GreenYes Archives
[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

Re: [GreenYes] Regarding food waste in the sewer versus the garbage can:
Steve,
I think using New York City is a bad example. After years of cheap direct ocean
discharge, the City through its contractors have elected to ship its sludge to
Texas and Arizona by rail for direct land application  where it has created its
own set of local problems. Most municipalities have enough trouble finding
disposal options in there own back yards and cannot afford the luxury of NYC's
disposal solution. Several years ago, a town near where I live ( Fayetteville,
Arkansas ) discovered that its newly renovated waste water treatment plant, that
had a built in design capacity of 20 years, was already reaching its maximum in
less than 7 years. After a lengthy 3 hr. meeting with the firm that constructed
the plant, an interesting phenomena was discussed.
With the advent of the cities recycling program ( rinsing containers and down
the drain disposal ), You can graph the success of the recycling collection side
and compare it with the daily loadings the plant received. End result- the city
has to now plan for an additional plant. The plants original 20 year projections
included estimates for increased population and industry which have fallen short
of their estimates. This was not a design failure but an increase in loading
from an unexpected source. With the EPA now looking at non point source
watershed loadings and Total Maximum Daily Watershed loadings, and if one feels
that it is cheaper to build new waste water treatment plants and deal with
increasing sludge disposal costs as opposed to building and operating a
composting facility--
Go ahead * Dance with the Devil * Landfilling is the best option.

Phil Fredericks
http://www.ecticompost.com

Steve Hammer wrote:

> I disagree.  At some point, cost has to come into play.  Municipalties that
> have a sewage treatment system in place already have a collection network
> in place -- otherwise known as the sewage pipes that run under our streets.
> Why replicate this network by creating a costly (and polluting) stream of
> trucks that must traverse our roads?
>
> I'll grant you that if the increased load of organics overwhelms the
> treatment
> system you've got a problem, but by and large, they're designed to handle
> this type of thing.  Four years ago, the New York City Council reversed a
> nearly 40-year ban on in-house garbage grinders, after tests by the
> local DEP showed the system could handle the increased organic load.
> According to a Plant Engineer some of my students spoke to, the
> increased organic content would actually improve the operation of the
> system, as there would be more food for the little bugs to eat!
>
> I'm all for composting, and applaud cities like San Francisco that have
> seen fit to set up food waste collection programs for homeowners and
> local businesses.  Around here, however, composting sites are very
> difficult to site, and there is little interest in adding a fourth diesel
> powered truck to the collection system given high asthma rates.  I would
> therefore much prefer that the city begin more actively promoting
> the use of in-sink garbage grinders in an attempt to divert the 15% of
> the local waste stream consisting of food waste.
>
> Steve Hammer
> Wastesaver, Inc.
> www.wastesaver.com

******************************************
To post to the greenyes list,
email to: greenyes@grrn.org

Subscription information for
this list is available here:
http://www.grrn.org/general/greenyes.html
******************************************

[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]