Browse
Search
SWAG agenda 042215
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Solid Waste Advisory Group
>
Agendas
>
2015
>
SWAG agenda 042215
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/10/2018 4:35:48 PM
Creation date
9/10/2018 4:24:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
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
N <br />Executive Summary <br />This examination of alternative waste processing technologies (WPT) was undertaken <br />at the behest of the Orange County Board of Commissioners to explore and evaluate <br />alternatives to landfill disposal of the County's municipal solid waste. The purpose of <br />this white paper is to initiate that evaluation and brief the County's solid waste staff, <br />elected officials, Solid Waste Advisory Board, and citizens on state -of- the -art solid <br />waste processing technologies, emerging technologies and their applicability to the <br />County's needs, and the potential of these technologies to contribute to the County's <br />overall solid waste management system. <br />Orange County generated approximately 116,000 tons of waste in FY2006 -07, or <br />about 318 tons per day (TPD). Of that material, 62,900 tons or 172 TPD were <br />disposed of in landfills, and 29,700 tons or 24 percent was recycled. The County is <br />examining ways to achieve its goal of 61 percent waste reduction, up from their <br />current rate of 48 percent. The County's landfill is projected to close in 2011. The <br />County has decided to manage its future waste using a transfer station and <br />contracting for disposal in an out -of- County landfill as well as examining the <br />feasibility of alternatives. <br />Traditional waste processing technologies now in operation have the potential of <br />managing most of the County's non - recycled waste. Generally, WTE plants reduce <br />the processed waste tonnage by 75 percent and the volume by 90 percent. This <br />leaves a residue, ash, which needs to be landfilled in a permitted Subtitle D landfill. <br />In some states, ash may be used beneficially as alternative daily cover at landfills. <br />Even at 75 percent reduction by weight, a WTE facility has a dramatic effect on the <br />amount of residual waste. <br />This report examines both proven and unproven waste processing technologies. <br />Table A -2 in the Appendices provides a comparison of these various technologies. <br />Waste -to- energy (WTE) technologies profiled include: mass - burn /waterwall <br />combustion, mass - burn /modular combustion, refuse - derived fuel (RDF) /dedicated <br />boiler, and RDF /fluid bed. Although WTE plants range in size from 10 to 3,000 TPD <br />in the U.S., 71 percent are 500 TPD or larger. Mass- burn /waterwalI combustion is <br />the most prevalent WPT in the U.S., employed at 65 of the 89 facilities. However, <br />no new mass -burn WTE facilities have been built in the U.S. for over ten years. Ten <br />WTE facilities currently operate in the Mid - Atlantic States region, processing almost <br />12,000 TPD. In North Carolina, New Hanover County owns a 500 TPD plant that <br />produces electricity. In contrast to its smaller presence in the U.S., WTE is an <br />accepted and commonly used waste processing technology worldwide, with 400 <br />facilities in Europe, 100 in Japan, and 70 in other nations such as Taiwan, Singapore, <br />and China. <br />In addition to proven technologies, this report examines the emerging technologies <br />of high- temperature gasification, fluidized -bed combustion, plasma -arc processing, <br />non - thermal anaerobic digestion, and biological fuel production. Although technically <br />not an emerging technology, biological fuel production has not been commercially <br />proven using MSW as a feedstock. <br />The historical and current context for development and use of WTE in the U.S. is <br />explored, with waste processing technologies currently receiving renewed interest <br />due to: the proven WTE track record, increasing fossil fuel costs, growing interest in <br />renewable energy, a higher ranking in the EPA's waste management hierarchy, <br />GBB/C08027 -01 ES -1 August 15, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.