Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Minutes - Regular Meeting <br /> Solid Waste Advisory Board <br /> April 2, 2009 <br /> Approved May 7, 2009 <br /> Pollock asks regarding air quality -- typically the profiles that I' ve seen shown of high- <br /> performing plant show high levels of oxides of nitrogen because they burn at a really <br /> high temperature and destroy most other pollutants, I don' t know if you looked into <br /> areas like we are in, an ozone non-attainment areas, and areri t oxides of nitrogen <br /> precursors to that, if that has been an limiting factor in siting processes . <br /> Parker states that I have not heard of that. Most of the two year permitting process <br /> for these plants is air permitting . That has to be looked at very closely . I would <br /> believe that a lot of that work would be done up front for a particular site to go <br /> through the years of procurement. I have had comments from a number of sources <br /> that WtE plants are held to a much higher standard than coal burning power plants <br /> and they believe they are held to a very high standard and are proud of that. If it <br /> comes to non- attainment areas and exactly how that fits I can' t say . <br /> Public Comments <br /> Carolyn Cole states that I discovered that the state of Massachusetts was going <br /> through a similar process . There is a report that they issued in December 2008 that <br /> might benefit the Board . I emailed it to Jan and Gayle . It is a fairly large report but I ' d <br /> like to make a few comments on it. In the Assessment of Materials Management <br /> Options for the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan Review" the key piece is their <br /> number one finding from a life -cycle environmental emissions energy perspective <br /> [that] source reduction recycling and composting are the most advantageous <br /> management options for all materials in waste stream that is (sic) recyclable and <br /> compostable . It speaks to enhanced recycling . From a life-cycle, net energy <br /> perspective, waste diversion through recycling provides the most benefit, saving an <br /> id waste . When you look at the other options <br /> estimated 2, 250 kilowatts per ton of sol <br /> WtE, incineration, gasification and pyrolysis those have the energy potential for 585 to <br /> 660 kilowatts per ton compared to recycling which has 2, 250 . They also state after you <br /> maximize diversion through source reduction, recycling and composting they <br /> suggested to the state of MA that they monitor developments regarding alternative <br /> waste technologies that produce energy because they are not ready for prim <br /> They They specifically targeted gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion. <br /> 1 know that Orange County has led the State in its efforts for recycling and has <br /> achieved a lot. Having listened to everything that has been said and seeing how <br /> difficult it is to develop a WtE alternative that seems to fit our political situation, our <br /> time, and our physical considerations, I would urge the Board to continue its thrust <br /> toward recycling, to continue to explore that to expand the existing commercial food <br /> waste recycling to include other large vendors, to study the feasibility of household <br /> separation of organic waste, and use that and combine that with any other logical <br /> recycling composting possibilities . <br /> 6 <br />