Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAG agenda 0330161 Agenda Solid Waste Advisory Group March 30, 2016 - 6:00 p.m. Solid Waste Operations Center 1. Call to Order —Chair 2. Approve Meeting Summary a. November 4, 2015 —Chair, Attachment b. December 10, 2015 —Chair, Attachment 3. Update - Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management — Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager 4. Overview of Mixed Waste Processing Technologies — Harvey Gershman and Steve Simmons, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (by video link), Attachment Note: Includes a project update for Entsorga of West Virginia. This Mechanical Biological (trash to fuel) Treatment Facility has been in the works for more than 5 years and has recently broken ground in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Representatives from Entsorga discussed this technology with the Solid Waste Advisory Board 3 -4 years ago. A request was made to receive an update on this project. 5. Pending Matters a. State Per Capita Waste Reduction Percentage for FY 2014/15 — Blair Pollock, Solid Waste Planner b. First /Second Quarter FY 2015/16 Solid Waste Program Data Report — Cheryl Young, Research & Data Manager, Attachment c. Farmers Markets Food Waste Follow -up — Blair Pollock, Solid Waste Planner d. Renewable Energy from Waste (REW) Conference — Blair Pollock, Solid Waste Planner e. Status of Rural Curbside Expansion — Blair Pollock, Solid Waste Planner, Attachment f. Status of Eubanks Road Waste & Recycling Facilities Improvements — Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director g. UNC Environment & Energy Advisory Board — Blair Pollock Appointed, Attachment 6. Public Comment —Chair 7. Next Meeting —There are no additional meetings scheduled. Please bring your calendars. S. Adjourn — Chair Dinner will be provided 10 -29 -2015 URBAN RECYCLING PROGRAM SUMMARY BY JURISDICTION* 16 TOTAL SINGLE- URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM ** MUTLI- FAMILY COLLECTION * ** COMMERCIAL COLLECTION * ** CARRBORO TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR PARTICIPATION RATE PARTICPATION RATE* PARTICPATION RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 1st Quarter - 359 329 -8% 81% 50% 37% -27% - 85% 66% -22% 95 90 85 -6% 46 55 48 -12% 2nd Quarter 1,237 358 378 6% 79% 50% 43% -14% 85% 77% -9% 94 86 87 2% 52 54 53 -3% 3rd Quarter 1,198 350 76% 51% 84% 86 81 1 49 54 4th Quarter 1,163 347 80% 48% 85% 94 86 1 49 57 Annual 4,696 1,413 79% 50% 85% 368 344 1 196 220 TOTAL SINGLE- URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM ** MUTLI- FAMILY COLLECTION * ** COMMERCIAL COLLECTION * ** CHAPEL HILL TONS TONS TONS CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR PARTICIPATION RATE PARTICPATION RATE PARTICPATION RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 1st Quarter - 893 869 -3% 64% 45% 36% -21% - 79% 65% -18% 190 181 181 0% 163 196 168 -14% 2nd Quarter 1,237 882 933 6% 65% 44% 40% -9% 78% 71% -8% 187 172 185 8% 185 194 184 -5% 3rd Quarter 1,198 870 70% 31% 78% 171 162 1 174 192 4th Quarter 1,163 842 59% 48% 77% 188 173 1 177 202 Annual 4,696 3,486 64% 42% 78% 737 688 1 698 783 TOTAL SINGLE- URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM ** MUTLI- FAMILY COLLECTION * ** COMMERCIAL COLLECTION * ** HILLSBOROUGH TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR PARTICIPATION RATE PARTICPATION RATE PARTICPATION RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 1st Quarter - 166 168 1% 55% 41% 31% -25% - 76% 65% -15% 27 25 5 -79% 32 39 35 -10% 2nd Quarter 1,237 170 171 0% 53% 43% 35% -17% 78% 67% -14% 26 24 6 -76% 36 38 39 2% 3rd Quarter 1,198 165 48% 43% 76% 24 23 1 34 38 4th Quarter 1,163 163 60% 43% 77% 26 24 1 35 40 Annual 4,696 664 54% 43% 77% 103 97 1 138 155 TOTAL SINGLE- URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM ** MUTLI- FAMILY COLLECTION * ** COMMERCIAL COLLECTION * ** STREAM COLLECTION ANALYSIS TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR PARTICIPATION RATE PARTICPATION RATE PARTICPATION RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 1st Quarter 1,098 1,418 1,366 -5% 67% 46% 35% -17% - 80% 65% -18% 312 297 271 _9%1 241 289 252 -13% 2nd Quarter 1,237 1,410 1,481 6% 66% 45% 39% -9% 80% 72% -10% 307 282 279 -1% 273 287 277 -4% 3rd Quarter 1,198 1,384 1 65% 42% 79%1 281 266 1 257 284 4th Quarter 1,163 1,351 1 66% 46% 80%1 308 283 1 261 298 Annual 4,696 5,563 1 66% 45% 80%1 1,208 1,128 1 1,031 1,157 * Due to the integrated nature of recycling collection operations throughout the county which helps to ensure efficient and optimal collection services, there is some minor overlap of collection services by program areas, e.g. The commercial recycling route collects some multi - family locations. To the extent possible, these variations in service collection are apportioned to each specific program accordingly. ** The total tons by jurisdiction in the Urban Curbside Collection program is apportioned according to the participation rate and number of homes by jurisdiction. This assumes that each cart collected at the curb has the same average weight when collected. * ** Tons are apportioned in the Multi - Family and Commercial programs based on the average number of carts collected in each jurisdiction at each MF /Commercial site for that quarter. This assumes that each cart collected at each site has the same average weight when collected. 10 -29 -2015 NOTES: Participation Rate - the proportion of households served that take part in the curbside collection program at least once per month. Setout Rate - the proportion of households that set out their recycling cart in any given week. OTHER COLLECTION PROGRAMS RURAL CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM RURALCURBSIDE COLLECTION TONS TONS TONS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 1st Quarter 435 422 588 39% 38% 41% 44% 7% 2nd Quarter 4861 451 607 35% 35% 44% 44% 0% 3rd Quarter 396 484 129 80 35% 40% 39 30 4th Quarter 442 590 1 -35% 40% 44% 119 107 Annual 1,759 1 1,947 28 -36% 1 37% 42% 99 -21% NOTE: it is not possible given current data collection constraints to gather particpation rates in the rural program. 