste; Residential waste from other towns within the County; and Multifamily housing MSW waste. For the purposes of this document, the Sampled Waste Stream term refers to the combined data from all of the above waste streams. Table 1.1 summarizes the information obtained during the Fall waste sort and assessment which took place in October The recyclable and non-recyclable categories are based on two criteria: 1) what materials are accepted by the curbside recycling program in Mecklenburg County, and 2) if the materials discovered in the sort could be recoverable in a processing facility. Table 1.1: Summary of Sampled Waste Stream Waste for Mecklenburg County Fall 2015 Recyclable Materials in MSW Sampled Waste Stream Average, % by Weight Combined Recyclable Paper Products 12.6% Combined Recyclable Plastics 6.5% Recyclable Glass 4.1% Recyclable Metals 3.0% Total Recyclables 26.3% Non-Recyclable Materials in MSW Sampled Waste Stream Average, % by Weight Non-Recyclable Paper Products 5.2% Non-Recyclable Plastics 12.6% Non-recyclable glass 0.3% Non-Recyclable Metals 0.6% Combined Organics 25.7% Textiles, C&D and Other 15.1% Fines/Diapers 14.1% Total Non-Recyclable 73.7% The break-out percentage of each of the 46 materials and results from the waste sort are discussed in Section 3, with additional description of the material categories shown in Appendix A. Figure 1.1 summarizes the results by category that include the non-recyclable components of the Sampled Waste Stream waste as well as indicating the percentage of recyclable materials that were found in this waste stream. Of note, the County has a highly effective Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) recovery 1-2 March 9, 2016

9 program with 4 drop-off locations within the county. The total HHW found during the waste sort was 0.4%, indicating a very small overall amount. Combined Organics 25.7% Fines and Diapers 14.1% C&D, Textiles, & Other 15.1% Other Paper, Plastics and Metals 18.8% Recyclables 26.3% Recyclable Paper 12.6% Recyclable Plastic 6.5% Recyclable Metals 3.0% Recyclable Glass 4.1% Figure 1.1: Summary of Waste Characterization for Sampled Waste Stream Results Characterization of the City of Charlotte s Residential Waste The waste routes from the City represented 70% of the samples sorted for this waste study, and therefore, the city results closely resemble the results for the Sampled Waste Stream, with the total recyclables in the City waste being 25.1%. Table 1.2 gives a summary of the City results. The details for the waste sort from the City are discussed in Section March 9, 2016

10 Table 1.2: City of Charlotte and Other County Towns Residential Waste Characterization Summary. (Average Percentages by Weight) Recyclable Materials in MSW City of Charlotte County Towns 1 Combined Recyclable Paper Products 12.0% 10.5% Combined Recyclable Plastics 6.2% 6.8% Recyclable Glass 3.9% 3.7% Recyclable Metals 3.1% 3.0% Total Recyclables in MSW 25.1% 24.1% Non-Recyclable Materials in MSW City of Charlotte County Towns 1 Non-Recyclable Paper Products 5.3% 6.8% Non-Recyclable Plastics 12.3% 14.2% Non-recyclable glass 0.4% 0.4% Non-Recyclable Metals 0.7% 0.6% Combined Organics 25.3% 27.3% Textiles, C&D and Other 16.5% 9.9% Fines/Diapers 14.3% 16.7% Total Non-Recyclable 74.9% 75.9% 1 Numbers are not statistically significant according to ASTM Waste Sort Guidelines The County and the City expressed interest in knowing if there were differences in the level of recyclables in the City residential waste between the recycling and non-recycling weeks. Table 1.3 shows the waste sort results of the recyclable materials compared between the recycling and non-recycling weeks. The differences are shown in the final column. Of note, there were actually fewer recyclables overall in the City s MSW on the non-recycling week. The detailed results from the two different weeks are further discussed in Section 3.2. Table 1.3: Comparison of Recyclables in Waste Stream between Recycling and Non-Recycling Weeks for the City of Charlotte, Fall 2015 Recyclable Materials in MSW City Recycling Week % by Weight City Non-Recycling Week, % by Weight Difference Combined Recyclable Paper Products 11.9% 12.0% 0.1% Combined Recyclable Plastics 6.2% 6.1% -0.1% Recyclable Glass 3.6% 4.2% 0.7% Recyclable Metals 3.6% 2.6% -1.1% Total Recyclables in MSW 25.3% 24.9% -0.4% An additional statistical analysis was performed on the data to study if there was a statistically significant difference between the results from the two weeks. The details of the math behind this analysis are discussed in Appendix B, but the results were conclusive for all of the recyclable materials 1-4 March 9, 2016

11 that there is no statistically significant difference between the materials averages from the recycling week and the non-recycling weeks for the City routes Characterization of the County s Other Sub-Streams The other waste streams included in the study were: 1) Mecklenburg County Towns of Huntersville, Davidson, Mathews, Pineville, Mint Hill and Cornelius, 2) County facilities including schools and the jails, 3) County Drop-off facility residential MSW, and 4) Multifamily housing complexes with compactors. The number of samples from each of these locations was not enough to qualify the results as statistically significant according to the ASTM waste sort guidelines. Regardless, the samples were important for the results of the Sampled Waste Stream to give an overall countywide waste composition. While the data from these other locations are not statistically robust, the results can give a snapshot indication of the composition of the waste from these locations. Table 1.4 shows a summary of the results from the four sub-streams studied in the County. Of particular note, the percentage of recyclable paper products was relatively high in the County facilities, understanding that this is the majority of the type of waste that is generated at these facilities. The results from these locations are discussed further in Section 3. Table 1.4: Summary of Waste Study results for County Facilities, Drop-Centers, and Multifamily Complexes 1. (Percentages by Weight) Recyclable Materials in MSW County Facilities County Drop Centers Multifamily Combined Recyclable Paper Products 16.8% 21.1% 14.4% Combined Recyclable Plastics 8.8% 6.3% 7.8% Recyclable Glass 0.7% 4.9% 8.7% Recyclable Metals 1.5% 3.7% 3.2% Total Recyclables 27.8% 35.9% 34.2% Non-Recyclable Materials in MSW County Facilities County Drop Centers Multifamily Non-Recyclable Paper Products 5.5% 3.0% 3.3% Non-Recyclable Plastics 16.4% 9.1% 11.6% Non-recyclable glass 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% Non-Recyclable Metals 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% Combined Organics 38.4% 21.2% 18.9% Textiles, C&D and Other 1.5% 18.2% 18.3% Fines/Diapers 10.1% 11.9% 12.9% Total Non-Recyclable 72.2% 64.1% 65.8% 1 Numbers are not statistically significant according to ASTM Waste Sort Guidelines In addition to the waste sort analysis of the four sub-streams, site visits were conducted to select County facilities and multifamily housing complexes. These visits were conducted to record and evaluate the 1-5 March 9, 2016

12 level and methods of recycling and garbage collections. There weren t enough samples in the scope of this study to evaluate individual results between the different types of facilities and collections; however observations of the recycling and MSW systems were made from the site visits, with the following highlights: Some of the County sites could improve ease of access and clear directions with signage regarding the waste and recycling. This is important to encourage participation and to not intimidate or frustrate people new to the process. While nearly all places visited had some places for recycling, additional bins or locations could improve participation, especially in areas where recyclable materials could be in use. There was a lack of consistency in messages; such as colors, locations, receptacle shapes etc. to help encourage proper separation and usage. The summary of the site visits are given in Section 4, with notes and pictures from the site visits detailed in Appendices C, D and E Results and Comparisons of Recycling and Recyclables in County Waste Some quantities of recyclable materials were found in all of the samples in this waste characterization study. During the waste study, Republic Services provided an 8CY (Cubic Yard) container to collect the separated recyclables to be taken to the County MRF. The container needed to be emptied daily, with the sort crew separating out over 5,000 lbs. of recyclable materials during the two-week waste sort. With the percentages of the recyclables in the waste known, data from the Speedway landfill could be used to assess how much of the recyclable materials are being recovered in the County. Based on six months of scale data from January to July of 2015, an estimated 366,737 tons of City residential and County MSW was extrapolated to be landfilled in From this extrapolation and the results of the waste sort, the estimated total tonnages of recyclables that were disposed from Mecklenburg County are shown in Table 1.5. Table 1.5: Estimated Tonnages of Recyclable Materials disposed at Speedway Landfill FY 2015 (est. 366,737 total tons County MSW to Landfill) Material % in MSW from Tons of Recyclables Waste Sort in MSW Recyclable Paper 12.6% 46,351 Recyclable Plastic 6.5% 23,923 Recyclable Metals 3.0% 11,073 Recyclable Glass 4.1% 14,988 Total Disposed 26.3% 96,335 In total there is nearly 100,000 tons of additional recyclables that are being landfilled every year from Mecklenburg County. GBB has conducted similar waste sorts the last two years in Fayetteville, NC and Fort Worth, TX. While the material categories were different in all three sorts, general categories can be compared between the data and the recycling numbers compared. The residential set-out rate is the percentage that 1-6 March 9, 2016

13 recyclable materials are collected for recovery in relation to the total residential MSW generated. This does not include yard waste or other types of recovered materials. The waste sorts at Fayetteville and Fort Worth collected samples from both the garbage and singlestream recycling carts to look for the amount of non-recyclables in the single stream as well as the amount of recyclables in the garbage. The collected recyclables were not studied for this report, so the tonnage of recovered materials from the County MRF was used instead to compare the recycling numbers. Table 1.6 shows these rates for Fayetteville, NC, Fort Worth, TX and Mecklenburg County. Table 1.6: Residential Recycling set-out Rate (Percent of Recyclables Sent to MRF) for Fayetteville, NC; Fort Worth, TX; and Mecklenburg County (Percent Recovered by MRF)* (% by Weight) Mecklenburg County Recovery Rate Fayetteville, NC Set-Out Rate Fort Worth, TX Set-Out Rate Est. Mecklenburg Set-Out Rate 1 Residential Recycling Rate 14% 19% 24% 15.5% Residue in Recycling Carts 11% 15% 24% 9.5% * Rate only compares residential single-family homes generation. Does not include other recycling such as HHW, Electronics and other materials. 1 Set-out rate is assuming that MRF recovery at 14% and MRF recovery efficiency at 90% No materials recovery facility (MRF) is capable of recovering all of the recyclable material processed; all the equipment has an inherent efficiency of recovery for the materials. If the efficiency rate at the MRF is 90%, then the Mecklenburg County recycling recovery rate of 14% would have a set-out rate is closer to 15.5%. This would also indicate the residue is very low in the recycling from within the County at 9.5%. These are estimates based on assumptions regarding the MRF. The only way to truly know the set-out composition of the recyclables and residue as well as calculate the efficiency of the MRF is to conduct a similar waste sort on the collected single-stream materials prior to processing. While Mecklenburg County has the lowest comparative recycling set-out rate at 15.5% (estimated), it is significant to note that the residue in the recycling is also the lowest at 9.5%. Residue is considered materials in the single-stream bins that aren t recoverable by the MRF for recycling. The residue was either determined by sorting of the recyclables directly, as was the case for Fayetteville and Fort Worth, or from tonnage information from the MRF in Mecklenburg County along with an efficiency estimate. The recycling numbers are further discussed in Section 3.4. Of note, these recovery rates do not include other recovered materials such as Household Hazardous Waste, Electronics, Yard Waste and Auto Fluids. 1-7 March 9, 2016

