Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br />6 <br />Orange County/Report/Final Report <br />Section 3 <br />Results <br />3.1 Introduction to Results <br />Unless otherwise stated, all results presented in this section are expressed in percentage by weight. <br />The percentages included in the tables and figures are the mean values for each material category. <br />Where appropriate, the tables also provide the 90 percent confidence intervals for each material <br />category. The confidence interval indicates that with a 90 percent level of confidence the actual <br />arithmetic mean is within the upper and lower limits shown.4 This provides an understanding of how <br />much variation occurred in the quantity of that material category found in the samples sorted. <br />Generally, the more homogeneous the waste stream and the greater the number of samples sorted, <br />the higher the level of accuracy achieved and the narrower the margin between the upper and lower <br />bounds of the confidence interval. <br />For the purposes of discussion and analysis, materials were grouped into 4 broad categories: <br /> Program recyclables: These are materials that are accepted in the County’s recycling <br />program. <br /> Potential recyclables/reusables: These are materials that could be diverted through other <br />means than the County’s single stream recycling program such as hazardous waste collection <br />programs, clothing donations, scrap metal recycling, etc. <br /> Compostables: These materials could potentially be composted through a food <br />scraps/organic composting program. This includes packaged food waste, which would <br />require some processing to de-package the material and remove the non-compostable <br />components. For the purpose of this discussion, the weight of the package is considered <br />minimal compared to the weight of the food waste. <br /> All Other Waste: The materials are one for which recycling, recovery, or reuse options are <br />not readily feasible for the County. <br />3.2 Aggregate MSW <br />Figure 3-1 depicts the annual composition for countywide Aggregate MSW. Table 3-1 shows the <br />Aggregate MSW composition for the fall and spring sorts and the annual composition. Table 3-2 <br />shows the annual data by sector. <br />Key findings from the aggregate data include: <br /> Over 20 percent of Aggregate MSW consisted of program recyclables. The multi-family <br />sector had a greater percentage of program recyclables than the other two sectors. The fall <br />MSW stream had a higher percentage of program recyclables than the spring MSW stream, <br />which was consistent for nearly all types of program recyclables. <br /> <br />4 Because this is a statistical analysis, the lower end of the confidence interval may be a negative number. <br />DocuSign Envelope ID: 00C54720-9DC0-4A3D-ABED-77E0FD28E0CD