24 -HOUR DROP -OFF SITES - SINGLE STREAM* 16 * Corrugated cardboard is not included in the single- stream tonnage. Cardboard is collected separetely from single stream in an integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries and is included in the annual report TOTAL SINGLE - STREAM FOR ALL DROP -OFF SITES CARRBORO PLAZA % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR CEDAR FALLS % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR HAMPTON POINT (HOME DEPOT) % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR MEADOWMONT % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR UNIVERSITY MALL % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR FY13/14 I FY14/15 FY15 /16 FY13 /14 FY14/15 FY15 /16 FY13 /14 FY14 /15 FY15/16 FY13/14 FY14 /15 FY15 /16 FY13/14 FY14 /15 FY15 /16 1st Quarter 121 108 92 -15% 61 49 26 -46% 130 129 80 -38% 50 39 30 -24% 138 123 80 -35% 2nd Quarter 115 119 107 -10% 68 44 28 -36% 147 125 99 -21% 53 37 34 -6% 169 109 94 -13% 3rd Quarter 119 70 58 42 124 105 52 37 137 98 4th Quarter 115 102 62 33 125 79 55 33 149 84 Annual 469 398 249 168 527 439 210 145 593 413 * Corrugated cardboard is not included in the single- stream tonnage. Cardboard is collected separetely from single stream in an integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries and is included in the annual report TOTAL SINGLE - STREAM FOR ALL DROP -OFF SITES WASTE & RECYCLING CENTERS RECYCLING - SINGLE - STREAM* BRADSHAW QUARRY I % CHANGE I EUBANKS RD % CHANGE I FERGUSON RD % CHANGE I HIGH ROCK I % CHANGE I WALNUT GROVE I % CHANGE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS TOTALFOR TOTALFOR TOTALFOR YEAR FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 1st Quarter 501 448 308 -31% 2nd Quarter 551 434 363 -16% 3rd Quarter 490 351 - 4th Quarter 506 331 - Annual 2,048 1,563 670 WASTE & RECYCLING CENTERS RECYCLING - SINGLE - STREAM* BRADSHAW QUARRY I % CHANGE I EUBANKS RD % CHANGE I FERGUSON RD % CHANGE I HIGH ROCK I % CHANGE I WALNUT GROVE I % CHANGE 10 -29 -2015 * Corrugated cardboard is not included in the single- stream tonnage. Cardboard is collected in an integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries and is included in the annual report TOTAL SINGLE - STREAM FOR ALL WASTE & RECYCLING CENTERS TOTALFOR FY 2013/14 FY13/14 FY14 /15 FROM PREVIOUS FY15 /16 YEAR FY13/14 FY14/15 FROM PREVIOUS FY15 /16 YEAR FY13 /14 FY14/15 FROM PREVIOUS FY15/16 YEAR FY13/14 FY14 /15 FROM PREVIOUS FY 15/16 YEAR FY13 /14 FY14 /15 FY15 /16 FROM PREVIOUS YEAR 1st Quarter 53 64 56 -12% 112 109 77 -29% 88 105 70 -33% 75 79 52 -34% 93 114 93 -18% 2nd Quarter 56 71 53 -26% 125 104 70 -33% 94 108 70 -36% 81 77 50 -36% 110 112 90 -20% 3rd Quarter 52 60 109 94 87 80 66 63 98 95 4th Quarter 55 63 118 87 92 79 77 63 112 95 Annual 215 258 464 395 362 372 299 282 413 415 * Corrugated cardboard is not included in the single- stream tonnage. Cardboard is collected in an integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries and is included in the annual report TOTAL SINGLE - STREAM FOR ALL WASTE & RECYCLING CENTERS TOTALFOR FY 2013/14 TOTALFOR FY 2014/15 TOTALFOR FY 2015/16 % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR 1st Quarter 421 470 348 -26% 2nd Quarter 466 474 332 -30% 3rd Quarter 413 391 4th Quarter 454 387 Annual 1,753 1,723 17 Memorandum To: Solid Waste Advisory Group From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director Subject: Update on Expansion of Rural Curbside Recycling Date: March 30, 2016 The expansion of rural curbside recycling to the additional 6,800 rural residences is scheduled for summer 2016. In accord with the approved schedule, beginning in February program information has been distributed to those residences and resident preferences were solicited. Upon completion in April, all responses will be compiled and new carts and bins ordered upon BOCC approval. Cart distribution is scheduled for July 2016 with collection to begin as soon as a residence receives its requested recycling receptacle. The required new collection truck has been ordered and will be ready to roll in early April. A driver has been hired and will soon begin training on the new routes. The Radio Frequency Identification 'chip' embedded in the carts distributed in the rural areas will be utilized following the expansion to allow tracking of the $600,000 in county inventory. This technology will also allow insight into participation, although since, not all rural households are being issued a cart, we cannot effectively track overall participation and set out rates. A large -scale re- routing for all 22,000 eligible rural curbside recycling customers is being completed in conjunction with the expansion that will affect most of the residences along the.existing ten rural routes. Some that may have had the same collection day for twenty years since rural curbside began will experience a change in their collection schedule. Those changes will be publicized through the annual calendar card mailing to all residences, the annual Waste Matters newsletter, the Orange County Solid Waste and Recycling e- newsletter and other means to minimize confusion and maximize collection efficiency. At the end of January 2016, Orange County Solid Waste mailed requests to the approximately 6,800 rural area households in the parts of the County that currently do not have access to curbside recycling services. As of March 11, approximately 2,500 replies have been received. Approximately 900 pieces of mail were returned to sender for a variety of reasons. Hence about one -half of the eligible households have either replied or mailed request was undeliverable. We are seeking other ways to contact those at locations where mail was undeliverable. ULej The breakdown of replies is: Type container requested Cart Bin Neither ak��a u�1 al 41L"A �etpiQ Number 1,766 393 303 903 Percentage of 72% 16% 12% 13% of total those who replied WRC (will not 6,800 mailed that are use curbside) Number requesting a 24 10 48 19 container On March 14, the County mailed a second round of requests to those addresses that did not reply to the first mailing with a response closing date of March 31. All replies received by that date will be consolidated and carts and bins ordered for delivery in July. Those households that did not submit a timely request for a cart or bin before the