November
In conjunction with
MECKLENBURG COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
GENERATION, RECYCLING, AND
DISPOSAL ANALYSIS OF WOOD PALLETS
AND UNTREATED WOOD WASTE IN THE
COMMERCIAL AND C&D SECTORS
Final Report
December 2008
MID ATLANTIC SOLID WASTE CONSULTANTS
625 Sawyer Road, New Market, MD 21774 301/607-6428
842 Spring Island Way, Orlando, FL 32828 407/380-8951
3407 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 717/731-9708
www.mswconsultants.us
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The MSW Team would like to thank the following parties for their assistance during various
stages of this project.
‹ Mecklenburg County pallet recyclers, with special thanks to Doug Reiner, Custom Pallet;
R.J. Brewer, Metromont; Cheryl Gamble and Bill Hawley, Gamble Pallet Company;
Melvin Simpson, Simpson Wood Products, Inc.; and Jim Neal, Neal’s Pallet Company
‹ Builders who participated in two County focus groups (names and companies have been
withheld because of an agreement that the participants would remain confidential)
‹ Other recyclers contacted as part of this research, with special thanks to Steve Davis of
Union Gypsum and to FCR Recycling
‹ Mike Griffin, President, Griffin Brothers Industries (owner, North Mecklenburg Landfill)
‹ Roger Barnes, Operations Manager, North Mecklenburg Landfill
‹ Shawn Brady, General Manager, Charlotte Division Republic Services (owner, Queen City
Transfer Station)
‹ Joe Hack, Solid Waste Services Manager, Mecklenburg County
‹ Terry McCarver, Operations Manager, Foxhole Landfill
‹ Steve Elliott, Yard Waste Operations Manager, Compost Central
‹ Paul H. Martin, Geospatial Information Services, Mecklenburg County
‹ Michael Talbert, Project Manager of Study, Construction and Demolition Waste
Recycling, Mecklenburg County
‹ Stewart Espey, Senior Environmental Specialist, Mecklenburg County
‹ Laurette Hall, Environmental Manager, Mecklenburg County
‹ Bruce Gledhill, Mecklenburg County Solid Waste Director
This study would not have been successful without their ongoing cooperation.
Prime Contractor
MidAtlantic Solid Waste Consultants, LLC
6225 Sawyer Road, New Market, MD 21774
(301) 607-6428
842 Spring Island Way, Orlando, FL 32828
(407) 380-8951
3407 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-9708
www.mswconsultants.us
Subcontractor
DSM Environmental Services
P.O. Box 2, 15 State Street, Windsor, VT 05089
(802) 674-2840
This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1
ES 1.
ES 2.
ES 3.
ES 4.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................1
Key Questions.........................................................................................................................1
Generation ...............................................................................................................................2
Existing Recycling and Reuse Infrastructure......................................................................4
ES 4.1. Wood Pallets.....................................................................................................................4
ES 4.2. Clean Wood......................................................................................................................6
ES 5. Gaps and Strategies ................................................................................................................7
ES 5.1. Small/Damaged Pallets and Pallets from Small Quantity Generators ....................7
ES 5.2. Separation of Clean Wood from Mixed C&D ............................................................8
ES 5.3. Separation at the Job Site ...............................................................................................8
ES 5.4. Mixed C&D Processing..................................................................................................8
ES 6. Development of New Markets for Clean Wood .............................................................11
ES 7. Recommendations ................................................................................................................12
1.
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
2.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................. 2-1
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
2.7.
3.
Background.......................................................................................................................... 1-1
Materials Targeted in Study............................................................................................... 1-2
Report Organization........................................................................................................... 1-4
County Waste Management System................................................................................. 2-1
Database of Commercial Businesses ............................................................................... 2-2
Wood Pallet Research ........................................................................................................ 2-4
Pallet Manufacturing .......................................................................................................... 2-4
Pallet Recycling ................................................................................................................... 2-7
Material Densities ............................................................................................................... 2-8
C&D Waste Composition ................................................................................................. 2-9
METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.
3.2.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3-1
Commercial Generator Sector Approach ....................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1 Hauler Surveys ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2.2 QCTS Survey of Commercial Vehicles .................................................................... 3-2
3.2.3 Commercial Generator Research and Surveying .................................................... 3-3
3.2.4 Telephone Surveys.....................................................................................................3-10
3.2.5 On-site Surveys ..........................................................................................................3-11
3.2.6 InfoUSA Database Accuracy...................................................................................3-13
3.2.7 Targeted Commercial Load Observation ..............................................................3-14
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report i TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
4.
WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD............................................. 4-1
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
4.6.
5.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4-1
Wood Pallet Generation, Recycling and Disposition.................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Commercial Sector ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.2 C&D Sector ................................................................................................................4-11
4.2.3 Pallet Recycling/Reuse Market Research...............................................................4-16
Untreated Wood Generation, Recycling and Disposition.......................................... 4-18
4.3.1 Commercial Sector ....................................................................................................4-18
4.3.2 C&D Sector ................................................................................................................4-23
4.3.3 Summary Discussion.................................................................................................4-25
Transportation and Recycling Market Infrastructure.................................................. 4-26
4.4.1 Collection and Transportation.................................................................................4-26
4.4.2 Pallet Recyclers/Rebuilders......................................................................................4-27
4.4.3 Grinders ......................................................................................................................4-28
Gap Analysis and Implications of the Pallet Ban ........................................................ 4-29
4.5.1 Landfills.......................................................................................................................4-31
4.5.2 Generators ..................................................................................................................4-32
4.5.3 Commercial Haulers..................................................................................................4-32
4.5.4 Scavengers...................................................................................................................4-33
4.5.5 Pallet Recyclers...........................................................................................................4-33
4.5.6 C&D Processors ........................................................................................................4-34
4.5.7 Clean Wood Markets.................................................................................................4-37
Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 4-39
OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS............................................................... 5-1
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
Construction and Demolition Sector Approach.......................................................... 3-17
3.3.1 Hauler Surveys ...........................................................................................................3-17
3.3.2 C&D Waste Characterization Study .......................................................................3-17
3.3.3 Builder Focus Groups...............................................................................................3-20
Recycling Market Research Approach........................................................................... 3-20
3.4.1 Collection Infrastructure Research .........................................................................3-20
3.4.2 Surveys of Market Infrastructure ............................................................................3-21
Other Information Sources............................................................................................. 3-23
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5-1
Old Corrugated Cardboard ............................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 Generation and Recycling in Commercial Waste ................................................... 5-2
5.2.2 Recycling Market Infrastructure................................................................................ 5-4
Film Plastic .......................................................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.1 Generation and Recycling in Commercial Waste ................................................... 5-4
5.3.2 Disposal in C&D Waste Stream................................................................................ 5-6
5.3.3 Recycling Market Infrastructure................................................................................ 5-6
Vinyl Siding.......................................................................................................................... 5-7
ii
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.5.
5.6.
5.7.
5.4.1 Disposal in C&D Waste Stream................................................................................ 5-7
5.4.2 Recycling Market Infrastructure................................................................................ 5-8
Gypsum Drywall................................................................................................................. 5-8
5.5.1 Disposal in C&D Waste Stream................................................................................ 5-8
5.5.2 Recycling Market Infrastructure................................................................................ 5-9
Asphalt Roofing................................................................................................................ 5-11
5.6.1 Disposal in C&D Waste Stream..............................................................................5-11
5.6.2 Recycling Market Infrastructure..............................................................................5-11
Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 5-13
APPENDIX A – PALLET REFERENCE
APPENDIX B – COMMERCIAL GENERATOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT
APPENDIX C – QCTS COMMERCIAL WASTE OBSERVATION DATA
APPENDIX D – NAICS CODE ASSIGNMENTS
APPENDIX E – HAULER SURVEY AND RESPONSES
APPENDIX F – MECKLENBURG COUNTY C&D WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
RESULTS
APPENDIX G – BUILDER FOCUS GROUP NOTES
List of Figures
Figure 2-1
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Figure 4-6
Figure 4-7
Figure 4-8
Figure 4-9
Disposition of Recycled Pallets, 1999 .................................................................................... 2-8
Expected Pallet/Clean Wood Generation by Industry (No. of Businesses) .................... 3-8
Expected Pallet/Clean Wood Generation by Industry (Employment)............................. 3-9
& Figure 4-2 Pallets Awaiting Collection............................................................................. 4-4
Pallets as a Percent of Disposed Commercial Waste ........................................................... 4-9
Proportion of Waste Received at QCTS.............................................................................. 4-10
Mecklenburg County Pallet Disposition and Recycling Summary................................... 4-17
Clean Wood as a Percent of Disposed Commercial Waste .............................................. 4-22
Mecklenburg County Clean Wood Disposition and Recycling Summary ..................... 4-25
Pallet Collection and Transportation at Surveyed Businesses .......................................... 4-26
Recovered Wood from C&D Processing Plant (Massachusetts) ..................................... 4-35
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Summary of Targeted Materials by Sector .............................................................................. 1-2
Table 2-1 Mecklenburg County Waste Disposal, FY2005-2007............................................................ 2-2
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 2-2 Summary of Mecklenburg County Commercial Businesses................................................. 2-3
Table 2-3 Top 10 Pallet Sizes in North America in 2000 ....................................................................... 2-6
Table 2-4 Average Weight of Medium Duty 48 x 40 Pallets.................................................................. 2-7
Table 2-5 Survey Data Units and Conversion Factors............................................................................ 2-9
Table 2-6 Targeted Materials Disposed in C&D Waste Stream .......................................................... 2-10
Table 3-1 Mecklenburg County Businesses Likely to Generate Pallets/Wood................................... 3-5
Table 3-2 Mecklenburg County Businesses that Possibly Generate Pallets/Wood............................ 3-6
Table 3-3 Mecklenburg County Businesses not Surveyed...................................................................... 3-7
Table 3-4 Research Methods for Commercial Sub-Sectors.................................................................... 3-9
Table 3-5 Summary of Commercial Generator Phone Surveys........................................................... 3-11
Table 3-6 Summary of Phone and On-site Survey Responses............................................................. 3-12
Table 3-7 Comparison of On-site Surveys and Total Likely Generator Businesses in Mecklenburg
County................................................................................................................................................... 3-15
Table 3-8 Visual Survey Waste Generation ............................................................................................ 3-16
Table 3-9 Mecklenburg County C&D Waste Composition Summary ............................................... 3-19
Table 3-10 Summary of Pallet/Wood Market Infrastructure Participants......................................... 3-22
Table 4-1 On-Site and Telephone Surveys of Likely Pallet Generators ............................................... 4-2
Table 4-2 Phone Survey of Possible Pallet Generators........................................................................... 4-2
Table 4-3 Generator Coefficients of Likely Pallet Generators Based on On-site Surveys
(pallets/employee/year)........................................................................................................................ 4-4
Table 4-4 Generator Coefficients of Possible Pallet Generators Based on Phone Surveys
(pallets/employee/year)........................................................................................................................ 4-5
Table 4-5 Pallet Generation from Likely Pallet Generators Based on On-site Surveys (No. of
Pallets) ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-6
Table 4-6 Pallet Generation from Possible Pallet Generators Based on Phone Surveys (No. of
Pallets) ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-6
Table 4-7 Total Pallet Generation in the Commercial Sector ................................................................ 4-8
Table 4-8 Summary of Commercial Waste Deliveries to QCTS ......................................................... 4-10
Table 4-9 Wood Pallets in C&D Waste Stream ..................................................................................... 4-12
Table 4-10 Characterization of Wood Pallets in C&D Loads.............................................................. 4-13
Table 4-11 Summary of C&D Debris Deliveries to QCTS.................................................................. 4-14
Table 4-12 Estimated Annual Pallet Recycling by Mecklenburg County Infrastructure ................. 4-17
Table 4-13 Mecklenburg County Pallet Disposition and Recycling Summary................................. 4-18
Table 4-14 Survey Results of Likely Clean Wood Generators............................................................. 4-19
Table 4-15 Survey Results of Possible Clean Wood Generators......................................................... 4-19
Table 4-16 Generator Coefficients of Likely Wood Generators Based on On-site Surveys
(lbs/employee/year)............................................................................................................................ 4-21
Table 4-17 Wood Generation from Likely Generators Based on On-site Surveys (tons)............... 4-21
Table 4-18 Summary of Commercial Debris Deliveries to QCTS...................................................... 4-23
Table 4-19 Clean Wood in C&D Waste Stream .................................................................................... 4-24
Table 4-20 Summary of Clean Wood in C&D Debris Deliveries to QCTS...................................... 4-24
iv
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 4-21 Mecklenburg County Clean Wood Disposition and Recycling Summary...................... 4-25
Table 5-1 Surveys of OCC Generation Among Likely Pallet/Clean Wood Generators ................... 5-2
Table 5-2 OCC Generator Coefficients Based on On-site Surveys of Likely Pallet Generators
(lbs/employee/year).............................................................................................................................. 5-3
Table 5-3 OCC Generation among Likely Pallet Generators Based on On-site Surveys (tons) ...... 5-3
Table 5-4 Generation of Film Plastic Among Likely Pallet/Wood Generators ................................. 5-4
Table 5-5 Film Plastic Generator Coefficients from Likely Pallet Generators Based on On-site
Surveys (lbs/employee/year) ............................................................................................................... 5-5
Table 5-6 Film Plastic Generation from Likely Pallet Generators Based on On-site Surveys (tons) 55
Table 5-7 Film Plastic in C&D Waste Stream .......................................................................................... 5-6
Table 5-8 Vinyl Siding in C&D Waste Stream ......................................................................................... 5-7
Table 5-9 Gypsum Drywall in C&D Waste Stream................................................................................. 5-9
Table 5-10 Asphalt Roofing in C&D Waste Stream ............................................................................. 5-11
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report v TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page intentionally left blank.
vi
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES 1. INTRODUCTION
In late 2005, House Bill (HB) 1465 was ratified by the General Assembly of North Carolina
and signed into law to add wood pallets to the list of materials that are banned from disposal
in the state’s municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The MSW landfill ban on pallets as
described in HB 1465 is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2009.
To assess the potential impact of the pallet ban, and to improve its understanding of the
management and potential for increased diversion of wood pallets and clean wood,
Mecklenburg County issued Request for Proposals (RFP) 269-2007-134 in November 2006.
The County subsequently retained the Project Team of MidAtlantic Solid Waste Consultants
(MSW Consultants) and DSM Environmental Services (DSM) (collectively, MSW Team) to
perform a comprehensive analysis of pallet and untreated wood waste disposal and
reuse/recycling in Mecklenburg County.
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
The final project approach encompassed both the commercial waste stream and the
construction and demolition (C&D) waste stream generated within the County, and also
added old corrugated cardboard (OCC), plastic film, gypsum drywall, vinyl siding, and asphalt
shingles to the scope of the study. Research methods used in the study included analysis of
existing County data and business database resources, disposal site sampling of commercial
and C&D wastes, on-site and telephone surveys of commercial generators, hauler interviews,
focus groups of builders, phone and in-person meetings with recycled material markets, and
research into the performance and dynamics of related case studies of diversion programs and
strategies targeting these materials that have been implemented elsewhere within the industry.
ES 2. KEY QUESTIONS
This research effort sought to provide defensible data to answer the following questions
relating to diversion of wood pallets and untreated wood waste in Mecklenburg County:
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
‹ Generation (SUPPLY): How many pallets, and what types (size, use, condition) of
pallets, are generated in Mecklenburg County currently? Are these pallets being generated
in the commercial waste stream, the C&D waste stream, or both? How much clean,
untreated wood waste is being generated in the County’s commercial and C&D waste
streams?
‹ Existing Reuse, Recycling, and Disposal (SUPPLY): What is currently happening to
the wood pallets and clean wood being generated in commercial and C&D waste in
Mecklenburg County? How many pallets are being recovered for reuse by pallet
remanufacturers, and how much clean wood – either directly from commercial or C&D
generators, or else un-reusable wood pallet scrap – is being beneficially recovered?
Conversely, how many pallets and what quantity of clean wood is being discarded in
municipal solid waste (MSW) or C&D landfills?
‹ Existing Collection and Recovery Infrastructure (DEMAND): What organizations–
collectors, remanufacturers, wood grinders, and others – currently make up the
infrastructure for reuse, recycling, and recovery of wood pallets and clean wood, and what
volume of materials are they handling currently? To the extent there are large quantities of
wood pallets and clean wood waste that are not currently being recovered for beneficial
reuse, what are the shortfalls, or gaps, of the existing infrastructure?
‹ Strategies for Increasing Diversion (SUPPLY and DEMAND): To the extent the
current infrastructure for separating, collecting, reusing, remanufacturing, recycling, or
otherwise beneficially recovering wood pallets and clean wood is deficient in one or more
areas, what strategies exist to bolster this infrastructure and increase diversion of wood
pallets and clean wood waste?
This executive summary seeks to answer these questions in summary fashion. Note that this
executive summary focuses predominantly on wood pallets and clean wood waste. Other
materials – old corrugated cardboard (OCC), plastic films, gypsum drywall, vinyl siding, and
asphalt shingles – were peripherally investigated as part of this project. Detailed information
about these other materials can be found in Section 5 of the full report.
ES 3. GENERATION
A combined 258,500 tons of wood pallets and clean wood were found to be generated in
Mecklenburg County. Notable breakdowns of this figure include:
‹ Pallets: Over 7.6 million pallets, or 190,000 tons, were generated in the County. Fifty-six
percent, or almost 4.3 million pallets, were generated by large chain stores and retailers
with the ability to manage pallets through internal logistics systems that allowed for
backhaul of pallets from individual outlets to central warehouses and distribution centers
(which in turn dealt directly with remanufacturers). These pallets were considered to be in
use, and were not researched further as part of this study. Another 2.6 million pallets (34
percent) were aggregated by individual commercial businesses and hauled (usually by a
third party hauler) directly to a pallet remanufacturer for reuse. The remaining ten percent
of pallets were disposed, with a slightly higher number being disposed in MSW landfills
(generated by commercial businesses) than in C&D landfills (generated by C&D-related
activities). Figure ES-1 provides a breakdown by industry of the origin of almost 76,000
tons – 3.14 million pallets – generated within the commercial sector.
2
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-1 Commercial Sector Wood Pallet Generation* by Industry
75,960 tons (3.14 million pallets)
* Excludes back-hauled pallets
‹ Clean Wood: Over 68,000 tons of clean wood was found to be generated in the County.
Unlike pallets, which are generated throughout the commercial and C&D sectors and may
flow through a number of parties on their way to reuse, recycling and disposal, clean wood
was almost entirely generated in the C&D waste stream, and disposed as part of C&D
waste. Over 62,000 tons of clean wood (91 percent) was generated in the C&D stream
and was disposed in a C&D landfill.
Figure ES-1 presents a visual summary of wood pallet and clean wood generation and
disposition, and detailed data are shown in Table ES-1.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-2 Mecklenburg County Wood Pallet and Clean Wood Generation and Disposition
Table ES-1 Mecklenburg County Wood Pallet and Clean Wood Generation and Disposition
Current Disposition
Number
Pallets
Tons
Percent
Clean Wood
Tons
Percent
Disposed in MSW LF
445,102
11,128
5.8%
3,853
5.7%
Disposed in C&D LF
310,593
7,765
4.1%
62,252
91.3%
Recycled (including grind)
2,594,894
64,872
34.1%
2,084
3.1%
Backhaul for Recycle
4,263,106
106,578
56.0%
N/A
N/A
Total
7,613,695
190,342
100.0%
68,189
100.0%
ES 4. EXISTING RECYCLING AND REUSE INFRASTRUCTURE
The current infrastructure for pallet and clean wood recycling spans numerous organizations,
public and private, large and small. This study found the following infrastructure to be in
place in Mecklenburg County to manage wood pallets and clean wood.
ES 4.1.
WOOD PALLETS
‹ Commercial Collection: Wood pallets are collected and transported to remanufacturers
by a surprising range of entities. Not surprisingly, commercially licensed haulers collect
and deliver the largest number of pallets, through standard roll-off collection service.
4
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Commercial haulers were found to collect and deliver 80 percent of the pallets recycled
directly from their point of generation.
‹ Unregulated Collection: Interestingly, a majority of pallet generating businesses in
Mecklenburg County (estimated at 63 percent) are served not by licensed commercial
haulers, but by a large network of unregulated scavengers who collect small quantities of
pallets (and sometimes OCC and other valuable recyclables) from local small quantity
generators who might not otherwise generate enough pallets to warrant source separation
and recycling by commercial haulers. One pallet recycler estimated that there may be over
100 such entities operating in the County. As shown in Figure ES-3, these scavengers use
pick-up trucks to collect wood pallets for which it was reported they are paid between $1
and $2 by local remanufacturers. Although these scavengers predominantly target the
most common (and therefore most reusable) sized pallets and pallets that exceed 40 inches
in at least one diameter, some businesses reported that they have made arrangements with
these small haulers to accept off-spec and damaged pallets as a condition of taking the
desirable, standard-size pallets. Given the extremely high recycling rate for pallets that
already exists, this network of small collectors is very effective at aiding the beneficial
recovery of wood pallets in Mecklenburg County.
Figure ES-3 Unregulated Hauler of Wood Pallets
‹ Pallet Remanufacturers:
Mecklenburg County is home to 16 pallet
remanufacture/recycling businesses. These establishments sort, grade, rebuild, and resell
pallets to a wide range of customers spanning many industries. As described above, the
County’s pallet remanufacturers are currently estimated to manage roughly 7 million
pallets (over 4 million of which are from distribution centers and warehouses that
backhaul pallets and employ the pallet remanufacturer directly). All of the pallet
remanufacturers surveyed indicated having the capacity for taking on additional pallets of
suitable dimension. The relatively small percentage of pallets not being recovered from
commercial generators at the current time – roughly 11,000 tons – are those generated at
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
small quantity generators that are not targeted by the scavenging community because they
are highly damaged and/or smaller in size than “standard” pallets.1
‹ Grinders: There are four operations in Mecklenburg County, including the County’s site
at the Foxhole Landfill and three pallet remanufacturers, that grind clean wood and that
therefore accept wood pallets for grinding. Much of the pallet (and clean wood) grind is
currently being transported locally to a relatively saturated boiler fuel market. The
companies grinding pallets were generally found to be doing so only to avoid the disposal
fee for their own un-recoverable pallets; these companies charged for grinding pallets
from other generators, essentially to cover the cost of grinding plus transporting ground
wood to boiler fuel markets. One grinder reported having markets for up to 10,500 tons
of additional clean wood (outside of boilers), and the County’s Compost Central site
indicated mulch sales could be increased by approximately 2,000 tons per year above
current levels. Available capacity to absorb ground clean wood therefore appears to total
roughly 12,500 tons annually.
ES 4.2.
CLEAN WOOD
As illustrated, clean wood is predominantly generated in the C&D waste stream. Ultimately,
to the extent clean wood is source separated, it is delivered to the same grinders along with
pallets for grinding and use in local boiler fuel and mulch markets. However, relatively little
clean wood is being source separated at the current time. Clean wood recycling infrastructure
includes:
‹ Source Separation by Generators: Builder focus groups conducted as part of this
project yielded excellent insight into the barriers to increasing clean wood recovery from
construction sites. Barriers to pallet and clean wood recycling were numerous, and
included (roughly in order of priority): builders of residential homes believe that recycling
costs more than traditional disposal methods, space constraints for additional containers
for source separation, limited ability to effectively manage recycling with subcontractors,
insufficient industry recycling incentives (such as LEED2 certified projects or owner
requirements for on-the-job recycling) especially for residential builders, and no support
from local haulers for job site recycling. There was consensus that any initiatives to
improve pallet and/or clean wood recycling from C&D sites would have to be mandatory
for all builders to assure a level playing field.
‹ Collection: Unlike pallets, collection and transportation of clean wood from generators –
whether commercial or C&D – is generally only provided by commercial haulers for
customers who generate full loads. The clean wood therefore incurs a lower tip fee
compared to disposal, making it worthwhile for the generator. With no direct payments
1 One of the medium sized pallet recyclers reported that they recycle the following size pallets (in inches): 48x40,
48x48, 44x44, 45x45, and 36x36. Because the “standard” pallet (often called a “GMA” pallet because it is the
standard size for Grocery Manufacturers Association stores) is typically a 48x40 inch pallet, any pallet with one
dimension equal to, or longer then, 40 inches can generally be used to refurbish other pallets – especially the
standard pallet. As these sizes listed above indicate, pieces from a 48x48 pallet can be used to refurbish all of the
pallet sizes that this pallet recycler refurbishes, while a 36x36 pallet can only be used to refurbish the same or a
smaller pallet. For this reason, pallets smaller than 48x40 are the most difficult to recycle, and therefore are the
pallets most likely to be thrown away.
2
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
6
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
for delivery of clean wood, the informal community of pallet scavengers is not interested
in this material.
‹ Grinders: Grinders are discussed above.
‹ Wood Chip Users: Local companies who purchase ground wood chips for use as boiler
fuel include Bowater, which pays $6 to $7 per ton (and is 28 miles distant), Chester Wood
Products paying $14 per ton (40 miles), and Stone paying $14 per ton (110 miles). These
users were found to have access to their full capacity for clean wood chips from current
suppliers of clean wood chips. Several grinders reported using wood chips for mulching
products.
ES 5. GAPS AND STRATEGIES
Mecklenburg County clearly sustains a robust pallet recycling infrastructure, one that has the
capacity to accept additional pallets for reuse to the extent such pallets can be collected and
delivered. Conversely, if all of the clean wood that is currently being disposed – over 62,000
tons – were suddenly diverted, current processors and end markets could not absorb this
material. There are significant barriers to recovering a large fraction of the 62,000 tons that
are currently generated.
This section attempts to concisely identify specifically where wood pallet and clean wood
waste recovery face challenges, and to what degree such challenges can be overcome. Such
“gaps” are described below.
ES 5.1.
SMALL/DAMAGED PALLETS
QUANTITY GENERATORS
AND
PALLETS FROM SMALL
Given the already high recycling rate of reusable pallets, as well as the record for limited
enforcement of disposal bans for other materials, it is not expected that an MSW landfill
disposal ban on pallets will markedly change the current flow of used pallets. In other words,
roughly the same number of wood pallets will continue to be disposed after the ban is
implemented. However, if enforcement of the disposal ban is strictly enforced, it will impose
additional costs on very small quantity generators of wood pallets, as well as on businesses
that generate primarily small and/or damaged pallets. Scavengers do not take such pallets, but
currently these generators can dispose of small/damaged pallets in their commercial waste.
Strict enforcement might require such generators to incur extra cost for separate collection
service for pallets. It is likely that the existing network of commercial haulers and unregulated
scavengers would develop appropriate service rates to provide the required collection services.
As stated above, the existing pallet recycling infrastructure can absorb as many standard pallets
as become available to the system. Further, even if every one of the 445,000 pallets (11,000
tons) currently being disposed in MSW landfills were too small or damaged for reuse, and
were therefore diverted and delivered to local grinders, our research indicates that there are
sufficient markets to absorb this volume of wood chips.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES 5.2.
SEPARATION OF CLEAN WOOD FROM MIXED C&D
With over 62,000 tons of clean wood being disposed in the C&D waste stream, it would
appear that this stream could be aggressively targeted for recovery. However, before more
clean wood can be recovered, two things must happen:
1) It must be separated at the point of generation (the job site), or it must be separated at
a processing facility, and
2) There must be one or more markets to absorb increased volumes of clean wood at a
rate which is economically competitive with existing options (i.e., C&D landfill
disposal).
Clean wood (and pallets) can be separated from C&D debris in one of two ways. Source
separation – whereby builders place a separate container on their job site exclusively for clean
wood – would assure the cleanest material, and also provide access to the widest number of
potential markets for clean wood. Alternatively, many regions of the country have seen the
establishment of mixed C&D processing facilities that accept mixed loads of C&D wastes, and
use a range of conveyors, screens, separation equipment, and sorting personnel to recover
wood and other materials (typically concrete, metals, and OCC). Both of these recovery
strategies for clean wood are problematic.
ES 5.3.
SEPARATION AT THE JOB SITE
Builders who participated in focus groups as part of this study indicated numerous barriers to
on-site recycling. Lining up markets and containers, sequencing material recycling, supervising
sub-contractors and training employees to recycle all add time and cost, and also require space
at the job site. At a minimum, any requirements imposed by the County to require source
separation at the job site would be likely to encounter resistance from the building community
because of the increased costs that such requirements would impose. However, residential
builder feedback also suggests that as long as any such requirements are mandatory and apply
equally to all builders, then the impact on competition for building projects will be minimized.
ES 5.4.
MIXED C&D PROCESSING
In some parts of the country, mixed C&D processing facilities have been developed to
increase diversion of wastes from the C&D stream. These facilities typically require high
capital investment in grinders, conveyors, screens and trommels, and sorting stations needed
to process a high volume waste stream. These facilities accept and process mixed loads of
C&D, as shown in Figure ES-3, and separate recoverable materials.
In Mecklenburg County, there are several businesses that are recovering some C&D from
mixed C&D loads. However, these businesses are driven primarily by builders seeking LEED
certification, and employ primarily hand sorting of materials in their own enclosed buildings.
These facilities are not considered large scale mixed C&D processors and have a limited
throughput (and target only the easiest materials to recover).
8
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-4 Mixed C&D Awaiting Processing
The quantity of clean wood and other potentially recyclable materials in C&D waste suggest
that establishment of C&D processing would greatly increase recovery. However, of equal
importance, establishment of C&D processing capacity involves capital investment and
increased operating costs that must be considered within the local disposal and recycled
material market dynamics. While it was beyond the scope of this project to develop a Countyspecific solution for C&D processing infrastructure that would significantly increase recycling
of clean wood as well as other C&D materials, experiences with C&D recovery in other
geographic markets and under other regulatory conditions across the nation suggest certain
important characteristics for such projects:
‹ Regulatory Mandates: State-level mandates to process C&D prior to disposal, or else
meet high recycling goals, drive the development of a C&D processing infrastructure in
many regions of the country.
In some cases, individual jurisdictions have also
implemented local ordinances that make C&D diversion from construction sites a
requirement of the permitting process, thereby establishing a strong incentive towards
compliance (e.g., occupancy permit is not issued until C&D diversion is documented).
Neither the State of North Carolina nor Mecklenburg County have such regulatory
mandates at this time.
‹ High-Cost Local Disposal Markets: Often, the reason for governmental mandates in
these regions is that disposal capacity is becoming scarce, and local disposal tip fees are
high. Case studies in Massachusetts, California, and South Florida are mentioned in the
body of the report, and in each of these cases disposal tip fees are at $75 per ton or higher
because of the scarcity of local landfill airspace. The local disposal tip fee is important
because it establishes the opportunity cost of simply disposing of C&D without
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
processing. Higher cost disposal makes C&D processing and recovery more economically
attractive. In the Mecklenburg County region, fees range from approximately $35 to $45
per ton. These tip fees may be too low to encourage capital investment for high
throughput C&D processing facilities.
‹ Moderate Recovery Rates: Excluding the large fraction of fines and ground C&D
debris that comes out the back of a typical C&D processor, recovery rates of C&D
materials are well below 50 percent, and in many cases are closer to 20 or 30 percent (or
lower). Because most clean wood applications have very low tolerances for painted,
stained and especially pressure treated wood, sorters must err on the side of caution and
let much clean wood go as potential painted or stained wood. Figure ES-4 shows the
output of the wood sorting line at a C&D processor in Massachusetts. This picture shows
the combination of clean wood with engineered and painted/stained wood, all of which is
ground for Northeast boiler fuel markets.2
Figure ES-5 Recovered Wood from Mixed C&D Processing
Based on the Project Team’s experience with these C&D processing case studies, it is believed
that actual clean wood recovery from C&D processing in Mecklenburg County would be
closer to the 20 percent range of all clean wood in the C&D waste stream. Further, the cost
The primary implication of mixing clean wood with painted/stained/engineered wood in a boiler fuel
application is that the ash from these facilities must be landfilled. Ash from incinerated clean wood can be land
applied at a much lower cost or even sold as a soil amendment. The boiler operators in and around Mecklenburg
are currently able to source clean wood chips, so it is unlikely they would convert to a feedstock comprised of
painted/stained/engineered wood that would generate ash requiring more costly disposal.
2
10
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
to divert this material would be close to double the current local disposal rates available in the
County. It is hypothesized that the development of both C&D processing infrastructure and
the establishment of regulatory mandates that would require the private building and hauling
community in Mecklenburg County to use such a higher cost disposal option would be
politically challenging.
ES 6. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW MARKETS FOR CLEAN WOOD
Mecklenburg County’s local market was found to be able to absorb roughly 12,500 additional
tons of clean wood among its existing infrastructure for grinding and beneficial reuse (as
either boiler fuel or mulch). However, if the MSW landfill ban on wood pallets is strictly
enforced (driving up to 11,000 tons of wood pallets to grinders), and the County ultimately
does pursue a strategy of mixed C&D processing (resulting in 12,500 tons of clean wood
generated by C&D generators, plus additional painted/stained/engineered wood), additional
markets will be needed to absorb another 11,000 tons of clean wood. This gap is shown in
Figure ES-5.
Figure ES-6 Maximum Potential Gap in Markets for Clean Wood
Should it ever become necessary to close the gap as shown above, there are a variety of
options that may be considered. These include new bio-fuel boiler demand, wood pellet
manufacturing, erosion control fabrics, particle board; and mulch (including colorized mulch
and compost). Experience in other geographic regions suggests significant technical and/or
lead time issues associated with developing wood pellet manufacturing, erosion control, and
particle board markets. Our best estimate is that the establishment of C&D processing to
recover clean wood, as well as associated regulations that would compel use of such a facility
despite lower-cost local disposal options, would have to either involve the development of
new bio-fuel combustion capacity and/or a significant increase in the demand for compost
and colored mulch.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES 7. RECOMMENDATIONS
The data above have been provided to highlight the most critical findings about wood pallets
and clean wood waste. The full study also provides additional findings about the generation
and recycling of old corrugated cardboard, film plastic, gypsum drywall, vinyl siding, and
asphalt shingles. The bullets below summarize the recommendations that emerge from the
extensive research conducted for this project:
‹ Wood Pallets: Mecklenburg County is home to an extensive infrastructure for the
collection, remanufacture, and recycling of wood pallets. This infrastructure already
achieves extremely high recycling/reuse rates for pallets. In the absence of strict
enforcement of the pallet ban when it goes into effect, it is unlikely there will be any
material changes to the flow of pallets. For this reason, it is recommended that the
County take no action in advance of the pallet ban beyond its customary role of recycling
advocacy and public education messaging.
‹ Clean Wood: The high recycling rate for pallets results in a significant supply of odd size
and un-reusable pallet pieces which are currently ground to produce clean wood chips.
These wood chips, combined with clean wood grinding by the County, produce
enough ground wood to supply existing markets. For this reason the County does not
currently have the demand to significantly expand clean wood recycling and reuse. While
existing grinders can handle any excess pallet scrap that may result from the pallet ban,
and the local market for mulch and compost appears capable of absorbing some
additional clean wood, significant increases in clean wood recycling and reuse must be
preceded by development of a market for such material. This market could take the form
of one or more new bio-fuel combustion facilities capable of accommodating wood chips
containing painted/engineered wood, or possibly by luring a large scale particle board
manufacturer to the area capable of using ground wood chips. In the absence of
significant new demand for wood chips, neither a ban on clean wood disposal nor
development of mixed C&D processing capacity is recommended. Rather, the County’s
near term efforts should focus on continued public education about its existing clean
wood recycling infrastructure, as well as on development of additional mulch or compost
markets.
‹ OCC: This project only evaluated OCC recycling among large businesses that also
generate pallets, rather than the entire universe of commercial businesses. These largepallet-generating businesses also tend to be large-quantity OCC generators. The recycling
rate of OCC is already high among these businesses. However, several site visits as well
as several hundred phone survey responses suggest that there is still a significant quantity
of OCC being disposed among those businesses that were classified as Possible pallet
generators. These Possible pallet generators include almost 19,000 mid-sized and smaller
businesses of all types (and, the 13,000 smallest businesses in the County were not
surveyed for this project). The County should continue to target commercially generated
OCC for increased recycling through available means.
‹ Plastic Films: Given the challenges associated with acquiring additional source
separated, uncontaminated plastic films from either the commercial or C&D sectors, it
does not appear that the County can or should expend significant resources to improve
film plastic recycling at this time. Further, markets for the dirtier film that is generated at
12
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
C&D sites – limited in the best of times – have disappeared in the current economy. The
County should therefore continue in its role as a clearinghouse for recycling market
information, informing businesses especially of film recycling opportunities in the course
of its ongoing public education campaigns.
‹ Asphalt Shingles: No known asphalt shingle recycling is currently occurring in
Mecklenburg County.
However, asphalt shingle recycling presents a legitimate
opportunity for expanding C&D recycling. Asphalt shingles are often kept separate at the
construction site, and markets for ground asphalt have been proven viable in other states
that have addressed and overcome certain technical barriers. One such potential barrier
to expanded asphalt shingle recycling (in addition to relatively low tipping fees at County
landfills) is the potential risk of asbestos contamination in the material, and from the
ensuing requirements that may be imposed on shingle recyclers by state or local regulatory
agencies. Given the potential for uncertainty introduced by unresolved health issues
related to grinding of asphalt shingles for recycling, the Mecklenburg County Solid Waste
Department should actively engage appropriate County and State agencies to make a
determination on what processes, if any, must be implemented to establish recycling of the
material. Once local and state regulatory policies have deemed asphalt shingles safe to
recycle, the County can begin in earnest the process of establishing specifications for the
use of recycled asphalt shingles (RAS) in pavement and other applications, as well as
subsequent market development activities.
‹ Gypsum Drywall: Mecklenburg County is fortunate to have one of the innovators in
gypsum drywall recycling – Union Gypsum – operating a recycling plant in close proximity
to the County. Yet potential barriers nonetheless exist to expanding gypsum recycling.
Given the potential for increased hydrogen sulfide generation associated with gypsum
disposed in landfills, it is recommended that the County closely monitor the on-going
research effort that several northeastern states are funding to determine the exact cause of
hydrogen sulfide emissions, while simultaneously supporting the efforts of Union Gypsum
to expand alternative uses for ground gypsum drywall. The County should also initiate
discussions with new gypsum drywall manufacturers in the County with respect to the
potential for these facilities to accept gypsum drywall waste for recycling.
‹ Vinyl Siding: Although vinyl siding recycling programs are in place elsewhere in North
Carolina, the small quantity of this material in the C&D waste stream diminishes the focus
on this material for recycling Mecklenburg County. Establishment of a vinyl siding
recycling program would likely require active involvement by the County in establishment
of a central collection, inspection/cleaning, and densification location. It would appear
that this opportunity should be placed on the bottom of the County’s list of recycling
priorities until such time as a vinyl recycler moves into the region independently.
‹ Mixed C&D Processing: Companies that recycle some of the components of the C&D
waste stream (e.g., metals, corrugated cardboard, concrete, untreated/unpainted wood,
gypsum wallboard) require that the materials be delivered relatively free of contaminants.
This requires that builders and contractors either sort the materials at the
building/demolition site or have them sorted elsewhere by a facility that is set-up to do so
(mixed C&D processing).
There are two levels of processing. The first is a relatively low-throughput method which
requires less capital equipment. With these low throughput systems, selected C&D loads
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
that are rich in recyclable materials are basically dumped on the ground and sorted by
hand, sometimes with the assistance of a front loader. In the Mecklenburg region, there
are currently three companies that provide this lower level of processing. A high
throughput system targeting any and all loads of C&D waste requires much more capital
investment to purchase sorting systems consisting of magnets, screening and conveyance
systems, sorting stations and other equipment. In return, these systems are capable of
processing a much larger quantity of material. There are currently no high throughput
systems in the region. This is likely due to a combination of factors, including the
relatively low disposal costs for C&D wastes, the number and location of disposal
facilities, the market demand for such services, and the absence of recycling mandates.
Mecklenburg County should support and promote the mixed-waste processors already
operating in the County along with the other markets for source-separated materials. The
County should continue to monitor the state and costs of high-throughput technologies
and evaluate if such systems would be viable in the future. At the appropriate time, the
County could consider what policies it might implement to facilitate the development of
high-throughput systems.
14
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1.
BACKGROUND
In late 2005, House Bill (HB) 1465 was ratified by the General Assembly of North Carolina
and signed into law to add wood pallets to the list of materials1 that are banned from disposal
in the state’s municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. As defined in HB 1465, wood pallets are
considered “wooden object[s] consisting of a flat or horizontal deck or platform supported by
structural components that is [sic] used as a base for assembling, stacking, handling, and
transporting goods." HB 1465 further allowed wood pallets to be properly disposed of in a
landfill that is permitted to only accept construction and demolition (C&D) debris. However,
a county or a city may petition for a waiver if they can show that prohibiting the disposal of
wood pallets in an MSW landfill would constitute an economic hardship. The MSW landfill
ban on pallets as described in HB 1465 is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2009.
Mecklenburg County has a population of approximately 827,000 residents and is home to a
thriving business community. Located at the intersection of Interstates 77 and 85, the County
is experiencing a high population and economic growth rate within its borders and in
surrounding areas. Given that pallet use is believed to be extensive throughout the local
business and construction sectors, the County was concerned that the ban on MSW landfill
disposal of pallets could create an economic hardship. At a minimum, concern existed that a
broad cross section of local businesses would have to incur extra costs to manage damaged or
odd-sized pallets that would be destined for disposal. Of equal importance, upholding the ban
could potentially require the County itself to incur additional costs to create policies, services,
and enforcement capabilities to support the ban.
Although the County’s Solid Waste Management department supports commercial and C&D
recycling throughout the County, there existed little quantifiable data about the prevalence of
wood pallets and the ways in which end-of-life pallets are currently being managed. To
improve its understanding of the wood pallet waste stream, Mecklenburg County issued
Request for Proposals (RFP) 269-2007-134 in November 2006 to retain a consultant not only
to analyze wood pallets, but also to investigate untreated wood waste (as this material can be
recycled/reused in many similar end markets as pallets). The original RFP contained a series
of questions to be answered:
‹ How many pallets and how much untreated wood waste generated in Mecklenburg
County is being disposed in municipal solid waste and C&D landfills? Describe the size,
type, condition, and sources of these discarded pallets and discarded clean wood.
‹ What is the existing infrastructure for the collection, processing and reuse of pallets and
clean wood? Can this infrastructure absorb additional quantities? If so, how much more
pallets and clean wood could be recycled and why are they not currently being recycled?
A previous ban existed on the disposal of used oil, yard waste, white goods, antifreeze, aluminum cans, scrap
tires and lead acid batteries from landfills; in addition to wood pallets, HB 1465 also prohibits the disposal of
motor oil filters, rigid plastic containers and oyster shells.
1
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
‹ What are the gaps (if any) between scrap pallet and scrap wood supply and demand?
What strategies could be applied to reduce or eliminate these gaps?
The County subsequently retained the Project Team of MidAtlantic Solid Waste Consultants
(MSW Consultants) and DSM Environmental Services (DSM) (collectively, MSW Team) to
perform a comprehensive analysis of pallet and untreated wood waste disposal and
reuse/recycling in Mecklenburg County. The MSW Team worked with Mecklenburg County
to develop and refine a project approach to analyze wood pallet and untreated wood waste
generation, recycling and re-use. Based on input from all parties during the scoping process,
this approach ultimately was expanded to encompass several additional elements. These
included a full characterization study of the C&D waste stream,2 as well as the inclusion of
some other materials that are believed to be recoverable from the waste stream and are often
generated by entities that generate pallets and/or untreated wood waste.
The final project approach encompassed both the commercial waste stream and the
construction and demolition (C&D) waste stream generated within the County. For purposes
of this study, commercial waste was broadly defined to include waste from non-residential
businesses, institutions, and industries, but excluding construction and demolition activities.3
Research methods used in the study included analysis of existing County data and business
database resources, disposal site visual sampling of commercial and C&D wastes, telephone
and on-site surveys of those commercial generators potentially generating pallets, focus groups
of builders, and phone and in-person meetings with recycled material markets.
1.2.
MATERIALS TARGETED IN STUDY
Table 1-1 summarizes the materials that were ultimately targeted for study. Note that wood
pallets and clean wood waste remained the focal point of the analysis; information about the
other materials was gathered to the extent it could be obtained in the process of researching
potential generators of wood pallets and clean wood waste.
