HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAG agenda 042215I
Agenda
Solid Waste Advisory Group
April 22, 2015 - 6:00 p.m.
Solid Waste Operations Center
1. Call to Order— Chair
2. Approve Meeting Summary from April 1, 2015 — Chair, Attachment
3. Update on Individual Jurisdictional Discussions of SWAG Single Fee Funding
Recommendation — Chair
4. Towns and County Staff Revised Priority Solid Waste Issues Report — Staff, Attachment
5. Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste /Recycling — Chair, Attachment
6. Other
a. Alternative Technologies Background — Existing Reports /Evaluations
(Attachments)
i. Alternative Technology White Paper (2008)
ii. SWAB Adopted Evaluation Criteria (November 2010)
iii. Town of Chapel Hill Comprehensive Review (2012)
iv. Update on Waste Conversion Progress in North America (2014)
7. Public Comments — Chair
8. Next Meeting
9. Adjourn (8:00) - Chair
Dinner will be provided
Memorandum
To: Solid Waste Advisory Group
From: George Seiz, Carrboro Public Works Director
Lance Norris, Chapel Hill Public Works Director
Ken Hines, Hillsborough Public Works Director
Gayle Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Director
Subject: Staff Suggested Priority Solid Waste Issues (revised)
Date: April 22, 2015
Towns and County staff were requested by the Solid Waste Advisory Board to prepare a list of
solid waste issues and their relative priorities for consideration and discussion at the April 1,
2015 meeting. At the April 1 meeting the SWAG proposed several revisions /suggestions that
are reflected in the memorandum below.
Guiding Principles
Your staffs have discussed and evaluated various topics and opportunities without an overriding
concern or focus on political aspects and have tried to provide a more technical or industry
professional viewpoint. Staffs have utilized to varying degrees and in a general sense the
following standards /criteria in our issue discussions and have amended our list based on April 1
SWAG comments.
• Potential to reduce waste and /or increase recycling
• Other environmental impacts such as fuel usage, toxicity reduction, pollution
prevention, etc.
• Cost and Cost Effectiveness
• Efficiency
• Citizen understanding /user friendliness /complexity /equity
• Industry best management practices
• Innovation /Creativity
• Public Involvement, and
• Environmental Education and Outreach
Staff Suggestions /Priorities
Based in part on the above criteria and discussions from the April 1 SWAG meeting, staff has
adjusted the following priorities and issues for SWAG consideration as short or mid -term
actions, as amended by the SWAG. Staff is recommending the first 6 issues as short term
5
priority issues that are recommended to be pursued now and concurrently. Suggested
timeframes are provided (taking into account current workload /staff capability).
1. Adopt funding mechanism (as necessary to allow the County to assess fees for FY
2015/16)
■ Open -ended or longer term timeframe (closure on funding issue) is preferred by
staff rather than an interim or short approval or recurring annual multi -
jurisdictional approvals
Suggested Timeframe: Governing boards to agree on Option 2 — Solid Waste Programs
Fee (single county -wide fee) before May 1. Fee approved in municipal budget
ordinances to be effective July 1, 2015.
2. Adopt Formal Interlocal Agreement — By January 1, 2016
• Incorporate funding mechanism
• Waste collection would be responsibility of individual jurisdictions
• Include UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare to the extent possible
• Assume long term relationship
• Include withdrawal provision
• Include amendment provision
• Establish citizen advisory function
• Establish fee increase limitations or municipal fee approval triggers
• Set new county -wide waste reduction goal
• Address future of SWAG
• Staffs to have substantive technical role
Suggested Timeframe: SWAG could prioritize discussion of Interlocal Agreement for
upcoming meetings, beginning with the April 22 meeting. Target January 1, 2016 to
have consensus draft ready for governing boards' consideration. This is a possible topic
for November 2015 AOG meeting. Address county /municipal issues first and then
incorporate UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare.
3. Rural Curbside Expansion (implementation active upon adoption of Funding Option)
■ 3 year phased implementation to begin in spring FY 2015/16
Suggested Timeframe: Consistent with fee option proposal rural expansion element
county staff is currently planning and has incorporated into the FY 2015116 proposed
budget phase 1 rural expansion (of three year phasing) of curbside recycling with roll cart
option. We anticipate that phase 1 implementation (cart distribution and collection to
half of the parcels not currently being serviced curbside) by March -April 2016. Completed
implementation for curbside recycling to all improved properties in the County is
X
estimated to be March -April 2018. County staff is initiating a routing study and data
collection.
4. Development of Local Waste Disposal Facility
• Landfill or transfer station
• Minimize environmental and neighborhood impacts of siting
• Maximize waste reduction
• Generate revenue to fund facility operations and debt
• Reduced operating costs
• Consider proven alternative technologies as appropriate
Suggested Timeframe: Given the extraordinary cost and effort for hauling waste to
Durham County disposal facilities (less so for Hillsborough), coupled with the time
required to successfully site, design, permit and construct a local facility, staff believes it
is necessary to begin the process as soon as possible. Staff suggests that preliminary
discussions begin asap (spring 2015). Under reasonably deliberation and meaningful
jurisdictional collaboration, it could take 3 -4 years to plan and construct a transfer
station. Deduct 1 year if a site search is not required. A landfill proposal could likely take
a minimum of 6 -7 years and a site search would be required.
S. Exploration and Implementation of cooperative operations with UNC -CH and UNC -
Healthcare (initial explorations underway)
Suggested Timeframe: Staff is already engaged in this endeavor with UNC -CH and once
the 'low hanging fruit" has been evaluated and addressed additional opportunities will
be explored. The evaluation of collaborative opportunities with UNC - Healthcare can be
initiated over the remainder of 2015. Staff will provide periodic progress updates to the
SWAG. A comprehensive technical assessment of opportunities may require the
assistance of a consultant.
6. Secure Permanent Emergency Storm Debris Management Sites
• Larger site for extreme weather event in Northern Orange
• Replacement site for Millhouse Road site when park development begins
Suggested Timeframe: Staff will initiate evaluation of alternative sites. Suggested
options to be presented to and discussed with SWAG in fall of 2015. The issue of a larger
northern site will be the first staff priority as the current southern site is adequate until
the future Millhouse Road Park property is ready for development.
Note: It is unlikely that staff can proficiently manage any more than the above
priorities over the next 2 -3 years. The SWAG can reorder the priorities from
7
among the above and below issues; however there is a practical limit to the
number and complexity of projects staff can manage at one time. Not on this
priority list but a previously identified BOCC priority is the modernization of
Solid Waste Convenience Centers that is also to be managed within the 2 -3 year
timeframe.
7. Evaluation of Non - residential Programs (initial data gathering underway)
• Improve /expand non - residential collection programs
• Consider both wet (food waste) and dry (co- mingled recycling) materials
• Facilitate maximization of recovery from non - residential programs
• Consider alternative methods of service delivery
• Evaluate costs /benefits of programs
• Could be informed by waste characterization study
Suggested Timeframe: Comprehensive evaluation of non - residential recycling services will
likely take up to 1 year and potentially involve the assistance of a consultant. A waste
composition study is proposed and could take approximately 6 additional months. Following
evaluation, staffs would develop recommendations for SWAG consideration. Further
timeline would depend on subsequent SWAG recommendations and elected board decisions.
Total timeline could be approximately 2 -3 years.
8. Assess the Effectiveness of and Compliance with the Regulated Recyclable Materials
Ordinance (RRMO)
■ Make ordinance or enforcement adjustments as necessary
Suggested Timeframe: This item would require staff to develop a method of assessment and
conduct the assessment over a period of time, possibly 1 -2 years. Further timeline would
depend on results of assessment, such as requirements for ordinance revisions, changes in
enforcement strategies, etc. Total timeline could be approximately 2 -2.5 years.
9. Consider Options for Providing Non - municipal Operated Waste Collection Services — i.e.
franchising
• Reduce fuel usage
• Minimize costs
• Maximize access to services
Suggested Timeframe: Assessment of current non - governmental waste collection services
and development of a recommendation for SWAG consideration could take up to 1 year.
Further consideration by the SWAG leading to a recommendation to elected boards could
:�
require another year or more. Depending on the final decision an additional 18 months for
implementation would likely be required. Total time could be approximately 3 -3.5 years.
10. Evaluation of Urban Curbside Program
• Collection frequency upon request by Towns
• Capacity for adding additional materials to recycling stream (ongoing)
Suggested Timeframe: An assessment of moving from weekly to bi- weekly (every other
week) municipal curbside recycling services, including costs and other implications could be
performed in approximately 6 months. Actual implementation of bi- weekly services could
depend on budget cycle timing, timeliness to inform residents of a change, willingness of
contractor to negotiate mid - contract and /or modify the remaining term on an existing
collection agreement. It is desired and recommended to implement a change infrequency of
collection to the contract upon contract renewal discussions. Currently, we are in the second
year of a five -year term agreement for weekly curbside collection. Total time to implement
could range from 1 year to 3+ years.
11. Residential Organics
■ Assess feasibility and costs /benefits
■ Could be informed by waste characterization study
Suggested Timeframe: An assessment of expanding residential organics collection, which
would include a waste composition study, would take about 1 year and likely involve a
consultant. Depending on the resulting staff recommendation to the SWAG and the
subsequent recommendation to elected boards including time for public comment and input,
another 1 year would be likely. Depending on the specific implementation (if recommended
and endorsed by the boards) an implementation could take an additional 1 -2 years. Total
timeline to implement could range from 3 -4 years.
12. Pay -As- You -Throw (PAYT) Waste Collection
■ Assess feasibility and costs /benefits
■ Could be informed by waste characterization study
Suggested Timeframe: Numerous evaluations, analysis and reports have been conducted by
the various staffs over the past several years and another report could be completed in less
than one year. A waste characterization study prior to considering PAYT would be
recommended and can take about 6 months. It is estimated that another year could be
spent discussing and debating among the SWAG as to what, if any, recommendation should
be provided to the governing boards. If the boards agreed upon a particular PAYT
methodology it is estimated that it could take 1 -2 years to plan and implement the program
simultaneously in all jurisdictions. Considerable attention to public education and outreach
9
would be required limiting other staff workload for that period. LINC -CH would also have an
interest in any decision. Total time to implement could range from 3 to 4 years.
13. Develop strategy for measuring and tracking solid waste services
Suggested Timeframe: The staffs would discuss the various indicators, yardsticks and
benchmarks available or necessary as relates to various programs and services. Staff would
then consider the data collection methodology and reporting frequency that would be
suitable. Establishing data collection and reporting protocols could be phased in, beginning
with services /programs with the most interest. Initial discussions and data collection and
reporting recommendations could take place within 6 months. Full broad -based program
data reporting and monitoring could take up to 2 years depending on other workload and
data objectives. Also, to have a meaningful evaluation of program performance and
objectives it is desired to have data collection over a multi -year period. Total timeline to
fully implement could take up to 2 years, however constantly changing or expanding
programs and services would make this an ongoing and evolving activity.
Note: Staffs will prepare updated cost estimates for hauling waste to Durham disposal
facilities compared to using a local facility within the next 2 -3 SWAG meetings.
Lone Term Issues
Staffs believe that some sort of technical advisory committee would be appropriate and
necessary to explore and evaluate more intricate or longer term type issues or issues that are
likely to be publically contentious. Alternatively, local government staff could provide this
function once satisfactory progress is made on more short /mid -term priorities.
• Uses for closed landfills
• Alternative technologies
o develop criteria /principals for evaluation
➢ consider only proven
➢ determine impact on recycling
➢ evaluate risk
➢ define local interests
• Evaluate and update solid waste ordinances
• Development of regional /multi- county cooperative relationships
• Biosolids
r,anarA
Timeframe - Most new program implementation, major current program expansions and all
facility construction require multiple years to plan and implement. So terms such as short -
term, mid -term and long -term may not be viewed by everyone through the same timeframe
lens. For example, it may be suggested that expansion of rural curbside recycling is a short-
10
term action, but that action has been proposed as a three year phased implementation that will
not be fully implemented until the fourth year.
Workload — Your staffs' capacity to plan and implement multiple programs and facilities is
frequently limited given ongoing routine service provision and administrative obligations, in
addition to other programatic and facility improvements and modifications that are continually
in progress. Even the use of consultants requires close oversight and guidance. There are
genuine limits to the overall staff capability at any one time if quality program performance,
cost effectiveness and effective citizen education and outreach activities are desirable
objectives. Nevertheless, your staffs are prepared to undertake the issues deemed priority by
our respective governing boards.
1 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
• - -- Formatted: Font: 20 pt
DRAFT
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY AND THE TOWNS OF
CARRBORO, CHAPEL HILL, AND HILLSBOROUGH REGARDING THE PROVISION OF
SERVICES RELATED TO AND THE DISPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE IN ORANGE COUNTY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 20_
between Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough, North Carolina municipal
corporations, of Orange County, North Carolina (hereinafter referred to individually as the
"Town" and jointly as "Towns "); UNC- Healthcare; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(hereinafter referred to as UNC -CH), and Orange County, a political subdivision of the State of
North Carolina (hereinafter referred to as the "County "), for the provision of solid waste services
and disposition of solid waste within Orange County. (County, Towns UNC -CH and UNC -
Healthcare may be referred to collectively as the "Parties ")
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the County, UNC - Healthcare, UNC -CH and Towns are public bodies, politic
and corporate, under the laws of the State of North Carolina and are vested with the power and
authority by Article 20 of North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 160A to enter into this
Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement'); and
WHEREAS, the County operates and /or contracts for the operation of solid waste and /or
recyclable materials collections services in the jurisdictions of the County and Towns; and
WHEREAS, the County, UNC - Healthcare, UNC -CH and Towns desire to establish
procedures, policies, rights, and responsibilities for the collection, transport, and disposition of
solid waste, construction and demolition materials, and recyclable materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and on mutual promises and
obligations set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
County, UNC- Healthcare, UNC -CH and Towns agree as follows:
TERM AND TERMINATION
A. County may terminate this Agreement, without penalty or cost, pursuant to the terms of
Paragraph V (E & F) below.
B. Interlocal Agreement will become effective upon execution by each Town, County, UNC -
Chapel Hill and UNC - Healthcare and remain in effect until eliminated by agreement of the
parties or the majority of the parties withdraw. Parties to the agreement may withdraw with
12 month notice and payment of its per- capita share of any outstanding debt related to the
services, facilities and programs listed above and any debt which is incurred while a party to
the Interlocal Agreement up to the time of notice to withdraw. The withdrawing party shall be
responsible for the full amount of any outstanding costs or debt related to the provision of
services or facilities contemplated by this Agreement as such costs or debt apply within its
territorial jurisdiction.
II. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION ( "C &D ") AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
( "MSW ") LANDFILLS
12 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
-- - -- Formatted: Font: 20 pt
A. County shall maintain financial, regulatory and environmental responsibility for operations,
closure, and for post - closure maintenance /monitoring, of Orange County's C & D and MSW
Landfills.
B. County shall, pursuant to the terms of its agreement with the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, monitor the operation and performance of the University Landfill Gas Recovery
System.
C. Towns and County will, in support of the solid waste enterprise fund, direct C &D waste from
projects where local government funding is utilized, including school construction and
renovation, to the Orange County C &D Landfill.
D. Towns and County will, in support of the solid waste enterprise fund, deliver white
goods /appliances, vegetative wastes and scrap metal and other materials as agreed on in
the future, to County recycling facilities.
III. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ( "MSW ") COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
A. Towns and County will maintain authority and responsibility, financial and environmental, for
MSW collected and transferred within their respective jurisdictions.
B. Any party to this agreemeRt that GORsiders alternative selidd 1.vaste faGility OptiGPIS shall
tippiRg fees as estabhshed_ by the relevant geverning bGdy. Should they paFtiGipate, fees
shall be established anFlually as part ef the FegulaF budget aPPFGval pFeGess and beGeme
effeep -tive en July 1 of a given year. (Does deleting this section properly capture SWAG's
proposed action from the 11 -12 -14 meeting?)
C. Should the County or a Town (or Towns) plan, site and develop alternative solid waste
disposal facility options the Agreement may be amended if necessary to clarify access,
ownership and operation.
D. County will maintain, operate, and fund Solid Waste Convenience Centers that accept
residentially generated MSW, C &D, bulky waste, recyclable materials, etc. for the use and
benefit of all County and Town residents.
E. Towns and County will, in support of the solid waste enterprise fund and subject to
modification, deliver white goods /appliances, mattresses, vegetative wastes, C &D waste,
clean wood, cardboard and scrap metal to designated Orange County facilities.
F. County shall provide for the specific recycling and /or, where legally permissible, the reuse of
materials such as:
1. White Goods /Appliances;
2. Scrap tires;
3. Scrap metal;
13 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
— Formatted: Font: 20 pt
4. Clean wood waste;
5. Vegetative waste;
6. Electronics
7. Mattresses.
8. Household Hazardous Waste
9. Other materials as markets and program funding becomes available
G. County will endeavor to maximize schedule of operation and services available (subject to
material markets and budgetary considerations and constraints) at convenience centers
consistent with current District /Neighborhood concept or other convenience center concepts
as directed by the Board of Commissioners. Current District Center (Walnut Grove Church
Road and Eubanks Road Convenience Centers) services provide for the disposal of:
IV. RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
A. Recycling programs and services that are provided at the time of implementation of this
Agreement are anticipated to be continued for the foreseeable future. Periodic expansions,
modifications, improvements or adjustments to programs /services may be made by the
parties of the Agreement (subject to material markets and budgetary considerations).
County will coordinate /collaborate with Towns and UNC- University and UNC - Healthcare
regarding changes to programs /services operated within the Towns through an advisory
board /committee established for this purpose, or other means as agreed.
B. Any consideration of eliminating a program, facility or service shall first be discussed by the
advisory committee /commission /board /group so that all parties may provide input to the
decision.
C. It is the County's objective to offer equivalent services /programs within the Towns. County
may also provide special services to individual Towns that may require special negotiated
service fees or other specific compensation that fall outside of this Agreement. The portion
of Chapel Hill located within Durham County should receive those services which other parts
of the Town of Chapel Hill receive, however, it is solely the responsibility of the Town of
14 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
�- - -- Formatted: Font: 20 pt
Chapel Hill to establish the authority by which County shall provide services in that portion of
the Town.
D. County shall ensure that recycling programs /services provided by the County are of high
quality and reliable with regard to the reasonable: Adherence to route schedules; prevention
of overflow of drop -off site receptacles; resolution of complaints; safety; and making
progress toward waste reduction objectives. County will endeavor to coordinate urban
curbside recycling collection routing with municipal waste collection routing (as requested) to
the extent possible, consistent with collection efficiency, budgetary constraints and available
resources (i.e. roll -carts, compacting collection vehicles) County will endeavor to maintain
maximum efficiency in recycling and waste reduction programs consistent with generally
accepted industry best management practices.
E. Towns will coordinate /collaborate with County with regard to specific interests /initiatives that
affect performance of County programs and services, such as but not limited to PAYT and
organics diversion.
Current 24 -Hour Recycling Drop -off Centers are intended to remain in service, subject to
County budgetary considerations, recyclable material drop -off requirements of the parties,
site availability, space limitations, material market availability, and Town recyclable material
drop -off requirements. The five current drop -off sites include: Cedar Falls Park, Hampton
Point, Carrboro Plaza, University Mall, and Meadowmont. No reductions or additions of
drop -off sites are contemplated at this time. Reduction /addition in the number of centers
within each Town shall be coordinated /reviewed by advisory
board /commission /committee /group.
G. Subject to state and federal law and subject to budgetary considerations and constraints it is
expected by the Parties that recycling services offered at the time of the execution of this
Agreement shall continue and be subject to appropriate performance measure and analysis.
V. ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT
Towns will allow enforcement of County regulated recyclable material ordinance (RRMO)
within Town municipal limits. Each Town may assist in the enforcement of County's
Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance within each Town's jurisdiction using their staff in
coordination with County staff. Towns shall monitor waste collected by Town staff for
banned materials in order to prevent the delivery of banned materials for disposal. County
shall provide solid waste plan advice, review, and approvals in concert with development
applications to various jurisdictions. County may assist towns' enforcement staff in
enforcement of landfill bans on privately collected waste containers.
VI. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT - PLANNING AND REPORTING
County, in cooperation with Towns, is responsible for the development and timely
submission of required annual reporting and solid waste management planning to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Towns and County shall
cooperate with requests for information, data, and records, in a reasonable and timely
manner. Consideration shall be given by County to investigation of increased diversion of
15 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
-- - -- Formatted: Font: 20 pt
organic wastes, especially commercially generated food wastes, and the expansion of non-
residential recycling programs and services. County, in cooperation with Towns, may
develop recycling performance and tracking measures for various programs of interest.
Collected data will be maintained in a secure manner, consistent with public records law of
North Carolina.
Vll. FINANCIAL
A. Fees for the purpose of providing multi - family and urban curbside recycling services within
the jurisdictions of the Towns shall be established through each Town's budgetary process.
Through such process Towns shall establish recycling service fees based on County's
recommendation, which recommendation shall be based on County's good faith estimate of
the costs of providing recycling services within the Towns' jurisdictions. Each Town shall
authorize County to collect and administer fees established for the purpose of providing
recycling services within the Towns' jurisdictions. County shall apply the full revenue of said
fees solely toward the costs of providing services within the Towns' jurisdiction.
1. The Town of Chapel Hill shall, through its budgetary process, set fees for the costs of
services provided pursuant to the terms of this Agreement for those areas of the
Town situated in Durham County.
2. The Town of Chapel Hill shall establish said fees based on County's
recommendation, which recommendation shall be based on County's good faith
estimate of the costs of providing services contemplated by this Agreement within
that area of the Town situated in Durham County.
3. The County will provide proposed fees to Towns for Urban Curbside and Multi- family
recycling services by April 1 (Solid Waste Directors recommendation) and May 1 of
each year (County Manager's recommendation if different from Directors), unless
multi -year fee rate is established.
4. The Town of Chapel Hill shall authorize County to collect and administer said fees
16 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
- Formatted: Font: 20 pt
and County shall apply the full revenue of said fees solely toward the costs of
providing services in that area of the Town of Chapel Hill situated in Durham County.
B. Annually no later than April 1 County shall notify Towns of any proposed tipping fee
increases and any proposed fee increases associated with multi - family and urban curbside
recycling services provided pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Subject to the terms
and any exceptions in this Paragraph V County shall be solely responsible for establishing
said fees. County shall establish said fees through its good faith estimate of the actual costs
of providing the services contemplated by this Agreement. Fees imposed pursuant to the
terms of this Agreement shall be uniform for each Town and shall be in an amount sufficient
to fully cover the direct and indirect costs of providing the services contemplated by this
Agreement.
C. Annually no later than April 1 (Solid Waste Directors recommendation) and May 1 of each
year (County Manager's recommendation if different from Directors), County shall notify
Towns of the proposed tipping fees and fees associated with services other than recycling
provided pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Subject to the terms and any exceptions
provided in this section, County shall be solely responsible for establishing said fees. County
shall establish said fees through its good faith estimate of the actual costs of providing the
services contemplated by this Agreement. Fees imposed pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement shall be uniform for each Town and shall be in an amount sufficient to fully cover
the costs of providing the services contemplated by this Agreement. All fees, unless
otherwise provided, shall become effective on July 1 of a given year.
D. Subject to the two exceptions set out below, any fee increase of more than five percent (5 %)
must be approved by the Towns in advance by June 1 of any given year.
1. This Paragraph V(D) shall not apply where County has provided at least twelve (12)
months' notice of said fee increase and where such increase greater than five
percent (5 %) is necessary to maintain the then current level of services.
