Agenda - 10-07-2008 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5' VTE h ps a smaller carbon footprint than landfilling or fossil-fuel aneratade|ectr,»n/' 6. Reversal of Carbo - The 2007 Supreme Court decision in the Oneida- Herkimer case'3 effectively restored to city and local governments the ability no implement flow control, increasing the security of the waste stream to support the financing ofVVTEprojects. 7. Long distance transfer and disposal,,getting more_expen These and other local considerations have led a growing-number of communities tm 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 - VVTE 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 VVTE as a waste disposal option. 4.1 Recent Research 4.1.1 New York City, NYe In 2004, the City of New York commissioned a report to evaluate new and emerging waste management and necvdingtechnologies and approaches. The objective ofthe 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 MSVV, and which were promising but in an earlier stage of development. It also compared the newer technologies to conventional VVTE technology to identify the potential advantages and disadvantages that may exist in the pursuit ofinnovative technologies. Conventional VVTE was chosen as a point ofcomparison since such technology was the most widely used technology available at the time for reducing the quantity of|andfi||ed post-recycled waste. The report was released in September 2004. 44 companies responded to the |nUba| request for information. The City has commenced a siting Task Force to look at the five boroughs to identify 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 toall proven and unproven technology vendors. As part of the — process ' the City collected information on capital cost from the oupo||�ns. Based on six responses, the capital cost per installed ton for anaerobic digestion ranged from $74,000 (506 TPD) to $82,000 (500 TPD)} for gasification, the range was �1�5,OOO �2,612 TPDl 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. 7 �� N�� Sub�� Ya��k�S�n�a�Zam� Thorneioe, Susan A., VVeh�, , ' , Maria. "The Impact ofMunicipal Solid Waste Management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States." Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 52.. (Septembe 2002): 1000-1011. 8 United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, No. 05- 1345 2OO7VVL1237Q12(U.S.Ap�|3O,2OO7). » Evaluation of New and Emerging Solid Waste Management Technologies, September 16, 2004. GBB/CO8037-01 13 August 15,2OO8