14 2. Project Overview Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) and Brown and Caldwell were hired by Mecklenburg County Solid Waste Division, North Carolina (the County) to perform a waste characterization study (waste sort) to ascertain the current breakdown of the County s residential and certain institutional wastes by material types. This study was undertaken, in part, to gauge the effectiveness of waste diversion programs, and to gain an understanding of the quantities and types of materials in the waste stream that are being landfilled. The County will use the data collected regarding the diversion-potential and composition of the residential and institutional waste streams to make informed solid waste planning decisions, including guiding local government staff in making educated recommendations to elected officials on solid waste policies. The County is largely incorporated with seven local jurisdictions: the City of Charlotte (the City), Town of Huntersville, Town of Cornelius, Town of Davidson, Town of Mint Hill, Town of Matthews, and Town of Pineville. The County is approximately 524 square miles and has a population of 1,012,539 according to 2014 estimated census data. The majority of the population resides in the City, which has a population of 809,958 (2014 US Census Estimate) Introduction to Mecklenburg County Mecklenburg County has taken pride in providing a high-caliber and integrated solid waste system that protects its citizens and the environment. A cornerstone of this approach has been to expand recycling and waste reduction services to achieve sustainability goals. The County has several recycling and waste reduction initiatives. These programs are available to all citizens of the County, including those that live in the City and the other towns within the County. Solid Waste services provided to residents by the County and other local governments include: Bi-weekly (alternating weeks) curbside single-stream residential recycling using roll carts provided by the City and Towns; Weekly MSW curbside collection using 96-gallon roll carts provided by the City and Towns; Weekly yard waste curbside collection provided by the City and Towns; Self-service recycling drop centers for single stream recyclables; County owned and privately operated Material Recovery Facility; Four staffed full-service drop-off centers that provide recycling and/or responsible disposal options for single stream recyclables, electronics, motor oil, cooking oil, tires, scrap metals, bulky waste, appliances, batteries, yard trimmings, household hazardous waste (HHW), and construction and demolition (C&D) waste; and Public education and outreach. To prepare for future improvements to these programs, the County felt it would be an important investment to gain a better understanding of what amount of recyclables may still be in the waste stream and are currently going into the landfill. It is from this need that the County contracted GBB to conduct this Waste Characterization Study. 2-1 March 9, 2016

15 2.2. Goals and Overall Approach The County has outlined a need for the characterization of: The County s total residential MSW waste stream; The City s residential MSW waste; Comparison of recyclables in City MSW between recycling and non-recycling weeks The success of the County s Internal Recycling Programs (County government buildings, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools, the Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) campuses, and the Sheriff Department); Drop-off Center MSW waste; Unincorporated County MSW waste; and Multi-family housing MSW waste. To accomplish each of these goals, GBB created a specifically designed approach to obtaining the data needed and for analysis of the information. The final logistics determined that including the unincorporated parts of Mecklenburg County would be too difficult so that portion was dropped. None of the local haulers that collect from the unincorporated areas of Mecklenburg County use the Fort Mill transfer station and rerouting them was just not feasible given the limited time frame. All the other listed goals were achieved during the waste study Fall 2015 Waste Characterization Study Fall Waste Sort Mecklenburg County MSW is disposed of at the Speedway Landfill which is owned and operated by Republic Services in Concord, NC. Republic also operates the Fort Mill transfer station near the County border in South Carolina. The waste sort was originally planned to occur at the Speedway Landfill, but heavy rains before the sort event and logistical issues between suitable locations to sort and access to the tipped waste and loaders caused the County and GBB to consider other alternatives. The staff at Republic suggested the use of the Fort Mill transfer station as a sort location, and this worked very well for the study. With less than a week before the start of the onsite waste sort, the County and the City worked diligently together along with Republic Services to choose the routes and organize the logistics of getting the material to the transfer station. Republic assisted the study logistics by waiving the transfer fees for any truck coming to the transfer station that was part of the waste sampling. The County also worked with the private haulers from the other County Towns to coordinate getting samples to the sort location throughout the two weeks. That was a daunting task with exceptional time constraints, but the perseverance of the County and City staff and the willing assistance of the haulers from the City, Republic Services, and the other private haulers made it all come together. The City worked with the County to select routes during the week that could get material to the Fort Mill transfer station and represent a broad-base example of the demographics of the City. A total of 42 routes were initially picked to be sampled in the first week, and these same routes were selected to be sampled the next week to be able to compare recycling and non-recycling weeks. Table 2.1 shows the route list for Tuesdays, as an example, along with the green or orange recycling week designation as well 2-2 March 9, 2016

16 as the routes recycling pattern, which is an indication of the level of recycling on that route. The full route list provided by the City is located in Appendix G. Table 2.1: Tuesday Waste Sort Route List from the City of Charlotte Service Day Week Route Recycling Pattern 1 Tuesday Green 2103G MR 2104G 2205G 2207G 2211G MR HR LR, HR LR Tuesday Orange 2301G HR 2305G 2309G 2314G 2318G MR MR LR, MR HR 1 Recycling Pattern is the Average Recycling rate per NPA* Reported in 2012 QoL Explorer ( LR (Low Recycling) =.01%-36.97%; MR (Medium Recycling) =36.98%-52.04%; HR (High Recycling) = 52.05%-79.49% * NPA is Neighborhood Profile Areas with Charlotte garbage routes overlay The results of the City waste characterization and the comparisons between the recycling and nonrecycling weeks are discussed in Section Evaluation of the Success of Internal Recycling Program The Internal Recycling Program includes the garbage and recycling collection and support for County government buildings, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg public schools, the Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) campuses, and the Sheriff Department facilities, including the two County jails. There are dedicated trucks that co-mingle the garbage generated at the schools, and since it was not possible to analyze each individual school s waste, select routes from the commingled waste were selected for sampling at the waste sort. The compactors from the County jails and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center (CMGC) building were also selected for sampling during the waste sort. The results of the County waste samples are discussed in Section 3.3. In addition to the waste sampling, GBB conducted a visual inspection at a selection of the individual generator locations to assess the recycling and trash collections. Inspectors took photographs, assessed material storage capacity, and made observations regarding the locations of the waste and recycling containers and the level of contamination of recyclable materials present in the garbage. The County 2-3 March 9, 2016

17 site visits are discussed in Section 4, with pictures and notes from each site visited shown in Appendices C and D Drop off Center MSW Waste The residents of the County have the option to self-haul household waste to one of four (4) drop-off centers throughout the County. Garbage from two locations (one sample from each per week) was sampled and sorted as part of the waste characterization study. Visual inspections of three (3) drop-off centers was included to assess the logistics of the drop-off areas and observe potential improvements or issues that may arise Unincorporated Areas of the County The residential waste generated in the unincorporated part of the County is mainly collected by private haulers. Because of the logistical difficulty to re-route these individual haulers to the Fort Mill transfer station, this part of the waste sort was dropped. The characterization data from the County Towns and the County drop-off centers are likely close in composition to the unincorporated area wastes if estimates are needed Multifamily Multifamily housing includes apartment complexes, condominiums and townhomes, any of which may have varying material storage set ups and hauling arrangements. Since most of the smaller multifamily units have single-family type curbside service, the waste from these locations was covered during samples from the city routes. For logistical reasons, multifamily waste samples were collected from units using garbage compactors. Multi-family complexes using other type collection containers were not sampled as multi-family waste. Fifteen (15) multifamily complexes with compactors were proposed for sample selection to the County, and five (5) were chosen to have their compactors sorted, one compactor from the selected units each week. For these dwellings, there was also a visual inspection of select multifamily housing within the County. Many of the complexes that were sampled were visited, along with others on the proposed list, and a few that were not on the list. Members of the GBB Project Team took photographs, assessed material storage capacity, and made observations regarding the locations of the waste and recycling material storage containers and the level of contamination of recyclable materials present in the garbage, where possible Fall Waste Sort Methodology and Implementation The County decided to use the Fort Mill Transfer Station as the location of the waste sort. The transfer station consists of four bays with a transfer trailer loading section located on the south wall. Cones were used to separate Bay 4 from the rest of the tip floor and this area was used for the sort tables, weighingout and storage, as well as the material queue. Bay 3 was designated for the tipping of the trucks or compactors designated for the waste sort. Two loads could be dropped on the floor before a sample was taken and the tip-floor loader could then remove the remaining material. The other two bays were for the normal transfer station customers and operations. 2-4 March 9, 2016

18 Figure 2.1: Fort Mill Transfer Station Layout The physical arrangement of the Sorting Area is shown in Figure 2.1. It included the sort tables surrounded by the containers that were designated (labeled) to receive each of the specifically identified and sorted materials. The sorting tables were constructed on-site, using 4 ft. x 8 ft. sheets and 2 x2 or 2 x4 dimensional lumber. Each sorting table was surrounded by clearly labeled containers to hold the individually sorted materials. After the material had been sorted and weighed, the tubs were dumped onto the tip floor by the collection crew and the loader operator was notified that it was ready to be pushed into the transfer trailers. Care was taken by the collection crew not to mix any sorted materials with incoming selected dumps. Figure 2.2: Bay 4 of Transfer Station with Sort Tables 2-5 March 9, 2016

19 Sample Collection Prior to the waste sort, all trucks that would be part of the study were identified, and the drivers were informed on what day and the approximate time to go to the transfer station. The waste collection vehicle drivers were informed of the proper directions to the transfer station and were required to leave using the same route. Republic Services agreed to waive the transfer fee for all trucks that would deliver waste for the study, which would then match the landfilling fee they usually paid. The list of the identification numbers for the trucks that would deliver waste for the sort was given to the Transfer Station scale house to ensure that the proper fees were charged. The number of sort samples (trucks) was limited to 12 per day, with an average sorting time of minimum per sample. To accommodate the truck schedules, samples were taken and staged in three 95 gallon carts for sorting when the crew was ready. In this way, drivers were not significantly delayed. Truck Direction Figure 2.3: Sample Selection Quadrant Guide A truck for the waste sort was identified in advance by GBB and the County, and was instructed by the scale house and/or the dispatch attendant to dump its load in Bay 3 adjacent to the sorting area. To select an area of the tipped load to collect as a sample, the Field Supervisor selected a quadrant, as shown in Figure 2.3, and directed the team to collect material from the top, middle, and bottom of that quadrant of material. For each sort, the Field Supervisor rotated the quadrants to the next number to randomize sampling. Once the truck was cleared and it was safe to do so, the collection crew collected a sample of between 200 and 300 pounds from the designated quadrant by loading the sample into sampling carts. All collection crew personnel wore safety vests while on the tip floor area and did not go outside the sorting area except to collect a sample. 2-6 March 9, 2016

20 Figure 2.4: Tipped Load in Bay 3 Documentation of the incoming load was performed by GBB staff. Once the sample had been collected and taken into the sort area, the field supervisor or field technician would indicate to the transfer station loader operator that the sample had been collected, and the MSW pile was ready to be moved into the transfer trailers. The bay was then ready for another selected truck load. It should be noted that the tip-floor loader operator was invaluable in helping direct traffic for the waste sort, remove the loads after samples were taken (while not disturbing the waste sort area), and continuing to manage to keep up with transferring the rest of the normal incoming materials from the tip floor. There were two loader operators during the two weeks of the sort, and both did a fantastic job to ensure a safe and clean working environment and making sure that the samples were never contaminated with trash from other loads Waste Sorting Once the waste material was collected and deposited on the sorting tables, the sorters began by opening bags and spreading material across the table. Different materials were separated and sorted into the individually-marked receptacles surrounding the sort table. Sorters specialized in certain material groups: one for the paper categories, another plastic, another glass and metals, etc. In this way, sorters became knowledgeable in a short period of time as to the characteristics of their individual material category. 2-7 March 9, 2016

21 Figure 2.5: Sort labor at sorting table The Field Supervisor and Health and Safety Supervisor monitored the quality of the sorted material containers as each sample was sorted, rejecting (and pointing out to the sorters) materials that were improperly classified. Open containers allowed the Field Supervisor to see the material at all times. The Field Supervisor did control of each component during the weighing. The materials on the sort tables were manually sorted until a mixed remainder of minus two-inch Fines material were left. The Fines were swept off the sort table and dumped into a container and weighed with the other categories during the weigh out. Materials that were difficult to define or were composite materials were left up to the Field Supervisor or other Field Lead to categorize. Frequently, if the item had no clear definition it was put into the Other category. If it were a composite, the item was either placed in the category that had the most material, or was placed in the category that it would end up in if the sample were to be processed by a mixed waste processing facility (MWPF). The general philosophy applied to this waste sort was: How would this material behave if it was processed for recovery? Before the start of the sort, the Field Supervisor weighed five empty bins to estimate the tare weight. When all the material from the sample had been segregated into the individually marked receptacles, 2-8 March 9, 2016

