Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4.1.4 King County, WA <br />A ��e��0�{���id��[�s��d��ui�t��e <br />proviso <br />Division prepare a comparative evaluation of waste conversion technologies (i.e. <br />VVTE ino-n -'-�^ and waste After review and comment onthe draft report <br />by the '--oon Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee [MSVM4C) and <br />others, the final report was submitted ho the King County Council on August G,2OO7. <br />Based on the report, MSWMAC made the following recommendations to the Council: <br />1' That the King County Council continue its current policy course toward waste <br />export bv implementing the recommendations inthe Solid Waste Transfer and <br />Waste Export System Plan. <br />2' That every avenue to extend the life of the Cedar Landfill Land� be explored, <br />including increased recycling and partial early waste export, to keep solid <br />waste rates as low a' possible for as long as possible and to provide <br />nnaxirnurn flexibility for long-term planning. <br />3' That no further resources be expended on the study of 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 i' 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 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to identify firms with Qualified <br />Technologies. Qualified Technologies were to be eligible for consideration in the <br />second stepi 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 TPD 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/C08027-01 17 August 1S,2OO8 <br />