My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/22/1995
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1995
>
5/22/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:34:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/22/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
BOOK 95 PA jE 15 ! <br />were picking up the tab for them, He suggested a regional landfill <br />with one recycling area. The seventh item he mentioned was vacant <br />land. He felt that the property owners were not being charged for <br />clipping trees, mowing and maintenance, as well as Landfill <br />charges. He then requested a workshop with the Utilities <br />Department and the Solid Waste Disposal District for commercial <br />customers. <br />Director Pinto advised the Board that there is a lot of <br />controversy in the industry about MRF versus curbside recycling. <br />His opinion was that with MRF you are able to get a lot better <br />separation but you get contaminated materials and you lose the <br />quality that the market is looking for today. For instance, if <br />newspapers are contaminated with other types of garbage, the buyers <br />will not buy them; if glass is broken, there is no good way to <br />separate brown from green and buyers need that to be separated. <br />However, there is a trade-off when you look at the elimination of <br />the expense of curbside versus the operation of a MRF. Staff is <br />proposing to look not for a 30% reduction, but for a 70% reduction. <br />However, in order to do that you have to get the people that are <br />going to use the recycled material near the site because. the <br />l:rgest expenses are transportation and handling of the materials. <br />T e success rate of recycling depends on whether you are an <br />accountant or a solid waste engineer. When the success rate of <br />c4rbside recycling is considered, you will hear that if you get 70% <br />of the people participating and you get x amount of tons, that's <br />very, very successful. On the other hand, when you look at cost <br />per ton, probably recycling at curbside is the most expensive, <br />approximately $150 a ton. <br />Chairman Macht wondered about a reasonable amount of <br />separation at the source before it goes to the transport <br />organization, and Director Pinto felt that the best way for <br />reduction in cost is to have a hybrid system where certain• <br />materials come from curbside recycling and then, on top of that, a <br />M�ZF at the Landfill. <br />Commissioner Bird emphasized that, even with the MRF, if you <br />separate out all the recyclables and all you have left is garbage, <br />it still does not eliminate the requirement to line landfills and <br />to withdraw water and process it, because it is going to get <br />contaminated from the garbage. <br />Director Pinto felt that if the County buys the rest of the <br />land being discussed at the Landfill and creates the park being <br />discussed, this County --will never have to see another purchase or <br />MAY 229 1995 <br />� � r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.