Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Page Nine <br /> <br />Hennepln County project at the'NSP Riverside plant. This project might have <br />some impact on that portion of Anoka County south of 1-69L Because of the <br />uncertainties as to the status of the Riverside project, feasibility analysis <br />based upon all of Anoka County generated waste is realistic at this time. In <br />implementing a processing facility there are many more barriers which need <br />to be assessed before any decision can be made. These barriers would include <br />consideration of waste flow, waste flow guarantees, impact of other facility <br />districting, capital cost, competition with landfills, policies and metropolitan <br />regional plan, most appropriate and most cost effective processing scheme, <br />facility location, availablity of energy users, and interest of energy users. In <br />order to adequately evaluate which waste processing strategy would be of the <br />greatest benefit to Anoka County, the County should engage the sevices of a <br />qualified engineering firm to undertake a feasibility analysis which would <br />assess all of the factors having a bearing on the selection of a waste <br />processing alternative. <br /> <br /> In looking at the success and failure of other facilities which have been <br /> implemented, it appears that the system success has been due mare to the <br /> presence of a good sound market for the product being produced than it has <br /> been a result of a good or bad technology being used. For this reason, the <br /> County probably should direct the engineering review to: I) identify and <br /> evaluate, together with the County Board, market opportunities that may <br /> exist within the County; 2) evaluate wortcable abatement processing options <br />i that may be available to service these markets; 3) provide guidance for <br /> implementation of abatement proce_~sinc~, services; and ~) identify restraints <br /> to implementation and how these restraints may be overcome. Such <br /> <br />i abatement processing evaluation should deal primarily with mechanical <br /> separation/RDF', waste to energy using .combustion units, and incineration by <br /> me~zs of combustion units for plant sizes of 350 -500 tons per day'and 1,000 - <br /> 1,600 tons per day. Evaluation should also include alternative abatement <br />I that be with and enhance the basic <br /> processes <br /> compatible <br /> abatement <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />To accomplish the above (County office paper, yard waste composting, <br />mu.nicipal technical assistance, processing analysis and evaluations) it is <br />estimated that one staff position and ~6,000 - $111,000 would be needed. <br />(See Appendix III.) <br /> <br /> <br />