2. County's contract with its service provider, a provider of urban curbside service
contemplated by this Agreement, contains provisions for annual increases in costs
based on annual increases in the national Consumer Price Index ( "CPI "). This
Paragraph V(D) shall not apply where a greater than five percent (5 %) fee increase
is necessary based on the CPI increase requirement of County's contract with Waste
Industries, or any other service provider where the service contract contains a similar
provision, and where County has notified Town prior to the first day of April when
such a CPI increase greater than five percent (5 %) is expected for the next fiscal
year.
E. In the event a Town or Towns fail to approve a multi - family or urban curbside recycling fee
increase of greater than five percent (5 %) for any service where such increase is necessary
to fully pay for the provision of any service contemplated by the terms of this Agreement or
where such increase is necessary for County to meet its contractual obligations with any
contractor engaged in providing any of the services contemplated by this Agreement County
may, at its option, terminate this Agreement as it applies to any Town that fails to approve
said fee increase.
17 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
—1 - -- Formatted: Font: 20 pt
1. Any termination pursuant to this Paragraph V(D) shall be without cost or penalty to
County.
2. In the event County terminates this Agreement pursuant to the terms of this
Paragraph V(D) the Town or Towns with which the Agreement is terminated shall be
responsible for the full amount of any outstanding costs, contractual obligations or
debt related to the provision of services contemplated by this Agreement as such
costs or debt apply within its territorial jurisdiction.
3. Any termination pursuant to this Paragraph V(D) shall be effective at the end of the
fiscal year in which a Town or Towns fail to approve the aforementioned fee increase
and after written notice by the County to the Town(s).
F. In the event a Town or Towns fail to approve a fee increase of greater than ten percent
(10 %) for any service where such increase is necessary to fully pay for the provision of any
service contemplated by the terms of this Agreement or where such increase is necessary
for County to meet its contractual obligations with any contractor engaged in providing any
of the services contemplated by this Agreement County may, at its option, terminate this
Agreement as it applies to any Town that fails to approve said fee increase.
G. "If the County determines that it is or may be advisable to create and impose any additional
type of Governmental Fee (beyond the existing Urban Curbside and Multi- family Fee), then
the County will give at least 60 days' notice of the proposed Governmental Fee to the other
parties. A Governmental Fee may then be imposed only if the creation and imposition of
such Governmental Fee is subsequently approved by the County and at least one other of
the largest two (by population) local government Parties. A new Governmental Fee will take
effect at the end of the notice period or, if later, the date of the last Governing Body approval
necessary for it to take effect."
H. "The County may increase any individual Governmental Fee (except the existing Urban
Curbside or Multi- family Fee) from time to time in its discretion with at least 60 days' notice
of the increase to all Parties. The County may not, however, increase any individual
Governmental Fee during or at the beginning of any Fiscal Year to a fee that exceeds the
fee in effect at the end of the preceding Fiscal Year by more than 10 %, without the prior
consent of all the other Parties. The Parties intend and agree that the County shall endeavor
to adjust any and all Governmental Fees only annually, with changes becoming effective
only at the beginning of a Fiscal Year."
VIII. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent authorized by North Carolina law County, Towns, UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare
each agree to indemnify and hold harmless one another, their agents, officials, and employees,
from and against all claims, actions, demands, costs, damages, losses and /or expenses of any
kind whatsoever, in whole or in part, resulting from any acts of County, each Town, UNC -CH or
UNC - Healthcare, their agents, officials, employees, guests or invitees caused by or directly
related to the performance of this Agreement, including but not limited to court costs and
attorney's fees incurred by the County, Towns, UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare in connection
with the defense of said matters.
18 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
Formatted: Font: 20 pt
IX. NOTICE
Any notice required by or pursuant to this Agreement, or any amendment or renewal, shall be in
writing and delivered by United States Mail to the following:
To Carrboro: To Hillsborough:
Town of Carrboro
Town of Hillsborough
Town Manager
Town Manager
301 West Main Street
101 East Orange Street
Carrboro, NC 27510
Hillsborough, NC 27278
To Orange County:
To Chapel Hill:
Orange County
Town of Chapel Hill
County Manager
Town Manager
200 S. Cameron Street
405 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
To UNC- Chapel Hill:
To UNC - Healthcare:
XI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement of the Parties hereto and is effective the date
first above recorded.
[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]
19 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
• —, -- Formatted: Font: 20 pt
In witness whereof, the Parties, by and through their authorized agents, have hereunder set
their hands and seal as of the day and year first above written.
Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill Chair, Orange County
ATTEST: ATTEST:
Town Clerk Clerk to the Board
Mayor, Town of Carrboro Mayor, Town of Hillsborough
ATTEST: ATTEST
Town Clerk Town Clerk
UNC -CH UNC- Healthcare
This instrument has been pre- audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget
and Fiscal Control Act:
Carrboro Finance Director
This instrument has been pre- audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget
and Fiscal Control Act:
Chapel Hill Finance Director
This instrument has been pre- audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget
and Fiscal Control Act:
Hillsborough Finance Director
This instrument has been pre- audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget
and Fiscal Control Act:
20 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
—1 - -- Formatted: Font: 20 pt
Orange County Finance Director
UNC -CH
UNC - Healthcare
21 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
- - -- Formatted: Font: 20 pt
Appendix I — Services at Time of Interlocal Agreement Adoption
As of the date first above recorded current recycling services provided to Towns by County
include:
1. Weekly residential curbside collection (single stream);
2. Multi- family collection (single stream);
3. Food Waste collection from commercial establishments;
4. Bar /Restaurant and other small commercial location collection (single stream);
5. Downtown cardboard Collection — Chapel Hill only — fee based;
6. Pedestrian bins ( locations) — Chapel Hill only — fee based;
7. Park &Ride lot collection ( currently 3 locations in Chapel Hill and 2 in Carrboro);
8. Municipal park collection;
9. Government building collection for all local governments, OWASA and public (except
UNC -CH) schools;
10. Public housing - (multi - family style service or single family, as appropriate to housing
type);
11. Public schools collection -- fee based, contractual service.
Current recycling services provided to the towns (incorporated municipalities) by the Countv
include:
Weekly residential curbside collection (single stream) — co- mingled collection currently provided
by contract to the County with 95 gallon roll carts; materials include clean -dry paper, metal cans,
glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles /tubs /cups, drink and milk cartons, cardboard, aerosol cans,
aluminum foil /trays
Multi- family collection (single stream) — co- mingled collection available to all multi - family
facilities throughout the County at necessary collection frequency; materials include clean -dry
paper, metal cans, glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles /tubs /cups, drink and milk cartons,
cardboard, aerosol cans, aluminum foil /trays
Food Waste collection — available to all restaurant, food preparation, supermarket, and other
approved (pre and post- consumer) who meet a County established minimum monthly quantity
generated threshold and can adhere to quality requirements and accessibility
Bar /Restaurant and other commercial location collection (single stream) — objective of providing
services to all establishments in the County according to pending comprehensive recycling plan
and available funding
Downtown Cardboard Collection (Chapel Hill only) — fee based on negotiated rate directly with
Chapel Hill and may be available to other Towns upon request
Downtown Pedestrian Bins — fee based on negotiated rate directly with Chapel Hill and may be
available to other Towns for a fee upon request; subject to coordination of receptacle used with
County and level of contamination of materials
22 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
—, - -- Formatted: Font: 20 pt
Park & Ride Lot Collection ( currently 3 locations in Chapel Hill and 2 in Carrboro) - fee based
on negotiated rate directly with Chapel Hill and Carrboro and may be available to Hillsborough
upon request; subject to coordination of receptacle used with County and level of contamination
of materials
Municipal Park Collection - fee based on negotiated rate directly with Chapel Hill and may be
available to other Towns upon request; subject to coordination of receptacle used with County
and level of contamination of materials
Government building collection for all local governments and OWASA — recycling service
available to all local government buildings and OWASA; other government buildings at County
discretion and available resources
Public Housing - (multi - family style service or single family, as appropriate to housing type) —
public housing will be service in the same manner as other residences, whether multi - family or
single family type service; County to provide periodic communication as needed with
Department of Public Housing regarding outreach and education of residents, management and
other changes to public housing services
Public Schools collection -- fee based, contracted service negotiated directly with the individual
school system
Hours of Operation — County will establish hours of operation for County services /facilities;
County will consult with Towns when changes in hours of operation are being considered,
except in extenuating and temporary situations such as storm events; County will attempt to
notify municipalities by 7am the morning of any event that impacts regular facility hours of
operation
Recycling (unstaffed) Drop -off Centers — recycling drop -off centers within the Towns will be
serviced by County on an as needed basis; materials include clean -dry paper, metal cans,
glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles /tubs /cups, drink and milk cartons, cardboard, aerosol cans,
aluminum foil /trays
• Towns will cooperate with County to site or maintain current locations as necessary
• materials currently available at these centers at the time of the execution of this
agreement will be maintained and any consideration to reduce the current available
materials will first be discussed by the advisory committee /commission /board
• materials may be added at County discretion
• County will, with the relevant Town cooperation, maintain the sites with regard to
screening, signage, litter collection and illegal dumping (includes any existing agreement
for site maintenance)
23 Formatted: Font: 20 pt
- - -- Formatted: Font: 20 pt
Appendix II - MISCELLANEOUS
A. Holiday service. County shall be responsible for providing service and facility holiday
schedule to parties and to make a good faith effort to coordinate service schedules to the
extent practicable.
B. Storm debris management. County shall manage construction debris created by or from
severe storms at its Construction & Demolition Landfill. County shall provide debris
management sites for delivery of severe storm event vegetative debris. Emergency storm
debris collection and monitoring are the responsibility of each jurisdiction unless otherwise
noted in a separate MOU.
C. Education and Outreach. County shall be responsible for the preparation, distribution,
expense, and coordination of education and outreach services related to waste
management, recycling, and reduction services and programs under its administration,
including advertising of holiday schedules. A multi -media approach will be utilized.
D. Advisory Board. County, Towns, UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare shall cooperate and jointly
participate in the creation of a solid waste management advisory board. The document
containing the bylaws and /or operating procedures of such advisory board shall be attached
to this Agreement as Exhibit 1.
• L Representing each Town, County and potentially the University
• State composition, terms, rules of procedure and membership
• State mission /charge
o Advise the County's governing board on matters related to solid waste and
recycling services, programs and policies of the waste management system
governed by this Interlocal Agreement.
• To recommend programs, policies, expansions amendments and
reductions of services and other matters related to the operation of the
system
• To provide a forum for development of a comprehensive county -wide
solid waste plan
• To provide advice to the County Manager and Board of Commissioners
with regard to development of the proposed annual solid waste budget
• To respond to inquiries or requests for opinion from the County's
governing body, or such other matters as any Town governing Board or
the County Manager may request
• To initiate research, analysis or review on existing services, programs or
policies
• To provide a public forum for the discussion of issues related to system
programs /policies
Note: Elected officials may wish to initiate a separate process to determine nature and
composition of advisory committee%ommission or board, or Orange County
Waste Partners Group.
24
Alternative Waste Processing Technologies
Assessment
(A White Paper)
Prepared by:
QBBIt
-M,
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
8550 Arlington Blvd, Suite 203
Fairfax, VA 22031
1- 800 - 573 -5801
August 15, 2008
26
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................ ............................... ES -1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................ ............................... 1
2.0 FUTURE ORANGE COUNTY WASTE DISPOSAL NEEDS .. ............................... 3
3.0 WORLDWIDE EXPERIENCE OF WASTE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
AND VENDORS ..................................................... ............................... 5
3.1
Mass- Burn /WaterwaII Combustion .................. ............................... 5
3.2
Mass - Burn /Modular Combustion .................... ............................... 5
3.3
Refuse - derived Fuel /Dedicated Boiler ............. ............................... 6
3.4
RDF /Fluidized Bed ....................................... ............................... 6
3.5
Gasification ................................................ ............................... 6
3.6
Pyrolysis .................................................... ............................... 6
3.7
Plasma Arc ................................................. ............................... 7
3.8
Biological Fuel Production ............................. ............................... 7
3.8.1 Cellulosic Ethanol .............................. ............................... 7
Hawaii County, HI ............................... .............................20
3.8.2 Biogas - Anaerobic Digestion ............... ............................... 8
4.0 RECENT RESEARCH /PROCUREMENTS FOR WASTE PROCESSING
TECHNOLOGIES BY OTHERS ................................. ............................... 12
4.1 Recent Research ....................................... ............................... 13
4. 1.1 New York City, NY .............................. .............................13
4.1.2 City of Los Angeles, CA ....................... .............................14
4.1.3 Los Angeles County, CA ....................... .............................15
4.1.4 King County, WA ................................ .............................17
4.2 Procurements ........................................... ...............................
17
4.2.1
Frederick and Carroll Counties, MD ........ .............................17
4.2.2
Harford County, MD ............................ .............................18
4.2.3
City of Sacramento, CA ....................... .............................19
4.2.4
Broward County, FL ............................ .............................19
4.2.5
St. Lucie County, FL ............................ .............................20
4.2.6
Hawaii County, HI ............................... .............................20
4.2.7
Pinellas County, FL ............................. .............................20
4.2.8
Hillsborough and Lee Counties, FL ......... .............................20
4.2.9
Fairbanks North Star Borough, AK ......... .............................21
4.2.10
City of Tallahassee, FL ......................... .............................21
4.3 Comparison
of Technologies Chosen in Recent
Research / Procurements .............................. ...............................
22
5.0 OPINION ON ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY, EFFECTIVENESS, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF WASTE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES.......... 23
5.1 Economic Feasibility of Waste Processing Technologies .................. 23
5.1.1 Typical Waste Processing Technologies Project Economic
Estimates.......................................... .............................23
5.1.2 Assumptions ...................................... .............................24
5.1.3 Pro Forma Operating Statement ........... .............................25
GBB/C07063 -01 ii August 15, 2008
27
5.2 Effectiveness of Waste Processing Technologies ............................ 25
5.3 Environmental Issues of Waste Processing Technologies ................ 26
5.3.1 Air Quality ......................................... .............................26
5.3.2 Water ............................................... .............................29
6.0 OPINION ON WHICH WASTE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED FOR ORANGE COUNTY ................. ............................... 30
List of Tables
Table 3 -1.
U.S. Mass - Burn /Waterwall Facilities ................... ............................... 5
Table 3 -2.
Commercial Cellulosic Ethanol Plants in the U. S ... ...............................
8
Table 3 -3.
Biogas Production in Europe .............................. .............................10
Figure
Table 3 -4.
Biogas Firms in Europe ..................................... .............................10
Table 4 -1.
Technologies /Vendors Mentioned in Recent Procurements
................... 22
Table 5 -1.
Pro Forma Annual Operating Statement ............... .............................25
B -2.
Table B -1.
WTE Facilities Worldwide ............................... ...............................
B -2
List of Figures
Figure
1 -1 —
Solid Waste Management Hierarchy ................. ............................... 1
Figure
5 -1.
Dioxin Emissions from WTE Facilities, 1990 — 2005 ...........................
28
Figure
5 -2.
Mercury Emission from WTE Facilities, 1990 - 2005 ..........................28
Figure
B -1.
Waterwall Furnace Section ........................... ...............................
B -4
Figure
B -2.
Typical Mass -Burn Waterwall System ............. ...............................
B -5
Figure
B -3.
Typical Modular Combustion System .............. ...............................
B -6
Figure
B -4.
Typical RDF Combustion Facility .................... ...............................
B -7
Figure
B -5.
Typical RDF Processing Schematic ................. ...............................
B -8
Figure
B -6.
Typical RDF Fluid Bed System ....................... ...............................
B -9
Figure
B -7.
Typical Gasification System ........................ ...............................
8 -10
Figure
B -8.
RDF Fluidized Bed Gasification System ......... ...............................
B -11
Figure
B -9.
EnTech Process Schematic ......................... ...............................
B -12
Figure
B -10.
Process Diagram of a Pyrolysis System ...... ...............................
B -13
Figure
B -11.
Cross - Section of a Plasma Arc Furnace ....... ...............................
B -14
Figure
B -12.
Process Flow of the BCyL Biomass Ethanol Plant ..........................
B -16
Figure
B -13.
Process Flow for Anaerobic Digestion System' ............................
B -20
Figure
B -14.
ArrowBio Facility in Haifa .......................... ...............................
B -21
Appendices
A -1 Firms Evaluated by Recent Waste Processing
Studies or Procurements ..................................... ............................... A -1
A -2 Summary of Municipal Waste Processing Technologies ............................ A -2
B Overview of Waste Processing Technologies .......... ............................... B -1
GBB/C07063 -01 iii August 15, 2008
N
Executive Summary
This examination of alternative waste processing technologies (WPT) was undertaken
at the behest of the Orange County Board of Commissioners to explore and evaluate
alternatives to landfill disposal of the County's municipal solid waste. The purpose of
this white paper is to initiate that evaluation and brief the County's solid waste staff,
elected officials, Solid Waste Advisory Board, and citizens on state -of- the -art solid
waste processing technologies, emerging technologies and their applicability to the
County's needs, and the potential of these technologies to contribute to the County's
overall solid waste management system.
Orange County generated approximately 116,000 tons of waste in FY2006 -07, or
about 318 tons per day (TPD). Of that material, 62,900 tons or 172 TPD were
disposed of in landfills, and 29,700 tons or 24 percent was recycled. The County is
examining ways to achieve its goal of 61 percent waste reduction, up from their
current rate of 48 percent. The County's landfill is projected to close in 2011. The
County has decided to manage its future waste using a transfer station and
contracting for disposal in an out -of- County landfill as well as examining the
feasibility of alternatives.
Traditional waste processing technologies now in operation have the potential of
managing most of the County's non - recycled waste. Generally, WTE plants reduce
the processed waste tonnage by 75 percent and the volume by 90 percent. This
leaves a residue, ash, which needs to be landfilled in a permitted Subtitle D landfill.
In some states, ash may be used beneficially as alternative daily cover at landfills.
Even at 75 percent reduction by weight, a WTE facility has a dramatic effect on the
amount of residual waste.
This report examines both proven and unproven waste processing technologies.
Table A -2 in the Appendices provides a comparison of these various technologies.
Waste -to- energy (WTE) technologies profiled include: mass - burn /waterwall
combustion, mass - burn /modular combustion, refuse - derived fuel (RDF) /dedicated
boiler, and RDF /fluid bed. Although WTE plants range in size from 10 to 3,000 TPD
in the U.S., 71 percent are 500 TPD or larger. Mass- burn /waterwalI combustion is
the most prevalent WPT in the U.S., employed at 65 of the 89 facilities. However,
no new mass -burn WTE facilities have been built in the U.S. for over ten years. Ten
WTE facilities currently operate in the Mid - Atlantic States region, processing almost
12,000 TPD. In North Carolina, New Hanover County owns a 500 TPD plant that
produces electricity. In contrast to its smaller presence in the U.S., WTE is an
accepted and commonly used waste processing technology worldwide, with 400
facilities in Europe, 100 in Japan, and 70 in other nations such as Taiwan, Singapore,
and China.
In addition to proven technologies, this report examines the emerging technologies
of high- temperature gasification, fluidized -bed combustion, plasma -arc processing,
non - thermal anaerobic digestion, and biological fuel production. Although technically
not an emerging technology, biological fuel production has not been commercially
proven using MSW as a feedstock.
The historical and current context for development and use of WTE in the U.S. is
explored, with waste processing technologies currently receiving renewed interest
due to: the proven WTE track record, increasing fossil fuel costs, growing interest in
renewable energy, a higher ranking in the EPA's waste management hierarchy,
GBB/C08027 -01 ES -1 August 15, 2008
29
concern about greenhouse gases, a change in flow control legislation, and the
increasing cost of long distance transfer and disposal.
Recent activity in the evaluation and procurement of WPT by other U.S. cities and
counties is detailed. Like Orange County, these localities are exploring alternatives
for service to their citizens. Information on the investigations of New York City, the
City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, and King County, WA into the applicability
of WPT is highlighted. Current WPT procurements are outlined, including: a resource
recovery facility for Frederick and Carroll Counties, MD; expansion of the Harford,
MD WTE facility; negotiations by the City of Sacramento, CA for a plasma gasification
project; Broward County, FL's Request for Expressions of Interest to evaluate
potential waste disposal options; a plasma arc gasification project proposed in St.
Lucie County, FL; and WTE plant expansions in Hillsborough and Lee Counties, FL,
that are currently being constructed. A total of 80 technology vendors offering 14
different technologies are represented, evaluated, screened, or selected during these
research and procurement projects.
The economic characteristics of the various waste processing technologies, including
capital and operating costs and risk, are summarized in the report. Generally,
capital cost for the proven technologies are in the range of $150,000 to $250,000
per ton of installed capacity, depending on size and plant configuration. Operating
costs are in the range of $35 to $60 per ton processed, not including residue
disposal, again dependent on size, equipment and operating profile, and assuming a
private operator. These figures are based on industry rules -of- thumb, recent
operating results from selected facilities, surveys of industry professionals and
related references.
Of the waste processing technologies examined, only WTE is a proven technology
which could be recommended for implementation consideration by Orange County at
this point in time. As mentioned earlier, there are 89 WTE plants generating power
in the U.S. and hundreds worldwide. The other technologies discussed are in various
stages of development and are not mature enough to mitigate the risks potentially
inherent with their implementation.
In evaluating waste processing technologies for Orange County to consider, it is
apparent that there is not enough waste generated by the County to gain the
economies of scale necessary to make a waste processing technology a cost - effective
investment. The estimated cost to process waste at a 300 TPD WTE facility in
Orange County is estimated at $102 per ton. To improve the economics of utilizing
waste processing technology, Orange County would need to partner with an adjacent
community. The $102 per ton is not competitive with the County's current landfill
disposal fee of $49 or with Waste Industries' cost of $42 per ton to transfer and
dispose of waste.
Although currently unknown, the cost of the County's new transfer station and
landfilling at a remote site is unlikely to reach $102 per ton. As the County
investigates the cost of transfer and disposal in preparation of its landfill closing,
WPT could be more economically attractive once the cost of transfer and disposal is
known. If $102 per ton were to look competitive, it is recommended that Orange
County conduct a WTE plant feasibility study which considers mass -burn modular
technologies, and /or fuel production approaches.
GBB/C08027 -01 ES -2 August 15, 2008
0
1.0 Introduction and Background
The federal government regulates solid waste in the United States under Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations Subchapter 1 (40 CFR 239 to 2999). These
regulations are in 40 CFR 258 (also known as Resource Conservation Recovery Act
[RCRA] Subtitle D), Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Under authority of
RCRA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) administers
Title 40 regulations and enforces solid waste regulations and policies through its
Office of Solid Waste (OSW).
Figure 1 -1 shows U.S. EPA's hierarchy of integrated solid waste management which
is illustrated in the form of a pyramid of ranked approaches. Source Reduction is at
the highest level (A) of the pyramid with landfilling at the bottom. Recycling
comprises the middle blocks (B & C) followed by combustion with energy recovery
(D) above combustion without energy recovery and landfilling (E).
Figure 1 -1 — Solid Waste Management Hierarchy"
A \ I Source Reduction and Reuse
Composting
0)
B
c
U U
m Materials Recovery
C
DI
Processing /Combu ition with Energy
Recovery
E
Landfilling and Incineration
without Energy Recovery
A +B +C +D +E= Capacity (loot to scale)
As Orange County updates its Solid Waste Management Plan en route to achieving
their goal of 61 percent waste reduction, the County should consider pursuing the
first two approaches: source reduction /reuse and recycling. Such activities include
the County's support of local recycling and the encouragement of yard waste
composting. As of 2006 -07, a reported 47.7 percent waste reduction rate was
achieved by the County, eliminating the need to landfill that portion of the waste
stream. The portion of waste generated that is not recycled or composted is hauled
1 U.S. EPA.
GBB/C08027 -01 1 August 15, 2008
31
to the Orange County Landfill or out -of- county facilities. The County owns the local
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill which is expected to reach capacity in the next
few years. A new County construction and demolition waste landfill area was
recently developed and is expected to last approximately 15 -20 years depending on
rate of use.
