Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 11 · column 2 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park.
“No longer can we just bury our wastes; disposal has become a costly and complex problem,” concluded Loudoun’s Task Force for Refuse. Disposal in a report last fall.
Loudoun began looking for partners to solve its trash problems after (1) determining that expansion of its existing landfill would provide sufficient capacity for just six more years, (2) discovering suspected “degradation” of the groundwater in and around the site and (3) having to shoulder the expense of hauling construction rubble to Fairfax for disposal following the closure of its only debris landfill in 1984.
In Prince William, supervisors worried by the environmental pollution liability posed by landfiH operation were also interested in exploring alternatives.
Most counties — even those developing as rapidly as Prince William and Loudoun — don’t generate enough solid waste for a plant of their own. Neither do they have buyers nearby for the energy reclaimed from burning trash. However, the proposed ManassasPrince William-Loudoun facility, estimated to cost $39 million with a two and a half construction period, combines unusually favorable factors.
First, it has at least three energy users in the city of Manassas, Virginia Power and an IBM plant. IBM has expressed interest in the project and would consider constructing a steam line and purchasing steam to supplement the heating of its plant. Virginia Power is required by law to purchase electricity; it would do so at a lower rate but could serve as a back-up, should other buyers not use the available energy.
The city of Manassas is looking for a cheaper . power source for its municipal customers. The city already owns a suitable site with adequate water supply. In addition, there is no apparent citizen opposition to construction of a resource recovery facility at that location.
Finally, as the Loudoun task force’s report notes, “the economics of scale are favorable for a large massburning congeneration facility. ”
Engineer Hunter F. Taylor, an expert on projects of this kind, looked at the economic profile of the proposed facility that would bum 500-600 tons of waste
94.1%