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

Browse Search

composting proposer gave a capital cost of $114,000. These figures were for plants of widely varying sizes and were not standardized' Phase II11 On February 7,2007,the City of Los Angeles released a Request for Proposals(QFP) soliciting � competitive proposals for a development pa for processing MSV utilizing alternative technologies premised on nesouncerecovery. The responsibilities of the development partners vveretofinance, design, build, own, and operate (with the option to' transfer to the City after 20 years) the resource recovery facility, at a throughput rate of 200-1,000 TPD. The facility was expected to provide diversion from landfill of no less than 80 percent of the City's Black Bin (waste) nnabario| delivered to the facility. In addition, the City considered proposals from emerging/experimental technologies that could process less than 2OO tons per day as a potential second facility for testing emerging technologies. The emerging/experimental technology suppliers were to meet requirements outlined by the City in the RFP in order to be considered for the potential testing facility. Proposers of ernenging/expehrnenta| technologies that did not meet those requirements were not evaluated further. & total of 12 technology suppliers submitted applications in August 2007' The City of Los Angeles' Bureau of Sanitation has reviewed the proposals and received prosontationsbythepropooens- The Bureau has conducted site analyses and visits to all facilities and is putting together a recommendation y � b December 2008 of the finalists to be further evaluated. PhaseIII Phase DI will start before the end of the yea: It will include developing contracts for selection and increasing the focus on public outreach. 4.1.3 Los Angeles County, CA Phase I..- Initial Technology Evaluati 12 Beginning in 2004, Los Angeles County conducted a preliminary evaluation of a range of conversion technologies and technology suppliers, and initiated efforts to identify material recovery facilities (MRFs) and transfer stations (TSs) in Southern California that could potentially host a conversion technology facility. A scope of -----=aUon v Loa Angeles County itself was considered important, poimportant, as stakeholders in |e evaluation extended beyond the County and the implications of this effort would be regional. In August 2OO5,the evaluation report was adooted. Phase Iresulted in identification of a preliminary short list of technology suppliers and MRF/TB sites, along with development of long-term strategy for implementation of conversion technology demonstration facility at one of these sites. The County intentionally pursued integrating a conversion technology facility ate MRF/7S site in order to further divert post-recycling residual waste from |and#||ing and take advantage of number of beneficial synergies from co-locating a conversion facility at MRF. z/iNd. 12 Los Angeles County October 2007. Conversion Technology Evaluation Report ~ Phase II - Assessment, GBB/CO8027-01 15 August 15, 2008