Another solid waste management strategy the County may want to consider is third
in the hierarchy: waste processing to reduce the volume for land disposal. While
waste processing technologies (WPT) can include methods of volume reduction
(shredding, compaction, baling, etc.), most such technologies involve some form of
controlled thermal treatment - incineration - with fuel production or energy
recovery. The County may want to consider the need to address such waste
processing technologies as possible alternatives to landfill disposal. The capital
intensive approaches such as WTE require a sufficient quantity of waste to be cost
effective: the more waste, the lower the per ton price.
The purpose of this white paper is to initiate that evaluation and brief the County's
solid waste staff, elected officials, Solid Waste Advisory Board, and citizens on state -
of- the -art solid waste processing technologies, emerging technologies and their
applicability to the County's needs, and the potential of these technologies to
contribute to the County's overall solid waste management system. Section 2.0
summarizes the future waste disposal needs identified in the Plan and how waste
processing could affect the amount of landfill disposal required.
Section 3.0 discusses the worldwide experience of WPT and respective vendors in the
United States and other countries, as some of these technologies have operating
demonstrations or facilities outside of the U.S. Section 4.0 reviews most of the
recent activity in the evaluation and procurement of waste processing technologies
by other U.S. cities and counties. These localities are exploring alternatives for
increasing their diversion rates, recovering more resources from their solid waste,
and delivering better service to their citizens. Section 5.0 explores the economic
feasibility, effectiveness, and environmental issues surrounding the use of the waste
processing technologies discussed. Section 6.0 presents opinions as to the most
applicable technologies for further consideration by the County.
Appendix B reviews the available "proven" waste processing technologies, all of
which are incineration - based, their track record and operating characteristics, and a
listing of facilities operating in the region. In addition, Appendix B details "emerging"
waste processing technologies including high- temperature gasification, fluidized -bed
combustion, plasma -arc processing, and some non - thermal anaerobic digestion.
GBB/C08027 -01 2 August 15, 2008
32
2.0 Future Orange County Waste Disposal Needs
Based on current data, the County (excluding recycled material from the University
of North Carolina (UNC)) generated approximately 116,000 tons of waste in FY
2006 -07 or about 318 tons per day (TPD). Of that material, approximately 15,600
tons or 42 TPD were captured recyclables. Approximately 16,500 tons of material
were buried in a construction and demolition waste (C &D) landfill located in Orange
County and 8,700 tons of C &D were shipped for disposal out of the County. Tires,
clean wood, brush, appliances and scrap metal totaling 12,300 were also recycled in
2006 -2007. That leaves approximately 62,900 tons of waste or 172 TPD from
Orange County disposed in landfills both inside and outside the County. This
tonnage could be further reduced with additional diversion programs.
The County is examining ways to achieve its goal of 61 percent waste reduction. As
part of this solid waste planning process update, the County has developed a series
of reports evaluating current collection programs, looking at ways to increase
diversion and deliver services more efficiently and effectively. These reports will be
followed by technical reports on integrating the desired actions into the County's
system and financing, which will result in a draft plan for the next three year
planning cycle.
The County's MSW landfill is now projected to close in early 2011. The County has
decided to manage its future MSW using a transfer station and contracting for
disposal in an out -of- County landfill. A County -wide search is underway for a
suitable site to situate the transfer station with site selection expected by the end of
2008. Following site selection, the County will design, permit, finance, and construct
the transfer station, ideally before landfill closure. If the transfer station is not
completed by the time the landfill is closed, managing MSW during that time period
will be expensive and operationally challenging.
The projected landfill closure date may be impacted by new rules governing what
was formerly considered C &D. This material must now be disposed of in lined landfill
space. As of April 2008, stricter enforcement of the rules governing C &D landfills
require the County to deposit furniture and other bulky items in the lined MSW
landfill. This may result in a shift of as much as 8,000 tons of waste a year from
C &D landfills to MSW landfills, shortening the life expectancy of the County's MSW
landfill by as much as five months.
As it is, the County - generated 172 TPD is probably too small to make an alternative
waste processing technology economically viable. However, the Durham
Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes Chatham, Durham, Orange, and Person
Counties, had a population of 465,745 people who generated 476,710 tons of
municipal solid waste from July 2006 - June 2007, according to the FY 2006 -2007
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Solid Waste
Annual Report. Of that 476,710 tons of waste, an estimated 90,575 tons or 19
percent2 constitutes recyclables. The resulting 386,135 of MSW could translate into
2 Simmons, Phil; Goldstein, Nora; Kaufman, Scott M.; Themelis, Nickolas J.; and Thompson,
Jr., James. "The State of Garbage in America." Biocycle, April 2006: 26.
<http://www.jgpress.com/archives/—free/000848.htmI>.
GBB/C08027 -01 3 August 15, 2008
33
approximately 1,000 TPD available regionally to make an alternative technology
more economically viable.
Traditional waste processing technologies now in operation have the potential of
managing most of the residual waste. Generally, WTE plants reduce the incoming
waste stream tonnage by 75 percent and the volume by 90 percent. This leaves a
residue, ash, that needs to be landfilled in a permitted Subtitle D landfill and in some
states ash is used as alternative daily cover. Some emerging technologies could
reduce the residual tonnage of the waste stream even further, but those haven't yet
been proven in the U.S on a large scale. Even at 75 percent reduction by weight, a
WTE facility has a dramatic effect on the amount of residual waste.
GBB/C08027 -01 4 August 15, 2008
34
3.0 Worldwide Experience of Waste Processing
Technologies and Vendors
A variety of WPT are discussed in Appendix B and a summary matrix is in Appendix
A, Table A -2. This section discusses the past and current experience of WPT in the
U.S. and elsewhere.
3.1 Mass - Burn /Waterwall Combustion
No new mass -burn WTE facilities have been built in the United States for the past ten
years, although there have been acquisitions and ownership and operator changes at
certain existing facilities, as well as some plant expansions. As a result, the firms
associated with mass -burn WTE are operators, owners, or owner /operators of
existing facilities. As shown in the Table 3 -1, Covanta and Wheelabrator own and
operate the majority of privately -owned WTE facilities. Most of the WTE plants, both
public and private, are operated by Covanta, Montenay /Veolia or Wheelabrator.
Table 3 -1 also shows the range in tons processed per day between facility owners
and operators, with publicly operated facilities processing smaller amounts of waste
than those operated privately.
Table 3 -1. U.S. Mass - Burn /Waterwall Facilities3
Entity
Owned
Tons processed
per day
Operated
Tons processed
per day
Public
39
200 - 3,000
12
200 - 500
Covanta
11
400 - 3,000
27
400- 3,000
Montena /Veolia
2
500 - 1,200
9
500 - 3,000
Wheelabrator
10
200 - 2,250
16
1 200 - 2,250
Other
3
550 - 2,250
1
1 200 - 1,380
Total
65
65
Some of the mass -burn technology had been purchased from American firms such as
Detroit Stoker, Combustion Engineering and Babcock & Wilcox, but the majority of
these existing systems are of European design. The two leading suppliers of WTE
grate systems in the United States and overseas are The Martin Company of
Germany and Von Roll of Switzerland.
While new WTE facility procurements have declined in the United States, the market
for this equipment has increased in Europe and in Eastern Asia, with European and
Japanese systems suppliers actively marketing their systems, and consistently
improving their performance. This technology is well tested and is used more than
any other for large WTE facilities in the United States and overseas.
3.2 Mass - Burn /Modular Combustion
Modular systems are used for smaller WTE facilities (between 80 - 360 TPD) and for
industrial applications. Unlike mass burn /waterwall systems, there are a number of
American firms supplying such systems in the United States, and they are very
competitive in overseas markets as well. The more active of these suppliers are
Consutech Systems of Richmond, Virginia, Enercon Systems, Inc. of Elyria, Ohio, and
3 Integrated Waste Management Services Association, 2004 Directory of WTE Plants.
GBB/C08027 -01 5 August 15, 2008
35
Basic Environmental Engineering of Chicago. They have each been supplying
incineration systems for MSW and other wastes for over 25 years.
Other U.S. firms, such as Energy Answers of Albany, NY, and Covanta Energy of
Fairfield, NJ, are marketing project development and management services for WTE
modular facilities.
3.3 Refuse - derived Fuel /Dedicated Boiler
As with mass -burn systems, there have not been any new Refuse - derived Fuel (RDF)
systems constructed in the United States in the past decade. For most of the 12 RDF
WTE facilities currently in operation, Excel, Veolia and Covanta Energy are the
operating contractors. The front -end processing utilizes a variety of unit processes
depending upon the boiler requirements and the design philosophy. The unit process
equipment, shredders, magnetic separators, screens, conveyors, etc., are all
standard items available from a variety of manufacturers.
Equipment used in this technology is adapted from equipment provided in coal -fired
electricity generation plants, and there are many established system and equipment
suppliers marketing in the U.S., such as Foster Wheeler, Riley, Babcock and Wilcox,
Detroit Stoker, ABB and Wartsila.
3.4 RDF /Fluidized Bed
While there are several RDF /fluid bed systems operating in Europe (particularly in
Scandinavia, where a number of fluid bed incinerator manufacturers are located),
there is only one such facility in operation in the United States, located in French
Island, WI. It is owned and operated by Excel Energy of Minneapolis. The
equipment was supplied by Energy Products of Idaho in Coeur d'Alene, the only U.S.
firm currently manufacturing these furnaces for RDF firing.
3.5 Gasification
Japan currently has seven plants operating with gasification technology. At least two
of these facilities fire MSW, with the largest firing up to 700 TPD of MSW. In Europe
and Asia, approximately 20 syngas gasification facilities are operating on MSW. Most
of these facilities are relatively small, processing less than 10 TPD with none
designed to process more than 70 TPD.
3.6 Pyrolysis
With pyrolysis, MSW is heated in an oxygen- starved environment to produce a fuel
gas that is then incinerated to generate steam and /or electricity. In the 1970s, a
number of pyrolysis facilities were constructed using MSW as a feedstock. Several
were built with partial funding provided by U.S. EPA. The largest of these was the
Monsanto facility in Baltimore, MD, which had a capacity of 1,000 TPD. This facility
did not meet its environmental requirements due to operational scale -up problems
and was torn down. Other smaller, 100 to 200 TPD, MSW pyrolysis facilities were
built at that time by Union Carbide, Anco Torrax, and Occidental Petroleum. These
facilities were recipients of U.S. EPA grant funds and were closed for operational and
financial reasons. Currently, there are no full -scale pyrolysis systems in commercial
operation on MSW in the United States. A pilot demonstration system has been
GBB/C08027 -01 6 August 15, 2008
36
operating in southern California for two years. It was built and is operated by
International Environmental Solutions, of Romoland, CA.
3.7 Plasma Arc
The plasma arc furnace is a commercial unit process made and marketed by
Westinghouse. It has been successfully applied to a variety of industrial
applications; however, there are no commercial -scale plasma arc systems firing MSW
in the United States at the time of this report. There are pilot plants used for ash
vitrification in Japan and a smaller Japanese facility firing MSW, but attempts to
apply this process in the United States have not yet been successful. However,
several vendors are advancing projects as described earlier. The electric power
requirements for the torch are significant, and maintenance of torches and reactor
refractory materials is also a significant expense item.
Few, if any of the plasma arc pilot facilities have been able to generate a fuel gas
(syngas), and air emissions have been found to be no better than conventional
incineration systems. The Atlanta firm Geoplasma has a development contract and is
negotiating a contract for implementation of a large plasma arc facility for MSW in
St. Lucie County, Florida, which will also to be used for processing mined landfill
waste. The City of Tallahassee, Florida approved the contract for Green Power
Systems to begin development of a 1,000 TPD plasma gasification plant, which is
scheduled to begin operations in 2010.
3.8 Biological Fuel Production
3.8.1 Cellulosic Ethanol
There are a number of commercial facilities in the U.S. (See Table 3 -2) and
worldwide producing cellulosic ethanol, a biofuel produced from lignocellulose, a
structural material that comprises much of the mass of plants. These facilities utilize
a variety of biomass feedstocks. Biomass is any living or recently dead biological
material that can be used as fuel or for industrial production. Biomass feedstocks
include crops grown specifically for use as a feedstock, such as corn or hemp,
agricultural residues, and other organic residues and wastes, including the organic
portion of MSW. At the time of this report, no U.S. facilities are feeding MSW but a
number of vendors are planning to use MSW as a feedstock.
Abengoa Bioenergy owns and operates five cellulosic ethanol facilities throughout the
United States and Europe with a total production capacity of over 200 million gallons
annually. It is currently the fifth largest producer of cellulosic ethanol in the United
States with a total of four plants located in Kansas, New Mexico, and Nebraska. The
most recent began operations in mid 2007, bringing Abengoa Bioenergy's nameplate
capacity to more than 200 million gallons per year in the U.S. In addition, Abengoa
Bioenergy operates four plants in Europe.
The world's first commercial scale demonstration biomass plant is being constructed
by Abengoa Bioenergy to exhibit its biomass -to- ethanol process technology. Located
in Babilafuente (Salamanca), Spain, the biomass plant will process 77 tons of
agricultural residues, such as wheat straw, each day and produce over 1.3 million
gallons of fuel grade ethanol per year. Bioethanol is most currently used in Brazil,
where longstanding policies promote and encourage the use of bioethanol as fuel for
transportation.
GBB/C08027 -01 7 August 15, 2008
37
CleanTech Biofuels has a cellulosic ethanol pilot plant operating on MSW in Golden,
Colorado.
Table 3 -2. Commercial Cellulosic Ethanol Plants in the U.S.
(Operational or Under Construction )4
Company
Location
Feedstock
Capacity
(million
gallons
per year)
Aben oa Bioenergy
Hu oton, KS
Wheat straw
12
Alico
La Belle FL
Multiple sources
N/A
BlueFire Ethanol
Irvine, CA
Multiple sources
17
Gulf Coast Energy
Mossy Head, FL
Wood waste
70
Mascoma
Lansing, MI
Wood
40
POET Biorefinery
Emmetsbur , IA
Corn cobs
25
Range Fuels
Treutlen County, GA
Wood waste
20
SunO to
Little Falls, MN
Wood chips
10
Xethanol
Auburndale, FL
Citrus peels
8
None of these plants uses MSW as feedstock. As of January 2008, U.S. DOE had
made seven grants to help develop small -scale cellulosic plants. These plants will
produce between 1.3 and 5.5 million gallons of ethanol per year. The feedstocks
projected for these plants include wood chips, switch grass, corn cobs, and
agricultural and forest residues. None of the plants are projected to use MSW. The
total projected capital cost of these plants is $634 million, with DOE contributing
$199 million in the form of the grants.
3.8.2 Biogas - Anaerobic Digestion
Biogas or synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, can be
converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. A number of these technologies
produce gas, primarily methane, which can be converted to liquid fuels utilizing
Fischer - Tropsch Synthesis, a process developed in Germany in the early 20th
Century. This process is a catalyzed chemical reaction which takes place at low
temperatures (300 to 600 degrees F) and at high pressure. The most common
catalysts are based on iron and cobalt, although nickel and ruthenium have also
been used. The process produces a synthetic petroleum substitute for use as
synthetic fuel, biodiesel. The Fischer - Tropsch process has been used to convert
gases from a variety of feedstocks to liquid fuel, including coal and biomass.
When biomass is used, the cellulosic materials must first be converted to biogas and
then to liquid fuel using the Fischer - Tropsch process.
Currently, a number of companies have commercial versions of the Fischer - Tropsch
technology, including:
1. Conoco - Phillips— natural gas as feedstock
2. BP— natural gas as feedstock
3. Shell Oil — natural gas as feedstock
4. Sasol (South Africa) — coal and natural gas as feedstocks
4 Source: Grainnet.com Building Cellulose
GBB/C08027 -01 8 August 15, 2008
W
5. Rentech (U.S.) - coal or coke as feedstock
6. Choren Industries (Germany) -
7. Syntroleum (U.S.) - used natural gas as feedstock in a demonstration for the
U.S. Air Force.
In addition, there are a number of research projects funded by the U.S. Department
of Energy to use organic materials as feedstocks. These include the Renewable
Energy Laboratory and Louisiana State University.
The Fischer - Tropsch process is an established technology that has been applied on a
large scale in some industrial sectors. Large -scale commercialization is impeded by
high capital costs, high operation and maintenance costs, the uncertain and volatile
price of crude oil, and environmental concerns.
As mentioned in Appendix B, Section 1.3.2, biogas production from wastes is a
mature technology with both large- and small -scale units in production worldwide.
In India alone, there are over 2 million farm units that produce biogas from animal
manures and other wastes. As of 2006, there were thousands of plants in Europe;
Germany alone had 3,500 that produced a total of 1,100 MW. The newest of these
plants range between 400 and 800 KW, using crops and manure for feedstock. In
southern Europe, the production of biogas is primarily from landfills. In 2007, a
report on the potential of biogas in Europe by the Oko- Instituts and the Institut fur
Energetik in Leipzig concluded that Germany alone can produce more biogas by 2020
than all of the European Union's (EU) current natural gas imports from Russia.
Table 3 -3 shows the production of biogas in Europe by country with the production
broken into three categories of feedstock: landfill gas, sewage sludge and other.
Summarized by feedstock, this results in 64 percent landfill gas, 18.8 from sewage
sludge and 17.2 other. The largest producer of biogas is the United Kingdom, closely
followed by Germany. The biogas is approximately 50 percent methane, mixed with
carbon dioxide and other gases.
GBB/C08027 -01 9 August 15, 2008
39
Table 3 -3. Biogas Production in Europe
(KTOE = thousand tonnes of oil equivalent)
`Estimation Source: EurObser /ER 2006 Note: 1 KTOE is equal to $11.63 MWh.
The biogas sector is booming in Germany and has become the continent's fastest
renewable energy sector. The growing interest is due to three factors: it can be
produced in a decentralized manner, it is highly efficient - yielding more than twice
as much energy per acre of energy crops than ethanol from similar crops, and it can
be obtained using known processes from a large variety of biomass resources
(organic waste, manure, dedicated energy crops). The biogas can be used as
produced as a medium Btu fuel, or it can be processed to produce a pipeline quality
gas which is almost pure methane. Also, the biogas has two highly efficient uses: as
a gas for compressed clean natural gas (CNG)- capable vehicles and as a fuel that
can be used for the cogeneration of power and heat. Meanwhile, advances in biogas
technology, microbiology and crop engineering have made production even more
efficient.
A number of established firms compete for the biogas plant construction and
operation in Europe. Each has developed its own proprietary process, and some are
50 years old or older. There are over 200 operating plants, as shown in Table 3 -4.
Table 3 -4. Biogas Firms in Europe
2004
2005*
Countries
Landfill
Gas
Sewage
Sludge Gas
Other
Biogas
Total
Landfill
Gas
Sewage
Sludge Gas
Other
Biogas
Total
UK
1326.7
165.0
-
1491.1
1617.6
165.0
-
1782.6
Germany
573.2
369.8
351.7
1294.7
573.2
369.8
651.4
1594.4
Italy
297.7
0.3
37.5
335.5
334.1
0.4
42.0
376.5
Spain
219.1
52.4
23.6
295.1
236.5
56.8
23.6
316.9
France
127.0
77.0
3.0
207.0
129.0
77.0
3.0
209.0
Netherlands
48.7
48.6
28.9
126.2
48.7
48.6
28.9
126.2
Sweden
35.8
69.3
-
105.1
35.8
69.3
-
105.1
Denmark
13.8
19.8
55.6
89.3
14.3
20.5
57.5
92.3
Belgium
56.3
9.7
7.8
73.8
56.3
9.7
7.8
73.8
Czech Rep.
18.6
28.7
2.9
50.2
21.5
31.4
2.8
55.8
Poland
21.5
23.9
-
45.4
25.1
25.3
0.3
1 50.7
Austria
11.8
19.1
14.5
45.4
11.8
19.1
14.5
45.4
Greece
20.5
15.5
36.0
20.5
15.5
36.0
Ireland
19.9
4.8
5.1
29.9
24.9
4.8
5.1
34.8
Finland
16.6
9.9
-
26.5
16.6
9.9
-
26.5
Portugal
-
-
4.5
4.5
-
-
10.0
10.0
Slovenia
5.8
0.9
-
6.6
6.0
0.7
-
6.8
Luxemburg
-
-
5.0
5.0
6.7
1 6.7
Slovakia
-
5.7
0.2
5.9
5.7
0.2
5.9
Hungary
0.7
2.6
0.2
3.5
0.8
2.9
0.2
3.8
EU
2813.8
922.9
540.5
4277.2
3172.7
932.4
854.0
4959.1
`Estimation Source: EurObser /ER 2006 Note: 1 KTOE is equal to $11.63 MWh.
The biogas sector is booming in Germany and has become the continent's fastest
renewable energy sector. The growing interest is due to three factors: it can be
produced in a decentralized manner, it is highly efficient - yielding more than twice
as much energy per acre of energy crops than ethanol from similar crops, and it can
be obtained using known processes from a large variety of biomass resources
(organic waste, manure, dedicated energy crops). The biogas can be used as
produced as a medium Btu fuel, or it can be processed to produce a pipeline quality
gas which is almost pure methane. Also, the biogas has two highly efficient uses: as
a gas for compressed clean natural gas (CNG)- capable vehicles and as a fuel that
can be used for the cogeneration of power and heat. Meanwhile, advances in biogas
technology, microbiology and crop engineering have made production even more
efficient.
A number of established firms compete for the biogas plant construction and
operation in Europe. Each has developed its own proprietary process, and some are
50 years old or older. There are over 200 operating plants, as shown in Table 3 -4.
Table 3 -4. Biogas Firms in Europe
Source: EurObser /ER 2006
GBB/C08027 -01 10 August 15, 2008
Total
Firms
Countries
System
Waste
Number of
Capacity
Types
Plants
Tons /Year
Linde AG Wies -baden
Germany
Linde BRV /KCA
Wet and dry
24
1,000,000
Kom o as AG
Switzerland
Kom o as
Dry
24
4416,000
Organic Waste Systems
Belgium
Dranco
Dry
14
750,000
Schmack Biogas AG
German
Euco /Coccus
Wet
Approx. 100
Unknown
Valor a International SAS
France
Valor a
Dry
12
1,047,000
Biotechnische Abfallverwertung
Germany
BTA
Wet
27
624,500
GmbH & Co KG
Source: EurObser /ER 2006
GBB/C08027 -01 10 August 15, 2008
We
Now, producers in Germany want to feed their upgraded biogas, also known as
biomethane, into the main natural gas grid across the EU. However, they face the
significant barrier of their purified biogas not meeting the industry standard for
pipeline gas. At 1,100 btu per cubic foot, biomethane's heating value is too high
compared to the industry standard of 900 btu per cubic foot. Germany is the only
country in Europe to impose an upper quality limit on gas. The German Greens and
the country's environmentalists and farmers are therefore asking for a new law that
allows producers to feed their superior, renewable and green gas into the national
pipelines.
GBB/C08027 -01 11 August 15, 2008
41
4.0 Recent Research/ Procurements for Waste
Processing Technologies by Others
The most recently constructed MSW- processing WTE facility in the U.S. commenced
operations in 1996.5 Since that time, no commercial plant has been implemented.
Several reasons account for this lull of activity in the WTE field:
1. Loss of Tax Credits - The 1986 Tax Reform Act eliminated the significant tax
benefits for project owners /developers, contributing to the pipeline of
projects.