closing date can request one, but ordering and delivery of additional recycling receptacles will be delayed perhaps even until after the start of the fiscal year and when the initial program has been established and implementation issues resolved, probably autumn 2016. Of those replying to the first mailing, 328 took time to comment on the section of the reply postcard allotted to comments. A summary of the comments can be characterized overall as follows: Type comment Positive Negative Requesting "Already Other towards towards County trash recycling at curbside curbside service WRC (will not use curbside) Number 227 24 10 48 19 A print out of all comments is available electronically as requested. Staff has also replied directly to over 150 questions received either via the postcards, email or on line. 0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM TO: Gayle Wilson, Director, Orange County Solid Waste Management Department FROM: Steve Simmons, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) Lynn Klappich, Draper Aden Associates (DAA); Harvey Gershman and Ljupka Arsova, CC: GBB DATE: March 23, 2016 RE: Overview of Mixed Waste Processing for Orange County, NC Introduction Orange County's Solid Waste Management Department has requested GBB, as a sub- consultant to DAA, to prepare this overview of mixed waste processing opportunities for Orange County, NC. The content of this overview includes: An overview of the current status of solid waste processing technologies in the U.S; • Description of the Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant under construction by a private company, Ensorga, in Martinsburg, West Virginia; • Listing of potential end users for refuse derived fuel (RDF) in Orange County, NC; and • A general description of elements of a successful mixed waste processing facility. This memorandum and a separate PowerPoint presentation summarizing the information in this memorandum comprise GBB's outputs for this assignment. Overview As communities across the globe struggle to meet constituent demands for higher municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling and landfill diversion goals, one avenue gaining popularity to meet those demands is mixed waste processing. Mixed waste processing incorporates a suite of unit operation technologies that provides mechanisms for the recovery of recyclable materials that have been misplaced into the disposal stream while producing an alternative fuel for energy recovery. This alternative fuel is commonly referred Gershman, Brlckner & Bratton, Inc. 8550 Arlington Blvd, Suite 304 Fairfax, Virginia 22031 Phone: 703 -573 -5800 Toll Free: 800 -573 -5801 Fax: 703 - 698 -1306 www.gbbinc.com Orange County March 23, 2016 Page 2 of 11 5 to as solid recovered fuel or SRF. Recently reported, there were 23 mixed waste processing facilities ( "MWPF ") located in the U.S. Philadelphia, PA of which approximately 11 are part of RDF energy recovery projects.' Modern MWPF's are far more sophisticated that the RDF facilities of a previous generation. Depending upon the project specific requirements, these modern facilities can include rotating screens, ballistic separators, metal recovery and optical sorters in addition to manual picking and sorting stations. The facilities can be designed to recover multiple product streams including traditional recyclables such as paper, plastics, and metals; wet organics for either anaerobic digestion or composting; and a residual fraction for conversion into an energy products or landfill disposal. MWPF's are frequently employed as a pre- processing step in larger solid waste management complexes incorporating advanced energy conversion technologies such as anaerobic digestion, gasification to electricity, or liquid transportation fuel production. There are a large number of mixed waste processing facilities in California. There, a primary use for the wet organics is use as alternative daily cover at landfills while the residual fraction is landfilled. Originally developed in Europe, these technologies are now being imported into the United States. American communities can choose to buy individual pieces of processing equipment from manufacturers, or fully integrated waste processing facilities from system integrators. The larger system integrators will provide design, build, own and operate offerings and have the corporate balance sheet strength to support long term service agreements? As with the adoption of any new technology, mixed waste processing facilities have had mixed commercial results in the North American. A few notable examples are provided in Table 1 and discussed below. Table 1: North American Mixed Waste Processing Location Region of York, Ontario, Canada Owner Dongara 2009 San Antonio, TX Waste Management, Inc. 2012 Philadelphia, PA Waste Management, Inc. 2014 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada City of Edmonton 2015 Montgomery, AL Infinitus 2015 ' For a full review of mixed waste processing technologies and their history in the U.S., see: "The Evolution of Mixed Waste Processing Facilities 1970 — Today" for the American Chemistry Council, by GBB, June 2015 (htti3s:Hpl astics.a mericanchemistry.com /Education- Resources /Publications /The- Evolution -of -Mfixed- Waste- Processine -Faci lities.adf). z Some of the technology and developers include: Amut, BHS, CP Mfg., Envision Holdings, Infinitus, Lindner America LLC, Machinex, Mustang Renewable Power Ventures, LLC, RRT, Stadler America, Van Dyk Recycling Solutions, Vecoplan, and others. CAB ;,µ GEUgHT 2 GBB/C15099 -02 W+ CONSULTANTS Orange County March 23, 2016 Page 3 of 11 0 The Dongara facility located in Ontario, Canada was designed to process approximately 200,000 tons per year of residential MSW from surrounding communities. The processing system recovered high value materials such as metals and removed undesirable contaminants, glass, PVC plastics, etc.' Constructed at a cost of $50 million, the facility was a technical success, but failed commercially as it could not obtain a non -waste designation for its fuel product in Canada. For a while, the company exported its fuel to the United States, but increasing transportation costs made that uneconomic and the facility was closed in 