Agenda - 12-01-2008 - 3d - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Executive Summary This examination of alternative waste processing technologies (N[T) was undertaken at the behest of the Orange County Board of Commissioners to explore and evaluate alternatives to landfill disposal of the County's municipal solid waste. The purpose of this white paper is to initiate that evaluation and brief the County's solid waste staff, elected officials, Solid Waste Advisory Board, and citizens on state-of-the-art solid waste processing technologies, emerging technologies and their applicability to the County's needs, and the potential of these technologies to contribute to the County's overall solid waste management system. Orange County generated approximately 116,000 tons of waste in FY2006-07, or about 318 tons per day (TPD). Of that material, 62,800 tons or 172 TPD were disposed of in |a'-�||�, an^ 29'�OO tons or 24 percent was naoyded' The County is ��- ' examining ways to achieve its goal of 61 percen t waste reduction, up from their current rate of4Q percent. The County's landfill is projected to close in 2011. The County has decided to manage its future waste using a transfer station and contracting for disposal in an out-of-County landfill as well as examining the feasibility of alternatives. Traditional waste processing technologies now in operation have the potential of managing most of the County's non-recycled waste. Generally, VVTE plants reduce the processed waste tonnage by 75 percent and the volume by 90 percent. This leaves residue, ash, which needs to be |andfi||ed in a permitted Subtitle D landfill. In some states, ash may be used beneficially as alternative daily cover atlandfills. Even at 75 percent reduction by weight, a \NTEfaci|ity has dramatic effect on the amount ofresidual waste. This report examines both proven and unproven waste processing technologies. Table A-2 in the Appendices provides a ' comparison of these various technologies. Waste-to-energy (VVTEl technologies profiled include: rnass-burn/watenwa|| ^ ^ combustion, mass-burn/modular combustion, refuse-derived fuel (RDF)/dedicated boi|ar, and KDF/Ouid bed. Although VVTE plants range in size from 10 to 3,000 TPD in the ~U.S., 71 percent are 500 TPD or larger. Mass-burn/vvabsnwa|| combustion is .the �most prevalent V PT in the U . S .' employed at GS of the 89 facilities. However, no new mass-b-rnVTE facilities have been built in the U.S. for over ten years. Ten VTEfad|ities currently operate in the Mid-Atlantic States region, processing almost 12'000 TPD- North Carolina, New Hanover County owns e 500 TPD plant that produces electricity. In contrast to its smaller presence in the U.S., VTE is an accepted and commonly used waste processing technology worldwide, with 400 facilities i Europe, 100 in Japan, and 70 in other nations such as Taiwan, Singapore, and China. In addition to proven technologies, this report examines the emerging technologies of high-temperature gasification, fluidized-bed combustion, plasma-arc processing, non-thermal anaerobic digestion, and biological fuel production. Although technically not an emerging technology, biological fuel production has not been cornrnmroia||y proven using MSVV as feedstock. The historical and current context for development and use of VVTE in the U.S. is explored, with waste processing technologies currently receiving renewed interest due to: the proven VVTEtrock record, increasing fossil fuel costs, growing interest in renewable energy, a higher ranking in the EPA's waste -rnanagamnent hierarchy, GBB/CO8027-01 ES-1 August 15, 2008