2. Environmental Activism - Misinformation about air pollution and ash impacts,
and preferences for recycling, created public resistance.
3. U.S. Supreme Court's Carbone Decision (1994) - Effectively ended legislated
flow control, creating uncertainty in the revenue stream for projects.
4. Megafills - Large landfills with low tipping fees and no put -or -pay waste
supply requirement out - competed WTE for the market.
5. Amendment to the Clean Air Act (1998) - New regulations required retrofit on
existing plants and drove up WTE costs, effective as of December 2000.
6. Lack of Federal Leadership (1990 - 2005) - Visible opposition by U.S. EPA to
combustion and preference for waste reduction /recycling sent negative
message about WTE.
7. Moderate Fossil Fuel Costs - The rapidly increasing fossil fuel costs of the
1970s and '80s stabilized, reducing the value of the energy products from
WTE facilities, which were key drivers in facilities developed earlier, and
making overall project economics less attractive.
In the past few years, however, interest in WTE and waste conversion has begun to
grow again. This renewed interest in waste processing technologies is due to several
factors:
1. Proven WTE Track Record - superior environmental performance, reliability,
advancements in technology and successful ash handling strategies have
made WTE an acceptable option to consider as part of waste management
planning.
2. Increasing Fossil Fuel Costs - With the price of oil now over $120 per barrel,
the cost of transportation fuels is making MSW hauling and landfilling more
expensive. In addition, the cost of electricity from fossil fuels is increasing,
making electricity from waste more valuable and making WTE more
competitive.
3. Growing Interest in Renewable Energy - Many States are requiring utilities to
generate a portion of their electricity from renewable sources, which
sometimes includes WTE; the Federal government has included WTE in its
definition of renewable energy.
4. Change in Approach by U.S. EPA - In 2006, the U.S. EPA revised its waste
management hierarchy to include WTE explicitly as the third priority after
waste reduction and recycling /composting.
5 Covanta's 2,250 TPD plant in Niagara Falls, NY.
6 C & A Carbone, Inc. —v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 (1994).
GBB/C08027 -01 12 August 15, 2008
42
5. Concern About Greenhouse Gases - WTE has a smaller carbon footprint than
landfilling or fossil -fuel generated electricity'.
6. Reversal of Carbone - The 2007 Supreme Court decision in the Oneida -
Herkimer case$ effectively restored to city and local governments the ability
to implement flow control, increasing the security of the waste stream to
support the financing of WTE projects.
7. Long distance transfer and disposal getting more expensive.
These and other local considerations have led a growing number of communities to
re- investigate waste processing technologies as a component of their solid waste
management systems. The following sections describe several of the recent
initiatives to evaluate and choose waste processing technologies - WTE and others -
to handle significant waste streams in the future. At the end of Section 4.0 is a
summary of the technologies and vendors selected through these evaluation
processes that represent the most promising alternatives for adopting WTE as a
waste disposal option.
4.1 Recent Research
4.1.1 New York City, NY9
In 2004, the City of New York commissioned a report to evaluate new and emerging
waste management and recycling technologies and approaches. The objective of the
evaluation was to provide information to assist the City in its ongoing planning
efforts for its waste management system. The report identified which innovative
technologies were available at present, i.e., commercially operational processing of
MSW, and which were promising but in an earlier stage of development. It also
compared the newer technologies to conventional WTE technology to identify the
potential advantages and disadvantages that may exist in the pursuit of innovative
technologies. Conventional WTE was chosen as a point of comparison since such
technology was the most widely used technology available at the time for reducing
the quantity of landfilled post - recycled waste.
The report was released in September 2004. 44 companies responded to the initial
request for information. The City has commenced a siting Task Force to look at the
five boroughs to identify a site on which to build a pilot facility. Once the site has
been identified, an RFP will be issued based on the specifications and condition of the
site and will be made available to all proven and unproven technology vendors.
As part of the process, the City collected information on capital cost from the
suppliers. Based on six responses, the capital cost per installed ton for anaerobic
digestion ranged from $74,000 (586 TPD) to $82,000 (500 TPD); for gasification, the
range was $155,000 (2,612 TPD) to $258,000 (2,959 TPD); one plasma arc
gasification response gave a capital cost of $321,000 (2,729 TPD). These figures
were for plants of widely varying sizes and were not standardized.
' Thorneloe, Susan A., Weitz, Keith A., Nishtala, Subba R., Yarkosky, Sherry, and Zanes,
Maria. "The Impact of Municipal Solid Waste Management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
the United States." Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 52 (September
2002): 1000 -1011.
8 United Haulers Assn., Inc. _v. Oneida- Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, No. 05-
1345, 2007 WL 1237912 (U.S. April 30, 2007).
9 Evaluation of New and Emerging Solid Waste Management Technologies, September 16,
2004.
GBB/C08027 -01 13 August 15, 2008
43
4.1.2 City of Los Angeles, CA
Phase I`
In 2004, the City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation (Bureau) began a study to
evaluate MSW alternative treatment technologies capable of processing Black Bin
material (curbside - collected residential MSW) to significantly reduce the amount of
such material going to landfills. The Bureau's overall objective was to select one or
more suppliers to develop a facility using proven and commercialized technology to
process the Black Bin material and produce usable by- products such as electricity,
green fuel, and /or chemicals.
The first step of this project was to develop a comprehensive list of potential
technologies and suppliers. About 225 suppliers were screened, and 26 suppliers
were selected to submit their detailed qualifications to the City. In order to screen
the technology suppliers, they were sent a brief survey based upon the technology
screening criteria. The criteria applied were as follows:
• Waste Treatability: The supplier was screened on whether they have MSW or
similar feedstock processing experience.
• Conversion Performance: The supplier was asked if their facility would
produce marketable byproducts.
• Throughput Requirement: This criterion was already met because the
technology passed the technology screen.
• Commercial Status: This criterion was already met because the technology
passed the technology screen.
• Technology Capability: The supplier was asked if their technology had
processed at least 25 tons per day of feedstock.
Of the 26 suppliers requested to submit qualifications, seventeen provided
responses. These suppliers and their technologies were thoroughly evaluated, and
an Evaluation Report was published in September 2005 with the findings and ranking
of the 26 suppliers' technologies that had met the criteria.
A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was prepared and provided to the suppliers that
met the screening criteria. A detailed technical and economic evaluation of the
suppliers that responded to the RFQ was completed. This resulted in the
development of a short list of alternative treatment technology suppliers. In 2006,
several suppliers were added to the short list, based on additional screening and a
supplemental RFQ process.
As part of the process, the City collected information on capital cost from the
suppliers. Based on 18 responses, the capital cost per installed ton for anaerobic
digestion ranged from $99,000 to $201,000; for gasification, the range was $50,000
to $266,000; for pyrolysis, the range was $60,000 to $221,000; one mixed waste
io Request for Proposals for a Development Partner(s) for Processing Municipal Solid Waste
Utilizing Alternative Technologies premised on Resource Recovery for the City of Los Angeles,
February 5, 2007.
GBB/C08027 -01 14 August 15, 2008
M,
composting proposer gave a capital cost of $114,000. These figures were for plants
of widely varying sizes and were not standardized.
Phase II11
On February 7, 2007, the City of Los Angeles released a Request for Proposals (RFP)
soliciting competitive proposals for a development partner(s) for processing MSW
utilizing alternative technologies premised on resource recovery. The responsibilities
of the development partners were to finance, design, build, own, and operate (with
the option to transfer to the City after 20 years) the resource recovery facility, at a
throughput rate of 200 -1,000 TPD. The facility was expected to provide diversion
from landfill of no less than 80 percent of the City's Black Bin (waste) material
delivered to the facility. In addition, the City considered proposals from
emerging /experimental technologies that could process less than 200 tons per day
as a potential second facility for testing emerging technologies. The
emerging /experimental technology suppliers were to meet requirements outlined by
the City in the RFP in order to be considered for the potential testing facility.
Proposers of emerging /experimental technologies that did not meet those
requirements were not evaluated further. A total of 12 technology
suppliers submitted applications in August 2007. The City of Los Angeles' Bureau of
Sanitation has reviewed the proposals and received presentations by the proposers.
The Bureau has conducted site analyses and visits to all facilities and is putting
together a recommendation by December 2008 of the finalists to be further
evaluated.
Phase III
Phase III will start before the end of the year. It will include developing contracts for
selection and increasing the focus on public outreach.
4.1.3 Los Angeles County, CA
Phase I - Initial Technology Evaluation 12
Beginning in 2004, Los Angeles County conducted a preliminary evaluation of a
range of conversion technologies and technology suppliers, and initiated efforts to
identify material recovery facilities (MRFs) and transfer stations (TSs) in Southern
California that could potentially host a conversion technology facility. A scope of
investigation beyond Los Angeles County itself was considered important, as
stakeholders in the evaluation extended beyond the County and the implications of
this effort would be regional.
In August 2005, the evaluation report was adopted. Phase I resulted in identification
of a preliminary short list of technology suppliers and MRF /TS sites, along with
development of a long -term strategy for implementation of a conversion technology
demonstration facility at one of these sites. The County intentionally pursued
integrating a conversion technology facility at a MRF /TS site in order to further divert
post - recycling residual waste from landfilling and take advantage of a number of
beneficial synergies from co- locating a conversion facility at a MRF.
11 ibid.
12 Los Angeles County Conversion Technology Evaluation Report - Phase II - Assessment,
October 2007.
GBB/C08027 -01 15 August 15, 2008
45
Phase II - Facilitation Efforts for Demonstration Facility13
In July 2006, the County further advanced its efforts to facilitate development of a
conversion technology demonstration facility. The approach was multi - disciplined,
including environmental analysis and constructability. Key Phase II study areas
included:
• An independent evaluation and verification of the qualifications of selected
technology suppliers and the capabilities of their conversion technologies;
• An independent evaluation of candidate MRF /TS sites, to determine suitability
for installation, integration and operation of one of the technologies;
• A review of the required permits to facilitate the project;
• Identification of funding opportunities and financing means;
• Identification of potential county incentives (i.e., supporting benefits) to
encourage facility development amongst potential project sponsors; and
• Negotiation activities to assist parties in developing project teams and a
Demonstration project.
The report described progress to date on Phase II, and represented a culmination of
approximately one year of work conducted by the County. Five companies were
issued Request for Offers (RFO) early in 2008 for a demonstration to be constructed
at any one of four sites by the selected vendor. The five conversion technology
suppliers considered and their corresponding technologies offered were: Arrow
Ecology utilizing anaerobic digestion; Changing World Technologies utilizing thermal
depolymerization; International Environmental Solutions utilizing pyrolysis;
Interstate Waste Technologies utilizing pyrolysis /gasification; and Ntech
Environmental utilizing gasification. Five materials recovery facilities (MRF) were
considered for partnering with the technology supplier. Only one MRF, Community
Recycling /Resource Recovery, Inc. MRF, is located in L.A. County. The Perris
MRF /Transfer Station and the Robert A. Nelson Transfer Station and MRF (RANT) are
located in Riverside County. Del Norte Regional Recycling and Transfer Station is
situated in Ventura County and the Rainbow Disposal Co. Inc MRF is in Orange
County.
Phase III - Evaluation and Presentation of Request for Offers
Phase III of the project is expected to be finalized by the end of 2008. At the time of
this report, the County had received several offers, with a deadline of August 15,
2008 for receipt. It appears that Changing World Technologies is no longer
participating and that the County is mostly working to locate these projects in
privately owned MRFs in Riverside and Orange counties. Phase III will include the
evaluation of these offers and the presentation of the results to the Board. Phase IV
of the project will begin in 2009.
13 ibid.
GBB/C08027 -01 16 August 15, 2008
I e
4.1.4 King County, WA
A proviso to the 2007 King County Solid Waste Division budget required that the
Division prepare a comparative evaluation of waste conversion technologies (i.e.
WTE incineration) and waste export. After review and comment on the draft report
by the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (MSWMAC) and
others, the final report was submitted to the King County Council on August 6, 2007.
Based on the report, MSWMAC made the following recommendations to the Council:
1. That the King County Council continue its current policy course toward waste
export by implementing the recommendations in the Solid Waste Transfer and
Waste Export System Plan.
2. That every avenue to extend the life of the Cedar Hills Landfill be explored,
including increased recycling and partial early waste export, to keep solid
waste rates as low as possible for as long as possible and to provide
maximum flexibility for long -term planning.
3. That no further resources be expended on the study of incineration
technologies at this time. They believed that there was sufficient information
in the report to analyze waste export and incineration technologies at a
programmatic level in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
update and its EIS.
There were concerns about the practicality of waste conversion technologies in the
King County region, and there was a need recognized to continue planning for the
existing transfer system and the potential of extending the life of the Cedar Hills
Landfill.
4.2 Procurements
4.2.1 Frederick and Carroll Counties, MD
In May 2006, the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (Authority) began a
search for firms with Qualified Technologies to provide WTE facilities for Frederick
and Carroll Counties. The Authority was seeking technologies that demonstrated
success in the efficient and feasible conversion of MSW into marketable steam,
thermal energy, fuel and electricity. Technologies that produced a fuel were to be
considered if the fuel had been demonstrated to reliably and efficiently produce
energy (Qualified Technologies). The Authority conducted a two -step procurement.
The first step was the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to identify firms with Qualified
Technologies. Qualified Technologies were to be eligible for consideration in the
second step, the Basis of Negotiation (BON). In order to be deemed a Qualified
Technology, operating statistics from a reference facility had to be provided, with a
minimum of three consecutive years of operating data, including waste processed,
energy produced, air emissions and residue generation.
The size of each unit could be as small as 100 TPD and as large as 750 TPD. The
selection of unit size for each project was to be determined during the BON phase.
The Authority understood that there were many new and emerging technologies
which convert MSW into various fuels or energy. However, the Authority is
dependent on bond financing for its projects, and the lending community insisted on
GBB/C08027 -01 17 August 15, 2008
47
proven technology as a minimum requirement for making capital available to the
Authority.
In October 2006, the Authority solicited Proposals from qualified, experienced firms
in the refuse management and power facility construction and operation fields to
provide for the construction, testing, operation and maintenance of a new refuse
power plant (RPP) capacity for the counties. The Authority had pre - qualified eight
technologies for this solicitation.
The facilities were to be owned by the Authority and leased to the successful
Proposer (Company) on a long -term basis (at least 20 years from the commercial
operations date). The site was to be provided by the Authority. The Authority would
provide most of the refuse (fuel) under a put -or -pay contract and would apply
residues for beneficial use as daily cover at the counties' landfills.
The Company would have the rights to all or a portion of the energy revenues (as
specified by it in its proposal) and all of the excess waste disposal capacity that could
be used to dispose of non - residential waste from any other Authority jurisdiction.
In response to the directives, proposals were requested for the following three
facility options:
A 900 TPD resource recovery facility to be located in Frederick County to
process residential and commercial waste generated in Frederick County; and
• A 600 TPD resource recovery facility to be located in Carroll County to process
residential and commercial waste generated in Carroll County; or
• A 1,500 TPD resource recovery facility to be located in Carroll County to
process residential and commercial waste generated in both Frederick and
Carroll Counties.
After receipt of proposals from three vendors, the Authority, in conjunction with the
participating jurisdictions, completed an initial review of the proposals and short -
listed Covanta Energy and Wheelabrator Technologies. As part of the initial review,
the Authority met with Covanta and Wheelabrator to clarify their proposals and to
ensure that the initial financial modeling results correctly represented their proposals
and met the needs of the local jurisdictions. As of the time of this report, the
Authority is currently seeking approvals from the jurisdictions to begin formal
negotiations with the vendors to arrive at a final contract to be voted on by the
jurisdictions' Commissioners. If approved by the jurisdictions, the permitting and
construction of the facilities could take up to five years.
4.2.2 Harford County, MD
In May 2006, the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (Authority) began a
search for firms with Qualified Technologies to provide an expansion of the WTE
facility for Harford County, similar to the process conducted for Frederick and Carroll
counties (see 5.2.1 above).
In December 2006, The Authority issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a
Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) located in Harford County, Maryland. This was the
second step in the two -step competitive procurement being conducted by the
GBB/C08027 -01 18 August 15, 2008
I •
Authority. While the RFP was open to all interested and qualified vendors, only those
technologies deemed qualified by the Authority were eligible for consideration.
The Authority was directed to obtain proposals for expanding the current WTE
capacity in two ways: (1) additional capacity at the current facility to meet Harford
County's needs, but not provide significant additional energy to the Aberdeen Proving
Ground (APG), and (2) build a new RRF to accommodate the waste disposal needs of
Harford County, including capacity for some of the waste disposal needs of adjacent
"Base Realignment and Closure Act" (BRAC) affected counties (Baltimore and Cecil
Counties), and provide a greater amount of the energy needs of APG. APG had
agreed to lease an additional 20 acres of land next to the existing RRF for the larger
regional facility.
The Authority has short - listed both Covanta Energy and Wheelabrator Technologies
proposals as responsive and will continue the procurement process with those firms.
The Authority is currently seeking approval from Harford County to begin formal
negotiations with the vendors to arrive at a final contract to be voted on by the
Harford County Council. Best and final offers have been requested from both
companies and should be received by the end of September 2008, followed by final
selection and negotiations.
4.2.3 City of Sacramento, CA
In August 2007, the City of Sacramento, CA issued an RFQ soliciting an experienced
and qualified firm to partner with it to process MSW utilizing alternative technologies
premised on resource recovery and /or energy creation. To qualify, firms must have
had demonstrated experience and capacity to finance, design, build, own and
operate a facility that processed MSW in excess of what the City currently disposes
of, approximately 2,300 TPD after diversion. Sacramento was interested in a facility
that used treatment technologies including, but not limited to, pyrolysis, gasification,
advanced thermal recycling (a second generation advancement of mass -burn
technologies), biological, chemical, physical and /or a combination thereof. They
wanted technologies that were well proven at commercial scale, had high landfill
diversion rates, and could generate a wide range of useful by- products that could be
marketed for revenue sharing by the City and its development partner.
In October 2007, the City received 11 responses to the RFQ, not all of them waste
processing technologies. The City performed a technical evaluation of the responses
and went to the Council to request an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement
(ENRA) with a single company, U.S. Science and Technology. A plasma arc
gasification project is being evaluated with due diligence expected to be completed in
early September. City officials traveled to Japan to visit a plant that employs a
similar technology at a commercial level (Westinghouse Plasma Corporation). A
decision on the implementation of the project is expected in the near term.
4.2.4 Broward County, FL
The Broward County Solid Waste Disposal District (District) in July 2007 was
considering changes to its solid waste management infrastructure in the near term.
Because its disposal contracts with two privately -owned WTE facilities will reach the
end of their initial service agreement terms in the near future, the District recognized
that many options to be considered would require significant development time, and
thus began the process to proactively evaluate such options. The District sought,
through a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI), to identify firms that could
GBB/C08027 -01 19 August 15, 2008
I ff •
aim
meet all or a portion of the District's future solid waste processing and disposal
requirements, and that were consistent with its long -term objectives. While this was
not a procurement, it was understood that information obtained during the process
would be used to support future procurement(s).
The expressions of interest were due by October 2007, and 25 vendors responded to
the REFI. To date The Broward County Solid Waste Disposal District, Resource
Recovery Board has received all the expressions of interests from the 25 respondents
as well as 11 presentations made to the Board by some of the respondents and no
further decisions have been made. Not all of the submittals were for WTE solutions.
Negotiations for a contract extension are taking place with Wheelabrator, and a
decision to move to forward is expected in 2008.
4.2.5 St. Lucie County, FL
On April 30, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners, St. Lucie County, Florida,
solicited offers for the purpose of obtaining services to permit, finance, construct,
operate, and own a Plasma Arc Gasification Facility to process MSW for St. Lucie
County. The due date for the qualifications was May 2006.
There was only one respondent to the RFQ issued by the County: Jacoby /Geoplasma.
As of November 2007, the development contract has been signed, and the County is
moving forward with the project. The developer plans to process 3,000 TPD,
generating 120 megawatts of electricity, one -third of which will be consumed
internally. According to the developers, the plant will cost over $425 million and
take two years to construct. Construction is slated to begin in 6 — 8 months pending
permits.
4.2.6 Hawaii County, HI
In 1995, the County started searching for a landfill replacement. After searching for
more than a decade and spending about $1 million, it selected Wheelabrator
Technologies Inc., a wholly -owned subsidiary of Houston -based Waste Management
Inc. Wheelabrator emerged from a field of three finalists, including Covanta, which
runs HPower on Oahu, and L -Con Contractors, a partnership with Barlow Projects,
Inc. In January 2008, the County received a best - and -final offer from Wheelabrator.
In May, the County Council voted against the 650 TPD project because of the
estimated $12.5 million cost, leaving the County with no plan for dealing with Hilo -
area trash after 2012.
4.2.7 Pinellas County, FL
Pinellas County had three companies bid on the contract to operate the existing WTE
plant. The process began with an RFQ to pre - qualify firms. The three firms that were
pre - qualified all submitted bids. Those respondents were Wheelabrator, Covanta and
Veolia. The bid went out in September 2006 for an operator replacement for an
existing 2,000 ton per day plant and was awarded to Veolia in January 2007. Veolia
actually began operating the facility effective May 7, 2007.
4.2.8 Hillsborough and Lee Counties, FL
Two operating mass -burn waterwall facilities in Florida began expansions in 2007. In
Lee County, the 1200 TPD plant will add a third line with a 636 TPD capacity, using
the same Covanta technology as the two operating lines, at a cost of $123.2 million
GBB/C08027 -01 20 August 15, 2008
0%
or $194,000 per ton of installed capacity. Hillsborough County sole- sourced to
Covanta a new 600 TPD line to add to the two operating 600 TPD lines already in
place. The cost to Hillsborough County for the new line will be $123 million or
$205,000 per installed ton of capacity. The project is expected to be completed, tested
and accepted by the County in July 2009.
4.2.9 Fairbanks North Star Borough, AK
The Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) is soliciting proposals for optimizing the
management of the MSW stream. The FNSB is seeking a long -term partnership to
implement a method for economical disposal of the community's MSW while
returning energy savings to the Borough - with an emphasis on waste reduction,
recycling and WTE options. Proposals were due May 29, 2008.
The following dates represented the FNSB's best estimate of the schedule being
followed to select the successful proposer for this project.
Proposal Evaluations June 1 - July 31, 2008
Notice of Intent to Award (NOIA) Issued August 2008
Contract Negotiations August /September 2008
Assembly Approval of Contract Award September /October 2008
Contract Execution November 2008
After the Notice of Intent to Award has been issued, the Borough and the successful
offeror shall conduct good faith negotiations to address all aspects of a resulting
contract. Should the Borough be unable to negotiate a contract with the successful
offeror, negotiations will be formally terminated. The Borough may then initiate
negotiations with the second highest ranked offeror. This process may continue until
an agreement is reached.
4.2.10 City of Tallahassee, FL
The City of Tallahassee, FL, a Public Power Community, in November 2006 issued a
letter of interest to seven project developers requesting a two -page summary for
consideration of their technology for development of a renewable energy facility
serving the City of Tallahassee's service territory within Leon County, FL. The City
received three written responses, all from developers using biomass as fuel for
conventional steam generation. Two additional companies made formal
presentations to City representatives for advanced gasification projects, one project
utilizing MSW and the other utilizing woody biomass as fuel sources. In January
2007, the City began direct negotiations with one of the companies that made the
formal presentations, Green Power Systems based in Jacksonville, Florida. In June
of 2007, the City approved the contract for Green Power Systems to begin
development of a 1,000 TPD plasma gasification plant generating 35 MW net. The
purchase power agreement for the sale of electricity to the City of Tallahassee was
signed in June 2007. To date, Green Power Systems is conducting geo- technical
work on site suitability as well as design and engineering work based on site
suitability. Financing has been secured for the development of the plant, and it is
scheduled to begin operation in October 2010.
