Agenda - 06-30-1997 - 9a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

29 5 3. Estimated cost of tipping fees at a materials recovery facility that could be publicly or ,privately owned and operated and sited at or near a disposal facility owned by the Owners Group. With no reduction in solid waste collection costs, we note that the overall system cost is greater than in the current solid waste system. Cost per ton recycled by Orange Community Recycling drops from $152 to $140 per ton. (See shaded area of table). The system we have presented is estimated to meet the 50% mixed waste reduction goal set by the Owners Group members. In this new system, we show no reduction in solid waste collection costs although there is a reduction of 37% from the amount of solid waste now collected. We do not know how each collector will respond to the reduced volumes. Cost savings likely to be achieved could be applied to implementation of additional waste prevention measures. Continuing to provide the same level of service to a smaller volume of waste will result in tipping fee savings as shown in the reduction in landfill costs in the third column of the table, but not necessarily a reduction in collection costs. Each collector may respond differently to the reduced waste volume that could result from implementation of this system. B. Measuring Progress towards the waste reduction goal Last year the Owners Group adopted a 50% waste reduction goal based on a 1988-89 benchmark of 1,526 pounds of mixed solid waste per capita. This excludes construction waste, coal ash and brush. Using that benchmark, solid waste generation per capita has dropped 28% by 1995-96 to 1,093 pounds per capita. This calculation is based on landfilling 57,889 tons of mixed solid waste at Orange Regional Landfill by a population estimated by the County Planning Department at 105,900 as of July 1, 1996. The proposed recycling and waste prevention system outlined in this attachment could further reduce mixed solid waste to an estimated level of 768 pounds per capita thus meeting the 50% goal for mixed solid waste. The goal does not include construction and demolition wastes. While the Owners Group has adopted a goal of 25% reduction for construction and demolition wastes, no actions have been taken which would move us towards that goal. Additionally, the member governments have not adopted that 25% goal. Without a stated plan for meeting the goal for construction and demolition wastes,that this material will be counted against the overall goal. Thus even with a further reduction estimated at 17,230 tons from the mixed solid waste fraction, if there were no reduction in construction and demolition waste below the 31,000 tons per year now landfilled,this construction and demolition waste would more than cancel out the reduction in mixed solid waste. As part of the overall integrated solid waste plan we recommend that the Owners Group reconsider development of a plan for reducing construction and demolition wastes so it is not counted against our waste reduction goal established for mixed solid waste.