1 / 19

Amending the Source Separation Ordinance (SSO)

Amending the Source Separation Ordinance (SSO). In Mecklenburg County March 28, 2013. Potential Changes to Ordinance Identified in 2012 SWMP. Lower Threshold of SSO Remove or Reduce 500-lb Exemptions Expand Materials Affected Remove Temporary Site Exemption

brock-snider
Download Presentation

Amending the Source Separation Ordinance (SSO)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Amending the Source Separation Ordinance (SSO) In Mecklenburg County March 28, 2013

  2. Potential Changes to Ordinance Identified in 2012 SWMP • Lower Threshold of SSO • Remove or Reduce 500-lb Exemptions • Expand Materials Affected • Remove Temporary Site Exemption • Tracking & Measurement of Commercial Waste Stream

  3. Impact of Changes Related to Threshold & 500-lb Exemptions

  4. Impact of Changes Related to Threshold & 500-lb Exemptions • DSM found the average cost to a small business for recycling was $73/month. • The DSM study found that when considering additional private hauler wages and benefits and indirect and induced spending, the net economic impact to the County was zero to: • Reduce threshold to 8 cubic yards. • Remove 500-lb exemptions. • Include mixed paper. • However, this is reflective of businesses utilizing Commercial Drop-Off Centers, whose availability would be reduced with changes to the SSO.

  5. Lower Threshold of SSO • Re-energize recycling and compliance among 16 CY & larger customers • Bring in additional recycling tonnage • Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions • Simplify enforcement • Greater enforcement needed • Economics of recycling less dramatic for lower-generating businesses; may cost businesses more • Space constraints may reduce options for some businesses & increase screening costs Pros Cons

  6. Remove or Reduce 500-lb Exemptions • If cut-off was dropped to 8 CY but 500-lb exemptions remained, only 300 new businesses impacted • Bring in additional recycling tonnage • Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Simplify enforcement, reduce administrative costs • Could increase expenses for businesses that generate small amounts of designated materials Pros Cons

  7. Expand Materials Affected • Items included in State Landfill Ban, Session law 2005-362 • Motor Vehicle Oil filters • Rigid Plastic Containers • Wooden Pallets • Oyster Shells • Used Oil • Yard Trash • White Goods • Antifreeze • Aluminum Cans • Whole Scrap Tires • Lead Acid Batteries • Beverage Containers Under ABC • Discarded Computer Equipment • Discarded Televisions • Fluorescent Lights • Thermostats that Contain Mercury

  8. Expand Materials Affected • Recycling Requirements under ABC Permitting, Session Law 2005-348 • An Act to require holders of Certain ABC Permits (permits for on-premises consumption) to separate, store, and provide for the collection for recycling of all recyclable beverage containers of all beverages sold at retail on the premises.

  9. Vendors for Materials

  10. Vendors for Materials

  11. Locating Recycling Vendors

  12. Impact of Changes Related to Expanding Materials Affected

  13. Impact of Changes Related to Expanding Materials Affected

  14. Expand Materials Affected • Encourage compliance with state laws and goals underlying the laws • Bring in additional recycling tonnage, some in high value areas • Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Relatively small tonnage gains in all but mixed paper • Could be gaps in infrastructure to address some materials • Greater enforcement needed, increased administrative costs Pros Cons

  15. Impact of Changes Related to Removing TSEs

  16. Remove Temporary Site Exemptions • Overall positive impact to the County based on economic gains to hauling & processing community & savings in disposal costs • Bring in additional recycling tonnage • Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions • Level the playing field • Difficult to enforce – not all events require permitting, how do we determine applicable thresholds Pros Cons

  17. Tracking & Measurement of Commercial Waste Stream • To evaluate the successfulness of any changes, the County needs access to better recycling data. This could be accomplished by: • Requiring reporting by haulers • Requiring reporting by businesses • Requiring reporting by processors

  18. Tracking & Measurement of Commercial Waste Stream • Actual numbers to track effectiveness of recycling initiatives • Concerns by haulers and processors related to proprietary data • Difficulties for haulers in providing County-specific data due to varying routes • Administrative costs for County to review individual business recycling plans Pros Cons

  19. Steps Moving Forward • Set next meeting • Identify any additional information needs

More Related