Table 1-1 Summary of Targeted Materials by Sector
Material
Wood Pallets
2
Definition
Wooden object[s] consisting of a flat or
horizontal deck or platform supported by
structural components that is used as a base
for assembling, stacking, handling, and
transporting goods
Commercial
Waste
Stream
C&D
Waste
Stream
9
9
“Mecklenburg County Construction and Demolition Debris Composition Study,” September 2008.
3 A more precise definition of commercial businesses based on North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) codes is provided in Section 2.
1-2
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
1. INTRODUCTION
Material
Definition
Clean (Untreated)
Wood Waste
OCC
Film Plastic
Vinyl Siding
Gypsum Drywall
Asphalt Shingles
Commercial
Waste
Stream
C&D
Waste
Stream
Non-treated processed wood for building,
manufacturing, landscaping, packaging.
Examples include dimensional lumber, lumber
cutoffs, wood scraps, wood shake roofing, and
wood siding. May contain nails or other trace
contaminants, although may not be painted,
treated, stained or coated in any way. Wood
pallets that are too small or too damaged to
be repaired/reused are also considered clean
wood.
9
9
Paperboard containers consisting of Kraft
(brown) linerboard with corrugated (fluted
medium) fillings. Includes yellow and waxed
corrugated boxes and Kraft paper such as
bags or wrapping paper.
9
Any recyclable polyethylene (high density, low
density, linear low density) film plastic
including sheet plastic, shrink wrap, and some
tarping.
9
9
An engineered product, manufactured
primarily from polyvinyl chloride resin, giving
vinyl siding its name. Comprised of other
ingredients that establish color, opacity, gloss,
impact resistance, flexibility, and durability. It
is the most commonly installed exterior
cladding for residential construction.
9
Unpainted gypsum wallboard or interior wall
covering made of a sheet of gypsum
sandwiched between paper layers. Includes
used or unused, broken or whole sheets.
Gypsum board may also be called sheetrock,
drywall, plasterboard, gypsum board, gyproc.
9
Material that is used for roofing any structure.
Examples include composite shingles,
attached roofing tar and tar paper, asphalt
shingles.
9
For each of the materials in the above table, the project sought to:
‹ Identify in greater detail the specific commercial sectors from which these materials are
being generated, recycled, and disposed, as well as related generator coefficients for use in
subsequent analysis and recycling planning efforts;
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
1-3
1. INTRODUCTION
‹ Quantify the amount generated in Mecklenburg County and disposed in MSW or C&D
landfills;4
‹ Identify and quantify the capacity of local and regional processors and end markets for
these materials;
‹ Identify opportunities for, as well as barriers against, increasing diversion of these
materials; and
‹ With regard to wood pallets, describe to what extent the HB 1465 ban on wood pallets in
MSW landfills will (or will not) impose economic hardship on County businesses or the
County itself.
1.3.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The remainder of this report describes the many facets of research and analysis that were
performed to achieve these objectives, and is divided into the following sections:
‹ Section 2 – Background Information: This section provides an overview of
Mecklenburg County’s waste management system in terms of programs, material volumes,
haulers, and other participants that may be influenced in this study. It summarizes the
sources of County business data that were relied upon to inform and guide research into
the commercial sector of the County. It provides a general overview of wood pallets,
including their manufacture, dimensions, useful life and weight data; and finally references
pertinent data from prior waste characterization studies, including the C&D waste
composition analysis that was performed in parallel to this project.
‹ Section 3 – Methodology: This project involved numerous tasks to investigate wood
pallet and clean wood waste generation, handling, disposal, recycling and reuse. This
section summarizes the multiple approaches that were employed to gain a full
understanding of the system and to compile defensible data about the quantity and
movement of materials. This section describes the following elements of the overall
approach:
Š Commercial Generator Surveying encompassing field observations of commercial
waste deliveries at local MSW disposal facilities, as well as telephone and field surveys
of commercial generators to compile data about generation and recycling of targeted
materials.
Š Hauler Surveys of both County-licensed haulers and the unregulated businesses
involved in collecting wood pallets from County businesses.
Š C&D Waste Characterization at two County C&D landfills to estimate the quantity of
targeted materials in disposed C&D waste.
Š Focus Group meetings with County builders and contractors to learn about the
opportunities and barriers to recycling from residential and commercial construction
sites.
4 It should be noted that the Project Team only attempted to quantify total generation and disposal for those
generators likely to be generating wood pallets and clean wood, not from all commercial generators.
1-4
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
1. INTRODUCTION
Š Recycling Infrastructure Research to identify and quantify the capacity for recycling
and processing of the materials targeted in the study.
Š Gap Analysis, a term that is intended to convey the notion that markets for the
materials targeted in this study do not have the capacity to receive and process the
volume of materials that could potentially be diverted and reused or recycled – hence
there is a “gap” in market capacity. The Gap Analysis attempts to tie together the
generator research with the recycling infrastructure research to address the existence
of any gaps and to discuss how such gaps or other barriers to increased diversion may
be overcome.
‹ Section 4 – Wood Pallet and Clean Wood Results: Wood pallets and clean wood are
generated by similar types of generators in both the commercial and C&D sectors, and the
markets for end use of the two materials overlap. Because these two materials were the
focal point of this study, every element of the project approach was designed to flesh out
our understanding of the generation, collection, disposal, and recycling/reuse of these
materials. The results of our research for these two materials therefore warrants its own
section of the report. For both wood pallets and clean wood, this section estimates the
amount of material generated as well as pertinent characteristics (e.g., types and sizes of
pallets); identification of the material flows to disposal, reuse and recycling; a summary of
the current market(s) for recovery of the material; and a discussion of any deficiencies in
the current recycled material markets. Finally, this section discusses the “gaps” between
current infrastructure and longer term infrastructure needs for increasing diversion of
these materials, including a discussion about the likely impact of the HB 1465 pallet ban
on local businesses.
‹ Section 5 – Results for Other Targeted Materials: This study targeted additional
materials that were researched in conjunction with the wood pallet and clean wood
research. This section of the report presents our findings for the other targeted materials.
‹ Appendices: Appendices contain a wide range of field data collection forms, summary
data, and other information that may be of interest.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
1-5
1. INTRODUCTION
This page intentionally left blank.
1-6
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1.
COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Mecklenburg County, home to the City of Charlotte and the Towns of Cornelius, Davidson,
Huntersville, Matthews, Mint Hill and Pineville, manages a large integrated waste management
system to provide a wide range of collection, recycling and disposal services to its residents
and businesses. Each of the incorporated municipalities in the County provide for the
collection and disposal of residentially generated waste, although residents in the
unincorporated areas subscribe for residential collection with a private hauler. Residential
waste is delivered (or caused to be delivered) to the BFI Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill
located in Cabarrus County, where the County has procured disposal capacity until 2012 for
the benefit of itself and its incorporated municipalities (which benefit under the terms of an
interlocal agreement). Information about generation and recycling of materials from the
residential waste stream is available and considered to be highly accurate, given the local
government involvement in the management of residential waste.
With the exception of the small businesses serviced by the City of Charlotte and Town of
Davidson, all commercial and construction and demolition (C&D) waste generated in the
County is collected by one of the private garbage haulers servicing the area. There are
currently 28 permitted haulers that provide residential and commercial garbage and C&D
debris collection service within the County limits. In addition to the BFI-Speedway Landfill,
commercial haulers have several disposal facilities from which to choose for disposal of
commercial wastes, including Republic Wastes’ Queen City Transfer Station in Charlotte, and
several other landfills and a transfer station in adjacent counties.
The majority of C&D debris is disposed at either the Mecklenburg County Foxhole Landfill at
the County’s southern border or at the privately owned North Mecklenburg Landfill in
Huntersville. Meaningful quantities of C&D are also delivered to the BFI-Lake Norman
C&D Landfill in Lincoln County. Mecklenburg County opened the Foxhole Landfill in the
spring of 2000 and although the landfill is permitted to dispose of MSW, due to the contract
with Allied/BFI, the Foxhole Landfill is limited to the disposal and recycling of construction
and demolition waste and as a public convenience center for solid waste management at this
time.
North Carolina regulations also allow certain waste disposal to take place in land clearing and
inert debris (LCID) landfills. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) website shows that Mecklenburg County has 38 LCID landfills open at
the current time, although the County identified only six of these as being active. At the
outset of this project, County inspectors queried the known LCID landfill operators and
determined that these facilities were not receiving meaningful quantities of wood pallets and
clean wood. For this reason, these facilities have been omitted from further study.
DENR requires that MSW and C&D disposal facilities report annual disposed quantities by
county of origin. Further, Mecklenburg County tracks residential wastes through its
contractual arrangements for residential collection. Table 2-1 summarizes the annual waste
generation quantities for the most recently reported three years.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
2-1
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Table 2-1 Mecklenburg County Waste Disposal, FY2005-2007
Waste Stream
2005 (1)
2006
(1)
2007 (2)
Residential Waste
348,939
347,460
388,151
Commercial Waste
548,338
570,665
773,106
C&D Debris
388,212
397,232
377,120
1,285,489
1,315,357
1,538,377
Total Waste Disposed
(1) Source: Mecklenburg County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2006-2016, Tables 2.1.2, 2.3.2,
2.3.3, and 2.3.4
(2) Source: FY2007 Data provided by Mecklenburg County.
In 2005, the County performed an analysis of the composition of commercial wastes
generated in the County.1 Because it was not possible to obtain access to the BFI-Speedway
Landfill to conduct a physical characterization study as part of this effort, the analysis relied
on a “desktop evaluation” (i.e., using comparative analysis and estimations rather than field
analysis or sorting/weighing). Commercial waste composition was estimated based on
commercial waste composition in other similar counties. This “desktop evaluation” suggested
the following details about the County’s commercial waste:
‹ According to an analysis of a database of Mecklenburg County commercial businesses
developed by business marketing company InfoUSA,2 there were 33,455 establishments
with total employment of 534,858;
‹ The County generated 601,862 tons of commercial waste;
‹ Wood pallets were estimated to comprise 2.6 percent of the commercial waste stream,
totaling 15,869 tons;
‹ Untreated wood waste was estimated to comprise 6.5 percent, or 39,169 tons of
commercial waste.
While this study was informative for planning purposes, it acknowledges that the absence of
field verification of commercial waste composition is a limitation to the methodology used.
Given the requirement to accurately and defensibly quantify the generation of wood pallets
resulting from the pallet ban, it was necessary to perform more detailed analysis of these
materials.
2.2.
DATABASE OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES
At the outset of this project, Mecklenburg County had acquired an updated database of
commercial businesses from InfoUSA, the same third party data provider that supplied the
underlying data for the County’s Commercial Waste Characterization Study (as described
above). The MSW Team relied on this database (2007 Database) to guide several of the
1
“Mecklenburg County Commercial Waste Characterization Study,” R. W. Beck, January 2006.
The InfoUSA database used in the Commercial Waste Characterization Study was provided by the Charlotte
Chamber of Commerce. A more recent database from InfoUSA was provided by Mecklenburg County for this
study, and will be discussed later.
2
2-2
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
research elements of this project. This section describes the contents of the InfoUSA database
made available to the MSW Team for use in this project.
According to the 2007 InfoUSA database, there are 41,879 total businesses in the County.
This figure in itself is of interest when compared to the 33,455 establishments contained in the
InfoUSA database used for the Commercial Waste Characterization Study (2005 Database).
Further, the 2007 Database reflected 585,986 employees compared to the 534,858 in the 2005
Database. In summary, there were 25 percent more commercial establishments in the 2007
Database compared to the 2005 Database, but only 9.5 percent more employees. While it was
beyond the scope of this study to research the differences between the two databases, it
appears that either (a) there has been significant growth in small businesses in Mecklenburg
County in recent years, or (b) InfoUSA has improved its ability to capture information about
these small businesses.
Of particular interest to this study, the InfoUSA database contains the North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for each business. The NAICS code denotes
the type of activity performed by each business. Further, the InfoUSA 2007 Database contains
other business descriptors that are useful in evaluating the business waste generation and
waste management characteristics, including:
‹ Number of Employees (Actual): identifies the number of employees who work at this
location or business.
‹ Square Footage Used: estimate of the square footage the location or business occupies.
‹ Work-at-Home (Cottage Code): identifies home businesses.
Table 2-2 summarizes the total number of Mecklenburg County businesses by 2-digit NAICS
code. Home businesses were excluded from this table.
Table 2-2 Summary of Mecklenburg County Commercial Businesses
Description
NAICS
2-Digit
Code
Count of
Businesses
Total
Employees
Total Square
Footage (1)
90
455
416,250
11
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
21
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
37
491
893,750
22
Utilities
31
7,661
806,250
23
Construction
3,890
37,962
25,310,000
31-33
Manufacturing
1,558
42,815
34,301,250
42
Wholesale Trade
2,321
39,092
45,642,500
44-45
Retail Trade
5,588
76,822
53,952,500
48-49
Transportation and Warehousing
966
20,355
18,188,750
51
Information
907
16,131
15,660,000
52
Finance and Insurance
2,668
37,930
16,593,750
53
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
2,533
19,754
17,390,000
54
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
5,254
43,640
29,376,250
55
Management of Companies and Enterprises
56
Admin / Support / Waste Management
61
Educational Services
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
2-3
33
11,410
818,750
2,041
25,728
13,248,750
797
28,106
16,781,250
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Description
NAICS
2-Digit
Code
Count of
Businesses
Total
Employees
Total Square
Footage (1)
3,214
44,209
25,872,500
637
8,638
7,935,000
62
Health Care and Social Assistance
71
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
72
Accommodation and Food Services
2,375
46,175
16,918,750
81
Other Services (except Public Administration)
4,814
29,297
34,592,500
496
21,304
10,637,500
31
734
850,000
1,598
7,277
38,320,000
92
Public Administration
99
Unclassified Establishments
NA
Not available (2)
Total
41,879
565,986 424,506,250
Source: InfoUSA 2007 Database.
(1) NAICS identifies each business as having a square footage of 0 to 2,499; 2,500 to 9,999; 10,000
to 39,999; or 40,000 or greater. For purposes of this analysis, MSW Consultants has assumed the
midpoint of the each range for businesses identified as having 39,999 square feet or less. For
businesses identified has having 40,000 square feet or more, MSW Consultants has assumed the
business has 50,000 square feet
(2) Represents the businesses which did not have a NAICS code according to the 2007 Database
Although only the 2-digit NAICS codes are shown in the table above, the NAICS code for
each business in the County contains a total of five digits. Each successive digit of the NAICS
code improves the specification of the type of business. For example:
‹ The 2-digit code for Construction is 23;
‹ The 3-digit code 236 specifies Construction of Buildings
‹ The 4-digit code 2362 is yet another subset: Nonresidential Building Construction
‹ The 5-digit code 23622 is the most specific description, e.g., Commercial and Institutional
Building Construction
Specific usage of the InfoUSA 2007 Database is described in later sections of this report.
2.3.
WOOD PALLET RESEARCH
As one of the two primary focal points of the study, wood pallets warrant some additional
background. This section provides a brief introduction to wood pallets, and also advances
several default assumptions about the size, dimensions, and weight of pallets that are used
throughout this report.
2.4.
PALLET MANUFACTURING
Almost everything manufactured, imported or purchased in the United States has been on a
pallet during shipment at some time or another. Wood is the material that is used to construct
the vast majority of these pallets. Wood combines strength, abundance as a raw material, and
relatively low cost, and is among the easiest materials to manufacture and repair compared to
other materials used for pallet construction.3 Broadly speaking, a pallet consists of a platform
3
Plastic lumber, paper, and metal are also used to manufacture pallets.
2-4
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
or series of slats (known as the “deck”) on which payload rests, supported by a frame that
enables transport of the pallet by a forklift. Pallets can be defined by a uniform set of
characteristics that include:4
‹ Pallet Class: Pallets are classified as either stringer-class or block-class to denote the type
of framing that supports the deckboards or panel. Stringers run the length of the pallet
and are more sturdy, while blocks simply connect top deck to bottom deck. Stringer-class
pallets are the strongest and most commonly used pallet.
‹ Usage Profile: Pallets can be either Multiple Use (M) or Limited Use (L). Multiple use
pallets are intended to be used at least 10 times before needing their first repair, and are
also known as returnable or special use pallets. Limited use pallets are for an average of
up to nine trips, and are also known as shipping or general service pallets. Both multiple
and limited use pallets are designed with the assumption that the pallet will be moved five
times during one shipment with average handling during each trip.
‹ Pallet Type: Pallets are further classified as being two-way, partial four-way, or four-way
to denote the number of sides of the pallet which can be accessed by a forklift for
movement of the pallet. Two way entry accepts lift equipment from the front and back of
the pallet only. Partial four way entry has equipment entry at both ends and only partial
entry on the sides. A full four way entry pallet allows full equipment entry in front, rear,
and both sides.
‹ Decks: Pallets can be single or double faced. Single face pallets have slats only on the
top, while double face pallets have slats on both the top and the bottom.
‹ Reversibility: Double faced pallets can be reversible if both the top and bottom deck are
designed to hold payload. Otherwise a pallet is nonreversible.
‹ Dimensions: The length and width of a pallet are based on the direction of the
deckboards. The pallet’s width is measured as the length of the deckboard, while the
length is measured as the length of the stringerboards (or top stringerboard for block-class
pallets).
Appendix A contains a Pallet Classification reference document that describes pallet
characteristics in full detail.
4 Various sources: “Uniform Standard for Wood Pallets,” National Wood Pallet and Container Association,
2005; and Pallet Classification.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
2-5
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In 2004 there were about 450 million new pallets produced in the United States and Canada.
About 1.9 billion were in use at any given time5. The 48 x 40 inch pallet is the most common
pallet used in the United States. Table 2-3 below shows the 10 most common sizes and the
typical industries that use each size.
Table 2-3 Top 10 Pallet Sizes in North America in 2000
Pallet Size (in.)
Production Rank
Typical Industry
48 x40
1
Grocery, common in many other industries
42 x 42
2
Telecommunications, and Paint
48 x 48
3
Drums
40 x 48
4
DOD, Cement
48 x 42
5
Chemical and Beverage
40 x 40
6
Dairy
48 x 45
7
Automotive
44 x 44
8
Drums and Chemical
36 x 36
9
Beverage
48 x 36
10
Beverage, Shingles, and Package Paper
Source: “Pallets 101: Industry Overview and Wood, Plastic, Paper, and Metal Options” by John Clarke,
Technical Sales Director, Grate Pallet, Inc. 2004.
The list totals about 60 percent of the annual pallet manufacturing with the 10th most common
size in use for less than two percent of the market. The remaining 40 percent of the pallets
manufactured are specific to shipping customer needs.
Because waste generation and disposal is measured in terms of weight (tons), the MSW Team
attempted to research the average weight of a pallet for use in conversion from pallet counts
to weight. There are a number of sources that provide weight data about pallets. The weight
of a typical 48 x 40 x 5 inch stringer partial four-way multiple use pallet from the manufacture
– the most common pallet – is about 59 pounds.6 However, the weights of a pallet depends
on many factors, including pallet dimensions; class; usage, and style; species of wood (or other
material) used in construction; and the moisture content (MC) of the wood. It is of particular
interest that the weight of a pallet varies significantly over the life of the pallet depending on
the moisture content.
“Pallets 101: Industry Overview and Wood, Plastic, Paper, and Metal Options” by John Clarke, Technical Sales
Director, Grate Pallet, Inc. 2004.
5
“Pallet Design System Version 4.0 Pallet Physical Proper Analysis” National Wooden Pallet and Container
Association (NWPCA) in cooperation with: Pallet and Container Research Laboratory, Virginia Tech
Department of Wood Science and Forest Products; USDA Forest Service and Forest Products Laboratory; APA
– The engineered Wood Association; Software Technologies Laboratory, Virginia Tech Department of Industrial
and Systems Engineering 2006.
6
2-6
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Table 2-4 below shows the average weight of a medium duty stringer pallet as described
above.
Table 2-4 Average Weight of Medium Duty 48 x 40 Pallets
Moisture Content (MC)
Weight (lbs)
At Manufacture
59
25% MC
41
19% MC
39
15% MC
38
12% MC
37
As shown in the table, the weight of a pallet declines significantly from manufacture (assuming
green wood). For this study, MSW Consultants reviewed prior published data about pallet
weight, and also consulted with pallet researchers at the U.S. Forest Service’s Southern
Research Station (SRS), who are in the process of completing a survey conducted in 2006
about the pallet recycling industry. Based on these sources of information, we have used 50
pounds as a reasonable estimate for the weight of a pallet in Mecklenburg County at the
current time.
2.5.
PALLET RECYCLING
The SRS is a leading expert on pallet recycling. SRS pallet research dates back to the early
1990s, with updates issued sporadically as funding is available. The SRS released its most
recent comprehensive survey of pallet manufacturing and recycling in 1999, and is currently
finalizing another update. However, at this time the 1999 data is the most recent that is
available.
Based on extrapolations from the 1999 SRS study, various sources mention that between 400
and 500 million new pallets were manufactured annually in the U.S. during the 2001 to 2002
timeframe. More recent data was not found. In 1999, 300 million of these pallets were being
captured for recycling and reuse. Once pallets reached the recycler, the vast majority were
beneficially used. Most pallets are reused either as-is or after some repair (or re-use of parts).
Unusable pallet parts are most often ground, and only a very small percentage are landfilled.
These breakdowns are shown in Figure 2-1.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
2-7
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Figure 2-1 Disposition of Recycled Pallets, 1999
Source: “Recovery, Reuse and Recycling by the United States Wood Packaging Industry: 1993 to
2006,” by Robert Bush, Philip Araman, and E. Brad Hager.
2.6.
MATERIAL DENSITIES
Throughout the research and analysis performed in this study, MSW Team members relied on
volumetric estimates to collect data in the field. Volume-based estimates were used for (a)
vehicle compartments, (b) commercial container sizes, (c) and the volume of targeted
materials within a load or loose. Volumetric estimates are the only reasonable way to gather
much data in the solid waste and recycling industry, simply because the amount, in-situ
conditions, and characteristics of waste and recyclables (especially wood pallets and clean
wood) prevents the use of scales to obtain defensible weights.
2-8
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
It was therefore necessary throughout our analysis to be able to reasonably convert from
volume to weight-based measurements. Table 2-5 below shows the density conversion and
other related factors that were used to estimate the quantity of targeted materials throughout
this analysis.
Table 2-5 Survey Data Units and Conversion Factors
Material
2.7.
Conversion Factors
Wood Pallets
50 lbs per pallet
5.5 pallets per cubic yard (CY)
Clean Wood
Loose: 300 lbs/CY
Old
Corrugated
Cardboard
(OCC)
Loose: 50 lbs/CY
Flattened: 150 lbs/CY
Bales: 600 lbs each
Baled odd size: 1,000 lbs/CY
Compacted: 400 lbs/CY
Film Plastic
Loose: 30 lbs/CY
1 CY in compactor = 4 CY loose
1 pallet’s worth of wrap = 1/6 loose CY
C&D WASTE COMPOSITION
One of the objectives of this study was to defensibly estimate the quantity of wood pallets,
clean wood, and other targeted materials being disposed in the C&D waste stream. To
accomplish this objective, the MSW Team performed a full characterization study of
Mecklenburg County’s C&D waste stream. This study involved visual surveying of incoming
loads of C&D debris at two in-county facilities (Mecklenburg County’s Foxhole Landfill and
the North Mecklenburg C&D Landfill) that together receive approximately 80 percent of the
C&D debris reported to be disposed from Mecklenburg County.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
2-9
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A separate report was developed to present the full results of this county-wide C&D waste
characterization study7 (C&D Composition Study). However, pertinent results of the C&D
Composition Study are shown in Table 2-6 below.
Table 2-6 Targeted Materials Disposed in C&D Waste Stream
90% Conf. Interval
Targeted Material Categories
Plastic Film
Vinyl Siding
Pallets
Crates
Untreated Wood
Drywall - Unpainted
Asphalt Roofing
Total – Targeted Materials
Mean
0.3%
0.1%
2.1%
0.5%
16.5%
6.8%
6.4%
32.7%
Standard
Deviation
0.1%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
1.4%
1.1%
1.2%
Lower
0.2%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
14.1%
5.0%
4.4%
Upper
0.4%
0.1%
2.5%
0.9%
18.8%
8.7%
8.4%
Non-Targeted C&D Debris
67.3%
Source: Mecklenburg County C&D Debris Composition Study, 2008
Annual
Quantity
1,281
194
7,752
1,853
62,145
25,762
24,043
123,030
254,090
As shown above, the targeted materials make up almost 33 percent of the total C&D waste
stream, with untreated wood waste accounting for almost half of the total. A complete
summary of the methodology that derived these results can be found in the C&D
Composition Study.
7
“Mecklenburg County Construction & Demolition Debris Composition Study,” May 2008.
2-10
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1.
INTRODUCTION
Because of the scope and complexity of the market for generating, collection, and processing
or disposing of pallet and clean wood waste, the project methodology contained a number of
complimentary tasks aimed at deriving defensible findings. This section describes the
approach that was ultimately developed to comprehensively research the generation, recovery
and disposal of wood pallets, clean wood, and the other materials targeted in the study.
Generally, separate approaches were pursued for the commercial sector and the construction
and demolition (C&D) sectors. Specific steps of the project approach for each generator
sector are described below.
3.2.
COMMERCIAL GENERATOR SECTOR APPROACH
As described in Section 2 of this report, the commercial sector has been defined in this study
as every non-home-based business other than businesses classified as NAICS code 23
(Construction). Almost 42,000 such entities exist in Mecklenburg County. Because of the
diversity of the commercial sector – in terms of both business function and size – the MSW
Team used multiple strategies to gather information about pallet and clean wood generation.
Our approach for researching the commercial sector encompassed the following efforts:
‹ Hauler surveys to inquire about the incidence of pallet and clean wood generators,
alternative disposal options, and procedures for collecting pallets from commercial
accounts;
‹ Visual observations of commercial waste deliveries to local disposal facilities to estimate
the breadth of pallet and clean wood disposal;
‹ Commercial business on-site research included extensive on-site observations and
interviews of businesses identified as being likely pallet generators; and
‹ Telephone surveys of a representative cross section of County businesses.
Specific research performed for the commercial sector are described below.
3.2.1
HAULER SURVEYS
At the time of the study, there were a total of seven permitted haulers1 that were collecting
commercial waste in Mecklenburg County. It was not known how many of these haulers were
aware of the impending pallet ban, which could potentially impact their ability to accept wood
pallets from their small business customers for disposal if the ban were to be enforced. It
further was hypothesized that these haulers would potentially be able to provide insight into
the generation, collection, and recycling/disposal of wood pallets and clean wood, and that
some of the haulers may even be providing collection service for these source separated items.
However, it was also acknowledged that private haulers may not be willing to respond to a
1
Another 11 haulers were reported to only collect residential wastes, and 10 haulers collect only C&D debris.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3-1
3. METHODOLOGY
direct survey, for a variety of reasons including concern about the confidentiality of their
business and a lack of time to respond.
In an attempt to capture some insight from the commercial haulers doing business in the
commercial (and C&D) sectors, the MSW Team conducted a brief survey of all seven
commercial waste haulers (as well as the C&D haulers). The MSW Team developed a cover
letter and survey instrument to guide the responses, and contacted haulers by phone and email to request participation. Five of the seven commercial waste haulers provided at least
some feedback from the survey, with the other two commercial haulers not responding to our
inquiries or else declining to participate. Appendix B contains the survey instrument and a
matrix of survey responses.
3.2.2
QCTS SURVEY OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
Mecklenburg County’s commercial waste is delivered primarily to one of two facilities: the
BFI-Speedway Landfill just across the border in Cabarrus County, and the Queen City
Transfer Station (QCTS), owned by Republic Services, in Charlotte. BFI-Speedway is
estimated to receive almost 70 percent of all Mecklenburg County waste (residential,
commercial and C&D), while QCTS receives approximately 16 percent of all waste (which is
predominantly commercial). Commercial waste is also being hauled to several other landfills
and transfer stations in surrounding counties and in South Carolina.
It is the opinion of the MSW Team that a full commercial waste stream characterization study,
including field sampling and physical sorting of a representative sample of incoming
commercial waste loads, is the preferred method for documenting the quantity of wood
pallets, untreated wood waste, and other targeted materials being disposed in the County’s
commercial waste stream. Prior to the outset of this project, MSW Consultants approached
facility management at both BFI-Speedway and QCTS to request access to each site for the
purpose of performing physical sampling and sorting of commercial wastes.
Access was denied by BFI-Speedway, which limits any ability to conduct a representative
physical characterization study of commercial wastes given the large proportion of
Mecklenburg County commercial waste received at that facility.
Limited access was, however, granted at the QCTS. Because of space limitations at this
transfer station, it was not possible to conduct physical sampling and sorting of incoming
commercial waste. Because the study was primarily targeting wood pallets and untreated
wood waste, the MSW Team opted to perform a visual survey of incoming commercial waste
loads to identify the incidence of wood pallets and untreated wood.
The MSW team conducted visual observations of incoming loads on August 7 and 8, 2007,
from 7:00 A.M. until 3:00 P.M. The facility (which is open from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM)
received a total of 411 incoming vehicles over these two days, of which we made detailed
visual observations of 147 (36 percent). An “nth truck” selection process was applied, and it
is noteworthy that a significant number of incoming loads contained pure C&D debris as well
as commercial waste. The MSW field supervisor recorded the following information about
each load based on visual observation:
‹ The vehicle type of the incoming load (frontload vehicle, roll-off compactor box, roll-off
open top box) and the size of the container (in cubic yards);
‹ A qualitative assessment of the type of waste;
3-2
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. METHODOLOGY
‹ The percentage fullness of the tipped load relative to the size of the truck or box that
delivered the load (e.g., 75 percent full);
‹ A count of the number of pallets and crates that were visible within the load, as well as an
estimate of the percentage of the load containing pallets/crates. For purposes of
converting to weight pallets were assumed to weigh 50 pounds each;
‹ An estimate of the percentage of the load containing untreated wood waste. For purposes
of analysis, clean wood was assumed to have a density of 309 pounds per cubic yard.
The hauler and truck number were also recorded for each load to allow, at the end of the day,
weigh tickets for each observed load to be obtained from the facility scalehouse. Haulerrelated data was not preserved at the request of QCTS management.
Although the methodology for performing the visual observations of commercial waste loads
was consistently applied, and the MSW Team believes the data provided by this exercise is
meaningful, it should be noted that visual surveying was limited by three factors.
‹ Limited Space: Because of the space limitations, it was not possible to walk around
tipped loads to clearly observe all sides of the load. Although the QCTS entry bays are
open and the tipping floor is well lit, the MSW Team field supervisor for this effort was
required to remain outside the unloading bays and could not approach the tipped loads. It
was therefore only possible to observe three sides of the tipped load – both sides could be
observed, as well as the “front” of the load (i.e., the portion of the tipped load closest to
the cab). To the extent wood pallets or clean wood was contained in the rear of a tipped
load (i.e., the portion of the load at the back of the truck), the MSW field supervisor may
not have been able to clearly observe these items.
‹ No Spreading of Loads: In a related matter, because of the space limitation and high
traffic volume, it was not possible to spread out the tipped loads to improve the ability of
the field supervisor to observe the interior contents of the loads. Such spreading has been
shown to improve the accuracy of visual characterization (and was performed in the full
C&D characterization study).
‹ Driver Interviews Prohibited: At the request of QCTS facility management, the MSW
field supervisor was not permitted to talk to the drivers of incoming vehicles. This
requirement is understandable and was intended to minimize the impact of this study on
QCTS’s customers.
In analyzing the results, the MSW Team has applied its professional opinion to identify the
sources of incoming loads of waste at the QCTS, and to estimate the quantity of wood pallets
and untreated wood waste. However, given the limitations described above, we cannot be
certain that our results achieve a degree of accuracy that would be possible if no such
limitations existed.
The raw data obtained from this analysis is contained in Appendix C.
3.2.3
COMMERCIAL GENERATOR RESEARCH AND SURVEYING
Because of the limitations to commercial sampling, visual surveying, and sorting, the MSW
Team devoted extensive resources to direct surveying of businesses to research wood pallet
and untreated wood waste generation, disposal, and recycling. Data on corrugated cardboard
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3-3
3. METHODOLOGY
and recyclable plastic films were also obtained at those businesses targeted for surveying. This
section describes the research undertaken as well as the findings.
As described previously, the InfoUSA database of Mecklenburg County businesses contained
almost 42,000 businesses in the County. This database was used as a starting point for
classifying businesses for follow-up research.
There are over 700 5-digit NAICS codes that describe the exact nature of a business. The
MSW Team reviewed the 5-digit NAICS codes and the business data contained in the
InfoUSA database in detail. Based on this analysis, the following logical steps were applied to
subdivide the InfoUSA database into meaningful groupings. The intended result was a
reasonable strategy to obtain representative coverage of all Mecklenburg County businesses
through a combination of phone surveys and on-site research, while focusing the majority of
our efforts on those businesses that are most likely to generate wood pallets and/or clean
wood.
The MSW Team undertook the following steps to identify pallet/wood generators:
‹ Excluded 1,598 of businesses that contained no NAICS code. This represents
approximately 3.8 percent of all businesses in the database. For the sake of simplicity, we
will assume that the results we obtain for the remainder of the database will apply to these
unspecified companies. Although this assumption may not be entirely valid, the relatively
small fraction of unspecified businesses does not warrant more rigorous treatment, in our
professional opinion.
‹ Excluded 35 of businesses identified as NAICS code 99, unclassified establishments.
‹ Excluded 3,757 of home-based businesses.
‹ Businesses in the Construction industry (NAICS code 23) were excluded. Pallet and wood
generation in the construction and demolition industry were researched through a full
C&D waste characterization analysis performed in conjunction with this project.
‹ The 5-digit NAICS codes were reviewed in detail and a determination was made as to the
likelihood that those businesses would generate pallets and/or clean wood. A total of 243
5-digit NAICS codes (33 percent of the total) were identified as industries that would be
likely to generate pallets and/or clean wood.
‹ As a final step, we considered the employment and square footage of the businesses that
are likely to generate pallets and/or clean wood. It was reasoned that a very small
business (i.e., one with few employees and low square footage of their building) would not
be likely to generate pallets and/or clean wood in any significant volume. For the
purposes of completing the analysis of the InfoUSA database, we established a threshold
of five or fewer employees with less than 2,499 total square footage.
Table 3-1 summarizes the number, employment, and square footage of the businesses in
Mecklenburg County that remained in the database after application of the filtering rules
described above. A detailed accounting of these businesses is provided in Appendix D. Note
that although many of the larger businesses/high pallet generators are likely to have pallet
recycling programs in place, there was still a need to survey these firms because it is likely that
the recovery rate would not be 100 percent, and therefore these large businesses could be
both large recyclers and large disposers of pallets.
3-4
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. METHODOLOGY
Table 3-1 Mecklenburg County Businesses Likely to Generate Pallets/Wood
Description
NAICS
2Digit
Code
Count of
Total
Businesses Employees
11
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
31-33
Total
Square
Footage [1]
5
41
16,250
Manufacturing
1,268
34,951
28,142,500
42
Wholesale Trade
2,083
29,769
41,758,750
44
Retail Trade
1,384
27,088
18,426,250
48-49
Transportation and Warehousing
544
15,284
13,600,000
56
55
5,334
431,250
62
Administrative and Support and Waste
Management and Remediation Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
282
13,678
6,900,000
71
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
81
4,389
1,288,750
5,702
130,534
110,563,750
Total
Source: InfoUSA
[1] InfoUSA identifies a range of square footage for each business (i.e., it does not specify the
exact square footage) The ranges shown in the InfoUSA database are: 0 to 2,499 square
feet; 2,500 to 9,999 square feet; 10,000 to 39,999 square feet; or 40,000 square feet and
above. To estimate the total square footage attributable to businesses in each NAICS code,
MSW Consultants used the midpoint of each range (and a value of 50,000 square feet was
assumed for businesses whose square footage exceeded 40,000).
As shown in the table above, there were 5,702 businesses (roughly 14 percent of the total),
with employment of 130,534 (roughly 24% of total) and total square footage of 110,563,750
(roughly 24% of total) that were believed to be the most likely generators of pallets and clean
wood. These businesses were concentrated in the manufacturing and the wholesale and retail
industries, although some businesses were identified in transportation/warehousing, health
care, and other industries.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3-5
3. METHODOLOGY
Conversely, there remained in the database a large number of businesses that were deemed
less likely to generate pallets/clean wood. MSW Consultants applied a similar test based on
size of the business to eliminate business that had 5 or fewer employees and less than 2,499
square feet. Table 3-2 summarizes the 18,857 businesses (roughly 45% of total businesses) in
the County that passed the screening for size and square footage that possibly generate wood
pallets and/or clean wood, but are in industries that are not believed to generate a significant
number of pallets. A summary of the below businesses by NAICS 5-digit code is provided in
Appendix D.
Table 3-2 Mecklenburg County Businesses that Possibly Generate Pallets/Wood
Description
NAICS
2Digit
Code
Count of
Total
Businesses Employees
Total
Square
Footage [1]
11
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
27
302
327,500
21
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
37
491
893,750
22
Utilities
31
7,661
806,250
33
Manufacturing
218
7,648
6,068,750
42
Wholesale Trade
176
9,145
3,806,250
44-45
Retail Trade
2,742
46,397
33,698,750
48-49
Transportation and Warehousing
303
4,808
4,440,000
51
Information
896
16,105
15,646,250
52
Finance and Insurance
1,826
35,751
15,541,250
53
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
1,360
16,102
15,923,750
54
Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
2,661
37,706
26,135,000
33
11,410
818,750
1,184
18,413
11,815,000
61
Administrative and Support and Waste
Management and Remediation Services
Educational Services
631
27,823
16,573,750
62
Health Care and Social Assistance
1,453
26,038
17,123,750
71
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
404
4,016
6,456,250
72
Accommodation and Food Services
1,849
44,539
16,261,250
81
Other Services (except Public Administration)
2,530
24,122
31,737,500
92
Public Administration
496
21,304
10,637,500
18,857
359,781
234,711,250
55
56
Total
Source: InfoUSA
[1] InfoUSA identifies a range of square footage for each business (i.e., it does not specify the
exact square footage) The ranges shown in the InfoUSA database are: 0 to 2,499 square
feet; 2,500 to 9,999 square feet; 10,000 to 39,999 square feet; or 40,000 square feet and
above. To estimate the total square footage attributable to businesses in each NAICS code,
MSW Consultants used the midpoint of each range (and a value of 50,000 square feet was
assumed for businesses whose square footage exceeded 40,000).
As shown, the “Possible Generator” businesses span virtually all industry groups.
3-6
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. METHODOLOGY
Table 3-3 below, summarizes the 13,430 businesses that were not researched further, due
primarily to their being (a) too small to generate significant quantities of pallets/wood; (b) in
industries that do not generate these materials; or (c) were unclassifiable. Appendix D
provides a detailed summary of businesses in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Mecklenburg County Businesses not Surveyed
Description
NAICS
2Digit
Code
Count of
Total
Businesses Employees
11
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
21
Total
Square
Footage
[2]
58
112
72,500
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
0
0
0
22
Utilities
0
0
0
31-33
Manufacturing
72
216
90,000
42
Wholesale Trade
62
178
77,500
44-45
Retail Trade
1,462
3,337
1,827,500
48-49
Transportation and Warehousing
119
263
148,750
51
Information
11
26
13,750
52
Finance and Insurance
842
2,179
1,052,500
53
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
1,173
3,652
1,466,250
54
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
2,593
5,934
3,241,250
55
Management of Companies and Enterprises
0
0
0
56
802
1,981
1,002,500
61
Administrative and Support and Waste
Management and Remediation Services
Educational Services
166
283
207,500
62
Health Care and Social Assistance
1,479
4,493
1,848,750
71
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
152
233
190,000
72
Accommodation and Food Services
526
1,636
657,500
81
Other Services (except Public Administration)
2,284
5,175
2,855,000
92
Public Administration
99
Unclassified Establishments
NA
Not available [3]
Total
0
0
0
31
734
850,000
1,598
7,277
13,430
37,709
38,320,000
53,921,250
Source: InfoUSA
[1] InfoUSA identifies a range of square footage for each business (i.e., it does not specify the
exact square footage) The ranges shown in the InfoUSA database are: 0 to 2,499 square
feet; 2,500 to 9,999 square feet; 10,000 to 39,999 square feet; or 40,000 square feet and
above. To estimate the total square footage attributable to businesses in each NAICS code,
MSW Consultants used the midpoint of each range (and a value of 50,000 square feet was
assumed for businesses whose square footage exceeded 40,000).
In conclusion, out of the 41,879 businesses in the County, the screening process used in this
study identified:
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3-7
3. METHODOLOGY
‹ Likely Generators: 5,702 businesses, employing 24 percent of county employees, that
appeared likely to generate pallets and clean wood;
‹ Possible Generators: 18,857 businesses, employing 64 percent of county employees, that
were not believed to be significant generators of pallets and clean wood, but that were
arguably large enough to generate these materials in small quantities; and
‹ Non-Generators: 13,430 businesses, employing seven percent of county employees, that
were both too small (in terms of employment and square footage) and also in industries
that are not known for generating pallets and/or clean wood waste, such as professional
offices and small retail establishments.
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the breakdown of the number of Mecklenburg County businesses
and employment, respectively, in each of the above categories.
Figure 3-1 Expected Pallet/Clean Wood Generation by Industry (No. of Businesses)
Not available [3]
Unclassified Establishments
Public Administration
Other Services (except Public Administration)
Accommodation and Food Services
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Health Care and Social Assistance
Educational Services
Administrative / Support / Waste Management
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Finance and Insurance
Information
Transportation and Warehousing
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Manufacturing
Utilities
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Number of Businesses
Possible Pallet/Wood Generators
Likely Pallet/Wood Generators
Unlikely Pallet/Wood Generators
3-8
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. METHODOLOGY
Figure 3-2 Expected Pallet/Clean Wood Generation by Industry (Employment)
Not available [3]
Unclassified Establishments
Public Administration
Other Services (except Public Administration)
Accommodation and Food Services
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Health Care and Social Assistance
Educational Services
Administrative / Support / Waste Management
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Finance and Insurance
Information
Transportation and Warehousing
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Manufacturing
Utilities
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Employment
Possible Pallet/Wood Generators
Likely Pallet/Wood Generators
Unlikely Pallet/Wood Generators
As shown in the Figure above, when measured by employment, the Likely and Possible
generator strata are shown to comprise the majority of Mecklenburg County, and this is where
our commercial sector research was focused. In summary, our direct research encompassed
over 90 percent of the County’s non-construction employment base.
The MSW Team used a combination of telephone surveying, on-site research, and visual
analysis of commercial waste loads to investigate pallet and clean wood generation, disposal,
and recycling among the subsets of Mecklenburg County businesses. Table 3-4 identifies the
research strategies used to further investigate each sector.
Table 3-4 Research Methods for Commercial Sub-Sectors
Subsector
On-site
Research
Observation
of Targeted
Loads
Phone
Surveying
5,702
Yes
Yes
Yes
Possible Generators
18,857
No
No
Yes
Non-Generators
13,430
No
No
No
Likely Generators
Number of
Businesses
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3-9
3. METHODOLOGY
The universe of Likely Generator and Possible Generator businesses subject to random
sampling for telephone and/or on-site surveys totaled 24,559 businesses, or 59 percent of
total businesses, representing 88 percent of total employment. A discussion of the phone
survey, on-site research, and targeted commercial load research methodology is presented
below.
3.2.4
TELEPHONE SURVEYS
The MSW Team believes that the most effective, accurate, and meaningful way to gather
information about waste management and recycling behaviors of commercial businesses is
through on-site observation and research, combined with interviews with business operational
personnel. However, given the size and diversity of the universe of businesses in
Mecklenburg County, it was beyond available resources to complete this project strictly
through on-site research.
Telephone surveys, while less in depth, provide a way to contact many more businesses to
collect basic information about waste management and recycling practices. In an attempt to
balance the need for in-depth research with available budgeted resources, the MSW Team
completed telephone surveys of 526 Mecklenburg County businesses to inquire about their
generation of wood pallets, clean wood, OCC, and film plastics. Businesses were selected
from the InfoUSA database, as described above.
