Browse
Search
SWAB minutes 040209
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Solid Waste Advisory Group
>
Minutes
>
2009
>
SWAB minutes 040209
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2019 4:40:17 PM
Creation date
1/14/2019 4:39:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
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.
/
16
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 /> April 2, 2009 <br /> Approved May 7, 2009 <br /> Attendance : Jan Sassaman, Linda Bowerman, Al Vickers, Remus Smith, Michelle <br /> Grunwald, Doug Guild, Steve Yuhasz and BJ Tipton <br /> Staff: Gayle Wilson, Blair Pollock, Paul Spire, Hary Howard, Nicole Ard, and Wanda <br /> McCain <br /> Guests : Bob Sallach and Ernie Parker - Olver Inc . <br /> 1 . Opening & Welcome Sassaman states that for the public if you wish to speak please <br /> sign up . We have some business to deal with other than the alternative waste <br /> technologies and transfer station hauling . I would like to wrap those items up by 8030 <br /> ith what they need to deal with . <br /> to give SWAB time to deal w <br /> 2 . Adoption of Minutes from March 5 SWAB meeting Smith moves to accept. <br /> Grunwald 2nd . Passes unanimously <br /> 3 . Board Member Comments None <br /> 4 . Alternative Waste Management Technologies Ernie Parker states that we were asked <br /> to evaluate the long term waste management alternatives that were available . As a <br /> reminder, there was a report done by GBB in August 2008 which looked at many of <br /> these issues and we began by using the GBB report as a baseline . The general findings <br /> of the GBB report concluded that WtE technologies were the only technologies <br /> available for consideration here . The other technologies were judged too risky, <br /> unproven, uncertain, unreliable, or having potential for environmental non- <br /> compliance . Looking at the waste volume for Orange County, around 200 tons / day, <br /> if a WtE facility was constructed to handle that volume the GBB report estimated that <br /> the cost would be a little over $100 / ton, which was not competitive with the landfill <br /> tipping fee, private vendors or likely the new transfer station . <br /> After we looked at the baseline we made a number of contacts with owners and <br /> operators that have real -world experience with WtE . <br /> Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority currently operates three WtE facilities <br /> and is the group that is to build a new WtE plant in 10 - 15 years . The Northeast <br /> Maryland Waste Disposal Authority consists of six counties in Maryland as well as <br /> the city of Baltimore . They have operated WtE facilities for about 25 years . <br /> ided to build a new WtE facility . When they began the process <br /> They have recently dec <br /> they looked, as we are, for all the various alternatives out there and came to the <br /> conclusion for their facility that Mass Burn was the only proven economically feasible <br /> technology . They are building two facilities . One is a replacement facility and the <br /> other is a new site . The site procurement for the replacement facility began in 2006 . I <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.