2014^. Waste Management, Inc., ( "WMI ") has developed two SRF production facilities to produce a proprietary product called SpecFUECm. The commercial success of these facilities is unknown as WMI considers the information to be confidential. The Philadelphia facility was the result of a public procurement conducted by the City of Philadelphia which encouraged the development of a pilot facility. The Edmonton facility serves as the front end processing step for the Enerkem waste -to- ethanol production facility. The mixed waste processing facility, owned by the City of Edmonton, appears to be workingas planned. The waste gasification and methanol production components have been constructed, started up, tested, and produced methanol as planned in 2015. The energy conversion facility is currently shutdown to install the methanol -to- ethanol conversion line which is expect to be completed in 20175. The Infinitus project in Montgomery, Alabama was successfully constructed at a cost of $35 million and placed into commercial operation in 2014. The project economics 3 were based upon a $28 per ton tipping fee coupled with high recycled commodity revenues of which 40 -50% were shared with the host communtty6. The collapse in commodity prices has made the project uneconomic and Infinitus shut the facility down in October 2015. As of the date of this memorandum, the City of Montgomery and Infinitus are considering alternatives for this project and contract. Entsorga MBT Facility On January 6, 2016, Entsorga West Virginia LLC ( "Entsorga "), held a groundbreaking ceremony for a new mechanical biology treatment ( "MBT ") facility in Martinsburg (Berkeley County), West Virginia. This groundbreaking was the culmination of a six plus year project development effort driven primarily by the project's three private sector participants: Entsorga Italia S.p.A. (technology provider), Apple Valley Waste 3 Dongara, Manufacturing Process, http : / /www.dongara.ca /mprocess.html 4 The Star, York Region ends contract with company turning garbage into fuel pellets, November 3, 2014, htto: / /www.thestar.com /news /gta /2014/11/03/vork region ends .contract with company turning garbage int o fuel pellets.html. s Enerkem, Enerkem Alberta Biofuels: a global game - changing facility! http: / /enerkem.com /facilities /enerkem- alberta- Biofuels /. ' Recycling Today, Montgomery, Alabama, mixed -waste processing facility announces temporary closure, October 51 2013, https://www.recyclinptoday.com/ article / montgomery- alabama- infinitus- waste - processing - temporary- closure. GBBSOL WASTE R 3 GBB/C15099 -02 Ca Orange County March 23, 2016 Page 4 of 11 7 (waste supply), and Essroc Cement Company (fuel off - taker). The project participants are all equity members in the special purpose project company formed to own and operate the facility! The Entsorga facility is permitted to accept up to 500 tons per day, 9,999 tons per month, of incoming MSW8. The facility utilizes the MBT process to stabilize the raw waste, to recover high value scrap metal, and to produce a homogenous, high energy value, fuel product solid recovered fuel called SRF. The production process takes about 14 days, explained below, from the receipt of raw MSW to the shipment of finished SRF. At the facility, route collection vehicles will discharge their waste loads into a pit inside an enclosed waste receiving hall. The hall will be equipped with high speed roll up doors as a part of the facility's overall odor management system. An overhead crane will retrieve waste from the receiving pit and load it onto a conveyor feeding a rotating screen. The rotary screen will divide the waste into two fractions, oversized and undersized. The oversized fraction, consisting mostly of dry paper and plastics will be directed to the SRF production line. The undersized fraction, rich in wet organic material, will be placed into a biological stabilization pit by the overhead crane system. In this stabilization pit, warm air will be forced through waste pile enhancing biological degradation and drying the material. Exhaust air from the stabilization process, and the balance of the plant, will directed to a bio- filter for odor control. After 10 to 14 days, the organics within the waste pile have been stabilized and an overhead crane will remove the dried stabilized waste from the pit and feed it into the SRF production line. Apple Valley already has a materials recovery facility to process clean, source separated recyclables, so no additional recovery of recyclable material, other than metals, is included at the Entsorga facility. At the SRF production line, shown in the diagram in Figure 1, oversized material from the pre - processing section, and dried stabilized undersized material will be passed under magnets and eddy current devices to recover valuable metals. The balance of the combined streams will be fed to a shredding system for final size reduction. After shredding, the SRF will be held in a storage pit until it is loaded into trucks for transport to the fuel user. Berkeley County Solid Waste Authority, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, January 24, 2013. http: / /berkelevwv .ore /sharedimg /bcswa /13.pdf 8 Procedural Order, Case No 12- 0803 - SWF -CN Case No 12- 0803 - SWF -CN, Public Service Commission of West Virginia, January 15, 2013. http: / /www.psc.state.wv.us/ scripts /orders /ViewDocument.cfm ?Case Act ivity I D= 360476 &Source = Docket AL" AOWFNS 4 GBB/C15099 -02 CONSULTANTS Orange County March 23, 2016 Page 5 of 11 Entsorga sought and received a comfort letter from the Federal EPA stating that based upon the information submitted by Entsorga, the SRF produced by the Berkeley County facility should be considered a non -waste fuel under the EPS's Non - Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule' Figure 1: Ensorga Processing Diagram The Entsorga process is presented as fully automated and controlled by a central computer system housed in a control room. Construction of the facility has been estimated to take about 18 months at a reported cost of $19 million. The facility is to be constructed on a site rented from the Berkeley County Solid Waste Authority. Entsorga proposes to charge a tipping fee of $65 per ton which