The majority of the telephone surveys – 365 commercial businesses – targeted the commercial
establishments believed to be Possible pallet/clean wood generators. This allowed the Project
Team to concentrate our on-site research on the businesses most likely to generate pallets, and
therefore most likely to be impacted by a landfill ban on pallets.
The result was that the Project Team relied on telephone surveys to develop estimates of the
generation and disposition of targeted materials for Possible generators, and concentrated our
on-site research and analysis on Likely generators. Telephone surveys of 161 Likely
generators were also conducted to expand the universe of Likely generators surveyed.
Although onsite research was the primary means of data collection for the Likely generators,
the telephone surveys were intended to supplement on-site research and enable some
comparison between the accuracy and completeness of telephone survey data relative to onsite research.
To perform the telephone survey, the MSW Team randomly selected 1,000 “likely” businesses
and 3,000 “possible” businesses. Phone surveyors began contacting companies sequentially,
making up to three attempts to reach the appropriate person at each business contacted.
Incorrect or disconnected phone numbers, as well as businesses that were unresponsive after
three attempts, were not surveyed. Surveyors proceeded through the randomly selected list of
businesses until sampling targets were achieved. Table 3-5 summarizes the phone surveys,
and a copy of the telephone survey instrument is attached in Appendix B.
3-10
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. METHODOLOGY
Table 3-5 Summary of Commercial Generator Phone Surveys
“Likely” Generators
“Possible” Generators
5,702
18,857
Randomly Selected Businesses
1,000 [1]
3,000 [1]
Responses (Response Rate)
161 (16%)
365 (12%)
Number of Businesses in Universe
[1] Surveyors progressed through their randomly selected list of companies until reaching
prescribed response targets. Not every business was contacted.
At the outset of this task, the telephone surveys of the Likely generators were intended to be
used as a mechanism to contact businesses who would be targets for further on-site research
to be conducted at a later stage of the project. However, given the logistical challenges
associated with mapping out and visiting Likely generators for on-site research, phone surveys
were ultimately performed strictly to supplement the on-site research.
Survey responses were compiled by 2-digit NAICS code. For each 2-digit NAICS code, the
MSW Team calculated the total number of businesses surveyed, as well as the employment
represented by those businesses. Further, generation rates were calculated for each 2-digit
NAICS code.
Table 3-5 summarizes the number of responses received by 2-digit NAICS code for both the
Likely and the Possible generators.
3.2.5
ON-SITE SURVEYS
The MSW Team believed that on-site observations at business establishments, coupled with
interviews of business personnel, would provide the best characterization of wood pallet and
clean wood generation and management practices. For this reason, extensive business on-site
observations were performed by experienced recycling professionals.
In preparation for on-site generator surveys, the MSW Team (lead by DSM Environmental
Services) sorted the list of Likely Generators by zip code and street address. Once on the
ground in Mecklenburg County, the MSW Team chose geographic regions of high commercial
and industrial activity to survey each day, with the goal of surveying Likely Generators in each
broad NAICS category, as well as generators geographically dispersed throughout the County
(in the event that behavior varied geographically as well as by size and NAICS code).
Ultimately, the MSW Team conducted on-site generator observations during two separate
one-week field data collection events that took place in November and December 2007.
During each week, two to three MSW Team members (lead by DSM professional staff)
canvassed the County to collect data.
The MSW Team walked into businesses that were either on the Likely Generator list, or had
pallets visible on their premises. The MSW Team introduced the purpose of the survey and
attempted to speak face to face with the employee/business manager most likely to know
about pallet generation and disposal. Visual inspections of storage areas and dumpsters were
sought and, in most cases, performed at those sites that agreed to the survey.
To assure consistency of data collection, the same survey instrument as was used in the phone
survey was used as a starting point for on-site observations and interviews (see Appendix B).
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3-11
3. METHODOLOGY
However, the face-to-face dialog, as well as the opportunity to visually confirm or further
explore certain responses, provided the field interview team with the ability to ask further
clarification questions in response to what was observed at the site.
In each case, the MSW Team worked with the company’s representative to establish estimates
of generation and how each material was managed. Often this involved a series of questions
about generation, recycling and disposal for each material, with prompts from DSM as
appropriate to assist the company representative with estimating generation.
Over the course of two separate extended field visits, a total of 281 businesses were included
in the on-site observations and interviews. Table 3-6 summarizes the distribution of
businesses by 2-digit NAICS code captured in the on-site generator surveys.
Table 3-6 Summary of Phone and On-site Survey Responses
NAICS
2Digit
Code
Description
11
21
22
31-33
42
44-45
48-49
51
52
53
54
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
Utilities
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Information
Finance and Insurance
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administrative and Support and Waste
Management and Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services (except Public Administration)
55
56
61
62
71
72
81
Total
On-site
Number of Number of
Survey
Responses Responses
Responses
from
from
Possible
Likely
Generators Generators
0
0
1
NA
1
NA
NA
2
NA
31
5
55
62
3
95
42
71
82
17
3
21
NA
17
NA
NA
36
NA
NA
35
NA
NA
52
3 [1]
NA
3
1
25
NA
3
NA
3
3
NA
NA
7
24
6
41
36
NA
8
3
NA
3 [1]
161
365
281
[1] These NAICS codes were not initially targeted in the on-site surveys; rather, these
establishments were observed to have pallets awaiting recycling or disposal and were added
to the list of on-site surveys while the field study was in progress.
3-12
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. METHODOLOGY
In total, 807 Mecklenburg County businesses were surveyed either by phone or on-site in the
performance of this project. These businesses were contacted in proportion to the
distribution of business types as defined by the NAICS code system.
3.2.6
INFOUSA DATABASE ACCURACY
As described in Section 2, research into the universe of commercial businesses in
Mecklenburg County necessarily relied on an underlying database of businesses. A database
of businesses generated by InfoUSA was used for this purpose. It should be noted that any
database of businesses would be expected to contain errors and inaccuracies simply because of
the challenges associated with maintaining real-time data for such a large population.
Although it was beyond the scope of this study to analyze the reason for InfoUSA
inaccuracies, we can reasonably hypothesize that errors arise because of the time lag between
new business registrations or closures; acquisition of one business by another; integration of
records from multiple underlying sources; and human error.
Prior to surveying, the MSW Team reviewed the InfoUSA database to identify potential
shortfalls in the data. This review identified the following:
‹ Missing Business Addresses: A critical part of performing field observations, is to be
able to have the addresses for the commercial generators. There were 2,489 businesses
(6.0% of the total businesses in InfoUSA) that had neither a primary nor a secondary
address in the database and therefore could not be targeted for field survey (or otherwise
verified).
‹ Duplicate Listings: In evaluating the entire InfoUSA database, the MSW Team found
only 223 businesses (0.5%) with the identical business name and primary address, which
suggests that these may be duplicates. For example, Bi-Lo Grocery Stores appears twice
in the InfoUSA database with an identical address (9815 Rose Commons Drive), NAICS,
employee counts, and square footage – this is likely a duplicate entry. However, the
degree of duplication of records is harder to discern for another fraction of businesses in
the database. This was the case where there was a relatively large building (or buildings)
with multiple commercial services being provided. For example, Rooms To Go Clearance
and Rooms To Go Warehouse are both located at 2730 South Interstate Service Road
(abbreviated differently in the InfoUSA Database) with identical NAICS. However,
InfoUSA reports different employee counts and square footage for Rooms To Go
Clearance and Rooms To Go Warehouse, so this may reflect two separate divisions of a
business with the same mailing address. Our review of the database suggests that between
two and four percent of listings may be full or partial duplicate listings.
‹ PO Box for Both the Primary Address and Secondary Address: A PO Box as a
primary address and secondary address prevented a businesses from being selected for
field observation. Only 315 businesses were found to have only a PO Box address as both
a primary address and a secondary address or a PO Box address as a primary address and
no secondary address. The use of PO boxes did not appear to be a significant problem.
The MSW Team attempted to evaluate the accuracy of the InfoUSA database during both the
phone and on-site surveys. During the phone survey, an effort was made to validate the
employment and square footage data contained in the database. On average, the self-reported
employment by survey respondents was between five and 11 percent less than the
employment reported in the InfoUSA database. This may be attributable to the fact that the
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3-13
3. METHODOLOGY
survey sought to capture the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, while the
InfoUSA database may have reported total employees. Although the MSW Team at first
attempted to also validate the square footage and the NAICS code reported in the InfoUSA
database, survey respondents were predominately unable to confirm these items.
Accuracy of the InfoUSA data was also validated during on-site surveys. Of the 281 surveyed
locations, all but seven businesses surveyed by the MSW Team were ultimately found in the
InfoUSA database, which suggests that the database is reasonably complete. However,
inaccuracies in the employment and square footage data in the InfoUSA database caused some
businesses to be misclassified during the screening process for Likely and Possible Generators.
During field surveys, the MSW Team noted:
Inaccuracy in Employment Information: Of the businesses for which employment was
confirmed with the local representative, 65 percent reported a number of employees that
varied by 15 percent above or below the count of employees specified in the InfoUSA
database, with 19 percent reporting employment that varied by 50 percent or more. Total
employment in the InfoUSA database seems reasonable at the macro level based on other
comparable data sources, but inaccuracies clearly exist throughout individual company listings.
Inaccuracy of Square Footage: Approximately 50 percent of businesses surveyed in site
reported a square footage that fell outside the Info USA database square footage range
assigned to the business.
It was beyond the scope of this study to investigate the discrepancies in the InfoUSA database.
Because total employment seems the most reasonable in the database, and because the MSW
Team has no basis for validating the total square footage in the InfoUSA database, for the
remainder of this study we have relied on employment as a better basis for extrapolating
results.
3.2.7
TARGETED COMMERCIAL LOAD OBSERVATION
For the most part, on-site surveys provided the best glimpse into the disposed waste stream at
a wide range of businesses, and MSW Team members were able to both interview business
personnel and visually observe the contents of material streams targeted for both disposal and
recycling/reuse. Most commercial businesses use dumpsters as their primary container for
refuse, and it was possible to open and visually scan the contents of dumpsters during the onsite surveys.
However, some of the larger establishments utilize roll-off compactor boxes for refuse. These
boxes can be as large as 30 yards, and are entirely enclosed except for the in-feed chute.
Compactor boxes are prevalent at establishments like big box stores, grocery stores, and
certain manufacturers, all of which are believed to generate wood pallets as well as other
targeted materials. As a consequence of these containers being enclosed, it was not possible
for on-site surveyors to view the contents of the disposed waste stream at these
establishments to evaluate pallet, clean wood, cardboard and plastic film generation.
To determine how best to target compactor box loads for further visual observation, the
MSW Team reviewed the distribution of responses to the on-site surveys compared to the
overall distribution of establishments in the County. Table 3-7 compares the on-site surveys
completed against the percent of establishments in the Likely Generator categories based on
the InfoUSA database. The table shows the relative percentage of each 2-digit NAICS in the
3-14
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. METHODOLOGY
on-site surveys versus that found in the entire universe of Likely Generators. While these
allocations tracked reasonably well, the manufacturing, transportation, and health care sectors
were found to be slightly under-represented, and were subsequently targeted for further
observation.
Table 3-7 Comparison of On-site Surveys and
Total Likely Generator Businesses in Mecklenburg County
Generator Types
On-site Surveys
% of Total
Likely
Generator
Businesses [1]
Number of
On-site
Surveys
% of Total
On-site
Surveys
Wholesale
95
35.7%
36.5%
Retail
82
30.8%
24.4%
Manufacturing
55
20.7%
22.3%
Transportation
21
7.9%
9.4%
Healthcare
6
2.3%
4.9%
Arts
3
1.1%
1.4%
Admin
3
1.1%
1.0%
Agriculture
1
0.4%
0.1%
266
100.0%
100.0%
Total
[1] Source: InfoUSA
Ultimately, the MSW Team did not attempt to make arrangements with healthcare entities due
to the potential sensitivity among Foxhole Landfill neighboring communities to having these
wastes tipped at the facility. Rather, some additional “big box” retailers (such as Wal-Mart
and Sears) were added to supplement our on-site survey data.
The MSW Team made arrangements with local haulers to acquire and deliver compactor box
loads to the Foxhole Landfill, where they could be tipped and visually surveyed. In
preparation for the visual sampling of these targeted commercial loads, the MSW Team
contacted county permitted haulers to recruit delivery of these loads. The County offered to
waive the tip fee as an incentive. Local haulers Republic Waste, Hawk Sanitation, Allied
Waste, and All-Points Waste ultimately cooperated in delivering compactor box loads from
targeted Mecklenburg County establishments. From February 4th through 7th, 2008, an MSW
Team member was on-site at Foxhole Landfill to receive, confirm, and visually survey the
incoming loads.
Haulers were asked to provide the name, address, type of business, and the frequency of pulls
from each establishment. MSW Team members spoke directly with dispatch to line up
appropriate loads. The on-site MSW Team visual surveyor photographed and logged each
incoming vehicle onto a field sample sheet. Drivers of these trucks were instructed to
announce to the scale attendant (fee collector) that he/she was delivering a load for the visual
survey, and were given instructions to tip in the designated area for visual observation. Weigh
tickets were obtained from the scalehouse for each load.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3-15
3. METHODOLOGY
The MSW Team subsequently consulted the InfoUSA database to obtain estimated
employment for each targeted load, and also requested service level data from the participating
haulers. Table 3-8 summarizes the employment, container yardage, and service levels for each
of the 33 commercial organizations that were captured in the study (one of which was
sampled twice).
Table 3-8 Visual Survey Waste Generation
Business Name
NAICS 2Digit
Number of
Employees
Contemporary Classics
Sia Abrasives
Intelicoat Technologies#3
Stock Building Supply
CCL Label
Cadmus Specialty Packaging
Rutland plastic
Sun Chemical
Pelton & Crane
Aplix (sampled twice)
Jacobsen
Pelton Crane
Carocraft Cabinets
United Supply
Scandura/Fenner Dunlap
Home Depot
Sears
Building Center Inc.
Harris Teeter
Value City
Lowes Food
Family Dollar DC Box 1
Family Dollar DC Box 2
Costco
Stein Mart
Belk Dist Ctr
Wal-Mart
Canteen Vending
Marshall's
Wal-mart
FedEx Ground
Britax
IPEX
Container
Yardage
200
31
23
32
150
32
70
32
100
32
300
32
100
32
113
32
201
33
50
33
200
33
201
33
40
33
118
33
65
42
120
44
19
44
100
44
87
44
35
44
120
44
400
45
400
45
18
45
52
45
250
45
48
45
275
45
47
45
48
45
48
180
54
150
99
[1] OT = Open Top; CC = Compacter; SE = Self-Contained Compactor
40
40
40
40
42
42
30
30
40
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
30
40
30
42
40
30
40
40
30
40
40
30
30
30
30
Container
Type[1]
Annual
Pulls
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
SC
SC
OT
SC
CC
CC
OT
CC
CC
OT
CC
CC
SC
CC
CC
CC
CC
SC
CC
CC
SC
OT
CC
SC
SC
SC
SC
156
9
104
104
156
312
104
104
156
104
52
156
156
24
52
52
17
17
52
60
52
52
104
104
18
52
52
104
156
36
52
26
156
The results of these targeted loads were integrated into the on-site survey data to develop
combined results.
3-16
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. METHODOLOGY
3.3.
CONSTRUCTION
APPROACH
AND
DEMOLITION
SECTOR
The construction and demolition sector has been defined in this study to include all
construction, renovation, and demolition activities taking place in Mecklenburg County where
C&D debris is generated. The MSW Team used multiple strategies to gather information
about the generation and management of pallets and clean wood (as well as the other targeted
materials) in the C&D sector. Our approach for researching the C&D sector encompassed
the following efforts:
‹ Hauler surveys to inquire about the incidence of generation, alternative disposal options,
and procedures for collecting pallets and clean wood from C&D sites;
‹ Full C&D characterization analysis that took place at two C&D disposal facilities in
Mecklenburg County that collectively receive about 80 percent of the total C&D waste
generated; and
‹ Builder focus group meetings were used to get direct feedback from builders and
developers who are active in both residential and commercial development and
construction in the County.
Specific research performed for the commercial sector is described below.
3.3.1
HAULER SURVEYS
At the time of the study, there were a total of 15 permitted haulers2 that were collecting C&D
waste in Mecklenburg County. The vast majority of the C&D debris being collected by these
haulers was likely to be delivered to C&D landfills (or facilities other than MSW landfills), so it
was not believed that the wood pallet ban in MSW landfills would be as problematic for these
haulers and their customers. However, in an attempt to capture some insight about on-site
management practices for wood pallets and clean wood from C&D haulers, the MSW Team
conducted a brief survey of the C&D haulers. MSW developed a cover letter and survey
instrument to guide the responses, and contacted haulers by phone and e-mail to request
participation. Twelve of the 15 C&D waste haulers provided at least some feedback from the
survey, with the other three not responding to our inquiries or declining to participate.
Appendix B contains the survey instrument and a matrix of survey responses.
3.3.2
C&D WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
Over the past several years, Mecklenburg County has generated roughly 350,000 tons per year
of C&D that has been disposed in landfills. C&D waste is known to contain a large fraction
of materials that can be recycled and, according to the County’s 2006 Solid Waste Master Plan,
C&D represents “the greatest single opportunity for waste reduction.”
As part of this overall study of wood pallets, clean wood, and other materials, MSW
Consultants conducted a full C&D waste characterization study to investigate the composition
of County-generated C&D being disposed in landfills. This study was performed to achieve
the following objectives:
2
Eleven of these haulers were reported to only collect C&D wastes, with four collecting from all sectors.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3-17
3. METHODOLOGY
‹ Develop statistically defensible estimates of the annual composition of C&D waste
generated in Mecklenburg County and disposed in landfills;
‹ Identify opportunities for increasing diversion from this sector; and
‹ Establish a baseline snapshot of the composition of Mecklenburg County’s C&D waste
stream against which future studies can be compared for the purpose of evaluating future
programmatic changes.
According to C&D disposal data that were compiled from annual landfill reports to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Mecklenburg County
generated 377,120 tons of C&D waste in FY2007. This C&D was reported by eight different
C&D landfills inside and outside of Mecklenburg County. However, 76 percent of Countygenerated C&D was reported to be disposed at two facilities: the County’s Foxhole Landfill
on Mecklenburg County’s southern border, and the North Mecklenburg Landfill in Cornelius,
serving the northern part of the County.
In the Summer and early Fall of 2007, MSW Consultants arranged and conducted a total of
three weeks of on-site sampling of incoming C&D loads at these two facilities. During field
data collection, a total of 246 loads were randomly selected for sampling. For each load, MSW
Consultants applied a visual surveying protocol to identify the prevalence of 30 discrete
materials in the C&D waste stream. The visual surveying protocol required a professional
field supervisor with solid waste industry experience to:
‹ Measure the dimensions of the incoming truck or container;
‹ Estimate how full the container is on a percentage basis;
‹ Systematically identify and estimate the volume-percent of the constituents in the load;
and
‹ Acquire the actual weight ticket from the facility scalehouse indicating the actual weight of
the load.
Volume-based estimates were converted to weights based on industry-standard density
factors, and the resulting estimated weight was normalized based on the actual known weight
of the load. Landfill based sampling of incoming waste streams are believed to render the
most accurate picture of the composition of these waste streams. A separate, comprehensive
report was developed to summarize the methodology and results of the Mecklenburg County
C&D waste characterization study. For the convenience of the reader, detailed tabular results
of the entire C&D waste stream are shown in Table 3-9, and the results section of the full
C&D report is included in Appendix F to this volume.
3-18
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. METHODOLOGY
Table 3-9 Mecklenburg County C&D Waste Composition Summary
90% Conf. Interval
Material Categories
OCC/Kraft
Other Paper
Paper Subtotal
PVC Pipe
Plastic Film
Vinyl Siding
Other Plastic
Plastic Subtotal
Glass
Glass Subtotal
Appliances
Other Ferrous Metals
HVAC Ducting
Other Non-Ferrous Metals
Metal Subtotal
Land Clearing / Limbs / Stumps
Other Yard Waste
Green Waste Subtotal
Concrete/ Block/ Brick/ Stone/ Tile
Dirt/Sand/Gravel
Inerts Subtotal
Pallets
Crates
Untreated Wood
Oriented Strandboard (OSB)
Treated/ Painted/ Processed Wood
Wood Subtotal
Drywall - Unpainted
Drywall - Painted
Asphalt Roofing
Insulation
Ceiling Tiles
Carpet & Carpet Backing
C&D Materials Subtotal
Bagged MSW
Electronics
Bulky Wastes/ Furniture
Mixed C&D/ Other Unclassified
Bulky/Other Subtotal
TOTAL
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Mean
3.8%
0.7%
Standard
Deviation
0.4%
0.1%
Lower
3.1%
0.6%
Upper
4.5%
0.9%
4.5%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.6%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.1%
5.6%
0.1%
1.1%
6.9%
0.9%
1.1%
2.0%
23.3%
6.1%
29.4%
2.1%
0.5%
16.5%
6.0%
6.8%
31.8%
6.8%
0.4%
6.4%
0.8%
0.1%
5.3%
19.8%
1.3%
0.0%
0.9%
1.3%
3.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.8%
0.3%
0.2%
0.4%
3.1%
1.3%
3.4%
0.3%
0.3%
1.4%
0.8%
0.7%
2.2%
1.1%
0.2%
1.2%
0.2%
0.0%
1.0%
1.9%
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
3.7%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.5%
0.9%
0.7%
0.7%
0.0%
4.4%
0.0%
0.9%
5.6%
0.4%
0.7%
1.4%
18.2%
4.0%
23.9%
1.6%
0.0%
14.2%
4.7%
5.7%
28.2%
5.0%
0.1%
4.4%
0.5%
0.0%
3.7%
16.7%
1.0%
0.0%
0.6%
1.0%
2.9%
5.3%
0.2%
0.4%
0.1%
0.7%
1.3%
1.1%
1.1%
0.1%
6.8%
0.1%
1.4%
8.2%
1.4%
1.5%
2.7%
28.4%
8.2%
34.9%
2.5%
0.9%
18.8%
7.3%
7.8%
35.4%
8.7%
0.7%
8.4%
1.0%
0.1%
7.0%
23.0%
1.6%
0.1%
1.2%
1.6%
4.1%
100.0%
3-19
Annual
Quantity
(Tons)
14,302
2,817
17,119
457
1,283
194
2,191
4,125
3,420
3,420
217
21,174
290
4,321
26,003
3,514
4,162
7,676
87,846
23,046
110,892
7,765
1,856
62,252
22,488
25,505
119,865
25,806
1,613
24,084
2,888
292
20,167
74,850
4,867
173
3,344
4,784
13,168
377,120
3. METHODOLOGY
3.3.3
BUILDER FOCUS GROUPS
As a final task to gain qualitative feedback from the building community on recycling in
general and on the issue of pallet and clean wood recycling specifically, the MSW Team, in
cooperation with Mecklenburg County, hosted two focus group meetings attended by local
builders. The first focus group meeting was held on December 11, 2007, and was attended
primarily by commercial builders. The second focus group meeting was held on December
13, 2007, and was attended by residential builders.
Prior to each focus group meeting, the MSW Team prepared an agenda and a list of questions
to be covered in the meeting. A copy of the focus group agenda and questions is included in
Appendix F. The MSW Team supplied a solid waste industry senior professional with
extensive facilitation experience, as well as a note taker, to support each focus group meeting.
Focus group meetings were also attended by one or more County representatives, as well as
one or more members of the MSW Team to observe.
During each meeting, the MSW Team spent several hours progressing through the questions
and soliciting responses from attendees. Attendees were addressed by their first names, and
no company-specific information was retained beyond a general description of the type of
construction in which each builder specialized. In general, the focus group attendees were
believed to be reasonably open and frank in their responses, a summary of which can be
found in Appendix F.
3.4.
RECYCLING MARKET RESEARCH APPROACH
As described previously, a significant percentage of this study focused on characterizing the
generation and on-site management of wood pallets, clean wood, and the other targeted
materials. The remaining focus of the project was to research and assess the available
infrastructure within the Mecklenburg County regional market area for collecting, reusing and
recycling the targeted materials. This infrastructure consists of:
‹ Permitted and non-permitted collectors (and self-haulers) of these materials;
‹ Re-manufacturing/reuse facilities for wood pallets;
‹ Wood grinders who chip pallets for use in mulch/landscaping and boiler fuel applications;
and
‹ Processors or end-users who may use the other targeted materials as a feedstock or
otherwise prepare any of the targeted materials for resale to end users.
It should be noted that at the current time there are no material recovery facilities (MRFs) in
Mecklenburg County that target the C&D waste stream. Additionally, other than OCC, there
are no local MRFs that accept mixed loads containing the remaining targeted materials that
have not been source separated.
The following sections describe the market research performed.
3.4.1
COLLECTION INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH
As described above, the MSW Team made inquiries to the licensed haulers in Mecklenburg
County to gain feedback. However, the bulk of the research on the collection infrastructure
was secondary in nature and was based on comments made by pallet and wood generators
3-20
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. METHODOLOGY
and/or by the pallet recyclers in the County that receive small (pick-up truck) loads of pallets
from a relatively large number of unlicensed individuals that earn incremental revenue by
scavenging pallets. Due to the fact that these scavengers are not listed in the phone book, and
in most cases the pallet generators did not know specifics, the MSW Team has not surveyed
these entities.
3.4.2
SURVEYS OF MARKET INFRASTRUCTURE
Mecklenburg County has a robust pallet recycling and rebuilding industry. Based on the list of
pallet recyclers provided by the County, and confirmed in the field, there are 16 pallet
recyclers serving the region, seven of which are large operations each handling between
approximately 200,000 and 2 million pallets per year. The MSW Team performed on-site
visits to six of the seven large recyclers, and developed estimates of how many used pallets
each recycled annually. An estimate for the seventh (which declined to participate in this
study) was generated using data the company provided on their web site. Of the remaining
pallet remanufacturers, four were interviewed by telephone, and seven were not contacted.
The MSW Team also contacted and in some cases visited other clean wood (grind) end users.
Table 3-10 summarizes the primary research conducted for local pallet and clean wood
markets.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3-21
3. METHODOLOGY
Table 3-10 Summary of Pallet/Wood Market Infrastructure Participants
Material
Wood Pallet
Markets
Company Name
Contacted
Notes
Custom Pallet
Visited
Also grind wood
Gamble
Visited
Remanufacture only
IFCO
Visited
Remanufacture only
Metromont
Visited
Also grind wood
Neal's
Visited
Also grind wood
Simpson
Visited
Remanufacture only
Starnes
Data obtained
from web page
Remanufacture only
LA Brick
Phone
Small volume remanufacturer
Pallets and Such
Phone
Small volume remanufacturer
Accu-Pak
Not contacted
Small volume remanufacturer
Blue Ridge
Not contacted
Small volume remanufacturer
Hwy 49
Not contacted
Small volume remanufacturer
Johnny Brown
Not contacted
Small volume remanufacturer
Statesville
Not contacted
Small volume remanufacturer
Tree Brand
Not contacted
Small volume remanufacturer
Workmans
Not contacted
Small volume remanufacturer
Edwards
Phone
Virgin pallet producer only
First Alliance
Phone
Broker only
AmWare
Visited
Closed system
Foxhole Landfill
Data provided
by County
Pallet and clean wood grind
Stone
Phone
Bowater
Phone
Chester
Phone
Conweb
Phone
Biofuels Inc
Phone
Sunoco
Phone
Piedmont
Users of grind
Visited
Does not accept pallets
Compost Central
[1] These NAICS codes were not initially targeted in the on-site surveys; rather, these
establishments were observed to have pallets awaiting recycling or disposal and were added
to the list of on-site surveys while the field study was in progress.
In addition to the markets for wood pallets and clean wood, the MSW Team also contacted
end markets or processors for the other materials targeted in the study to inquire about
3-22
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. METHODOLOGY
current capacity, barriers and opportunities for expansion, and other pertinent data about the
local market for these materials. In all, the MSW Team contacted over a dozen entities that
potentially serve as a market for gypsum, plastic film, OCC, vinyl siding, or asphalt shingles.
3.5.
OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES
To supplement the primary research described above, the MSW Team was also provided a
copy of relevant reports and data sets to supplement the research that was undertaken for this
project:
‹ The Recovery of Construction and Demolition Wood Waste for Use as a Boiler
Fuel, April 2007: This is an engineering report that evaluates the use of C&D wood waste
as a boiler fuel for coal-fired power plants. It identified Duke Power as a potential user of
this alternative fuel, provided a C&D material recovery facility is developed in the County.
‹ Commercial Waste Characterization Study, Mecklenburg County, January 2006: This
study relied on a desktop estimate of the likely generation and composition of commercial
waste. While the study appeared well researched and useful for planning purposes, it
acknowledges that disposal site sampling of commercial wastes would be preferable to
develop County-specific data.
‹ Mecklenburg County Solid Waste Management Plan 2006 – 2016: This document
was consulted for waste generation data and projections for the commercial and C&D
generator sectors.
‹ County-managed Surveys of C&D and Commercial Generators: The County is
active in promoting recycling, reuse and source reduction practices within its commercial
and C&D sectors, and has made outreach efforts in the past. Copies of relevant survey
data was provided for review by the MSW Team.
Where applicable, these studies were used to supplement the findings of this project.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3-23
3. METHODOLOGY
This page intentionally left blank.
3-24
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
4.1.
INTRODUCTION
The primary focus of this project was to document the generation, collection, recycling/reuse,
and disposal of wood pallets and clean wood waste. This section presents the breadth of
information that was derived in this study on these two materials. Further, this section
attempts to draw conclusions about the ability of the recycled market infrastructure to manage
these materials, with special focus on the impending ban on wood pallet disposal in municipal
solid waste landfills which goes into effect on October 1, 2009.
The section is organized in the following subsections:
‹ Wood Pallet Generation, Disposition and Recycling,
‹ Untreated Wood Waste Generation, Disposition and Recycling,
‹ Transportation and Recycling Market Infrastructure Analysis, and
‹ Gap Analysis and Implications of the Pallet Ban.
4.2.
WOOD
DISPOSITION
PALLET
GENERATION,
RECYCLING
AND
While pallet generation was documented for a wide range of industries, wood pallets were
found to be generated in large numbers among a relatively small number of commercial
sectors, as well as to a significant degree within the construction and demolition waste stream.
This section summarizes the results of our analyses of pallet generation and disposition.
4.2.1
COMMERCIAL SECTOR
4.2.1.1 Survey Results
On-site and telephone surveys were used in combination as the primary means of assessing
pallet generation, recycling, and disposal in the commercial sector. Significant amounts of
data were generated in the course of these survey efforts. Findings of note are provided in
tabular and graphical format.
Recall that the approach for this project involved segregating the universe of businesses into
three strata:
‹ Likely Generators,
‹ Possible Generators, and
‹ Unlikely Generators (i.e., businesses not surveyed).
Results of the surveys for both the Likely and the Possible Generators are shown.
Table 4-1 summarizes the percentage of respondents to both the telephone and on-site
surveys of the Likely generators that reported or were found to generate wood pallets.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-1
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Table 4-1 On-Site and Telephone Surveys of Likely Pallet Generators
Phone Surveys
NAICS
Code
Industry
Surveyed
Generate
Pallets
On-site Surveys
Percent
Surveyed
Generate
Pallets
Percent
31-33
Manufacturing
31
12
38.7%
55
48
87.3%
42
Wholesale Trade
62
32
51.6%
95
72
75.8%
44-45
Retail Trade
42
22
52.4%
82
52
63.4%
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
17
4
23.5%
21
18
85.7%
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
3
1
33.3%
3
2
66.7%
62
Health Care
3
1
33.3%
6
2
33.3%
71
Arts/Recreation
3
1
33.3%
3
2
66.7%
161
73
45.3%
275
205
74.5%
Total
As illustrated in Table 4-1, the on-site surveys reflect a significantly higher incidence of pallet
generation within the same universe of Likely Generators compared to the telephone surveys.
In total, on-site surveys identified pallet generation at 60 percent more businesses compared
to the phone survey (stated another way, for every one business identified as generating pallets
in the phone survey, 1.6 businesses were identified as generating pallets via on-site survey).
This outcome suggests that on-site surveyors were much better able to identify that pallet
generating activities are taking place, and it can be inferred that subsequent survey responses
are more accurate and comprehensive as well. For this reason, the Project Team has relied on
the on-site survey results for use in our analysis of Likely generators.
No on-site surveys were conducted at businesses pre-classified as Possible Generators.
Rather, more extensive phone surveying was conducted for these businesses. Table 4-2
summarizes the results of the Possible Generator phone survey. Note that, as expected based
on the random selection process that was used to select businesses, the phone surveys were
distributed across all of the industry groups in Mecklenburg County in rough proportion to
the number of businesses in each industry group.
Table 4-2 Phone Survey of Possible Pallet Generators
Phone Surveys
NAICS
Code
Industry
Surveyed
Generate
Pallets
Percent
21
Mining/Quarry/Oil/Gas
1
0
0.0%
22
Utilities
2
1
50.0%
31-33
Manufacturing
5
2
40.0%
42
Wholesale Trade
3
1
33.3%
44-45
Retail Trade
71
14
19.7%
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
3
0
0.0%
51
Information
17
1
5.9%
52
Finance/Insurance
36
0
0.0%
4-2
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Phone Surveys
NAICS
Code
Industry
Surveyed
Generate
Pallets
Percent
53
Real Estate/Rental/Leasing
35
4
11.4%
54
Prof./Scientific/Technical
52
1
1.9%
55
Management
1
1
100.0%
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
25
5
20.0%
61
Educational Services
7
0
0.0%
62
Health Care/Social Svc.
24
3
12.5%
71
Arts/Entertainment/Recreation
6
1
16.7%
72
Accommodation/Food Services
41
1
2.4%
81
Other Services
36
4
11.1%
365
39
10.7%
Total
As shown in the Table 4-2, the incidence of pallet generation among the Possible Generators
decreases significantly compared to that of the Likely Generators. Whereas 45 percent of the
Likely Generators contacted via the phone survey reported generating pallets, only 11 percent
of the Possible generators contacted by phone reported generating pallets.
However, as illustrated in Table 4-1, above, it is likely that the telephone respondents underreported the generation of pallets, with 45 percent of Likely Generators reporting that they
generated pallets in the telephone survey, while 75 percent said they generated pallets based on
the on-site surveys.
Although the MSW Team’s surveyors were trained to coach a respondent in best answering
survey questions, phone survey responses could not be visually verified. The MSW team
believes that there is a systematic difference between on-site and phone surveys, and that the
responses shown in Table 4-2 undercount the number of Possible Generator businesses
generating pallets. To make up for this under-reporting, the MSW Team has adjusted the
phone survey responses from the Possible Generators upward based on the difference
between the Likely Generator phone and on-site surveys. Specifically, the results for Possible
Generators have been increased by 64.5 percent.
Based on both the phone surveys (for Possible Generators) and on-site survey responses (for
Likely Generators), the MSW team calculated pallet generation coefficients for each industry
group for which a sufficient number of samples were obtained. Generator coefficients are
stated in terms of the number of pallets per employee per year, and were calculated based on
the weighted average generation rate at each of the businesses surveyed. Note that it was not
an objective of this study to provide statistically defensible results down to the industry level,
and no confidence intervals are reported. (More rigorous statistical treatment of the data
would also greatly complicate the presentation of information.)
Table 4-3 presents pallet generation coefficients for Likely Generators derived from over 280
on-site surveys of Mecklenburg County businesses.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-3
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Table 4-3 Generator Coefficients of Likely Pallet Generators Based on On-site Surveys
(pallets/employee/year)
NAICS
Code
Industry
Disposed
Sent to
Recycler
Sent to
Chipper
Total
Generation
31-33
Manufacturing
2.4
35.9
0.7
39.0
42
Wholesale Trade
5.5
19.1
8.7
33.3
44-45
Retail Trade
2.2
15.4
0.2
17.8
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
7.7
6.8
0.2
14.7
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
2.7
0.3
0.0
3.0
71
Arts/Recreation
1.6
4.0
0.0
5.6
Note that the expertise of the on-site surveyor and the ability to discern different outlets for
pallets provided a clearer view of how to best quantify pallet disposal and recycling. On-site
surveys could readily discern whether pallets were being disposed or recycled, and/or if
backhauling was occurring. The decision was made not to focus on backhauled pallets
because they were not entering the waste stream and therefore would not be impacted by a
ban on disposal. It should be noted however, that the larger pallet recyclers managed large
quantities of backhauled pallets over and above the pallets collected through recycling efforts.
Pallets destined for disposal or recycling (whether remanufacture or grinding) were more
commonly queued outside the actual facilities where they could be observed and quantified.
These pallets were either stacked for pick-up or else may have been placed in roll-off
containers for collection. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show several examples of pallets awaiting
collection for disposal or recycling.
Figure 4-1 & Figure 4-2 Pallets Awaiting Collection
Pallets were deemed to be disposed if they were placed in a mixed waste container (dumpster
or open-top box). Pallets that were being source separated for recycling were further
classified by on-site surveyors as going to a pallet recycler or to a chipper (most commonly to
the Foxhole Landfill).
Table 4-4 presents the pallet generator coefficients for Possible Generators based on the
adjusted telephone survey results. These results are the direct result of the structure of the
phone survey instrument (contained in Appendix D) which, in an attempt to remain simple
4-4
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
enough to be completed quickly over the phone, asked respondents to indicate (a) whether or
not pallets were generated at their business, and (b) if so, how the pallets were disposed. The
choices for pallet disposition on the survey instrument were given as:
‹ Disposed: Pallets were placed in or around the dumpster for collection with the refuse;
‹ Recycled: Pallets were segregated and collected for delivery to a company that recycles
pallets
‹ Backhaul: Pallets were transported, via the company’s supply chain, back to a
distribution center for centralized bulk management; or
‹ Reuse: Unloaded pallets were essentially re-loaded and used to transport new (or repacked) goods for further shipment.
In reality, most businesses may manage pallets in multiple ways, with the intact pallets being
reused or back-hauled, the damaged but still salvageable pallets being sent to a pallet recycler,
and the pallets that have been damaged beyond repair possibly being disposed. Recognizing
that a phone survey would be unlikely to discern so many possible nuances about pallet
management, responses were assigned to the pallet management outcome that represented the
most pallets. For example, if a company said they both backhaul and recycle, the survey
would indicate only the response that was believed to capture the most pallets.
Table 4-4 Generator Coefficients of Possible Pallet Generators Based on Phone Surveys
(pallets/employee/year)
NAICS
Code
Industry
Disposed
Recycled
Backhaul
Reuse
Total
Generation
31-33
Manufacturing
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.6
42
Wholesale Trade
0.0
18.6
0.0
0.0
18.6
44-45
Retail Trade
0.1
0.4
1.1
3.0
4.6
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.6
3.4
53
Real Estate/Rental/Leasing
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
54
Prof./Scientific/Technical
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.7
62
Health Care/Social Svc.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
71
Arts/Entertainment/Recreation
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
72
Accommodation/Food Services
0.0
0.1
0.0
4.7
4.7
81
Other Services
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.6
Note that these generation rates are significantly below the generation rates of the Likely
generators. Of particular interest, pallets were found to be generated in the same industry
groups among the Possible Generators. So, although a wholesale trade, retail trade, or
transportation/warehousing business might have been screened into the Possible Generator
list based on their relatively low employment and small square footage, these establishments
were still found in the phone survey to be generating pallets (albeit at lower rates than larger
establishments of the same industry group).
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-5
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Note once again that uncertainty on the part of the respondent about technical details of both
generation and disposal or recycling is inherent in phone surveying. Specifically, in many cases
the most knowledgeable respondent within a particular company may be able to answer
questions conceptually, but cannot quantify the response. For example, many businesses
knew they generated pallets; however, it was beyond the ability of the respondent to estimate
the number of these pallets; or it was not truly known what fraction of pallets were managed
via disposal, backhaul, recycling, or other disposition.
The following tables apply the pallet generator coefficients to the known employment within
each industry group to calculate the total number of pallets generated in Mecklenburg County.
Tables 4-5 and 4-6 show the totals for the Likely and Possible Generators, respectively. The
Likely Generator totals are based on the on-site surveys, while the Possible Generator totals
are based on the adjusted phone survey results.
Table 4-5 Pallet Generation from Likely Pallet Generators Based on On-site Surveys (No. of Pallets)
NAICS
Code
Industry
Employment
Disposed
Sent to
Recycler
Sent to
Chipper
Total
Generation
31-33
Manufacturing
34,235
83,478
1,228,271
23,918
1,335,667
42
Wholesale Trade
29,169
160,577
557,584
253,859
972,020
44-45
Retail Trade
25,193
54,047
388,377
5,325
447,749
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
15,145
115,846
102,679
3,606
222,131
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
5,292
14,112
1,764
0
15,876
62
Health Care
13,624
0
0
0
0
71
Arts/Recreation
4,171
6,581
16,684
0
23,265
122,658
434,641
2,295,359
286,708
3,016,708
10,866
57,384
7,168
75,418
Total Pallets
Tons
As shown in Table 4-5, on-site surveys of Likely Generators found that disposal was the least
common means of pallet disposition by far, with 85 percent of the pallets either recycled or
sent for chipping. This would be considered a very high recovery rate for any material being
recycled, and is indicative of the robust pallet recycling infrastructure in place in Mecklenburg
County. Most pallets that were not backhauled (or reused) were recycled, with a much smaller
fraction observed to be delivered to a wood grinding facility.
Table 4-6 Pallet Generation from Possible Pallet Generators Based on Phone Surveys (No. of Pallets)
NAICS
Code
Industry
Employment
Disposed
Recycled
Backhaul
Reuse
Total
Generation
31-33
Manufacturing
218
0
221
0
0
221
42
Wholesale Trade
176
0
5,375
0
0
5,375
44-45
Retail Trade
2,742
322
1,970
4,822
13,505
20,620
53
Real Estate/Rental/Leasing
1,360
0
6,220
0
1,435
7,655
54
Prof./Scientific/Technical
2,661
51
0
0
0
51
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
1,184
205
460
0
0
665
4-6
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
NAICS
Code
Industry
Employment
Disposed
Recycled
Backhaul
1,453
0
1,780
0
Reuse
62
Health Care/Social Svc.
71
Arts/Entertainment/Recreation
404
0
0
4
4
72
Accommodation/Food Services
1,849
11
0
0
11
81
Other Services
2,530
0
242
0
19,371
19,613
14,577
589
16,268
4,826
4,313
55,996
15
407
121
858
1,400
Total Pallets
Tons
2
Total
Generation
1,782
Possible Generators generated a much lower number of pallets per employee compared to
Likely Generators, based on phone survey responses. Even accounting for the larger
employment in this stratum (360,000 compared to 130,000 employees), the absolute number
of pallets generated by Possible Generators was a fraction of the Likely Generators.
Table 4-7 summarizes the pallets being disposed and recycled in Mecklenburg County, based
on the analysis above. Note that several assumptions were made to define the term “recycled”
from the phone and on-site surveys. Pallets were defined to be recycled if they went to either
a pallet remanufacturer or to a chipper (including the Foxhole Landfill)1 during the on-site
survey. For the phone surveys, the decision was made to include pallets that were reported to
be destined for recycling or backhaul, but not for reuse, in the “recycled” total. This decision
was based on the qualitative judgment that survey respondents tended to mention these two
responses more frequently and that these responses were more interchangeable.
1 A strict definition of recycling would exclude the use of wood chips for boiler fuel. For this analysis any beneficial
reuse of wood pallets was included in the definition of recycling for the sake of simplicity.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-7
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Table 4-7 Total Pallet Generation in the Commercial Sector
Disposed
NAICS
Code
Industry
31-33
Manufacturing
42
Wholesale Trade
44-45
Retail Trade
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
53
Real Estate/Rental/Leasing
54
Prof./Scientific/Technical
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
62
Health Care/Social Svc.
71
Arts/Entertainment/Recreation
72
Accommodation/Food Services
81
Other Services
Recycled
Likely
Generators
Possible
Generators
Total
Likely
Generators
Possible
Generators
83,478
Total
0
83,478
1,252,189
221
1,252,410
160,577
0
160,577
811,443
5,375
816,818
54,047
322
54,369
393,702
6,739
400,441
115,846
0
115,846
106,285
0
106,285
0
0
6,220
6,220
51
51
-
#VALUE!
