Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
ORANGE COUNTY <br />BOARD- OF COMMISSIONERS <br />ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br />Meeting Date: December 1, 2008 Action Agenda <br />Item No. <br />SUBJECT: Solid Waste Process Technology Assessment <br />DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No <br />ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: <br />SWAB Recommendation <br />Final Report — Solid Waste Process Gayle Wilson, 968-2885 <br />Technology Assessment <br />(Under Separate Cover) <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 work <br />for Olver, Inc. In late April staff authorized Olver, Inc. and their 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. conducted a presentation of the draft final <br />report to the SWAB at its August 7 meeting. The BOCC received the Final Report and a SWAB <br />recommendation at its October 7, 2008 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 in <br />the report, cost, at least $100 per ton, <br />• even with about 35% more waste available to process, the co <br />would be significantly greater and include more variability risk when compared to the <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 />