Page 4 RAIN November 1978 From Solid Waste to Resource Recovery: Now You See It, Now You Don't Several years ago, a bond issue was promoted and passed in_ Lane County, Oregon, which made possible the extension of credit to capitalize a centralized facility for materials recovery from garbage. Over the strenuous objectiC?ns of experienced recyclers, the technology that was chosen was capital-, machine-and energy-intensive. As designed by Allis-Chalmers Corporation, the system consists of two shredders, an assortme'nt of belts and shaker screens, an air classifier for separating out light-density material for burning, and a magnetic separator for ferrous materials, plus an assortment of bins, tubes, augurs and gates. Preceding this mechanized recovery apparatus is a transfer pit for receiving the garbage, plus machinery to movB the garbage from where it lands down to chutes at the end, where it can either be fed into the garbage processor or hauled directly to the landfill 8 miles away: County residents, through the good offices of county government, assumed a debt of $ 3.5 million to purchase and install the system. As a concession to recyclers, a small cov- • ered shed was built at a cost of about-$25,000 to give workers from three local recycling organizations a place to work and store recovered items out of the weather. ' It did not escape the notice of recyclers that the mo!ley being spent on the mechanized end of resource recovery was almost 200 times that applied to the handsorting systems. Some complained, but they were reminded by solid waste officials that recycling coi,ildn't survive if it weren't for the depressed_wages and cash subsidies they got, and that they should be grateful for the covered shed; since they just had a wide spot on a dirt road before. And so the contracts were signed (1975), the 1 tran_sfer pit constructed (1976), and the resource recovery machinery installed (1977). I i I Ii/ ; iii ' I I I j i I 1; I ' I . i i ! I : Tom Brandt Mechanized Resource Recovery: A Faulty Technology Operating and maintenance costs increased dramatically even before the resource reco_very system was in place: for example, five huge trucks were now required to run the garbage out.to a new landfill. But the real escalator was to be the mechanical processing system. Assuming the machinery performed exactly according_to specifications, the company running the plant was to be paid $1,600 per day, or about $425,000 over.the course of a year, for the garbage they processed. A special company was brought in from Seattle to operate the equipment, which didn't do much to relieve Lane County's chl'onically high unemployment rate. But the garbage grinder was designed to employ only 6 people anyway, so it wouldn't have made much differenc·e • . Lane County·Solid Waste Division officials speculated that the facility might begin to break even in the fourth year, but •that capital costs would never be recovered. This would be offset, though, by the volume reduction caused by shredding, which would increase the useful life of the landfill. The system was supposed to begin operation in October, 1977, but it wasn't ready. This was extended to the end of 1977, then early 1978, then October, 1978. Meanwhile, it ran in fits and starts, while shakers brok~, dust leaked, motors· burned out, and the entire structure was reinforced to keep it from comi11g apart. Now, more than a year after it was supposed to be operational, the machine still hasn't worked well •enough to begin the shakedown required by the contract. The county money is spent already, but more money is coming from someplace to keep trying to get it to work. . Meanwhile, the landfill is growing more rapidly than expected with material the machinery was supposed to be recovering. And the bulk of the money coming in from resource recovery in Lane County is still that derived from handsorting.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz