Orange County NC Website
4.1.4 King County, WA <br />A proviso to the 2007 King �mn� S�� Waste Division required that the <br />Division prepare a comparative evaluation of waste conversion technologies U.e' <br />NTEindnenabonl and waste export. After review and comment on the draft report <br />by the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (PBVMA[) and <br />others, the final report was submitted tothe King County Cound|on August O,3OO7. <br />Based on the report, MSVMAC made the following recommendations to the Council: <br />1 ���e0ng�u|�C��|��nue�mm���c��e����� <br />' export bv implementing the recommendations intheSo/ |dNasteTranaferand <br />Waste Export System Plan. <br />2 ' That every avenue to extend the life of the Cedar Hills LandfillLandfill be explored, <br />including increased recycling and partial early waste export, to keep solid <br />waste rates as low as possible for as long as possible and to provide <br />nnaxirnurn flexibility for long-term planning. <br />3 That no �/�� ��u�� � expended � �e e�� � incineration <br />' technologies at this time. They believed that there was sufficient information <br />in the report to analyze waste export and incineration technologies at a <br />programmatic level in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan <br />update and its EIS. <br />There were concerns about the practicality of waste conversion technologies in the <br />King County region, and there was a need recognized to continue planning for the <br />existing transfer system and the potential of extending the life of the Cedar Hills <br />4~2 Procurements <br />4.2.1 Frederick and Carroll Counties, MD <br />In May 2006, the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (Authority) began a <br />search for firms with Qualified Technologies to provide WTE facilities for Frederick <br />and Carroll Counties. The Authority was seeking technologies that demonstrated <br />success in the efficient and feasible conversion of MSW into marketable steam, <br />thermal energy, fuel and electricity. Technologies that produced a fuel were to be <br />considered if the fuel had been demonstrated to reliably and efficiently produce <br />energy (Qualified Technologies). The Authority conducted a two-step procurement. <br />The first' step was the kequest for Qualifications (RFQ) to identify firms with Qualified <br />Technologies. Qualified Technologies were to be eligible for consideration in the <br />second step, the Basis of Negotiation (BON). In order to be deemed a Qualified <br />Technology, operating statistics from a reference facility had to be provided, with a <br />minimum of three consecutive years of operating data, including waste processed, <br />energy produced, air emissions and residue generation. <br />The size of each unit could be as small as 100 TPO and as large as 750 TPD. The <br />selection of unit size for each project was to be determined during the BON phase. <br />The Authority understood that there were many new and emerging technologies <br />which convert MSVV into various fuels or energy' However, the Authority is <br />dependent on bond financing for its projects, and the lending community insisted on <br />GBB/CO8027-01 17 August 15, 2008 <br />