Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
ORANGE COUNTY <br />BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br />ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br />Meeting Date: October 7, 2008 Action Agenda <br />Item No. <br />SUBJECT: Solid Waste Process Technology Assessment <br />Fs <br />14iUALOAkills <br />ATTACHMENT(S): <br />SWAB Recommendation <br />Final Report — Solid Waste Process <br />Technology Assessment (Under <br />Separate Cover) <br />PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No <br />INFORMATION CONTACT: <br />Gayle Wilson, 968-2885 <br />PURPOSE: To present an assessment report of solid waste processing technologies (WPT) as <br />possible alternatives to landfilling as a primary means of waste disposal. <br />BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners requested that an assessment of <br />alternative solid waste processing technologies be conducted and referred this request to the <br />Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB). At its February 7, 2008 meeting, the SWAB discussed <br />methods and rationale for evaluating alternative technologies. At the April 3, 2008 SWAB <br />meeting, an outline for a scope of work was adopted and utilized to develop a final scope of <br />work for Olver, Inc. In late April, staff authorized Olver, Inc. and its sub-consultant, GBB, Inc., to <br />proceed with the Waste Processing Technology Alternative Study. At the June 24 BOCC <br />meeting, a status report was provided. GBB, Inc. provided a presentation on the draft final <br />report to the SWAB at its August 7 meeting. <br />The consultant in the report concludes: <br />• the quantity of Orange County post diversion solid waste available for WPT is much less <br />than would support or justify any of the alternative technologies available or considered <br />in the report, . <br />• even with about 35% more waste available to process, the cost at least $100 per ton, <br />� <br />would be significantly greater and include more variability risk hen compared to th <br />approximately current $50 per ton for landfilling, <br />• the same principle of economies-of-scale apply to WPT as to transferring and land filling, <br />• residue/ash and by-pass material would still require disposal by land filling or, if feasible, <br />another alternative use, <br />• partnering with adjacent governments may provide the necessary quantity of waste <br />available to make a WPT project financially viable, <br />