22 the sort team weighed out the sample by bringing each bin to the scale and marking down its weight. After the weigh-out, the field supervisor gave the OK to discard the sorted samples after ensuring that all baskets had been weighed and recorded. Republic was able to supply an 8 cubic yard (8CY) container for recovered recyclable materials from the sample sorts. These were placed in the container to be delivered to the Mecklenburg County material recovery facility (MRF). The container was filled daily and had to be emptied nightly Sort Categories An agreed-upon list of 46 material categories was used as the sort list. This list, shown in Table 2.2, was used to inform the level of material separation for the Waste Sort. Each of the material categories is defined in Appendix A. Table 2.2: List of Waste Categories Sorted Category Sort Material List # Category Sort Material List # Paper Old Newsprint (ONP) 1 Organics Yard Waste/Small Brush 26 Office Paper White Ledger 2 Food/Putrescible Waste 27 Gable Top/Aseptic 3 Other Organics 28 Paperboard, Kraft Paper 4 Textiles Re-Usable Textiles 29 Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) 5 Non-recyclable Textiles 30 Mixed Recyclable Paper 6 Leather & Rubber 31 Hazardous Household Hazardous Waste (all 32 Bagged Shredded Paper 7 Waste HHW will be documented) Non-recyclable Paper 8 Electronics Batteries - Alkaline 33 Plastic PET Bottles (#1) 9 Batteries - Rechargeable 34 PET Containers/Packaging (#1) 10 Batteries - Other 35 HDPE Color (#2) 11 Computers 36 HDPE Natural (#2) 12 Cell Phone/Tablets 37 Mixed Bottles/Containers (#3-5 & #7) 13 Personal Electronics 38 Mixed Rigid Bulky 14 Televisions 39 Film and Flexible Packaging 15 Other Electronics 40 EPS Foam (#6) 16 C&D Inert & Aggregate 41 Other Polystyrene (#6) 17 Wood 42 Non-Recyclable Rigid Plastic 18 Other C&D 43 Glass Recyclable Glass 19 Other Other 44 Non-Recyclable Glass 20 Fines 45 Metals Steel/Bi-Metal Cans 21 Diapers 46 Aluminum Cans (UBC) 22 Aluminum Tin/Foil 23 Other Ferrous Metal 24 Other Non-Ferrous Metal March 9, 2016

23 In certain instances, the weight of some categories per sort was very small, and at times were less than the error of the tare weight of the baskets or even the accuracy of the scale. For categories such as this, GBB consolidated the categories into a major category for each sample to get an accurate weight. The items were later sorted by each category, and then each weighed individually to give a percentage of those components for the day. An example is electronics, which frequently has small sample weights. For instance, in a single sort there may be an electronic circuit board, a cell phone with no battery and 4 AA size batteries. These items would be weighed together totaling a net weight of 0.6 lbs., which would be the amount of electronics for that particular route. Then at the end of the day all of the collected electronics would be sorted for televisions, computers, appliances, recyclable and alkaline batteries, etc., to come up with a percentage for each. Therefore, one can estimate the total electronics in the waste stream and (more accurately) state that of those electronics, this percentage was rechargeable batteries and another percentage was cell phones, and so on for each of the listed categories. Certain materials, such as household hazardous waste (HHW), may potentially consist of many types of post-consumer products. The Sort Material List does not account for each potential product that would be considered HHW, but rather provides the breakdown of most types in the material definition. For items such as HHW that tend to have low weight in the overall waste stream but a greater impact, all types of HHW sorted were identified and noted for the report. This may also apply to certain construction and demolition debris (CDD), electronics, and bulky items that would fall in the Other categories but are still significant to note their presence in the waste. The Field Supervisors directed the laborers to segregate materials into HHW and Electronics categories based on the material category definitions. The GBB Team also made notes of any anomalies they found in the waste stream (e.g., large quantities of red-bag regulated medical waste). This method of sorting can increase operational efficiency of the project by reducing confusion among the sorters, requiring fewer bins to weigh out, and optimizing the amount of data collected for compilation and analysis Staffing The Waste Sort was conducted by members of GBB and Brown and Caldwell as well as sorters from two local temp agencies. County staff members were able to visit the sort site and participate on the sorting team. Over the two-week sorting period a Mecklenburg County Staff member was on site to observe and participate in the event. The full staffing and waste sort protocol is given in Appendix H Methodology to Assure Statistical Significance ASTM standards While extensive statistical theory can and has been applied to the development of sampling plans, ultimately a simple proposition holds true: The more samples taken, the greater confidence can be had in the results. In GBB s experience, it is also generally true that budget constraints often supersede statistical perfection in the construct of a large-scale waste composition study. Based on the data provided by the County, an estimate of the number of trucks (samples) required to have statistically significant data for the City to compare the recycling and non-recycling weeks was calculated using the ASTM method described in the next paragraph. Once the total number of samples required was determined, an additional portion of loads were identified for sampling from non-city loads. The waste audit procedures and sample estimates are based on the Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste (ASTM D ). The 2-10 March 9, 2016

24 following formula was used to determine the minimum number of samples needed for the waste sort, nn: nn = (tt 2 ss ee xx ) t* = student t statistic corresponding to the desired level of confidence, s = estimated standard deviation, e = desired level of precision, and xx = estimated mean. The ASTM guideline provides tables based on national data for different materials as well as t-test tables for different confidence levels. To estimate the number of samples needed, a confidence level of 90% and a precision of 10% were chosen. (Precision has to do with the possible errors in collection and measurement, the higher the value the greater the error. A precision of 10% is reasonable for waste sorts). Plastics was chosen as the governing component to estimate the samples. According to the ASTM data sheet, plastics has a standard deviation (s) of 0.03 and a mean (xx ) of An iterative process is used to find n by first using the value of t if n were infinite (which is for 90% confidence). This gives the first estimate of n, (n0) based on the previous equation. Then, using the ASTM tables and n0, a new value of t* can be found and the equation can be recalculated based on this new number to find n. For plastics, the estimated number of samples turns out to be: Estimated Number of Samples n = 32 This number is only an estimate and is based on the national averages for plastics. The individual statistical results from the waste sort would have to be calculated based on the actual data found during the waste study March 9, 2016

25 Figure 2.6: Truck Load Being Emptied Prior to Sampling Confidence Level and Statistical Significance A confidence interval is a range that for the confidence level of, in this case 90%, the percentage of similar waste sorts that would have the mean of that category within the bounds of the interval. Another way of saying it is that if 10 exact waste sorts were conducted on this waste stream, 9 out of 10 times the percentage average of each category would be within the positive and negative of the confidence interval for that category. This does NOT indicate a 90% confidence that the actual population average is within these bounds, but it is safe to assume that it is likely close. The confidence interval also gives a good indication of the variability of the category. A smaller confidence interval indicates the levels of that commodity are fairly stable while a larger one indicates greater fluctuations in the amounts of that material in each sample. Confidence levels are considered valid with more than 30 samples. Therefore, the data for the County and the City have confidence intervals shown in the graphics, while the data from the County facilities, County towns, and multifamily compactors do not have these intervals shown as they all have less than 30 samples. Statistical significance is a frequently misused descriptor. By following the ASTM guidelines outlined in for the number of samples, the data acquired will be statistically significant. A check of significance can be found using a Chi Square test. A more meaningful analysis, however, can come from using a Student s t-test to compare two sets of data. Another way of saying this; is there a statistically significant difference between the two averages (means) from two data sets. This analysis is done in Section 3.2.3, with details of the statistics shown in Appendix B, which compares the results from the recycling and non-recycling weeks March 9, 2016

26 2.6. Approach to Site Visits The project manager conducted the site visits to the County facilities as well as to the multifamily complexes. At most of the schools and college campuses visited, the lead custodian at the time of arrival was interviewed regarding the facility and how trash and recycling was handled. Pictures and notes were taken for each facility and are shown in Appendix C with the summary located in Section 4.1. At each of the County drop-off centers, the foreman in charge was interviewed regarding the facility and how traffic, trash, and recycling materials were handled at that particular facility. Notes from the drop centers are discussed in Section 4.2 with pictures in Appendix D. For the multifamily sites visits, the recycling and trash drop center was located for the complex (if available). When practical, tenants or the grounds supervisor were asked questions regarding the trash and recycling. Pictures and notes were taken regarding the layout and conditions at each site and are shown in Appendix E. Discussion of the multifamily site visits is located in Section March 9, 2016

27 3. Waste Characterization Results This section of the report describes the results of the waste characterization conducted by the GBB Team. First in Section 3.1, the Sampled Waste Stream results are given, which is the amalgamation of all of the data samples combined. Then the results for the City alone are given in the same format, with a graphic for each major category in Section 3.2. The results from the City regarding recycling and nonrecycling weeks are shown in Section 3.2.2, and the discussion of the statistical significance of the averages between the two weeks is given in Section Composition results from the County facility loads, multifamily compactors, and loads from other County towns are shown in Section 3.3 along with some representative graphics. The results from the County facilities, towns and multifamily units are more of a snapshot of the waste as they do not have enough individual samples to be statistically significant or have a valid confidence level. Finally, the results from the County are compared to data from other recent GBB waste characterizations and recycling/diversion numbers from these other municipalities. The results for Electronics and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) categories had sub-categories that were not part of the main waste sort but were later divided and recorded. Electronics had six (6) subcategories while HHW had as many categories as showed up in the waste samples. These breakouts are included in the Other Materials Section which includes the percentages within these categories of each sub-category. In addition to the Electronics and HHW sub-categories, Fines and Non-Recyclable Paper categories also had samples that were sorted a second time to give an indication of the make-up of these combined categories. Two samples of Fines were sorted for Food, Paper, Plastics, Metals and Textiles. Two samples of Non-Recyclable Paper were sorted for paper not accepted at the County MRF, accepted recyclable but dirty or wet paper, and other items that were misidentified or were stuck to the paper. This was done to get a sense of what items were within these categories Waste Sorting Results Table 3.1 shows the combined, average percentage results from all samples and from all sources sampled within Mecklenburg County. The percentage is found by totaling the lbs. of that item from every sort and dividing that number by the total lbs. of material sorted. Each category item has a percentage as well as the major categories, with recyclable and non-recyclables broken out for clarity. Recyclables are based on what items are currently accepted at the County MRF and not necessarily on if the material can be recycled in general. Figure 3.1 shows the same data as Table 3.1, along with the mean number of pounds for that material in an average sample size. The average total sample weight for the entire waste sort was 177 pounds. This figure also demonstrates the confidence interval for each material, which is an indication that for an identical sort, 9 out of 10 times the average of that material would be within the interval bounds. From the columns in Figure 3.1 it is easy to see that Film, Food and Fines were the three largest individual materials found in the waste stream. 3-1 March 9, 2016

28 Table 3.1: Overall Category Averages Sampled Waste Stream Mecklenburg County, Fall 2015 Category Item Sampled Waste Stream % by Weight Old Newspaper 0.7% Office Paper 0.6% Gable Top 0.7% Paper Paperboard, Kraft 3.7% Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) 2.8% Mixed Paper 4.2% Bagged Shredded Paper 0.3% Non-recyclable paper 4.9% PET Bottles(#1) 2.4% PET Containers (#1) 0.8% HDPE Color (#2) 0.9% HDPE Natural (#2) 0.4% Plastics Mixed Bottles/Containers (#3-5 & #7) 1.1% Mixed Rigid Bulky 0.9% Film and Flex Packaging 9.2% EPS Foam (#6) 1.7% Other Polystyrene (#6) 0.6% Non-recyclable rigid plastic 1.1% Glass Recyclable Glass 4.1% Non-recyclable glass 0.3% Steel/Bi-Metal Cans 1.2% Aluminum Cans (UBC) 0.8% Metals Aluminum Tin/Foil 0.6% Other Ferrous Metal 0.7% Other Non-ferrous Metal 0.3% Yard Waste/Small brush 3.8% Organics Food/Putrescible Waste 15.6% Other Organics 6.3% Re-usable Textiles 3.2% Textiles Non-recyclables textiles 2.7% Leather & Rubber 0.9% Hazardous HHW 0.41% Electronics All Electronics 2.5% Inert & Aggregate 0.3% C&D Wood 1.3% Other C&D 1.1% Other 2.7% Other Fines 10.1% Diapers 4.0% 3-2 March 9, 2016

