(015,017 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IN HANCOCK COUNTY Final Report from the Summer 1975 Conference Prepared for the Coastal Resource Center By: Richard Davis, Ph.D., Staff Fred Davis, Student College of the Atlantic Introduction: This report was prepared at the request of participants in the Solid Waste Disposal Conference held in the Ellsworth City Hall Auditorium on July 26. 1975. The conference was organized to help culminate extensive efforts by the Hancock County Regional Planning Commission to resolve county waste handling problems. The conference was co-sponsored and funded by the HCRPC and the Coastal Resource Center. At that time it was felt that a brief summary and evaluation of information presented would be useful to the county townships. Completion has been impeded both by schedule demands on the individuals involved and the effort to determine whether there were alternatives not mentioned at the conference which would be feasible and desirable at this time Particularly insofar as we must make a negative report on the latter. we apologize for this delay. It should perhaps be mentioned that, in making the recommendations included College of the Atlantic representatives have acted as impartial bystanders of local government and business interests and have solicited direct technical consultation from agencies and institutions from a number of locations in Maine and other states. Participants in the Conference Attendance at the conference comprised approximately 75 individuals representing 20 county townships and 69-1/2% of the county population. Representation was probably even greater, but not all participants registered Also represented were: Acadia National Park, Hancock County Regional Planning Commission, the League of Island Townships, the Coastal Resource Center, and members of several interested firms and organizations The Program: A general discussion of the problem was presented by Robert Cossette for the HCRPC. The program included pre- sentations by three individuals who had made concrete proposals for county waste handling: Gregory Burnham, conversion of waste to synthetic fuel gas: Thomas Sawyer, sanitary land fill; and Robert Smith, a waste shredding device. Arrangements were made in advance for speakers to meet and discuss the problems with each other and with technical consultants secured by the Coastal Resource Center. At the conference. opportunity was provided for questioning of the proposals by town representatives and critical evaluation by the participating consultants These latter included: Dr. Otis Sproul, Chairman Department of Sanitary Engineering University of Maine: Robert Lavigne, Environmental Engineer with the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Massachusetts; James Atwell, Sanitary Engineer for Edward C. Jordan Co., Portland: and Dr. John Hersey, University City Science Center, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. Proposals: Conversion to Synthetic Fuel: Mr. Burnham proposed construction of a plant which would combine industrial waste. public waste, and sewer sludge to generate a salable fuel gas. Such a plant would recover a valuable resource. minimize final waste product, create local employment, and eventually return a volume-based portion of profits to townships to de- fray costs of solid waste handling. Economic operation would require a much larger waste volume than the county generates but such a volume would be obtainable from the paper corporations. While similar systems have been constructed elsewhere, Mr. Burnham has not yet constructed a model outside of the laboratory. However, he is currently seeking funds to con- struct a small pilot field version. This while economic projections seem favorable over the long run, it was not possible to make specific and reliable cost/benefit estimates. Subsequent meetings between Mr. Burnham and the HCRPC have also re- vealed that a minimum of 5 years would be required before a practicable operation of this sort would be available Shredding Device: Mr. Smith presented a film on shredder operation and cost estimates based on current operations at several locations. A shredder reduces the waste to small particles. homogenously mixed and ready for grading into a fill site. Scale of operations could be appropriate to the county with present sites elsewhere ranging from twelve tons per day to 215 tons per day processed (Hancock County currently generates 100 tons per day which would probably have to be shredded at two or three different sites.) Shredders were claimed to have the following characteristics: the product is suf- ficiently sanitary to eliminate the need for landfill and, indeed. can be used as fill material elsewhere: the product will sus- tain plant growth; 95% of ferrous metals can be easily extracted from the waste (based on average composition this would mean recovery of 2,147 tons of salable scrap iron from all county waste each year): 35% of the volume is eliminated. doub- ling the life of fill sites. While initial equipment cost is substantial Smith claimed that both operation and amortization costs could be covered by a figure of $5.00 per ton. Further, while the Department of Environmental Protection has remained uncommitted on approval of shredders, Dr. Sproul of UMO expressed confidence that such a system would be approved It was further indi- cated that under present regulations, almost all dumps in the county will eventually have to be closed and filled. Landscaping of these sites could actually be accomplished with shredded waste.