14,112
205
14,317
1,764
460
2,224
0
0
0
0
1,780
1,780
6,581
0
6,581
16,684
4
16,688
11
11
0
0
0
0
242
242
Total Pallets
434,641
589
435,230
2,582,067
21,095
2,603,162
Tons
10,866
15
10,881
64,552
527
65,079
Percent of Total
14.3%
85.7%
As noted in Table 4-7, approximately 3 million pallets were estimated to be discarded through
means other than back-hauling by commercial pallet generators in Mecklenburg County.
Eighty-six percent of these pallets were being recycled, with the vast majority being recycled
by Mecklenburg County’s relatively robust pallet recycling infrastructure. Only 14.3 percent
of the pallets that are discarded from Mecklenburg County businesses are estimated to have
been disposed in MSW landfills. Note that this is a conservative estimate because it is possible
that some of these pallets were being delivered to C&D landfills. To be conservative, on-site
surveyors classified all pallets in mixed waste boxes as being commercial waste. However,
there were some boxes that appeared to contain only materials that are accepted at C&D
facilities.
It should be noted that the above estimates exclude pallets generated by the construction
industry, which is accounted for below.
As a final exercise, Figure 4-3 below shows the portion of the overall Mecklenburg County
commercial waste stream comprised of wood pallets.
4-8
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Figure 4-3 Pallets as a Percent of Disposed Commercial Waste
As shown in Figure 4-3, the 10,900 tons of pallets that were estimated to be disposed in MSW
landfills represent only 1.4% of the 773,000-ton commercial waste stream. This is of interest
because it suggests that pallet disposal in MSW landfills is a relatively minor concern at the
current time. It may also be of interest that these results suggest that there are fewer pallets in
the commercial waste stream compared to prior studies conducted by the County. In the
County’s 2006 “desktop” commercial waste characterization study (i.e., the study relied on
comparative analysis and estimations but did not include field sampling, sorting, and
weighing), it was estimated that there were 15,869 tons of pallets (out of 601,862 tons of
commercial waste), or 2.6 percent.
4.2.1.2 QCTS Results
While a complete disposal site characterization study was not possible to quantify pallets in
commercial waste, the MSW Team was able to perform two days of visual observation at the
Queen City Transfer Station (QCTS). The QCTS, located in Charlotte, receives not only
commercial waste but also some C&D debris. Figure 4-4 shows the fraction of incoming
weight of commercial waste and C&D debris at the QCTS, based only on the two days of
field observation performed. The classification of waste as being commercial or C&D was
based on the professional judgment of the MSW field supervisor, as it was not possible to
interview the driver to confirm the origin of the load.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-9
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Figure 4-4 Proportion of Waste Received at QCTS
As shown, the majority of wastes received at QCTS were found to be commercial waste,
which was the focus of our study. However, 16 percent of wastes appeared to have originated
from C&D related activities.
A total of 117 loads of commercial waste were observed over two days at QCTS. Table 4-8
summarizes the quantities of pallets that were observed to be in commercial wastes.
Table 4-8 Summary of Commercial Waste Deliveries to QCTS
Frontloaders
Open Top
Rolloffs
Compactors
31%
40%
29%
7.8 tons
2.3 tons
5.8 tons
0.25
11.78
0.68
Percent of Commercial Deliveries
Average Weight per Load
Average Number of Pallets per Load
Pallets as Percent of Load (by Weight)
2.5%
As shown in the table, the facility receives a relatively even mix of frontload, open top roll-off
and compactor deliveries containing commercial waste, although the frontloaders and
compactor boxes weighing significantly more than the open top boxes. However, wood
pallets were observed to be much more prevalent in the open top debris boxes, with an
average of 12 pallets per commercial box. Fewer than one pallet was observed, on average, in
frontloaders and compactors.
Despite the limitations associated with making these visual observations at QCTS, it is notable
that wood pallets were observed in the commercial stream at a roughly comparable level to
the findings of the on-site surveys. The MSW Team believes that the QCTS visual
4-10
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
observations support the belief that results of the on-site generator surveys are, ultimately, the
most accurate data for use in our projections.
4.2.1.3 Hauler Feedback
Mecklenburg County haulers were asked to provide information about wood pallets generated
by their customers and managed by each hauler. The following bullets summarize this
feedback:
‹ Two of the respondents reported that wood pallets are not generated by their clients
(which could be interpreted as being placed in the dumpster for disposal). The other
haulers reported that some customers generated pallets;
‹ None of the responding haulers reported pallets in dumpsters as being problematic;
‹ The fraction of commercial customers reported to dispose of pallets in refuse dumpsters
was no more than 10 percent, and in most cases in the low single digits;
‹ Warehouses were cited by responding haulers as the primary generator of pallets placed in
dumpster for disposal.
‹ Only one hauler reported any customers having a recycling program for pallets. This was
interpreted by the MSW Team to mean that that hauler collected source-separated pallets
for delivery to a pallet recycler;
‹ Haulers reported delivering pallets to multiple pallet recyclers, although Custom Pallets
was mentioned most frequently;
‹ Multiple reasons were given for why customers do not recycle wood pallets, and there was
no clear consensus.
The detailed results of the hauler survey are shown in Appendix E.
4.2.2
C&D SECTOR
Quantitative information on the C&D waste stream was drawn from a full C&D waste
characterization study that was performed as part of this project. This information was
supplemented by qualitative feedback from two focus group meetings conducted with area
builders, as well as by limited interviews with local permitted haulers. Relevant findings are
described below.
4.2.2.1 C&D Waste Characterization Analysis
Table 4-9 summarizes the estimated quantity of wood pallets found in the C&D waste stream.
The table shows the average, or “best estimate,” as well as the lower and upper confidence
intervals at a 90 percent level of confidence. This means that we can be 90 percent sure that
the true quantity of pallets lies within the lower and upper bounds shown in the table.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-11
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Table 4-9 Wood Pallets in C&D Waste Stream
Percent of
C&D Waste
Tons of
Pallets
Number of
Pallets
Minimum (90%)
1.6%
6,043
241,739
Average
2.1%
7,765
310,593
Maximum (90%)
2.5%
9,486
379,448
Source: Mecklenburg County C&D Waste Characterization Study, September 2008.
The C&D characterization study also provided an opportunity to more closely analyze the
size, type and condition of pallets being delivered in this waste stream. Specifically, the MSW
Team attempted to individually tabulate pallets being delivered in mixed C&D waste loads. It
is important to note that the majority of the pallets arriving in mixed C&D loads were
commingled with a variety of debris and it was difficult or dangerous to retrieve and measure
these pallets consistently. Furthermore, when the compactor or dozer spread out the tipped
loads of C&D, this action effectively damaged many or most of the pallets embedded in the
debris pile. Despite these obstacles which limited the MSW Team’s ability to physically
extract and characterize pallets from the C&D stream, MSW Consultants tabulated summary
shown in Table 4-10, based on visual assessment of over 500 pallets observed during the
C&D characterization study.
4-12
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Table 4-10 Characterization of Wood Pallets in C&D Loads
Characteristic
Size [1]
Condition
Reusability [2]
Breakdown
No. of
Pallets
Percent
Standard Size and Construction
247
47.0%
Standard Size, non-standard Construction
185
35.2%
Small
31
5.9%
Oversize
62
11.8%
Subtotal
525
100%
Undamaged
391
74.5%
Intact but Broken Parts
105
20.0%
Not Intact
29
5.5%
Subtotal
525
100.0%
Reusable for Remanufacture
463
88.2%
62
11.8%
525
100.0%
Not Reusable (chip/grind only)
Subtotal
[1]Pallets could not be uniformly measured for access and safety reasons, and the size tabulations
shown in the table are based on best visual estimate of the pallets, rather than precise
measurements.
[2]Pallets were classified as being reusable if they were standard sized and intact (including those
with some broken parts). Pallets were classified as being not reusable if they were not intact or if
they were smaller than standard size. In practice the larger than standard size pallets may be
recoverable for use as replacement parts.
As shown in the table above, at an observed rate of 88 percent, wood pallets delivered for
disposal in the C&D waste are predominantly reusable for remanufacture of new pallets.
However, recovery of pallets from C&D sites would be increased if pallets were source
separated and delivered to a pallet remanufacturer prior to collection and delivery to a C&D
landfill. While most pallets appeared to be recoverable during our observations, the process
of physically removing pallets from mixed C&D waste would be expected to further damage
at least a fraction of the pallets observed.
Although the full C&D characterization study provides the most thorough and defensible
results, a second data point was obtained based on the QCTS observations. Concurrent with
the commercial waste observations at the QCTS, the MSW Team performed a similar analysis
on a smaller number of C&D loads. Table 4-11 summarizes the incidence of pallets in the
C&D loads entering the QCTS.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-13
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Table 4-11 Summary of C&D Debris Deliveries to QCTS
Frontloaders
Open Top
Rolloffs
Compactors
Percent of C&D Deliveries
0%
100%
0%
Average Weight per Load
NA
4.7 tons
NA
Average Number of Pallets per Load
NA
0.59
NA
Pallets as Percent of Load (by Weight)
NA
0.3%
NA
It is of interest that these results differ significantly from the full C&D visual characterization
study data. While this is not surprising – the sample size at the QCTS was far too small to be
considered representative and it was also not possible to see all sides of each load – it is
indicative of the potential error associated with attempting to use non-statistical approaches to
defensibly analyze waste compositions. The MSW Team believes the results of the full C&D
characterization study are the most accurate and defensible for planning purposes.
4.2.2.2 Hauler Feedback
Mecklenburg County C&D haulers were asked to provide information about wood pallets
generated at C&D sites and managed by each hauler. The following bullets summarize this
feedback:
‹ Residential construction was most commonly cited as the most common generator of
pallets. Only one hauler indicated a non-construction generator of pallets – from
manufacturing/industrial plants - in open top roll-off as being prevalent;
‹ Only three haulers out of the 13 respondents indicated that they collect pallets from their
roll-off customers for recycling. Pallet recycling was provided to between 1 and 15
percent of roll-off customers (which may expand beyond C&D customers); and
‹ Responding haulers generally did not provide where they take pallets for recycling.
The detailed results of the hauler survey are shown in Appendix E.
4.2.2.3 Builder Feedback
Two builder focus groups were held to obtain input from builders as to the opportunities and
constraints to increasing recycling of C&D materials, including wood pallets and clean wood.
The first focus group included builders who focus primarily on commercial construction. The
second focus group included builders who focus primarily on residential construction. Both
groups included a mix of large and small builders, and all in attendance were active
participants. The following bullets highlight notable feedback received from the commercial
and residential builders who attended the focus groups.
4.2.2.4 Commercial Builder Focus Group Highlights
‹ Commercial builders reported that on average 25 percent of their customers required
recycling – primarily for LEED purposes.
‹ On non-LEED projects the commercial builders typically only recycle metal, which has
value, although they will often attempt to send OCC and wood pallets back with the
4-14
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
vendors. They also reported looking for an alternative for concrete because it is costly to
dispose of at a landfill. At least one commercial builder reported that disposal of wood
pallets can be a problem on small jobs.
‹ On LEED projects the commercial builders recycle a wide array of materials – clean
wood, concrete, gypsum, carpet, ceiling tile, light fixtures, metals, and OCC were the items
reported most frequently. Because weight is important to the recycling rate for LEED
projects, the heavier materials are preferred.
‹ No commercial builder reported recycling film plastic, vinyl siding, or asphalt.
‹ When asked what motivates them to recycle the builders reported, in order of importance:
(1) money; (2) LEED certification requirements; (3) customer requirement; and, (4) good
publicity. Only one builder reported doing it because it was the right thing to do.
‹ When asked about the importance of cost, there was general consensus that the extra cost
of recycling was a deterrent to recycling in many cases. In many cases it is hard to justify
the added cost of supervision, container rental, and employee compliance when local
landfill tip fees are so low.
‹ Another important barrier noted by builders was the lack of sufficient space to place
additional storage containers on many job sites.
‹ Finally, the builders reported that a lack of good information on markets was an issue.
Although they recognized county publications existed, they cited the difficulty in
contacting markets in real time.
‹ When asked to identify markets for clean wood, about one-half said that with landfill costs
so low there was no incentive to recycle wood. Most believed that the primary market was
the Compost Central grinder, or another grinder.
‹ When asked about gypsum, builders cited the high cost of transport to the market, as well
as the risk of illicit dumping in the roll-off container which contaminated the load.
Contamination was reported to be deposited in the containers either by sub-contractors or
by the general public (especially over the weekend) unless the dumpster was fenced.
4.2.2.5 Residential Builder Focus Group Highlights
‹ Residential builders were much less likely to recycle than the commercial builders. This is
primarily because maintaining low costs was more of a factor for residential construction,
and because of the lack of LEED certification incentives.
‹ The most likely items to be recycled were concrete (because of high cost of disposal) and
metals (because of its value).
‹ A number of builders did report that they try to reuse materials or use reuse stores if
possible, although both the commercial and residential builders reported that new building
and fire code requirements often discouraged reuse because the old materials (e.g., doors)
would not meet the new codes.
‹ Large residential builders reported that a big deterrent to recycling is the time required to
recycle. While they are motivated to not create the waste in the first place, recycling
increases supervisor time and responsibility – a typical supervisor on a large residential
development might have 25 to 30 houses under supervision. Lining up markets and
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-15
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
containers, sequencing material recycling, supervising sub-contractors and training
employees to recycle would add time which is more valuable managing the construction
process to reduce cycle time (the time from start to finish of each house).
‹ The builders reported that the waste management companies, while neutral to recycling,
do not provide recycling services as a general part of their service.
‹ All of the builders reported that if the County wanted to increase recycling they would
have to regulate it so that there was a level playing field.
‹ The residential builders reported that if they had a separate container they would
concentrate on OCC, clean wood, and/or gypsum. However they all pointed out that
illicit disposal in waste dumpsters is already a large problem – especially on weekends
when there are no workers on site. It was suggested that placing additional containers for
recycling would only add to the problem – and create significant contamination.
‹ When asked about banning clean wood from disposal, the residential builders raised a
series of questions about what constituted “clean wood” – with nails(?), finger jointed with
glues(?), oriented strand board and plywood(?). All reported that it would increase their
costs and the time for construction so that it would have to be regulated so that all
builders had the same restriction.
‹ A number of builders reported that they do make sub-contractors responsible for their
own wastes if possible. There was general agreement that on larger projects waste
disposal costs were about one percent of costs, and therefore relatively insignificant.
However, there was not a lot of incentive to recycle and potentially increase costs.
‹ As with the commercial builders, wood pallets were rarely mentioned as a significant waste
management issue.
Complete builder focus group notes are contained in Appendix G.
4.2.3
PALLET RECYCLING/REUSE MARKET RESEARCH
As a final step in quantifying the pallet stream in Mecklenburg County, and to assess the
potential for the market to absorb additional pallets if they were banned form landfills, the
MSW Team performed on-site visits to six of the seven large pallet recyclers and estimated
recycled quantities from the seventh using data that company provided on their web site.
Telephone surveys were made to four additional pallet recyclers (one the largest new pallet
manufacturer in the County, and three small recyclers) to round out the data. Based on the
surveys, the MSW Team made an informed assumption (based on the 80/20 percent rule of
thumb concerning large and small operations) that the remaining smaller pallet recyclers
recycle 20 percent of the total. Table 4-12 shows our estimate of the number of pallets that
are handled by the recycling infrastructure annually.
4-16
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Table 4-12 Estimated Annual Pallet Recycling by Mecklenburg County Infrastructure
Pallet Recyclers
Number of
Companies
Estimated Number of Used
Pallets Accepted per Year
Large Recyclers (1)
7
5,715,000
Small Recyclers (2)
9
1,143,000
16
6,858,000
Total
(1) Large recyclers were defined as those that handle between 175,000 and 2.2 million
pallets each.
(2) Small recyclers handled less than 175,000 and were assumed to handle 20% of pallets.
As shown, it is estimated that 6.8 million pallets (rounded) were recycled in 2007 in
Mecklenburg County. This number excludes a relatively small number of pallets that may be
getting sent directly to wood chipping operations (such as the Foxhole Landfill).
It is important to note that the field research focused on the fraction of these pallets that were
being hauled to these pallet recyclers directly from generator sites. Large companies and
chains with multiple locations typically have in place sufficient logistical management systems
to backhaul their pallets to a central site, and will either manage pallet remanufacture there or
else will contract with a pallet manufacturer to perform this function. Our research could not
estimate the quantity of pallets that were backhauled out of Mecklenburg County (we did
conduct a telephone survey of one firm whom manages pallets from Mecklenburg County in
the Chicago area), but we can estimate the number pallets backhauled to Mecklenburg County
pallet recyclers by subtracting the number estimated to be hauled directly to the pallet
recyclers from the total reported to be handled by the pallet recyclers. Figure 4-5 and Table 413 illustrate the number of pallets estimated to be generated in Mecklenburg County, as well
as their final disposition.
Figure 4-5 Mecklenburg County Pallet Disposition and Recycling Summary
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-17
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Table 4-13 Mecklenburg County Pallet Disposition and Recycling Summary
Number of
Pallets
Tons
Percent
Disposed in MSW LF
445,333
11,133
5.8%
Disposed in C&D LF
310,593
7,765
4.1%
Recycled (including grind)
2,603,162
65,079
34.1%
Backhaul for Recycle
4,254,838
106,371
56.0%
Total
7,613,926
190,348
100.0%
Note that in practice, the number of pallets “generated” in Mecklenburg County may be
smaller than shown above for two reasons. First, some of the pallets estimated to be
landfilled at C&D landfills may have come from the pallet recyclers. Second, most pallets
probably progress through the recycling stage multiple times during the year, and it is not
believed that the figures reported by the pallet recycling infrastructure were adjusted for
multiple uses of a single pallet. However, for the purpose of estimating the total number of
pallets, the MSW Team believes these figures are informative and reasonably reflect the
relative disposition of pallets among disposal at landfills or through recycling and reuse.
4.3.
UNTREATED WOOD GENERATION, RECYCLING AND
DISPOSITION
Unlike pallets, which were somewhat ubiquitous within certain industry groups and within the
C&D waste stream, untreated wood was found to be generated primarily in the C&D sector.
(Note also that wood pallets that are too small or too damaged for remanufacture are
considered clean wood.) This section summarizes the results of our analyses of clean wood
generation and disposition.
4.3.1
COMMERCIAL SECTOR
4.3.1.1 Survey Results
The stratification of commercial businesses into Likely Generators and Possible Generators, is
described above in the pallet discussion. Businesses were characterized inclusive of the
likelihood of generating pallets or untreated wood. In other words, Likely Generators
included businesses that were deemed likely to generate pallets; or business that were likely to
generate clean wood; or both.
4-18
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Results of the phone and on-site surveys for both the Likely and the Possible Generators are
shown in Table 4-14.
Table 4-14 Survey Results of Likely Clean Wood Generators
Phone Surveys
NAICS
Code
Industry
On-site Surveys
Surveyed
Generate
Wood
Percent
Surveyed
Generate
Wood
Percent
31-33
Manufacturing
31
2
6.5%
55
9
16.4%
42
Wholesale Trade
62
1
1.6%
95
13
13.7%
44-45
Retail Trade
42
4
9.5%
82
9
11.0%
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
17
0
0.0%
21
1
4.8%
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
3
0
0.0%
3
0
0.0%
62
Health Care
3
1
33.3%
6
0
0.0%
71
Arts/Recreation
3
0
0.0%
3
0
0.0%
161
8
5.0%
272
33
12.1%
Total
Consistent with the pallet results, the on-site surveys reflect a significantly higher incidence of
clean wood generation within the same universe of Likely Generators compared to the phone
survey. This once again confirms the MSW Team’s belief that on-site surveyors can better
quantify wood generating activities and related management of wood.
No on-site surveys were conducted at businesses pre-classified as Possible Generators; rather,
phone surveys were used to inform about wood generation from this stratum of commercial
establishments. Table 4-15 summarizes the results of the Possible Generator phone survey.
Table 4-15 Survey Results of Possible Clean Wood Generators
Phone Surveys
NAICS
Code
Industry
Surveyed
Generate
Wood
Percent
21
Mining/Quarry/Oil/Gas
1
0
0.0%
22
Utilities
2
0
0.0%
31-33
Manufacturing
5
0
0.0%
42
Wholesale Trade
3
0
0.0%
44-45
Retail Trade
71
0
0.0%
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
3
0
0.0%
51
Information
17
0
0.0%
52
Finance/Insurance
36
0
0.0%
53
Real Estate/Rental/Leasing
35
0
0.0%
54
Prof./Scientific/Technical
52
0
0.0%
55
Management
1
0
0.0%
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
25
0
0.0%
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-19
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Phone Surveys
NAICS
Code
Industry
Surveyed
Generate
Wood
Percent
61
Educational Services
7
0
0.0%
62
Health Care/Social Svc.
24
1
4.2%
71
Arts/Entertainment/Recreation
6
0
0.0%
72
Accommodation/Food Services
41
0
0.0%
81
Other Services
36
0
0.0%
365
1
0.3%
Total
It is of particular interest that virtually no businesses across the universe of those surveyed
reported any untreated wood generation. While we can be relatively certain that generation
would have been underestimated by phone survey respondents, it is nonetheless apparent that
untreated wood is not nearly so prevalent in the commercial waste stream as wood pallets.
Based on the on-site survey responses, the MSW Team calculated untreated wood generation
coefficients for each industry group for which a sufficient number of samples were obtained.
Generator coefficients are stated in terms of the pounds of clean wood per employee per year,
and were calculated based on the weighted average generation rate at each of the businesses
surveyed
Table 4-16 shows the clean wood generation coefficients derived from over 280 on-site
surveys of Mecklenburg County businesses. It should be noted in reviewing Table 4-16 that it
is likely that the “Retail Trade” coefficients are skewed by certain types of retail trade that
generate large amounts of wood, including a wood stove store, hardware and lumber stores,
and nurseries that sell a lot of breakable clay pots.
4-20
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Table 4-16 Generator Coefficients of Likely Wood Generators Based on On-site Surveys
(lbs/employee/year)
NAICS
Code
Industry
Disposed
Recycled
Total
Generation
36
36
72
31-33
Manufacturing
42
Wholesale Trade
132
15
147
44-45
Retail Trade
105
99
204
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
0
3
3
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
0
0
0
62
Health Care
0
0
0
71
Arts/Recreation
0
0
0
Again, the prevalence of clean wood found in the commercial waste stream, even among
Likely Generators, was relatively low.
Because of the consistent lack of reported clean wood generation among the Possible
Generators, no generator coefficients have been developed and are assumed for the sake of
simplicity to be zero. In practice, there is some clean wood being generated by these
businesses, but it was not found to be at a level of significance.
The following tables apply the clean wood generator coefficients to the known employment
within each industry group to estimate the total quantity of clean wood generated in
Mecklenburg County’s commercial sector. Table 4-17 shows the totals for the Likely
generators based on the on-site surveys. Although we can reasonably speculate that de
mimimus quantities of clean wood are generated in the Possible Generator stratum, we have
made no attempt to estimate this amount.
Table 4-17 Wood Generation from Likely Generators Based on On-site Surveys (tons)
NAICS
Code
Industry
Employment
Disposed
Recycled
Total
Generation
31-33
Manufacturing
34,235
605
607
1,212
42
Wholesale Trade
29,169
1,909
217
2,126
44-45
Retail Trade
25,193
1,339
1,248
2,587
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
15,145
0
12
12
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
5,292
0
0
0
62
Health Care
13,624
0
0
0
71
Arts/Recreation
4,171
0
0
0
126,829
3,853
2,084
5,937
64.9%
35.1%
Total Clean Wood
Percent of Total
It is notable that over 35 percent of the quantity of clean wood being generated in the
commercial sector was found to be destined for beneficial use of some kind. The “recycled”
figure in the above Table includes both chipping as well as a range of alternative uses that
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-21
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
were variously reported. Examples of other recycling include: delivery of wood to other
manufacturers; distribution of wood to local contractors or employees; and backhauling of
wood pieces (which, unlike pallets, were recorded as recycled).
As a final exercise, Figure 4-6 shows the portion of the overall Mecklenburg County
commercial waste stream comprised of clean wood.
Figure 4-6 Clean Wood as a Percent of Disposed Commercial Waste
As shown in the Figure, the 3,853 tons of clean wood that were estimated to be disposed in
MSW landfills represent only 0.5 percent of the 773,000 ton commercial waste stream. This is
far below estimates contained in a prior commercial waste characterization study conducted
by the County. In the County’s 2006 desktop commercial waste characterization study, it was
estimated that there were 39,196 tons of clean wood (out of 601,862 tons of commercial
waste), or 6.5 percent.
4.3.1.2 QCTS Results
A total of 117 loads of commercial waste were observed over two days at QCTS. Table 4-18
summarizes the quantity of clean wood that was observed to be in commercial wastes.
4-22
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Table 4-18 Summary of Commercial Debris Deliveries to QCTS
Frontloaders
Open Top
Rolloffs
Compactors
Percent of C&D Deliveries
31%
40%
29%
Average Weight per Load
7.8 tons
2.3 tons
5.8 tons
63 lbs
318 lbs
69 lbs
Average Weight of Clean Wood per Load
Clean Wood as Percent of Load (by Weight)
1.7%
Clean wood, like pallets, was observed to be much more prevalent in the open top debris
boxes, with an average of over 300 pounds per commercial box. Very little wood was
observed in frontloaders and compactors. It is perhaps noteworthy that the visual
observations of commercial waste reflect slightly higher percentage of clean wood in
commercial deliveries compared to the results of the on-site and phone surveys. The MSW
Team believes that the results of the on-site generator surveys are, ultimately, the more
accurate data compared to the QCTS observations.
4.3.1.3 Hauler Feedback
Mecklenburg County haulers were asked to provide information about clean wood generated
by their customers and managed by each hauler. Only two of the haulers providing
commercial (dumpster) collection service reported collecting dumpsters with wood from time
to time, with estimates that less than five percent of commercial customers disposed of clean
wood. None of the haulers responded that clean wood waste problematic. The detailed
results of the hauler survey are shown in Appendix E.
4.3.2
C&D SECTOR
Relevant findings about clean wood from the full C&D characterization study and from
builder focus groups are described below.
4.3.2.1 C&D Waste Characterization Analysis
Table 4-19 summarizes the estimated quantity of clean wood found in the C&D waste stream.
The table shows the average, or “best estimate,” as well as the lower and upper confidence
intervals at a 90 percent level of confidence. This means that we can be 90 percent sure that
the true quantity of clean wood lies within the lower and upper bounds shown in the table.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-23
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Table 4-19 Clean Wood in C&D Waste Stream
Percent of
C&D Waste
Tons of Wood
Minimum (90%)
14.2%
53,443
Average
16.5%
62,252
Maximum (90%)
18.8%
71,060
Source: Mecklenburg County C&D Waste Characterization Study, September 2008.
Although the full C&D characterization study provides the most thorough and defensible
results, a second data point was obtained based on the QCTS observations. Concurrent with
the commercial waste observations at the QCTS, the MSW Team performed a similar analysis
on a smaller number of C&D loads. Table 4-20 summarizes the incidence of clean wood in
the C&D loads entering the QCTS.
Table 4-20 Summary of Clean Wood in C&D Debris Deliveries to QCTS
Frontloaders
Open Top
Rolloffs
Compactors
Percent of C&D Deliveries
0%
100%
0%
Average Weight per Load
NA
4.7 tons
NA
Average Weight of Clean Wood per Load
NA
552 lbs
NA
Clean Wood as Percent of Load (by Weight)
5.9%
Similar to the pallet results, the amount of clean wood observed during the QCTS
observations was significantly lower than the full C&D characterization study. Although some
of the difference could be attributable to the small sample size the QCTS, it is more likely that
the obstacles to accurate visual observations played a more important role. The MSW Team
believes the results of the full C&D characterization study are the most accurate and
defensible for planning purposes.
4.3.2.2 Hauler Feedback
Mecklenburg County C&D haulers were asked to provide information about clean wood
generated at C&D sites and managed by each hauler. The following bullets summarize this
feedback:
‹ Haulers indicated that between zero and 100 percent of their C&D customers generate
wood pallets, and several haulers could not estimate the percentage; and
‹ Only three haulers indicated that they collect clean wood from their roll-off customers for
recycling, and two of these haulers indicated minimal quantities of clean wood. One
hauler reported recycling wood from 20 percent of their roll-off clients (which may
expand beyond C&D customers).
The detailed results of the hauler survey are shown in Appendix E
4-24
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
4.3.2.3 Builder Feedback
The majority of builders reported that they did not recycle clean wood, primarily because of
the relatively low cost of landfill disposal. For a complete discussion of the factors impacting
clean wood recycling, see Section 4.2.2.3.
4.3.3
SUMMARY DISCUSSION
This study attempted to estimate the quantity of clean wood generated in Mecklenburg
County through a combination of methods. Of the methods used, the on-site surveying of
generators was most effective for the commercial sector, while the full C&D characterization
study worked best for the C&D waste stream.
Figure 4-7 and Table 4-21 illustrate the quantity of clean wood estimated to be generated in
Mecklenburg County, as well as their final disposition.
Figure 4-7 Mecklenburg County Clean Wood Disposition and Recycling Summary
Table 4-21 Mecklenburg County Clean Wood Disposition and Recycling Summary
Tons
Percent
Disposed in MSW LF
3,853
5.7%
Disposed in C&D LF
62,252
3.1%
2,084
91.3%
68,189
100.0%
Recycled (including grind)
Total
As shown, the vast majority of clean wood appears to be being disposed, mostly in C&D
landfills.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-25
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
4.4.
TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE
AND
RECYCLING
MARKET
Being constructed of clean wood (predominantly), pallets have a longer and more varied life
cycle than clean wood and as shown above, can be reused multiple times before reaching the
end of their useful life as pallets. However, both pallets and clean wood share certain options
for beneficial use at the end of their life. This section discusses the collection and recycling
market infrastructure for both pallets and clean wood.
4.4.1
COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION
Mecklenburg County is home to a robust pallet remanufacturing industry, and also offers
several outlets for the grinding and recovery of clean wood. These markets are served by both
permitted haulers as well as (for pallets) a surprisingly large community of small, unlicensed
scavengers. This section explores the infrastructure for collection and delivery of pallets and
clean wood to the various end markets in and around the Mecklenburg County region.
During the on-site survey of Likely generators, the MSW Team attempted to record how
pallets were collected and transported to recycling companies (exclusive of backhauling for
reuse). The collection of pallets was found to be provided by contractual collection, self-haul,
and an informal scavenging system. The breakdown of businesses reporting each type of
collection is shown in Figure 4-8. Note that this figure tabulates the breakdown of collection
method based on the number of businesses, not by the number of pallets being transported
(scavengers collect a much smaller fraction of the absolute number of pallets). Note also that
this figure excludes back-haul transportation, which was assumed to be performed by
equipment and/or other transportation contracts in place with the Mecklenburg County
business and its regional distribution center.
Figure 4-8 Pallet Collection and Transportation at Surveyed Businesses
4-26
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
For smaller generators, there exists a significant informal scavenging system. The system
consists of many individuals driving around in their own pick-up trucks collecting pallets from
loading docks and other areas where they collect at businesses. The scavengers take the
pallets to a pallet recycler who pays money for the pallets – usually between $1 and $2 for a
standard 40x48 in good condition. Some of these individuals do this as an income
supplement, while there are also some who have made it their sole vocation.
Over 60 percent of pallet-recycling businesses visited as part of the on-site surveys knew that
this informal infrastructure existed, and placed their waste pallets in locations where they knew
pallets would be taken. This practice was widespread throughout the County.
Estimates from pallet recyclers are that about 20 percent of pallets come in to their facilities
via this informal system. One pallet recycler reported that he deals with 20 or more of the
individual collectors himself, while another estimated that there are over 100 in the County. It
is of interest that, although scavengers were found to collect from over 60 percent of
businesses, they are handling only approximately 20 percent of the total volume of pallets.
Broadly speaking, the informal scavenging system appears to be providing a clear benefit to
the County as a means of recovering used pallets that would otherwise be disposed. It was
beyond the scope of this study to investigate the appropriateness of the scavenging or the
rationale for regulating such scavenging in any way.
Conversely, based on feedback received, one of the limitations with this informal system is
that many of the scavengers will only collect pallets for which they can be paid. While there
are certain sizes of pallets that are more commonly used and therefore more desirable
(discussed below), a rule of thumb is that a pallet must have at least one dimension of 40
inches to be re-usable in any manner. Therefore, the scavengers were found to leave behind
broken and undersized pallets, which would then be destined for the dumpster, given the
relatively low cost of disposal.
It was also of interest that several businesses reported developing their own policy for
working effectively with scavengers. These businesses demanded that any scavenger of pallets
be required to take the bad ones along with the good ones. While this strategy was found to
assure removal of small and broken pallets from the generator property, it was reported by
pallet recyclers that the result is often illicit disposal of the pallets that they do not purchase.
4.4.2
PALLET RECYCLERS/REBUILDERS
Based on the list of pallet recyclers provided by the County, and confirmed in the field, there
are 16 pallet recyclers serving the region, seven of which are large operations each handling
between approximately 200,000 and 2 million pallets per year. As discussed, these
Mecklenburg County recyclers are estimated to recycle roughly 6.8 million pallets annually.
The majority of the pallets brought to the pallet recyclers are refurbished and resold.
Refurbishment might consist of simply sorting by size and reselling; repair of one or more
broken slats; or cutting the pallet apart for use in refurbishing other pallets.
The size of the pallet is important with respect to the ability of a pallet recycler to use the
pallet. One of the medium sized pallet recyclers reported that they recycle the following size
pallets (in inches):
‹ 48x40
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-27
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
‹ 48x48
‹ 44x44
‹ 45x45
‹ 36x36
Because the “standard” pallet (often called a “GMA” pallet because it is the standard size for
Grocery Manufacturers Association stores) is typically a 48x40 inch pallet, any pallet with one
dimension equal to, or longer then, 40 inches can generally be used to refurbish other pallets –
especially the standard pallet. As these sizes listed above indicate, pieces from a 48x48 pallet
can be used to refurbish all of the pallet sizes that this pallet recycler refurbishes, while a
36x36 pallet can only be used to refurbish the same or a smaller pallet. For this reason, pallets
smaller than 48x40 are the most difficult to recycle, and therefore are the pallets most likely to
be thrown away.
According to one of the pallet recyclers, roughly 20 percent of pallets are smaller than the
standard pallet (48x40). Since more than one pallet recycler reported recycling smaller sized
pallets, it is probably reasonable to assume, therefore, that less than 10 percent of all pallets
available for recycling are not being recycled because of their small size. These pallets are
typically ground (see below).
In addition, pallets that are made with less than standard thickness slats, or are made of
particle board or oriented strand board (OSB) are also very difficult to recycle, and therefore
are more likely to be thrown away. However, according to one of the largest pallet recyclers in
Mecklenburg County, these off-spec pallets typically make up less than five percent of the
pallets in use.
In summary, from 85 to 88 percent of all pallets generated in Mecklenburg County can be
recycled directly – either through repair, or by tearing them apart for use in refurbishing other
pallets. The remainder would need to be ground for other uses. Of this amount, national
studies have estimated that five percent of pallets are too damaged to reuse and are chipped,
with less than one percent landfilled.2
4.4.3
GRINDERS
There are currently four primary grinding operations in Mecklenburg County:
‹ Compost Central (County owned);
‹ Metromont,
‹ Neals Pallet Company, and
‹ Custom Pallet.
Metromont and Neals Pallet Company both sell the bulk of their ground material to Bowater
as boiler fuel. At the time of our interviews with these two companies, Bowater was only
paying $6 to $7 per ton for the ground material. According to both Metromont and Neals
Pallet Company, this is essentially what it costs to grind a ton of pallets/clean wood (estimated
2 Source: “Recovery, Reuse and Recycling by the United States Wood Packaging Industry: 1993 to 2006,” by Robert
Bush, Philip Araman, and E. Brad Hager.
4-28
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
at $3/ton) and transport it to Bowater. As a consequence, companies grinding pallets are
doing so only to avoid the disposal fee, if the pallets are their own, or they have to charge
other pallet recyclers to grind the material.
Custom Pallet has recently expanded their grinding operation, and is actively seeking higher
value outlets for the ground material than for boiler fuel. They are currently3 looking for an
additional 40 tons per day of clean wood and pallets for grinding. They are charging $60 per
45 cubic yard trailer dropped off at their yard.
Compost Central currently charges $16.50 per ton to accept wood for grinding. They are
currently selling 10,000 cubic yards per year of ground wood as mulch, with all the remaining
ground material delivered to one of three boilers:
‹ Bowater: 28 miles away, paying $7 per ton;
‹ Stone: 110 miles away, paying $14 per ton; and,
‹ Chester Wood Products: 40 miles away paying $14 per ton.
According to Steve Elliot, Yard Waste Operations Manager, all three of these facilities are at
capacity. In order to free up capacity, Steve believes that he can increase sales of mulch
(colored and natural) by an additional 10,000 cubic yards (roughly 2,000 tons at 400 lbs/yard)
over the next several years, thereby reducing the supply to the three boilers which would then
be available for other grinders.
All of the grinding operations interviewed by the MSW Team would support a ban on pallets
to MSW landfills. They believe that this would allow them to charge a fair price for grinding,
making it worthwhile to continue to grind clean wood. The key is to find alternative markets
for the ground material.
As discussed above, Custom Pallet believes that they have markets for an additional 40 tons of
ground clean wood per day. This is roughly equivalent to 10,550 tons per year. In addition,
Compost Central believes that they can increase mulch sales by roughly 2,000 tons per year,
for a combined total new demand of 12,500 (rounded) tons of ground wood. This is
equivalent to roughly all of the pallets currently estimated to be going to MSW landfills from
likely pallet generators (445,102 pallets per year).
4.5.
GAP ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE PALLET
BAN
One of the primary objectives of this study was to determine the potential impacts of the
October 2009 pallet ban. In theory, if the collection and recycling infrastructure were
“perfect,” in other words if all pallets could be collected and either recycled or otherwise
ground for beneficial end use, there would be no gap between the generation of pallets and
the ability of the market to collect and use (reuse) the pallets.
In practice, even though pallets are largely recycled already, there are still pallets that do not
get diverted from MSW landfill disposal and therefore would be the target of the pallet ban.
This section identifies the entities that stand to be impacted by the ban, and attempts to
3
E-mail correspondence, April 9, 2008
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-29
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
quantify the impact. Because pallets have overlapping end uses with clean wood, the market
for clean wood processing is interrelated and is also discussed here.
It should be noted again that the County already enjoys a very high recycling rate for pallets.
At 87 percent, the pallet recycling rate is already enviable and compares favorably with the
recycling rates of most other targeted recyclables. So in some respects, this is a moot issue,
and it is highly unlikely that the recycling rate would increase greatly after the ban takes effect.
The only condition which might trigger a meaningful change in the current pallet recycling
rate would be the use of strict, aggressive and costly enforcement methods. For example, if
enforcement officials were stationed at the tipping face of MSW landfills, and were
empowered to fine commercial haulers a meaningful dollar amount for every pallet that was
unloaded, it is possible that this would have the trickle down effect of pushing pallets to other
disposal or recycling locations (as haulers would have economic incentive to effectively
educate their customers to manage their pallets). Given that current material disposal bans in
North Carolina receive little enforcement effort, it is not likely that the pallet ban will differ,
and therefore it is not believed a significant gap exists between pallet generation and the pallet
reuse/recycling market infrastructure.
As described throughout this section, there are six stakeholders in the pallet and clean wood
recycling, reuse, and disposal market which are discussed below:
‹ Landfills;
‹ Generators;
‹ Commercial Haulers;
‹ Scavengers;
‹ Pallet Recyclers;
‹ C&D Processors; and
‹ Clean Wood Markets.
The largest potential negative impact associated with a ban on pallets to MSW landfills would
be on the small generator, who would stand to see costs increase when they can no longer
place their pallets in their commercial dumpster. This will require these generators to contract
with a separate company to collect the pallets, or to rent a second dumpster in which to place
pallets. As stated above, it is likely in the absence of strict enforcement, some pallets will
continue to be disposed in MSW landfills.
The second largest impact will be on the disposal of broken pallet pieces, off-spec pallets
(made of non-conventional materials), and small sized pallets, which can not be repaired, or
used to refurbish other pallets. While many of these pallets are already ground, more will now
need to be ground and sold – primarily for fuel. The problem is that local boiler fuel users are
currently only buying ground clean wood – as opposed to ground wood that includes painted,
stained and engineered wood (which boiler fuel buyers in the Northeast purchase).4 Thus,
there is limited tolerance for pallets made from engineered wood or painted wood by the
grinders, which will require that such wood and pallets will have to go to C&D landfills.
4 Companies burning a mix of green chips and clean waste wood can sell their resulting ash, while companies burning
waste wood containing painted, stained and engineered wood would have to landfill the ash, increasing costs.
4-30
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Even if all pallets destined for MSW landfills (estimated at 445,000 pallets per year) were to be
diverted to pallet recyclers, this would still only represent six percent of total pallet recycling
capacity in the County, for which sufficient capacity exists at pallet recyclers to handle this
material (see Pallet Recyclers below).
The biggest barrier to compliance with a disposal ban lies in the collection costs vis-à-vis the
low value of pallets from small quantity generators, off-spec and off-size pallets. Small
quantity generators are going to find per-unit costs of hiring a commercial hauler to separately
handle their pallets to be high compared to simply throwing the pallets in with MSW, and it is
unlikely that the scavengers will be willing to pick up off-spec and off-size pallets because the
scavengers are not generally paid for off-size pallets.
Given the legitimate challenges associated with enforcing a pallet ban, and also on the
likelihood that a small number of pallets (off-spec or small sized) will continue to be generated
by commercial businesses where disposal in the municipal solid waste stream is cost-effective
and not abusive of the intent of the ban, it would appear that an allowance for “de minimus”
quantities would be reasonable. Note that is, in effect, how the current ban on OCC disposal
works, with small generators exempt from the ban. An exemption for de minimus generators
and the difficulty of enforcement will reduce the incremental diversion potential of enacting
the ban. Given the frequent non-compliance the MSW Team witnessed in the field regarding
the County’s cardboard source separation ordinance5 (cardboard is a more valuable and
pervasive material), high compliance rates with the pallet ban could not reasonably be
expected without rigorous outreach and enforcement. Additional impacts are discussed
below.
4.5.1
LANDFILLS
MSW landfills would lose tip fee revenues related to the disposal of pallets. Assuming all
445,000 pallets estimated to be going to MSW landfills were eliminated from MSW landfills
(an unreasonable assumption) the pallet ban would cause a loss of $445,000 annually based on
an average tip fee of $40 per ton. MSW landfill owners were not contacted for this report.
However, it is not believed that the quantity of pallets is large enough to have a meaningful
impact on MSW landfills from loss of tip fee revenues.
MSW landfills may also incur some additional costs if the ban is aggressively enforced. As
with any regulatory action, effectiveness of the pallet ban is expected to be proportional to the
degree to which the ban is enforced. If enforced aggressively, such that MSW landfills are at
risk of financial or other penalties for non-compliance, MSW landfills may need to take steps
to closely monitor incoming deliveries and to develop incremental fees to cover the cost of
pallet removal from incoming loads. It is likely, however, that such costs would be passed on
to landfill customers.
Conversely, it may be expected that at least some pallets from commercial sources find their
way into C&D landfills. This is especially true of businesses that generate loads of mixed inert
debris and other wastes that qualify for disposal in C&D landfills.
5 Mecklenburg County has an ordinance requiring businesses that contract for 16 yards/week or more of waste
disposal to separate OCC and office paper for recycling.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-31
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
4.5.2
GENERATORS
As shown in the results of our phone and on-site surveys, pallets are widely generated across
certain industry types. However, the majority of these pallets (and virtually all pallets
generated by the largest entities) are already being backhauled or recycled. Even moderate
sized generators, or those generators that generate common sized pallets, stand to receive
service from pallet scavengers, reducing the impact of the pallet ban.
