Agenda - 11-09-1999 - 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Chapter 1 of the report estimates percentages of various materials in the C &D waste stream, based on three separate analyses conducted in 1990, 1995 and 1996. From the average of the three studies we estimated about 43% of the waste is inert including brick rock dirt and concrete, 32% is wood of all types including 20% recyclable, and 12% painted and treated wood, 12% is drywall and 2.5% metal. We outline how these potentially recyclable fractions of the waste could be managed. We project C &D waste for a 20 year planning horizon. Assuming a 10% waste reduction over time, the C &D stream remains in the 30,000 ton per year range. On a per capita basis, this means that C &D waste generated falls 34% per person to 464 pounds per year compared with the base year of 1991, when it was estimated at 699 pounds per person per year. Achieving our adopted 61% reduction goal would put it at 273 pounds per capita and require significant additional effort to reach. Chapter 2 discusses temporary, relatively short-term options for C &D management. If the vertical expansion we are seeking is approved, the time frame to implement even the remaining short-term options is lengthened to the point where we may not need to implement them, if we proceed with deliberation on long -term solutions. If the C &D area of the landfill closes we could combine C &D with MSW shortening the projected life of the MSW landfill by two years. We could suspend acceptance of C &D at our facility and thereby forgo $113,000 per month in revenue, risk increased illegal dumping and incur mixing of C &D with MSW. A fourth short-term option would be to haul C &D to Durham's transfer station. No formal arrangements have been made for this option and we are aware that the Durham Transfer station's ability to accept any additional waste is very limited to non - existent at this time. Finally, we could develop a short-term, six -year C &D landfill site to coincide with closure of the MSW landfill. There are no obvious advantages to this approach and it would entail all the siting and development requirements of any larger facility. Chapter 3 describes what we consider long -term options for C &D management. Those include selection of the Eubanks 33 acre site, permanently ceasing C &D management, building a C &D -only transfer station, building a joint MSW /C &D transfer station, continuing to try regional solutions, and initiating a new site search. The Eubanks Road site is the only one remaining from the last two site search processes conducted over the past two years. The site is small, of limited life, readily available and easily made operational due to ability to integrate into the current operation. Permanently ceasing C &D operation is obviously the least expensive approach but would result in annual revenue loss of $1.3 million and clearly increase costs to builders and haulers in the County for C &D disposal. It is possible to build a C &D -only transfer station but the material is bulky, hard to compact, abrasive on both processing and hauling equipment and, tellingly, there are no C &D -only transfer stations in the nation of which we are aware. Integrating C &D into a