Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
CUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> BACKGROUND <br /> This Working Paper(Working Paper#3) is the third step in evaluating solid waste management <br /> options for the Orange Regional Landfill Owners' Group (LOG). In Working Paper #1, <br /> potential options and evaluation criteria were presented for the LOG's consideration. Based on <br /> Working Paper#1 and follow-up meetings, the LOG, with input from the Citizens' Solid Waste <br /> Advisory Committee (CSWAC) selected five waste prevention options, three collection system <br /> options, and four processing options. The LOG also selected evaluation criteria to be used when <br /> analyzing these options. <br /> Working Paper #2 evaluated each of the solid waste management options independently based <br /> on the evaluation criteria selected. Each option was scored based on the weights assigned to <br /> evaluation criteria by the LOG. Once this analysis was complete, the LOG combined the options <br /> into three solid waste management systems. <br /> This document, Working Paper #3, evaluates solid waste management systems. Each of these <br /> systems includes several waste prevention options, a collection option,and one or two processing <br /> options. <br /> SYSTEMS EVALUATION <br /> Systems Selected <br /> Tables ES-1, ES-2, and ES-3 show the three solid waste management systems that the LOG <br /> selected for evaluation. In order to gain a more precise analysis, the LOG worked to clearly <br /> define the specific elements of each of the three systems. For example, for each system, the <br /> LOG clearly defined which sectors and jurisdictions received which collection services. This <br /> allowed for a narrower range of diversion potential and costs. These decisions are incorporated <br /> into the descriptions at the beginning of each of the following sections. It is important to note <br /> that these systems were defined solely for evaluation purposes. None of these are necessarily <br /> the systems that will be implemented, without changes, by the LOG. <br /> To allow analysis of the systems, it was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding future <br /> events. The attempt was made to best estimate future events and still provide sufficient <br /> variability between systems to reflect the impacts of changes in the future (market conditions, <br /> social and economic changes). For example, currently a market exists for many paper materials. <br /> A best estimate of future events is that this market will continue. Therefore, it may be best to <br /> assume that there is a demand for paper materials (recyclables). However, one of the distinct <br /> advantages to having an organics composting facility compared to a yard waste mulching facility <br /> is that non-marketable paper from the Material Recovery Facilty (MRF) can still be diverted <br /> from the waste stream. Therefore, in System 1, it was assumed that a significant portion of the <br /> paper collected in the commingled stream was non-marketable. In System 2, the quantity of <br /> NOR/K\WP\10790\RPKDL001.WP S-1 09/95 <br />