Small quantity generators, especially those in industries that do not regularly generate pallets or
that generate off-size pallets, would be expected to incur the most negative impact of a ban on
pallets to MSW landfills. Although builders of smaller, residential homes were found to
generate pallets that could not be diverted, builders and other pallet generators in the
construction industry will be largely immune from the ban because their mixed wastes are
disposed at C&D landfills, which are not included in the ban.
Our phone and on-site surveys did not attempt to study pallet generation among 13,430
businesses (with only 38,000 employees) deemed to be Unlikely pallet generators. To the
extent these businesses generated pallets, it is hypothesized that such generation would be rare
and sporadic and is therefore unlikely they would even be aware of a pallet ban. It is assumed
that such businesses would incur extra costs for pallet disposal (i.e., they would be required to
pay a third party to collect their pallets), but that the incidence of pallet generation among
these businesses would minimize the number of times, and therefore the cost, of needing such
a service.
On a related note, the pallet ban may also increase friction between small quantity generators
and local commercial waste haulers. Haulers generally responded to our survey that a pallet
ban at MSW landfills would necessitate their taking steps to keep pallets out of commercial
dumpsters, through policy changes and even fines or back-charged to the small business.
Such fees may be perceived as unfriendly towards customers at first. However, it is likely that
over time any customers that generate pallets would be, out of necessity, informed by their
haulers of the limitations of pallet disposal with other commercial refuse.
Another comment that can be made about the generators is that the pallet ban will impact
generators of off-spec pallets more so than standard pallets
4.5.3
COMMERCIAL HAULERS
Licensed haulers that provide dumpster and roll-off service did not appear to be concerned
about the pallet ban. Pallets and clean wood were not reported in either the phone or hauler
surveys to be prevalent in commercial waste at the current time, so it appears unlikely that
haulers will perceive their enforcement of the ban to be an impact on a wide number of
customers. Conversely, such a ban may even drive the need for separate collections, and
hence more business, from large pallet generators.
To the extent their customers cannot economically support a separate container for
pallet/clean wood collection (or for mixed wastes that can be disposed at a C&D landfill
instead of an MSW landfill), haulers indicated that it may be necessary to impose a policy of
no pallets. This could lead to friction between haulers and some customers, but it is likely that
such friction would dissipate as word of the pallet ban spread (including through
communications by the haulers to their customers).
4-32
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
Ultimately, while it cannot be predicted how aggressive haulers would be, we can speculate
that it will be in direct proportion to the rigorousness of enforcement of the ban at local
landfills. As with any other regulatory action, low priority given to enforcement may
undermine the regulation. If the pallet ban is not enforced, or if it is possible to discount the
ban by allowing some “de minimus” disposal of pallets, then haulers may simply continue
“business as usual” with little to no effect.
4.5.4
SCAVENGERS
The pallet scavenging business in Mecklenburg County appears to be functioning effectively at
the current time given current market conditions. These scavengers are currently unlicensed,
and it was beyond the scope of this project to comment on the pros and cons of an
unlicensed scavenging industry. While it was not possible to identify and comprehensively
survey from the ranks of pallet scavengers (some of whom do so only recreationally for extra
cash and some who have staked out entire businesses on the service), the MSW Team received
feedback from several stakeholders that enable us to discuss some potential impacts of a pallet
ban.
In general, scavengers exist because of the opportunity to derive incremental revenue from
pallets. If pallets were banned, it appears that the scavenging community would be up to the
task of absorbing additional pallets that could be sold for recycling. On-site observations, as
well as national statistics, suggest that at least half of all pallets would be constructed of sizes
that are recoverable within the scavenging community.
However, it is unlikely that scavengers would collect small, damaged, or otherwise off-spec
pallets from small generators in the absence of a negotiated agreement with the local business
(e.g., they can only take the good pallets if they also take the bad), or unless a market
developed for these unwanted pallets (and parts).
In a related matter, it was reported by a number of the pallet recyclers that they would be
willing to collect and process these small quantities of unusual sized or broken pallets, but
only if they were paid to collect the pallets. Most generators simply find it less costly to throw
them into the dumpster than to pay an extra cost (even if it is nominal) for someone to collect
their pallets separately. If pallets were banned, it appears that at least some incremental
diversion could be achieved, especially if enforcement were aggressive enough to make proper
handling of pallets more financially desirable. However, as demonstrated in this study the
pallets being disposed already represent a small fraction of the overall number of pallets
generated, which suggests decreasing returns.
4.5.5
PALLET RECYCLERS
As discussed above, a ban on disposal of pallets at MSW landfills would result on an estimated
445,000 additional pallets requiring alternative recycling or disposal. Based on discussions with
pallet recyclers, wood grinding operations, and mulch producers, sufficient capacity exists to
handle all of these pallets.
In fact, interviews with the pallet recyclers indicate that there is significant demand for
rebuilt/recycled pallets, and that the demand exists for increasing the quantity of pallets
collected for recycling. None of the pallet recyclers interviewed felt that a ban on pallets to
landfill would have a negative impact on them.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-33
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
However, on-site observation suggest that some fraction of these pallets could not be reused
because of their size and/or condition. Even if every pallet could be collected and delivered
to a remanufacturer, some discard would be inevitable. National statistics show that roughly
five percent of all pallets are chipped for these reasons.
As stated above, it is not reasonable to assume that a ban on pallets to MSW landfills will
result in 100 percent diversion of these pallets. Some percentage will still end up at MSW
landfills, some will move to C&D landfills, some to pallet recyclers, and some percent to pallet
grinding operations. A rough estimate might be that 50 percent of the 445,000 pallets
estimated to be landfilled at MSW landfills now would end up being delivered to pallet
recyclers, either for recycling or grinding. This would require the existing pallet recycling
infrastructure to handle roughly 225,000 more pallets per year, or less then four percent of the
current pallet recycling infrastructure. This would not present a problem for the pallet
recyclers, although it would increase the pressure on the grinders to find new markets for the
additional ground material (see below).
4.5.6
C&D PROCESSORS
At the current time, there is no high volume, large-scale facility in Mecklenburg County where
mixed loads of C&D waste are processed and sorted, with various materials recovered prior to
disposal.6 The quantity of clean wood and other potentially recyclable materials in C&D waste
suggest that establishment of C&D processing would greatly increase recovery. However, of
equal importance, establishment of C&D processing capacity involves capital investment and
increased operating costs that must be considered within the local disposal and recycled
material market dynamics. While it was beyond the scope of this project to develop a Countyspecific solution for C&D processing infrastructure that would indubitably increase recycling
of clean wood as well as other C&D materials, experiences with C&D recovery in other
geographic markets and under other regulatory conditions across the nation suggest certain
important boundaries for such projects. The following three case studies are provided as
background.
4.5.6.1 Massachusetts Case Study
The state of Massachusetts implemented a ban on the landfilling of unprocessed C&D waste
three years ago. At the current time, there are 15 C&D processors now taking Massachusetts
C&D waste, both in the state and in surrounding states. Based on on-site surveys conducted
by Project Team member DSM at all of these processors, actual recovery rates for clean wood
are significantly lower than might be intuitively expected. On average, only 20 percent of the
clean wood generated in Massachusetts was recovered as clean wood and only 50 percent of
painted, stained, and engineered wood was recovered for boiler fuel. In total, only 27 percent
of all C&D wood was recovered in Massachusetts for beneficial use, with the remainder being
landfilled (either as fines or as ground C&D). Notably, this recovery cost roughly $75 to $85
per ton net of the sale of the material.
However, there are several warehouse-type facilities that utilize manual floor sorting of certain loads of mixed
C&D waste to achieve diversion of some recyclables to meet LEED certification. These facilities do not target
all mixed C&D waste and are not considered to be mixed C&D waste processing facilities of the type found in
other regions of the country (to which this section refers).
6
4-34
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
The primary problem in Massachusetts associated with recovering clean wood is that once
clean wood ages, it looks like aged pressure treated or stained wood. This can be seen in
Figure 4-9.
Figure 4-9 Recovered Wood from C&D Processing Plant (Massachusetts)
Because most clean wood applications have very low tolerances for painted, stained and
especially pressure treated wood, sorters must err on the side of caution and let much clean
wood go as potential painted or stained wood. The only way to increase the recovery of clean
wood would be to source separate it. However, very little source separation was occurring in
Massachusetts because of the added cost of separate containers, combined with confusion as
to what could be placed in the source separated container (see the above comments from the
builders for a discussion of similar concerns in Mecklenburg County).
4.5.6.2 California Case Study
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill or AB 939) requires
municipalities throughout the state to achieve a minimum 50 percent diversion rate. This
applies to the overall waste stream, including both municipal solid wastes and C&D debris.
Not surprisingly, C&D processing facilities have become an integral part of the recycling
infrastructure in California, especially in the urban/suburban areas where construction activity
is high.
As might be expected, AB 939 establishes a range of definitions for what activities constitute
allowable diversion of materials for state reporting purposes. Of particular interest, the state
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-35
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
considers post-processed, ground C&D debris used as landfill alternate daily cover (ADC) to
be included in the calculations for total diversion. Available data suggests that California
C&D processors recover anywhere between 20 and 90 percent of their C&D debris.
However, for those facilities reporting high diversion rates, post-processed C&D and fines
used for ADC make up half or more of the recovered amount. In total, California
municipalities received recycling credit for 383,000 tons of post-processed C&D waste
disposed in landfills in 2006.
It must also be noted that disposal tip fees in most of California’s more densely populated
areas range frequently exceed $75 per ton. In more rural areas of the state, where disposal tip
fees are lower, C&D processing facilities have not been developed.
4.5.6.3 South Florida Case Study
The Miami-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management operates a network of six waste
transfer and disposal facilities to serve its 300,000 households in a highly urbanized area.
Miami-Dade has established waste-to-energy (WTE) as its primary waste disposal strategy.
WTE facilities have many benefits, among them the energy recovery from and volume
reduction of wastes prior to final disposal of ash. However, WTE facilities cannot process
large quantities of C&D debris due to the bulky, heavy, non-combustible materials such
concrete and metals. C&D debris therefore must bypass the WTE and find another outlet for
disposal. At the current time, there are no regulatory requirements for C&D processing in
Florida or Miami-Dade County.
However, because of the dearth of disposal capacity in Miami-Dade for C&D debris (which
cannot be processed at the County’s WTE and therefore includes higher transportation costs
because there are no local C&D landfills with attractive tip fees), tip fees for C&D disposal
have begun to exceed $80 per ton. While new disposal facilities are extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to permit, the state of Florida permits recycling facilities more readily. The high
C&D disposal tip fees and more lenient recycling facility permitting process have lead to the
establishment of erstwhile C&D recovery operations within the County by local
entrepreneurs.
Based on local research conducted by Project Team member MSW Consultants, these C&D
recyclers are primarily pulling only the cleanest, easiest to divert materials prior to
densification and long-range transportation of the C&D debris for disposal. Concrete, metals,
some OCC and some clean wood is removed for recovery, although diversion rates were
anecdotally reported to be less than 20 percent of total C&D. In practice, the C&D recovery
operations in South Florida were found to primarily be densifying the debris for more
economical long haul transport of the debris to lower cost landfills that were located between
30 and 200 miles distant. Recovered recyclables represented a slight boost because of the
reduced transportation and disposal cost, as well as incremental material revenues, but were
not the primary objective of the operations.
4.5.6.4 C&D Recycling Ordinances/Permit Requirements
One final strategy for encouraging C&D diversion warrants mention. Some jurisdictions have
implemented local ordinances that require builders to be responsible for C&D diversion from
their job sites. There are several strategies contained in such ordinances, including developing
a C&D diversion plan as part of their application for receiving a building permit, or requiring
pre-payment towards C&D recovery with a refund issued only after diversion has been
4-36
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
documented. Such ordinances may require builders to document the waste generation and
diversion management practices on a job-by-job basis.
Although such ordinances necessarily create more paperwork and therefore increase the cost
of building and renovation projects, they have been successful in many jurisdictions when
approval of the permit is tied to compliance with submission of and execution of the C&D
recycling plan. It should be noted that such aggressive local ordinances have primarily been
implemented in geographic regions where C&D processing facilities exist to manage the
stream of recycled material-rich loads of C&D debris that are generated as a result of such a
plan.
4.5.6.5 Summary
The Project Team notes several recurring themes among these C&D processing case studies.
First, two of the three case studies are driven by state regulation requiring either C&D
processing or else mandated diversion rates. Second, disposal tip fees in all three cases are at
or above the $75 per ton range. This is important because it establishes the opportunity cost
of simply disposing of C&D without processing. Third, recovery rates of C&D materials,
excluding ground C&D and/or fines coming off the end of the processing line, are well below
50 percent, and in many cases closer to 20 or 30 percent (or lower).
Based on the Project Team’s experience with these C&D processing case studies, it is believed
that actual clean wood recovery from C&D processing in Mecklenburg County would be
closer to the 20 percent range (as in Massachusetts) of all clean wood in the C&D waste
stream if the County were to pursue a strategy of high-tech processing of all (or most) C&D
waste. Further, the cost to divert this material via high-capital-investment C&D processing
facilities, such as those described in the case studies above, would be close to double the
current local disposal rates available in the County.
In the near term, the low-tech floor sorting operations for C&D that have been established in
the County to remove concrete, block, metals, drywall and some wood (and possibly other
materials) from selected C&D loads that are rich in these materials should continue to develop
at a pace dictated by the local market (which is currently driven primarily by LEED recycling
requirements for commercial construction projects). It is hypothesized that the establishment
of both high-tech C&D processing infrastructure and the associated costs to be imposed on
the private building and hauling community in Mecklenburg County to require them to use
such a higher cost disposal option would be more challenging.
4.5.7
CLEAN WOOD MARKETS
A ban on disposal of pallets at MSW landfills, if strictly enforced, would take up most of the
remaining existing recycling capacity for ground clean wood. If the ban were extended to
clean wood, significant additional capacity would need to be developed for ground wood.
Potential markets include:
‹ New bio-fuel boiler demand;
‹ Wood pellets;
‹ Erosion control fabric;
‹ Particle Board; and
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-37
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
‹ Mulch.
These are discussed below.
4.5.7.1 Bio-Fuel Demand
The demand for waste wood for boiler fuel is driven primarily by the higher BTU value of the
waste wood when compared to green chips (7,380 BTU/lb for waste wood compared with
4,500 BTU/lb for green chips7) coupled with a lower price for the waste wood. That means
that a buyer for a biomass boiler can purchase roughly 40 percent fewer tons of wood waste
than green chips to supply the same amount of heat value to the boiler. This, when combined
with a price per ton for waste wood which is reported to be about one-half of that for green
chips means that a ton of waste wood is roughly 80 to 90 percent cheaper per BTU than a
green chip.
At the time that this study was undertaken, owners of bio fuel boilers were only taking ground
clean wood – not ground painted, stained or engineered wood. And, the existing bio-fuel
boilers were all at capacity. Therefore, pushing significant new quantities of clean wood out of
landfills would require that either new bio-fuel combustion facilities be constructed, or that
other uses for ground clean wood be developed.
As stated above, Steve Elliot of Compost Central believes that he can increase the sale of
colored mulch to free up another 2,500 tons of bio-fuel capacity, but that is less then five
percent of the total estimated clean wood going to C&D landfills.
4.5.7.2 Wood Pellets
Wood pellet manufacturers can afford to pay more than boiler operators for clean wood.
However, because they are extruding the wood through a pelletizer, they require a very clean
wood with no metal or other contaminants. They also can not accept anything other than
clean wood, which restricts grinders from grinding pallets or other clean wood that might
contain particle board, plywood, or oriented strand board. Experience in the Northeast
suggests that wood pellet manufacturers cannot use ground waste wood on a consistent basis
because of these limitations.
4.5.7.3 Erosion Control Fabrics
One of the wood waste grinders had been sending ground wood to a firm producing erosion
control fabric. They paid a premium compared to ground wood sold for boiler fuel.
However, they also required a cleaner material. As of the date of the interview the firm had
switched to waste Cyprus wood and was no longer purchasing ground waste wood.
4.5.7.4 Particle Board
Tafisa in Lac-Megantic, Quebec is the largest particle board production plant in North
America. Tafisa is currently in the final stages of construction of a new line which will have
the capability to utilize up to 40 percent waste wood in the production of particle board. If
start-up goes as planned, Tafisa believes that it will eventually have the capability to utilize up
to 275,000 tons per year of waste wood.
7
University of New Hampshire Life-Cycle Assessment of C&D Derived Biomass/Wood Waste Management, September 7, 2007.
4-38
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
While it is unlikely that wood waste grinders in North Carolina will be able to ship waste wood
to Quebec economically, if Tafisa is successful additional capacity closer to Mecklenburg
County could be constructed. Even if this were the case, however, it would be years away
given the development time for such a facility.
4.5.7.5 Mulch
Mecklenburg County has recently completed a study of the potential demand for mulch and
compost. While that study has not been made available, an internal draft indicated that there
was significant potential demand for additional mulch, compost (which uses ground wood as a
carbon source) and for the residential construction industry (which applies the material around
the completed foundation of a new house to prevent mud from splattering on the
foundation).
As discussed above, Compost Central believes that it can double the amount of ground wood
sold as mulch, and that it can also increase sales of compost, and therefore use of ground
wood. Other local grinders indicate capacity for more clean wood. These uses would absorb
12,500 tons of clean wood, which would be sufficient to manage increases resulting from a
strictly enforced pallet ban. However, greater increases in the market for mulch may not be as
readily available in Mecklenburg County, and it is doubtful that the currently disposed
quantities of clean wood could be converted into mulch and beneficially used.
4.6.
CONCLUSION
The issue of pallet and clean wood recovery in Mecklenburg County appears to be one of
short and long-term considerations. The County is already home to a developed pallet
recycling industry, and our studies suggest that not only are over 87 percent of all pallets
already recycled or otherwise beneficially reused in Mecklenburg County, but the current pallet
recycling infrastructure, as well as the impending expansion to the local uses for clean wood, is
sufficient to absorb the 445,000 pallets (11,128 tons) that are estimated to be disposed in
MSW landfills (for either reuse or grinding for fuel, mulch, or other purposes).
Collection/recycling costs and enforceability of the ban for small quantity and off-size/offspec pallet generators are the limiting factors to closing the gap and eliminating disposal of
pallets in MSW landfills.
Longer term, any meaningful initiatives to capture the large fraction of clean wood that is
currently being disposed, especially in C&D landfills as a result of construction activities,
would need to occur hand in hand with growth in new markets for use of the clean wood.
Our best estimate is that the establishment of C&D processing to recover clean wood, as well
as associated regulations that would compel use of such a facility despite lower-cost local
disposal options, would result in an additional 13,000 tons of clean wood being separated for
recycling. Combined with the ban on disposal of pallets in MSW landfills, the end result
would be that roughly 11,000 tons of new demand would have to be created in the County for
clean wood. As discussed above, this would have to either involve the development of new
bio-fuel combustion capacity and/or a significant increase in the demand for compost and
colored mulch.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
4-39
4. WOOD PALLETS AND UNTREATED WOOD
This page intentionally left blank.
4-40
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
5.1.
INTRODUCTION
Although the primary focus of this project was on wood pallets and clean wood, it was
economical to gather information on several other materials in conjunction with the
pallet/clean wood research. This section summarizes the data and information gathered for
the following materials:
‹ Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) in the commercial waste stream;
‹ Plastic Films in the commercial and C&D waste streams;
‹ Gypsum Wallboard in the C&D waste stream;
‹ Vinyl Siding in the C&D waste stream; and
‹ Asphalt Shingles in the C&D waste stream.
Throughout this section, it is important to note that the Likely and Possible Generators were defined
strictly in terms of wood pallet and clean wood research. No attempt was made to broaden our
research to representatively capture generation across the entire commercial waste stream for
the materials in this section. Consequently, we have not attempted to derive the total quantity
of these materials in the commercial waste stream. Further, based on our review of phone
survey responses compared to on-site survey responses for the Likely Generators, the MSW
Team does not believe the phone survey-derived generation and recycling rates from Possible
Generators can be relied upon to reflect the incidence of OCC and Plastic Film in the
commercial sector. For this reason, only the results of the on-site surveys of commercial
generators are shown.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5-1
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
5.2.
OLD CORRUGATED CARDBOARD
5.2.1
GENERATION AND RECYCLING IN COMMERCIAL WASTE
Old corrugated cardboard is broadly generated across the commercial sector. The MSW
Team was able to collect data on OCC generation, recycling, and disposal as part of its phone
and on-site surveys. Table 5-1 summarizes the percentage of respondents to both the
telephone and on-site surveys of the Likely pallet/wood generators that reported or were
found to generate OCC.
Table 5-1 Surveys of OCC Generation Among Likely Pallet/Clean Wood Generators
NAICS
Code
Phone Surveys
Surveyed Generate Percent
OCC
Industry
On-site Surveys
Surveyed Generate Percent
OCC
31-33
Manufacturing
31
12
51.6%
55
39
71%
42
Wholesale Trade
62
32
62.9%
95
60
63%
44-45
Retail Trade
42
22
64.3%
82
52
63%
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
17
4
35.3%
21
5
24%
56
Admin/Support/Waste
Mgmt
3
1
100.0%
3
2
67%
62
Health Care
3
1
66.7%
6
3
50%
71
Arts/Recreation
3
1
66.7%
3
3
100%
161
73
59.0%
275
164
62%
Total
Interestingly, the phone and on-site surveys reflect similar incidence of OCC generation
within the same universe of Likely Generators.
Based on the on-site survey responses, the MSW team calculated the OCC generation
coefficients for each industry group for which a sufficient number of samples were obtained.
Generator coefficients are stated in terms of the number of pounds of OCC per employee per
year, and were calculated based on the weighted average generation rate at each of the
businesses surveyed.
On-site surveys enjoy the benefit of having a knowledgeable recycling professional quantify
the OCC based on direct visual observation. Not only can the on-site surveyor ask questions,
but can subsequently (with cooperative businesses) explore the answers to clarify and improve
accuracy. For this reason, on-site surveys are believed by the MSW Team to reflect the most
accurate portrayal of OCC generation, recycling and disposal. Table 5-2 shows the OCC
generation coefficients derived from over 280 on-site surveys of Mecklenburg County
businesses.
5-2
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
Table 5-2 OCC Generator Coefficients Based on On-site Surveys of Likely Pallet Generators
(lbs/employee/year)
NAICS
Code
Industry
Total
Generation
Disposed
Recycled
Percent
Recycled
31-33
Manufacturing
874
51
823
94.2%
42
Wholesale Trade
887
224
663
74.7%
44-45
Retail Trade
3,260
300
2,960
90.8%
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
284
64
220
77.5%
56
Admin/Support/Waste
Mgmt
867
867
100.0%
62
Health Care [1]
26
26
0
0.0%
71
Arts/Recreation
1,664
104
1,560
93.8%
0
[1] Data from the health care sector are from too small a sample to be significant.
Table 5-3 applies the OCC generator coefficients to the known employment within each
industry group to calculate the quantity of OCC generated in each stratum of businesses
among Likely Generators.
Table 5-3 OCC Generation among Likely Pallet Generators Based on On-site Surveys (tons)
NAICS
Code
Industry
Employment
Disposed
Recycled
Total
Generation
31-33
Manufacturing
34,235
892
14,382
15,274
42
Wholesale Trade
29,169
3,335
9,868
13,203
44-45
Retail Trade
25,193
4,063
40,090
44,153
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
15,145
489
1,681
2,170
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
5,292
0
2,312
2,312
62
Health Care
13,624
178
0
178
71
Arts/Recreation
4,171
229
3,423
3,652
122,658
9,186
71,758
80,942
Total
Likely pallet/wood generators generated a significant amount of OCC with the vast majority
being recycled. This is not surprising in light of the current market prices for recovered OCC,
the existing landfill disposal ban for OCC generated from larger businesses,1 and County
outreach to businesses. However it is interesting to note that the recycling rate (estimated to
average 89% over the seven sectors) is only two percentage points higher than the current
estimated recycling rate for pallets (without a landfill ban)..
1 Defined to include any commercial entity that generates more than 16 cubic yards of waste per week or more
than 500 pounds per month of office paper and OCC combined.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5-3
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
5.2.2
RECYCLING MARKET INFRASTRUCTURE
There are ample markets for OCC available in Mecklenburg County. The primary limitation is
the cost of keeping OCC separate, storing until there is a sufficient quantity for recycling, and
arranging for a firm to collect the material. It is not unusual for hauling firms to charge a
rental fee for the OCC container, and charge for pickup. These charges often reduce the
economic incentive to recycle OCC, especially when there are relatively low landfill costs as is
the case in Mecklenburg County. However, the County does have a program where they will
provide free containers for small generators, reducing one of the impediments to recycling.
It is also interesting to note that along with a large pallet scavenging community, there are
informal collectors of OCC – sometimes in conjunction with pallets, but often a separate
entity with a panel van or box truck. This significantly increases the ability of small generators
to set aside OCC for recycling without incurring the cost of dumpster rental.
Given current markets for OCC it is our opinion that recycling of OCC will remain viable for
all but the smallest businesses given regulatory requirements to recycle OCC. OCC prices
have been high (currently averaging roughly $120 per ton for baled OCC), but even in periods
of low demand OCC still has significant value (the low over the past five years has been $60
per ton, and the average has been closer to $100 per ton.
5.3.
FILM PLASTIC
Film plastic was analyzed in both the commercial and C&D waste streams.
5.3.1
GENERATION AND RECYCLING IN COMMERCIAL WASTE
Results of the phone and on-site surveys for plastic film generation among both the Likely
and the Possible pallet/wood generators are shown in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4 Generation of Film Plastic Among Likely Pallet/Wood Generators
NAICS
Code
Phone Surveys
Surveyed Generate Percent
Film
Industry
On-site Surveys
Surveyed Generate Percent
Film
31-33
Manufacturing
31
6
19.4%
55
21
38%
42
Wholesale Trade
62
15
24.2%
95
39
41%
44-45
Retail Trade
42
13
31.0%
82
33
40%
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
17
4
23.5%
21
5
24%
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
3
0
0.0%
3
1
33%
62
Health Care
3
2
66.7%
6
0
0%
71
Arts/Recreation
3
0
0.0%
3
0
0%
161
40
24.8%
275
99
37%
Total
Consistent with results for other materials, the on-site surveys reflect a significantly higher
incidence of film plastic generation within the same universe of Likely Generators compared
5-4
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
to the phone survey. This confirms the MSW Team’s belief that on-site surveyors can better
quantify film plastic generating activities and related management.
Table 5-5 shows the film plastic generation coefficients derived from over 280 on-site surveys
of Mecklenburg County businesses.
Table 5-5 Film Plastic Generator Coefficients from Likely Pallet Generators Based on On-site Surveys
(lbs/employee/year)
Industry
NAICS
Code
Disposed
Recycled
Total
Generation
31-33
Manufacturing
78
0
78
42
Wholesale Trade
33
22
55
44-45
Retail Trade
125
3
128
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
124
0
124
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
26
0
26
62
Health Care
0
0
0
71
Arts/Recreation
0
0
0
Table 5-6 applies the film plastic generator coefficients to the known employment within each
industry group to calculate the quantity of film generated within each stratum of Likely
Generators.
Table 5-6 Film Plastic Generation from Likely Pallet Generators Based on On-site Surveys (tons)
NAICS
Code
Industry
Employment
Disposed
Recycled
Total
Generation
31-33
Manufacturing
7,648
126
84
210
42
Wholesale Trade
9,145
572
14
585
44-45
Retail Trade
46,397
2,877
0
2,877
48-49
Transportation/Warehousing
4,808
63
0
63
56
Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt
18,413
0
0
0
62
Health Care
26,038
0
0
0
71
Arts/Recreation
4,016
0
0
0
116,465
3,637
98
3,735
Total Film Plastic
As shown, relatively little film plastic (roughly two percent) appears to be getting recycled by
the businesses visited as part of the on-site surveys. This is not unusual because of the high
volume and low density of film which makes it difficult to store and transport at reasonable
cost. Only in the case where balers are available and there is a large volume of a
homogeneous clean film will it be economical to recycle the plastic film. This is the case
despite its relatively high value (currently ranging from $600 to $800 per ton for truck load
bales). That is why the majority of recycling was reported by the manufacturing and wholesale
trade sectors.
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5-5
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
5.3.2
DISPOSAL IN C&D WASTE STREAM
Table 5-7 summarizes the estimated quantity of film plastic found in the C&D waste stream.
The table shows the average, or “best estimate,” as well as the lower and upper confidence
intervals at a 90 percent level of confidence. This means that we can be 90 percent sure that
the true quantity of film plastic lies within the lower and upper bounds shown in the table.
Table 5-7 Film Plastic in C&D Waste Stream
Percent of
C&D Waste
Tons of Film
Plastic
Minimum (90%)
0.2%
926
Average
0.3%
1,283
Maximum (90%)
0.4%
1,640
Source: Mecklenburg County C&D Waste Characterization Study, September 2008.
5.3.3
RECYCLING MARKET INFRASTRUCTURE
Based on prior experience, the MSW Team is aware that film is widely recyclable under the
conditions that it is clean and can be aggregated economically through backhaul. We offer the following
observations based on our prior experience, discussions with a local recycler, and based on
feedback received from the builder focus groups conducted for this project.
In the commercial sector, film plastic recycling takes place (as supported in the research to this
project) at establishments where retail bags and shrink wrap (usually either HDPE, LDPE, or
linear LDPE) are used on site or else returned by customers in a large enough volume to
support separation, densification, and backhaul of the material. Retail bag recycling is offered
by many grocery and home improvement stores, and indeed there are many states and
jurisdictions that are actively considering taking action to improve recycling (by requiring onsite take-back programs) or to limit or ban the use of retail bags.
In the C&D sector, the focus groups with builders indicated that none of the builders who
attended the focus groups were currently recycling film. This is consistent with the behavior
of construction firms in other areas of the country.
Ultimately, there are two primary reasons for low recycling of film plastic. First, film is a
relatively small part of the overall commercial and construction waste stream. Most
commercial waste characterization studies vastly overestimate the actual weight of disposed
film, simply because they do not correct for moisture and particulate contamination. A 2005
study by New York City found that over two-thirds of the unadjusted weight of disposed film
plastic (in the residential waste stream) was actually moisture and particle contamination. And
according to the Mecklenburg County C&D waste characterization study, plastic film makes
up only 0.3 percent of C&D on a weight basis. Second, while markets for clean PE film exist
throughout North America, there are limitations to the ability of commercial businesses,
municipal collection programs, recycling facilities, and construction companies to recycle films
because of the following constraints:
‹ Contamination: The high surface volume to weight ratio allows for significant
contamination from dirt, grit, water, and organic matter. It is not unusual for dirt and
5-6
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
water on the film to weigh more than the PE film once it has been used for most
applications.
‹ Collection and transportation: Film is typically recycled by commercial and industrial
establishments that either have a baler for collection and storage of film, or have access to
relatively low backhaul costs to a central distributor with baling capabilities. This is not
the case for smaller commercial establishments or for construction firms. As a
consequence it is difficult to design a system that the vast majority of businesses and
construction firms can use to store and transport film economically – especially given the
relatively limited quantities generated by these establishments at any given time.
‹ Mixed films: Especially construction firms tend to generate a mix of films. Some of the
film is clear PE film, which has value, but a significant amount of the film in the
construction industry consists of the blue tarps. These films cannot be mixed with clear
PE film, making it even more difficult for construction firms to collect, store and
transport film for recycling.
MSW Team member DSM is an American Plastics Council Technical Assistance Program
provider for the Northeast, and has been working to increase plastic film recycling for the past
ten years. Specifications for accepting plastic film vary but generally restrict moisture and dirt
contamination, as well as restrict the mixing of resins. However each processor has different
specifications and conditions for acceptance based on their capacity to wash, and the markets
to which they are selling. As state above, typical plastic film sent for disposal may average
two-thirds of the weight as moisture and dirt. This is not acceptable for recycling in most
cases. That is why the manufacturing and wholesale sectors are most likely to recycle plastic
film – because it is typically homogenous, generated in sufficient quantities, and can be kept
dry and relatively contaminant-free. None of these circumstances exist in the construction
industry. As such, it is unlikely that plastic film will be recycled by the construction industry
given all of the other materials that they can recycle first that weigh more and have less
limitations on moisture and contamination.
5.4.
VINYL SIDING
Vinyl siding was evaluated only in the C&D waste stream (but not in commercial waste).
5.4.1
DISPOSAL IN C&D WASTE STREAM
Table 5-8 summarizes the estimated quantity of vinyl siding found in the C&D waste stream.
The table shows the average, or “best estimate,” as well as the lower and upper confidence
intervals at a 90 percent level of confidence. This means that we can be 90 percent sure that
the true quantity of vinyl siding lies within the lower and upper bounds shown in the table.
Table 5-8 Vinyl Siding in C&D Waste Stream
Percent of
C&D Waste
Tons
Minimum (90%)
0.02%
70
Average
0.05%
194
Maximum (90%)
0.08%
318
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5-7
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
Source: Mecklenburg County C&D Waste Characterization Study, September 2008.
Very little vinyl siding was found in the disposed C&D waste stream.
5.4.2
RECYCLING MARKET INFRASTRUCTURE
Approximately 6 percent of the vinyl siding is disposed of at a typical construction site. This
material is typically clean and readily recyclable if it can be kept separate from other waste
materials and cost effectively transported to a vinyl recycler.
None of the builders who attended the two focus groups were currently recycling vinyl siding.
The MSW Team did, however, contact all of the potential vinyl recyclers listed in
Mecklenburg County’s Resource Guide, as well as two companies suggested by the Vinyl
Recycling Institute to determine the potential demand and specification for vinyl siding scrap.
In general, none of the vinyl recyclers in Mecklenburg are taking vinyl siding scrap. Most
reported that they concentrate on clean industrial scrap and had limited capability to clean
vinyl siding from construction job sites.
The only regional vinyl recycler who is currently accepting vinyl siding from construction sites
is Reily Recovery in Chapel Hill. Kevin Reily has been involved in vinyl siding recycling since
1996, and is one of the innovators in this field. Mr. Reily reported that they will provide
containers to job sites in areas near Chapel Hill for a fee of $20. They will collect the
containers at no cost and process the material provided that it is relatively free of dirt and
contamination. Their containers are typically four cubic yard containers (7’x4’x4’) and can be
loaded with roughly 800 pounds of vinyl siding if the siding is stacked in the containers. Mr.
Reily reported that he would need to collect a full truck load of containers if he were to collect
material from Mecklenburg County.
Harmony Industries, in High Point, NC currently does not recycle vinyl siding. However,
David Pendlebury reported that they would be willing to purchase vinyl siding for 5 cents per
pound provided it were delivered in minimum load sizes of 5,000 to 10,000 pounds, and that
contamination was minimal.
Finally, Custom Polymers of Charlotte reported that while they currently do not take vinyl
siding, they would be willing to consider accepting the material if it were clean and baled.
In conclusion, while vinyl siding recycling is currently not occurring in Mecklenburg County,
the potential exists for development of a vinyl siding recycling infrastructure. It is likely that it
would require active involvement by the County in establishment of a central collection,
inspection/cleaning, and densification location. Markets for the collected material would then
appear to be readily available.
5.5.
GYPSUM DRYWALL
5.5.1
DISPOSAL IN C&D WASTE STREAM
Table 5-9 summarizes the estimated quantity of gypsum drywall found in the C&D waste
stream. The table shows the average, or “best estimate,” as well as the lower and upper
confidence intervals at a 90 percent level of confidence. This means that we can be 90
5-8
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
percent sure that the true quantity of gypsum drywall lies within the lower and upper bounds
shown in the table. Both unpainted and painted gypsum are shown
Table 5-9 Gypsum Drywall in C&D Waste Stream
Unpainted Gypsum
Tons
Percent of
C&D Waste
Painted Gypsum
Tons
Percent of
C&D Waste
Minimum (90%)
5.0%
18,819
0.1%
448
Average
6.8%
25,806
0.4%
1,613
Maximum (90%)
8.7%
32,793
0.7%
2,778
Source: Mecklenburg County C&D Waste Characterization Study, September 2008.
As shown, the vast majority of drywall disposed in C&D landfills in Mecklenburg County is
unpainted. This follows from the largely new construction market in the Mecklenburg region.
Over time, as the County gets built out and development slows, painted drywall resulting from
renovation and demolition will begin to increase.
5.5.2
RECYCLING MARKET INFRASTRUCTURE
Gypsum has become a significant issue associated with the recovery and disposal of C&D
wastes. According to GreenYes Archives, March 2006, “Gypsum has been identified as a
leading contributor of hydrogen sulphides (H2S) production in landfills where it is disposed.
H2S is produced in a landfill when sulfur compounds decompose in the presence of moisture
and absence of oxygen. Under anaerobic conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria produce H2S
from the sulfate (SO42-) in gypsum and the organic carbon waste materials…” H2S is both an
odor issue (it is typically one of the primary odors that people associate with methane
production at landfills, although methane is odorless) and a public health issue (Ohio has had
to evacuate neighbors to a C&D landfill associated with high levels of H2S, and the U.S. EPA
has regulatory thresholds for H2S emissions at landfills).
The issue of H2S emissions from landfills has grown significantly with the grinding of C&D
waste for use as alternative daily cover (ADC), and with the landfilling of fines from the
grinding and processing of C&D wastes. This is because gypsum wallboard is friable and
breaks into small pieces easily when ground or crushed with C&D materials. The resulting
gypsum ends up mixed with small pieces of wood (organics) which is the second ingredient
needed by the sulfate reducing bacteria. The final ingredients are water and anaerobic
conditions, both of which are present in abundance in eastern landfills.
H2S is not only an aesthetic issue. In higher concentrations it can be a health hazard, both to
workers on the landfill, and even to surrounding residences. The U.S. EPA was forced to take
corrective action against the Regus Industries landfill in Warren, Ohio due to hazardous levels
of H2S migrating off-site to neighboring residences. This landfill accepted ground C&D
materials (in violation of Ohio EPA regulations), and landfilling was occurring below the
water table.
Gypsum can be recovered for recycling. Most common uses include:
‹ Recycling to new gypsum wallboard;
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5-9
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
‹ Land application as a soil amendment (especially in high clay content soils where crusting
is an issue);
‹ As an additive to compost; and,
‹ In cement production as an additive to stucco or gunite.
Potential uses include:
‹ In flea powder;
‹ Mushroom compost;
‹ As a bulking agent or sludge drying compound;
‹ As a flocculating agent in water treatment; and
‹ As an oil and grease absorber
Paper, which represents between 10 and 15 percent of the gypsum wallboard, can also be
recovered and used as animal bedding and/or pelletized for fuel pellets.
Mecklenburg County is fortunate to have one of the innovators in gypsum recycling located
nearby. Union Gypsum is currently recycling 80 tons of gypsum per day and expects to
increase that to 140 tons per day over the next several years as they develop additional markets
for the ground material. Union Gypsum’s primary criteria is that the gypsum be kept separate
from other construction materials, be dry, and not be contaminated by paint or wallpaper.
However, there are a number of issues associated with gypsum recycling which limit its
success. First and foremost is that it is extremely difficult to recover gypsum once it has been
mixed with other C&D wastes. It simply breaks too easily and disintegrates during handling of
the C&D materials. Second, while there are a number of uses for clean gypsum, the number
of uses associated with painted or wallpapered gypsum is significantly less.
Third, and most importantly, gypsum is a relatively low cost material. The cost of mined
gypsum delivered to a wallboard manufacturing plant is roughly $10 per ton. More
importantly, sulfur dioxide controls (flue gas desulphurization or FGD) on coal fired power
plants results in a perfect gypsum slurry for use in gypsum wallboard manufacturing. Thus, a
number of new gypsum wallboard plants are being constructed adjacent to coal fired power
plants, where the gypsum slurry can be obtained for roughly one-half of the cost of mined
gypsum and the gypsum has already been calcinated during the coal combustion.
At these low costs for the raw material associated with gypsum wallboard production, it is
difficult to keep gypsum separate, crush it, remove the paper, and deliver the resulting material
to a gypsum wallboard plant for a cost that is competitive with new gypsum. It has been
reported to DSM that the maximum distance that recycled gypsum can be transported is
roughly 30 miles before the transport cost alone makes recycling non-competitive. Thus, it is
likely that significant quantities of gypsum will be recycled only if gypsum is not allowed in
landfills due to H2S issues.
5-10
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
5.6.
ASPHALT ROOFING
5.6.1
DISPOSAL IN C&D WASTE STREAM
Table 5-10 summarizes the estimated quantity of asphalt roofing found in the C&D waste
stream. The table shows the average, or “best estimate,” as well as the lower and upper
confidence intervals at a 90 percent level of confidence. This means that we can be 90
percent sure that the true quantity of asphalt roofing lies within the lower and upper bounds
shown in the table.
Table 5-10 Asphalt Roofing in C&D Waste Stream
Percent of
C&D Waste
Tons
Minimum (90%)
4.8%
16,596
Average
6.4%
24,084
Maximum (90%)
8.4%
31,571
Source: Mecklenburg County C&D Waste Characterization Study, September 2008.
Asphalt roofing was found to make up a significant portion of C&D waste. However, as
shown by the relatively wide confidence intervals, asphalt roofing material is not widely
dispersed among incoming loads but rather is contained in large quantities in a subset of all
C&D loads.
5.6.2
RECYCLING MARKET INFRASTRUCTURE
The MSW Team made several attempts to contact local asphalt roofing recyclers during the
course of the project. These phone calls to potential asphalt roofing recyclers serving
Mecklenburg County were not returned. However, as noted in the discussion of the builder
focus groups, none of the builders were recycling asphalt shingles in Mecklenburg County,
which would indicate that there is currently not a viable asphalt shingle recycling program.
This is an area where effort by the County could yield additional recycling for four reasons:
1. Asphalt shingles are often already, as reported above, delivered separately to landfills
(or with a small amount of wood and plastic contamination).
2. Asphalt shingles (unlike plastic film) are heavy and therefore more expensive to
dispose of than light weight materials.
3. Recycled asphalt shingles (RAS) “contain ingredients that hot mix asphalt producers
purchase to enhance their paving mixtures including: asphalt cement (or AC binder)
and mineral aggregate. Asphalt shingles also contain a fibrous mat made from organic
felt (cellulose) or fiberglass that can also be valuable as fiber in some paving mixes.”2
Recycling Tear-Off Asphalt Shingles: Best Practices Guide, Construction Materials Recycling Association, October 11,
2007. Data on asphalt shingle recycling contained in this section is excerpted from this guide which was funded
in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5-11
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
4. Eight states (including South Carolina) already have a Department of Transportation
specification for use of RAS in hot mix asphalt (typically at a maximum rate of five
percent of the asphalt). As such, significant data already exist on the use of RAS in hot
mix asphalt.
In addition to use in asphalt paving, other potential markets3 include:
‹ Cement kilns;
‹ Coal-fired power plants;
‹ Shingle-to-shingle recycling;
‹ A supplement for road base and sub-base; and
‹ Cold patch.
There are essentially three primary obstacles that would have to be overcome for Mecklenburg
County to drive an asphalt recycling program forward. First, the County would need to work
with existing hot mix asphalt producers to develop specifications for the RAS. Because of the
large amount of work that has already gone on in this area, as well in the use of recycled
asphalt paving (RAP) in new hot mix asphalt, this would primarily be a case of providing data
on existing specifications and research. For example, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials published a new provisional specification and
recommended practice for shingle recycling into hot mix asphalt in December, 2005.4
MSW Team member DSM learned in Delaware that the hot mix asphalt paving producers are
anxious to reduce their input costs and are typically prepared to use recycled material in lower
specification applications, such as parking lots first, and then move to base course
applications, and then finally to County and State road applications as the Departments of
Transportation become comfortable with the specifications.
Second, an asphalt grinding location would have to be established where asphalt roofing
companies could deliver source separated asphalt shingles. A key issue would be to price the
grinding below the landfill cost. This would require an economic analysis of the cost of
grinding and transport to the hot mix asphalt producer, minus the value of the ground
material which will typically replace virgin asphalt cement.
Third, and most importantly, the County would need to develop a procedure for dealing with
the lingering issue of asbestos contamination. U.S. manufacturers discontinued the use of
asbestos asphalt shingles more than thirty years ago. Since asphalt shingles have a lifetime of
less then 20 years, tear off shingles should not contain asbestos. However, because asphalt
shingles can be applied over one course of old shingles, it is possible that shingles containing
asbestos could be delivered to a recycling facility. More importantly, “asbestos may be present
at low frequency and in small amounts in other related roofing materials such as roofing felt
and mastic”.5
3
Ibid.