GBB/C08027 -01 21 August 15, 2008
51
4.3 Comparison of Technologies Chosen in Recent
Research/ Procurements
In the foregoing studies, reports and procurements, a total of 78 technology vendors
were represented, evaluated, screened or selected in some way for consideration as
waste processing solutions for the local entities. These 78 vendors offered 14
different technologies. The listing of the 78 vendors is presented in Table A -1 in
Appendix A of this paper. Several of those technologies /vendors were mentioned
more than once. Table 4 -1 lists the 14 that were cited three or more times in the
various documents.
The most often cited technology was mass burn, represented by Covanta and
Wheelabrator, who have the most commercial experience of any of the vendors
listed. Second on the list is gasification firm IWT, which employs the Thermoselect
technology in use in Europe and Japan. Other gasification technology providers are
also mentioned, along with four anaerobic digestion vendors, one plasma arc firm
two pyrolysis providers and a thermal depolymerization firm. While this review is not
systematic, it does provide a good summary of the firms and technologies that are
most active in the field, and those that localities across the U.S have been most
interested in using as they contemplate alternatives to landfilling MSW.
Table 4 -1. Technologies /Vendors Mentioned in Recent Procurements
Vendor - designated
Technology
Vendor
Total
Times
Cited
Mass Burn
Covanta Energy Corporation
7
Gasification
InterCity Waste Tech nologies / Thermoselect
IWT
6
Mass Burn
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.
5
Anaerobic Digestion
Valorga S.A.S. (Valorga) /Waste Recovery
Systems
4
Anaerobic Digestion
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. WRSI
4
Anaerobic Digestion
Arrow Ecology and Engineering
3
Anaerobic Digestion
Urbaser
3
Gasification
Ebara
3
Gasification
Taylor Recycling Facility
3
Gasification
Whitten Group /Entech Renewable Energy
System
3
Plasma Gasification
Global Energy Solutions
3
Pyrolysis
Pan American Resources
3
Pyrolysis
International Environmental Solutions
3
Thermal De of merization
Changing World Technologies
3
GBB/C08027 -01 22 August 15, 2008
52
5.0 Opinion on Economic Feasibility, Effectiveness,
and Environmental Issues of Waste Processing
Technologies
5.1 Economic Feasibility of Waste Processing Technologies
The economic characteristics of the waste processing technologies, including capital
and operating costs and risk, are summarized in Table A -2 in Appendix A. Generally,
capital cost for the proven technologies are in the range of $150,000 to $250,000
per ton of installed capacity, depending on size and plant configuration. Operating
costs are in the range of $35 to $60 per ton processed, not including residue
disposal, again dependent on size, equipment and operating profile, and assuming a
private operator. These figures are based on industry rules -of- thumb, recent
operating results from selected facilities, surveys of industry professionals and
related references.
A significant factor in the net operating costs for these facilities is revenue from the
sale of recovered energy and recyclables. The energy revenue is a function of
negotiations between the facility operator and the energy markets, typically a utility,
and may include, besides a power rate, revenue for capacity and a requirement for
standby power. Capital equipment necessary for utility connections can also be part
of the negotiations, and the actual figures have to be developed and refined for
specific sites and requirements during a procurement /development and negotiation
process.
5.1.1 Typical Waste Processing Technologies Project Economic
Estimates
To provide the County with an idea of the project economics that it could expect
from adopting a WTE strategy for the future management of its MSW that is not
reduced /reused /recycled, a representative preliminary project pro forma Operating
Statement was prepared. By deriving an order -of- magnitude cost per ton for the
processing and disposal of MSW using a waste processing technology, the County
can compare the cost of developing new landfill capacity or other means of disposal
after the existing landfill is filled to capacity.
The technology chosen for modeling was mass burn /waterwall incineration, the
technology with the most extensive track record at the size and scale needed to
serve the County. The nominal size of the facility selected is 300 TPD, making it one
of the smallest WTE plants in the United States. (There are two mass -burn facilities
in that size range — Commerce, CA and Wallingford, CT.) This assumes that Orange
County would be able to partner with an adjacent community.
The procurement method assumed for the analysis was a design - build- operate
public - private partnership, with public ownership and financing through 100 percent
tax - exempt revenue bonds. This structure is the one recommended by numerous
solid waste financing professionals and experienced facility owners throughout the
U.S. This method gives the County the benefit of single- source private involvement
in the construction and long -term operation of the facility, while retaining the
advantages of public ownership. Such advantages include:
GBB/C08027 -01 23 August 15, 2008
53
1. Lower overall financing costs. Tax - exempt debt is generally less costly than
private debt - equity structures, even if the private debt portion of the
financing is through tax - exempt private activity bonds.
2. More waste flow control. Public owners have a greater ability to control waste
flow to their facilities based on the recent Oneida - Herkimer Supreme Court
decision (See reference in Section 4.0).
3. Post - financing control. After the expiration of the initial financing, usually 20-
30 years, the County would still be the owner of the plant, reaping the benefit
of lower disposal costs without debt service payments, and not subject to
market pricing by a private owner - operator. Several existing plants,
especially in New England, are now reaching the end of their initial service
agreements and financings, and the communities they are serving that still
need disposal services are facing higher tipping fees or loss of guaranteed
available capacity.
Of course, the actual procurement method should be the result of an open
procurement process with several alternatives open to proposers to suggest as they
deem them advantageous to the County.
5.1.2 Assumptions
The following are the assumptions used for the pro forma Operating Statement:
1. Size /Throughput. As stated above, the representative plant is 300 TPD
processing a total of 87,600 tons per year, which equals an availability of
about 80 percent. The remainder of the annual waste generated would need
to be transferred and landfilled; a cost of $50.00 per ton has been assumed
for bypass.
2. Ash Generation /Disposal. Using a rule of thumb, 25 percent of the annually
processed waste (21,900 tons) would remain as ash after the thermal
recovery process. The ash can be disposed at a landfill at $50.00 per ton but
may have to be disposed separately from the bypassed waste in an ash
monofill. If found to be hazardous, ash would need to be separately disposed
of as a hazardous waste. The cost of such ash management would be in the
range of $150 to $250 per ton, including transportation and disposal at a
specially designed and operated landfill. If a beneficial use, such as
alternative daily landfill cover, was found, the cost could be reduced.
3. Capital Cost /Financing. The capital cost per ton is set at $150,000 per ton of
installed capacity or a total of $45 million. The effective net amount to be
financed was estimated at 125 percent of the cost of the installed capacity,
taking into account development and permitting costs, financing costs, etc.
That brings the total financed to $56.25 million. The all -in cost of financing
using revenue bonds was estimated at 5 percent for 25 years, an annual
financing factor of 0.0651, bringing net annual debt service to $3.99 million.
4. Electricity Revenues. The net amount of electricity generated from the
system, excluding in -plant use was set at 350 kilowatt -hours per ton
processed. The assumed price of the electricity sold was $0.06 per kilowatt -
hour, which is typical of what many plants receive for their electrical sales.
Any electrical agreement and its associated price would have to be negotiated
with the utility. It was also assumed that the plant operator would receive 10
percent of the electricity sales as an incentive payment, with 90 percent going
to the County.
GBB/C08027 -01 24 August 15, 2008
54
5. Materials Revenues. Ferrous metals can be recovered from the bottom ash
and sold as scrap on the open market. It was assumed that 2 percent of the
incoming waste or 1,752 tons per year would be recovered and sold at a
current price of $80.00 per ton. It was assumed that the plant operator
would receive 50 percent of the sales as an incentive payment, a standard
industry practice.
6. Operating Costs. A cost of $57.00 per ton processed was assumed for the
analysis.
5.1.3 Pro Forma Operating Statement
Based on the assumptions above, the annual Operating Statement of the system
would be as presented in Table 5 -1.
Table 5 -1. Pro Forma Annual Operating Statement
Revenues
Costs
Electricity $1,839,600
Ferrous Recovery $140,160
Total Revenues $1,979,760
Operating & Maintenance $4,993,200
Ash Disposal $1,095,000
ByPass Disposal $660,000
Annual Debt Service $3,991,076
Operator Revenue Sharing $183,960
Total Costs $10,923,236
Net Cost $8,943,476
Net Cost /Ton $102.09
The ash produced by the facility would need to be transferred and landfilled. The
estimated cost for this is projected at $50 per ton in Table 5 -1.
The cost per ton is quite sensitive to the price of electricity. For example, if it could
be assumed that electricity could be sold for $0.09 per kilowatt -hour instead of $0.06
per kilowatt -hour, the net disposal cost of approximately $102 per ton would be
reduced to $89 per ton, an approximate 13 percent reduction in cost.
5.2 Effectiveness of Waste Processing Technologies
Since any WPT will have some residual in need of disposal, when discussing
effectiveness of a WPT, emphasis is placed on obtaining the least amount of residual
material for final disposal. While combustion technologies significantly reduce the
volume of material destined for landfills, the resulting ash must be managed. Typical
management methods include disposal in a Subtitle D landfill or beneficial use in
construction projects and alternative daily cover for landfill wastes. In Europe,
where land for landfilling is scarce and several countries have banned landfills, the
GBB/C08027 -01 25 August 15, 2008
55
ash is processed to recycle the ferrous and nonferrous metals and the remainder is
graded and used in road and other construction.
The biological processes produce residues as well. These are of two types: (1) inert
residues that are landfilled and (2) organic residues that can be cured to be a soil
amendment or compost. Biological WPT are mass reduction technologies so that
contaminants such as heavy metals are concentrated in the residue. Tests for these
contaminants need to be conducted during operations and appropriate measures
taken.
For all but the high- temperature thermal options and the anaerobic digestion system,
an ash will be generated. Bottom ash will be discharged from the bottom of the
furnace chamber, and fly ash will be collected by the air pollution control system. In
accordance with applicable law, WTE ash must be tested to ensure it is non-
hazardous. The test is called the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).
Generally, the bottom ash has not been classified as a hazardous material, subject to
ash testing and analysis. Fly ash, however, will have a higher concentration of heavy
metals and may also contain residual organics. As such, it would likely be classified
as a hazardous material if it fails toxicity testing, unless it is combined with bottom
ash, as is the current U.S. practice.
It should be noted that communities with aggressive, comprehensive recycling
programs and programs focused on removing toxics from the MSW stream, such as
those to divert used electronics (e- waste), household hazardous waste (HHW),
mercury thermometers, fluorescent light fixtures, batteries, various metals and white
goods, and the like, could be expected to have a post- diversion MSW stream for
combustion containing less toxic materials and thus the ash from combustion to have
a lower potential to exhibit hazardous characteristics upon TCLP testing.
The solids residual from high temperature systems, such as plasma -arc or pyrolysis,
may have a better opportunity for end -use applications and marketing. These
glassy -type granules may be classified as non - hazardous and used in construction
materials or as a fill.
Vendors claim the substrate after digestion is beneficially processed and recovered,
with the residue from anaerobic digestion is nothing more than stones, glass or
similar items, which is normally directed to a solid waste landfill. However,
digestion, like combustion, is a concentrating process. This is the result of the
organic matter being converted to gas and utilized or released into the atmosphere.
As a result toxic materials in the waste will be part of the residue but in a higher
concentration than in the original feedstock. These claims are unproven in plants
operating using MSW as feedstock.
5.3 Environmental Issues of Waste Processing Technologies
5.3.1 Air Quality
5.3.1.1 Applicable Regulations
Solid waste incinerators, which the U.S. EPA refers to as Municipal Waste
Combustors, are regulated under the federal Clean Air Act, originally passed by
Congress in 1963 and updated in 1967, 1970, 1977,1990 and 1995 and 1998.
Numerous city and local governments have enacted similar legislation, either
GBB/C08027 -01 26 August 15, 2008
56
implementing federal programs or filling in locally important gaps in federal
programs.
Section 111 of the federal Clean Air Act directs the U.S. EPA to establish pollution
control requirements for certain industrial activities which emit significant "criteria air
pollutants." These requirements are known as new source performance standards
(NSPS) and regulate pollutants. For thermal destruction of solid waste, the NSPS
control particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide(S02), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), hydrogen chloride (HCI), dioxins /furans, cadmium, lead, mercury,
fugitive ash and opacity. NSPS are detailed in Chapter 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 60 (40 CFR Part 60), and are intended primarily to establish
minimum nationwide requirements for new facilities.
Section 112 of the pre -1990 federal Clean Air Act directed the U.S. EPA to establish
standards to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). These pollutants
include asbestos, benzene, beryllium, inorganic arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and
vinyl chloride. National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs)
are detailed in 40 CFR Part 61 and establish minimum nationwide requirements for
existing and new facilities.
The post -1990 NESHAPs require the maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
for a particular industrial source category, and are often referred to as "MACT
standards." The pre -1990 Clean Air Act prescribed a risk -based chemical -by- chemical
approach. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments outlined a new approach with two
main components. The first component involves establishing technology -based
source category standards, and the second component involves addressing any
significant remaining risk after the national standards are in place. The NESHAPs
promulgated under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments can be found in 40 CFR Part
63 and establish nationwide requirements for existing and new facilities.
The U.S. EPA may implement and enforce the requirements, or the U.S. EPA may
delegate such authority to state or local regulatory agencies. Clean Air Act Section
111 and 112 emissions limits applicable to new Municipal Waste Combustors are:
Dioxin /furan (CDD /CDF)
Cadmium (Cd)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Particulate Matter (PM)
Hydrogen chloride (HCl)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
13 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
10 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
140 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
50 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
20 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
25 PPM or 95 percent reduction
30 ppm or 80 percent reduction
180 ppm dry volume, and 150 ppm dry volume after
first year of operation
A new source review (NSR) permit is required for a new municipal waste combustor
and, in addition, depending on its size and emission quantities, it must meet the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit requirements.
5.3.1.2 Air Quality Impacts
In the early 1980s, dioxins were discovered in the exhaust of a WTE facility on Long
Island, NY. This chemical, toxic to animals in even very small quantities, was
considered a major pollutant. Other WTE plants were tested, as well as other
GBB/C08027 -01 27 August 15, 2008
57
industries, and were found to be a major dioxin source. In 1995, amendments to
the Clean Air Act (CAA) were enacted to control the emissions of dioxins, as well as
other toxins, such as mercury, hydrogen chloride and particulate matter.
With the implementation of the CAA requirements in the following years, dioxin
emissions from WTE decreased significantly, as shown in Figure 5 -1.14 The U.S. EPA
has stated that "Waste -to- Energy is no longer a major contributor of dioxin
emissions."
Figure 5 -1. Dioxin Emissions from WTE Facilities, 1990 — 2005
1990 1993 1996 1999 2000 2005
Year
Mercury is another toxin that was found in WTE exhaust and that was addressed in
the CAA amendments. By modifications in the burning process and the use of
activated carbon injection in the air pollution control system, dioxins and mercury, as
well as hydrocarbons and other constituents, have effectively been removed from the
gas stream. Mercury emissions from WTE have been reduced from 1990 levels, as
shown in Figure 5 -2.15
Figure 5 -2. Mercury Emission from WTE Facilities, 1990 - 2005
50.0
CL
40.0
4
A 30.0
W
zu.0
4
100
&O
51.2
30.5
23.7
16.9
6.06
1990 1993 1996 1999 2000
Year
4.05
2005
14 Emissions from Large MWC Units at MACT Compliance, Docket A -90 -45 (Large MWCs), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC.
15 Ibid.
GBB/C08027 -01 28 August 15, 2008
4,500
rn
4,000
M
3,500
M
3,000
Q
iy
2,500
0
2,000
^
1 ,500
E
W
.w
1 ,000
O
500
0
1990 1993 1996 1999 2000 2005
Year
Mercury is another toxin that was found in WTE exhaust and that was addressed in
the CAA amendments. By modifications in the burning process and the use of
activated carbon injection in the air pollution control system, dioxins and mercury, as
well as hydrocarbons and other constituents, have effectively been removed from the
gas stream. Mercury emissions from WTE have been reduced from 1990 levels, as
shown in Figure 5 -2.15
Figure 5 -2. Mercury Emission from WTE Facilities, 1990 - 2005
50.0
CL
40.0
4
A 30.0
W
zu.0
4
100
&O
51.2
30.5
23.7
16.9
6.06
1990 1993 1996 1999 2000
Year
4.05
2005
14 Emissions from Large MWC Units at MACT Compliance, Docket A -90 -45 (Large MWCs), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC.
15 Ibid.
GBB/C08027 -01 28 August 15, 2008
0 7
5.3.2 Water
Mass -burn and RDF incineration technologies and any WTE that produces steam will
require a water supply, and all types of projects have a wastewater discharge.
Water is required for the boilers, and domestic water for workers is also needed.
Non - potable water may be used as cooling water for the steam condensers, but the
large cooling water supplies necessary for condenser cooling are normally not
available, and cooling towers or cooling water ponds are provided as part of the
facility. Air - cooled condensers are an option, but they increase capital costs and
reduce net power production.
If the energy is going to a steam customer, the water requirement may be increased
significantly from that needed for electricity generation, assuming that the customer
generally does not return condensate. Some projects may cogenerate steam and
electricity for sale, such as district heating /cooling projects or those with a significant
steam user in proximity of the WTE facility site.
Technologies such as gasification and anaerobic digestion will not necessarily use a
boiler. They may generate a gas stream for use off -site and not require a condenser
cooling water system. They may utilize the gas to power a turbine or piston engine.
These approaches are not inherent water users; however, gasification systems may
require water in the gas cleanup and processing. Each system would need individual
evaluation.
Biologic systems, including ethanol production and anaerobic digestion, are wet
processes. The question to be examined is how much water is required and how
much is recycled. The answers to these questions will be system- specific. For
example, Arrow -Bio, which uses a water -based system, claims that no water is
required for the process other than that in the waste, which is recycled.
GBB/C08027 -01 29 August 15, 2008
59
6.0 Opinion on Which Waste Processing Technologies
Should Be Considered for Orange County
Of the waste processing technologies examined, only WTE is a proven technology
which could be recommended for implementation consideration by Orange County at
this point in time. As mentioned earlier, there are 89 WTE plants generating power
in the U.S. and hundreds worldwide. The other technologies discussed are in various
stages of development.
The alternative technologies are not mature enough to mitigate the risks potentially
inherent with their implementation:
Risk of technical failure - The technology is unproven.
Risk of pricing uncertainty — Should the County enter into a purchasing
agreement with a vendor for a WPT, the ultimate price paid may be much
higher than that indicated in the proposal.
Risk of environmental non - compliance — The technology's environmental
performance may be insufficient to meet regulations.
In evaluating waste processing technologies for Orange County to consider, it is
apparent that there is not enough waste generated by the County to gain the
economies of scale necessary to make a waste processing technology a cost - effective
investment. The estimated cost to process a ton of waste at a WTE facility in Orange
County is $102. To improve the economics of utilizing waste processing technology,
Orange County would need to partner with an adjacent community. The $102 per ton
is not competitive with the County's current landfill disposal fee of $49, nor with
Waste Industries' cost of $42 per ton to transfer and dispose of waste. Although
currently unknown, the cost of the County's new transfer station and landfilling at a
remote site is unlikely to reach $100 per ton. As the County investigates the cost of
transfer and disposal in preparation of its landfill closing, WPT may be more
economically attractive once the cost of transfer and disposal is known.
If $102 per ton were to look competitive, it is recommended that Orange County
conduct a WTE plant feasibility study which considers both mass -burn and modular
technologies, and /or fuel production approaches.
GBB/C08027 -01 30 August 15, 2008
• V,
Appendix A
Table A -1. Firms Evaluated by Recent Waste Processing Studies or Procurements
Table A -2. Summary of Municipal Waste Processing Technologies
GBB/C08027 -01 August 15, 2008
Table A -1. Firms Evaluated by Recent Waste Processing Studies or Procurements 61
Technology
a5 \ ya aye aye �� �oQ °yea
Qr Q•ca Qr Qr ao�a• GP as \Q
e' °y e�ey Y �'° o'�o• Q�
Jurisdiction X
P P y y a o �a oa o v
-lo G`oti�O oy PcOe\m 071' °caGo ot5ao a�aG J °eG \aypo\'�Fey
Vendors
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Global Environmental Technologies
X
1
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Consutech Systems LLC
X
1
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Basic Envirotech Inc.
X
1
Aerobic composting
Wright Environmental Management Inc. (Wright)
X
X
2
Aerobic composting
American Bio -Tech
X
1
Aerobic composting
Horstmann Rec clin technik GmbH
X
1
Aerobic Digestion
Mining Organics
X
1
Aerobic Digestion
Real Earth Technologies
X
1
Aerobic Digestion
American Bio -Tech
X
1
Aerobic Digestion
HotRot Exports Ltd, or Outspoken Industries
X
1
Aerobic Digestion
International Bio Recovery Corporation (IBR)
X
1
Anaerobic Digestion
Arrow Ecology and Engineering
X
X
X
3
Anaerobic Digestion
Canada Composting
X
X
2
Anaerobic Digestion
Kame /DePlano
X
1
Anaerobic Digestion
New bio
X
1
Anaerobic Digestion
Or aworld
X
1
Anaerobic Digestion
Organic Waste Systems
X
X
2
Anaerobic Digestion
VAGRON
X
1
Anaerobic Digestion
Valor a S.A.S. Valor a /Waste Recovery Systems
X
X
X
X
4
Anaerobic digestion
Canada Composting, Inc. (CCI)
X
1
Anaerobic digestion
Organic Waste Systems N.V. (OWS)
X
1
Anaerobic digestion
ISKA GmbH
X
1
Anaerobic digestion
Arrow Ecolog Ltd. Arrow
X
1
Anaerobic digestion
Citec
X
1
Anaerobic digestion
Global Renewables /ISKA
X
X
2
Anaerobic Digestion
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. WRSI
X
X
X
X
4
Anaerobic Digestion
Urbaser
X'
X
X'
3
Composting
Zenker
X
1
Composting
RRI - Switzerland
X
1
Gasification
BRI Energy
X
X
2
Gasification
Dynecology
X
1
Gasification
Ebara
X
X
X
3
Gasification
Ecosystem Projects
X
1
Gasification
Emerald Power /Isabella City
X
1
Gasification
GEM America
X
1
Gasification
ILS Partners /Pyromex
X
1
Gasification
Interstate Waste Technolo ies/Thermoselect (IWT)
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
Gasification
Jov Theodore Somesfalean
X
1
Gasification
Kame /DePlano
X
1
Gasification
Taylor Rec clin g Facility
X
X
X
3
Gasification
Thermo enics
X
1
Gasification
Primener RRA
X
X
2
Gasification
Omnifuel /Downstream Systems Omni
X
1
Gasification
Whitten Group /Entech Renewable Energy System
X
X
X
3
Gasification
Energy Products of Idaho (EPI)
X
1
Gasification
Bri htstar Environmental
X
1
Gasification
Omnifuel Technologies, Inc.
X
1
Gasification
Green Energy Corp
X
1
Gasification
Envirepel
X
1
Gasification
Zia Metallurgical Processes, Inc.
X
1
Hydrolysis
Arkenal Fuels
X
1
Hydrolysis
Biofine
X
1
Hydrolysis
Masada Ox nol
X
1
Mass Burn
Covanta Energy Corporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Mass Burn
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.
X
X
X
X
X
5
Mass Burn
Veolia Environmental Services
X
1
Mass Burn
Se hers Koppel Technology, Inc. Se hers
X
X'
2
Other Thermal Microwave
Molecular Waste Technologies, Inc.