29 18.0% 16.0% 30 Percentage of Material 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight (177#) 0.0% 0 Figure 3.1: Overall Category Averages w/ Confidence Interval Sampled Waste Stream Mecklenburg County, Fall March 9, 2016

30 Paper Characterization The sorting team identified and weighed eight types of paper, of which six are accepted in the County s curbside and drop-off recycling programs. The results are shown in Table 3.2. The sorting and characterization found that 12.6% of the total waste was paper that could have been recycled at the County s MRF. In addition, Shredded Paper is also recovered for recycling at many local retail businesses, but is not able to be processed at the County MRF. Shredded paper is accepted at the County Drop-off Centers once a year in November. The lack of shredded paper in the waste stream (0.3%) indicates that these other outlets are working well. Table 3.2: Paper Category Averages by Weight Sampled Waste Stream Results - Mecklenburg County, Fall 2015 Material Type Proportion of Average Sample Old Newspaper 0.7% Office Paper 0.6% Gable Top 0.7% Paperboard, Kraft 3.7% Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) 2.8% Mixed Paper 4.2% Total Recyclable 12.6% Bagged Shredded Paper 0.3% Non-recyclable paper 4.9% Total Paper 17.9% Figure 3.2 shows the same data as Table 3.2, along with the mean number of pounds for the material in the average sample. This figure also demonstrates the Confidence Interval for the proportion of each material. Percentage of Material 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight Figure 3.2: Paper Category Averages w/ Confidence Interval Sampled Waste Stream Results - Mecklenburg County, Fall March 9, 2016

31 Non-Recyclable Paper To better understand how much of the paper that was placed in the Non-Recyclable Paper bin was actually contaminated but recyclable paper, the container was re-sorted for several samples to get an approximation of the contaminated and wet recyclable paper and truly non-recyclable paper products. The re-sort was done with the understanding that the moisture weight in the recyclable papers would contribute to the weight (and make the percentage higher) in comparison to the generally drier nonrecyclable paper products. Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3 show the results from the second sorting of the contents of the two representative non-recyclable paper bins after the main sort was complete. The results are broken up into three categories; non-recyclable paper, recyclable paper that was contaminated or too wet for recovery, and other, which were items that were misplaced or were wrapped in paper or were part of a composite item. Table 3.3: Composition of Non-Recyclable Paper Category Material Type Proportion of Average Non-Recyclable Paper Sample (by Weight) Non-Recyclable Paper 38.0% Contaminated Recyclable Paper 46.2% Other (Misidentified) 15.8% Other (Mis- Identified) 16% Nonrecyclable Paper 38% Contaminated Recyclable Paper 46% Figure 3.3: Composition of Non-Recyclable Paper Category 3-5 March 9, 2016

32 Plastics The sorting team identified and weighed ten types of plastic, of which six are accepted in curbside and drop-off recycling programs. The sorting and characterization found that 6.5% of the waste in the samples was plastic that could have been recycled in the County s curbside or drop-off recycling program. Of note, clean film bags are not accepted as part of the curbside recycling program, however many retailers, especially grocers, accept returned clean grocery bags for recycling in the County. Table 3.4: Plastics Category Averages by Weight Sampled Waste Stream Results - Mecklenburg County, Fall 2015 Material Type Proportion of Average Sample PET Bottles(#1) 2.4% PET Containers (#1) 0.8% HDPE Color (#2) 0.9% HDPE Natural (#2) 0.4% Mixed Bottles/Containers (#3-5 & #7) 1.1% Mixed Rigid Bulky 0.9% Total Recyclable 6.5% Film and Flex Packaging 9.2% EPS Foam (#6) 1.7% Other Polystyrene (#6) 0.6% Non-recyclable rigid plastic 1.1% Total Plastics 19.1% Figure 3.4 shows the same data as Table 3.4, along with the mean number of pounds for the material in the average sample. This figure also demonstrates the confidence interval for each material. Most of the plastics were consistent throughout the waste sort, with only Bulky Rigids having a high frequency of no material per sample. The small confidence intervals shown are indicative of this consistency. 3-6 March 9, 2016

33 Percentage of Material 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight Figure 3.4: Plastic Materials Averages w/ Confidence Interval Sampled Waste Stream Results Mecklenburg County, Fall Metals and Glass The sorting team identified and weighed seven types of metal and glass, of which three are accepted in curbside and drop-off recycling programs, although bulky metals are accepted at the County dropcenters. Table 3.5 shows the Sampled Waste Stream result totals for metals and glass. Table 3.5: Metal and Glass Averages by Weight Sampled Waste Stream Results Mecklenburg County, Fall 2015 Material Type Proportion of Average Sample Steel/Bi-Metal Cans 1.2% Aluminum Cans (UBC) 0.8% Aluminum Tin/Foil 0.6% Other Ferrous Metal 0.7% Other Non-ferrous Metal 0.3% Total Metals 3.7% Recyclable Glass 4.1% Non-Recyclable Glass 0.3% Total Metal and Glass 8.1% 3-7 March 9, 2016

34 Figure 3.5 shows the same data as a chart, along with the mean number of pounds for the material in the average sample. This figure also demonstrates the confidence interval for the proportion of each material. Percentage of Material 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight Figure 3.5: Metal and Glass Averages w/ Confidence Interval Sampled Waste Stream Results Mecklenburg County, Fall Organics, Fines and Diapers The sorting team identified and weighed five types of organics and similar materials, of which one (yard waste) is accepted in curbside and drop-off recycling programs and one (food waste) can be sourceseparated by the resident for at-home composting. The results are shown in Table 3.6. These categories represent almost 40% of the total Sampled Waste Stream. Other Organics mostly consisted of paper towels or similar napkins. The definitions of all the material categories can be found in Appendix A. Table 3.6: Organics, Fines and Diapers Averages by Weight Sampled Waste Stream Results Mecklenburg County, Fall 2015 Material Type Proportion of Average Sample Yard Waste/Small brush 3.8% Food/Putrescible Waste 15.6% Other Organics 6.3% Total Organics 25.7% Fines 10.1% Diapers 4.0% Total Organics, Fines and Diapers 39.8% 3-8 March 9, 2016

35 Figure 3.6 shows the same data as Table 3.6, along with the mean number of pounds for the material in the average sample. This figure also demonstrates the confidence interval for each material. Percentage of Material 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight Figure 3.6: Organics, Fines and Diapers Averages w/ Confidence Interval Sampled Waste Stream Results Mecklenburg County, Fall Fines Fines are the 2 and under pieces of material that are left over on the sort table after the larger materials have all been sorted. To further understand the composition of the Fines, the contents of the Fines container from several sorts were set aside to be re-sorted on the table into food, fiber, plastics, metal, and textiles. These categories were then weighed and the results recorded. Table 3.7 and Figure 3.7 show the results from the Fines sort. Table 3.7: Composition of Typical Fines Category Material Type Proportion of Average Fines Sample (By Weight) Food 57.6% Paper 16.4% Plastics 17.5% Metals 1.5% Textiles 7.0% Total 100% 3-9 March 9, 2016

36 Metals 1% Textiles 7% Plastics 18% Paper 16% Food 58% Figure 3.7: Composition of Typical Fines Category With more than half of the Fines being food, the total percentage of the food in the MSW is the Food Category percentage of 15.6% plus 58% of the Fines total percentage. This equates to 21.5% of the MSW stream being food organics Other Materials The sorting team identified and weighed nine other types of waste that did not fit the above categories. Some of them could have been reused or recycled through special collection programs such as textiles, electronics, and possibly wood and stone (aggregate). In addition, HHW could have been diverted to the County s facilities for proper management. Table 3.8 gives the results for the Textiles, C&D and Other categories March 9, 2016

37 Table 3.8: Textiles, C&D and Other Category Averages by Weight Sampled Waste Stream Results - Mecklenburg County, Fall 2015 Material Type Proportion of Average Sample Re-usable Textiles 3.2% Non-recyclables textiles 2.7% Leather & Rubber 0.9% HHW 0.4% All Electronics 2.5% Inert & Aggregate 0.3% Wood 1.3% Other C&D 1.1% Other 2.7% Total Other 15.1% Figure 3.8 shows the same data as Table 3.8, along with the mean number of pounds for the material in the average sample. This figure also demonstrates the Confidence Interval for the proportion of each material. 4.0% Percentage of Material 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight 0.0% 0 Figure 3.8 Textiles, C&D and Other Materials with Confidence Interval Sampled Waste Stream Results - Mecklenburg County, Fall March 9, 2016

38 HHW The HHW was sorted from the samples that contained the hazardous waste and was weighed for each weigh out. At the end of each week, each distinct category of the HHW was recorded, with the results shown in Table 3.9. Of note, all lightbulbs including the metal ends of incandescent bulbs tended to end up in this category. However, the weights of these types of bulbs were insignificant and would not have changed the results. Table 3.9: Results of HHW Collection over Two Weeks of Waste Sort, Mecklenburg County, Fall 2015 Material Weight of Sample (lbs.) Paint and Paint Thinner 13.8 Pesticides (In sprayer) 13.6 CFL Lightbulbs (4 broken, 2 whole) 3.2 Near Empty Gas Container (1 helium, 1 refrigerant) 12.0 Other Light Bulbs 7.8 Other (Medication, etc.) 8.8 Total HHW* 59.2 * The total weight measured for HHW for the waste characterization was 85.5 lbs. so some items may have been misplaced or liquids lost over the two weeks of the sort. However, all of the collected materials fell under the categories described in in Table 3.9 and the total percentage of HHW in the waste stream was 0.41%, which is a very small amount. Figure 3.9 shows the breakdown of the types of the HHW. All the HHW material was transferred to a County HHW drop station by the County Supervisor that was on site March 9, 2016

39 Other Light Bulbs 13% Other 15% Near Empty Gas Containers 20% Paint and Paint Thinner 23% Pesticides (In sprayer) 23% Figure 3.9: HHW Materials Collected during Waste Study All Electronics The County was very interested in the different types of electronics that were still in the MSW stream. However, many times the different components, unless a large singular item such as a printer, are very small and on a per sample basis may be less than the deviation of the tare weights or even the accuracy of the scale. (Think small batteries or inner circuit boards). To make the sorting easier and more accurate, any electronic item was sorted into the electronics bin and weighed with all the other electronics (if any present) per sample. Instead of being discarded, the electronics were then set aside and at the end of each day the electronics were separated out into the following six categories: Batteries All batteries, excluding lead-acid batteries. These were further sorted into the following sub-categories: o o o Alkaline Rechargeable Others, including NiCad Televisions All televisions and monitors. Computers Laptops and personal computers. Shall not mean connected devices. Cell Phones/Tablets All mobile phone and tablet waste. CFL Lightbulbs 6% Personal Electronics Includes gaming devices, circuit boards, keyboards, mice, telephones, scanners, fax machines, printers, DVDs/CDs, DVD/CD/VCR/MP3 players. Other Electronic Waste All other electronic or appliance waste such as toasters, hair dryers, blenders, vacuums, coffee maker, radio controlled vehicles, loose cables or wire etc March 9, 2016