4 Ibid. See R2005A-TS-2c: Provisional Standard Recommended Practice for Design Considerations when using Reclaimed
Asphalt Shingles in New Hot Mix Asphalt
Townsend, Dr. Timothy, Xu, Dr. Chad, Powell, Jon. (October 2007) Environmental Issues Associated with Asphalt
Shingle Recycling.
5
5-12
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
MSW Team member DSM surveyed asphalt shingle recyclers in Massachusetts. They are
required by state regulation to test for asbestos. This adds to the cost of recycling the asphalt
shingles and requires that storage of delivered asphalt be segregated so that if asbestos is
found during testing that the material containing the asbestos can be identified and landfilled.
It was reported to DSM by one of the largest asphalt recyclers in Massachusetts that asbestos
has only been found on “one or two” occasions, and in both cases in very low concentrations.
While the cost to test is not great, the procedure for establishing a sampling protocol that is
sufficient to address this issue could be difficult, and may be the largest single deterrent to
recycling asphalt shingles.
5.7.
CONCLUSION
The materials discussed in this section were targeted opportunistically based on the research
approach that was developed to investigate wood pallets and clean wood. For this reason, the
results shown here are not intended to portray a detailed, County-wide analysis of the
generation, recycling and disposal of these materials.
However, the following observations can be made based on the research performed:
‹ OCC appears to be widely recycled among the businesses targeted for investigation in this
project, although over 9,000 tons of OCC was still found to be disposed from these
businesses. It is perhaps noteworthy that the County’s prior commercial waste
characterization study projected over 57,000 tons of OCC being disposed as MSW.
‹ Over 3,600 tons of recyclable film plastics were found to be disposed within the universe
of commercial businesses studied. The County’s prior commercial waste characterization
study estimated 1,200 tons of transport packaging film (as well as xxx tons of all films).
Another 1,300 tons of plastic films were disposed in C&D landfills.
‹ Both OCC and film plastics are likely to be generated broadly among the Possible
Generator and the Unlikely Generator strata, as defined in this study. These results
should not be considered representative of OCC and film plastic generation, disposal and
recycling across the remaining universe of County businesses. It was beyond the scope of
this project to project total OCC and film plastic generation, but it is likely that both
materials are generated ubiquitously with recycling of these materials becoming more
challenging as the generator gets smaller.
‹ Collection and disposal of C&D debris in Mecklenburg County continues to be governed
by the relative low cost of mixed wastes being disposed in C&D landfills in the region.
While there are highly recyclable materials contained in the C&D, the cost of source
separating and separately collecting/transporting has reduced the incentive to recycle at
the current time. As discussed in the pallet/wood results section, C&D recycling could be
positively impacted by recycling/diversion regulations that apply uniformly to all builders,
so as to place all stakeholders on a level playing field.
‹ With the exception of asphalt shingles, the cleanliness of the potentially recyclable material
will be among the factors that influences the recyclability of the material. Film plastic
(especially), drywall, and vinyl recyclers all require a relatively clean feedstock, so excessive
contamination of these materials may eliminate recycling opportunities (or else increase
the handling cost sufficiently to eliminate any financial gain).
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
5-13
5. OTHER TARGETED MATERIALS
‹ Asphalt shingle recycling could potentially be developed by the County, provided that the
cost to store, grind, test for asbestos and transport to a hot mix asphalt producer are
competitive with landfill costs after the sale of the ground asphalt.
5-14
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
APPENDIX A
Pallet Nomenclature
(Source: National Wooden Pallet & Container
Association)
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Pallet Classification
Pallet Classification defines Pallet Size, Class, Type, Style, Construction, and Use Category.
Terminology is consistent with the NWPCA Uniform Standard for Wood Pallets.
Pallet ID is your own name or identification for this pallet design (maximum 60 characters). It
will be displayed on all printouts and drawings for this pallet.
Pallet Size is the overall pallet dimensions expressed as Pallet Length × Pallet Width.
Pallet Length is the length of the Stringers (Stringer-class pallets) or Top Stringerboards
(Block-class pallets). For Panel-deck Block-class pallets without stringerboards, Pallet Length
is typically the pallet dimension parallel to the Top Panel Deck strong axis.
Pallet Length
Pallet Width is the length of the Top Deckboards. For Panel-deck pallets, Pallet Width is the
Top Panel Deck dimension perpendicular to Pallet Length.
Pallet Width
Pallet Class defines the basic pallet design class:
•
Stringer-class pallets utilize rectangular stringers (or runners) - wood components that run
the full length of the pallet. The top deck is fastened to the top edge of the stringers. For
Double-face pallets, the bottom deck is fastened to the bottom edge of the stringers.
•
Block-class pallets utilize rectangular blocks (or cylindrical posts), which separate the top
deck from bottom deck (if Double-Face). Block-class pallets with lumber decks have top
stringerboards, which run the full length of the pallet and are fastened to the blocks.
1
The Pallet Use Category is defined in the NWPCA Uniform Standard for Wood Pallets:
•
Multiple-Use Pallets are intended for repeated uses for more than one unit load. MultipleUse Pallets are also referred to as Returnable Pallets.
•
Limited-Use Pallets are intended for use with a single unit load. Limited-Use Pallets are
also referred to as Shipping Pallets.
Pallet Style defines the basic construction style of the pallet:
•
Single-Face pallets have only one deck and are also referred to as Skids.
Single-Face
•
Double-Face Non-Reversible pallets have a specific top face and a specific bottom face,
which are not interchangeable.
Double-Face Non-Reversible
•
Double-Face Reversible pallets have a top and bottom deck which are identical, so the
pallet can be used "reversibly".
Double-Face Reversible
2
Entry Type further defines the pallet design and indicates how the pallet may be entered by
forklift and pallet jack equipment:
•
2-Way pallet designs are Stringer-Class pallets without stringer notches. They can be
entered and lifted by forklift and pallet jack from only the two ends, thus the term 2-Way
entry.
2-Way
•
Partial 4-Way pallet designs include Stringer-Class pallets with stringers notched for fork
tine entry. These notches are rarely sized to accommodate pallet jacks, which can only
enter the pallet from the ends. Only forklifts can enter and lift the pallet from the sides as
well as ends, thus the term Partial 4-Way entry.
Partial 4-Way
•
Partial 4-Way pallet designs also include Block-Class pallets with an Overlap Base. The
overlapped bottom stringerboards and bottom deckboards typically prevents the entry of
pallet jack wheels over the bottom stringerboards (without damaging the pallet), but pallet
jacks can enter the pallet over the bottom deckboards. Only forklifts can enter and lift the
pallet from all 4 directions, thus the term Partial 4-Way entry.
Partial 4-Way
•
Full 4-Way pallet designs are Single-Face Block-Class pallets or Double-Face NonReversible Block-Class pallets with a Panel Base, Perimeter Base, or Unidirectional Base.
The single layer bottom deck (if present) and potentially large openings between blocks (or
posts) allows entry of forklifts or pallet jacks from all pallet sides and ends, thus the term Full
4-Way entry.
Full 4-Way
3
PDS allows the following Top Deck Constructions for each Pallet Class:
Stringer-Class:
•
Deckboard
•
Panel
Block-Class:
•
Deckboard/Stringerboard
•
Panel
•
Panel/Stringerboard
Deckboard Top Deck Constructions apply to Stringer-class pallets with lumber Top
Deckboards.
Deckboard
Stringer
Deckboard/Stringerboard Top Deck Constructions apply to Block-class pallets with lumber
Top Deckboards attached to Top Stringerboards.
Deckboard
Stringerboard
Block
Top Panel Deck Constructions apply to Stringer-class pallets and Block-class pallets without
Top Stringerboards.
Panel
Stringer
Panel
Block
Panel/Stringerboard Top Deck Constructions apply to Block-class pallets with a Top Panel
Deck attached to Top Stringerboards.
Panel
Stringerboard
Block
4
PDS allows the following Bottom Deck Constructions for each Pallet Class:
Stringer-Class:
•
Deckboard
•
Panel Base
Block-Class:
•
Panel Base
•
Perimeter Base
•
Overlap Base
•
Unidirectional Base
Deckboard Bottom Deck Constructions apply to Stringer-class pallets with lumber Bottom
Deckboards.
Stringer
Deckboard
Panel Base Bottom Deck Constructions apply to Stringer-class pallets or Block-class pallets
with a bottom deck panel.
Stringer
Panel
Block
Panel
Perimeter Base Bottom Deck Constructions may be used on Block-class pallets and are
characterized by boards oriented in both directions but in the same plane. There are boards
continuously around the bottom deck perimeter - hence the term Perimeter Base.
5
Overlap Base Bottom Deck Constructions may be used on Block-class pallets and are
characterized by bottom deckboards and bottom stringerboards oriented in opposite
directions. The deckboards and stringerboards are overlapped at the blocks - hence the term
Overlap Base.
Unidirectional Base Bottom Deck Constructions may be used on Block-class pallets. They are
characterized by having bottom deckboards that may be oriented along the pallet length or the
pallet width. The deckboards run in only one direction - hence the term Unidirectional Base.
Deck Style further defines construction style of pallet decks.
•
Flush: ends of deckboards and edges of panels are Flush with stringer or stringerboard
edge. For Panel Deck Block-class pallets without stringerboards, panel edges are Flush
with block edges.
•
Single-Wing: ends of top deckboards and edges of top panels overhang stringer or
stringerboard edge. Bottom Deck, if present, is Flush.
•
Double-Wing: ends of top and bottom deckboards and edges of top and bottom panels
overhang stringer or stringerboard edge. Bottom Wing must be ≤ Top Wing.
6
Stringerboard Style further defines construction style of Block-class pallets with
stringerboards.
•
Flush: ends of stringerboards are Flush with ends of blocks.
•
Single-Cantilever: ends of top stringerboards overhang ends of blocks. Ends of bottom
stringerboards, if present, are Flush with ends of blocks.
•
Double-Cantilever: Overlap Base Block-class pallets only. Ends of top and bottom
stringerboards overhang ends of blocks. Top and bottom stringerboards must be parallel,
and Bottom Cantilever must be ≤ Top Cantilever.
Bottom Deck Orientation may be specified for Block-class pallets.
•
Overlap Base or Unidirectional Base: Bottom Deckboards may be Parallel or
Perpendicular to Pallet Length.
•
Perimeter Base: Butted Boards may be Parallel or Perpendicular to Pallet Length. Outer
Boards will be oriented opposite direction.
7
Parallel to Pallet Length
Length
Width
Length
Width
Length
Width
Perpendicular to Pallet Length
Length
Width
Length
Width
Length
Width
8
APPENDIX B
Commercial Generator Survey Instrument
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Business Name: __________________________________
Address: ________________________________________
ID # : ___________________
NAICS Code: ___________________
_________________________________________
NAICS Business Type: ____________________
Square Footage:
# of Employees: ________
# of Full Time Employees:
MECKLENBURG COUNTY Wood Pallet and Clean Wood Waste Recycling Study
Mecklenburg County has retained MidAtlantic Solid Waste Consultants to conduct a study of wood pallet
and clean wood recycling within the County. As part of the study, we are contacting businesses in the
county to gain insight on the issue. We are requesting your participation and feedback in this study.
Please provide responses to Veronica Roof of MSW Consultants (email VRoof@MSWConsultants.us; phone
888/MSW-9220; fax 301/591-4471). Thank you for your assistance on this important County project.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Please confirm the accuracy of the information above and make corrections as necessary. Enter the
number of Full-time Equivalent (FTE) employees if different from the number of employees shown.
2. Where is your business located?
‰ In its own stand alone building (continue survey)
‰ In an Office Building with other businesses
3. Do you contract directly for garbage and recycling
collection services or does a property manager
contract for collection services on behalf of your
business?
‰ In a strip mall/commercial building complex
‰ In a Home Office (survey complete)
‰ Business contracts for collection services
‰ Property manager contracts for collection
services on our behalf
II. TARGETED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
This survey is targeting the following recyclable materials:
Wood Pallet: Flat structure made of wood which can support a variety of goods in a stable fashion while
being lifted by any mobile forklift device.
Clean Wood: Any uncontaminated natural or untreated wood such as wood scraps and dimensional
lumber. Does not include wood that has been treated, painted, stained, coated, engineered with glues or
resins, or chemically changed in some way.
Film Plastics: Includes shrink wrap, stretch wrap, tarps, shopping bags and other plastic films made out
of #2 HPDE or #4 LDPE.
Corrugated Cardboard: Includes boxes and other packaging products made out of brown paper, with two
heavy outer layers and a fluted inner layer to provide strength.
‰ Wood Pallets
‰ Clean Wood
‰ Film Plastics
‰ Corrugated Cardboard
‰ None of the above
4. Please check which of the following materials
your business generates as a waste material.
III. SPECIFIC GENERATION INFORMATION
Please answer only the questions in this section that are applicable to the materials generated by your
business as identified in Question 4 above.
5. If your business generates Wood Pallets…
Please estimate how many wood pallets
your business generates on average.
We generate approximately
wood pallets (enter
number of pallets) per week/month/year (circle one).
‰No
Does your business currently recycle wood
pallets?
6225 Sawyer Road, New Market, MD, 21774 (301) 607-6428
842 Spring Island Way, Orlando, FL 32828 (407) 380-8951
2291 Limehurst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30319
(404) 496-4872
‰Yes - my pallets are recycled by:
‰ A pallet recycling company
Name of company: ___________________
‰ Other
Name of company: ___________________
6. If your business generates Clean Wood…
Please estimate how much clean wood your
business generates on average.
We generate approximately
___ cubic yards of clean
wood per week/month/year (circle one).
‰Yes - my clean wood is recycled by:
‰ A recycling company
Name of company: ___________________
‰No
Does your business currently recycle clean
wood?
‰ Other
Name of company: ___________________
7. If your business generates Film Plastic…
Please
estimate how
much film
plastic your
business
generates on
average.
Per unit of time
Volume or weight (please specify a number):
Bales (average dimension is L____ x W____ x H ____ inches)
Bags or other containers (average size is ____ gallons)
Uncompacted cubic yards
‰ week
‰ month
‰ year
Compacted cubic yards
Pounds
Or, describe how much film plastic you generate: ____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Does your business recycle film plastic?
‰No
‰Yes – How does your business recycle film plastic?
_______________________________________________
8. If your business generates Corrugated Cardboard…
Please
estimate how
much
corrugated
cardboard
your business
generates on
average.
Volume or weight (please specify a number):
Bales (average dimension is L____ x W____ x H ____ inches)
Containers (average size is ____ cubic yards)
Uncompacted cubic yards
Compacted cubic yards
Pounds
Per unit of time
‰ week
‰ month
‰ year
Or, describe how much corrugated cardboard you generate:___________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Does your business have a baler or separate container outside
from which recycled cardboard is collected?
IV. OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION
9. Would you be willing to assist the
County further its research into the
generation and recycling of pallets,
clean wood, film plastic and corrugated
cardboard?
‰Baler
‰Separate Container
‰ Yes, I would participate in another phone call to discuss
recycling of these items in more detail.
‰ Yes, a County recycling representative may visit our
business for on-site research into the recycling of these
materials.
‰ No, please do not contact me again.
10. Please provide your contact information (or that of the appropriate staff member) if you are willing
to assist us further.
Name:
Title:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX C
QCTS Commercial Waste Observation Data
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Appendix C Queen City Transfer Station Observation Raw Data
Sheet #
Line #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Time of
Delivery
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6:53
6:58
6:59
7:01
7:08
7:13
7:20
7:25
7:39
7:49
8:06
8:10
8:20
8:29
8:45
8:46
8:55
9:07
9:15
9:25
9:35
9:45
9:52
9:59
10:15
10:20
10:25
10:30
10:38
10:42
10:43
10:56
12:07
12:10
12:13
12:16
12:22
Date
Truck #
8/7/2007 WM 207523
8/7/2007
REP340
8/7/2007 WM409062
8/7/2007
AP12
8/7/2007
WM933
8/7/2007
AP70
8/7/2007
REP364
8/7/2007
REP312
8/7/2007
WM717
8/7/2007
REP244
8/7/2007
AP120
8/7/2007
REP364
8/7/2007
AP19
8/7/2007
NS40717
8/7/2007
WM5625
8/7/2007
REP 265
8/7/2007
REP 359
8/7/2007
SHA 403
8/7/2007
REP 314
8/7/2007
AC 401
8/7/2007 WM 411872
8/7/2007
WM 543
8/7/2007
REP 340
8/7/2007
REP 301
8/7/2007
REP 359
8/7/2007
REP 313
8/7/2007
WM 933
8/7/2007
REP 361
8/7/2007
REP 221
8/7/2007
REP 227
8/7/2007
AP 45
8/7/2007
REP 266
8/7/2007
AP 70
8/7/2007
REP 312
8/7/2007
REP 323
8/7/2007
WM 519
8/7/2007
WM 708
Net
Weight Truck
(tons) Type
9.96 FL
3.97 RO
1.94 RO
8.64 RO
6.01 RO
8.84 FL
6.20 RO
3.20 RO
4.60 RO
9.58 FL
15.47 RO
3.76 RO
3.36 RO
1.03 RO
8.63 FL
10.04 FL
2.62 RO
1.16 RO
2.37 RO
0.25 RO
2.23 RO
9.58 FL
2.69 RO
3.09 RO
10.65 RO
2.80 RO
5.95 RO
2.05 RO
10.89 FL
5.12 FL
9.87 RO
3.68 FL
9.42 FL
3.04 RO
1.62 RO
1.76 RO
0.30 RO
Roll- Size of
Truck
off
Type (CY)
SC
OT
C
SC
OT
OT
SC
SC
OT
C
C
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
SC
OT
C
OT
SC
C
OT
OT
OT
40
20
30
40
30
35
30
30
30
40
30
20
40
40
40
40
40
30
40
10
30
40
30
30
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
30
30
30
Pct
Full
Clean
MSW or Pallets: # of Pallets
% of (reusable & # of Wood: %
C&D
Load not usable) Crates of Load
Load
75% MSW
50% MSW
75% MSW
100% MSW
90% MSW
50% MSW
95% C&D
90% C&D
95% MSW
100% MSW
75% MSW
95% C&D
80% MSW
20% MSW
65% MSW
50% MSW
58% MSW
95% MSW
65% MSW
95% C&D
105% MSW
60% MSW
95% MSW
95% C&D
95% MSW
100% MSW
100% MSW
100% MSW
35% MSW
70% MSW
80% MSW
80% MSW
75% MSW
90% MSW
85% MSW
80% MSW
90% MSW
Page 1 of 5
0%
0%
50%
0%
<1
<1
0%
0%
0%
<1
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
<1
70%
0%
1%
0%
5%
0%
10%
1%
<1
5%
<1
80%
0%
<1
1%
<1
0%
0%
5%
4%
2%
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
8
0
0
1
8
<1
8
0
4
0
8
0
10
2
1
6
2
25
0
3
4
1
0
0
11
8
2
2
1
Describe Clean Wood Waste
0% Commercial Route
0% Restaurant
40% Farm Industrial Location Packing Cra
0% Retail Store
Retail?
0% Commercial Route
0% Construction Demo
80% Particle board from cabinet maker
0% Industrial (MFG)
10% Lumber (cut-off 2 x4 and 2x6
0% Hotel and Restaurant
0% Demolition (drywall / carpet)
1% 2 x 4
0% Retail
0% Commercial Route (fair amount of O
0% 5% OCC Commercial Route
0% Industrial
0% OCC 8%
0% Industrial
95% Clean wood construction
5% Woodworking shop janitorial
0% OCC 25%
0% Industrial
75% Lumber from construction
0% Grocery 5% OCC
2% Lumber
1% Lumber / Plywood
15%
0% Commercial Route
0% Commercial Route
0% Commercial ?
0% Commercial Route
1% Lumber Commercial Route 5% OCC
0% 40% OCC
0% Industrial ?
0% 15% OCC
0% Industrial?
Appendix C Queen City Transfer Station Observation Raw Data
Sheet #
Line #
8
9
10
12
11
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
15
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Time of
Delivery
Date
Truck #
12:28
12:36
12:43
12:45
12:45
12:46
12:50
13:24
13:45
13:46
13:49
13:50
13:55
13:58
14:00
14:05
14:08
14:13
14:23
14:30
14:31
6:53
6:55
7:05
7:10
7:11
7:15
7:17
7:21
7:22
7:30
7:32
7:41
7:42
7:43
7:45
7:46
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/7/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
REP 2489
WM 726
REP 265
REP 244
WM 725
REP 361
REP 364
WM 708
REP 264
REP 340
CWS 12
AP 120
WM 519
REP 301
REP 273
WM 543
REP 359
REP 312
WM 872
AP 113
REP 340
WM 543
WM 900
WM 825
REP 340
AP 120
REP 323
WM 258
WM 933
WM 726
REP 312
AP 17
REP 359
REP 361
REP 364
CWS 190
REP 301
Net
Weight Truck
(tons) Type
6.28
2.41
5.85
4.38
2.02
3.29
25.09
0.30
8.14
6.67
7.50
2.10
3.50
0.74
1.29
11.31
37.00
1.34
3.96
2.81
3.60
7.41
2.48
11.59
1.03
5.52
54.00
3.04
2.29
3.47
7.94
4.16
1.63
2.56
1.16
5.88
2.18
FL
RO
FL
FL
RO
RO
RO
RO
FL
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
FL
FL
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
FL
FL
FL
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
OR
RO
RO
Roll- Size of
Truck
off
Type (CY)
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
C
OT
SC
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
C
C
SC
SC
OT
OT
OT
SC
C
SC
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
Pct
Full
Clean
MSW or Pallets: # of Pallets
% of (reusable & # of Wood: %
C&D
Load not usable) Crates of Load
Load
40
50% MSW
30
90% MSW
40
50% MSW
40
50% MSW
30
90% MSW
30
70% MSW
30
80% C&D
30
95% MSW
40
65% MSW
40 100% MSW
10
95% C&D
30
90% MSW
40
90% MSW
30
95% MSW
40
75% MSW
40
85% MSW
30
80% MSW
30
85% MSW
30
90% MSW
40
80% MSW
40
95% MSW
40
80% MSW
35
20% MSW
40
80% MSW
30
25% MSW
30
40% MSW
40
80% MSW
20
65% C&D
30
90% MSW
30
80% MSW
40
75% MSW
40
95% MSW
40
90% MSW
30
95% MSW
30
90% C&D
30
95% C&D
20
95% C&D
Page 2 of 5
1%
0%
2%
2%
<1
<1
<1
15%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
1%
1%
2%
4%
3%
2%
1%
2%
0%
0%
0%
<1
100%
10%
1%
0%
<1
0%
80%
100%
0%
<1
0%
3
0
3
5
1
8
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
0
0
0
1
25
3
2
0
1
0
25
42
0
1
0
1
2
1
2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
2%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Describe Clean Wood Waste
Commercial Route Lumber
Residential Cleanout
Commercial Route Lumber
New lumber scraps
30% OCC
Lumber
Asphalt
10% OCC
Lumber
35% OCC
25% Fake rock
Grocery
10% Metal
10% OCC
Commercial Route 5% OCC
Loaded with glass (beer bottles)
35% OCC
40% OCC Industrial
20% OCC
40%
30% OCC
70% OCC
10% OCC Commercial Route
40% OCC Commercial Route
Commercial Rout
Restaurant
Hotel
Industrial
Lumber
20% OCC
Hospital
Industrial
Grocery 5% OCC
Industrial
Industrial
C&D Carpet 5%
80% Painted Wood
Appendix C Queen City Transfer Station Observation Raw Data
Sheet #
Line #
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Time of
Delivery
Date
Truck #
7:50
7:58
8:01
8:05
8:08
8:09
8:11
8:12
8:15
8:22
8:25
8:26
8:28
8:30
8:40
8:42
8:45
8:50
8:55
8:58
8:58
9:00
9:06
9:08
9:12
9:15
9:16
9:18
9:20
9:40
9:50
9:55
9:57
10:00
10:02
10:05
10:06
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
REP 234
WM 720
REP 240
AP 29
REP 244
REP 323
REP 340
REP 264
WP 933
REP 364
WM 725
AP 54
REP 265
WM 544
REP 303
REP 361
AP 41
CWS 2
WM 872
WM 933
REP 2489
AP 120
REP 364
REP 312
359
WM061
WM 062
WM 519
REP 340
REP 364
REP 307
REP271
AP 17
WM 933
REP 312
REP 303
REP 340
Net
Weight Truck
(tons) Type
8.24
12.13
8.42
12.13
9.00
12.25
9.05
11.88
0.76
0.94
8.08
11.24
8.07
7.61
4.79
0.67
6.50
4.70
1.12
0.82
9.44
8.50
0.83
1.40
2.00
1.19
2.38
2.06
1.41
0.40
2.99
5.08
11.57
2.97
5.63
4.85
5.65
FL
RO
FL
FL
FL
RO
RO
FL
RO
RO
RO
FL
FL
FL
RO
RO
FL
RO
RO
RO
FL
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
FL
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
Roll- Size of
Truck
off
Type (CY)
OT
SC
OT
OT
OT
C
OT
OT
OT
SC
OT
SC
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
SC
C
SC
C
OT
40
30
40
40
40
30
30
40
30
30
40
40
40
40
40
30
40
30
30
30
40
30
30
30
40
30
40
20
30
30
40
40
30
40
30
40
30
Pct
Full
10%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
100%
95%
95%
95%
80%
100%
95%
85%
90%
100%
95%
60%
85%
95%
85%
95%
95%
90%
95%
95%
90%
95%
80%
90%
85%
95%
90%
95%
75%
95%
Clean
MSW or Pallets: # of Pallets
% of (reusable & # of Wood: %
C&D
Load not usable) Crates of Load
Load
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
C&D
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
C&D
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
C&D
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
C&D
Page 3 of 5
1%
25%
1%
<1
100%
0%
0%
0%
90%
5%
0%
0%
<1
<1
0%
<1
<1
15%
0%
0%
<1
0%
0%
5%
1%
<1
75%
0%
45%
10%
3%
0%
0%
20%
0%
0%
0%
3
11
2
1
3
0
0
0
26
6
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
6
0
0
2
0
0
5
1
1
14
0
14
5
4
0
0
6
0
0
0
5
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
35%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
15%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
0%
0%
0%
Describe Clean Wood Waste
Commercial Route
25% OCC
Commercial Route
Commercial Route 5% OCC
Industrial 10% OCC
Demolition (painted wood)
5% OCC
5% OCC Industrial
10% OCC Industrial or Retail
Commercial Route
Commercial Route
Demolition (painted wood)
Retail 40% OCC
Commercial Route 5 to 10% OCC
Building shop clean lumber & plywoo
40% OCC Industrial
20% OCC Industrial
Commercial Route
Grocery
Lumber scrap 10% OCC
Lumber scraps
10% OCC
20% OCC
20% OCC
5
Grocery
25% OCC
10% OCC
Retail 25% OCC 25%
20% Dirt
Appendix C Queen City Transfer Station Observation Raw Data
Sheet #
Line #
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
3
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
8
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
5
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
12
11
13
14
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Time of
Delivery
Date
Truck #
10:12
10:16
10:20
10:20
10:27
10:30
10:35
10:40
10:45
10:45
10:48
10:50
12:50
12:50
12:55
12:55
12:55
13:05
13:05
13:10
13:12
13:15
13:25
13:27
13:30
13:30
13:34
13:40
13:43
13:48
13:55
13:57
14:00
14:00
14:05
14:08
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
8/8/2007
REP 234
REP 327
REP 359
REP 266
WM 872
WM 625
REP 244
WM 062
CWS 2
AP 29
AP 120
WM 933
CWS 2
WM 519
WM 872
REP 364
REP 301
WM 062
REP 340
REP 312
REP 212
WM 726
WM 933
REP 314
WM 961
AP 17
AWG 9463
REP 307
WM 061
CWS 5
REP 364
REP 301
REP 291
REP 361
WM 872
AP 112
Net
Weight Truck
(tons) Type
3.19
1.78
6.18
11.63
1.26
11.71
6.85
2.25
2.49
9.06
4.76
2.65
1.86
3.36
3.01
4.00
0.96
3.17
2.11
5.58
2.37
3.46
4.89
2.37
2.61
2.04
1.33
1.88
2.61
1.27
8.17
4.53
3.24
1.82
1.37
16.55
FL
RO
RO
FL
RO
FL
FL
FL
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
FL
RO
RO
RO
FL
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
FL
RO
RO
RO
Roll- Size of
Truck
off
Type (CY)
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
SC
C
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
C
SC
OT
C
OT
OT
SC
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
SC
40
40
30
40
30
40
40
40
30
40
30
40
30
40
40
30
40
30
30
30
40
40
30
30
40
40
10
30
20
30
30
40
40
30
40
30
Pct
Full
90%
90%
95%
100%
95%
80%
45%
80%
85%
95%
90%
85%
85%
90%
90%
95%
95%
80%
95%
95%
60%
100%
80%
95%
75%
90%
100%
110%
45%
85%
45%
90%
45%
95%
85%
85%
Clean
MSW or Pallets: # of Pallets
% of (reusable & # of Wood: %
C&D
Load not usable) Crates of Load
Load
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
C&D
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
C&D
C&D
MSW
MSW
MSW
C&D
MSW
MSW
MSW
C&D
MSW
MSW
C&D
C&D
MSW
MSW
C&D
C&D
MSW
C&D
MSW
MSW
Page 4 of 5
0%
65%
0%
<1
20%
0%
0%
<1
1%
75%
<1
10%
20%
90%
10%
0%
1%
100%
20%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
<1
0%
0%
0%
25%
0%
2%
0%
10%
0%
1%
0
18
0
1
8
0
3
1
2
8
2
9
6
32
9
0
2
42
10
0
5
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
7
0
2
0
6
0
3
5
1
0%
5%
5%
0%
5%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
20%
0%
0%
0%
85%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
Describe Clean Wood Waste
10% OCC
5% OCC Broken wood from pallets
Demolition (sheet rock 30%) Plywoo
Commercial Route
Clean wood from broken pallets
Commercial Route
Commercial Route (cabinet maker)
Demolition
Industrial
Retail 5% OCC
30% OCC
10% OCC
Plywood/OSB
Lumber
5% OCC
75% OCC
+ lumber
Painted wood Demolition 5% stained
5% OCC Commercial Route
5% OCC 3% Office paper
Grocery
Demolition 25% Painted wood 5% O
Industrial
50% OCC 5% metal
Old furniture 50%
Office 5% OCC
25% Yard waste 20% concrete & dir
90% sheet rock
5% OCC lumber cutoffs
Grocery
Appendix C Queen City Transfer Station Observation Raw Data
Sheet #
Line #
Time of
Delivery
Date
Truck #
Total incoming Trucks on 8/7/07
Total incoming Trucks on 8/8/07 to 3:00 P.M.
Total Trucks
Total Trucks Observed
Percent Trucks Observ
Net
Weight Truck
(tons) Type
Roll- Size of
Truck
off
Type (CY)
Pct
Full
Clean
MSW or Pallets: # of Pallets
% of (reusable & # of Wood: %
C&D
Load not usable) Crates of Load
Load
240
171
411
147
36%
Abbreviations
RO = Roll-off
FL = Frontloader
OT = Open Top Roll-off
SC= Self Contained Compactor Roll-off
C= Compactor Roll-off
Page 5 of 5
Describe Clean Wood Waste
APPENDIX D
NAICS Code Assignment Exhibits
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Exhibit 1: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Likely Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
11142
Nursery and Floriculture Production
31121
Flour Milling and Malt Manufacturing
31122
Starch and Vegetable Fats and Oils Manufacturing
31131
Sugar Manufacturing
31151
Dairy Product (except Frozen) Manufacturing
31152
Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturing
31161
Animal Slaughtering and Processing
31171
Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging
31181
Bread and Bakery Product Manufacturing
31182
Cookie, Cracker, and Pasta Manufacturing
31191
Snack Food Manufacturing
31192
Coffee and Tea Manufacturing
31199
All Other Food Manufacturing
31211
Soft Drink and Ice Manufacturing
31212
Breweries
31222
Tobacco Product Manufacturing
31311
Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills
31321
Broadwoven Fabric Mills
31322
Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery
31323
Nonwoven Fabric Mills
31324
Knit Fabric Mills
31331
Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills
31332
Fabric Coating Mills
31411
Carpet and Rug Mills
31412
Curtain and Linen Mills
31491
Textile Bag and Canvas Mills
31499
All Other Textile Product Mills
31511
Hosiery and Sock Mills
31522
Men's and Boys' Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing
31599
Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing
31699
Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing
32111
Sawmills and Wood Preservation
32121
Veneer, Plywood, and Engineered Wood Product Manufacturing
Page 1 of 7
Count of
Businesses
5
2
1
1
1
4
5
1
18
1
4
2
11
9
1
1
5
3
3
3
2
15
1
1
1
4
28
1
1
2
3
2
2
Total
Employees
41
40
120
2
4
48
249
15
532
8
1,861
41
342
1,810
4
4
364
104
64
82
19
105
5
5
200
184
504
600
8
5
5
13
105
Total Square
Footage
16,250
50,000
50,000
6,250
25,000
100,000
150,000
25,000
141,250
25,000
150,000
31,250
300,000
450,000
25,000
25,000
175,000
81,250
56,250
100,000
50,000
300,000
25,000
25,000
50,000
125,000
587,500
50,000
25,000
31,250
18,750
31,250
75,000
Exhibit 1: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Likely Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
32191
Millwork
32192
Wood Container and Pallet Manufacturing
32199
All Other Wood Product Manufacturing
32212
Paper Mills
32213
Paperboard Mills
32221
Paperboard Container Manufacturing
32222
Paper Bag and Coated and Treated Paper Manufacturing
32223
Stationery Product Manufacturing
32229
Other Converted Paper Product Manufacturing
32311
Printing
32312
Support Activities for Printing
32411
Petroleum Refineries
32412
Asphalt Paving, Roofing, and Saturated Materials Manufacturing
32512
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
32513
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
32518
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
32519
Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
32521
Resin and Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
32522
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
32531
Fertilizer Manufacturing
32532
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
32541
Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
32551
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
32552
Adhesive Manufacturing
32561
Soap and Cleaning Compound Manufacturing
32562
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
32591
Printing Ink Manufacturing
32599
All Other Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
32611
Plastics Packaging Materials and Unlaminated Film and Sheet Manufacturing
32612
Plastics Pipe, Pipe Fitting, and Unlaminated Profile Shape Manufacturing
32613
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing
32615
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing
32619
Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
Page 2 of 7
Count of
Businesses
22
1
8
9
6
14
13
5
3
251
13
3
3
1
1
2
1
19
1
1
1
4
3
3
4
3
6
28
5
1
3
3
30
Total
Employees
783
90
98
141
300
699
265
210
95
3,964
208
78
110
10
3
15
40
834
4
4
1
147
38
124
36
23
248
1,255
60
3
45
330
902
Total Square
Footage
787,500
50,000
168,750
212,500
200,000
475,000
300,000
137,500
100,000
3,693,750
350,000
100,000
81,250
25,000
25,000
50,000
6,250
512,500
6,250
25,000
6,250
106,250
100,000
100,000
100,000
56,250
225,000
793,750
125,000
25,000
75,000
150,000
918,750
Exhibit 1: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Likely Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
32621
Tire Manufacturing
32622
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
32629
Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
32711
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
32712
Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
32721
Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing
32731
Cement Manufacturing
32732
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
32733
Concrete Pipe, Brick, and Block Manufacturing
32739
Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
32742
Gypsum Product Manufacturing
32791
Abrasive Product Manufacturing
32799
All Other Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
33111
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
33221
Cutlery and Handtool Manufacturing
33231
Plate Work and Fabricated Structural Product Manufacturing
33232
Ornamental and Architectural Metal Products Manufacturing
33251
Hardware Manufacturing
33261
Spring and Wire Product Manufacturing
33271
Machine Shops
33272
Turned Product and Screw, Nut, and Bolt Manufacturing
33291
Metal Valve Manufacturing
33299
All Other Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
33311
Agricultural Implement Manufacturing
33321
Sawmill and Woodworking Machinery Manufacturing
33411
Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
33421
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
33422
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing
33429
Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
33431
Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing
33441
Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
33451
Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing
33461
Manufacturing and Reproducing Magnetic and Optical Media
Page 3 of 7
Count of
Businesses
5
3
6
3
6
8
2
4
2
7
4
3
5
4
10
26
22
4
9
47
5
5
22
5
6
7
2
3
5
2
13
29
2
Total
Employees
2,191
208
85
14
40
58
6
104
111
516
335
42
62
112
64
1,156
746
19
335
487
125
187
1,265
302
91
213
6
9
76
30
229
436
137
Total Square
Footage
151,250
81,250
131,250
75,000
112,500
143,750
31,250
125,000
75,000
262,500
106,250
75,000
106,250
112,500
231,250
806,250
581,250
62,500
181,250
1,043,750
150,000
156,250
581,250
175,000
56,250
200,000
31,250
56,250
125,000
50,000
312,500
656,250
75,000
Exhibit 1: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Likely Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
33511
Electric Lamp Bulb and Part Manufacturing
33512
Lighting Fixture Manufacturing
33521
Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing
33531
Electrical Equipment Manufacturing
33591
Battery Manufacturing
33592
Communication and Energy Wire and Cable Manufacturing
33599
All Other Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing
33632
Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment Manufacturing
33636
Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing
33639
Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
33641
Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
33711
Wood Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing
33712
Household and Institutional Furniture Manufacturing
33721
Office Furniture (including Fixtures) Manufacturing
33791
Mattress Manufacturing
33792
Blind and Shade Manufacturing
33911
Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
33991
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
33992
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
33993
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
33994
Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
33995
Sign Manufacturing
33999
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
42312
Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers
42313
Tire and Tube Merchant Wholesalers
42314
Motor Vehicle Parts (Used) Merchant Wholesalers
42321
Furniture Merchant Wholesalers
42331
Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers
42332
Brick, Stone, and Related Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers
42333
Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Material Merchant Wholesalers
42339
Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers
42341
Photographic Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
42342
Office Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
Page 4 of 7
Count of
Businesses
1
1
3
12
1
4
18
1
2
18
3
77
15
6
2
1
51
7
8
2
4
74
61
69
8
7
43
44
50
12
15
4
52
Total
Employees
5
11
11
239
5
44
324
35
50
471
149
540
74
133
5
118
1,996
16
36
2
23
400
1,852
851
106
119
627
832
422
207
331
28
1,054
Total Square
Footage
25,000
25,000
56,250
287,500
25,000
81,250
500,000
25,000
50,000
443,750
81,250
1,718,750
287,500
150,000
100,000
50,000
1,256,250
81,250
50,000
12,500
62,500
462,500
1,743,750
1,506,250
206,250
43,750
1,018,750
1,193,750
312,500
306,250
171,250
62,500
412,500
Exhibit 1: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Likely Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
42343
Computer and Computer Peripheral Equipment and Software Merchant Wholesalers
42344
Other Commercial Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
42345
Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
42346
Ophthalmic Goods Merchant Wholesalers
42349
Other Professional Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
42351
Metal Service Centers and Other Metal Merchant Wholesalers
42352
Coal and Other Mineral and Ore Merchant Wholesalers
42361
Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
42362
Electrical and Electronic Appliance, Television, and Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers
42369
Other Electronic Parts and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
42371
Hardware Merchant Wholesalers
42372
Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers
42373
Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
42382
Farm and Garden Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
42383
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
42384
Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
42385
Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
42386
Transportation Equipment and Supplies (except Motor Vehicle) Merchant Wholesalers
42391
Sporting and Recreational Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
42392
Toy and Hobby Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
42393
Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers
42394
Jewelry, Watch, Precious Stone, and Precious Metal Merchant Wholesalers
42399
Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
42411
Printing and Writing Paper Merchant Wholesalers
42412
Stationery and Office Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
42413
Industrial and Personal Service Paper Merchant Wholesalers
42421
Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
42431
Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Goods Merchant Wholesalers
42432
Men's and Boys' Clothing and Furnishings Merchant Wholesalers
42433
Women's, Children's, and Infants' Clothing and Accessories Merchant Wholesalers
42434
Footwear Merchant Wholesalers
42441
General Line Grocery Merchant Wholesalers
42442
Packaged Frozen Food Merchant Wholesalers
Page 5 of 7
Count of
Businesses
16
26
93
3
10
48
2
244
5
21
56
32
22
36
215
74
98
14
28
23
45
21
235
18
33
37
15
1
16
12
5
5
31
Total
Employees
213
266
724
19
133
826
5
3,643
16
271
620
229
314
684
2,677
1,096
837
144
136
171
653
74
3,098
320
254
291
91
15
44
642
33
107
1,378
Total Square
Footage
293,750
575,000
625,000
75,000
106,250
1,356,250
31,250
6,093,750
31,250
175,000
1,281,250
518,750
543,750
781,250
4,731,250
1,806,250
2,150,000
293,750
175,000
468,750
1,075,000
318,750
4,868,750
556,250
668,750
831,250
337,500
25,000
193,750
268,750
87,500
112,500
793,750
Exhibit 1: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Likely Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
42443
Dairy Product (except Dried or Canned) Merchant Wholesalers
42445
Confectionery Merchant Wholesalers
42446
Fish and Seafood Merchant Wholesalers
42447
Meat and Meat Product Merchant Wholesalers
42448
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers
42449
Other Grocery and Related Products Merchant Wholesalers
42461
Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers
42469
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
42472
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals)
42481
Beer and Ale Merchant Wholesalers
42482
Wine and Distilled Alcoholic Beverage Merchant Wholesalers
42491
Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
42493
Flower, Nursery Stock, and Florists' Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
42495
Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
42499
Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
44211
Furniture Stores
44221
Floor Covering Stores
44229
Other Home Furnishings Stores
44311
Appliance, Television, and Other Electronics Stores
44312
Computer and Software Stores
44411
Home Centers
44412
Paint and Wallpaper Stores
44413
Hardware Stores
44419
Other Building Material Dealers
44421
Outdoor Power Equipment Stores
44422
Nursery, Garden Center, and Farm Supply Stores
44511
Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores
48111
Scheduled Air Transportation
48121
Nonscheduled Air Transportation
48211
Rail Transportation
48321
Inland Water Transportation
48411
General Freight Trucking, Local
48421
Used Household and Office Goods Moving
Page 6 of 7
Count of
Businesses
7
2
5
5
6
27
10
67
32
4
7
14
10
9
34
190
107
113
194
221
61
40
27
270
9
23
129
31
9
14
7
168
1
Total
Employees
95
35
173
28
125
1,819
184
471
361
315
418
45
730
36
333
2,174
804
746
2,323
4,910
3,021
213
243
3,027
154
271
9,202
2,274
35
563
14
1,899
1
Total Square
Footage
87,500
50,000
106,250
87,500
175,000
743,750
262,500
1,337,500
200,000
200,000
275,000
200,000
150,000
56,250
343,750
4,218,750
768,750
706,250
1,387,500
1,906,250
1,968,750
250,000
187,500
4,987,500
51,250
123,750
1,870,000
881,250
112,500
381,250
100,000
3,925,000
6,250
Exhibit 1: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Likely Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
48423
Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Long-Distance
48811
Airport Operations
48819
Other Support Activities for Air Transportation
48821
Support Activities for Rail Transportation
48839
Other Support Activities for Water Transportation
49311
General Warehousing and Storage
49312
Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
49313
Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
49319
Other Warehousing and Storage
56191
Packaging and Labeling Services
56192
Convention and Trade Show Organizers
62211
General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
62311
Nursing Care Facilities
62331
Community Care Facilities for the Elderly
62399
Other Residential Care Facilities
62411
Child and Youth Services
62412
Services for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities
71121
Spectator Sports
71213
Zoos and Botanical Gardens
71219
Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions
71311
Amusement and Theme Parks
71391
Golf Courses and Country Clubs
Total
Page 7 of 7
Count of
Businesses
211
9
9
37
1
26
1
16
4
40
15
29
42
48
19
117
27
14
1
34
6
26
5,702
Total
Employees
8,835
325
304
244
1
506
15
187
81
5,116
218
4,168
3,906
3,574
201
1,535
294
391
20
570
2,095
1,313
130,534
Total Square
Footage
5,112,500
275,000
262,500
775,000
6,250
1,300,000
25,000
368,750
68,750
293,750
137,500
1,287,500
1,350,000
1,043,750
118,750
2,537,500
562,500
337,500
25,000
318,750
200,000
407,500
110,563,750
Exhibit 2: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Possible Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
11133 Noncitrus Fruit and Tree Nut Farming
11192 Cotton Farming
11199 All Other Crop Farming
11212 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production
11239 Other Poultry Production
11421 Hunting and Trapping
11511 Support Activities for Crop Production
11521 Support Activities for Animal Production
11531 Support Activities for Forestry
21111 Oil and Gas Extraction
21211 Coal Mining
21231 Stone Mining and Quarrying
21232 Sand, Gravel, Clay, and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining and Quarrying
21239 Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying
21311 Support Activities for Mining
22111 Electric Power Generation
22112 Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution
22121 Natural Gas Distribution
22131 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems
33122 Rolling and Drawing of Purchased Steel