X
1
Plasma Gasification
Global Energy Solutions
X
X
X
3
Plasma Gasification
GSB Technologies
X
1
Plasma Gasification
Peat International /Menlo Int.
X
1
Plasma Gasification
Rigel Resource Recovery and Conversion Company
X
X
2
Plasma Gasification
Selena Group
X
1
Plasma Gasification
Startech Environmental
X
1
Plasma Gasification
Geo lasma LLC
X
X
2
Plasma Gasification
Plasma Environmental Technologies, Inc.
X
1
Plasma Gasification
Plasco Energy Group
X
1
Plasma Gasification
USST
X
1
Pyrolysis
Entropic Technologies Corporation
X
1
Pyrolysis
Pan American Resources
X
X
X
3
Pyrolysis
WasteGen Ltd. /TechTrade WasteGen
X
X
2
Pyrolysis
Conrad Industries
X
1
Pyrolysis
Graveson Energy Management
X
1
Pyrolysis
International Environmental Solution
X
X
X
3
Steam Classification
BLT /World Waste Technologies
X
1
Thermal De of merization
Chan in World Technolo ies
X
X
X
3
Thermal Oxidation
Zeros Technolo Holding
X
1
Footnote:
' Companies submitted a combined proposal to local government
GBB/C08027 -01 A -1 August 15, 2008
IN
Table A -2. Summary of Municipal Waste Processing Technologies
* Does not include risks related to procurement, such as vendor quality and deep - pockets (ability to provide technical, construction and operating guarantees; underwrite risks, etc.)
GBB /C08027 -01 A -2 August 15, 2008
Technology
Environmental Issues
Economic Issues
Applicability to RI
RI Risk
Operations/
Alternative
Description
Experience Record
Size Applicability
Reliability
Capital
Maintenance
Risks /Liabilit *
Summary
Unprocessed MSW fired in a
The predominant method of
Modules up to 750
High proven
Air emissions (controlled
$200k to $262k per
$35 to $50 /ton
Proven commercial
Mass-
chamber built of water tubes.
WTE in the US and overseas
TPD, with total facility
reliability, over 90%
by statute). Requires
installed ton (high)
(moderate) O &M
technology at
Burn /Waterwall
Heat recovered for steam and /or
for decades. Over 60 plants
size over 3,000 TPD
residual disposal.
costs. Minimal
appropriate scale.
Very Low
electricity production
currently in commercial
materials recovery.
Requires new legislation.
operation
Unprocessed MSW fired in a
Substantial experience with
Modules up to 150
High proven
Air emissions (controlled
$146k to $183k per
$50 to $60 /ton (high)
Proven commercial
Mass-
series of refractory chambers
facilities firing MSW in Europe
TPD, with total facility
reliability, over 90%
by statute). Requires
installed ton
O &M costs. Minimal
technology; limitations
Burn /Modular
followed by a heat recovery
and to a lesser extent in the
size up to 450 TPD
residual disposal.
(moderate)
materials recovery.
in scaling up to size
Low
boiler for steam and /or
U.S.
needed. Requires new
electricity production
legislation.
Shredded MSW, with ferrous
Dozens of facilities in
Modules up to 750
Good proven
Air emissions (controlled
$158k to $198k per
$50 to $55 /ton (high)
Proven commercial
metals removed, and fired in a
operation since the 1970's
TPD, with total facility
reliability, over 80%
by statute). Requires
installed ton
O &M costs. Good
technology at
RDF/ Dedicated
chamber built of water tubes.
size over 3,000 TPD
residual disposal.
(moderate)
materials recovery
appropriate scale.
Low
Boiler
Preprocessing can increase
revenue potential.
Requires new legislation.
materials recovery.
Shredded MSW fired in a sand
One facility firing MSW in the
Facility size up to 460
Good proven
Air emissions (controlled
High capital cost
High O &M costs. Good
Proven technology;
bed. Preprocessing can increase
US, other units in Europe and
TPD
reliability, over 80%
by statute). Requires
materials recovery
limited U.S commercial
RDF /Fluid Bed
materials recovery.
Japan
residual disposal.
revenue potential.
experience; scalability
Moderate
an issue. Requires new
legislation.
Heated MSW in oxygen- starved
One pilot plant in California
Pilot plant sized for 50
Insufficient
Air emissions (controlled
High capital cost
High O &M costs
High risk, uncertain
environment produces a fuel gas
operating for 2 years
TPD MSW
experience to
by statute), Odors from
commercial potential.
Pyrolysis
that is incinerated to generate
establish reliability
MSW transport. Residue
No operating experience
High
usable energy - steam and /or
estimate
may have beneficial use.
with large scale
electricity
operations. May require
new legislation.
Heated MSW in oxygen- starved
Two facilities firing MSW in
Multiple modules of
Insufficient
Limited air emissions
High capital cost
High O &M costs
Limited operating
environment generates a fuel
Japan since 1998, 10 small
300 TPD MSW each
experience to
(controlled by statute),
(one vendor
experience at only small
Gasification
gas that can be exported for
units firing MSW in Europe
establish reliability
potential air emissions
estimates $235k-
scale. Subject to scale-
High
heat or power generation
and Asia
estimate
when gas is fired. Residue
$250k /installed ton)
up issues.
may have beneficial use.
Extensively
One facility in operation in
Operating facilities up
Insufficient
Odor, potential air
Low capital cost
High O &M costs.
Limited operating
preprocessed /Shredded MSW
Israel for less than two years;
to 300 TPD
experience to
emissions when gas is
Several materials
experience at small
Anaerobic
directed to a series of digesters
other limited facilities in
establish reliability
fired. Residue may have
revenue streams may
scale. Subject to scale-
High
Digestion
for gas generation that can be
Europe
estimate
beneficial use.
be available,
up issues.
exported for heat or power
eneration
MSW heated by a plasma -arc in
Two pilot plants in operation
Less than 200 TPD
Insufficient
Air emissions (controlled
Very high capital
Very high O &M costs
No commercial
oxygen- starved environment
since 1999 in Japan
MSW
experience to
by statute). Residue may
cost
experience to date.
produces a fuel gas that is
establish reliability
have beneficial use.
Subject to scale -up
Plasma Arc
incinerated to generate usable
estimate
issues. May require new
High
energy for steam and /or
legislation.
electricity. Similar to
gasification.
* Does not include risks related to procurement, such as vendor quality and deep - pockets (ability to provide technical, construction and operating guarantees; underwrite risks, etc.)
GBB /C08027 -01 A -2 August 15, 2008
63
Appendix B
Overview of Waste Processing Technologies (WPT)
GBB/C08027 -01 August 15, 2008
M,
Appendix B
Overview of Waste Processing Technologies (WPT)
1.1 "Proven" Technologies
Waste has been converted to beneficial use on a large scale for well over 100 years.
Incineration with electric power generation was first applied to MSW in 1894 in New
York City. Since that time, the burning of MSW with energy recovery (now known as
WTE) has matured into a safe, effective and environmentally acceptable technology.
The proven large -scale waste processing methods include incineration and starved -
air combustion, as defined below:
Mass -burn Incineration: This is the controlled combustion of organic or inorganic
waste with more than the ideal air (stoichiometric) requirement - excess air - to
assure that complete burning occurs.
Starved Air Combustion: Starved air incineration utilizes less air than conventional
incineration, and it produces ash similar in appearance to that from a conventional
incineration process. The gases that result are burned in a second chamber. The
lower air requirement leads to smaller equipment sizes. This process, however, is an
incineration process.
Refuse - derived Fuel (RDF): An RDF system processes waste by shredding it and
removing ferrous metals in preparation for combustion. The removal of non -
combustibles can increase the specific heat content by over 10 percent and can allow
for revenues from the metals removed.
It has been found that recycling, the most preferred waste management option aside
from waste reduction, increases when WTE exists in the United States as well as in
other countries. As shown in BioCycle's '2006 State of Garbage in America,"
(http: / /www.jgpress.com /archives /_free /000848.htm1), most of the states with large
energy recovery rates have recycling rates higher than the national recycling
average of 28.5 percent.' These recycling rates range from 43 percent in Minnesota
(where 21 percent of the waste is burned for energy) to 24 percent in Connecticut
(where 65 percent of the waste is burned for energy). North Carolina illustrates the
inverse with 19 percent recycling and .9 percent combustion for energy.
Apparently, where WTE exists, there is greater public awareness of waste disposal
and the need to deal with waste reduction overall.
Other methods of MSW disposal, such as mixed -waste composting and landfilling,
are being used but they are becoming less and less attractive. Mixed -waste
composting requires large land areas, creates significant odor, and produces compost
that is limited in its application because of contaminants. Landfilling is not a
processing technology, it is storage. It also requires large land areas or a large
capital investment, generates methane (a greenhouse gas that is more than 20
times as potent as carbon dioxide, which is generated from WTE), and creates other
1 BioCycle includes recycling, composting, yard waste, WTE and landfill collection in its figures.
EPA reports MSW from a slightly different source. They include collection receipts for domestic
waste and for industrial waste, but their recycling quantities are derived from firms that
recycle the waste, such as paper mills or steel plants, rather than from collection data. This
difference in methodology from that used by Biocycle is reflected in the difference in recycling
rates in the United States in 2006, which is reported as 32.5% by EPA and 28.5% by Biocycle.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -1 August 15, 2008
65
environmental impacts, like uncontrolled discharge of leachate that may pollute
groundwater sources.
WTE has proven to be a reliable method for waste processing and disposal. Modern
plants are compatible with aggressive recycling programs and have an
environmentally acceptable track record.
While new WTE procurements have declined in the United States, the market for this
equipment has increased in Europe and in Eastern Asia. European and Japanese
systems suppliers actively market their systems and are consistently improving their
performance. The technology is well tested and is used more than any other for WPT
facilities in the United States and overseas. Table B -1 illustrates the use of WTE
technology throughout the world.
Table B -1. WTE Facilities Worldwide
Location
Number of
Amount of MSW Managed by WTE as a
Total
Facilities
% of Total MSW Generated
USA
89
12.5% based on MSW reported by U.S. EPA and
14
5
BioCycle's data
Europe
400
Varies from country to country
Japan
100
70 to 80%
Other nations (Taiwan,
70
Varies from country to country
Singapore, China, etc.)
12
18
Source: "The 2008 IWSA Directory of Waste -to- Energy Plants," Integrated Waste
Management Services Association website
Table B -2 illustrates the size and ownership of WTE facilities in operation in the
United States. Fifty -two percent of the facilities are owned by public entities,
Wheelabrator Technology (Waste Management Inc.) owns 13 percent, Covanta
Energy owns 21 percent, and other private firms own 13 percent. Private
companies own more of the larger facilities.
Table B -2. WTE Facilities in the United States
Size
(Ton Per Day)
Publicly
Owned
Privately
Owned
Total
:5100
7
0
7
101 -499
14
5
19
500 -999
8
17
25
1,000 -1,999
11
9
20
>_ 2,000
6
12
18
Total
46
43
89
Table B -3 shows the various technologies used in U.S. plants with the majority of
plants utilizing mass burn technology.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -2 August 15, 2008
M191
Table B -3. U.S. WTE Plants by Technology
Technology
Operating
Plants
Daily Design
Capacity (TPD)
Annual Capacity 1
(Million Tons)
Mass Burn
65
71,354
22.1
Modular
9
1,342
0.4
RDF- Processing &
Combustion
10
15,428
4.8
RDF- Processing Only
5
6,075
1.9
RDF- Combustion Only
5
4,592
1.4
Total U.S. Plants z
94
98,791
30.6
WTE Facilities
89
92,716
28.7
' Annual Capacity equals daily tons per day (TPD) of design capacity multiplied by 365 (days /year)
multiplied by 85 percent. Eighty -five percent of the design capacity is a typical system guarantee of
annual facility throughput.
Z Total Plants includes RDF Processing facilities that do not generate power on site.
Source: J.V.L. Kiser and M. Zannes, Integrated Waste Management Services Association, April 2004.
In the region, 10 WTE facilities currently operate, processing almost 12,000 TPD of
MSW. Table B -4 describes those plants.
Table B -4. WTE Plants in Region
Location
Size
TPD
Start
Date
Energy Product
Owner /Operator
North Carolina
New Hanover County
500
1984
electricity'
New Hanover County
South Carolina
Charleston
600
1989
steam & electricity
AT &T /Montenay Charleston RRI
Virginia
Alexandria
975
1988
electricity
Covanta Arlington - Alexandria, Inc.
Fairfax County
3000
1990
electricity
Covanta Fairfax, Inc.
Hampton
240
1980
steam
NASA and City of Hampton /City of Hampton
Harrisonburg
200
1982
steam & electricity
City of Harrisonburg
Portsmouth
2000
1988
RDF & electricity
Southeastern Public Service Authority
(SPSA)
Maryland
Baltimore
2250
1985
electricity
John Hancock Life Insurance Company/
Wheelabrator Baltimore, L.P.
Harford County
360
1988
steam & electricity
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal
Authority /Energy Recovery Operations, Inc.
Montgomery County
1800
1995
electricity
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal
Authorit / Covanta Montgomery, Inc.
Originally built as a "steam" plant, the tacility now generates and sells electricity.`
Source: Integrated Waste Management Services Association
The following sections describe the basic types of MSW combustion technologies, all
of which have been in use for decades in the U.S.
Z New Hanover County Government, Department of Environmental Management website.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -3 August 15, 2008
67
1.1.1 Mass - Burn /Waterwall Combustion
In mass -burn waterwall combustion, MSW is placed directly into the system for
incineration with no pre - processing except for removal of identifiable white goods
(refrigerators, washing machines, microwave ovens, etc.). Waste is placed onto a
grate at the bottom of a combustion chamber in a furnace with walls built of water
tubes, as shown in Figure B -1. Air for combustion is forced through the grates
(under -fire air) and through parts in the sides of the combustion chamber (over -fire
air).
Figure B -1. Waterwall Furnace Section
Half the heat generated from the burning waste is absorbed by the waterwalls and
the balance heats water in the boiler, as shown Figure B -2.
3 Source: Babcock and Wilcox.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -4 August 15, 2008
•
n•
iRod:ant ElectmaG Semi -Dry Lime 8
Nol io wale Reluse Scrubber Carbon
Feed Zone Sape+kaeater Turbine Added
Chute Ilurnace) GpneratorE Spark
Grapple Crane Oombusbun Steam
Crane Operator Chamber Evaporator Economrxer Feed ~Ammonia Lime
lines Tank 5'ila
�-( Carbon D.I rnihc
rill Slo Limp
'I — — - Sdo
Raghouee
Cooling
Towers
Tppma Floor _ r�su uu uu
Ammon a eo ier Water IndeRefuse HofdiN Pit n Infect on Treatment .usr w>4_ rmy Aar Fan
Marto Gaom tlC —� _Py :o� A+^ rc lamd6ll ��...
Grate Stoker Lime Continuoafs Waa a,c , Water
Surface Grate Addao Emissions _ I l_ -- -fi=r Yank
Moaironry
.nan
System paw. nil A nL iie::o-s uew�.ro w�^L
} y Refuse volume is reduced 1 g.1 LL {U
r r Refuse weight is reduced 4:1
Figure B -2. Typical Mass -Burn Waterwall System4
The off -gas exiting the boiler passes through an air pollution control system where
the majority of pollutants is removed and is discharged through a stack to the
atmosphere. Waste is burned out to an ash in the furnace. Heat extracted from the
waterwalls and the boiler section generates steam which, in most facilities, is
directed to a turbine generator for electric power production. Waterwall systems are
fabricated on -site. They are generally applied to larger systems, 200 TPD up to 750
TPD, with multiple units used when higher capacity is required. They are forgiving in
their operation, and are reasonably efficient in the burnout of waste and in the
generation of energy.
1.1.2 Mass - Burn /Modular Combustion
Modular combustion is another incineration process. Unprocessed MSW is placed
directly into a refractory lined chamber. The primary chamber of the incinerator
includes a series of charging rams which push the burning waste from one level to
another until it burns out to an ash and is discharged to a wet ash pit, as in Figure B-
3. No or limited under -fire air is used to limit the entraining of ash into the flue
(exhaust) gas stream.
4 Source: Fairfax County, VA.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -5 August 15, 2008
o
J00,141
Figure B -3. Typical Modular Combustion Systems
Less than the ideal (stoichiometric) amount of combustion air is injected into the
primary combustion chamber, and a combustible gas is produced from the
incomplete waste combustion. The gas from the burning waste is directed to a
secondary combustion chamber where additional air is added to complete the
burning process. Hot gases pass though a separate waste heat boiler for steam
generation and then through an air pollution control system before discharge through
the stack to the atmosphere.
A major advantage of this system is injection of less air than ideal in the primary
combustion chamber. With less air, the fans can be smaller and the chamber itself
can be smaller than with other systems. Also, with less air flow, less particulate
matter (soot) enters the gas stream and the air pollution system can be sized for a
smaller load.
Modular systems are factory built and can be brought to a site and set up in a
relatively short period of time. They are less efficient than waterwall units in waste
burn -out and in energy generation. They have been built in unit sizes up to 150
TPD. Multiple units are used to increase plant size to 300 - 400 TPD, such as in
Agawam, MA.
1.1.3 Refuse - derived Fuel /Dedicated Boiler
RDF, in its simplest form, is shredded MSW with ferrous metals removed. Additional
processing, such as screening, can be applied to the incoming waste stream to
remove and recover glass, aluminum, and other non - combustible materials.
Additional processing stages may also be placed in the processing line, such as
5 Source: Consutech Systems, Richmond, VA.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -6 August 15, 2008
[E
pelletizing. Pelletizing is the compression of "fluff" RDF into dense pellets generally
to be fired along with lump coal. The pellet size depends on the size of the coal used
in existing power plants.
RDF production is a distinct process; therefore, it is not necessary to be co- located
with the combustion plant. In Figure B -4, RDF is blown into the furnace from the
left, above the grate. What does not burn in suspension (above the grate) will burn
on the grate, and the hot gases generated will pass through a waterwall section and
then a boiler section. This system is similar to the mass -burn waterwall facility
except in the nature of waste charging and burnout.
H
I�
Figure B -4. Typical RDF Combustion Facility6
The unique feature of RDF systems is in the pre - processing of waste. As seen in the
diagram of a typical RDF processing facility in Figure B -5, MSW enters the facility and
then passes through a trommel, where bags of waste are broken open and large
material is removed. The small material dropping out of the first trommel passes
through a second trammel to remove fine noncombustible material. The majority of
waste goes through a shredder for size reduction. A magnetic separator removes
ferrous metals and the balance of the material is fired in the furnace.
6 Source: Energy Answers Corporation.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -7 August 15, 2008
71
Figure B -5. Typical RDF Processing Schematic'
Other configurations may include additional separating equipment or exclude
trommels, but the RDF generated is always shredded so that it is capable of being
blown into a furnace. Although results vary with the processing configuration, in
general, about 80 percent of the incoming waste stream is converted into RDF for
the thermal process.
An advantage of this system is in the removal of metals and other materials from the
waste stream. While not all these facilities include this step in the processing line,
those that do can realize revenue from the sale of recovered metal. For instance, at
the North County Resource Recovery Project in West Palm Beach, Florida, the
nominal 3,000 TPD facility removed and sold over 30,000 tons of ferrous metals in
2003, which represented over 3 percent of the weight of the incoming waste stream.
With the removal of non - combustibles, the specific heat content of the RDF can be
increased by 10 percent over the original MSW.
1.1.4 Refuse - derived Fuel /Fluidized Bed
In this incineration process, MSW is shredded to less than four inches mean particle
size (the same as with the RDF process described in 1.3.1 above) to produce the fuel
(see Figure B -5) before it is blown into a bed of sand in a vertical cylindrical furnace.
Hot air is also injected into the bed from below, and the sand has the appearance of
a bubbling fluid as the hot air agitates the sand particles. Moisture in the RDF is
evaporated almost instantaneously upon entering the bed, and organics burn out
both within the bed and in the freeboard, the volume above the bed. Steam tubes
are embedded within the bed, and a transverse section of boiler tubes captures heat
from the flue gas exiting the furnace, as shown in Figure B -6.
Source: generic.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -8 August 15, 2008
72
SuTxnbmted
3 Uel Steam
FD Fan Bed Rermwal and Ewnomizxx Bag house 113 Fan Stack
Cleaning System
Figure B -6. Typical RDF Fluid Bed System$
Fluid bed incineration is more efficient than grate burning -based incineration
systems. The bed is very effective in waste destruction and requires less air flow
than mass -burn or modular systems. The fluid bed, however, does require relatively
uniform -sized material, and RDF preparation is necessary for system operation, not
for resource recovery, as discussed above.
1.2 'Emerging" Technologies
There are many technologies currently being proposed for the treatment and
disposal of MSW throughout the world. Most of these involve thermal processing,
but some others comprise the biological or chemical decomposition of the organic
fraction of the waste to produce useful products like compost or energy products,
notably synthetic gas (syngas) for downstream combustion.
Thermal processing refers to a number of different types of technologies utilizing
heat as the mode of waste treatment. However, most of them, as listed and
described below, are variations of conventional incineration.
Gasification: Heating of an organic waste to produce a burnable gas (approximately
85 percent hydrogen and carbon monoxide mix) for use off -site. As long as the off -
gas produced from the system is usable and burned off -site, the system is a gasifier,
not an incinerator. Typically, the energy in MSW is both used to fire the system and
contained in the gas product.
Pyrolysis: A form of gasification where organic waste is heated without air. A gas is
generated that is burned in the gaseous phase, requiring much less oxygen than
conventional incineration. This process also generates a char, or frit, depending on
the process temperature. (Frit is a glassy, granular material that is uniform in
appearance.) The presence of a secondary combustion chamber for the burnout of
the pyrolysis gas requires that this system be classified as an incinerator.
Plasma arc: Plasma arc refers to the means of introducing heat into the process.
Essentially a plasma arc system is a pyrolysis or starved air process generating heat
by firing the waste with a plasma arc to produce a syngas, which is then combusted
to produce steam and /or electricity, and is classified as an incinerator. If the system
8 Source: Energy Products of Idaho, Coeur D'Alene, ID.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -9 August 15, 2008
73
generates an off -gas that contains burnable gases (e.g., hydrogen and carbon
monoxide) that can be used off -site, it can be classified as a gasifier.
1.2.1 Gasification
Gasification is the heating of an organic waste (MSW) to produce a burnable gas
(approximately 85 percent hydrogen and carbon monoxide mix) for use off -site.
While pyrolysis systems are primarily focused on waste destruction, a gasifier is
designed primarily to produce a usable gas. As shown in Figure B -7, Thermoselect, a
European firm represented in the U.S. by InterCity Waste Technologies of Malvern,
PA, has developed a system composed of 400 TPD modules processing MSW.
W ,sties
"o 'l
, CO.
1,200'
Oxygen generation
facility
Synthesis Gas
Production "
Hydrogen
S n h i g. sc u bing Methanol
Ammonia
or
Power
generation
Homogenization reactor
�► Sulfur
Clean water
������--..##IIIF �► Salt
Zinc Concentrate
Figure B -7. Typical Gasification System9
Waste is fed into a gasification chamber to begin the heating process, after being
compressed to remove entrapped air. Some oxygen, sufficient only to maintain the
heat necessary for the process to proceed, is injected into the reactor where
temperatures in excess of 3,000 °F are generated. At this high temperature, organic
materials in the MSW will dissociate into hydrogen, methane, carbon dioxide, water
vapor, etc., and non - organics will melt and form a glass -like slag. After the gas is
cleaned, water is removed, and the gas can be used for power generation, heating,
or other purposes. The glass -like slag can be used as fill, or as a building material
for roads, etc.
A variation of the fluid bed incineration system described in this section is the
fluidized -bed gasifier, shown in Figure B -8.
