1 / 29

Maximum Feasible Impacts

Maximum Feasible Impacts. John Davis Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority. The JPA. Adelanto, Apple Valley, Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Needles, San Bernardino County, Twenty Palms, Victorville, Yucca Valley Since 1992 15,000 =/- square miles 381,331 people

azuka
Télécharger la présentation

Maximum Feasible Impacts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Maximum Feasible Impacts John Davis Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority

  2. The JPA • Adelanto, Apple Valley, Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Needles, San Bernardino County, Twenty Palms, Victorville, Yucca Valley • Since 1992 • 15,000 =/- square miles • 381,331 people • Board, Technical Committee, Administrator

  3. Victor Valley MRF • Opened in 1995 • Owned by Apple Valley and Victorville • Managed by the JPA • Designed, built, operated by Burrtec • Financed with $6.2 million system revenue bond issue • $2.5 million expansion in 2006

  4. Current MRF • 120 source separated tons per day from JPA members • Public buy back and drop off • 38,400 square feet; 42 employees • CP Manufacturing system • Cardboard pre-sort • V-Screen fiber separation • Fiber sort • Aladdin optical sort for PETE and Aluminum

  5. Materials and Resource Stratgegy • In September 2008, the JPA contracted with Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., (GBB), in association with RRT Design & Construction, (RRT), to identify increased recycling system performance opportunities

  6. Project Goals • Maximum feasible recycling and composting • Greenhouse gas reduction • Materials management system based on reduction, reuse, recycling, composting and energy recovery • Enhanced collection, MRF processing and marketing

  7. California Public Resources Code • California Public Resources Code Section 40051(b) requires that communities: Maximize the use of all feasible source reduction, recycling, and composting options in order to reduce the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of by transformation and land disposal

  8. California Public Resources Code • Moreover, Section 41783(b) only allows transformation diversion credit (10 percent of the 50 percent required) if: The transformation project uses front-end methods or programs to remove all recyclable materials from the waste stream prior to transformation to the maximum extent feasible

  9. California Public Resources Code • Prior to permitting a new transformation facility the California Integrated Waste Management Board is governed by Section 41783(d), which requires that CIWMB makes both of the following findings, based upon substantial evidence on the record:

  10. California Public Resources Code • (1) The city, county, or regional agency is, and will continue to be, effectively implementing all feasible source reduction, recycling, and composting measures • (2) The transformation project will not adversely affect public health and safety or the environment

  11. California Public Resources Codes • PRC 25741 defines in-state renewable electricity generators, including conversion technologies: To the maximum extent feasible, the technology removes all recyclable materials and marketable green waste compostable materials prior to the conversion process

  12. Project Tasks • Generators • Source Reduction • Collection • Pre-processing • Characterization • MRF Operations Assessment • Energy Recovery • Residue Handling (Landfill)

  13. Victor Valley Materials and Resource Management Strategy Prepared for: Prepared by: GERSHMAN, BRICKNER & BRATTON, INC. and RRT Design & Construction, Inc. April 27, 2009

  14. Recovery Characterization (Chapter 5) • Characterize and identify types and quantities of landfilled waste • Present diversion estimates • 5 day visual characterization at Victorville Landfill (Fall 2008) • 265 “controllable” loads analyzed • Front and side loaders, transfer trailers

  15. Recovery Characterization • Analyzed residential and commercial waste loads received from: • Victorville • Apple Valley • Adelanto • Unincorporated San Bernardino County • Victor Valley MRF

  16. Total Processing Tons Per Month

  17. Recoverable Materials

  18. Pre-Processing (Chapter 7) • Identify a system to process material now landfilled, separating and recovering materials for market • Three alternatives • Existing MRF • Modifications to existing • Addition to existing, including transfer station

  19. Pre-Processing Compost Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Paper recycling Bottle and can recycling Construction material* Reuse and resale*

  20. System Recovery Rates

  21. Energy Recovery (Chapter 8) • This task characterizes Pre-Processing System residuals for potential energy recovery and identifies potential energy markets for this material

  22. Energy Recovery • Process residual materials with potential for energy recovery would be organic materials that have a low percentage of inert materials and moisture content • Approximately 46 TPD of RDF could be generated through the Pre-Processing System

  23. Energy Recovery • This material would be derived from the plus 9-inch primary trommel overs stream which would transfer across sorting stations for manual removal of OCC, mixed paper, film bags and reject materials

  24. Energy Recovery • Approximately 18 TPD of wood and tree limbs could be removed from the tipping and ground for RDF or compost bulking agent • This could result in a total of approximately 60 to 65 TPD production of RDF fuel feedstock

  25. Energy Recovery • Cement kilns have an interest in using RDF as a fuel to supplement coal for manufacturing Portland cement • The permitting aspect of burning RDF and fuel feed system design requirements were concerns identified by the operators

  26. Scoping Plan Anaerobic Digestion • Anaerobic digestion could assist in meeting 33% renewable energy goal through fuel and energy production • CIWMB will explore incentives to local collection of residential and commercial food scraps for composting and in-vessel anaerobic digestion

  27. Final Report • www.urecycle.org

More Related