Browse
Search
Agenda - 12-01-2008 - 3d
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2008
>
Agenda - 12-01-2008
>
Agenda - 12-01-2008 - 3d
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2013 10:50:27 AM
Creation date
12/1/2008 4:37:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/1/2008
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
3d
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20081201
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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
5, VVTE has a smaller carbon footprint than <br />landfilling or fossil-fuel generated electriCity7. <br />6. The 2007 Supreme Court decision in the Oneida- <br />Herkimer case8 <br />ms|y restored to city and local governments the ability <br />to implement Movv control, increasing the security of the waste atnaarn to <br />support the financing ofVVTE projects. <br />7' Long distance transfer and disposal getting. more expensive. <br />These and other local considerations have led a growing number of communities to <br />re-investigate waste processing technologies as a component of their solid vvasba <br />management systems. The following sections describe several of the naoant <br />initiatives to evaluate and choose waste prouassingtachno|ogies - VVTEand others- <br />to handle significant waste streams in the future. At the end of Section 4.0 is a <br />summary of the technologies and vendors selected through these� evaluation <br />processes that represent the most promising alternatives for adopting VVTE as a <br />waste disposal 6ption. <br />4~1 Recent Research <br />4.1~1 New York City, NYe <br />In 2004, the City ofNevv York con�rn��oned a report to evaluate navv and emerging <br />wastennan' -anleotandrecvdingtachno|ogieaandappn)achos. The objective ofthe <br />evaluation was to provide information to assist the City in its ongoing planning <br />efforts for its waste management system. The report identified which innovative <br />technologies were available atpresent, i.e', commercially operational processing of <br />MSVV, and which were promising but in an earlier stage of development. It also <br />compared the newer technologies to conventional VVTE technology to identify the <br />potential advantages and disadvantages that may exist in the pursuit of innovative <br />technologies. Conventional VVTE was chosen as a point of comparison since such <br />technology was the most widely used technology available at the time for reducing <br />the quantity of!andfi||ed post-recycled waste. <br />The report was released in September 2004. 44 companies responded to the initial <br />request for information. The City has commenced a siting Task Force to look atthe <br />five boroughs to identify site on which to build a pilot facility. Once the site has <br />beeh identified, an RFP � will be issued based on the specifications and condition of the <br />site and will be made available toall proven and unproven technology vendors. <br />As part of the process, the City collected information on capital cost from the <br />suppliers. Based on six responses, the capital cost per installed ton for anaerobic <br />digestion ranged from $74,000 (586 TPD) to $82,000 (500 TPD); for gasification, the <br />range 'was �155,OOO (2,612 TPD) to $258,000 (2,959 TPD)| one plasma arc <br />� <br />gasification response gave a capital cost of $321,000 (2, 729 TP[). These figures <br />were for plants of widely varying sizes and were not standardized. <br />/Thorne|oe, Susan A, Weitz, Keith A, Nishta|a, Subba R-, YnrkoskY, Sherry, and Zanes, <br />Maria. "The Impact ofMunicipal Solid Waste Management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in <br />the United States." Journal of the Air & Waste ..Manaciement Association 52 (Septe <br />2002): 1000-1011. <br />8 United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, Nu. 05- <br />1345,ZOO7VVL1237912(U.S. April 3O,2O07). <br />» Evaluation of New and Emerging Solid Waste Management Technologies, September 16, <br />2004. <br />GBB/CO8027-01 13 August 15, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.