9 Source: International Waste Technologies, Malvern, PA.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -10 August 15, 2008
High
Temperature
Reactor
�'
i
9�gf�csaroC>latirnel
—�1
Press
0
Oxygen generation
facility
Synthesis Gas
Production "
Hydrogen
S n h i g. sc u bing Methanol
Ammonia
or
Power
generation
Homogenization reactor
�► Sulfur
Clean water
������--..##IIIF �► Salt
Zinc Concentrate
Figure B -7. Typical Gasification System9
Waste is fed into a gasification chamber to begin the heating process, after being
compressed to remove entrapped air. Some oxygen, sufficient only to maintain the
heat necessary for the process to proceed, is injected into the reactor where
temperatures in excess of 3,000 °F are generated. At this high temperature, organic
materials in the MSW will dissociate into hydrogen, methane, carbon dioxide, water
vapor, etc., and non - organics will melt and form a glass -like slag. After the gas is
cleaned, water is removed, and the gas can be used for power generation, heating,
or other purposes. The glass -like slag can be used as fill, or as a building material
for roads, etc.
A variation of the fluid bed incineration system described in this section is the
fluidized -bed gasifier, shown in Figure B -8.
9 Source: International Waste Technologies, Malvern, PA.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -10 August 15, 2008
74
Superheated Stem Neater
600—
40VC
Fhulized-bed
Gasifier
Wastes
�Q 00 C
NDE]D
s
x
Econonm Air Bag Filter
l ,c QQ 1,44Q�C: I Preheater t�
' Waste heat moiler
mlaustxbles Molten Slag
Figure B -8. RDF Fluidized Bed Gasification System"
Although this system is described as gasification technology, it does not export a
burnable gas. RDF is first prepared using a process similar to the ones illustrated in
Figures B -4 and B -5. The RDF (called "wastes" in Figures B -7 and B -8) is then
charged to the fluid bed and the gas generated is directed to a secondary
combustion chamber, shown above, with molten slag dropping out to a water - cooled
sump. The molten slag solidifies into a glass -like material which can be used as a
construction material or fill. Heat from the gas fired in the combustion chamber is
captured in hot water tubes to generate steam which can be used for electric power
generation. Without the generation of a usable gas stream and with the necessity of
a combustion chamber for gas burn -out, this system is an incinerator.
A gasifier marketed for MSW is built by EnTech of Devon, England, as shown in the
schematic in Figure B -9. This is a complex system which generates recyclable
metals, plastics and other potential revenue streams, in addition to a salable gas
(syngas). EnTech provides case studies of nine small -scale facilities in operation. A
67 TPD facility operates on a mixture of MSW.
io Source: Ebara Corporation, Tokyo.
GBB/CO8O27 -01 B -11 August 15, 2008
75
Figure B -9. EnTech Process Schematic"
As shown in Figure B -9, MSW is classified by a combination bag breaker and gravity
separator process, termed a Kinetic Streamer. Oversize materials, which are
basically inorganic, are directed either to a plastics recycler or a non - plastics
recycling station, while the majority of waste (presumably organic) is directed to a
dryer to remove entrained moisture. The dryer utilizes the latent heat inherent in
the organic content of the waste to produce the heat necessary to drive the
gasification process. The syngas can be fired in a waste heat boiler for steam and
subsequent electric power production.
1.2.2 Pyrolysis
In pyrolysis, an organic waste (MSW) is heated without oxygen (or air), similar to
the generation of coke from coal or charcoal from wood. Both a char and a gas are
generated. The gas is burned out in a gaseous phase, requiring much less oxygen
than incineration. The char will usually melt at the temperatures within the pyrolysis
chamber and will be discharged along with a black gravel -like substance, termed frit.
Advantages of this process are in the lack of air entering the chamber and the
resulting smaller size of system components. Without air, there is little nitrogen
oxide generation and low particulate (soot) formation. There have been many
attempts to develop this technology outside a laboratory or a pilot plant. In full -
scale demonstrations in the 1970s, it was difficult to maintain a sealed chamber to
keep air out, and waste variability creates problems in maintaining consistent
operation. When the pyrolysis gas is fired in a combustion chamber that is part of
the system, the system is classified as an incinerator.
As shown in Figure B -10, MSW is shred into a uniform size capable of feeding into
the thermal converter, or pyrolysis chamber. The pyrolysis gas generated is fired in
a secondary combustion chamber, or thermal oxidizer, and passes through a waste
heat boiler for heat recovery. Char drops out the bottom of the pyrolysis chamber
for disposal or further processing for recovery of metals and other constituents.
Although this system is marketed as a pyrolysis system, a combustion chamber is
necessary for its operation (for destroying organics in the off -gas) and the presence
of this chamber classifies the system as an incinerator.
11 Source: Entech.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -12 August 15, 2008
Water
a
`o a
u �
Dried
°
Organic
Organic
= c
Q —
Materials &
Materials &
MSW
Wastec Residues
Residues
Entech Syngas
Kinetic
Dryer
Gasifier
Streamer
� v
Solid
a o
h �
V
Residue
Figure B -9. EnTech Process Schematic"
As shown in Figure B -9, MSW is classified by a combination bag breaker and gravity
separator process, termed a Kinetic Streamer. Oversize materials, which are
basically inorganic, are directed either to a plastics recycler or a non - plastics
recycling station, while the majority of waste (presumably organic) is directed to a
dryer to remove entrained moisture. The dryer utilizes the latent heat inherent in
the organic content of the waste to produce the heat necessary to drive the
gasification process. The syngas can be fired in a waste heat boiler for steam and
subsequent electric power production.
1.2.2 Pyrolysis
In pyrolysis, an organic waste (MSW) is heated without oxygen (or air), similar to
the generation of coke from coal or charcoal from wood. Both a char and a gas are
generated. The gas is burned out in a gaseous phase, requiring much less oxygen
than incineration. The char will usually melt at the temperatures within the pyrolysis
chamber and will be discharged along with a black gravel -like substance, termed frit.
Advantages of this process are in the lack of air entering the chamber and the
resulting smaller size of system components. Without air, there is little nitrogen
oxide generation and low particulate (soot) formation. There have been many
attempts to develop this technology outside a laboratory or a pilot plant. In full -
scale demonstrations in the 1970s, it was difficult to maintain a sealed chamber to
keep air out, and waste variability creates problems in maintaining consistent
operation. When the pyrolysis gas is fired in a combustion chamber that is part of
the system, the system is classified as an incinerator.
As shown in Figure B -10, MSW is shred into a uniform size capable of feeding into
the thermal converter, or pyrolysis chamber. The pyrolysis gas generated is fired in
a secondary combustion chamber, or thermal oxidizer, and passes through a waste
heat boiler for heat recovery. Char drops out the bottom of the pyrolysis chamber
for disposal or further processing for recovery of metals and other constituents.
Although this system is marketed as a pyrolysis system, a combustion chamber is
necessary for its operation (for destroying organics in the off -gas) and the presence
of this chamber classifies the system as an incinerator.
11 Source: Entech.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -12 August 15, 2008
76
PROCESS FLOC,'' DIAGRAM
o�
� ima. r..rw ■N
I—LS�
L,4m*d Ck■i 1=1d �i3ii
rr. klilFyorr�
�` 1` � • CI■Q4Jf�
u: + �s }
3MT Tmr%mTw. Trr■mrrse
'.A" =L Ev WE t: L' Tcitii■ :�Wd�rw
Figure B -10. Process Diagram of a Pyrolysis System 12
1.2.3 Plasma Arc
Plasma arc technology is a gasification system that uses the intense heat generated
by a plasma torch to drive the process. Net energy generation is not established
based on Japanese and European experience. It is a pyrolysis - related process where
little or no oxygen is injected into a reactor. A typical unit is shown in Figure B -11.
Electric current is passed through a series of torches at the bottom of a reactor,
which heat a process gas (not shown) to a temperature in excess of 5,000 °F. This
hot gas stream heats waste within the reactor to over 3,500 °F and, as air is provided
to the system at a low controlled rate, some of the waste will burn to help maintain
reactor temperature. At this high temperature, organics within the waste will form
elemental compounds, such as hydrogen, oxygen and carbon, with some of this
carbon converting to carbon monoxide or methane. The gas flow will have a high
enough heat content to be able to sustain its own combustion and be used as a fuel
gas external to the system.
The inorganic portion of the waste will form a liquid slag which eventually drops from
the reactor into a water bath. As soon as it hits the water it will shatter into a
glassy - looking residue or frit that may be suitable for fill or use as a construction
material.
iz Source: Integrated Energy Systems, Inc., Romoland, CA.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -13 August 15, 2008
77
SYNGAS OUT
M
SIFICATION ZONE
LTING ZONE
:ONTROLLEQ
AIR
HEATING SYSTEM
Figure B -11. Cross - Section of a Plasma Arc Furnace 13
1.3 Biological Fuel Production
Producing a "fuel" product from organic materials in waste by biological processes is
termed biological fuel production. Typically, this fuel product takes the shape of
combustible gas or liquid formed when organic material in waste breaks down.
Decomposition of the organic portion of waste by microorganisms in the absence of
oxygen, known as "anaerobic digesting," creates methane (CH4) and other gases in
combination with about half the energy of natural gas. This biogas can be used as a
fuel and burned for energy or power production directly. It can also be refined to
produce a pipeline - quality gas that is almost pure methane and further processed
into a liquid fuel like methanol.
1.3.1 Cellulosic Ethanol
Ethyl alcohol, ethanol, is a biofuel that is usually produced from sugar or starch but
can be produced from wood, grasses, or other cellulose containing material,
including the organic portion of solid waste. This is referred to as cellulosic ethanol.
It is chemically identical to ethanol from other sources, such as corn starch or sugar,
but has the advantage that the feedstock is lignocellulose raw material that is highly
abundant and diverse. (The word "cellulosic" simply refers to the source material.)
However, it differs in that it requires a greater amount of processing to make the
sugar monomers available to the microorganisms that are typically used to produce
ethanol by fermentation.
13 Geoplasma, Atlanta, GA.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -14 August 15, 2008
N HIII
According to U.S. Department of Energy studies conducted by the Argonne
Laboratories of the University of Chicago, one of the benefits of cellulosic ethanol is
that it reduces greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 85 percent over reformulated
gasoline. By contrast, ethanol from corn, which most frequently uses natural gas to
provide energy for the process, may not reduce GHG emissions at all depending on
how the starch -based feedstock is produced.
There are five steps to produce ethanol using a biological approach:
1. A "pretreatment" phase to make the lignocellulosic material, such as wood,
straw or solid waste, amenable to hydrolysis, and to remove as many
contaminants as possible;
2. Cellulose hydrolysis (cellulolysis) to break down the molecules into sugars;
3. Separation of the sugar solution from the residual materials, notably lignin;
4. Microbial fermentation of the sugar solution;
5. Distillation to produce 99.5 percent pure alcohol.
The process is shown graphically in Figure B -12; however, steps 2, 3 and 4 are
shown in one stage or process. Abengoa accomplishes these steps in a single
reactor.
I. Pretreatment
The first stage is physical processing of the feedstock: size reduction and removal of
contaminants. This is similar to the production of RDF. This is especially important
with solid waste where the fermentable portion may only be 60 to 70 percent of the
feed. Once the MSW is physically prepared cellulose, its susceptibility to
fermentation is still curtailed by its rigid structure. As the result, an effective
additional treatment is needed to liberate the cellulose from the lignin seal and its
crystalline structure so as to render it accessible for a subsequent hydrolysis step. A
number of pretreatment approaches have been developed to liberate the cellulose
and increase its reactability. To date, the available pretreatment techniques include
acid hydrolysis, steam explosion, ammonia fiber expansion, alkaline wet oxidation
and ozone pretreatment. Besides effective cellulose liberation, an ideal pretreatment
has to minimize the formation of degradation products because of their inhibitory
effects on subsequent hydrolysis and fermentation processes.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -15 August 15, 2008
79
We -at Stra
Catalyst
Enzymes
Storage and
Preparation
Pretreatment
Cellulose Enzimatic
Hydrolisys
Fermentation
Steam
Yeast
Figure B -12. Process Flow of the BCyL Biomass Ethanol Plant"
2. Hydrolysis
The cellulose molecules are composed of long chains of sugar molecules. In order to
break the cellulose down into sugars, the hydrolysis process is employed. There are
two major cellulose hydrolysis processes:
a) Acid hydrolysis - dilute acid may be used under high heat and high pressure,
or more concentrated acid can be used at lower temperatures and pressure. A
decrystalized cellulosic mixture of acid and sugars reacts in the presence of
water to complete individual sugar molecules (hydrolysis).
b) Enzymatic hydrolysis - uses several enzymes at various stages of this
conversion and has the advantage that lignocellulosic materials can be
hydrolyzed with relatively mild processing conditions, which avoids the
formation of byproducts that would otherwise inhibit enzyme activity.
These have been utilized singly or in combination to break the cellulose chains into
free sugar, which is fermented for alcohol production.
14 Source: Abengoa Bioenergy
GBB/C08027 -01 B -16 August 15, 2008
Loral
3. Sugar Separation
Approximately half of the energy value in the cellulosic feedstock is captured in the
sugars produced in hydrolysis. Fermentation will be more efficient if this is
separated from other compounds, especially lignin. This can be accomplished with
membranes. The lignin also contains about half of the energy and can be used as an
energy source for the process.
4. Fermentation
Once the cellulose has been broken into sugars, microorganisms are used to ferment
the sugar and produce ethanol. Traditionally, baker's yeast has long been used in
the brewing industry to produce ethanol from hexoses (6- carbon sugar). When
lignocellulosic biomass is hydrolyzed to produce sugars, several sugars are produced
including xylose and arabinose (5- carbon sugars). As a result, specially engineered
microorganisms, mainly yeasts, have been developed and utilized in fuel ethanol
production from cellulose.
5. Distillation
The liquid resulting from fermentation is separated from any solids and heated to
volatize the ethyl alcohol which is then condensed. The process is repeated to
increase the ethanol concentration. An adsorption technique may be used to remove
the remaining water to produce anhydrous ethanol.
Because of the concern about using food crops to produce fuels and the potential
cost savings, a large number of companies have developed cellulosic ethanol
technologies, including:
• Abengoa Bioenergy
• Alico
• BlueFire Ethanol
• China Resources Alcohol Corporation (CRAC)
• Dyadic International, Inc.
• GreenField Ethanol
• Gulf Coast Energy
• Iogen Corporation
• Mascoma
• POET Biorefinery
• Range Fuels
• SunOpta Inc.
• Verenium Corporation
• Xethanol
1.3.2 Biogas
Roger Haug defines composting as "the biological decomposition and stabilization of
organic substrates, under conditions that allow development of thermophilic
temperatures as a result of biologically produced heat, to produce a final product
that is stable, free of pathogens and plant seeds, and can be beneficially applied to
land." 15 Composting of MSW or a portion of MSW such as yard waste is usually
carried out in the presence of air (aerobically) to produce a soil amendment and to
reduce the amount of MSW being deposited in landfills. When composting is done in
the absence of air (anaerobically), the biogas produced contains a significant amount
is Roger T. Haug, The Practical Handbook of Compost Engineering, Lewis Publishers, 1993.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -17 August 15, 2008
N
of methane, about 50 percent. To capture this biogas the process must be in a
closed vessel.
When anaerobic digestion is applied to the organic fraction of MSW, the primary
purpose of the facility shifts from landfill diversion to biogas production. There are
many anaerobic digestion plants both in use today and historically that have been
installed to produce and utilize biogas as well as manage a waste. However, most of
these facilities utilize sewage sludge, animal manures and other homogenous wastes
as feedstock. Very few utilize MSW as a feedstock.
It has long been common practice in Europe to use anaerobic digestion at waste
water treatment plants to treat sewage sludge. It has been less common over the
same period to use anaerobic digestion to treat industrial effluents and agricultural
sludges, although there are a number of examples dating back to the 1950s. In the
last ten years or so in Europe, because of the introduction of a requirement that the
separated organic fraction of MSW be treated before landfill disposal, anaerobic
digestion has been adopted for this purpose. Anaerobic digestion has long been
popular in India where a large number of small and simple plants are in use
processing farm wastes. Currently, a number of vendors are offering farm -based
systems in both Europe and the United States.
The process of producing biogas from MSW by anaerobic digestion has similar steps
to the production of liquid biofuel discussed above. The process includes:
1. A "pretreatment" phase to make the organic material more available for
digestion by size reduction and to remove recyclable materials and
contaminates;
2. Digestion of the organic material in a closed vessel by microorganisms;
3. Treatment of the biogas to remove water, compress the gas, and other
processes depending on the end use; and
4. Curing of the solid residue from the digestion to produce a compost product
which may be marketable.
The longest established anaerobic treatment processes include:
• Anaerobic suspended growth,
• Upflow and down -flow anaerobic attached growth,
• Fluidized -bed attached growth,
• Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (uasb),
• Covered anaerobic lagoons,
• Membrane separation anaerobic processes, and
• Dry process anaerobic digestion of MSW.
The above emerge in process designs, when developed and offered by the
technology providers, which are either optimized to:
1. Efficiently remove material (mostly organic) from liquid streams to permit
discharge of a treated effluent to a specified water quality standard, and
biogas production may be just incidental; or
2. To provide treatment of a waste material, including MSW, to make it suitable
for diversion away from landfill, with biogas generation optimized for revenue
creation, and potential sales of fibrous and liquid fertilizer by- products.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -18 August 15, 2008
M
Table B -5 provides a list of vendors that are offering anaerobic digestion systems in
Europe and elsewhere. The table categorizes the technologies offered by moisture
level, process temperature (mesophilic low temperature and thermophilic high
temperature) and number of stages of the process. The U.S. EPA recently published
an industry directory for firms offering equipment and services in this technology. 16
Table B -5. International Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Vendors
Anaerobic Digestion
Wet Wet
Technology Provider Single -Stage Single -Stage
Mesophilic Thermophilic
ArrowBio I I
Biogen TBD
IBTA
Dry
Fin le -Stage
sophilic
Dry Wet
Single -Stage Multi -Stage
Thermophilic I Mesophilic
I I -
Wet
Multi -Stage
Thermophilic
CAM BI
CiTEC
TBD
Dranco
Eco Technology JVV Oy
TBD
Entec Biogas GMBH
-V
GRL
Farmatic AG
TBD
Grontmij
Haase
Hese
HiRAD
TBD
I S KA
Kompogas
TBD
Kruger ASBioTherm
TBD
Linde
OWS (Dranco)
I
I A/
FPassavant
-v
Paques
I TBD
Portagester
RosRoca
SBI
N/
Schmack Biogas AG
I TBD
Schwarting (Uncle)
-V
Valorga
-V
I _1/
Wehrle
I
I
Mechanical - Biological- Treatment: A Guide for Decision Makers - Processes, Policies and Markets, Juniper
Consultancy Services, 2005
16 Industry Directory for On -Farm Biogas Recovery Systems, U.S. EPA, March 2008.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -19 August 15, 2008
[*ON
1.3.3 Anaerobic Digestion
As applied to the processing of MSW, anaerobic digestion is a wet treatment process
where waste is first pre- sorted and then fed into water tanks. Using agitators,
pumps, conveyors and other materials handling equipment, MSW is wetted and
dissolved. Metals, glass and other constituents of MSW that have no affinity for
water are eventually discharged from the system into dedicated containers for
recycling, further processing or final disposal. The paper, garbage, soluble
components, etc., generate "black water" which has a relatively high organic
content. This stream is taken to a series of digesters where the time it sits in the
chamber, the residence time, will be sufficient to generate an off -gas. The process is
shown in the schematic in Figure B -13.
Plastl
Organic
sorted organics
Unsorted ration systems
MSW
reactor
JOAMCetogeniCr
�g�er tiic ,reactor
=m!o7
r. Fertilizer
()$her Bi4gas
� Ai,_
Figure B -13. Process Flow for Anaerobic Digestion System 17
This gas is rich in methane and other organics and can be burned as a fuel for
heating or for electric power generation. The solid residual from the digestion
process is similar to compost and can be used as a soil amendment. The process
also separates out recyclable materials such as glass and metals. There are many
such facilities processing sewage sludge, manure and other homogeneous wastes.
ArrowBio of Haifa, Israel, is an example of a vendor that is offering to construct
anaerobic digestion facilities to process MSW in the United States. They have
responded to procurements in Los Angeles and New York. They operate a 300 TPD
full -scale MSW demonstration process line in Tel Aviv, illustrated in Figure B -14.17
The system operates without high temperatures or pressure. In theory, it is
extremely simple, relying on non - specialized mechanical equipment (pumps,
screens, macerators, tanks, conveyors, etc.) for operation. Digestion occurs through
the presence of natural microorganisms in MSW, so charging with specialty or unique
bacteria is not necessary. It has a high resistance to upsets because of the scale of
its operation, i.e., 300 tons of MSW entering the system per day, and any poisons
that might threaten the digestion process (as has been experienced with sewage
treatment plant digesters) are likely to be of such small fraction that it will have no
significant effect on digester cultures.
The system is equipment and labor intensive. Although redundancy is normally built
into the system, with multiple process lines and duplication of critical pumps,
17 Source: ArrowBio, Haifa, Israel.
GBB/C08027 -01 B -20 August 15, 2008
•Y
ICBM
conveyors, etc., additional equipment adds to the number of separate process and
associated equipment necessary for operation. The Tel Aviv installation of Arrow has
thus far experienced many shut -downs due to the presence of troublesome
components in the input waste stream. To combat this, a higher level of pre-
processing is being implemented so that future applications can operate more
reliably.
Figure B -14. ArrowBio Facility in Haifa
GBB/C08027 -01 B -21 August 15, 2008
W
Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board Adopted Alternative Technology
Criteria (November 2010)
Maturity of Technology
Public Acceptability
Space /Buffer Needs
Minimum Feed for Economic Viability
Ease of Use /Level of Expertise to Operate
County versus Merchant
Successful US Operations
Permittability
Nature of Feedstock Needed
Residuals — Nature & Amount
Additional Considerations by Staff
Siting and Permitting Requirements /Needs — What is the desired size of property
necessary for permitting, operations, future expansion /improvements and
minimizing impact on surrounding properties /uses? Can local decision makers
make a timely decision?
Operating & Maintenance Cost — What is the reliability of O &M cost estimates
and the levels of uncertainty
Participating Governments /Feedstock Contributors — Which governments would
participate by pledging to deliver the waste under their control and pay tipping
fees? Who would be willing to become an equity partner? Which governments
would be willing to assert control over waste generated within their jurisdiction?
M
In County Only or Regional Site and Participation — Will other area government
participants /partners be desired or necessary? If yes, will regional facility site not
be welcome in Orange County? Will a likely increase in time needed to pull
together the project, determine equity /operational /legal roles and complete
agreements negatively impact the timeliness and complexity of the project?
Compatibility with High Levels of Recycling (OC 61% Waste Reduction Goal) — To
what degree will the facility be competing with local recycling and waste
reduction programs for feedstock? What is track record /operational relationship
with other similar facility locations regarding recycling compatibility?
Political Will to Make Necessary and Timely Decisions — Historically, solid waste
policy and siting decisions have been prolonged and arduous. Will the
participating governments be willing to make well- defined and timely decisions
while at the same time seeking relevant public input and proceeding in an open
and accessible manner?
Government versus Private Ownership and /or Operation — Do any local
government participants desire to ultimately own or operate the facility?
Level of Preprocessing of Incoming Waste Required - What is the pre - processing
of waste required, if any, of the waste prior to becoming feedstock for the
technology? Does is compliment or duplicate any existing local government
recycling or waste reduction operations?
Technoloev Risk Assessment Factors
• Overall track record, including operational commercial experience with the
technology — Where has this technology been used and how successful has
it been? What is the individual company's track record with this
technology?