40 The totals for the two weeks of sorting are compiled in Table While there were whole TV s that were seen in the loads on the tip floor, it certainly wasn t egregious, perhaps 1-2 per day that were visible out of 12 loads. A few ended up in the sort quadrant sample and were weighed out and pictures were taken, especially if the TV were an older CRT type. The results of the secondary sorts for the electronics are shown in Table 3.10 and Figure By far the most common items were in personal electronics or other electronics. Vacuums were a common item as were printers and electric tools such as drills. Of note, all the batteries collected were kept for the full two weeks and there were no rechargeable or other types other than alkaline. Table 3.10: Results of Electronics Collection Over Two Weeks of Waste Sort, Mecklenburg County, Fall 2015 Material Weight of Sample (lbs.) Personal electronics Batteries - Alkaline 11.2 Batteries - Rechargeable 0.0 Other Electronics Cell Phones/ Tablets 0.2 Computers 5.4 Televisions 27.9 Total Electronics* * The total weight of electronics from the waste study was 510 lbs. Initially, there was some confusion among the sort labor staff during weigh-out regarding keeping the electronics for further breakdown, so several samples were lost. However, the composition of the electronics as shown in Figure 3.10 is still valid and is indicative of the types of electronics that were found in the waste stream. Computers 1% Cell Phones/ Tablets 0% Televisions 6% Batteries - Rechargeable 0% Other Electronics 31% Personal electronics 59% Batteries - Alkaline 3% Figure 3.10: Categories of Electronics Collected during Waste Sort 3-14 March 9, 2016

41 3.2. City of Charlotte Characterizations Overall and General Observations Out of the 117 total individual sample sorts that occurred over the two week study, 82 (or 70%) of the samples were trucks from the City of Charlotte (the City). As such, the overall Sampled Waste Stream results are heavily influenced by the City composition, but there are some subtle differences, and the results from the City alone are likely more representative of the waste stream from single family homes in the County than the total Sampled Waste Stream results. Also of note, the confidence intervals for the City data were generally less than for the Sampled Waste Stream results, indicating the waste stream was relatively consistent. Table 3.10 gives the results from the City data. Figure 3.11 is the graphical results of the waste sort data from the City along with the confidence intervals for each set March 9, 2016

42 Table 3.11: Composition of Average Waste Sample by Category and Material - City of Charlotte, Fall 2015 Category Item City of Charlotte % by Weight Old Newspaper 0.7% Office Paper 0.2% Gable Top 0.4% Paper Paperboard, Kraft 3.5% Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) 2.7% Mixed Paper 4.5% Bagged Shredded Paper 0.4% Non-recyclable paper 4.9% PET Bottles(#1) 2.2% PET Containers (#1) 0.7% HDPE Color (#2) 0.9% HDPE Natural (#2) 0.3% Plastics Mixed Bottles/Containers (#3-5 & #7) 1.1% Mixed Rigid Bulky 0.9% Film and Flex Packaging 9.0% EPS Foam (#6) 1.7% Other Polystyrene (#6) 0.5% Non-recyclable rigid plastic 1.1% Glass Recyclable Glass 3.9% Non-recyclable glass 0.4% Steel/Bi-Metal Cans 1.2% Aluminum Cans (UBC) 0.8% Metals Aluminum Tin/Foil 0.7% Other Ferrous Metal 0.7% Other Non-ferrous Metal 0.3% Yard Waste/Small brush 4.4% Organics Food/Putrescible Waste 15.0% Other Organics 6.0% Re-usable Textiles 3.4% Textiles Non-recyclables textiles 3.0% Leather & Rubber 0.8% Hazardous HHW 0.4% Electronics All Electronics 2.8% Inert & Aggregate 0.4% C&D Wood 1.7% Other C&D 1.0% Other 2.8% Other Fines 10.0% Diapers 4.4% 3-16 March 9, 2016

43 16.0% 14.0% Percentage of Material 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight (180#) 0.0% 0.00 Figure 3.11 Percentages of Items w/ Confidence Interval City of Charlotte, Fall March 9, 2016

44 The following charts are the results of the various major sort categories for the City. There was slightly less Total Paper and Total Plastics in the City stream than the Sampled Waste Stream results. Many of the other items were also similar in composition although the City did have more textiles, electronics and wood, but only by a very small amount. It is likely the slight differences are not statistically significant. Percentage of Material 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight Figure 3.12: Percentages of Paper Items w/ Confidence Interval City of Charlotte, Fall 2015 Percentage of Material 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight Figure 3.13: Percentages of Plastic Items w/ Confidence Interval City of Charlotte, Fall March 9, 2016

45 Percentage of Material 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight Figure 3.14: Percentages of Metal and Glass w/ Confidence Interval City of Charlotte, Fall % Percentage of Material 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight Figure 3.15: Percentages of Organics, Fines and Diapers w/ Confidence Interval City of Charlotte, Fall March 9, 2016

46 Percentage of Material 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight Figure 3.16: Percentages of Textiles, C&D and Others w/ Confidence Interval - City of Charlotte, Fall Recycling and Non-Recycling Week Results From the beginning of the project, the County expressed an interest in understanding the potential differences in sampling results on weeks when recycling is collected compared to weeks when recycling wasn t collected. In GBB s experience, the quality and quantity of source separation achieved by any waste management or recycling system depends on a variety of factors. These factors include the effectiveness of the vehicle routes, efforts at public outreach and education, the sizing of the system s garbage and recycling carts, local culture and values, and more. Every solid waste agency has a unique configuration, and increased recyclables in the MSW stream can be the result of one or more characteristics of the system. The waste sort was designed so that incoming waste from a given route was sampled both on a recycling week and a non-recycling week. The differences in composition between the two weeks were highlighted and analyzed. One of the specific analyses performed by GBB was to determine with statistical mathematics if the changes in composition between the two weeks is greater than what would be determined to be random chance. The statistical significance is discussed in Section Table 3.12 gives the overall results of percentages between the recycling week and non-recycling week, as well as a column of the differences between the two for each material March 9, 2016

47 Table 3.12: Comparison of Recycling and Non-Recycling Week Results - City of Charlotte, Fall 2015 Category Item Recycling Non-Recycling Week Week Difference Old Newspaper 0.7% 0.8% -0.1% Office Paper 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% Gable Top 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% Paper Paperboard, Kraft 3.3% 3.7% -0.4% Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) 3.0% 2.4% 0.6% Mixed Paper 4.4% 4.5% -0.1% Bagged Shredded Paper 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% Non-recyclable paper 4.9% 4.8% 0.1% PET Bottles(#1) 2.1% 2.2% -0.2% PET Containers (#1) 0.8% 0.7% 0.2% HDPE Color (#2) 0.9% 0.8% 0.1% HDPE Natural (#2) 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% Plastics Mixed Bottles/Containers (#3-5 & #7) 1.0% 1.3% -0.3% Mixed Rigid Bulky 1.1% 0.8% 0.3% Film and Flex Packaging 8.8% 9.3% -0.5% EPS Foam (#6) 1.6% 1.7% -0.1% Other Polystyrene (#6) 0.7% 0.4% 0.3% Non-recyclable rigid plastic 1.1% 1.0% 0.1% Glass Recyclable Glass 3.6% 4.2% -0.7% Non-recyclable glass 0.3% 0.4% -0.1% Steel/Bi-Metal Cans 1.3% 1.2% 0.0% Aluminum Cans (UBC) 1.0% 0.7% 0.3% Metals Aluminum Tin/Foil 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% Other Ferrous Metal 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% Other Non-ferrous Metal 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% Yard Waste/Small brush 5.2% 3.6% 1.6% Organics Food/Putrescible Waste 13.5% 16.4% -2.9% Other Organics 5.7% 6.3% -0.6% Re-usable Textiles 3.8% 3.1% 0.7% Textiles Non-recyclables textiles 3.6% 2.3% 1.3% Leather & Rubber 0.7% 0.9% -0.2% Hazardous HHW 0.3% 0.6% -0.3% Electronics All Electronics 3.8% 1.9% 1.9% Inert & Aggregate 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% C&D Wood 1.6% 1.9% -0.3% Other C&D 0.6% 1.4% -0.8% Other 3.3% 2.3% 1.0% Other Fines 9.2% 10.8% -1.6% Diapers 4.3% 4.4% -0.2% 3-21 March 9, 2016

48 6.0% Percentage of Material 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% Mean Lbs per Average Sample Weight (180#) 0.0% 0 Mean - Recycling Week Mean - Non-Recycling Week Figure 3.17: Comparison of Recyclables in City MSW between Recycling and Non-Recycling Weeks w/ Confidence Interval 3-22 March 9, 2016

49 Differences and Significance of Results for the Two Week Waste Sorts One of the goals of the waste study was to compare the recyclables in the MSW between the recycling and non-recycling weeks in the City of Charlotte. The graphic in Figure 3.17 shows that for items such as ONP, Paperboard and Mixed Recyclable Paper, the average amount in the samples was higher during the non-recycling week. For the same non-recycling week, there was less OCC, PET Containers (nonbottles) and Aluminum cans in the MSW stream than during the recycling week. All of the averages (means) were within the confidence level of the other mean for each item with the exception of Recyclable Glass and Mixed Plastics. With these variations between the means, it is difficult to tell visually if there is a difference between the two weeks. A statistical analysis was done on the data for each material to determine (with a high level of confidence) if the differences in the averages from the recycling and non-recycling weeks were statistically different or simply due to chance. Generally, for comparing the mean of two data sets with a (relatively) small sample size, the Students t- Test is used. This test compares the probability that the mean of sample one minus the mean of sample two equal zero, also called the null hypothesis. The t-test probability returns a number between 0 and 1 that is an indicator of the probability that the two population means are the same (population in this case indicates all the residential trash in the County). For example, if the probability comparing the two means from ONP was 0.9, then it means there is a 90% probability that the means are the same, or more accurately, a 10% probability that the means are different. Although different criteria can be used, in most cases the rejection of the null hypothesis is at p 0.05, or a 95% probability that the means are different (sometimes 90% is used, or even 99%). This gives the best compromise for other sampling errors that can occur that may give false positives to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The probability numbers shouldn t be interpreted too deeply other than for acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis; however, the results can give an indication that there may be differences worth looking at more in-depth. A t-test analysis assumes that the data is normal (i.e. shaped like a bell curve) and has little skew. Skew is a statistical analysis that is an indication of if the data is more to the left or to the right than in the middle as would be normal. An example of a positive skew is shown in Figure 3.18, which is a standardized histogram for ONP. The positive skew value indicates most of the occurrences of the sample data are to the left (a negative skew value indicates the data is to the right). In order to have valid results from the t-test, the data must be transformed to become more normal March 9, 2016

50 Frequency of Occurance Standardized Lbs per 200# Sample ONP - Recycling: Skew = 2.71 ONP - Non-Recycling: Skew = 1.41 Figure 3.18: Histogram of Standardized Samples for ONP There are a variety of transformation methods, and one that is generally accepted as working well for data near the zero limit is the Box-Cox Transformation. The Box-Cox equation is a method to estimate a power λ that would be used to raise the data to that power, resulting in a data set that would be more normal. A more detailed description of the Box-Cox transformation method is located in Appendix B. The Box-Cox estimates for λ were done for each material in the sort and the resulting constant and power transformation was applied to each data set. Most of the resulting data had a skew value of less than 1.00 with the exception of some items such as bagged shredded paper and C&D inerts that seldom had any materials in the samples. This data could not be made normal with a power transformation and the resulting t-test probability for these few items may not be valid. None of the recycling items (other than non-ferrous metals) had a skew of over Once all the data was transformed by their respective constant and power, a two tailed t-test (equal variance) was performed comparing the results from the recycling week and the non-recycling week. The resulting probability from the t-test is shown in Figure The bold line represents the 95% (p=.05) rejection criteria March 9, 2016

