SWAG agenda 042215 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

42 5. Concern About Greenhouse Gases - WTE has a smaller carbon footprint than landfilling or fossil -fuel generated electricity'. 6. Reversal of Carbone - The 2007 Supreme Court decision in the Oneida - Herkimer case$ effectively restored to city and local governments the ability to implement flow control, increasing the security of the waste stream to support the financing of WTE projects. 7. Long distance transfer and disposal getting more expensive. These and other local considerations have led a growing number of communities to re- investigate waste processing technologies as a component of their solid waste management systems. The following sections describe several of the recent initiatives to evaluate and choose waste processing technologies - WTE and others - to handle significant waste streams in the future. At the end of Section 4.0 is a summary of the technologies and vendors selected through these evaluation processes that represent the most promising alternatives for adopting WTE as a waste disposal option. 4.1 Recent Research 4.1.1 New York City, NY9 In 2004, the City of New York commissioned a report to evaluate new and emerging waste management and recycling technologies and approaches. The objective of the evaluation was to provide information to assist the City in its ongoing planning efforts for its waste management system. The report identified which innovative technologies were available at present, i.e., commercially operational processing of MSW, and which were promising but in an earlier stage of development. It also compared the newer technologies to conventional WTE technology to identify the potential advantages and disadvantages that may exist in the pursuit of innovative technologies. Conventional WTE was chosen as a point of comparison since such technology was the most widely used technology available at the time for reducing the quantity of landfilled post - recycled waste. The report was released in September 2004. 44 companies responded to the initial request for information. The City has commenced a siting Task Force to look at the five boroughs to identify a site on which to build a pilot facility. Once the site has been identified, an RFP will be issued based on the specifications and condition of the site and will be made available to all proven and unproven technology vendors. As part of the process, the City collected information on capital cost from the suppliers. Based on six responses, the capital cost per installed ton for anaerobic digestion ranged from $74,000 (586 TPD) to $82,000 (500 TPD); for gasification, the range was $155,000 (2,612 TPD) to $258,000 (2,959 TPD); one plasma arc gasification response gave a capital cost of $321,000 (2,729 TPD). These figures were for plants of widely varying sizes and were not standardized. ' Thorneloe, Susan A., Weitz, Keith A., Nishtala, Subba R., Yarkosky, Sherry, and Zanes, Maria. "The Impact of Municipal Solid Waste Management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States." Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 52 (September 2002): 1000 -1011. 8 United Haulers Assn., Inc. _v. Oneida- Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, No. 05- 1345, 2007 WL 1237912 (U.S. April 30, 2007). 9 Evaluation of New and Emerging Solid Waste Management Technologies, September 16, 2004. GBB/C08027 -01 13 August 15, 2008