Urban Infilling Affects
Solid Waste Facilities
Dear Editor:
SCS Engineers and the University of Central Florida are currently studying the impacts of urban growth and redevelopment on operating solid waste facilities. As new residential and commercial development takes place with urban infilling, nuisance complaints are becoming an increasing reality in many areas of the nation.
Our research to date shows that many facilities have been forced to close prematurely, resulting in a loss of solid waste capacity and increased cost of solid waste disposal. We are currently engaged in documenting instances where solid waste facilities have been impacted and in gathering environmental measurements on operating facilities.

The objective of our research is to collect scientific and quantifiable data supporting setbacks and buffer zones as a function of solid waste operations. This study is being funded in part by the William W. “Bill” Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management at the University of Florida, Pinellas County, FL, and the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, FL.

We are interested in the following information or data for our research study:

• Does your community have a zoning or land-use amendment process that specifically limits development or redevelopment adjacent to operating solid waste facilities?
• What setbacks or buffering requirements are noted in this ordinance?
• What steps must be taken by the proposed developer in notifying residential, commercial, or industrial property owners of the operating solid waste facility (i.e., easement or deed restriction)?
• Has your operating facility been impacted by adjacent land uses or redevelopments (i.e., restrictions on operating hours, loss of capacity, or ability to expand or receive permitting approvals for future capacity)?
• What financial impacts (i.e., increased disposal fees or need to look for other disposal alternatives) to your community have resulted from these restrictions?

We are especially interested in receiving copies of ordinances, press clippings, memorandums, reports, etc. that address these issues. As we begin finalizing the results of our investigations, we hope to provide access to our data collection effort on the internet: http://people.cecs.ucf.edu/reinhart/Infilling.htm.

Your assistance will provide valuable information for others in our industry dealing with the issue of urban infilling impacts on solid waste facilities.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Marc J. Rogoff, Ph.D.
mrogoff@scsengineers.com
Debra R. Reinhart, Ph.D., P.E., DEE
reinhart@mail.ucf.edu
 

Track Records Dubious For Conversion Technologies
Dear Editor:
I would like to respond to your Editor’s Comment, “Converting the Hierarchy: Dare we Tweak the Sacred Cow?” (MSW Management Vol. 16, No. 4), as well as to the lead article in that issue, “Evaluation of Environmental Impacts of Thermochemical Conversion Technologies.” The article reports on a study by the University of California Riverside College of Engineering.
The hierarchy you decry is the order of desirability of solid waste management options, with source reduction as the most desirable, recovery for recycling next, incineration with energy recovery next, and landfill disposal as the least desirable option. This hierarchy was proposed about 30 years ago. The only new addition is the convoluted term “Thermochemical Conversion Technologies.” It should be noted that every chemical reaction has thermal effects. Combustion or incineration are chemical reaction that are exothermic, that is they release energy. It is politically incorrect these days to talk about incineration as a viable method of solid waste management, although the current price of oil—and our dependence on foreign sources for our need for oil—should make us take a new look at incineration with energy recovery. The energy in municipal solid waste has suddenly become the most valuable resource to be recovered.

It should also be noted that the examples of thermochemical conversion technologies that you cite have all been around is some form for the past 30 years. The IES system calls itself “Advanced Pyrolytic Treatment,” but the initial step is clearly a form of pyrolysis. Pyrolysis was tried by two industrial giants, Union Carbide and Monsanto Chemical. Union Carbide had a full-size (I believe it was 400 tpd) demonstration plant operating in Charlestown, WV, and may have had plants operating in Japan. Monsanto built a 1,000-tpd commercial plant in Baltimore, MD. Both of these plants failed, basically because pyrolysis, partial combustion, is an unstable process that could not deal with the inherent variability of MSW. There is nothing to indicate that IES would be more successful.

The BRI system also starts with pyrolysis, here called a “gasifier,” but apparently a modified Consutech (formerly known as Consumat, also based in Arkansas) incinerator. Consumat tried unsuccessfully for years to operate its units in a two-stage combustion mode, with less than stoichiometric air in the first stage. What is puzzling about this process is what it is that is being fermented to produce ethanol in the fermenter.

The IRT “Plasma Enhanced Melter” has also been around for many years. It was actually tested by the US Bureau of Mines at its Albany, OR, facility. Again, continuous operation with a variable feedstock could not be achieved. In addition, the process was so energy intensive, that the costs became prohibitively high.

The article attempts to make the point that these processes are environmentally benign, but even here the evidence is inconclusive. Since there are no operating facilities based on any of the three processes, the article relies on emission limits achieved by municipal waste combustors, incinerators, and claims that the same control technologies can be applied to the “conversion” systems. If this is so, why try these complex, and undoubtedly expensive technologies? None of the process descriptions provide any clue as to how much energy could be recovered above the process needs.

The real sacred cow is recycling, and the tweaking that should be done should consist of a dispassionate analysis of what materials should be recovered and recycled, and what materials are more appropriately combusted to recover their energy value.

John L. Rose, P.E., DEE

Companies’ Standards Deserve Recognition
Dear Editor:
Sustainability is a concept growing in the private sector. It is been driven by far too many Global 1000 companies through ISO900 and then embracing ISO1400 standards. I believe that industries (including solid waste) can benefit enormously by implementing these standards but very little is being promoted. The EPA some years ago invested in 12 agencies to obtain the ISO 14000, including Miramar Landfill in San Diego, CA (check their web-site) A landfill in Aguascalientes, Mexico has earned the ISO9000 and ISO14000 (the department of public works has 9 ISO9000 certifications including their super-efficient transfer station) Again, there are far too many companies and agencies out there outperforming CAT because of ISO900 and ISO14000. They need to be recognized by our industry of solid waste management. So far, we have not.

Jose Gamboa
Superintendent of Waste Disposal
Public Works Department
City of Santa Cruz, California

MSW - September/October 2006