A constructive briefing hub for UCRRA’s next resource recovery decision
This page is designed to help stakeholders discuss options with clarity and rigor — supporting circular waste management / climate change mitigation / environmental justice, aligned with Ulster County’s zero waste ambitions.
Tone commitment: objective, respectful, evidence-based. No Facebook-flamethrowers. Only grown-up problem solving.
What’s being considered (in plain English)
The concept under review is not traditional organics composting. It proposes running mixed MSW through a “dirty MRF” sorting process, steam sterilizing the selected fraction, then using anaerobic digestion (AD) to produce methane, with plans to sell gas to Central Hudson. Remaining solids (“digestate”) are proposed for land application, with residual waste still requiring disposal.
Why stakeholders are raising flags
Concerns include: a potential put-or-pay structure discouraging diversion; whether the product should be land spread given PFAS, heavy metals, plastics, and unknowns; and whether downstream methane leakage could erode climate benefits. Many parties want an independent greenhouse gas inventory before decisions lock in.
HVB’s framing principle
Ulster County can be both the most innovative and the most fiscally responsible — but only if the solution “pencils out” across (1) feedstocks and mass balance, (2) contamination risk and end-use safety, (3) true net climate impact including leakage, and (4) operational realism (maintenance, uptime, and long-term performance).
Key questions this project must answer (before a contract locks in)
These are written as constructive prompts. The goal is not to “win an argument” — it’s to prevent expensive regret.
1) Feedstock integrity & mass balance
What fraction of incoming tons becomes: (a) recyclables recovered, (b) AD feed, (c) digestate, (d) residue to landfill? What is the assumed contamination rate, and what is the sensitivity if it worsens?
2) “Put-or-pay” vs zero waste
Would a minimum tonnage guarantee discourage source separation, reuse, repair, composting, and recycling growth over time? What contractual language prevents that?
3) Digestate safety & PFAS
What is the testing regime for PFAS, microplastics, and metals? If digestate is land-applied, what is the liability model, and what happens if standards tighten (as history suggests they do)?
4) Real net climate benefit
What is the independent GHG inventory including sorting energy, sterilization energy, fugitive methane, and downstream leakage? How does it compare to “best-in-class diversion + managed residuals” scenarios?
5) Operational realism
What uptime is assumed? What are the O&M costs? How are failures handled? Large tanks can be expensive and high-maintenance. Are plug-flow or modular pathways more resilient?
6) What’s still landfilled?
Even with advanced processing, what fraction still needs disposal? Where does it go, and at what cost trajectory if landfill access tightens?
What the proposed system seems to be (high-level diagram)
This is a visual “conversation anchor.” Replace or refine once you confirm the exact process description from the full submission.
Suggested next refinement: add tonnage percentages, energy inputs, and contamination screening/testing steps (PFAS, metals, microplastics).
Non-negotiable innovation: invasive water chestnut as a feedstock
Hudson Valley Biogas is committed to a system design that can economically incentivize removal of invasive water chestnut from the Hudson and connected waterways — converting a regional ecological problem into a managed input stream. This is where circular economy gets real: “clean waterways” becomes an investable outcome, not just a wish.
How it fits (practical)
Water chestnut behaves like a seasonal, high-moisture biomass. It can be integrated via (a) dedicated preprocessing, (b) co-digestion strategies (where appropriate), and/or (c) hybrid pathways where pyrolysis handles specific contaminated fractions (e.g., biosolids) while organics are optimized separately for high-value outputs.
How Hudson Valley Biogas can help (without becoming “just noise”)
The goal is to support a decision pathway that is technically advanced, fiscally responsible, and aligned with zero waste. We can contribute in a way that is constructive for all parties: agencies, municipalities, advocates, and residents.
Independent scenario review (fast)
A structured, neutral “what must be true for this to work” assessment: feedstocks, mass balance, uptime assumptions, contamination risk, and residuals reality.
Comparative system design
Compare “big tank” approaches vs. modular/plug-flow designs, and map how source separation strategies change the economics and the environmental outcomes.
Pyrolysis + biosolids pathway
Evaluate pyrolysis as a targeted tool for biosolids and other high-risk fractions (PFAS/contaminants), especially where land application is contentious.
Feedstock volumes & sourcing plan
Clarify realistic local volumes (organics, yard, biosolids, seasonal invasives), hauling economics, and where “importing” material changes risk and public acceptance.
Stakeholder briefing page + updates
Maintain this page as a living “talking points” hub with documents, neutral summaries, and open questions — reducing rumor and improving the quality of public discussion.
ClimatePoint note (impact modeling)
For rigorous GHG accounting and forecasting, HVB can leverage ClimatePoint.com to model scenarios, leakage sensitivities, and comparative baselines. This is particularly relevant if an independent inventory is requested.
Conflict-of-interest care: if Ulster County/UCRRA issues a formal request for an independent inventory, Hudson Valley Biogas and/or ClimatePoint may choose to bid. This page remains informational and facilitative.
Document library (links + short explanations)
Replace these URLs with your hosted copies. Strong recommendation: convert filenames to clean slugs (no spaces) for stable linking.
Global NRG / Global Energy submission (redacted)
The vendor’s response describing technology, approach, assumptions, and proposed contract structure.
Suggested add-on: publish a one-page “What it claims / What we must verify” summary.
Cost proposal response (redacted)
Pricing structure and commercial framing (as disclosed in the public/redacted version).
HVB circular economy solutions report
Includes invasive water chestnut integration as a feedstock and how pyrolysis could be integrated on site. (Also supports circular waste management / climate change mitigation / environmental justice.)
Proposal findings for UCRRA (HVB)
Please find here the proposal findings for UCRRA. The complete analyses are available within the full report (above).
Recommended additions to this library (next)
- Zero Waste Implementation Plan materials (status, scope, timeline, funding plan).
- Organics law (education/enforcement notes + capacity roadmap).
- Independent references on digestate land application risks (PFAS, metals, microplastics).
- Central Hudson methane leakage/public data references (where available).
- A public “Open Questions” memo updated as answers arrive.
A sane sequence (pilot-minded, fiscally responsible)
Big systems are seductive. Big regret is also a thing. A strong path is: verify assumptions, pilot where needed, then scale.
Step 1 — Clarify facts
Confirm feedstock volumes and composition, contamination assumptions, and what “residuals” truly look like at scale.
Step 2 — Independent inventory
Do a neutral GHG + leakage-sensitive comparison: proposal vs. “best-in-class diversion + organics pathways + managed residuals.”
Step 3 — Pilot-first checkpoints
If key uncertainties remain (digestate safety, process stability, economics), require pilot validation before any long put-or-pay lock-in.
Positioning note (for HVB)
Hudson Valley Biogas can serve as a neutral “systems integrator” and translator between stakeholders — while offering paid, scoped work for analysis, scenario modeling, and alternative design pathways (including water chestnut and pyrolysis integration).
Submit a constructive question
We’ll add well-formed questions (and verified answers) to the “Key Questions” section so the public conversation improves over time.
Want HVB to facilitate or analyze?
If UCRRA, a municipality, or an oversight group wants a scoped engagement, we can propose a clear workplan with deliverables, timeline, and fee structure (and keep it aligned with circular waste management / climate change mitigation / environmental justice).
Tip: If you’re worried about procurement fairness, ask for an open RFP/RFQ for “independent inventory + alternatives analysis.”
Page intent: raise the quality of discussion and reduce misinformation. This is a living page and will be updated as facts become clearer.