Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Minutes - Regular Meeting <br /> Solid Waste Advisory Board <br /> December 6, 2007 <br /> Approved February 7, 2008 <br /> work on that document in the next 60 to 90 days . You' ll see it after that work is done . <br /> Optimistically you' d see it at your March meeting. <br /> Vickers asks what does that do to the other plan that we' re working on with the task <br /> force, what will be the next due date with the State . <br /> Pollock replies June 2009 to stay on the statutory cycle . Two other comments I would <br /> like to make are that some of the commissioners ask why we are doing this . There are <br /> three things - we don ' t like to be out of compliance with our requirements from State <br /> statues, we have no NOVs for operations, and we' d like to keep our same status for <br /> the bureaucratic requirements as well . There is the potential that being out of <br /> compliance could affect some permitting that we might be looking at doing, and there <br /> is a State grant cycle that we sometimes seek money from, the State ' s Division of <br /> Pollution Prevention, and while we might be awarded a grant we would not be able <br /> to receive any funds until we came into compliance . <br /> 4 . Extending Landfill Capacity - Considering Ban or Collection Program Expansions <br /> Wilson states that at a previous Board of Commissioners meeting there was talk about <br /> transfer station siting and initiating a new siting process and Commissioner Nelson <br /> asked if there was a way to extend landfill capacity by considering banning some <br /> materials . I spoke with the county manager and we are preparing a report that will be <br /> expanded a little to include possible program expansions for adding new materials . <br /> Staff will look at a number of materials and access their potential for being banned <br /> and what that might get us . The preliminary conclusion is that some program <br /> modifications may give a little more result. Bans are somewhat tricky because you <br /> want to ban things that are easy to identify such as cardboard or tires as opposed to <br /> smaller items that may come in plastic bags that you can' t see into , and most facilities <br /> don t have the resources to do that. We' re going to look at other program expansions . <br /> Pollock states that you are the advisory board, so we welcome any advice from you <br /> on what path you think we might take, whether it' s a ban path or economic <br /> incentive/ disincentive, or just more recycling opportunities . Historically in our <br /> community since we ' ve started recycling in 1987, every time there has been an <br /> opportunity for recycling, people have jumped all over it. The addition of mixed <br /> paper is a good example . The mixed paper caused an 18 % jump in urban curbside <br /> recycling. The electronics program now recovers more per capita than any program <br /> in the southeast. <br /> There are two schools of thought. One is that in the waste stream now, still 20 % of <br /> what we throw out is newspapers , cans, bottles, magazines, and cardboard that we <br /> are already able to recycle . Do you offer more programs, better education and <br /> outreach, and ask people to bring more stuff forward ? Everything we do demands an <br /> effort and what are they [these residual materials] worth in landfill space savings ? <br /> 2 <br />