includes $5.25 per ton for state and local assessments 10 Active site construction is expected to commence in the spring of 2016 with commercial operations beginning in the summer of 2017. Apple Valley Waste has committed to provide 54,000 tons of waste per year to the facility The primary SRF consumer will be Essroc also located in Martinsburg, WV. The Essroc facility is a part of an Italian materials conglomerate, Itlacementi Group. On November 5, 2014, Essroc filed an application to modify its facility Title V air emissions permit to include the combustion of up to 35,581 tons of alternative fuel called "refuse based fuel (RBF)" per year. The application specified that the RBF would be delivered via walking floor trailers and offloaded into one of two alternative fuel hoppers. Fugitive dust at the offload hoppers would be controlled by baghouses. Screw conveyors would reclaim the RBF from the receiving hoppers and feed it into a pneumatic fuel feeding system, where it would be blown into the cement kiln. The exhaust from the receiving hopper baghouses would be directed to the cement kiln's 9 US EPA letter to Entsorga WV LLC dated December 9, 2013. https: / /Vosem ite.er)a.gov /osw/ rcra. nsf/ oc994248c239947e85256dO9007ll75f /E676980825 D88D5385257C71005 B2C64 /Sfile /14838.pdf 10 Procedural Order, Case No 12- 0803 - SWF -CN Case No 12- 0803 - SWF -CN, Public Service Commission of West Virginia, January 15, 2013. http: / /www.psc.state.wv.us/ scripts /orders /ViewDocument.cfm? CaseActivitvl D= 360476 &Source= Docket SOL 5 GBB/C15099 -02 (( SAWI40xxxx. oxsu rexn Orange County March 23, 2016 Page 6 of 11 r•. clinker cooler and eventually exhausted out through the cement kiln's emission control system. No new emissions point source would be required. A permit modification was granted by the WV DEP Air Quality Division on March 27, 2015. In November of 2015, an Administrative Update was filed with the WV DEP seeking to increase the amount of RBF allowed to 67,593 tons per year. At the time of this memorandum, the increase request is still under review. Orange County, NC Fuel Consumers The potential fuel customers for an Orange County MBT facility would be coal or biomass fueled power plants and district energy facilities. Cement kilns could be another consumer but there are no such facilities within 50 miles of Orange County. Using databases generated by the U.S. Energy Information Administration11 and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality12. the potential off -take customers within approximately 50 miles to Orange County were identified. There are three power production facilities in the area and zero cement kilns, as shown in Table 2. The three plants process coal, tire derived fuel, and biomass to generate power as electricity and /or steam. Table 2 - Potential RDF Off -take Customers Name Operator Fuel Tons Per Year Fuel Product Mayo Duke Energy Coal 31592,716 Power Progress - (NC) Capital Power USA CPI USA NC Coal /Tire /Wood 670,670 Power NC Roxboro Roxboro U-C Roxboro Duke Energy Coal 51306,503 Power Progress - (NC) University of NC University of North Coal 87,437 Power, Steam,, Chapel Hill Cogen Carolina Chilled Water Facility The location of these facilities relative to Orange County is provided in Figure 2. Duke Energy is the local investor owned electrical utility ( "IOU "). As a fully regulated state, IOU's have a fiduciary responsibility, as overseen by the state Public Service Commission (PSC), to seek the lowest possible fuel cost for its rate payers. Any capital investment required to burn SRF would likely require PSC approval which could be time intensive and costly. Given the size of the plants, even modest equipment modifications could be costly "Monthly Generation and Fuel Consumption Time Series File, 2014 Final Release, U.S. Department of Energy, The Energy Information Administration (EIA). 1z Permitted Facilities, North Carolina Division of Air Quality, March 2016. �QQ NA„ e:UE „T 6 GBB/C15099 -02 �+i+ CORSVLTAMS Orange County March 23, 2016 Page 7 of 11 10 Capital Power is a North American wholesale power generator headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta Canada. The Roxboro facility was built in 1987 and has a capacity of 48 Megawatts. It consists of 3 stoker grate fired boilers which are equipped with fabric filter baghouses for particulate control. This equipment configuration could be amenable to firing SRF with minimal equipment upgrades. CMP n C ka ate, Uri J CSI % ,"rya u A boro FUillty Duke Enetey ProjresslNC) J CPIUSANCPOxboro- U �n;xe,..'.. CPI NC Foxboro LLC �'�7 OO ra aosrom�' © w� s�nr Cn J 0 w+n. Z i7 w. i wry Figure 2: Facility Locations XChapel Illty ,j i c> 9'r The University of North Carolina operates a district energy system which provides electricity, steam and chilled water for its campus in Chapel Hill, NC. The district energy steam plant, shown in Figure 3, includes two coal- fired, circulating fluid bed boilers which can produce 500,000 lbs. per hour of steam each and 28 megawatts of electricity. The each boiler is equipped with a fabric filter for particulate control.13 This equipment configuration could be amenable to co- firing SRF. An overhead view of the facility appears to indicate that all fuel deliveries made to the facility are via railcar, something that would need to be confirmed and accommodated. In UNC's2009 Climate Action Plan, UNC indicated an interest to utilize landfill gas from the County's closed Yc 2RI rl reo ooD landfill and testing of dried wood pellets anddacc�fied -wler� as supplemental fuels for its coal -fired cogen boilers. If their interest in biomass fuel could be re- directed to a biogenic SRF instead, the fuel requirement of the cogen boilers appear large enough to absorb much more than the quantities of SRG that could be produced from the MSW and C &D materials generated in the County. " University of North Carolina Energy Services Department, Cogeneration Facility. http: / /www.districteneray.org /assets /pdfs /CHP Case Studies /UNCChagelHill.pdf """` 7 GBB/C15099 -02 GBB °a�:� �:M= Orange County March 23, 2016 Page 8 of 11 Figure 3: UNC District Energy Plant Elements for a Successful IVIBT Project 11 Business Issues A key step in developing a successful project is to