51 Old Newspaper Office Paper Gable Top Paperboard, Kraft OCC Mixed Paper Bagged Shredded Paper Non-recyclable paper PET Bottles(#1) PET Containers (#1) HDPE Color (#2) HDPE Natural (#2) Mixed Bottles/Containers (#3-5 & #7) Mixed Rigid Bulky Film and Flex Packaging EPS Foam (#6) Other Polystyrene (#6) Non-recyclable rigid plastic Recyclable Glass Non-recyclable glass Steel/Bi-Metal Cans Aluminum Cans (UBC) Aluminum Tin/Foil Other Ferrous Metal Other Non-ferrous Metal Yard Waste/Small brush Food/Putrescible Waste Other Organics Re-usable Textiles Non-recyclables textiles Leather & Rubber HHW All Electronics Inert & Aggregate Wood Other C&D Diapers Other Fines t-test Probability (2-Tail) Less than 0.05 rejects null hypothesis Figure 3.19: t-test Probability Results between Recycling and Non-Recycling Weeks Of all of the items, only HHW fell under the.05 criteria. However, the results from HHW could not be made normal, with the transformed data having a skew greater than 1, which means the probability of the t-test for HHW may not be valid. For the rest of the items, all of the probabilities were above 0.05, indicating that, based on the 95% criteria; there is no significant difference between the results of the averages between the recycling week and the non-recycling week. Of note, mixed plastics (#3-5 and #7), 3-25 March 9, 2016

52 Non-expanded #6, other ferrous metals and, interestingly enough, food all had a probability of less than 0.10 indicating there may be a difference between the two weeks for these items, although the reasons may not be due to recycling and non-recycling. Further investigation could be done regarding these items, although since none are high value recyclables it is likely not worth the effort to investigate if there truly is a difference between the two weeks for these items Other Location Snapshots Samples were taken from loads originating at County facilities such as the public schools, community colleges, and loads from Mecklenburg County towns. Additionally, compactors from the two County jails, five selected multifamily unit complexes, and two County Drop-off Centers were selected for the waste sort. This data was important to assess for the overall Sampled Waste Stream composition, but there aren t enough samples individually from each of these other locations to be able to make definitive statements regarding the waste composition of each local facility. However, the data can be used to provide a sample snapshot of the materials present and some trends may be considered regarding some of the materials Jail Compactors, Schools, County facilities, and CPCC Truck collection routes pick up from certain County facilities, public schools, and the CPCC Community College campuses throughout Mecklenburg County. Due to the nature of the routes it is impossible to know from which specific locations the load and sample may have come from, but the results can give a good overview of what tends to be in the waste stream from these locations. Five of these routes were selected for sampling at the transfer station. In addition to the facilities routes, compactors from the County jails and the CMGC also sampled during the waste sort. The combined results from the County facilities are shown in Table Notably, there was very little C&D and Other items in the County loads and while there was more paper items, it would be difficult with these few samples to ascertain if this were a statistically significant difference March 9, 2016

53 Table 3.13: Waste Composition of MSW from County Facilities in Mecklenburg County, Fall (Percentage by Weight) 1 Category Item CMS/CPCC CMGC County Jails Old Newspaper 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% Office Paper 2.4% 0.2% 0.1% Gable Top 8.8% 0.2% 2.9% Paper Paperboard, Kraft 1.1% 3.9% 1.5% Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) 1.0% 8.1% 4.2% Mixed Paper 5.1% 4.7% 1.8% Bagged Shredded Paper 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Non-recyclable paper 6.3% 5.2% 3.4% PET Bottles(#1) 4.9% 2.5% 2.9% PET Containers (#1) 1.5% 1.0% 0.1% HDPE Color (#2) 0.9% 1.1% 0.2% HDPE Natural (#2) 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% Plastics Mixed Bottles/Containers (#3-5 & #7) 2.0% 1.5% 1.2% Mixed Rigid Bulky 0.2% 0.0% 3.2% Film and Flex Packaging 9.4% 12.9% 18.0% EPS Foam (#6) 2.3% 3.5% 1.7% Other Polystyrene (#6) 1.3% 0.9% 0.3% Non-recyclable rigid plastic 1.0% 2.3% 1.3% Glass Recyclable Glass 0.5% 0.9% 1.2% Non-recyclable glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Steel/Bi-Metal Cans 0.9% 0.4% 0.2% Aluminum Cans (UBC) 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% Metals Aluminum Tin/Foil 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% Other Ferrous Metal 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Other Non-ferrous Metal 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Yard Waste/Small brush 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Organics Food/Putrescible Waste 29.4% 20.0% 15.2% Other Organics 8.7% 16.8% 25.4% Re-usable Textiles 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% Textiles Non-recyclables textiles 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% Leather & Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hazardous HHW 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% Electronics All Electronics 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% Inert & Aggregate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% C&D Wood 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other C&D 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% Other Fines 8.1% 10.9% 11.6% Diapers 0.8% 0.0% 1.1% Numbers are not statistically significant according to ASTM Waste Sort Guidelines 3-27 March 9, 2016

54 The totals of the combined recyclable and non-recyclable materials for these loads are shown in Table Table 3.14: Recyclable and Non-Recyclable Totals from County Facilities Fall Recyclable Materials in MSW CMS/CPCC CMGC County Jails Combined Recyclable Paper Products 18.7% 17.7% 10.5% Combined Recyclable Plastics 9.6% 6.4% 7.8% Recyclable Glass 0.5% 0.9% 1.2% Recyclable Metals 1.8% 1.2% 0.8% Total Recyclables 30.6% 26.3% 20.3% Non-Recyclable Materials in MSW CMS/CPCC CMGC County Jails Non-Recyclable Paper Products 6.3% 5.2% 3.4% Non-Recyclable Plastics 14.0% 19.6% 21.3% Non-recyclable glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Non-Recyclable Metals 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% Combined Organics 38.1% 36.8% 40.5% Textiles, C&D and Other 1.7% 0.9% 1.5% Fines/Diapers 9.0% 10.9% 12.7% Total Non-Recyclable 69.4% 73.7% 79.7% 1 Numbers are not statistically significant according to ASTM Waste Sort Guidelines In addition to the above results, a comparative illustration of the differences of just the recyclable materials in the waste stream from each of the County locations is shown in Figure Of particular notice are the differences in the recyclable paper from some of the sites, especially office paper and gable top items. The gable tops from the schools and prisons make sense as that is what is served there, and paper from the offices also makes sense March 9, 2016

55 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% Percentage of Material 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% CMS/CPCC/County CMGC County Jails 1 Figure 3.20: County Facility Recyclables Results Comparison 1 Numbers are not statistically significant according to ASTM Waste Sort Guidelines Matthews, Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson, Mint Hill, Pineville Two collection trucks from each of these towns within Mecklenburg County were directed to the Fort Mill Transfer Station for sampling, one for each week. The results for each individual town are shown in Table March 9, 2016

56 Table 3.15: Snapshot Results from Mecklenburg County Towns, Fall 2015 (Percentage by Weight) 1 Category Item Old Newspaper 1.2% 0.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% Office Paper 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% Gable Top 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.6% 0.7% Paper Paperboard, Kraft 3.4% 4.3% 3.8% 2.0% 3.3% 3.0% Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) 3.7% 3.3% 2.5% 1.3% 3.9% 2.2% Mixed Paper 2.9% 2.5% 2.9% 3.1% 4.0% 2.9% Bagged Shredded Paper 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Non-Recyclable Paper 7.1% 5.3% 6.2% 6.2% 8.0% 6.0% PET Bottles(#1) 3.8% 2.2% 2.2% 1.7% 1.6% 2.4% PET Containers (#1) 3.0% 0.7% 1.1% 0.3% 1.0% 0.3% HDPE Color (#2) 1.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 1.9% HDPE Natural (#2) 0.2% 0.3% 1.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% Mixed Bottles/Containers Plastics (#3-5 & #7) 1.1% 0.4% 1.1% 0.8% 1.0% 1.1% Mixed Rigid Bulky 1.8% 0.7% 4.9% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% Film and Flex Packaging 9.6% 14.1% 9.5% 11.1% 10.6% 11.6% EPS Foam (#6) 1.1% 1.6% 2.2% 2.0% 1.3% 0.8% Other Polystyrene (#6) 0.4% 0.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 1.3% Non-Recyclable Rigid Plastic 0.9% 1.0% 2.9% 0.7% 1.1% 0.4% Glass Recyclable Glass 5.6% 1.9% 5.1% 3.9% 1.9% 4.6% Non-Recyclable Glass 0.3% 0.0% 1.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% Steel/Bi-Metal Cans 1.6% 0.6% 1.1% 0.9% 1.8% 0.7% Aluminum Cans (UBC) 0.9% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 1.0% 0.5% Metals Aluminum Tin/Foil 0.7% 0.8% 0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% Other Ferrous Metal 0.6% 1.5% 0.9% 1.4% 0.1% 2.2% Other Non-Ferrous Metal 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% Yard Waste/Small Brush 9.5% 4.0% 7.3% 3.0% 0.8% 10.2% Organics Food/Putrescible Waste 13.3% 12.3% 14.4% 21.9% 20.6% 12.7% Other Organics 6.9% 3.6% 4.0% 6.8% 5.3% 6.8% Re-usable Textiles 0.7% 5.1% 1.7% 5.6% 2.1% 4.0% Textiles Non-Recyclables textiles 0.4% 0.6% 0.9% 1.1% 0.6% 2.4% Leather & Rubber 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 1.2% 0.3% 0.4% Hazardous HHW 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% Electronics All Electronics 0.2% 0.7% 0.1% 0.8% 2.5% 0.9% Inert & Aggregate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% C&D Wood 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.3% Other C&D 4.3% 1.6% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% Other 2.9% 2.5% 0.2% 5.5% 3.1% 0.9% Other Fines 8.1% 22.6% 13.9% 9.0% 16.5% 12.3% Diapers 0.6% 2.2% 3.1% 2.9% 3.0% 4.3% Cornelius Davidson Huntersville Matthews Mint Hill Pineville 1 Numbers are not statistically significant according to ASTM Waste Sort Guidelines 3-30 March 9, 2016

57 The results of the recyclables in the MSW from these locations more closely match the Sampled Waste Stream averages as well as the data from the City. Table 3.16 shows the snapshot results of the recyclables and non-recyclables found in the MSW for each jurisdiction. Table 3.16: Snapshot Results of Recyclables and Non-Recyclables in MSW from Mecklenburg County Towns Fall, 2015 (Percentages by Weight) 1 Recyclable Materials in MSW Cornelius Davidson Huntersville Matthews Mint Hill Pineville Combined Recyclable Paper Products 11.8% 11.6% 10.2% 6.8% 12.9% 9.3% Combined Recyclable Plastics 11.6% 5.1% 11.3% 4.3% 4.6% 6.0% Recyclable Glass 5.6% 1.9% 5.1% 3.9% 1.9% 4.6% Recyclable Metals 3.2% 2.9% 2.3% 2.7% 3.2% 3.7% Total Recyclables 32.1% 21.6% 28.9% 17.8% 22.5% 23.5% Non-Recyclable Materials in MSW Non-Recyclable Paper Products 7.1% 5.3% 8.4% 6.3% 8.0% 6.0% Non-Recyclable Plastics 12.0% 16.7% 15.2% 14.1% 13.3% 14.2% Non-recyclable glass 0.3% 0.0% 1.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% Non-Recyclable Metals 0.7% 0.8% 0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% Combined Organics 29.7% 19.9% 25.8% 31.7% 26.8% 29.8% Textiles, C&D and Other 9.3% 10.9% 2.9% 17.4% 8.9% 9.0% Fines/Diapers 8.7% 24.8% 17.0% 11.9% 19.5% 16.6% Total Non-Recyclable 67.9% 78.4% 71.1% 82.2% 77.5% 76.5% 1 Numbers are not statistically significant according to ASTM Waste Sort Guidelines A comparison of the results from the Mecklenburg County towns are compared to the results from the characterization results for the City of Charlotte in Figure For the most part the compositions were similar, keeping in mind that the results from the county towns were not statistically robust March 9, 2016

58 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% Percentage of Material 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Mecklenburg County Towns City of Charlotte* Figure 3.21: Comparison of Sort Results between Mecklenburg County Towns and City of Charlotte * City of Charlotte only statistically significant numbers according to ASTM Waste Sort Guidelines 3-32 March 9, 2016

