Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-16-1997 - 9c
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1997
>
Agenda - 04-16-1997
>
Agenda - 04-16-1997 - 9c
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2013 3:56:51 PM
Creation date
7/16/2013 3:56:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/16/1997
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9c
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19970416
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
3 7 <br /> • The key new.elements presented in the table for attachment 4 are the costs of additions and <br /> expansions to recycling programs and the resulting reductions in mixed waste disposal per capita <br /> achieved due to implementation of these programs (shaded sections). In order to show a more <br /> complete picture of solid waste management system costs, we have also included estimates of <br /> current collection costs for mixed waste, yard waste and bulky goods, and mixed waste disposal <br /> costs. A detailed description of the attached table's new system elements follows the table. <br /> We have shown a suggested level of service for each addition and expansion to the current <br /> recycling programs. Cost estimates in Attachment 4 are based on those projected levels of <br /> service. Program expansions include: <br /> • Enhanced urban residential recycling (new materials). This would include a two bin system <br /> with weekly collection for all types of paper in one bin and all types of cans and bottles in the <br /> other. Commingled recyclables would be sorted at a materials recovery facility instead of <br /> truckside as they are now. <br /> • Universal and enhanced rural residential recycling. This would include a two bin system as in <br /> urban residential recycling except with collection every other week. <br /> • Universal commercial recycling collection through either weekly commingled collection <br /> from office buildings, primarily in dumpsters but from some smaller businesses in carts. <br /> Source-separated glass and food waste collection would be undertaken from bars and <br /> restaurants where volume justified such service. Glass would be banned from commingled <br /> recycling due to its potential to contaminate other recyclables, especially paper. <br /> • Expanded and enhanced multifamily recycling collections to serve all multifamily complexes <br /> and add new materials. Each multifamily dumpster site would have recycling carts instead of <br /> the one-third of sites that now have recycling. <br /> • Additional non-regulatory waste prevention efforts including especially expanded education <br /> programs. <br /> • A materials recovery facility would be needed to process the materials and its annualized <br /> operating costs, including amortized capital, are included in the new system cost estimate. <br /> As indicated in attachment 4, implementation of the above additions would cost about an <br /> additional $2,050,000 per year and would collect and process an estimated additional 17,230 tons <br /> of materials. The cost per ton for handling the additional materials would be an average of$119 <br /> compared to an avearge cost of $152 per ton for current programs. Total costs for the new <br /> recycling system provided by Orange Community Recycling (OCR) would be around $3,575,000 <br /> for 25,577 tons of materials, or $140 per ton for collection and processing. We note that these <br /> system costs assume no net revenues from sale of recycled materials nor do the cost estimates <br /> ascribe those costs to any entity or entities. <br /> We have estimated that the additional waste diversion that results from implementation of the <br /> system described above and in the table could move us toward the already..adopted 5090 <br /> reduction in per capita mixed waste disposed when compared to our base year of 1988-89. This <br /> waste reduction does not include construction and demolition waste which accounts for around <br /> 1/3 of our waste stream. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.