Agenda - 12-01-2008 - 3d - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Appendix B Overview of Waste Processing Technologies (WPlF) 1.1 "Proven" Technologies Waste has been converted to beneficial use on a large scale for well over 100 years. Incineration with electric power generation was first applied to MSVV in 1894 in New York City. Since that time, the burning ofMSVV with energy recovery (now known as VVTE) has matured into safe, effective and environmentally acceptable technology. The proven large-scale waste processing methods include incineration and starved- air combustion, as defined below: Incineration: This is the controlled combustion of organic or inorganic waste with more than the ideal air (stoichinnnethu) requirement - excess air - to assure that complete burning occurs. Combustion: Starved Air Starved air incineration utilizes |aas air than conventional incineration, and it produces ash similar in appearance to that from o conventional incineration process. The gases that result are burned in a second chamber. The lower air requirement leads to smaller equipment sizes. This process, however, is an incineration process. Refuse-derived Fuel : An RDF system processes waste by shredding it and removing ferrous metals in preparation for combustion. The removal of non- combustibles can increase the specific heat content by over 10 percent and can allow for revenues from the metals removed. It has been found that recycling, the most preferred waste management option aside from waste reduction, increases when VVTEexiste in the United States aswell as in other countries. As shown in 8ioCvzl*'s "2006 State of Garbage in America," (ht±p://vvvvvv.jgpraas.ozrn/archivag/_jrae/000048,htrn|), most of the states with large energy recovery rates have recycling notes higher than the national recycling average of 28.5 percent.' These recycling rates range from 43 percent in Minnesota (where 21 percent ofthe waste is burned for energy) to 24 percent in Connecticut (where 65 percent of the waste is burned for energy). North Carolina illustrates the inverse with 19 percent recycling and '9 percent combustion for energy. Apparently, where VVTE.axists, there is greater public awareness of waste disposal and the need to deal with waste reduction overall. Other methods of MSVV disposal, such as mixed-waste composting and |andfi||ing, are being used but they are becoming less and less attractive. Mixed-waste composting requires large land areas, creates significant odor, and produces compost that is ||nnitad in its application because of contaminants. Landfi||ing is not a processing technology, it is storage. It also requires large land areas or a large capital investment, generates methane (a greenhouse gas that is more than 20 times as potent ascarbon dioxide, which is generated from VVTE), and creates other 1 BioQLcle includes recycling, composting,. yard waste, VVTE and landfill collection in its figures. EPA reports MSVV from a slightly different source. They include collection receipts for domestic waste and for industrial waste, but their recycling quantities are derived from firms that recycle the waste, such as paper mills or steel plants, rather than from collection data. This difference in methodology from that used byBioc is reflected in the difference in recycling rates in the United States in 2006, which is reported as 32.5% by EPA and 28.596 byBdZg�cle. GBB/C08027-01. B-1 August 15, 2008