Browse
Search
SWAB minutes 090408
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Solid Waste Advisory Group
>
Minutes
>
2008
>
SWAB minutes 090408
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2019 4:30:05 PM
Creation date
1/14/2019 4:11:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/4/2008
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Minutes - Regular Meeting <br /> Solid Waste Advisory Board <br /> September 4, 2008 <br /> Approved October 2, 2008 <br /> feedback they want to convey to the BOCC to , or not to, pursue one or more of the <br /> alternatives, park it for ten years, or make no comment at all . <br /> Sassaman states that Barry Jacobs asked the SWAB this past winter to look at the <br /> alternative technologies for handling waste . Essentially this report was done at our <br /> request in response to the request of the BOCC . I expected [at the Commissioners <br /> meeting the other night] that the Commissioners would ask me what the SWAB <br /> thought about it. I have my own ideas but I would like to throw it out to you all . <br /> To summarize, the report indicates that there are two groups of technologies - those <br /> that are currently in use today, particularly the Mass Burn, and the RDF [refuse <br /> derived fuel] and then the emerging technologies, Pyrolosis, Plasma Torch, etc . In the <br /> U . S . the only technologies that are working are the Mass Burn and RDF technologies . <br /> However these technologies, because of the economies of scale, have an economic <br /> tipping point that requires a lot more waste material than we produce on a tons per <br /> day basis . <br /> Vickers states that the report essentially states that demonstrated technologies would <br /> not be economic for the town the size of Orange County . The report also indicated the <br /> other technologies are being hyped again as they were hyped thirty years ago, but no <br /> one made them work right in a real situation. It would not make sense for this <br /> community to experiment and spend a lot of money on development of untried <br /> technology . <br /> Smith states that he is recommending to the Town of Hillsborough that they consider <br /> a consortium for mass burning with the surrounding counties, starting with Orange <br /> ill need this future process for years . No <br /> County . Orange, Durham, and Chatham w <br /> more than I know about it, I know the landfill is filling up . I also know that we will be <br /> producing garbage as long as there are two of us left and we will have to do <br /> something with it. Burning it is the only way with the strict clean air provisions <br /> regulations we have . I ' m in favor of investigating it with some other help . <br /> Hillsborough cannot afford it, Orange County can' t afford it, but maybe Orange, <br /> Durham, Chatham, and Wake could afford it. ' <br /> Norwood states that they will only look at it because a lot of people are making the <br /> comment about not wanting to dump our garbage on someone else but we don' t have <br /> the land or the garbage to do it. We would have to seriously look at what type of offer <br /> to make to chip in. You' d have to start by stating how much garbage you have, how <br /> much would you supplement the building of it, who would want to build it? They <br /> would need to start now to make any real impact. <br /> Grunwald asks is it feasible for Orange County to get into a project that big with a <br /> county as large as Durham without having control of the project. If we' re going to <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.