33131 Alumina and Aluminum Production and Processing
33142 Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
33151 Ferrous Metal Foundries
33152 Nonferrous Metal Foundries
33211 Forging and Stamping
33242 Metal Tank (Heavy Gauge) Manufacturing
33243 Metal Can, Box, and Other Metal Container (Light Gauge) Manufacturing
33281 Coating, Engraving, Heat Treating, and Allied Activities
33312 Construction Machinery Manufacturing
33329 Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
33331 Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing
Page 1 of 11
Count of
Businesses
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
11
5
11
4
14
4
3
1
7
13
6
5
3
1
1
4
5
7
2
10
33
10
24
22
Total
Employees
4
10
13
80
2
1
8
139
45
39
98
215
96
39
4
61
7,090
471
39
73
5
6
719
103
254
199
258
365
173
907
482
Total Square
Footage
25,000
6,250
26,250
75,000
6,250
6,250
56,250
38,750
87,500
275,000
81,250
331,250
106,250
75,000
25,000
156,250
425,000
118,750
106,250
75,000
25,000
25,000
150,000
150,000
206,250
100,000
281,250
687,500
300,000
725,000
568,750
Exhibit 2: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Possible Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
33341 Ventilation, Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing
33351 Metalworking Machinery Manufacturing
33361 Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing
33391 Pump and Compressor Manufacturing
33392 Material Handling Equipment Manufacturing
33399 All Other General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing
33621 Motor Vehicle Body and Trailer Manufacturing
42311 Automobile and Other Motor Vehicle Merchant Wholesalers
42322 Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers
42381 Construction and Mining (except Oil Well) Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
42511 Business to Business Electronic Markets
42512 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
44111 New Car Dealers
44112 Used Car Dealers
44121 Recreational Vehicle Dealers
44122 Motorcycle, Boat, and Other Motor Vehicle Dealers
44131 Automotive Parts and Accessories Stores
44132 Tire Dealers
44313 Camera and Photographic Supplies Stores
44512 Convenience Stores
44521 Meat Markets
44522 Fish and Seafood Markets
44523 Fruit and Vegetable Markets
44529 Other Specialty Food Stores
44531 Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores
44611 Pharmacies and Drug Stores
44612 Cosmetics, Beauty Supplies, and Perfume Stores
44613 Optical Goods Stores
44619 Other Health and Personal Care Stores
44719 Other Gasoline Stations
44811 Men's Clothing Stores
Page 2 of 11
Count of
Businesses
14
18
9
9
10
31
5
8
28
45
2
93
99
66
5
65
154
93
14
97
6
3
2
48
13
162
40
39
88
62
60
Total
Employees
532
895
999
190
515
845
128
386
294
6,944
2
1,519
5,754
925
149
480
1,472
938
114
1,041
59
37
16
291
173
2,624
400
239
746
573
364
Total Square
Footage
456,250
506,250
281,250
256,250
300,000
818,750
156,250
206,250
687,500
1,250,000
12,500
1,650,000
3,400,000
1,650,000
75,000
500,000
1,006,250
625,000
87,500
465,000
37,500
13,750
7,500
300,000
71,250
3,906,250
250,000
243,750
637,500
77,500
375,000
Exhibit 2: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Possible Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
44812 Women's Clothing Stores
44813 Children's and Infants' Clothing Stores
44814 Family Clothing Stores
44815 Clothing Accessories Stores
44819 Other Clothing Stores
44821 Shoe Stores
44831 Jewelry Stores
44832 Luggage and Leather Goods Stores
45111 Sporting Goods Stores
45112 Hobby, Toy, and Game Stores
45113 Sewing, Needlework, and Piece Goods Stores
45114 Musical Instrument and Supplies Stores
45121 Book Stores and News Dealers
45122 Prerecorded Tape, Compact Disc, and Record Stores
45211 Department Stores
45299 All Other General Merchandise Stores
45311 Florists
45321 Office Supplies and Stationery Stores
45322 Gift, Novelty, and Souvenir Stores
45331 Used Merchandise Stores
45391 Pet and Pet Supplies Stores
45392 Art Dealers
45393 Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealers
45399 All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers
45411 Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses
45421 Vending Machine Operators
45431 Fuel Dealers
45439 Other Direct Selling Establishments
48511 Urban Transit Systems
48521 Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation
48531 Taxi Service
Page 3 of 11
Count of
Businesses
109
50
116
53
137
124
43
12
109
56
38
38
46
7
109
52
19
53
97
57
30
25
1
140
13
30
2
60
1
4
11
Total
Employees
734
375
2,417
178
699
1,053
520
113
1,114
536
148
244
825
197
11,834
2,084
253
1,171
855
747
342
111
6
840
56
177
4
2,369
850
23
468
Total Square
Footage
681,250
1,118,750
2,893,750
368,750
1,168,750
818,750
223,750
281,250
681,250
350,000
237,500
237,500
363,750
72,500
5,450,000
422,500
103,750
500,000
606,250
400,000
187,500
156,250
1,250
870,000
212,500
187,500
12,500
1,362,500
50,000
100,000
351,250
Exhibit 2: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Possible Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
48532 Limousine Service
48541 School and Employee Bus Transportation
48551 Charter Bus Industry
48599 Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
48611 Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil
48721 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water
48799 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Other
48833 Navigational Services to Shipping
48841 Motor Vehicle Towing
48851 Freight Transportation Arrangement
48899 Other Support Activities for Transportation
49111 Postal Service
49211 Couriers and Express Delivery Services
51111 Newspaper Publishers
51112 Periodical Publishers
51113 Book Publishers
51114 Directory and Mailing List Publishers
51119 Other Publishers
51121 Software Publishers
51211 Motion Picture and Video Production
51212 Motion Picture and Video Distribution
51213 Motion Picture and Video Exhibition
51223 Music Publishers
51224 Sound Recording Studios
51229 Other Sound Recording Industries
51511 Radio Broadcasting
51512 Television Broadcasting
51521 Cable and Other Subscription Programming
51711 Wired Telecommunications Carriers
51721 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)
51791 Other Telecommunications
Page 4 of 11
Count of
Businesses
44
1
20
37
3
11
1
2
11
77
4
42
34
33
50
17
6
58
6
96
3
25
7
30
15
37
15
12
55
175
55
Total
Employees
260
30
334
309
11
277
5
5
161
778
29
808
460
2,387
1,329
795
43
802
265
607
5
413
20
84
308
1,147
1,086
553
1,688
1,514
648
Total Square
Footage
275,000
6,250
456,250
325,000
37,500
150,000
6,250
31,250
63,750
656,250
81,250
1,075,000
775,000
293,750
1,168,750
375,000
37,500
493,750
175,000
643,750
18,750
675,000
43,750
187,500
181,250
221,250
512,500
400,000
1,487,500
3,875,000
750,000
Exhibit 2: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Possible Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
51799
51821 Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services
51911 News Syndicates
51912 Libraries and Archives
51919 All Other Information Services
52211 Commercial Banking
52212 Savings Institutions
52213 Credit Unions
52229 Other Nondepository Credit Intermediation
52232 Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and Clearinghouse Activities
52239 Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation
52311 Investment Banking and Securities Dealing
52312 Securities Brokerage
52314 Commodity Contracts Brokerage
52391 Miscellaneous Intermediation
52392 Portfolio Management
52393 Investment Advice
52399 All Other Financial Investment Activities
52411 Direct Life, Health, and Medical Insurance Carriers
52412 Direct Insurance (except Life, Health, and Medical) Carriers
52421 Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
52429 Other Insurance Related Activities
52511 Pension Funds
52593
52599 Other Financial Vehicles
53111 Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings
53112 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Miniwarehouses)
53113 Lessors of Miniwarehouses and Self-Storage Units
53119 Lessors of Other Real Estate Property
53121 Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers
53131 Real Estate Property Managers
Page 5 of 11
Count of
Businesses
49
86
4
36
26
318
2
51
622
16
2
32
32
7
54
17
358
15
27
21
213
14
20
2
3
498
54
99
1
312
39
Total
Employees
430
822
16
1,004
139
3,224
8
566
7,590
113
6
3,130
623
45
347
115
2,002
60
195
177
16,988
274
219
56
13
2,475
462
395
10
8,355
558
Total Square
Footage
1,075,000
1,881,250
62,500
925,000
162,500
2,031,250
12,500
318,750
5,131,250
70,000
12,500
375,000
375,000
118,750
475,000
106,250
2,281,250
225,000
681,250
477,500
2,193,750
106,250
481,250
50,000
18,750
3,375,000
1,318,750
4,950,000
6,250
3,577,500
191,250
Exhibit 2: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Possible Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
53132 Offices of Real Estate Appraisers
53139 Other Activities Related to Real Estate
53211 Passenger Car Rental and Leasing
53212 Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehicle) Rental and Leasing
53221 Consumer Electronics and Appliances Rental
53222 Formal Wear and Costume Rental
53223 Video Tape and Disc Rental
53229 Other Consumer Goods Rental
53231 General Rental Centers
53241 Construction, Transportation, Mining, and Forestry Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
53242 Office Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
53249 Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
53311 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works)
54111 Offices of Lawyers
54119 Other Legal Services
54121 Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services
54131 Architectural Services
54132 Landscape Architectural Services
54133 Engineering Services
54134 Drafting Services
54135 Building Inspection Services
54136 Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services
54137 Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services
54138 Testing Laboratories
54141 Interior Design Services
54143 Graphic Design Services
54149 Other Specialized Design Services
54151 Computer Systems Design and Related Services
54161 Management Consulting Services
54162 Environmental Consulting Services
54169 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
Page 6 of 11
Count of
Businesses
15
17
50
65
19
2
41
44
47
15
8
29
5
122
39
120
80
29
234
8
11
1
23
20
225
11
37
317
475
1
59
Total
Employees
161
258
779
546
93
18
391
358
654
114
53
395
27
2,745
251
3,719
2,710
764
3,823
23
27
15
326
199
621
2,068
118
3,428
7,937
15
619
Total Square
Footage
68,750
96,250
356,250
508,750
118,750
12,500
256,250
275,000
381,250
93,750
125,000
181,250
31,250
647,500
208,750
405,000
615,000
688,750
1,637,500
50,000
68,750
25,000
38,750
425,000
1,450,000
82,500
231,250
4,562,500
3,625,000
25,000
493,750
Exhibit 2: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Possible Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
54171 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
54172 Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities
54181 Advertising Agencies
54182 Public Relations Agencies
54184 Media Representatives
54185 Display Advertising
54186 Direct Mail Advertising
54187 Advertising Material Distribution Services
54189 Other Services Related to Advertising
54191 Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling
54192 Photographic Services
54193 Translation and Interpretation Services
54194 Veterinary Services
54199 All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
55111 Management of Companies and Enterprises
56111 Office Administrative Services
56131 Employment Placement Agencies and Executive Search Services
56132 Temporary Help Services
56133 Professional Employer Organizations
56142 Telephone Call Centers
56143 Business Service Centers
56144 Collection Agencies
56145 Credit Bureaus
56149 Other Business Support Services
56151 Travel Agencies
56152 Tour Operators
56159 Other Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
56161 Investigation, Guard, and Armored Car Services
56162 Security Systems Services
56171 Exterminating and Pest Control Services
56172 Janitorial Services
Page 7 of 11
Count of
Businesses
98
16
140
19
8
27
79
56
101
35
23
28
51
168
33
73
102
53
23
30
30
22
6
60
17
9
15
83
12
30
222
Total
Employees
1,300
58
1,010
149
131
229
826
753
511
463
1,019
163
994
692
11,410
408
2,237
900
356
821
241
535
60
460
337
35
105
4,083
80
693
1,714
Total Square
Footage
806,250
325,000
962,500
368,750
201,250
650,000
1,693,750
1,287,500
1,762,500
781,250
128,750
218,750
243,750
1,425,000
818,750
1,343,750
752,500
1,193,750
575,000
231,250
187,500
512,500
150,000
512,500
86,250
168,750
150,000
1,218,750
201,250
162,500
1,431,250
Exhibit 2: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Possible Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
56173 Landscaping Services
56174 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services
56179 Other Services to Buildings and Dwellings
56199 All Other Support Services
56211 Waste Collection
56221 Waste Treatment and Disposal
56291 Remediation Services
56292 Materials Recovery Facilities
56299 All Other Waste Management Services
61111 Elementary and Secondary Schools
61121 Junior Colleges
61131 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
61141 Business and Secretarial Schools
61142 Computer Training
61143 Professional and Management Development Training
61151 Technical and Trade Schools
61161 Fine Arts Schools
61162 Sports and Recreation Instruction
61163 Language Schools
61169 All Other Schools and Instruction
61171 Educational Support Services
62111 Offices of Physicians
62121 Offices of Dentists
62131 Offices of Chiropractors
62132 Offices of Optometrists
62133 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
62134 Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists, and Audiologists
62139 Offices of All Other Health Practitioners
62141 Family Planning Centers
62149 Other Outpatient Care Centers
62151 Medical and Diagnostic Laboratories
Page 8 of 11
Count of
Businesses
62
134
6
132
34
14
7
2
6
280
3
38
15
14
18
18
72
50
4
58
61
289
68
13
21
7
24
23
3
62
41
Total
Employees
2,150
495
35
1,391
639
329
175
14
120
21,640
164
3,642
179
90
123
112
522
342
50
441
518
4,400
748
102
208
36
242
310
23
1,519
566
Total Square
Footage
337,500
837,500
37,500
1,000,000
337,500
131,250
87,500
12,500
156,250
12,625,000
100,000
1,318,750
287,500
293,750
112,500
261,250
493,750
312,500
25,000
362,500
381,250
1,740,000
200,000
21,250
76,250
42,500
85,000
88,750
56,250
707,500
300,000
Exhibit 2: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Possible Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
62161 Home Health Care Services
62191 Ambulance Services
62199 All Other Ambulatory Health Care Services
62221 Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals
62231 Specialty (except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse) Hospitals
62419 Other Individual and Family Services
62421 Community Food Services
62422 Community Housing Services
62431 Vocational Rehabilitation Services
62441 Child Day Care Services
71111 Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters
71113 Musical Groups and Artists
71119 Other Performing Arts Companies
71131 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events with Facilities
71132 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events without Facilities
71141 Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers, and Other Public Figures
71151 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers
71211 Museums
71212 Historical Sites
71312 Amusement Arcades
71329 Other Gambling Industries
71392 Skiing Facilities
71393 Marinas
71394 Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
71395 Bowling Centers
71399 All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries
72111 Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels
72119 Other Traveler Accommodation
72121 RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and Recreational Camps
72131 Rooming and Boarding Houses
72211 Full-Service Restaurants
Page 9 of 11
Count of
Businesses
84
3
115
22
1
275
1
3
64
334
12
3
7
50
11
15
36
32
2
2
1
1
1
187
7
37
215
20
11
12
93
Total
Employees
2,507
227
1,365
550
5
6,530
24
132
1,512
5,032
77
38
172
480
110
58
402
391
6
7
3
6
12
1,754
188
312
7,237
152
119
65
1,809
Total Square
Footage
2,231,250
62,500
806,250
225,000
6,250
6,687,500
25,000
100,000
1,531,250
2,131,250
75,000
75,000
162,500
475,000
237,500
93,750
406,250
287,500
12,500
12,500
6,250
6,250
6,250
3,993,750
200,000
406,250
5,918,750
368,750
232,500
262,500
566,250
Exhibit 2: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Possible Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
72221 Limited-Service Eating Places
72231 Food Service Contractors
72232 Caterers
72241 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
81111 Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance
81112 Automotive Body, Paint, Interior, and Glass Repair
81119 Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance
81121 Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance
81131
81141
81142
81149
81211
81219
81221
81222
81231
81232
81233
81291
81292
81293
81299
81311
81321
81331
81341
81391
81392
81393
Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance
Home and Garden Equipment and Appliance Repair and Maintenance
Reupholstery and Furniture Repair
Other Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance
Hair, Nail, and Skin Care Services
Other Personal Care Services
Funeral Homes and Funeral Services
Cemeteries and Crematories
Coin-Operated Laundries and Drycleaners
Drycleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated)
Linen and Uniform Supply
Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services
Photofinishing
Parking Lots and Garages
All Other Personal Services
Religious Organizations
Grantmaking and Giving Services
Social Advocacy Organizations
Civic and Social Organizations
Business Associations
Professional Organizations
Labor Unions and Similar Labor Organizations
Page 10 of 11
Count of
Businesses
1,381
8
58
51
146
162
43
46
Total
Employees
33,185
235
832
905
1,886
1,117
685
543
Total Square
Footage
8,316,250
50,000
237,500
308,750
802,500
1,112,500
233,750
667,500
20
13
2
20
269
29
37
16
7
110
8
6
6
31
13
1,032
15
182
150
128
2
19
587
85
14
121
3,023
470
256
145
35
910
774
72
94
691
65
6,582
65
2,690
2,192
880
4
61
345,000
81,250
7,500
162,500
666,250
151,250
231,250
100,000
43,750
706,250
325,000
17,500
37,500
500,000
71,250
21,025,000
112,500
1,468,750
1,462,500
843,750
31,250
118,750
Exhibit 2: 5-Digit NAICS Codes Identified as Possible Generators of Wood Pallets and/or Clean Wood
NAICS
5-Digit
Code Title
81399 Other Similar Organizations (except Business, Professional, Labor, and Political Organizations)
92111 Executive Offices
92112 Legislative Bodies
92113 Public Finance Activities
92119 Other General Government Support
92211 Courts
92212 Police Protection
92213 Legal Counsel and Prosecution
92214 Correctional Institutions
92215 Parole Offices and Probation Offices
92216 Fire Protection
92219 Other Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
92311 Administration of Education Programs
92312 Administration of Public Health Programs
92313 Administration of Human Resource Programs (except Education, Public Health, and Veterans' Affairs Programs)
92314 Administration of Veterans' Affairs
92411 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs
92412 Administration of Conservation Programs
92512 Administration of Urban Planning and Community and Rural Development
92611 Administration of General Economic Programs
92612 Regulation and Administration of Transportation Programs
92613 Regulation and Administration of Communications, Electric, Gas, and Other Utilities
92614 Regulation of Agricultural Marketing and Commodities
92615 Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors
92811 National Security
92812 International Affairs
Total
Page 11 of 11
Count of
Businesses
18
8
193
16
28
13
41
6
5
4
61
1
1
9
11
1
6
2
3
8
29
10
5
2
29
4
18,857
Total
Employees
75
70
5,866
567
365
277
4,638
283
197
206
4,544
5
3
635
145
4
712
9
14
261
1,763
399
27
19
273
22
359,781
Total Square
Footage
412,500
200,000
2,431,250
275,000
712,500
350,000
1,625,000
175,000
118,750
100,000
1,556,250
6,250
25,000
275,000
275,000
25,000
225,000
12,500
75,000
93,750
900,000
325,000
31,250
50,000
675,000
100,000
234,711,250
Exhibit 3: 5-Digit NAICS Codes for Mecklenburg County Businesses not Surveyed (Unlikely Generators)
NAICS 5Digit Code
11142
11199
11521
31181
31213
32412
32621
33232
33329
33461
33911
42312
42314
42339
42472
42493
44111
44112
44121
44229
44311
44313
44421
44422
44511
44512
44521
44522
44523
44529
44531
Title
Nursery and Floriculture Production
All Other Crop Farming
Support Activities for Animal Production
Bread and Bakery Product Manufacturing
Wineries
Asphalt Paving, Roofing, and Saturated Materials Manufacturing
Tire Manufacturing
Ornamental and Architectural Metal Products Manufacturing
Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Manufacturing and Reproducing Magnetic and Optical Media
Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers
Motor Vehicle Parts (Used) Merchant Wholesalers
Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals)
Flower, Nursery Stock, and Florists' Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
New Car Dealers
Used Car Dealers
Recreational Vehicle Dealers
Other Home Furnishings Stores
Appliance, Television, and Other Electronics Stores
Camera and Photographic Supplies Stores
Outdoor Power Equipment Stores
Nursery, Garden Center, and Farm Supply Stores
Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores
Convenience Stores
Meat Markets
Fish and Seafood Markets
Fruit and Vegetable Markets
Other Specialty Food Stores
Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores
Page 1 of 6
Count of
Businesses
6
7
45
37
4
1
3
1
7
1
18
1
22
31
7
1
3
96
4
29
56
1
11
48
130
175
6
11
12
8
31
Total
Total Square
Employees
Footage
17
7,500
15
8,750
80
56,250
128
46,250
12
5,000
3
1,250
12
3,750
1
1,250
17
8,750
1
1,250
42
22,500
1
1,250
66
27,500
98
38,750
11
8,750
2
1,250
3
3,750
166
120,000
4
5,000
69
36,250
110
70,000
1
1,250
34
13,750
149
60,000
387
162,500
506
218,750
14
7,500
23
13,750
35
15,000
14
10,000
102
38,750
Exhibit 3: 5-Digit NAICS Codes for Mecklenburg County Businesses not Surveyed (Unlikely Generators)
NAICS 5Digit Code
44612
44613
44619
44719
44812
44831
45111
45113
45121
45122
45299
45311
45322
45331
45391
45392
45393
45399
45439
48121
48531
48532
48599
48721
48799
48841
51219
51511
52229
52232
52311
Title
Cosmetics, Beauty Supplies, and Perfume Stores
Optical Goods Stores
Other Health and Personal Care Stores
Other Gasoline Stations
Women's Clothing Stores
Jewelry Stores
Sporting Goods Stores
Sewing, Needlework, and Piece Goods Stores
Book Stores and News Dealers
Prerecorded Tape, Compact Disc, and Record Stores
All Other General Merchandise Stores
Florists
Gift, Novelty, and Souvenir Stores
Used Merchandise Stores
Pet and Pet Supplies Stores
Art Dealers
Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealers
All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers
Other Direct Selling Establishments
Nonscheduled Air Transportation
Taxi Service
Limousine Service
Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water
Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Other
Motor Vehicle Towing
Postproduction Services and Other Motion Picture and Video Industries
Radio Broadcasting
Other Nondepository Credit Intermediation
Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and Clearinghouse Activities
Investment Banking and Securities Dealing
Page 2 of 6
Count of
Businesses
65
10
17
68
34
99
36
1
22
26
62
79
89
90
7
43
5
87
1
1
18
20
4
3
4
69
1
10
7
54
32
Total
Total Square
Employees
Footage
106
81,250
17
12,500
32
21,250
217
85,000
54
42,500
265
123,750
65
45,000
1
1,250
32
27,500
68
32,500
140
77,500
184
98,750
152
111,250
149
112,500
8
8,750
69
53,750
22
6,250
138
108,750
1
1,250
2
1,250
54
22,500
28
25,000
6
5,000
5
3,750
6
5,000
162
86,250
1
1,250
25
12,500
14
8,750
118
67,500
63
40,000
Exhibit 3: 5-Digit NAICS Codes for Mecklenburg County Businesses not Surveyed (Unlikely Generators)
NAICS 5Digit Code
52312
52313
52391
52412
52413
52421
52429
53119
53121
53131
53132
53139
53211
53212
53222
54111
54119
54121
54131
54132
54133
54137
54143
54161
54184
54192
54194
56131
56132
56141
56149
Title
Securities Brokerage
Commodity Contracts Dealing
Miscellaneous Intermediation
Direct Insurance (except Life, Health, and Medical) Carriers
Reinsurance Carriers
Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
Other Insurance Related Activities
Lessors of Other Real Estate Property
Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers
Real Estate Property Managers
Offices of Real Estate Appraisers
Other Activities Related to Real Estate
Passenger Car Rental and Leasing
Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehicle) Rental and Leasing
Formal Wear and Costume Rental
Offices of Lawyers
Other Legal Services
Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services
Architectural Services
Landscape Architectural Services
Engineering Services
Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services
Graphic Design Services
Management Consulting Services
Media Representatives
Photographic Services
Veterinary Services
Employment Placement Agencies and Executive Search Services
Temporary Help Services
Document Preparation Services
Other Business Support Services
Page 3 of 6
Count of
Businesses
10
1
5
60
3
627
43
18
940
29
72
80
13
12
9
1,182
31
503
149
64
52
25
115
263
6
171
32
170
2
9
20
Total
Total Square
Employees
Footage
18
12,500
3
1,250
8
6,250
135
75,000
13
3,750
1,659
783,750
148
53,750
33
22,500
3,139 1,175,000
100
36,250
160
90,000
147
100,000
22
16,250
24
15,000
27
11,250
2,714 1,477,500
107
38,750
1,284
628,750
434
186,250
166
80,000
72
65,000
88
31,250
205
143,750
453
328,750
20
7,500
285
213,750
106
40,000
560
212,500
4
2,500
12
11,250
41
25,000
Exhibit 3: 5-Digit NAICS Codes for Mecklenburg County Businesses not Surveyed (Unlikely Generators)
NAICS 5Digit Code
56151
56159
56161
56162
56171
56173
56179
56211
56221
56292
56299
61143
61151
61161
61162
61163
61169
61171
62111
62121
62131
62132
62133
62134
62139
62149
62191
62441
71113
71119
71131
Title
Travel Agencies
Other Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Investigation, Guard, and Armored Car Services
Security Systems Services
Exterminating and Pest Control Services
Landscaping Services
Other Services to Buildings and Dwellings
Waste Collection
Waste Treatment and Disposal
Materials Recovery Facilities
All Other Waste Management Services
Professional and Management Development Training
Technical and Trade Schools
Fine Arts Schools
Sports and Recreation Instruction
Language Schools
All Other Schools and Instruction
Educational Support Services
Offices of Physicians
Offices of Dentists
Offices of Chiropractors
Offices of Optometrists
Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists, and Audiologists
Offices of All Other Health Practitioners
Other Outpatient Care Centers
Ambulance Services
Child Day Care Services
Musical Groups and Artists
Other Performing Arts Companies
Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events with Facilities
Page 4 of 6
Count of
Businesses
104
1
18
58
53
349
1
10
3
1
3
11
42
25
65
1
18
4
525
327
148
48
42
53
244
22
1
69
5
37
1
Total
Total Square
Employees
Footage
283
130,000
1
1,250
27
22,500
109
72,500
154
66,250
764
436,250
2
1,250
13
12,500
5
3,750
1
1,250
5
3,750
11
13,750
106
52,500
28
31,250
107
81,250
2
1,250
24
22,500
5
5,000
1,602
656,250
1,301
408,750
384
185,000
166
60,000
86
52,500
152
66,250
635
305,000
70
27,500
1
1,250
96
86,250
14
6,250
59
46,250
2
1,250
Exhibit 3: 5-Digit NAICS Codes for Mecklenburg County Businesses not Surveyed (Unlikely Generators)
NAICS 5Digit Code
71151
71212
71312
71329
71391
71393
71399
72121
72211
72221
72231
72232
72241
81111
81119
81121
Count of
Businesses
61
2
6
1
1
19
19
2
15
391
15
35
68
334
106
95
Title
Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers
Historical Sites
Amusement Arcades
Other Gambling Industries
Golf Courses and Country Clubs
Marinas
All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries
RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and Recreational Camps
Full-Service Restaurants
Limited-Service Eating Places
Food Service Contractors
Caterers
Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance
Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance
Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance
81131
81141
81142
81143
81149
81211
81219
81222
81231
81232
81291
81292
81299
81394
Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance
Home and Garden Equipment and Appliance Repair and Maintenance
Reupholstery and Furniture Repair
Footwear and Leather Goods Repair
Other Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance
Hair, Nail, and Skin Care Services
Other Personal Care Services
Cemeteries and Crematories
Coin-Operated Laundries and Drycleaners
Drycleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated)
Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services
Photofinishing
All Other Personal Services
Political Organizations
Page 5 of 6
34
48
41
19
76
974
206
10
30
161
61
5
80
3
Total
Total Square
Employees
Footage
78
76,250
4
2,500
10
7,500
2
1,250
1
1,250
41
23,750
22
23,750
5
2,500
57
18,750
1,233
488,750
42
18,750
87
43,750
212
85,000
821
417,500
274
132,500
182
118,750
83
88
66
26
146
2,422
423
33
47
277
120
6
153
7
42,500
60,000
51,250
23,750
95,000
1,217,500
257,500
12,500
37,500
201,250
76,250
6,250
100,000
3,750
Exhibit 3: 5-Digit NAICS Codes for Mecklenburg County Businesses not Surveyed (Unlikely Generators)
NAICS 5Digit Code Title
Other Similar Organizations (except Business, Professional, Labor, and Political Organizations)
81399
99999
Not available [3]
NA
Total
Page 6 of 6
Count of
Businesses
1
31
1,598
13,430
Total
Employees
1
734
7,277
37,709
Total Square
Footage
1,250
850,000
38,320,000
53,921,250
APPENDIX E
Hauler Survey Responses
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Both
Complete
Both
Complete
Both
Complete
Both
Complete
Commercial
Complete
1
2
4
5
12
Completed Survey
Declined to Complete Survey
Failed to Return Messages
Busy/Disconnected/Fax Number
1
1
1
1
1
Dumpster
Roll-Off
Residential Only
1 Do any of your current front load customers place clean wood or pallets in their
dumpsters?
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Both Wood Pallets and Clean Wood
Neither
Don't know
Do not provide dumpster service
2
If some of your current front load customers place pallets in the dumpsters,, does
collecting wood pallets present any collection problems?
Yes
No
Not Applicable
2 If some of your current front load customers place clean wood in the dumpsters,
does collecting clean wood present any collection problems?
Yes
No
Not Applicable
3 Please estimate the percentage of your Front Load Customers that dispose of
wood pallets or clean wood in their dumpsters.
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Don't know
Not Applicable
3 Please estimate the percentage of your Roll-Off Customers that dispose of wood
pallets or clean wood in their roll-off containers.
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Don't know
Not Applicable
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Commercial Hauler Survey Responses for Question 1 through 8
Survey Responses
Services Provided
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0%
0%
1
1
1
1
1
1
5-10%
>5%
10%
0%
1%
>1%
> or = 10%
> or = 10%
80%
70%
1%
>1%
1
100%
0%
Page 1 of 3
20%
75%
Commercial Hauler Survey Responses for Question 1 through 8
1
4
5
12
Warehouses
Wood Shops/ Frame Shops
Warehouses
NA
It is random
It is random
Warehouse
Homebuilders
It is random
Construction
Plant and Industry
Residential New
Construction
Warehouse
Homebuilders
It is random
1
1
1
1
1
Old Corrugated Cardboard
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Gypsum Wallboard
Other- White Paper
Other- Aluminum Cans
6 Please estimate what percentage of your current Roll-Off Customers have
recycling collection of the following recyclable materials.
100%
15-20%
10%
see Table 2
65%
<1%
<1%
Old Corrugated Cardboard
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Gypsum Wallboard
Other- Newspaper
Other- Concrete
Other- Plastic
Other- Metal
Other- Aluminum Cans
7 If you provide Wood Pallet recycling collection services, please indicate where
you take the Wood Pallets for recycling or reuse.
10%
15%
20%
25%
4 Typically, what types of Front Load customers are the major generators of
pallets? Of clean wood?
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Not Applicable
4 Typically, what types of Roll-Off customers are the major generators of pallets?
Of clean wood?
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Not Applicable
2
Trucking Warehouses
Supply Houses
Construction
5 Do you collect recyclables from any of your customers?
Yes
No
6 Please estimate what percentage of your current Front Load Customers have
recycling collection of the following recyclable materials.
Name
Location
Not Applicable
7 If you provide Clean Wood recycling collection services, please indicate where
you take the Clean Wood for recycling or reuse.
Name
Location
Not Applicable
35%
0.01
10%
5%
<5%
40%
80%
10%
30%
20%
20%
7%
>1%
4 Locations but could only think of
Custom Pallets
Grand Street
Custom Pallet
Charlotte
LA Pallets
Charlotte
1
Foxhole Landfill
Foxhole Landfill
LA Pallets
Charlotte
1
Page 2 of 3
Commercial Hauler Survey Responses for Question 1 through 8
1
8 What do you believe are the reasons your customers do not recycle Wood
Pallets ? Please check all that apply.
Lack of storage place
Cost/2nd dumpster
Small volume generator
Service not available
Lack of recycling knowledge
Other
Not Applicable
8 What do you believe are the reasons your customers do not recycle Clean Wood ?
Please check all that apply.
Lack of storage place
Cost/2nd dumpster
Small volume generator
Service not available
Lack of recycling knowledge
2
1
4
5
12
1
1
1
1
Not enough
quantity.
1
1
1
1
Customers do not need
the service.
1
1
1
Not enough
quantity.
1
Other
Not Applicable
Answers for Questions 9 and 10 and other comments are located in Table 2.
Page 3 of 3
Customers do not need
the service.
Commercial Hauler Survey Responses for Question 9 and 10 and Other Comments
9. What steps do you recommend the County take to ensure compliance with the
2009 landfill ban on wood pallets?
(1) Facility should charge less to take pallets.
(2) County needs to develop a MRF that can sort separate and has equipment that can
grind and mulch the wood pallets. According to the Hauler, the equipment to grind and
mulch costs a half million dollars.
(4) Hauler stated that this is up to the County.
(5) Hauler recommends the County find some where else to take them.
(12) Hauler doesn't know what the County should do. County should just have haulers be
careful.
10. What steps would you take to prevent customers from putting wood pallets in
their dumpster?
(1) Hauler will inform customers; however, Hauler will not fine customers for
noncompliance. Hauler is opposed to fines. Hauler will just stop accepting wood pallets.
(2) Hauler will tell his customers they are not allowed to put wood pallets in their
dumpsters. In addition, Hauler will fine customers $5 per pallet.
(4) Hauler will inform the customers through the Hauler's sales department.
(5) Haul will not haul the dumpster if there are wood pallets in the dumpster.
(12) Hauler will no take the wood pallets. Hauler will recycle them.
General Comments:
(2) The only way this will work is if you build a MRF. Hauler has some ideas and some
plans that they need the County's help with to make it work.
(2) No one knows what to do with wood pallets. Hauler believes the best option is grind
the pallets and spray the material red and call it wood chips for new homes. However,
the market got too costly and home builders are only interested in making the most
money possible.
1
(12) Hauler only services commercial buildings.
Comments About Specific Questions:
1. Do any of your current front load customers place clean wood or pallets in their
dumpsters?
(4) Hauler stated that it is hard to tell if there is clean wood but the Hauler is sure there is
some.
(12) Every now and then the Hauler's front load customers place wood pallets in their
dumpsters. However, the wood pallets disposed by the Hauler's customers are usually
very broken. According to the Hauler, wood pallets are placed in its dumpsters only 2-3
times per year. If a wood pallet is placed in the Hauler's dumpster, the Hauler pulls the
pallet out and a private contractor, Johnny Brown, collects and repairs the pallets.
2. If some of your current front load customers place clean wood or pallets in the
dumpsters, does collecting clean wood or pallets present any collection problems?
(5) Hauler stated that collecting wood pallets is not a problem as long as the customer
breaks the wood pallets down.
3. Please estimate the percentage of your customers that dispose of wood pallets or
clean wood in their dumpsters or roll-off containers.
(2) Hauler does a lot of temporary construction work. Wood pallets are a sore spot in this
industry.
(4) Hauler stated that the estimate is a wild guess.
5. Do you collect recyclables from any of your customers?
(5) A private company empties and hauls OCC from the Hauler's front-end load
customers. The private company provides OCC recycling to approximately 90% of
Hauler's front-end load customers.
7. If you provide pallet and/or clean wood recycling collection services, please
indicate where you take the clean wood or pallets for recycling or reuse.
2
(2) Hauler will provide recycling for roll-off customers only if they sign up for green
project. Hauler quoted the cost of green project to a roll-off customer and the customer
elected against it due to the cost.
8. What do you believe are the reasons your customers do not recycle pallets and
clean wood? Please check all that apply.
(2) Hauler is in the process of doing a recycling facility for wood pallets.
3
C&D
Complete
C&D
Complete
C&D
Complete
C&D
Complete
3
6
7
8
Completed Survey
Declined to Complete Survey
Failed to Return Messages
Busy/Disconnected/Fax Number
1
1
1
1
Dumpster
Roll-Off
Residential Only
1 Do any of your current front load customers place clean wood or pallets in their
dumpsters?
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Both Wood Pallets and Clean Wood
Neither
Don't know
Do not provide dumpster service
2
If some of your current front load customers place pallets in the dumpsters,, does
collecting wood pallets present any collection problems?
Yes
No
Not Applicable
2 If some of your current front load customers place clean wood in the dumpsters,
does collecting clean wood present any collection problems?
Yes
No
Not Applicable
3 Please estimate the percentage of your Front Load Customers that dispose of
wood pallets or clean wood in their dumpsters.
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Don't know
Not Applicable
3 Please estimate the percentage of your Roll-Off Customers that dispose of wood
pallets or clean wood in their roll-off containers.
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Don't know
Not Applicable
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Roll-off Hauler Survey Responses for Question 1 through 8
Survey Responses
Services Provided
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1%
100%
1
1
1
20%
100%
1
1
Page 1 of 6
0%
100%
C&D
Complete
C&D
Complete
C&D
Complete
C&D
Complete
9
10
11
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4%
5%
>5%
>5%
5%
0%
Roll-off Hauler Survey Responses for Question 1 through 8
Survey Responses
Completed Survey
Declined to Complete Survey
Failed to Return Messages
Busy/Disconnected/Fax Number
Services Provided
Dumpster
Roll-Off
Residential Only
1 Do any of your current front load customers place clean wood or pallets in their
dumpsters?
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Both Wood Pallets and Clean Wood
Neither
Don't know
Do not provide dumpster service
2
If some of your current front load customers place pallets in the dumpsters,, does
collecting wood pallets present any collection problems?
Yes
No
Not Applicable
2 If some of your current front load customers place clean wood in the dumpsters,
does collecting clean wood present any collection problems?
Yes
No
Not Applicable
3 Please estimate the percentage of your Front Load Customers that dispose of
wood pallets or clean wood in their dumpsters.
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Don't know
Not Applicable
3 Please estimate the percentage of your Roll-Off Customers that dispose of wood
pallets or clean wood in their roll-off containers.
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Don't know
Not Applicable
1
1
Page 2 of 6
Roll-off Hauler Survey Responses for Question 1 through 8
3
4 Typically, what types of Front Load customers are the major generators of
pallets? Of clean wood?
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Not Applicable
4 Typically, what types of Roll-Off customers are the major generators of pallets?
Of clean wood?
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Not Applicable
6
7
Dellweb
Dellweb
Construction
Construction
1
8
1
Construction
NA
Construction
New Construction
1
5 Do you collect recyclables from any of your customers?
Yes
No
1
1
1
1
6 Please estimate what percentage of your current Front Load Customers have
recycling collection of the following recyclable materials.
Provides OCC
recycling but could
Old Corrugated Cardboard not estimate %
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Gypsum Wallboard
Other- White Paper
Other- Aluminum Cans
6 Please estimate what percentage of your current Roll-Off Customers have
recycling collection of the following recyclable materials.
Provides OCC
recycling but could
Old Corrugated Cardboard not estimate %
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Gypsum Wallboard
Other- Newspaper
Other- Concrete
Other- Plastic
Other- Metal
Other- Aluminum Cans
7 If you provide Wood Pallet recycling collection services, please indicate where
you take the Wood Pallets for recycling or reuse.
Name
Location
Not Applicable
7 If you provide Clean Wood recycling collection services, please indicate where
you take the Clean Wood for recycling or reuse.
Name
Location
Not Applicable
1%
1
1
1
1
Page 3 of 6
Roll-off Hauler Survey Responses for Question 1 through 8
9
4 Typically, what types of Front Load customers are the major generators of
pallets? Of clean wood?
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Not Applicable
4 Typically, what types of Roll-Off customers are the major generators of pallets?
Of clean wood?
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Not Applicable
10
1
11
13
1
Commercial Warehouses
Triad
Homebuilders
Commercial Warehouses
Triad
NA
Construction
1
1
1
1
5 Do you collect recyclables from any of your customers?
Yes
No
6 Please estimate what percentage of your current Front Load Customers have
recycling collection of the following recyclable materials.
Old Corrugated Cardboard
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Gypsum Wallboard
Other- White Paper
Other- Aluminum Cans
6 Please estimate what percentage of your current Roll-Off Customers have
recycling collection of the following recyclable materials.
Old Corrugated Cardboard
Wood Pallets
Clean Wood
Gypsum Wallboard
Other- Newspaper
Other- Concrete
Other- Plastic
Other- Metal
Other- Aluminum Cans
7 If you provide Wood Pallet recycling collection services, please indicate where
you take the Wood Pallets for recycling or reuse.
Name
Location
Not Applicable
7 If you provide Clean Wood recycling collection services, please indicate where
you take the Clean Wood for recycling or reuse.
Name
Location
Not Applicable
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
15%
5%
Metromont Natural
Recycling Center
Charlotte
1
Metromont Natural
Recycling Center
Charlotte
1
Page 4 of 6
Roll-off Hauler Survey Responses for Question 1 through 8
3
6
7
8
1
1
8 What do you believe are the reasons your customers do not recycle Wood
Pallets ? Please check all that apply.
Lack of storage place
Cost/2nd dumpster
Small volume generator
Service not available
Lack of recycling knowledge
1
Customers send
wood pallets back to
where it came from
thus no need for No time and not on their
Other
recycling.
mind
Not Applicable
1
8 What do you believe are the reasons your customers do not recycle Clean Wood ?
Please check all that apply.
Lack of storage place
Cost/2nd dumpster
Small volume generator
Service not available
Lack of recycling knowledge
Customers send
clean wood back to
where it came from
thus no need for
Can't think for the
Other
recycling.
customers.
Not Applicable
1
Answers for Questions 9 and 10 and other comments are located in Table 2.
Page 5 of 6
1
Space on the job site.
No market and no
advantage to separating
wood clean wood.
Roll-off Hauler Survey Responses for Question 1 through 8
9
10
8 What do you believe are the reasons your customers do not recycle Wood
Pallets ? Please check all that apply.
Lack of storage place
Cost/2nd dumpster
Small volume generator
Service not available
Lack of recycling knowledge
Other
Not Applicable
8 What do you believe are the reasons your customers do not recycle Clean Wood ?
Please check all that apply.
Lack of storage place
Cost/2nd dumpster
Small volume generator
Service not available
Lack of recycling knowledge
Other
Not Applicable
Answers for Questions 9 and 10 and other comments are located in Table 2.
11
13
1
1
Workers' don’t' care and they
contaminate it.
1
Convenience
1
1
1
1
Workers' don’t care and they
contaminate it.
Page 6 of 6
Convenience
Not and issue
Laziness. Companies do not
want to recycle.
Roll-off Hauler Survey Responses for Question 9 and 10 and Other Comments
9. What steps do you recommend the County take to ensure compliance with the
2009 landfill ban on wood pallets?
(3) Hauler believes the County should keep their nose out of the hauler's and the
customers' business.
(6) Hauler stated that the County needs to set something up for wood pallets.
(7) Hauler believes the County should make it more feasible for the people to recycle.
(8) Hauler believes that a wood pallet landfill ban can be done but need to find a market
for the wood pallets. County needs to do something to develop a market that can
compete with landfill costs.
(9) Hauler doesn't know what the County should do to ensure compliance.
(10) Hauler recommends the County find private landfills that will take the wood pallets.
(11) County should use mailings.
10. What steps would you take to prevent customers from putting wood pallets in
their dumpster?
