Orange County NC Website
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Minutes - Regular Meeting <br /> Solid Waste Advisory Board <br /> September 4, 2008 <br /> Approved October 2, 2008 <br /> the lead on a hazardous waste incinerator and a low level radioactive waste site that <br /> were disasters . <br /> Pollock notes that the companies who might have used the hazardous waste <br /> incinerator found it cheaper to eliminate hazardous wastes . The economics of <br /> reducing waste may become more favorable than burning it too . One point that <br /> Gershman made is that you should make less garbage rather than invest in an <br /> incinerator . <br /> Vickers states that if building and operating the transfer station affects the tax rate <br /> they may pay more attention . <br /> Sassaman states that the question is still what sort of answer if any do we wish to give <br /> to the BOCC . <br /> Grunwald states that we need a lot of future discussion but right now there are too <br /> many very important issues that need to be finalized . We are almost in an emergency <br /> situation with the transfer station we don' t need to be wondering off on things that <br /> wi11 come up 10 - 20 years from now . We have to stay focused . <br /> Vickers states that the Commissioners have to know that there is no immediate <br /> solution other than doing the transfer station for the next 5 - 10 years . We cannot say <br /> ' the sky is falling' when it' s not. The time is not right, now . <br /> Sassaman asks how long it took the landfill gas issue from first mention to get serious . <br /> Pollock replies 1997. <br /> Sassaman states the first issue is do we recommend that this issue of alternative waste <br /> processing technologies stay on the table ? Or take it off and let them take it up again <br /> ten years from now ? <br /> Norwood states that because of how long it takes to teach us or the commissioners <br /> things, since it is going to be the issue down the road, the more we expose them to this <br /> [idea] , the more easier and educated they will be . I think we should keep it on the <br /> table . <br /> it stays on the table the next question is do we think Sassaman states that assuming <br /> the glitzy technologies may become viable and the way to go by the time we are going <br /> to need to do something or do we focus on the tried-and-true like Mass Burn and <br /> RDF? <br /> 9 <br />