59 Multifamily Compactors and County Drop-off Centers Compactors from five different multifamily unit complexes as well as two County Drop-off Centers were selected for transport to the Fort Mill Transfer Station to be sampled for the waste study. Each facility was sampled twice, once in each week. Most of these complexes and centers were also visited as part of the site visit tasks. The results from these sorts are shown in Table Of note, and would likely be expected from apartment complexes, there was very little yard waste in the samples which contributed to a lower percentage of Organics, Fines and Diapers overall. Also there was a larger than average amount of office paper from the Drop-off centers, specifically from the North Mecklenburg center. (There was no office paper from the Hickory Grove Center samples). However, since there were so few samples from these locations, the spikes in certain types of material may be an anomaly to that particular sort and not indicative of the true amount of that material present in the complete stream from these locations March 9, 2016

60 Table 3.17: Results from Multifamily and Drop-Center Compactors in Mecklenburg County, Fall Category Item Multifamily Drop Center Compactors Compactors Old Newspaper 0.7% 0.3% Office Paper 0.8% 6.8% Gable Top 0.4% 0.1% Paper Paperboard, Kraft 7.0% 4.7% Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) 3.7% 2.2% Mixed Paper 1.8% 6.9% Bagged Shredded Paper 0.0% 0.0% Non-Recyclable Paper 3.2% 3.0% PET Bottles(#1) 3.8% 1.8% PET Containers (#1) 0.7% 0.3% HDPE Color (#2) 1.0% 1.3% HDPE Natural (#2) 0.6% 1.0% Plastics Mixed Bottles/Containers (#3-5 & #7) 1.0% 1.2% Mixed Rigid Bulky 0.7% 0.7% Film and Flex Packaging 7.7% 6.1% EPS Foam (#6) 1.8% 1.4% Other Polystyrene (#6) 1.3% 0.3% Non-Recyclable Rigid Plastic 0.7% 1.3% Glass Recyclable Glass 8.7% 4.9% Non-Recyclable Glass 0.4% 0.1% Steel/Bi-Metal Cans 1.3% 2.1% Aluminum Cans (UBC) 1.1% 1.1% Metals Aluminum Tin/Foil 0.6% 0.5% Other Ferrous Metal 0.5% 0.4% Other Non-Ferrous Metal 0.2% 0.1% Yard Waste/Small Brush 0.1% 0.7% Organics Food/Putrescible Waste 14.3% 14.5% Other Organics 4.4% 6.0% Re-usable Textiles 4.1% 1.7% Textiles Non-Recyclables Textiles 2.7% 4.7% Leather & Rubber 3.1% 1.3% Hazardous HHW 0.8% 0.8% Electronics All Electronics 2.3% 3.8% Inert & Aggregate 0.1% 0.0% C&D Wood 0.1% 0.1% Other C&D 2.2% 3.0% Other 3.0% 2.8% Other Fines 7.5% 7.9% Diapers 5.4% 4.0% Numbers are not statistically significant according to ASTM Waste Sort Guidelines 3-34 March 9, 2016

61 There were slightly higher recyclable numbers with the multifamily and Drop Center compactors, but it would be difficult to say these numbers were statistically different than the rest of the waste stream with the low number of samples. Table 3.18 illustrates the recyclable and non-recyclable totals from the sample data from the multifamily and Drop Center compactors. Table 3.18: Snapshot Results of Compactors from Multifamily Units and Mecklenburg County Drop-off Centers Fall, 2015 (Percentage by Weight) 1 Recyclable Materials in MSW Multifamily Drop Center Compactors Compactors Combined Recyclable Paper Products 14.4% 21.1% Combined Recyclable Plastics 7.8% 6.3% Recyclable Glass 8.7% 4.9% Recyclable Metals 3.2% 3.7% Total Recyclables 34.2% 35.9% Non-Recyclable Materials in MSW Multifamily Drop Center Compactors Compactors Non-Recyclable Paper Products 3.3% 3.0% Non-Recyclable Plastics 11.6% 9.1% Non-recyclable glass 0.4% 0.1% Non-Recyclable Metals 0.6% 0.5% Combined Organics 18.9% 21.2% Textiles, C&D and Other 18.3% 18.2% Fines/Diapers 12.9% 11.9% Total Non-Recyclable 65.8% 64.1% 1 Numbers are not statistically significant according to ASTM Waste Sort Guidelines Figure 3.22 compares the recyclables percentages found in the waste stream from multifamily and the Drop Center compactors and compares these results to the percentages from the City of Charlotte. Keeping in mind that the results from both the multifamily compactors and the Drop Center compactors are not statistically robust, it does appear that the multifamily units are higher in paperboard and mixed bottle containers while the Drop Centers have a higher amount of office and mixed recyclable paper March 9, 2016

62 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% Percentage of Material 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Multifamily Compactors City of Charlotte* County Drop Compactors Figure 3.22: Recyclable Material Sort Results Comparison between Multifamily and County Drop-off Centers and the City of Charlotte * City of Charlotte only statistically significant numbers according to ASTM Waste Sort Guidelines 3-36 March 9, 2016

63 3.4. Discussion of Results Recyclables in the Waste Stream During the waste sort, Republic set up an 8CY container to place recovered recyclables accepted at the County MRF. Over the course of the two week sort, approximately 5,454 lbs. of recyclable materials were recovered from the waste stream and sent to the MRF for recovery. Approximately 26% of the Sampled Waste Stream is material that can be directly recycled if placed in a recycling container. Figure 3.23 shows the breakdown of the material composition with the type of recyclables broken out of the pie graph. Recyclable paper at 12.6% represents approximately half of the recyclables remaining in the waste stream, with plastics at 6.5% making up about half of the remaining recyclables after paper. Combined Organics 25.7% Fines and Diapers 14.1% C&D, Textiles, & Other 15.1% Other Paper, Plastics and Metals 18.8% Recyclables 26.3% Recyclable Paper 12.6% Recyclable Plastic 6.5% Recyclable Metals 3.0% Recyclable Glass 4.1% Figure 3.23: Composition of Sampled Waste Stream How much is 26% of the County MSW? Based on scale data provided to GBB for January through July of 2015, the projected tonnage for fiscal year 2015 (FY2015) of residential MSW from Mecklenburg County is 366,737 tons. It is assumed this tonnage also includes waste from the County facilities as well as multifamily complexes. Based on the percentages of recyclables found during the waste sort, the estimated yearly tonnage of recyclables discarded was calculated. The total amounts of recyclable materials that are discarded from Mecklenburg County in one year are estimated at 96,335 tons. These results are shown in Table March 9, 2016

64 Table 3.19: Estimated Tons of Recyclables, by Type, Disposed in FY 2015 (Est. 366,737 total tons) % in Sampled Waste Stream Tons of Recyclables in MSW Est. FY15 Recyclable Paper 12.6% 46,351 Recyclable Plastic 6.5% 23,923 Recyclable Metals 3.0% 11,073 Recyclable Glass 4.1% 14,988 Total 96,335 This means that nearly 100,000 tons of recyclable materials are disposed per year that could have been recovered at the County MRF if placed in a recycling bin. GBB was also provided the FY2015 data from the County MRF. Approximately 61,407 tons of materials were recovered at the MRF. It is assumed that this number approximately represents the recycling from the same locations as constitute the Combined County MSW waste. The recovered materials are further broken down by type, so it is possible to compare the recycled items with the discarded items to compare how much of that category is getting recycled vs. disposed. Table 3.20 shows the results, which are based off of the numbers from the estimated tons of recyclables and the recovered materials from the MRF. Table 3.20: Comparison of Recycled and Estimated Disposed Recyclable Materials by Category Tons of Recyclables in MSW Est. FY15 Tons Recovered at MRF* FY15 Percent Recovered of Total Recyclable Paper 46,351 39, % Recyclable Plastic 23,923 2, % Recyclable Metals 11,073 2, % Recyclable Glass 14,988 17, % Total 96,335 61, % * Does not include recyclable material remaining in MRF Residue Table 3.21 indicates that just under 40% of the total recyclables generated by the residential population and the county facilities are being recovered at the MRF. Paper and glass seem to be recycled pretty well as approximately half of the total of both are recovered. However, metals and especially plastics are not as well recovered. Less than 10% of the plastics that could be recovered at the MRF are, and nearly 40% of these non-recovered plastics are PET bottles, and another 20% is HDPE, both of which represent a high value and easily recoverable commodity MSW comparisons to Fayetteville, NC; and Fort Worth, TX GBB has recently completed similar waste characterization studies in Fort Worth, TX and Fayetteville, NC. In these studies, the contents of both the recyclables bin and the garbage cart from selected households were collected and sorted. In order to compare the results between the cities and Mecklenburg County, the recovery data from the County MRF was used to estimate the percentages of 3-38 March 9, 2016

65 recyclable materials, and the residue from the MRF was added to the MSW non-recyclable residue. This was also done for the residue that was found in the recycling bins in the Fayetteville and Fort Worth studies. Also, since the categories were not the same for any of the studies, estimates were made from the other categories to match the Mecklenburg County materials. Table 3.21 shows the composition of the residential MSW, including the recovered recyclables at the MRF as well as the recyclables that were still in the trash. Mecklenburg County had the highest percentage of non-recyclable residue at 64%, but also had the lowest recycled (recovered) percentage at 14%. 1 2 Table 3.21: Comparisons of Residential MSW Compositions including Recovered Recyclables for Mecklenburg County, Fort Worth, TX and Fayetteville, NC 1,2 Material Mecklenburg Fayetteville Fort Worth Recycled at MRF 1 14% 2 19% 24% Recyclable Material in MSW 22% 22% 20% Non-recyclable MSW 64% 59% 56% Total 100% 100% 100% These percentages only reflect the residential Single Stream recycling and do not include other recovered items such as electronics, HHW, C&D and Yard Waste. The percentage for Mecklenburg is material recovered at the MRF after processing, while Fayetteville and Fort Worth are the amounts in the collected single-stream prior to processing. The Fayetteville and Fort Worth data are from actual waste sorts of both the garbage and single-stream recycling streams as they are set-out by households. The 14% number for Mecklenburg is from the recovery of recyclables at the MRF. No MRF processing system can recover all of the recyclable materials, therefore it should be assumed that the amount of recyclables collected are greater than the amount listed as recovered. For example, if the MRF were 90% efficient at recovering recyclables, then the actual percentage of recyclable materials in the collected single-stream is 15.5%. This efficiency number may be a little low for a modern MRF but it is a reasonable estimate for an example. However, to truly understand the contents of the single-stream materials as well as to ascertain the efficiency of the MRF, a similar waste sort to the one performed for this report would need to be conducted on the collected recycling stream. There may be some other differences, such as if other materials such as #6 plastics are considered recyclable in the other locations. The graph should be used to give an indication that the County is doing a comparable job collecting recyclables to other locations with extensive curbside availability. These result also only look at the materials recyclable at the County MRF and do not look into other avenues of recovery for such items as textiles, organics, and plastics that are not currently accepted at the MRF. This also does not take into account the recovery of other collected items within the County such as HHW, Electronics, Auto Fluids and other recovered materials March 9, 2016

66 (Page intentionally left blank) 3-40 March 9, 2016

67 4. Site Visit Observations During the weeks of the waste sort, the GBB Project Manager visited select sites throughout the County to observe the status of the recycling and trash collections and to evaluate, when possible, the materials in the recycling and trash containers. In nearly all cases there was access to at least some recycling receptacles and recycling was occurring, although the level of recycling by location was unknown. Additional pictures and noted for each site visit are provided in Appendices C, D, and E. The following are the main takeaways from the site visits: 4.1. CMS/CPCC Site Visits GBB visited six (6) Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) and two (2) Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) campuses to evaluate the existing recycling systems and observe the usage when possible. Notes and additional pictures of the school site visits are located in Appendix C. Figure 4.1: South Mecklenburg High School Each school visited was implementing a recycling program, although the methods and effectiveness varied. Consistency is important when it comes to the collection of recyclables. Such things as color, location, size and even the shape of the openings are important to distinguish the receptacle as recycling. Also, ease of access to recycling receptacles where recyclable products are consumed or used is important to ensure they don t end up in the trash. The students seem to be willing participants although further reminders or education on what is allowed (and where) is needed in the schools; especially since some schools have unique policies. Increasing or relocating the recycling receptacles must be done in a manner that would not increase the workload of the current custodial staff. The more efficient the logistics regarding collection of the trash and recycling, the easier it is for the custodial staff to implement recycling. Alternatively, the more 4-1 March 9, 2016

