(Continued from Page 1 ) final action taken by

(Continued from Page 1 )

final action taken by the Planning District 9 Commissioners at their January 24 meeting was to leave the idea open for future consideration.

Reached by phone, Bob Schwartz, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, said the regional approach was a “good idea” but that it was “not feasible in the foreseeable future.” His reason: A rural area, such as PD 9, doesn’t produce the volume of waste necessary to create enough energy to make a waste-to-energy facility worthwhile.

Schwartz also ruled out the possibility of a regional landfill, centrally located. He said it would not be feasible to haul trash such great distances.

Referring to Latham’s presentation, Schwartz said “Dick (Latham) is right, we’ve got to do something with trash other than bury it.” He cited the high cost and problems of space involved in landfills. But again he noted that, at the moment, no better alternative to a landfill exists for a rural area.

Schwartz made one concession to the regional approach. He welcomed the idea of a mobile tire-shredder to be used by the five counties of Planning District 9.

In concluding that a landfill is the most practical means of waste disposal for PD 9 counties, Schwartz concurs with a 1982 study entitled Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, prepared by the Planning District Commission. The study was distributed at the January 24 PD 9 meeting; a section of its conclusion reads “Despite the abundance and attractiveness of solid waste disposal systems in operation today, landfilling remains the best technique for PD 9 localities in the foreseeable future. Environmentally, there is an abundant availability of acceptable land for landfills in the District. There is not enough waste production and there is a lack of available markets to support energy recovery and incineration systems.”