lay a foundation of basic building blocks which provides the business case. Table 3 below provides a summary of building blocks and issues for a MWPF in Orange County. Table 3: Project Building Blocks Project Building Blocks Considerations for Orange County Regulatory Impetus and A MWPF project would significantly increase diversion of recyclables and Incentives other MSW from landfill, Creates opportunity for production and utilization of renewable fuels. Limited or High Disposal Orange County has access to reasonably priced out of county landfill Costs disposal resources. It is GBB's opinion that it may be difficult to match those service charges. The question becomes: Will Orange County, incorporated jurisdictions, and businesses, be willing to pay a premium for moving to a 'greener' solution and can take the region closer to a zero waste to landfill waste management system? Waste Supply Orange County generates approximately 76,000 tons per year of MSW and C &D waste now; of which only about 12,000 tons, mostly C &D waste, are managed through the County's C &D Landfill. Will the generators of almost 74,000 tons be willing to contractual commit their waste volume to the project? Markets The key market to develop is that for the SRF. Markets first! From the review GBB has done, it would appear that the University of North Carolina's District Energy facility would be a prime candidate to consider. \� YANIWIVEO 8 GBB/C15099 -02 \� COR Yy»»lf Orange County March 23, 2016 Page 9 of 11 i IN Facility Design Considerations After a decision to develop a project has been made, having a comprehensive material composition study on all types of material that will be processed is important to understand what can be recovered, and what equipment would be necessary to achieve this recovery. In addition, the study should also have evaluated the material to ascertain how it would behave in a processing facility, as a simple composition does not always tell the whole story. Once the material is known, estimates on the material flow within the processing system can be made to predict what materials could be recovered for recycling, what materials would end up as fuel, and what materials may be residue or other products. In general, the more materials targeted for recovery, the However, its potential supplemental fuel demand appears significantly needed. greater than what could be sources from indigenous Orange County waste. Site with Good Logistics The location of the MWPF does not have to be contiguous or on the site of That Can Be Permitted the SRF user. It can be remote and the SRF shipped to the user in transfer almost trailers and unloaded within a totally enclosed receiving building. Landfill for Residues Arrangements would have to be made for this as Orange County does not have its own landfill resources. Significant shipments to out of county CGROULTANTS landfills will increase project economics negatively. Contractor with One would have to be procured through a competitive process; there are Resources and Proven many that would be interested for a project that has addressed and pre - Technology developed many of these building blocks. Capital This would become available with a financeable project and contractor with resources. Either public ownership or providing for tax - exempt private financing will improve project economics. Ability to Pay Service This is a very important requirement as the certainty to pay by responsible Fees parties with resources, e.g. local governments, will be important for project financeability and lower interest rates on debt, thereby improving project economics. If significant waste supply and payments are at risk, project financing will be more difficult and be a detriment to project economics. Financing Having a credit worthy contractor with proven technology as well as waste suppliers under contract and users for the SRF will be important to support a project financing. If these factors are not in place, project financing with public ownership and debt or significant equity would need to be considered to support a more risky and resulting more expensive project. Compatibility with a High Orange County and the incorporated cities within it have admirable Level of Recycling recycling already in place, including developing new channels for organics diversion and utilization. If a MWPF project were to be implemented, it will need to be kept in mind as abandoning current programs is probably not going to be considered. Political Will Is there a political elected official and /or body that will step forward to support the project? Facility Design Considerations After a decision to develop a project has been made, having a comprehensive material composition study on all types of material that will be processed is important to understand what can be recovered, and what equipment would be necessary to achieve this recovery. In addition, the study should also have evaluated the material to ascertain how it would behave in a processing facility, as a simple composition does not always tell the whole story. Once the material is known, estimates on the material flow within the processing system can be made to predict what materials could be recovered for recycling, what materials would end up as fuel, and what materials may be residue or other products. In general, the more materials targeted for recovery, the more equipment and personnel needed. Metals, both ferrous and non- ferrous are straightforward to recover from the MSW stream and are almost WLID ""` 9 GBB/C15099 -02 00 NAAAGEUgHT CGROULTANTS Orange County March 23, 2016 Page 10 of 11 13 universally included in MWP systems. Plastic bottles of #1 PET and #2 HOPE are also relatively easy to recover, either by optical units or manually, and have a good resale value. Other recyclable plastics and fibers such as clam shells, film bags, cardboard, newspaper, and office paper have also been recovered at certain facilities. However, the equipment and effort to recover these items is greater than with metals and bottles, and the percentage of recovery can be much less, especially if robust source separation /recycling is already in place in the County and its incorporated jurisdictions. For instance, upwards of 90% of the total