SWAB minutes 030509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board March 5 , 2009 Approved April 2, 2009 three years before the landfill is closing . We have heard ten years as provenheard twenty ten ears as not proven as a new techno logy ,agree on some technology in Europe, Y years on proven technology . Is there any way we can together technologies and benchmarks fro m which we can collectively measure the different *der them or if they' re too new ? whether we can cons feasibility study that we were told what technolo Des were Wilson states that we did a fea ty category * five and which ones were still in the emerging g rY currently viable and effective GBB . They' re in the report from Sassaman states we need one that' s ready in two years . at mi ht be instructive is to ask Peter when the Pollock states that one thing th g Frederick-Carroll project began. Haviland states that it took several years * Once you make the decision that it is 901119 r technologies that hasn' t proven themselves * S . f the eme gin htechnologies haven' t proven themselves . to be Mass Burn or one o The point was well made that the emerging We continue even Waste Management to look at some of these new technologies we that the are sustainable and feasible . I would are not convinced at this point findingout what is reasonablee encourage issuing an RFP and t the eneration numbers of waste or what' s going of Vickers states that when looking a g to be permitted, our curren t waste has changed as we recycle more and more .easilyo like paper [that] are good are out. Plastic bottles and bags the recycled materials 1 p p ut. When we talk about plastics it' s usually film separated at the recoverable ; they are o cess unless they are which are difficult to handle in the recycling Pro the mid.80' s of what' s in the waste , it source . If you look at the numbers present is not the same as what is in the waste today . The characteristics have change the slide you showed of emissions one of the data Sassaman states that to Blue Ridgeto PA' s " Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors) footnotes for AP42 (U .S . E were uncontrolled emissions . It is important for p tie and that you showed, those w if You want to understand that uncontrolled emissions don' t happen � incinera�ohtl y The are controlled . You can control them pretty There are always power plants y into Dilution control equipment, most of the time * put money p down times . Zeller states that in terms of that chart, all these data come from the EPA emissionsof tors . These are the best data available for eachtors are factors for mass burn comb us on lead for these compounds . If you look closely you will see that electrostatic pree it these units and do show a reduced level of pollution data used by installed on some of These These are from the Office of Air Quality Planning • example * 19