SWAG agenda 082514 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Comprehensive Review of S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options v2.1 ES-7 10/22/12 the future for the following reasons: 1) a Town-operated transfer station provides maximum flexibility on where the Town disposes its waste and at what cost; 2) a Town-operated transfer station would promote self-reliance and independence from the decisions of other entities; and, 3) a Town-operated transfer station provides for additional flexibility in handling various waste streams and recyclables in the future. Development, construction, and equipment cost estimates for both a Town-only and Regional facility considered in this study ranged from $2.6 to $3.2 million, with annual operating expenses ranging from $342,000 to $472,000, respectively. Developing a new transfer station would include the following major tasks: a) conducting a siting study; b) potential property acquisition and zoning approvals); c) design and permitting; d) bidding; and, e) construction. - Long-Term, New Transfer Station/Material Recovery Facility (MRF). SCS recommends that the Town not engage in development of a stand-alone MRF at this time for the following reasons: 1) Siting and developing a new stand-alone MRF is not considered to be a productive or an economically viable operation due to prohibitive costs arising from insufficient material quantities (yielding infeasible economies of scale); and, 2) it would have a negative impact on the current regional cooperative recycling strategy with Orange County. However, in the event the Town pursues development of its own transfer station, SCS recommends the Town consider potential adaptation of the facility to include additional equipment and capabilities to enable recovery and processing of yard waste, recyclables and possibly organic wastes. The concept of a co-located MRF and/or vegetative waste composting facility in conjunction with a transfer station could be further refined in conjunction with future siting and design efforts, as appropriate. - Long-Term, Organics Diversion. SCS does not recommend the Town pursue a separate organics collection program at this time; however, the Town should continue to evaluate this conclusion in light of future technology and regulatory changes (e.g., bans on disposal of food waste in landfills). Implementing a Town- managed residential and/or commercial organics collection and diversion program likely would add significant additional expenses to the Town’s solid waste budget. - Long-Term, Waste to Energy and Other Waste Conversion Technologies. Many of the WTE and waste conversion technologies considered in this study appear to be cost prohibitive with the Town’s current and projected quantities of municipal solid waste. Mass burn or refuse derived fuel WTE facilities are proven at the commercial scale; however, they generally require larger waste flows and other economic conditions to be feasible. In addition, the other alternative waste conversion technologies currently under consideration by some municipalities throughout the United States, such as plasma arc, gasification, and anaerobic digestion, have not been proven at a commercial scale with municipal solid waste, and the reported capital, operational and maintenance costs for these technologies vary widely. SCS’s opinion is that regional efforts will be necessary to secure the