metals and bottles in the waste stream can be recovered in modern MWPF with proper magnets and optical units. However, fiber recovery is generally between 50% and 70% of the total fiber in the stream, and can be less depending on a number of factors. The final development of the goals of the facility would be to establish what will be done with the rest of the material outputs and what the systems throughput will be. This will also dictate the equipment needed for processing and clean -up of the other streams. For instance, for the SRF /RDF produced, is there a size requirement and does PVC need to be removed to keep the chlorine content low? For the fines and organics fraction, is composting or Anaerobic Digestion an option or would this also be used as a fuel? And finally, how much incoming material will be processed? Most facilities will rate the equipment system in tons per hour (PTH) which will ultimately dictate how many tons can be processed in a year. For example, a 50 TPH system running five days a week with two shifts (14 hours of runtime per day) can process approximately 182,000 tons per year (TPY). Sizing the system appropriately for the potential future incoming material is important, but so is sizing for efficiency. Too large a system is not cost effective to operate. Below, in Figure 4 and Figure 5, are layouts for two different MSW processing systems with different goals and levels of automation to illustrate the potential range (and complexity) of these systems. NAND R E" cxxx 10 GBB/C15099 -02 G 6 euexr oxeu�ix Orange County March 23, 2016 Page 11 of 11 Figure 4: 30 TPH System to produce RDF and recover certain recyclables from MSW (Source: Machinex) Figure 5: Facility to recover recyclables from a "one -bin" concept as well as produce an RDF fuel (Source: Machinex) •AHAcOU .. 11 GBB/C15099 -02 GBB CONSU :.:_ Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC ORANGE COUNTY tiUAlli I:AAI]LINA GBB SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Outline Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. March 30, 2016 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC ORANGE COUNTY NORT1I CAWIL INA WHAT IS MIXED WASTE PROCESSING? GBB SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS _)I�-JLIN U.S. Waste Management NOR I I I _ :lRl UNA Infrastructure GBB SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ... Curbside Recycling Programs Number 9,000+ Commercial Recycling Programs -No Data - Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) 586 Mixed Waste Processing Facilities (MWPF) 51 Composting 2,300 Anaerobic Digestion 19 Transfer Stations 3,350 WTE Landfills Source: GBB 2015 85 1,908 March 30, 2016 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 2 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC ',RANGE COUNTY RIM N OIIN1 Mixed Waste Processing Facility ( "MWPF ") History SOLID WASTE • 1970s: shred and remove ferrous metals — RDF for coal fired boilers • Chicago, IL; Milwaukee, WI; Rochester, NY; St. Louis, MO — None operated into the 1980s • Ames, 10 - still operating — Easier materials to landfill • 1976: Recovery 1— New Orleans, LA' — First comprehensive MWPF • Trommel, shred, air classification, screening, magnetic separation, and eddy current separation — Demonstrated materials recovery — 'RDF' landfilled 'galllA Mixed Waste Processing Report The Evolutlon of Mkod Wa,te P--Mg Fealllttes Ia9P —, n..r tr,ntwr+w ran., G.nhman, erickn.r & &.ersm�, dn., GBB oo- annswl > ,wxm�r. I "A' htto : / /olastics.americanchemistr com /Education- Resources /Publications /The Evolution -of -M fixed- Waste- Processing- Facilities.pdf March 30, 2016 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 3 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC -)RANGE COUNTY NORTEI CAM- IL .INA Location Modern MWP Facilities San Antonio, TX Philadelphia, PA' Edmonton, Alberta, Canada GBB MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS GBB, SOLID WASTE CONSULTANTS Owner Start -up Year Waste Management 2012 Waste Management 204 City of Edmonton 2014 • • rge Rigid Plastics Wood Large Film Plastics Bulky Scrap Metals Aluminum Ferrous Metals Beverage Large Cardboard MixeAPa Containers (non- ferrous) March 30, 2016 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 4 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC ORANGE COUNTY NORTE.I CAMILINA Key Equipment BB • Moving materials • Hand sorting / QC Shredders • Size reduction Screens • Trommels, vibratory, disc • Size separation Magnets / Eddy-Current • Ferrous recovery • Non - ferrous recovery Air Classifiers • Density Separation • Plastic resins Optical Sorting Systems • Glass sorting • Pelletization • Baling ORANGE COUNTY NUR Ili CARL] L I N A Processing Technology Vendors L[NDNM awour + y �4 LC _t r M STADLER' MACHINE][ A m e r i c a �Infinitus ENERGY GBBVON- SOLID WASTE CONSULTANTS A VAN DYK S :• Vecoplan RE ER March 30, 2016 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 5 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC C>RANGi_ COUNTY NORTE1 CAR4)L.INA MBT = Mechanical, Biological Treatment • Originated in Germany in 1999 (now 36 operating MBTs) • 330 plants in EU most in: Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands; UK catching up • Includes: — Mechanical sorting of recyclables and organics — Food scraps and green waste processed through AD and composting units; mulching too — Residuals converted to high BTU refuse - derived fuel (RDF) • Only 0.4% of waste goes directly to landfills in Germany and 81% of household waste goes to MBT Plants • RDF key to MBT diversion results 54% to dedicated boilers, 16% to coal plants, 11% to cement kilns and 19% to others Source: Mechanical Biological Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste. UK Departmen Environment Food &Rural Affairs (DEFRA). February 201 _)RAND_ -OUNTY N0111111_AAC)LINA Mechanical- Biological Treatment Plant (MBT) Source W N iGA Separated V , r g...,a Recyclables MSW —� Mixed MSW source Source Separated Organics M SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. Mechanical (grinding, screening, Products: Recyclables recyclables separation, palletizing) Compost Biological (bio- drying, aerobic Biogas/ Electricity composting, anaerobic digestion RDF /EF • Pre - treatment