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

Browse Search

transfer station designed for MSW is also possible but with a ratio of 2:1 MSW to C &D, the station would still face the operational difficulties outlined in the C &D only option. Regional solutions appear attractive, but we have been unsuccessful in eight years of attempting to apply them to our solid waste problems. We continue to investigate the options and our upcoming "Future Search" planned for February 2000 will bring together 70 people from throughout the Triangle to envision long -term solid waste management solutions and then set plans to implement them. While we are optimistic about the process, we view its potential for success over a longer term than we are able to wait. We are also uncertain about the ability of this diverse set of interests throughout the Triangle to meet our immediate C &D management needs. Finally, it is possible to initiate a new site search. If that were the Board's decision, we believe it would be necessary to move ahead quickly, even with the potential for 18 additional months of life at the current site. We believe, based on recent experience, that another site search could cost $200,000 or more. Chapter four summarizes three years of previous C &D research and details some strategies for C &D reduction. The strategies are broken into regulatory approaches and physical recycling measures. The regulatory approaches would mandate source - separation of targeted recyclables including wood and metal with concomitant landfill bans and incentive fees to reinforce separation by builders and haulers of C &D. Recycling options include providing methods and facilities to accept source - separated or mixed materials. Costs for managing source- separated materials are much less than for separating and managing mixed materials at a centralized site. Markets for C &D recycling are typically low -value and economically limited at this time to metal, wood and drywall. In our piedmont region, availability of high quality rock and dirt for construction especially limits markets for inert materials, the largest part of the C &D waste. Equipment for centralized processing is expensive and successful facilities elsewhere that handle mixed material typically manage far more tonnage than our current and projected C &D waste stream. We believe the optimal approach would be one that integrated regulations, economic incentives and processing capacity. Chapter five and six outline immediate future steps for C &D management. The Board is prepared to appoint a limited- duration task force specifically to examine the options for C &D management. We understand that the BOCC may use the recommendations of this task force to inform its future decision - making on C &D management. We await the BOCC's guidance on how it wishes to pursue C &D management for Orange County.