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

Browse Search

4.1.2 City of Los Angeles, CA _Phase Po In 2004, the City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation (Bureau) began a study to - t technologies capab|e of processing Black Bin evaluate �4�VV alternative �r�at�n rnahmha| (curbside-collected residential MSV) to significantly reduce the amount of such material going to landfills. The Bureau's overall objective was to select one or commercialized technology to rnVne suppliers to develop a facility using proven an d conn process the Black Bin material and produce usable by-products such as electricity, green fuel, and/or chemicals. The first step of this project was to develop a comprehensive list of potential technologies and suppliers. About 225 suppliers were screened, and 26 suppliers were selected to submit their detailed qualifications to the City. In order to screen the technology suppliers, they were sent brief survey based upon the technology screening criteria. The criteria applied were as follows: ° Waste Treatabi|dy: The supplier was screened on whether they have MSWor similar feedstock processing experience. _ ° Conversion Performance: The supplier was asked if their facility would produrernarketab|ebyproduc±s- • Throughput Requirement: This criterion was already met because the technology passed the technology screen. • Commercial Status: This criterion was already met because the technology aa�adth�technu|ogysrne�n p . • Technology Capability: The supplier was asked if their technology had processed atleast 25 tons per day offeedstock. Of the 26 suppliers requested to submit qualifications, seventeen provided responses. These suppliers and their technologies were thoroughly evaluated, and an Evaluation Report was published in September 2005 with the findings and ranking of the 26 suppliers' technologies that had met the criteria. ARequest for Qualifications ��s��a� ��t� ^ — met the screening criteria. A gaza i|ad technical and economic evaluation of the suppliers that responded to the RFQ was completed. This resulted in the development -of a short list of alternative treatment technology suppliers. In 2006, several suppliers were added to the short list, based on additional screening and a supplemental RF]prooess. As part of the process, the City collected information on capital cost from the suppliers. Based on 10 responses, the capital cost per installed ton for anaerobic d �o �99 OOOto ��O1 OOO' for the range vva� ��O OOO digestion ranged nn ` , , ' ' , , , - to $266,000; for pyrolysis, the range was . �GO , OOO to $221,000; onm mixed waste m Request for Proposals for a Development Partner(s) �� Processing mg Mun ki pa | Solid Waste Utilizing Alternative Technologies premised on Resource Recovery for the City of Los Angeles, February 5, 2007. GBB/C08027-01 14 August 15, 2008