of waste dedicated to landfills • Recover recyclables and fuel /energy from mixed MSW otherwise going to landfill • Stabilizing organics fraction March 30, 2016 0 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC ;]RANGE COUNTY NOR ]I CAM-IL INA ENTSORGA WEST VIRGINIA ��ai66 ORANGE COUNTY tiUlClli I:AAI]LINA Entsorga, Martinsburg, WV • Project participants: — Apple Valley Waste — Entsorga West Virginia — Essroc Cement • Up to 500 tpd of MSW • Groundbreaking - Jan 2016 • $19 million investment • Scheduled operations - Summer 2017 GBB 50;10 WASTE am APPLE VALLEY WASTE ENTSORGA W e s l V I r g I n I a Italce EYakemenYi Group March 30, 2016 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 7 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC L j I y Entsorga Process Note: Additional recyclables recovered limited to aluminum and ferrous metal BB SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ORANGE COLINTY NORTH CAROLINA ENERGY CONSUMERS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Fuel March 30, 2016 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 8 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC ORANGE COUNTY NORTE.I CAM- IL .INA Potential RDF Off -take Customers (Table 2) Duke Energy Coal 3,592,716 Power Progress - (NC) CPI USA NC Coal /Tire /Woo 670,670 Power Roxboro LLC d Duke Energy Coal 5,306,503 Power Progress - (NC) University of University of Coal 87,437 Power, North Carolina Steam, Chilled Water ORANGE COUNTY NOW11.I CAR43L INA Facility Locations (Figure 2) s r . ,, n. ° Mayo Facility- . f1ie ❑uke Energy Progress [NCI e - st �, EnergyP _':r. s[NCI J O(J CPI USANC Roxboro ,wrn,oPtizCPrI NC Roxboro LL,�e .. Monl^' IT� fx �r� emn B rlin9�pn i..:M win [Re.mma Greensboro ^� n Unlverit fNC Chapel 1�r H. COg F allty c.�e. C7 s�e..c�p ♦ cemem 3 ��� r.U�M.. e�q Mo„ SOLID WASTE CONSULTANTS March 30, 2016 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 9 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC ORANGE COUNTY N01111 CAM -IL INA UNC District Energy Facility • District energy facility providing steam, electricity and chilled water to campus • 2 Fluidized bed coal -fired boilers rated at 500,000 lbs. /hr. each • Equal to 60 TPH of SRF each. • University climate change plan envisions co- firing up to 20% biomass Picture and graph from UNC Energy Services Cogen Facility, Phil Barner, Ray Dubose ORANGE COUNTY NOW11I CAROLINA DEVELOPING A SUCCESFUL PROJECT GBB SOLID WAS7E -- March 30, 2016 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 10 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC ORANGE COUNTY NORTE.I CAM- IL .INA Project Building Blocks Political Wil 'am ORANGE COUNTY NURni CARI]L INA Example Contract Structure Bondholders Public Sector IDA Haulers WSA Debt/ Owner /Operator Parent Equity DA Disposal OA Permit Permitting agencies Fuel and Energy M a rkets SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS March 30, 2016 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 11 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC ORANGE COUNTY NORTE.1 CAM- ILIN.A Public Sector Commitments R� BB SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ORANGE COUNTY NUICIIi I:ARI]LINA 'a SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Expectations from the Contractor March 30, 2016 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 12 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC OR AN(-,:- cm "���=" | m =�� 14M/xs .L11) WASTE m^NAac",wn ""~."uxmm March 30, 2016 Geohrnan,Brickner&Brattnn,Inc. 13 Mixed Waste Processing Update for Orange County, NC �r `RANGE COUNTY : Wlll; tRLIILN2 Size and Complexity Matters Figure 4: 30 TVH System to produce RDF and recover certain recyclables from MSW (Source: Machinez) Figure 5: Facility to recover recyclables from a "one -bin" concept as well as produce an RDF fuel (Source: Machinez) SOLID WASTE' �� -- - MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS March 30, 2016 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 14 irJ UNC Environment & Energy Advisory Board Thank you for considering serving on this advisory board. The following outline is designed to provide a summary of the role. Responsibilities: 1. Participate in quarterly 3 -hour meetings (with call- in/virtual option encouraged) 2. Review materials provided before each meeting 3. Give feedback on expert/consultant generated ideas during meetings 4. Be available for in- between - meeting consultation and feedback 5. Leverage business contacts and expertise to assist in decision - making Timeline: 12 month appointment, 4 meetings in total. April 14th is the tentative date for first meeting. Charter: The Advisory Board will use its individual and collective experience, expertise and connections to help vet and suggest holistic solutions for UNC -CH, viable in the next 5 -10 years to each of the following charges: 1. Provide feedback on how UNC -CH will realistically meet its power, steam and chilled water needs in the future using the most cost - effective, community- acceptable and technologically -sound solutions available, with a goal of carbon neutrality. 2. Provide feedback on the best strategies for UNC -CH to reduce as much waste heading to landfills as technically and financially possible, with a goal of 95% diversion rate. 3. Provide feedback on how UNC -CH should economically use, capture and treat water in a way that minimizes the use of potable water and has no net flow into or out of the local watershed, or excess burden on the OWASA system. The Advisory Board will advise within the context of past sustainability efforts on campus, striving for continuity but not redundancy. The Board will always consider UNC's complex internal operations when making recommendations, with attention paid to who will manage the program and how will it be paid for. Structure: Maximum of 12 members, including student, faculty, staff, Board of Trustees, community member and various prominent expert positions. Appointed by Brad Ives, Associate Vice Chancellor for Campus Enterprises. Meeting quarterly to look over plan and project ideas produced by individual task forces. Deliverable: Feedback on timeline of short-, medium- and long -term project ideas accompanied by a plan for financing and implementation.