(3) The Hauler does whatever the customers requires. Everything is market driven and if
the market required wood pallet recycling then it would naturally occur. Therefore, more
government is not required in this situation.
(7) Hauler will back charge the customer or use other means.
(8) County needs to look at markets such as generating power fuel and wood chips.
County should look at New York. Hauler stated that New York burns the wood pallets
with tires. According to the Hauler, it took New York 3 years to get power plant to look
at it. It is worth it if you had market below landfill cost.
(9) Hauler will not take any steps to prevent customers from putting wood pallets in their
dumpsters.
(10) Hauler can pass the cost along to the customers.
(11) Hauler will use mailings.
1
General Comments:
(6) Hauler is really excited about the wood pallet ban. Hauler was not aware of the ban
prior to the survey.
(9) County should lower landfill fees.
(10) Hauler was not aware of new law prior to the survey. Hauler believes the problem is
it will cost more. Wood recycling has never been a money maker for anyone and only
makes sense to those who want to save the earth. Wood is a huge item.
Comments About Specific Questions:
1. Do any of your current front load customers place clean wood or pallets in their
dumpsters?
(3) Hauler's customers do not throw away good pallets or wood. Hauler's customers
throw away junk.
(7) Hauler stated that customers dispose of wood pallets every now an then. As for clean
wood, customers dispose of left over clean wood.
2. If some of your current front load customers place clean wood or pallets in the
dumpsters, does collecting clean wood or pallets present any collection problems?
(7) Even though Hauler answered no to the question, Hauler stated that the collection of
wood pallets and clean wood wears and tears equipment and adds to disposal costs.
(10) More like 1%
3. Please estimate the percentage of your customers that dispose of wood pallets or
clean wood in their dumpsters or roll-off containers.
(7) Wood pallets are not a big issue because the Hauler services construction sites a lot.
(9) Clean wood that is disposed is cut up.
5. Do you collect recyclables from any of your customers?
(6) Hauler use to provide recycling services but customers kept mixing garbage with the
recyclables.
2
(7) Hauler just began green projects.
6. Please estimate what percentage of your current customers have recycling
collection of the following recyclable materials.
(10) Hauler has a customer who recycles wood pallets and clean wood.
8. What do you believe are the reasons your customers do not recycle pallets and
clean wood? Please check all that apply.
(7) Customer has done recycling; however, the Hauler's customer base isn't the type for
recycling.
3
APPENDIX F
Mecklenburg County C&D Waste Characterization
Results
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
3. RESULTS
INTRODUCTION
This section presents the results of the Mecklenburg County construction and demolition
(C&D) waste composition study. Further, this section describes the underlying assumptions,
analytical techniques, and statistical analysis that was performed to generate the results.
Specifically, this section discusses:
‹ Volume-to-Weight Conversion,
‹ Statistical Measures, and
‹ Results.
VOLUME-TO-WEIGHT CONVERSION
As described in the Methodology section, all of the field data collection relied on volumetric
estimates of the composition of each incoming load of C&D waste that was representatively
selected for sampling. For each load, the container volume, percent full, and estimated
fraction of each C&D material category was estimated and recorded. While the methodology
used for visual surveying was performed consistently and accurately, and relied on quantitative
measurements for some portion of the estimate, in practice there is potential for error to be
introduced because certain steps of visual characterization are, by nature, somewhat imprecise.
For example, two well trained solid waste professionals with field experience may observe a
fraction of drywall in the same sample, yet their estimate of the percent of that drywall may
vary, in some cases by five percent (or more if there is a lot of drywall). Human judgment is a
necessary obstacle of precise visual surveying.
Fortunately, for each load surveyed, it was possible in this study to obtain a copy of the weigh
ticket from the scalehouse at each host facility. Because landfill scales must be calibrated on a
regular basis to assure accurate reporting of incoming waste flows, the measured weight of
each load from the scalehouse are highly defensible data points.
The first exercise to tabulating the results was therefore to convert volumetric estimates for
each sample into weigh-based estimates. Doing so required the following process:
1. Research and compile the raw density factors for all of the material categories defined
for the study. Raw density factors were compiled based on available literature (primarily
other C&D characterization studies and various recycled material manuals) as well as on
MSW Consultants’ experience in conducting prior waste characterization studies;
2. Convert volumetric estimates to weight-based estimates by applying the raw density
factors;
3. Compare the weight of the raw volume-to-weight conversion against the actual weight
of each load as shown on the weigh tickets;
4. Apply targeted statistical analysis to identify the density factors that contribute to the
variance between the calculated (item 2) and the actual (item 3) weights; and
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
3-1
3. RESULTS
5. Develop adjusted density factors that, when applied to the volumetric estimates
observed in the field, yield calculated weights that are, in the aggregate, within acceptable
tolerances of the actual weights
Table 3-1 presents the density factors compiled for this analysis. The raw and adjusted density
factors are shown, as well as the adjustment that was applied.
Table 3-1 C&D Material Density Factors (Lbs/Cubic Yard) – Raw and Adjusted
Material
Group
Paper
Plastic
Glass
Metal
Green Waste
Inerts
Wood
Material Category
OCC/Kraft
Other Paper
PVC Pipe
Plastic Film
Vinyl Siding
Other Plastic
All Glass
Appliances
Other Ferrous Metals
HVAC Ducting
Other Non-Ferrous Metals
Land Clearing/Limbs/Stumps
Other Yard Waste
Concrete/Block/Brick/Stone/Tile
Dirt/Sand/Gravel
Pallets
Untreated Wood
Oriented Strandboard (OSB)
Treated/Painted/Processed
Wood
C&D
Materials
Other Wastes
Raw
Adjusted
100
157
50
40
50
65
600
142
570
50
570
600
225
1,500
1,500
50 lbs/pallet
150 lbs/crate
364
364
100
157
50
40
50
65
600
142
570
50
570
600
225
1,275
1,275
50 lbs/pallet
150 lbs/crate
309
309
309
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(225)
(225)
0
0
(55)
(55)
(55)
276
(49)
276
1,063
100
75
765
200
400
250
200
(49)
(187)
0
0
(135)
0
0
0
0
364
Drywall - Unpainted
325
325
1,250
100
75
900
200
400
250
200
Drywall - Painted
Asphalt Roofing
Insulation
Ceiling Tiles
Carpet & Carpet Backing
Bagged MSW
Electronics
Bulky Wastes/Furniture
Mixed C&D/Other Unclassified
Adjustment
An interesting result of this exercise is that all of the variance between the estimated weight
(calculated by applying raw density factors to the observed volumetric estimates) and the
actual weight could be minimized by downwardly adjusting the density of nine of the 30
3-2
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
3. RESULTS
material categories. It is noteworthy that these nine categories are among the denser materials
in C&D waste. This suggests that either (a) the industry literature on material density seems to
overestimate the density of these material types, or (b) in the judgment of the field surveyor,
the volume of these more dense materials was routinely overestimated.
While it is not possible to assert that the density adjustments that are shown in Table 3-1
assure complete accuracy of the results, MSW Consultants believes that the step of
normalizing the volumetric estimates to align closely with the known weight of the samples
improves the accuracy of the overall study results.
STATISTICAL MEASURES
Once each sample is converted from volume to weight and normalized (as described above),
the following statistical measures are calculated to determine the overall composition of C&D
waste.
‹ Sample Mean: The sample mean, or average, composition is considered the “most
likely” fraction for each material category in the aggregate C&D waste stream. The
sample mean is determined by (i) summing the weight of each material in each sample;
(ii) summing the total weigh of all samples, and (iii) dividing the first value by the second
value to determine the percent-by-weight composition. Note that the sample mean, while
a good estimate, is unlikely to be identical to the population mean value. The
meaningfulness of the sample mean is enhanced by the following statistical measures.
‹ Standard Deviation: The standard deviation measures how widely values within the
data set are dispersed from the sample mean. A higher standard deviation denotes
higher variation in the underlying samples for each material, while a lower standard
deviation reflects lower variation among the individual samples. The standard deviation
is stated in the same unit as the sample mean, which in this case is percent by weight.
‹ Confidence Intervals: When a sample of data is obtained, it is analyzed in an attempt
to determine certain values that describe the entire population of data under analysis.
For example, in a poll of likely voters, the intent of the poll is to determine the
percentage of all voters who support a given candidate, not simply the percentage of
voters in the poll who support that candidate. The percentage of voters who support a
given candidate in the poll can easily vary from sample to sample; but the percentage of
all voters who support that candidate is a fixed value. In our sample of incoming loads
of C&D waste, we are not primarily interested in the percentage composition of the
sampled loads, but rather in trying to determine what the composition of the sampled
loads tells us about the composition of all C&D waste generated in Mecklenburg
County. A confidence interval is a statistical concept that attempts to indicate the likely
range within which the true value lies. The confidence intervals reflect the upper and
lower range within which the population mean can be expected to fall. Confidence
intervals require the following "inputs":
Š The "level of confidence", or how sure one wants to be that the interval being
constructed will actually encompass the population mean;
Š The sample mean, around which the confidence interval will be constructed;
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
3-3
3. RESULTS
Š The sample standard deviation, which is used as a measure of the variability of the
population from which the sample was obtained; and
Š The number of sampling units that comprised the sample (a.k.a. sample size).
Throughout this section, confidence intervals have been calculated at a 90 percent level of
confidence, meaning that we can be 90 percent sure that the population mean falls within the
upper and lower confidence intervals shown. (The converse is also true: that there is a 10
percent chance that the population mean falls outside of the sample mean.) In general, as the
number of samples increases, the width of the confidence intervals decreases, although the
more variable the underlying waste stream composition, the less noticeable the improvement
for adding incremental samples.
RESULTS
Figure 3-1 presents a graphical breakdown of the major material categories of Mecklenburg
County C&D waste being disposed at local landfills. As shown in the Figure, Wood and Inert
materials each comprise almost one-third of disposed C&D, with Other C&D Materials
contributing another 20 percent of the overall waste.
Figure 3-1 Mecklenburg-Generated C&D Waste Disposed (annual tons)
3-4
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
3. RESULTS
Figure 3-2 ranks the categories of C&D waste from most to least prevalent. It is of definite
interest that some of the most commonly disposed materials are highly recyclable (if they
could be separated from other C&D waste). For example, the top three most prevalent
materials are inerts (concrete/brick/rock), untreated wood and drywall. Clean concrete, brick
and block, as well as untreated wood, can be tipped at the Foxhole Landfill for a reduced tip
fee if they are source separated, and local manufacturer Union Gypsum will accept drywall for
recycling. Ferrous metals and OCC are recyclable, with recycling programs in existence within
the Charlotte region. Nonferrous metals are also recyclable, and certain ceiling tiles are
accepted for recycling by an out-of-region company if they are source separated and
aggregated into trailer-size quantities for transport. It appears that recycling opportunities
within the C&D waste stream are significant.
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
3-5
3. RESULTS
Figure 3-2 Prevalence of C&D Waste by Material Category (annual tons)
Concrete/ Block/ Brick/ Stone/ Tile
Untreated Wood
Drywall - Unpainted
Treated/ Painted/ Processed Wood
Asphalt Roofing
Dirt/Sand/Gravel
Oriented Strandboard (OSB)
Other Ferrous Metals
Carpet & Carpet Backing
OCC/Kraft
Pallets
Bagged MSW
Mixed C&D/ Other Unclassified
Other Non-Ferrous Metals
Other Yard Waste
Land Clearing / Limbs / Stumps
Glass
Bulky Wastes/ Furniture
Insulation
Other Paper
Other Plastic
Crates
Drywall - Painted
Plastic Film
PVC Pipe
Ceiling Tiles
HVAC Ducting
Appliances
Vinyl Siding
Electronics
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Annual Tonnage
It was beyond the scope of this study to investigate the availability of markets for the wide
range of recyclable materials in the C&D waste stream. It was also beyond the scope of this
study to address the likely feasibility of developing a C&D material recovery facility (MRF) to
serve the Mecklenburg County market. Local markets for recyclables are a requirement for
3-6
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
3. RESULTS
meaningful recycling, and development of a C&D MRF would be considered a longer term
strategy for maximizing diversion from the C&D waste stream.
However, in the interest of better understanding the longer term potential to increase
diversion of the C&D waste stream, it is informative to break down the C&D waste stream by
its hypothetically recoverable components. Specifically, each of the material categories in this
study have been assigned to one of the following three categories to describe the diversion
potential of the material.
1) Recoverable: These materials are recyclable in their entirety and have currently
existing markets in the Mecklenburg County region to the extent such materials are
source separated for delivery to market.
2) Potentially Recoverable: At the current time, there is no mixed C&D waste
processing capacity in the County. Many materials are technically recyclable, but only
under any number of qualifying conditions: they must be available in significant
quantity to be acceptable to the end market; they must be clean enough to recover;
they must be further sorted into subcomponents prior to delivery to market; aggregate
transportation and recycling costs must be competitive with disposal costs; and other
reasons.
3) Unrecoverable: These are materials that do not appear to have near term potential
for recycling or that occur in such small quantities in the C&D waste stream that it is
unlikely they will ever be recycled.
Table 3-2 assigns each of the C&D materials in the study to the above categories.
Table 3-2 Recoverability of C&D Material Categories
Recoverable
Corrugated Cardboard, Appliances, Other Ferrous Metals, HVAC
Ducting, Other Non-ferrous Metal, Land Clearing/Limbs/Stumps,
Other Yard Waste, Concrete/Block/Brick/Stone/Tile, Pallets,
Drywall – Unpainted, Untreated Wood
Potentially Recoverable
PVC Pipe, Vinyl Siding, Dirt/Sand/Gravel, Asphalt Roofing, Ceiling
Tiles, Carpet and Carpet Backing, Electronics, Bulky
Wastes/Furniture
Unrecoverable
Other Paper, Film Plastic, Other Plastic, All Glass, Oriented
Strandboard (OSB), Treated/Painted/Processed Wood, Drywall –
Painted, Insulation, Mixed MSW, Mixed C&D/Other Unclassified
Figure 3-3 shows the resulting breakdown between recoverable, potentially recoverable, and
unrecoverable materials in C&D waste.
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
3-7
3. RESULTS
Figure 3-3. Prevalence of Hypothetically Recyclable Materials in Aggregate Disposed C&D Waste
(Percent by Weight)
As shown in Figure 3-3, this study found that 62 percent of the C&D waste stream is made up
of materials that are recoverable within the existing end markets in Mecklenburg County to
the extent they can be source separated. At the current time, this represents the maximum
potential diversion that could be achieved from the C&D waste stream. Realistically, this level
of diversion will not be approached in the absence of establishing a mixed C&D processing
capability, because many of these recoverable materials cannot be economically source
separated at construction sites.
It should also be noted that mixed C&D processing facilities in other areas of the country
have demonstrated that there are significant limitations to achieving high capture rates even
with a customized sorting system. While it was beyond the scope of this project to report on
the range of C&D processing technologies and diversion potential at C&D processing
facilities, anecdotal evidence from several facilities in the Northeast and South Florida indicate
that sorting technology limitations, including pre-process size reduction that is necessary to
feed C&D debris through a conveyor sorting system, render many recyclable items too
difficult to recover, thereby reducing recycling rates. When viewing Figure 3-3, it is therefore
important to consider the 62 percent of “recoverable” C&D as being an academic portrayal of
the materials contained in C&D debris. The maximum recycling rate in the C&D waste
stream will likely be significantly lower, even in the face of aggressive diversion strategies such
as mixed C&D processing.
Of the remaining material in the C&D waste stream, it may be possible to target another 19
percent of the C&D waste stream for diversion through a combination of development of end
markets and improvements in collection and processing. Further, the study found that 19
percent of disposed C&D waste is comprised of materials for which legitimate recycling,
composting or reuse processes or opportunities have not yet been developed (or if they have,
they are not widely in practice for material found in the C&D waste stream). Over time, it is
possible that there would be opportunities to increase recycling of new materials that are
currently being disposed, but achieving diversion of the “unrecoverable” materials is unlikely
to be significant even after significant improvements to the C&D recycling infrastructure.
3-8
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
3. RESULTS
The detailed composition of C&D waste in Mecklenburg County, including the sample mean,
standard deviation, and 90 percent confidence intervals, is contained in Table 3-3. In addition
to showing the percent composition statistics, this table also applies the results to the 377,120
total tons of C&D waste that were reported to have been generated in Mecklenburg County in
2007 and disposed in landfills.
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
3-9
3. RESULTS
Table 3-3 Mecklenburg County Detailed C&D Waste Composition
90% Conf. Interval
Material Categories
OCC/Kraft
Other Paper
Paper Subtotal
PVC Pipe
Plastic Film
Vinyl Siding
Other Plastic
Plastic Subtotal
Glass
Glass Subtotal
Appliances
Other Ferrous Metals
HVAC Ducting
Other Non-Ferrous Metals
Metal Subtotal
Land Clearing / Limbs / Stumps
Other Yard Waste
Green Waste Subtotal
Concrete/ Block/ Brick/ Stone/ Tile
Dirt/Sand/Gravel
Inerts Subtotal
Pallets
Crates
Untreated Wood
Oriented Strandboard (OSB)
Treated/ Painted/ Processed Wood
Wood Subtotal
Drywall - Unpainted
Drywall - Painted
Asphalt Roofing
Insulation
Ceiling Tiles
Carpet & Carpet Backing
C&D Materials Subtotal
Bagged MSW
Electronics
Bulky Wastes/ Furniture
Mixed C&D/ Other Unclassified
Bulky/Other Subtotal
TOTAL
Mean
3.8%
0.7%
Standard
Deviation
0.4%
0.1%
Lower
3.1%
0.6%
Upper
4.5%
0.9%
4.5%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.6%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.1%
5.6%
0.1%
1.1%
6.9%
0.9%
1.1%
2.0%
23.3%
6.1%
29.4%
2.1%
0.5%
16.5%
6.0%
6.8%
31.8%
6.8%
0.4%
6.4%
0.8%
0.1%
5.3%
19.8%
1.3%
0.0%
0.9%
1.3%
3.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.8%
0.3%
0.2%
0.4%
3.1%
1.3%
3.4%
0.3%
0.3%
1.4%
0.8%
0.7%
2.2%
1.1%
0.2%
1.2%
0.2%
0.0%
1.0%
1.9%
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
3.7%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.5%
0.9%
0.7%
0.7%
0.0%
4.4%
0.0%
0.9%
5.6%
0.4%
0.7%
1.4%
18.2%
4.0%
23.9%
1.6%
0.0%
14.2%
4.7%
5.7%
28.2%
5.0%
0.1%
4.4%
0.5%
0.0%
3.7%
16.7%
1.0%
0.0%
0.6%
1.0%
2.9%
5.3%
0.2%
0.4%
0.1%
0.7%
1.3%
1.1%
1.1%
0.1%
6.8%
0.1%
1.4%
8.2%
1.4%
1.5%
2.7%
28.4%
8.2%
34.9%
2.5%
0.9%
18.8%
7.3%
7.8%
35.4%
8.7%
0.7%
8.4%
1.0%
0.1%
7.0%
23.0%
1.6%
0.1%
1.2%
1.6%
4.1%
100.0%
3-10
Annual
Quantity
(tons)
14,302
2,817
17,119
457
1,283
194
2,191
4,125
3,420
3,420
217
21,174
290
4,321
26,003
3,514
4,162
7,676
87,846
23,046
110,892
7,765
1,856
62,252
22,488
25,505
119,865
25,806
1,613
24,084
2,888
292
20,167
74,850
4,867
173
3,344
4,784
13,168
377,120
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
3. RESULTS
Table 3-3 applies the results of this study to the total quantity of C&D reported by C&D
landfills to have originated in Mecklenburg County. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 provide the
composition of C&D debris at the Foxhole Landfill and the North Mecklenburg Landfill
individually. Although it was not intended to analyze the results separately by facility, a
cursory review suggests that the C&D waste stream entering each facility is comparable in its
composition.
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
3-11
3. RESULTS
Table 3-4 Foxhole Landfill C&D Waste Composition
90% Conf. Interval
Material Categories
OCC/Kraft
Other Paper
Paper Subtotal
PVC Pipe
Plastic Film
Vinyl Siding
Other Plastic
Plastic Subtotal
Glass
Glass Subtotal
Appliances
Other Ferrous Metals
HVAC Ducting
Other Non-Ferrous Metals
Metal Subtotal
Land Clearing / Limbs / Stumps
Other Yard Waste
Green Waste Subtotal
Concrete/ Block/ Brick/ Stone/ Tile
Dirt/Sand/Gravel
Inerts Subtotal
Pallets
Crates
Untreated Wood
Oriented Strandboard (OSB)
Treated/ Painted/ Processed Wood
Wood Subtotal
Drywall - Unpainted
Drywall - Painted
Asphalt Roofing
Insulation
Ceiling Tiles
Carpet & Carpet Backing
C&D Materials Subtotal
Bagged MSW
Electronics
Bulky Wastes/ Furniture
Mixed C&D/ Other Unclassified
Bulky/Other Subtotal
TOTAL
Mean
4.3%
0.8%
Standard
Deviation
0.6%
0.1%
Lower
3.2%
0.5%
Upper
5.3%
1.0%
5.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.1%
0.6%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.1%
5.7%
0.1%
1.2%
7.0%
0.8%
1.2%
2.1%
26.0%
4.2%
30.3%
1.6%
0.1%
17.3%
7.1%
6.0%
32.1%
5.7%
0.4%
6.8%
0.7%
0.1%
4.2%
17.8%
1.4%
0.0%
0.8%
1.4%
3.7%
0.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.2%
1.0%
0.4%
0.3%
0.6%
4.8%
1.6%
5.1%
0.2%
0.1%
2.2%
1.2%
0.9%
3.3%
1.5%
0.2%
1.8%
0.2%
0.0%
1.2%
2.6%
0.3%
0.0%
0.2%
0.3%
0.5%
3.8%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.4%
0.9%
0.7%
0.7%
0.0%
4.1%
0.0%
0.8%
5.3%
0.2%
0.7%
1.1%
18.1%
1.6%
21.8%
1.3%
0.0%
13.7%
5.1%
4.6%
26.7%
3.2%
0.1%
3.9%
0.4%
0.0%
2.2%
13.6%
1.0%
0.0%
0.4%
1.0%
2.8%
6.3%
0.1%
0.5%
0.1%
0.7%
1.4%
1.1%
1.1%
0.1%
7.3%
0.1%
1.5%
8.7%
1.5%
1.8%
3.0%
34.0%
6.8%
38.7%
2.0%
0.2%
20.8%
9.1%
7.4%
37.5%
8.1%
0.7%
9.8%
1.0%
0.1%
6.1%
22.1%
1.8%
0.1%
1.2%
1.9%
4.6%
100.0%
3-12
Annual
Quantity
(tons)
6,890
1,240
8,130
145
619
87
953
1,804
1,436
1,436
110
9,188
134
1,859
11,292
1,354
1,963
3,317
41,927
6,800
48,727
2,653
146
27,803
11,402
9,674
51,678
9,154
597
10,993
1,153
110
6,719
28,725
2,286
58
1,264
2,331
5,939
161,047
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
3. RESULTS
Table 3-5 North Mecklenburg Landfill C&D Waste Composition
90% Conf. Interval
Material Categories
OCC/Kraft
Other Paper
Paper Subtotal
PVC Pipe
Plastic Film
Vinyl Siding
Other Plastic
Plastic Subtotal
Glass
Glass Subtotal
Appliances
Other Ferrous Metals
HVAC Ducting
Other Non-Ferrous Metals
Metal Subtotal
Land Clearing / Limbs / Stumps
Other Yard Waste
Green Waste Subtotal
Concrete/ Block/ Brick/ Stone/ Tile
Dirt/Sand/Gravel
Inerts Subtotal
Pallets
Crates
Untreated Wood
Oriented Strandboard (OSB)
Treated/ Painted/ Processed Wood
Wood Subtotal
Drywall - Unpainted
Drywall - Painted
Asphalt Roofing
Insulation
Ceiling Tiles
Carpet & Carpet Backing
C&D Materials Subtotal
Bagged MSW
Electronics
Bulky Wastes/ Furniture
Mixed C&D/ Other Unclassified
Bulky/Other Subtotal
TOTAL
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
Mean
3.2%
0.7%
Standard
Deviation
0.5%
0.2%
Lower
2.4%
0.4%
Upper
4.1%
1.0%
4.0%
0.2%
0.3%
0.0%
0.6%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.0%
5.5%
0.1%
1.1%
6.8%
1.0%
1.0%
2.0%
20.2%
8.3%
28.4%
2.5%
1.0%
15.6%
4.7%
7.6%
31.4%
8.2%
0.5%
5.9%
0.8%
0.1%
6.7%
22.1%
1.1%
0.1%
1.0%
1.1%
3.3%
0.6%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%
0.2%
1.2%
0.5%
0.3%
0.6%
3.5%
2.0%
4.2%
0.5%
0.6%
1.8%
0.9%
1.0%
2.9%
1.7%
0.3%
1.6%
0.3%
0.1%
1.7%
2.9%
0.2%
0.0%
0.3%
0.2%
0.5%
2.9%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.4%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.0%
3.7%
0.0%
0.8%
4.9%
0.3%
0.4%
1.0%
14.5%
4.9%
21.5%
1.6%
0.0%
12.7%
3.1%
6.0%
26.7%
5.3%
0.0%
3.3%
0.4%
0.0%
3.9%
17.4%
0.8%
0.0%
0.5%
0.8%
2.5%
5.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.1%
0.7%
1.3%
1.2%
1.2%
0.1%
7.3%
0.1%
1.5%
8.7%
1.8%
1.5%
3.0%
25.9%
11.6%
35.3%
3.4%
1.9%
18.6%
6.2%
9.2%
36.2%
11.0%
1.0%
8.5%
1.3%
0.2%
9.5%
26.9%
1.5%
0.1%
1.6%
1.3%
4.1%
100.0%
3-13
Annual
Quantity
(tons)
4,183
931
5,115
203
374
63
735
1,374
1,194
1,194
59
7,121
90
1,468
8,737
1,339
1,256
2,595
26,054
10,684
36,738
3,268
1,229
20,212
6,056
9,855
40,619
10,553
637
7,603
1,063
114
8,645
28,614
1,478
74
1,296
1,375
4,222
129,209
3. RESULTS
This page intentionally left blank.
3-14
Mecklenburg County C&D Composition Study
APPENDIX G
Builder Focus Group Notes
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
Mecklenburg County Pallet/Woodwaste Report
FOCUS GROUP
Barriers to Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste Materials
in Mecklenburg County
Agenda and Questions used with
Residential and Commercial Builders
Agenda
I. Welcome/Introductions (10 minutes)
o Why are we having the focus group? Brief explanation of research study.
o Introduce DSM Environmental (facilitator and note taker) and our background in
recycling and solid waste management.
o Confidential nature of comments made.
o Participant introductions:
• First name only and position in company
• Length of time with company
• Personally responsible for contracting for waste and recyclables removal?
• Size of company – large, medium, small
• Company specialty, LEED involvement, new construction, renovations,
demolition
• Location of majority of work – city, suburbs,
II. Objective of Meeting (2-5 minutes)
• Major objectives of focus group meeting - To learn status of C&D recycling
among contractors. For example, what are the barriers to recycling and the
opportunities for recycling construction wood and other materials by commercial
and residential contractors? How do they differ among builders and demolition
firms? The goal is to gain input into County programs and the landfill ban decision.
•
•
•
Detail on research project;
Use of the focus group information collected; and,
Stress that goal is to obtain as many diverse thoughts as possible.
III. Ground Rules of Meeting (2 minutes)
• We are not here to judge your ideas but to try to understand the issues
• One person talk at a time, limit one person dominating meeting
• Stick to the questions that are asked – get closure
IV. Focus Group Questions (45 minutes) (See following pages)
V. Closing (2 minutes)
Reiterate use and value of information, thank participants and if appropriate, don’t forget
to use this opportunity to ask for involvement in your programs. If it has become clear
during the focus group meeting that there are a number of questions about recycling or
other County programs, time can be set aside after the formal end of the focus group to
address these questions.
Focus Group Questions
1) What materials do you typically recycle?
• Clean Wood
• Pallets
• Gypsum
• Metals
• OCC
• Asphalt Shingles
• Other
2) What motivates you to recycle on the job site?
• LEED
• County Recycling Policies
• Cost
• Green image
• Clients want it?
3) What are the barriers to recycling?
• Haulers offering separate containers?
• End uses? Market specifications?
• Space on site?
• Cost
• Training employees
• Other?
4) What do you think keeps other construction companies from recycling in Mecklenburg
County?
5) How helpful are the haulers/waste management companies in enabling your company to
recycle?
6) Where does your non-recycled waste go – C&D landfill or MSW landfill?
• If your waste goes to a C&D landfill, do you ever get notified that your load has been
rejected because there is too much waste in it?
• Do you haul yourself, or do you contract for collection and disposal?
• If you contract, do they supply separate containers for waste and for recycling?
• Do they charge you extra for the recycling containers?
• If your waste goes to an MSW landfill, what would the impact be of a ban on the disposal
of clean wood and pallets?
7) Would you put materials in a separate container if there was room?
8) Does your recycler require you to keep the clean wood separate from OSB or
painted/stained?
9) What do you think the County could do to make it easier to recycle?
FOCUS GROUP NOTES
COMMERCIAL BUILDERS
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
DECEMBER 11, 2007
Participants:
(1) Assistant Project Manager, Responsible for LEED paperwork and managing waste
and recyclables. Small to medium sized firm specializing in demolition
(2) Same company. Project Manager, been with the company for 25 years
(3) Project Manager/Vice President. Large general contractor, one-half new construction,
one-half renovation (primarily interior). Responsible for waste management for some
jobs, but not all.
(4) LEED certification specialist, large general contractor. New construction and
renovation
(5) LEED specialist – same company, new to company
(6) Project Manager, large general contractor, has responsibility for LEED certification
on projects that require LEED certification.
(7) Project Manager, medium to large general contractor
Question: What percent of projects that your company has done (over the last year or
so) require recycling?
(2) 40% require recycling
(3) 25% require recycling
(4) 35% - 40% require recycling
(6) 10% require recycling
(7) 10% - 15% require recycling
Question: What materials do you typically recycle?
(1) Metal, untreated/unpainted wood, concrete and asphalt
1
(2) Carpet, ceiling tile, lights, some glass, OCC (on LEED projects primarily, otherwise
not common), sheetrock (if we can fill a roll-off container). We don’t do asphalt shingles,
vinyl siding or any plastics.
(3) If there is sufficient room on site for (recycling) containers we will do metal, drywall
and clean wood. We always recycle carpet from interior renovations, and we will salvage
lights, if it is possible. We try to send OCC back with the vendors.
(3) and (6) Furniture vendors will take back the OCC.
(4) We will bring in a grinder and grind sheetrock for disposal on-site in South Carolina.
It is not yet allowed in North Carolina. For LEED projects, we will typically hire a subcontractor to place roll-offs (on the site) which we can fill with commingled materials
which the sub-contractor will separate and recycle off-site for us.
(6) On non-LEED projects we will typically only recycle metal. For LEED projects we
will recycle sheetrock, metal, concrete, plastic (bottles and shrink wrap only), and OCC.
Clean wood can be a problem because it requires a separate dumpster on-site.
(7) We mulch land clearing debris. We recycle concrete and metal. Typically the
companies delivering material on pallets will take the pallets back with them.
(2) We usually salvage pallets for our own use.
(3) Pallets are a problem for us on small jobs.
Question: What motivates you (your company) to recycle?
(6) Money! Metal is worth recycling and concrete is costly to dispose of. On LEED
projects we recycle because we are required to.
(3) Sometimes we recycle because it is the right thing to do. Carpet and ceiling tiles are
easy and don’t cost much to recycle. A number of our clients will pay a little extra to
have us recycle.
(2) We get good publicity out of recycling, and have gotten some additional projects out
of it, so there is some marketing value. We have had good markets for carpet and ceiling
tiles.
(7) The owner of company has a tendency to not be wasteful, so we try to recycle even if
it is not a LEED project. Sometimes recycling can be good marketing, but cost is
important (to us).
2
Question: How important are the costs of recycling (to your company)?
(4) Important enough to pay attention to the extra cost of recycling, but some customers
like the PR (from recycling).
(3) We will show the additional cost of diversion on our (job) estimate. If recycling
shows less than an increase of 1 or 2 percent, customers will generally agree to it.
(6) We don’t typically cost our waste management on non-LEED projects. (So customers
don’t even have the choice of recycling unless they bring it up.)
(3) We are much more likely to recycle if we have the space for additional dumpsters.
(3) and (4) It is cheaper to pay someone else to deal with all of the logistics and tracking
of recycling, than to do it yourself, especially for LEED certification projects.
(4) More customers have knowledge that landfills are filling up so they want recycling,
but it isn’t worth it to ship recyclables very far.
Question: What are the barriers to recycling?
(4) The location of the job in relation to the markets for the recyclables.
(6) Finding a market for the material and someone willing to take the material.
(7) (Both) Cost and Time (as they equal) Money.
(3) Markets – While gypsum is critical on a LEED project because of weight, it isn’t
worth it to transport it very far as it is still cheaper to landfill it than to recycle.
(4) Why recycle when landfills are so cheap?
(3) and (4) Space can be a real factor (barrier).
Question: How many of you hire someone to separate and recycle off-site?
(6) I hire a low cost young person on-site to separate materials for recycling. I force subcontractors to recycle, but we handle the trash for our sub-contractors.
(4) We no longer allow our subs to throw lunch trash in our dumpsters. We handle all
trash but force subs to meet recycling requirements.
(7) Most projects that we do have enough room to have multiple cans for recycling.
Sometimes it is cheaper to have multiple cans than a single can.
3
(2) Building codes have changed making it difficult to salvage materials since they don’t
meet new building codes. For example, some older doors don’t have fire rated label even
though they are the same as the new doors. (This makes it impossible to salvage this
material.)
(4) Construction waste management is one of the most frustrating parts of my job on
LEED projects. It requires constant supervision and education.
(3) LEED certification paperwork takes more time than the entire time required to bid a
project.
(6) I hire a company to do the LEED documentation.
(3) If I don’t have space to put in multiple cans to keep everything separate, I end up
having to weigh everything separately which is a huge cost and huge amount of
paperwork. (Required of the LEED documentation.)
(2) Even if it is not a LEED project, we still have sorting issues (for recycling).
(4) Recycling is still fairly new in the County, so even if not a LEED project, we can’t
trust them to verify (that the material has been) recycled.
Question: Do you know where your waste and recyclables go?
(6) We have to document for LEED projects. Drywall and plastics are a huge problem in
the County.
(7) (We think that) 90% of material goes to private facilities
(2) BFI or North Mecklenburg landfill are the only places for disposal on the north side
of County.
(6) I don’t know where it goes, wherever CWS takes their stuff.
(2) Don’t go to Foxhole
(4) Don’t go to Foxhole, too expensive
(2) Lake Norman
Question: Have you had material rejected?
(6) Notified that stuff sent to the plastic recycler went to the landfill.
4
(2) Yes with wood. Can’t put wood into an inert debris landfill; only (can put) concrete,
brick, block and dirt, etc. in an inert debris landfill.
(1) Won’t take cable, even at the metal recycler.
(4) I had a load of wood with two soda bottles rejected, so will get a third party like WM
to take it because they own the landfill or have a relationship with the landfill.
Question: What keeps other companies from recycling?
(2) They don’t have the knowledge of markets and what is recyclable.
(3) Some neighborhoods don’t even have household recycling (so they wouldn’t consider
recycling).
(4) Cost.
(6) Cost.
(4) They don’t know about markets for carpet and ceiling tiles.
(3) You have to know people (e.g. locations to take the material) to recycle drywall
(3) Everyone knows that metal is recyclable, but people don’t know gypsum is
recyclable.
Question: What are end uses for wood?
(2) Most goes to mulch.
(4) I don’t know.
(1) Clean wood costs $16 per ton to get rid of.
(3) Most is chipped.
(2) We have sent some for boiler fuel
(6) and (7) Wood goes to Foxhole
Question: What percent of gypsum are you able to recycle?
(6) Only on LEED projects (do we recycle gypsum).
5
(3) They only take non-painted so around one-half, but then only if you have a separate
dumpster.
(6) I require my subcontractors to sort it out, or I charge them for disposal.
(4) If it is a public job I don’t get to choose my subcontractors.
(6) It is more the market for gypsum (than the subcontractors).
(3) Space is also a factor (to the ability to recycle gypsum).
(4) On-site contamination is a huge barrier (to recycling gypsum).
(3) There is lots of illegal dumping in roll-offs, I always pull all (containers) before
Christmas otherwise they are all full (of household trash) after Christmas.
(2) We often have to fence dumpsters to protect against illegal dumping, but in
downtown even fencing isn’t enough.
(3) Training subcontractors is a continual job of education and enforcement.
(6) Just getting subcontractors to use dumpster is hard enough.
6
FOCUS GROUP NOTES
RESIDENTIAL BUILDERS
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
DECEMBER 13, 2007
Facilitated by:
DSM Environmental Services, Inc.
Agenda and Introductions (See outline):
Participants:
(1) Purchasing Department, Medium to Large residential development company. Been
with the company for 15 years
(2) Project Manager, Small infill custom home builder and remodeler, 25 to 50% of
projects are certified green buildings
(3) President, Small contractor, do all business in downtown area, mostly renovations,
30% of our work will be green buildings
(4) Purchasing Manager, medium to large residential developer working in South and
North Carolina. Have national vendor handling our solid waste
(5) Assistant Production Manager, medium sized company, high end homes. Have only
been with the company one year, but am involved in all contracts
(6) Expediter, same company as (5), deal with waste management on-site
(7) General Contractor, Small company (3 employees), build custom homes
Question: What materials do you typically recycle?
(5) Don’t recycle now, but I am here to learn about how I might in the future. I am
interested in recycling.
(4) We recycle concrete on a limited basis.
(6) We try to reuse stuff (e.g. building materials). We take some (materials) to the
Habitat Restore.
1
(3) We recycled metals - we have an informal arrangement with local garages. We also
recycle concrete and brick – we bring it to a place on Route 16 that grinds it for reuse
under slabs. We also recycle some shingles. We don’t recycle wood or gypsum but would
love to find a place to take gypsum.
(2) We do some similar things to (3). We do a lot of salvage. We take timbers and turn
them into flooring. We do a lot of OCC recycling – I drive it downtown myself to
recycle it. We are looking into grinding gypsum to use as a “dust path”. We also put out a
curbside recycling bin for employees to recycle their pop bottles. We try to use scrap
wood as much as possible. We are more successful with ordering less wood and forcing
carpenters to use more of what they have (rather than recycling wood).
(1) We recycle carpet (or have recycled carpet). We did recently do a knock down and we
contracted with a demolition firm to do the recycling.
Question: What motivates you to recycle?
(7) In Florida, where we used to be located it was economical to recycle because of
higher landfill fees, and because it was easy to find people to help you recycle. That was
the motivation there, but not here. Cost is a barrier.
(4) Usually we are not very motivated to recycle. Our work is all about cycle times, we
make money if we can complete a home in 50 days or less. Recycling just adds time to
our projects and (time adds) money. Usually, we are motivated by regulations. It would
also be great if we could find a third party to take the material and recycle it. Our main
focus is to get it off the job site as quickly as possible. However, if there were enough
demand for “green buildings,” that would be an incentive.
(3) Homeowner driven. I will give the homeowner a cost for throwing it away and one
for recycling of certain materials. If homeowner wants to pay the extra cost for recycling
I will do it, otherwise I won’t.
(5) A lot of our jobs are cost plus, so we charge for collection and disposal. We are
getting increased interest from our customers for (addressing) environmental issues, so
we will recycle if they want to pay for it (and it is important to them). We want to take a
leading approach on environmental issues so we are concerned and interested about
positive environmental impact. It is the right thing to do. If the County just made
everyone do it, it would be great.
(2) It levels the playing field if everyone was required to do it (recycle).
(1) We are production driven so are always looking to increase efficiency. If we can
create less waste, we increase efficiency, so we are very organized in our building
construction, but not in our waste management
2
(4) If there were locations throughout the County for recycling of waste material it would
help us to recycle.
(2) We are willing to do it even though it is not very cost effective now, so when markets
for recyclables get better we think we will be ahead of the game.
(4) That is the reason I came to the meeting (to learn more about how to recycle, how we
can get involved).
Question: What are major barriers to increasing recycling?
(7) Information – I don’t know what is available (to help us recycle). Where does the
material go, and what does County have for facilities (recycling drop-offs)? It would be
great to have a single source for all recycling information. I do have the County list, but
that requires me to deal with a whole list of companies, while I would like a single
source/phone number for recycling (all materials).
(3) We need a third party who can handle all our recycling. We can’t handle the logistics
of organizing recycling.
(2) I don’t think it is that much more expensive to recycle, but it is hard to find a third
party to separate the material for recycling.
(5) Recycling is just one more thing for our field supervisors to have to keep track of. It
won’t be a priority for them if it is a hassle for them.
(4) A supervisor with 25 to 30 houses going all at once is not going to give priority to
recycling if it takes any additional time.
(1) And there is no incentive for the superintendent – if it costs him more time it just
makes it worse for him.
(2) Documentation (of recycling activity) just adds time and expense.
Question: How helpful is the waste management industry (e.g. waste haulers)?
(6) Same people who do our Porta Potties do our waste removal. It is easy to just put a
dumpster next to the Porta Potty.
(2) The waste companies see it coming but are really just starting to engage (in the idea
of recycling).
Question: Do you know where your waste goes?
3
(4) North, north Meck, South, Foxhole
(3) Concrete and brick to Tommy Bryce, other waste goes towards Huntsville
(2) Never traced it (don’t know)
(7) Don’t know what landfill it goes to
(5) Wherever Five Points Waste takes it
(4) We have a national contract with one company who comes every day to collect our
waste, but there is no recycling.
Question: Would you put materials in a separate container if there was room?
(2) OCC would be first thing (we would separate), but the biggest thing is that there is so
much illegal disposal in the boxes at the construction site (makes it hard to have a clean
box of material for recycling).
(3) The homeowners themselves (that we are working for) throw their stuff in the
dumpsters.
(2) We now have a clause in our contract prohibiting homeowner trash in our dumpsters.
(7) Wood and drywall would be first materials (we would separate).
(1) It would definitely be the heaviest materials (that we would recycle on the jobsite)
first.
(2) Drywall might be the easiest because it comes all at one time, while OCC waste is
generated throughout the job (making it harder to recycle).
(3) If we are doing a major demolition job we would probably have three dumpsters –
one for concrete and brick, a second for gypsum and plaster, and a third - the rest of trash.
The construction phase is different because everything is spread out, and there isn’t as
much space as with a demo job.
(5) If the separate dumpsters are left over the weekend they will be filled with household
trash.
Question: What if we banned clean wood from disposal?
(5) What do you mean by clean wood. Most wood could have nails in it? How about
painted wood?
4
(4) You better have alternative locations for the material (as there are not enough
locations you can take it now).
(2) Is there any way to sort it out from the rest of the wood? What about MDF, OSB?
(4) What about finger jointed pine?
(3) (I think that) some new companies would spring up to collect it.
(4) It is all about the cycle time, all competing for shortest cycle time.
(5) Time is money; we would need a third party to manage the wood.
(3) At least with a ban there would be a level playing field.
Question: Do you ever recycle plastic film?
(6) We try to reuse what ever we can, but never recycle it.
(2) Same.
Question: What about gypsum?
(2) You cannot grind it and land apply it in NC (so what would you do with it).
(4) Our subcontractors are required to take it back with them or make arrangements for
disposal.
(7) Our subcontractors would have to deal with it.
Question: How much are waste management costs compared to all other costs?
(7) They add up.
(6) The big dumpsters are $600 per pull, but it doesn’t amount to much compared to all
the other costs.
(2) Not much (compared to other costs).
(4) In publicly traded production world trash, they equal about 1% of job costs. We (have
in our) contract(s) that the OCC and drywall are the subcontractors’ responsibility. All
other trash costs are ours
5
(2) We don’t separately account for it, just part of our overhead.
(3) Our subcontractors take the drywall and roofing, and the framing and OCC go in the
dumpster.
Question: What would it take to recycle more?
(4) It has to be required or my competitors will have lower costs.
(3) Key (to recycling) is requiring it for all. (That is) we must have a level playing field.
6