68 spread out the facilities are, with multiple buildings, the more difficult it is to add additional recycling options as the timing of trash collection and other duties take up the majority of the available hours. Figure 4.2: 8CY Trash and Recycling Containers As a final note, since there are students at all levels that use 8CY containers (shown in Figure 4.2) to deposit recyclables, distinguishing the trash and recycling containers is much easier by color than by shape or even words. Currently, the majority of the containers are dark blue, with only a cardboard slot distinguishing the recycling container from the trash container. More obvious signage or a differentiating color can help better distinguish the recycling containers. It did seem several schools painted the 8CY recycling containers as part of a paint-the-can education and outreach program about recycling. Additional pictures and descriptions are included in Appendix C County Drop Centers Three of the four Mecklenburg County Recycling and Drop Centers were visited and the site foreman in charge gave a brief tour of each facility. Each facility has a different layout but all have an HHW drop center that is open during the time the facility is open. The layout of each center is dependent on the size of the property. West Mecklenburg is the smallest, although it is slated to move to a new, larger location soon, while North Mecklenburg and Foxhole have significantly more room. Each site has a drop location for electronics, appliances, auto fluids, and bulky goods (including separate bulky metals and some C&D). Each location also has a drop for recycling and a compactor for household trash. North Mecklenburg and West Mecklenburg have a separate cubic yard roll-off just for cardboard and then 30CY covered container(s) for other commingled recyclables. Foxhole has a cubic yard roll-off for cardboard and then two dedicated compactors for other commingled recyclables. The North Mecklenburg and the West Mecklenburg Centers only have a single compactor for household 4-2 March 9, 2016

69 waste, while Foxhole has two additional compactors for MSW, for a total of four (4) compactors at the site. Each center also has a drop for yard waste nearby. At North Mecklenburg and West Mecklenburg it was confirmed that the recyclables were dumped into an empty bay and consolidated into a 40-yard drop box using the loader to compact the recyclables before being scooped into the drop box for transport. This isn t necessary at Foxhole as the recycling is collected in compactors to begin with. The cardboard is also similarly scooped and loaded before transport, likely at all three sites. Additional pictures are located in Appendix D. Figure 4.3: Foxhole Drop-off Center The following are some general observations regarding the facilities: External Signage: None of the facilities were easy to navigate to by following the map from the County website map. Other than the signs at the gate, there were no other indicators of the location from nearby major intersections or the opposite side of the road (in case people are looking the wrong way). Amending this would help people new to the area or to using the drop center to be able to find it with less frustration. In addition, the external signs help remind people to visit the recycling center. Internal Signage: This was not an issue at West Mecklenburg, as everything was so compactly situated it was clear where vehicles should go. At the more spread-out locations of North Mecklenburg and Foxhole, cars could go in multiple directions and places. Better incoming vehicular directions would help users get to the right places and would likely improve the overall efficiency, especially during busy times. In general, if the experience is intimidating, confusing, or frustrating, a user may not return. Fortunately, the staff at each site is helpful and very knowledgeable and will assist anyone that has questions. Compactor for Recyclables: This is likely the most efficient and cleanest way to deal with the recyclables that come in to the drop center. Foxhole was the only center observed to have compactors for recyclables. This would eliminate steps of having to dump and reload the recyclables and would likely leave them cleaner and in better condition for recovery at the MRF. 4-3 March 9, 2016

70 4.3. Clear Distinctions of MSW and Recyclables: At Foxhole the compactors for trash and recyclables were right next to each other. This is convenient for the user, but there is very little to distinguish which compactor is which except for a single sign. It would be very easy for a user to misinterpret which compactor was for recycling and could inadvertently throw trash in the hopper, or visa-versa with recyclables. The use of differentiating colors or larger signs or decals within the compactor hopper would likely help visually separate the recycling compactors from the trash compactors. HHW facility hours Open when center is open: There was very little observed HHW during the trash sort. Having a convenient, clean and easily accessible HHW facility at each center is likely a huge contributing factor to the lack of HHW in the MSW. Also, having it open during the same hours as the center and not just part-time is very helpful for the customers and encourages usage of the HHW facility. Multifamily Twelve Multifamily apartment complexes were visited to observe the trash and recycling collection systems and equipment. All five of the multifamily sites that had their compactors sorted in the waste characterization study were observed, along with several others that were on the alternate sort list. A few other complexes were observed by random chance of driving by, while en route to other site visits. Observations and photos for each site are shown along with some concluding remarks based on the observations are located in Appendix E. Nearly all of the apartments chosen for the multifamily portion of the waste sort seemed to come from relatively new complexes of a quality which command higher rents. This likely is a result of the necessary logistics of only being able to obtain compactors for the waste sort from City contracted locations (those served by Republic Services). While every location had some accommodation for trash, there seemed to be a wide variety of access to easy recycling. However, all but two locations visited had containers for recycling, and all of those had more than the minimum required. Figure 4.4: Recycling Carts at Several Multifamily Complex Locations Understanding that there can be limits to space, the following recommendations or considerations follow from the observations taken during these site visits. 4-4 March 9, 2016

71 Convenient pull-through parking at a location either near the entrance/exit or centralized within the complex in more spread-out site plans. (The centralized location may be better as several times it was observed that tenants would carry trash to the compactors on foot). The tenants should be able to park near the recycling and opening for the compactor hopper, and both should be equally convenient from that location. Signage helps in both locating the compactor and recycling station as well as at the actual site reiterating what items are allowed where. The combination of a trash compactor, rolling recycling carts, and an 8CY cardboard container seem to work the best. This keeps the recycling carts from overfilling with the larger cardboard and gives another place to put bulkier recyclables. Care should be taken in the layout to make sure access to the 8CY container is not much more inconvenient than access to the recycling and trash hopper and conversely that access to the 8CY bin is not more convenient than the compactor throw chute, as people may be tempted to throw items into the wrong (but more convenient) location. A separate area for bulky trash should be present so that the recycling areas or compactor access are not blocked by these items. Grounds staff (if present) is very integral in the cleanliness of the site and even helping to encourage recycling at these locations. Education and assistance to these people may help increase recycling participation at larger multifamily units or help bring it to some of the smaller ones. 4-5 March 9, 2016

72 (Page intentionally left blank) 4-1 March 9, 2016

73 5. Conclusions A waste sort is a critical, albeit messy endeavor to truly understand what is being thrown away. This knowledge can be used to evaluate current programs and to spur future projects to be able to divert more materials from the landfill. Mecklenburg County understood the importance of the knowledge to be gathered from sorting the current waste stream and evaluating the current state of recycling and waste from various entities within the County. GBB worked closely with the County to come up with a unique plan to gather the correct information for understanding the materials in the waste stream to be used for future decisions. The goals of the project was to understand the amount of recyclables and other items in the residential garbage from the City of Charlotte and other towns within the County as well as household MSW disposed at the County Drop-off facilities. In addition, the County wanted samples from county institutions such as schools, the jails and other county buildings. Another important aspect of the waste sort was to be able to ascertain if there were any statistically significant differences in the amounts of recyclables in the City garbage between recycling pick-up weeks and non-recycling weeks. Finally, since only the City would have enough samples to be considered statistically valid according to the ASTM standards on waste sorts, site visits to various county facilities and multifamily housing units were conducted to supplement the snapshot waste characterization from these locations. The County was able to collaborate with all of the necessary parties from the City, the private haulers that service other towns in the County, and Republic Services to coordinate the necessary logistics to get the waste samples to the sorting location. They were able to come up with a broad range of routes to provide a meaningful representation of the residential waste being disposed at the Speedway Landfill. Without the cooperation and assistance of all the entities involved this waste sort would not have been successful. The relevant sort data is in the body of the report and can be used as needed. However, some distinct conclusions can be derived from the sorting data and the site visits regarding the state of the residential waste and recycling. There are a number of different entities within the County that are involved in the aspects of solid waste, and these conclusions are simply to convey GBB s observations regarding the County as a whole. Aspects that are doing well in the County: Gallon carts for collections of MSW and Recyclables Plenty for room, especially for every-other week collection of recyclables. Large trash cart also tends to reduce MSW in recyclable cart, which was noted in the low percentage (11%) of Single Stream residue. Every-other week pick-up of recyclables Large carts adequately hold two weeks of recyclable materials and the reduction of routes saves on collection costs. There was no statistically significant difference of recyclables in the MSW stream between the on and off weeks for recycling. Recovery of Paper and Glass Nearly 50% of recyclable paper and glass in the entire residential stream are recovered at the MRF. Schools are actively engaged in recycling Each school visited had a recycling program that had high participation from the students. 5-1 March 9, 2016

74 Convenient and frequently open drop-off centers including HHW There was very little HHW in the waste stream, with most of the HHW weight coming from the containers and not the hazardous items themselves. This is a testament to the success of the HHW program in the County. Multifamily complex recycling Nearly all the multifamily complexes visited had recycling carts that were being utilized by the tenants. There were also some areas of improvement that were noted. Aspects that could improve in the County: Receptacles where recyclables need collected - Improve access to recyclable receptacles in the schools and facilities, especially where recyclables may be produced such as near copiers and eating areas. Additional education to increase what can be recycled at these locations would also help the users. Accessing the drop-off centers - Improve external and internal signage at drop-off centers to assist with new users as well as help remind existing users to use the facilities. This should also improve vehicle throughput. Trash and recycling bins look the same - Focus on consistent messages and look regarding recycling so that when people see a color or shape they think recycling. Recovery of Plastics less than 10% of the recoverable plastics in the MSW stream are recovered at the MRF, and more than half of these plastics that aren t recovered are PET and HDPE containers, high value and easy to recover commodities. Improve Recovery rate 14% residential recovery of single stream recyclables is comparatively low. Improving this will take additional discussion and potential different avenues than simply providing carts and education. While a waste characterization study provides insight as to what is actually in the waste stream, it is only data and does not provide any answers. The policies and direction of the jurisdictions will use this data for reference, but the feasibility of different programs and even facilities will need additional studies to ascertain the potential impact and possible pitfalls. The fundamental question of what is in the waste is necessary to be able to answer the myriad of other questions that will come up regarding feasibility and effectiveness. Mecklenburg County now has the answers to that fundamental first question and will now have to contemplate what to do next. 5-2 March 9, 2016

75 Appendix A Sort Category Descriptions and Observations A-1 March 9, 2016

76 (Page intentionally left blank) A-2 March 9, 2016

77 Appendix B Statistical Analysis of Averages from Recycling and Non-Recycling Weeks B-1 March 9, 2016

78 (Page intentionally left blank) B-2 March 9, 2016

79 Appendix C Mecklenburg County Schools and CPCC Campus Composition and Site Visits C-1 March 9, 2016

80 (Page intentionally left blank) C-2 March 9, 2016

81 Appendix D Mecklenburg County Recycling and Drop Center Site Visits D-1 March 9, 2016

82 (Page intentionally left blank) D-2 March 9, 2016

83 Appendix E Multifamily Site Visits: Individual Locations E-1 March 9, 2016

84 (Page intentionally left blank) E-2 March 9, 2016

85 Appendix F Compiled Data F-1 March 9, 2016

86 (Page intentionally left blank) F-2 March 9, 2016

87 Appendix G CLT Garbage Routes for Waste Audit G-1 March 9, 2016

88 (Page intentionally left blank) G-2 March 9, 2016

89 Appendix H Waste Characterization Protocol H-1 March 9, 2016

90 (Page intentionally left blank) H-2 March 9, 2016

91

92 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc Arlington Boulevard Suite 304 Fairfax, Virginia (800)