• Size and scale of successful facilities — Has the company built facilities of
comparable size and scale in the US? Is it comparable to what is needed to
process Orange County's quantity of waste?
a
• Environmental Performance — What are the characteristics of emissions?
Are there likely to be any changes in state or federal legislation that might
affect operations? Is data available regarding currently operating facilities
for regulator review for permitting purposes?
• Overall Economics — What capital investment is required to achieve
required operating performance? Has the solid waste stream been
estimated accurately? Is waste likely to be diverted to competing facilities
and if so, are participating local governments prepared to consider taking
control of the diverted waste? What is the cost for residue disposal? Will
the facility meet energy market specifications? What are the market
specifications for any non - combustible recyclables? Will there be revenue
from the sale of non - combustible recyclables? How predictable are the
project economics?
• Reliability Over Time —What is the company's record of technical failure
and downtime? Does the locality have an alternative disposal option in the
event of downtime or technical failure?
• Financial Strength of the Vendor and Abilitv to Offer Full Service
Arrangements — Is the company financial viable with sufficient capital
resources? Is it able to undertake the project without delays in project
completion?
••
•
domh qR Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
12.0 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES - TOWN OF
CHAPEL 1111.1. BENCHMARK
The objective of this task was to review the Town and regional solid waste systems and known
waste -to- energy (WTE) and waste conversion (WC) technologies to establish a long -term
strategy and benchmark system requirements necessary to engage identified feasible
technologies. This section of the report identifies key system and technology metrics by which
the Town may best position itself to take full advantage of WTE and WC technologies as they
may emerge.
During the course of our study, SCS relied on recent information and data collected by Orange
County, North Carolina in its solid waste master plans , an alternative energy analysis conducted
by the University of North Carolina20, and a recent summary rcpoit of waste conversion
technologies by the Applied Research Foundation of the Solid Waste Association of North
America 1. In addition, SCS has been monitoring the progress of WTE and WC technologies
over the past few years through a series of presentations, trade journal articles, and books22. .
Thus, much of the initial discussion in this section is briefly focused on background, history, and
the current status of these technologies. This is then followed by a benchmarking of the Town
against the current status of these technologies and recent developments.
12.1 REASONS TO SELECT A WTE OR WC TECHNOLOGY
One of the first questions the Town must answer is what technology will be chosen to convert its
solid waste into energy. This includes consideration of factors (which will be discussed later)
such as: available energy and materials markets; the size of the Town's waste flow; site
availability and location; capital and operating costs; ownership and financing considerations;
and the level of risk to be assumed by the Town or the facility operator.
In evaluating whether or not one technology better suits its needs than another, the Town may
often discover conflicting goals and values within both the community and within the target
WMWC project. For example:
A particular technology may produce the greatest amount of energy for the Town's
waste, albeit at high projected capital and operating costs.
• Engaging in WTE or WC technology may impact historical success in other recycling
or waste diversion practices (i.e., directing organics from a composting operation to a
digester technology).
19 GBB, Alternative Waste Processing Technologies Assessment, August, 2008.
20 Affiliated Engineers, Alternative Energy Analysis, July 2010.
21 Applied Research Foundation, Solid Waste Association of North America, Waste Conversion Technologies,
December 2011.
22 Marc J. Rogoff and Francois Screve, Waste -to- Energy Technologies and Project Implementation, Elsevier, June
2011; Marc J. Rogoff, Bruce Clark and Amanda Moore, "Solid Waste Deja vu: Waste -to- Energy Plant Technologies
Break New Ground", APWA Reporter, March 2009.
v2.1 154 10/22/12
D46-1
AM
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
• A refuse- dcrived fuel (RDF) technology may impact waste generation minimization
efforts with the need to generate more waste for fuel.
The selection of a technology, therefore, is not a simple one, but one which can require tradeoffs
between one goal with others. Since the risks associated with WTE and WC technology can be
substantial, it is critical that the Town recognize and minimize these risks as best it can. The
following criteria can be utilized to assess the relative risk of a particular WTE or WC
technology:
• Degree and Scale of Operating Experience. The technology must be proven. Most
existing technologies, other than conventional mass -bum technology, have only been
proven in pilot or laboratory operations, or with raw materials other than municipal
solid waste. Other technologies have only been commercially operated in small
facilities and the scale up to larger sized plants may result in unforeseen problems.
• Reliability to Dispose of Municipal Solid Waste. The technology selected must be
capable to dispose of solid waste in a reliable manner without frequent mechanical
downtimes resulting in diversion of such waste to landfills.
• Energy and Material Market Compatibility. The technology must be capable of
recovering energy and materials for which markets are available and viable,
• Environmental Acceptance. The technology must meet all permitted environmental
requirements established by regulatory agencies.
+ Cost to the Town. The technology must dispose of the Town's solid waste at a price
it is willing to pay given alternative means of disposal.
12.2 CLASSIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGIES
For the purpose of this report, SCS has divided the processes for disposal of municipal solid
waste into two main categories:
Conventional WTE Technology
Alternative WC Technologies
The conventional WTE technologies include mass -burn incineration and smaller, modular units
where unprocessed MSW is fired in a boiler or chamber where the heat is recovered in a series of
tubes filled with water or in a heat recovery boiler where the heat is recovered in the forth of
steam or electricity. Alternatively, shredded MSW with some form of metals recovery can be
fired in a chamber either in a dedicated boiler made of water tubes or on a fluidized bed of sand
with the energy recovery in the form of steam or converted to electricity.
Alternative conversion technologies can be defined as:
Alternatives to landfills and standard combustion -based WTE plants
Potential to produce by- products and chemicals that could be useful
v2.1 155 1 0/22/ 1 2
F M,
Adak
IMComprehensive Review of
NW Solid Waste Collection and pis.posal Options
• Compatible with municipal recycling activities
Potential for less environmental impact
12.3 CONVENTIONAL WTE TECHNOLOGY
12.3.1 Basic Combustion System
The combustion of solid waste is accomplished in a furnace equipped with grates. A solid waste
combustion system with energy recovery includes:
• Some type of structure to house the furnace and its appurtenances;
• A "tipping floor" where the solid waste from collection and transfer vehicles is
deposited;
• A storage pit or floor to store the solid waste delivered (solid waste combustion is a 7
days per week, 24 hours per day operation; storage space is provided to enable this
continuous operation);
• A charging system (normally overhead cranes) which mixes the various solid wastes
received to develop a somewhat uniform material and then lifts it from the storage pit
or floor and feeds (charges)the furnace;
• One or more furnace subsystems (sometimes referred to as combustion trains), which
receive and burn the solid waste;
• A grate unit to move the solid waste through the furnaces; the most common grate
designs are:
- Reciprocating Grate. This grate design resembles stairs with moving grate
sections which push the solid waste through the furnace.
Rocking Grate. This grate design has pivoted or rocking grate sections which
produce an upward and /or forward motion to move the solid waste through the
furnace.
- Roller Grate. This grate design has a series'of rotating steep drums or rollers
which agitate and move the solid waste through the furnace.
• Air pollution control subsystems to clean up the combustion gases; and,
• An ash handling subsystem to manage the fly ash and bottom ash produced from the
combustion of solid waste.
v2.1 156 10/22/12
91
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
12.3.1.1 Stages of Combustion
Solid waste normally has a )moisture content of 20 to 25% by weight. In order to successfully
burn solid waste in a furnace, this moisture must be evaporated. Generally, most solid waste
combustion units have three stages of reaction:
a Drying. Moisture driven off.
• Ignition. Solid waste ignited.
• Burnout. Solid waste is gradually moved through the furnace by the grate subsystem
where the combustible organic fraction of the solid waste is burned out.
Successful combustion of solid waste is accomplished by controlling the "3 Ts of Combustion%
Time, Temperature and Turbulence.
• Time. The period taken for solid waste to pass from the charging hopper until the
bottom ash is discharged at the end of the grate subsystem (usually 45 to 60 minutes).
Temperature. Usually exceeds 1,800 °F (980 °C) within the furnace and is directly
proportional to the residence time. If there is insufficient time in the furnace, the
combustion reaction cannot proceed to completion and temperature declines.
Turbulence. Provided by the grate subsystem moving the solid waste downward
through the furnace to expose it to and mix it with air.
Normally, solid waste combustors reduce the original weight of the solid waste by 75 + % and the
volume by 85 to 90 %.
Combustion is aided by the introduction of air at two locations in the furnace. Air is introduced
underneath the grates (underfire air) to increase the agitation and turbulence within the furnace
and help cool the grates. Air is also introduced above the burning solid waste (overfire air).
Overfire air ensures that there is adequate oxygen available to completely oxidize and burn the
entire combustible fraction of the solid waste. Overfire air also aids mixing of the combustion
gases thereby ensuring complete oxidation and destruction. Combustion gases (also called flue
gases) move from the furnace through the flues and the air pollution control systems and are
eventually discharged out the stack into the atmosphere.
12.3.1.2 Waste -to- Energy Solid Waste Combustors
In a WTE solid waste combustor, the energy released from combustion in the form of heat is
used to generate steam in a boiler. The common method of capturing this released energy is
either through refractory or waterwall furnace systems. The major difference between these two
designs is the location of the boiler.
Refractory Units. This design consists of boilers located downstream of the
combustion (furnace) chamber. The hot combustion gases pass through the boiler
tubes to create steam.
v2.1 157 10/22/1 2
92
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
• Waterwall Units. This design has the furnace constructed with water tube membrane
walls to recover the beat energy directly from the furnace unit. Waterwall designs are
more commonly used because their thermal efficiency is higher than refractory units.
Boilers convert the heat released to steam, which can be used to either generate electricity or for
industrial steam applications (if a customer is nearby). Turbine - driven generators driven by the
steam generate electricity.
12.3.1.3 Products of Combustion
Other than the release of energy in the form of heat, the products of combustion of solid waste
are fly ash and bottom ash. Each of these byproducts of combustion, air emissions, and ash,
present further environmental permitting, handling, and disposal challenges for the WTE
technology.
Fly ash is carried in the combustion gas, which also contains a number of contaminants,
including acid gases, and other products of incomplete combustion. The gases are passed
through a variety of air pollution control devices for cleanup before being discharged out of the
stack into the atmosphere.
Bottom ash is the non- cornbusted material, which is discharged at the end of the grate subsystem.
The bottom ash, as it is discharged from the grates, is still burning and is normally quenched by
water. In the United States, the two ash streams, fly ash and bottom ash, are normally combined
for management and disposal in a permitted MSW or industrial landfill. The two combined ash
streams are commonly referred to as solid waste combustor ash, or just ash. In Europe, these two
ash streams are not usually combined and are normally managed separately.
12.3.2 Mass Burning
"Mass- burning" refers to the generic name for the type of technology used to incinerate
unprocessed solid waste, and thereby releasing its heat energy. The thermal reduction of solid
waste through mass- burning has been a common procedure throughout the world. There are
decades of experience in constructing and operating some 500 mass burn facilities in the United
States and Europe. Such facilities were in operation as early as 1896 in Hamburg, Germany,
converting solid waste into electricity.
12.3.2.1 Process description
An illustration of a typical mass - fired, WTE facility is shown in Exhibit 12 -1. Solid waste
collection and transfer vehicles proceed into a tipping area where their waste is discharged into a
large storage pit, which is usually sized to allow two to three days storage or stockpiling of
refuse so that plant operations can continue over weekends and holidays when deliveries will not
be accepted. There are some facilities which differ in design by utilizing a tipping floor with a
front loader and belt conveyor system as their form of storage and feed system. In almost all
facilities, however, the refuse is fed into the furnaces by means of overhead cranes manipulated
by a crane operator. Much of the success of the operation depends upon the skill of the crane
operator to remove large or unusual objects in the waste stream that would otherwise prove to be
a problem if fed into the boiler. The operator is also responsible to observe the nature of the
v2.1 158 10/22/12
93
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
incoming waste so that materials with different moisture contents are gradually intermixed to try
to get uniform moisture content.
Exhibit 12 -1. Cross - Section of Typical Mass -Fired Waterwall
Facility
TIPPING AREA
TURBINE GENERATOR
STEAM TO CUSTOMER
STEAM TO G
BOILER
AIR POLLUTION
,/� CONTROL
EQUIPMENT
CRANE --► ,.t,. rti-c _
HOPPER .N, • a ~� �. - ' �:
REFUSE PIT
FEEDER BOILER ASH STACK
The refuse is then discharged into refuse feed hoppers, which meter out the refuse into the
combustion chamber, either by gravity feeding or by a hydraulic feeding device. In a majority of
systems, the waste is then pushed onto an inclined, step - like, mechanical grate system which
continuously rocks, tumbles, and agitates the refuse bed by forcing burning refuse underneath
newly fed refuse. Generally, most systems have three zones of activity along the grates: drying,
ignition, and burnout. Holes in each grate bar allow underfire air to pass through the grates
resulting in cooling and, thus, preventing thermal damage to the grate system. The width of the
grate and the number of grate steps is dependent not only upon the manufacturer's specifications,
but also on the overall size of the WTE system. There are five basic moving grate designs:
• Reciprocating Grate. This grate resembles stairs with alternating fixed or moving
grate sections. The pushing action may be in the direction of waste flow or in an
upward motion against the waste flow.
• Rocking Grate. Pivoted or rocked grate sections produce an upward or forward
motion, advancing the waste down the grate.
• Roller Grate. A series of rotating stepped drums or rollers agitate the waste and move
it down the grate.
• Circular Grate. A rotating annular hearth or cone agitates the waste.
v2.1 159 10/22%12
•TA
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
Rotary Kiln, As an inclined cylinder rotates, it causes a tumbling action to expose
unburned material and advance the waste down the length of the kiln.
Mass burn incineration produces ash resides amounting to 15 to 30% by weight and 5 to 10 % by
volume of the incoming municipal solid waste. Most facilities can produce an ash product that
has less than 5% combustible material and 0.2 % putrescible matter.
Recovery of ferrous and non - ferrous materials from the ash residue is possible in mass -burn
systems. Many facilities have successfully utilized magnetic separators (with or without
trommels) to recover ferrous material from the ash. Some systems have attempted to recover the
remaining non - magnetic fraction in the ash, such as aluminum and glass, using various
trommels, screens, jigs and fluid separators.
12.3.2.2 Operations Experience
Mass burning incinerators have been used in Europe and Japan for municipal solid waste
disposal for nearly 30 years where their acceptance has been rapid and widespread. With over
500 facilities in operation worldwide in sizes ranging from 60 to 3,000 tons per day, mass fired
incineration is the most thoroughly demonstrated technology in the WTE field at this time.
This technology was introduced into the United States in 1967 at the U.S. Naval Station in
Norfolk, Virginia with the construction of a 360 ton per day waterwall plant to produce process
energy for the Naval Shipyard, This plant was designed in America and equipped with
American equipment, Later plants, which were constructed, were almost entirely designed using
state-of-the-art European mass incineration technology. The National Resource Recovery
Association publishes a seani- annual update of WTE activities in the United States. At the time
of this comprehensive report, there are 98 WTE facilities using mass incineration technology.
Based on our experience with these plants, SCS assumes that an experienced staff of more than
12 people, spread over three shifts per day, is required to continuously operate a mass burn plant
of the size potentially applicable to the Town or region.
The introduction of European technology into the United States has not been without difficulties
and several of the earlier constructed plants encountered some mechanical problems. These
highly reliable and rugged European systems had been designed to burn solid waste that was
somewhat different in composition than American wastes. Consequently, systems that had been
designed for European conditions required designers to make adjustments in the grate areas and
furnace heat release rates of American plants. In addition, the higher chloride corrosion of the
superheaters in American plants meant that designers needed to change the metallurgy of these
boiler tubes, as well as limiting the upper stream pressures and temperatures to minimize tube
corrosion. Scale -up problems also had to be overcome since many of the European unites were
designed for the 300 to 500 tons per day range. These problems have been corrected, and most
mass -burn systems that have been constructed are still in operation today.
v2.1 160 10%22/12
95
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
12.3.3 Modular Combustion
A modular incinerator is a type of mass - burning, WTE unit which is prefabricated on a
standardized modular basis in a factory Such units are shipped to the site in modules, ranging in
design capacity from 10 to 200 tons per day, where they are installed. Several modules can be
grouped together at a single location. These "off the shell'' units can often be less costly to
fabricate than the larger mass -burn facilities which require more costly field erection. Modular
plants can also typically be constructed in some 15 to 20 months.
Modular incinerators have been designed and constructed in the United States with different
process configurations. Some units have been designed to incinerate solid waste under excess air
conditions with either refractory furnaces or waste heat boilers or with waterwalI boilers. A
majority of most units, however, have been designed to operate under starved air conditions with
refractory furnaces and waste heat boilers.
A cross - section view of a typical modular combustion unit is illustrated in Exhibit 12 -2. A
majority of modular facilities have a tipping floor and utilize a front loader for simplicity in
waste storage and feeding. Combusting takes place in either two or three stages. First, solid
waste, which is delivered to the facility, is fed into the initial combustion chamber using a ram -
type feeder. A moving ram slides back and forth over fixed steps within the chamber, causing
the waste to tumble down one fixed section of the grate to the next fixed section. The waste is
then transformed into a low -Btu gas which is then combusted in the secondary chamber, where
auxiliary fuel is often fired under excess air conditions. A discharge ram on the back end of the
combustion chamber feeds this incinerated waste into an ash quench bath.
Exhibit 12 -2. Cross - Section of Typical Modular Facility
POLLUTION
CONTROL
DARY
DER
IOVAL
TEM
v2.1 161 10/22/12
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
The low -Btu gases produced by the combustion process in the first chamber are typically
introduced into a secondary chamber where they are burned at temperatures ranging from 1,800
to 2,000 °F. Heat energy is recovered by convection in waste heat boilers in this secondary
chamber, although waterwall boiler units for the primary and secondary chambers have been
constructed.
In recent years, several manufacturers have entered the modular plant marketplace using a batch
oxidation process (BOS — Exhibit 12 -3). The batch process integrates slow gasification and long
exposure time at moderate temperatures followed by turbulent oxidation of gases at high
temperature. After the waste is loaded into the primary chamber and sealed tight, an auxiliary
burner is ignited to raise temperatures to about 200 °C. The interior temperature is then
monitored with controls and maintained by allowing sub - stoichiometrie amounts of air into the
chamber during the gasification process, The combination of relatively low temperatures and
only sub - stoichiometrie amounts of air in the primary chamber during gasification do not disturb
the gasification bed, which is said to minimize particulate emissions, heavy metals, and many
combustion gasses. Depending on the waste type and system layout, the waste reduction process
in the primary chamber will take approximately 10 to 15 hours.
Exhibit 12 -3. Cross - Section of Batch Oxidation System, Modular
Facility
Air Emissions Contrc
System
Man
Source: Waste2Energy, Inc., 2009
Primary Chambers
Emissions produced during the gasification process pass through to the preheated secondary
chamber also called an "afterburner" where these emissions are thermally treated. As the gasses
from the primary chamber enter- a preheated secondary chamber, auxiliary burners and excess
oxygen create a very turbulent high temperature environment (typically between 850 °C and
1,200 °C). For most applications within the European Union (EU) 850 °C is the required
minimum, though 1,100 °C is required for halogenated wastes, and in North America, 982 °C is
usually required. Additionally, residence time in the secondary chamber is important for proper
destruction of emissions from the primary chamber. In both the EU and North America, a
minimum residence time of 2 seconds is required. Operation of these units is subject to stringent
v2.1 162 10%22/12
97
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
USEPA and state air emission regulatory standards and permitting. Operating permit conditions
typically require continuous air monitoring and routine reporting to demonstrate compliance.
There have been many more modular WTE incinerators constructed in the United States than
either the mass -burn or refuse- derived fuel systems. In 1977, the first modular incinerator began
operations in North Little Rock, Arkansas to produce steam for the Koppers Industry's Forest
Products Division. Since that time, some 50 modular systems have been built in the United
,States (Exhibit 12 -4), almost exclusively to produce process steam for neighboring industries.
Some of these systems, for example, a plant in Fosston, Minnesota, have utilized the
community's solid waste as a fuel to produce steam to a district heating loop during the winter,
and electricity during the summer. Many of the newer facilities have incorporated electric
production capability.
Exhibit 12 -4. Comparison of Active Modular Combustion Facilities
Location
Startup
Design
Capacity
(tons/day)
Energy
Generation
Capital
Cost
($ millions)
Auburn, ME
1992
200
Steam
4.0
Joppa, MD
1988
360
Steam
1010
Pittsfield, MA
1981
360
Steam
10.8
Alexandria, MN
1987
80
Steam /Electric
(0.5 MW)
4.2
Fosston., MN
1988
80
Steam
4.5
Perham, MN
1986/2002
116
Steam /Electric
(2.5 MW)
6.0
Red Wing, MN
1982
90
Steam
2.5
Fulton, NY
1985
200
Steam /Electric
(4 MW)
14.5
Almena, WI
1986
100
Steam /Electric
(0.27 MW)
2.7
Husavik Municipality,
Iceland
2006
20
Steam
3.5
Scotget, Scotland
2009
l80
Electricity
40.0
Turks and Caicos Island
2008
4
None
1.0
U.S. Air Force, Wake Island
2009
1.5
None
0.5
U.S. Department of
Defense, Kwajalein Atoll
2007
32
None
5.0
V2.1 163 10/22/12
• e
MM
AgaIlk
IMPS Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
Modular combustion units offer a lower capital cost and simplicity than the larger field - erected
mass- burning systems for communities considering WTE systems. These systems are generally
reliable and are backed by many years of successful operating experience. The newer batch
oxidation systems (BOS) appear to offer substantially lower costs of operations and
maintenance. For example, the manpower required to operate these systems is generally
minimal with one worker required to load the primary chamber and discharge the ash stream
within an hour. Many suppliers claim nearly complete burn out between energy recovery and
recycling. The ash remaining is reported to be about 3 to 8% of the original volume (depending
on waste composition). Lastly, these systems are modular and can be easily increased or
decreased iu"l size.
Based on our experience with similar modular plants, SCS would anticipate that an experienced
staff of six (6) to nine (9) people, spread over three shifts per day, is required to continuously
operate a plant of the size potentially applicable to the Town or region.
12.3.4 Refuse - Derived fuel Systems
Several American corporations have developed technologies that pre - process solid waste to
varying degrees to separate the non - combustibles from the waste stream. By undergoing
processing steps of hammering, shredding, or hydropulping, the combustible fraction of the
waste is transformed into a fuel, which can then be fired in a boiler unit specifically dedicated for
this type of refuse - derived fuel (RDF), or co -fired with another fuel, such as coal, shredded tires,
or wood chips. The fuel produced can thus be utilized in equipment that can have higher
efficiencies than mass -fired units resulting in greater electricity or steam output. However, the
front -end processing of the solid waste into a fuel has been one of the problem areas of this type
of refuse disposal technology.
Since the early 1970's, there have been several dozen facilities which have been constructed in
the United States to process solid waste into a RDF through the use of dry processing systems.
Such dry processing systems are classified according to the type of products that call be
produced; fluff RDF, densified RDF, and powdered RDF. A cross- section of a typical RDF
system is illustrated in Exhibit 12 -5.
v2.1 164 14/22/12
•e
WAM
Azbh EM
Comprehensive Review of
NW Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
0
Exhibit 12 -5. Cross- Section of Typical RDF System
Transfer Trailers
To Steam Plant
Storage
eiecrricity
Refuse
Fired
Boller
Ash
Shredder
Air
Pollution
Control
Equipment
Magnetic
separator
oy
trQ
Shredded
Solid Waste
0
00 0 0 RO
Somew At_associated with RDF facilities are materials processing facilities, which include size
reduction, screening and recovery systems, and then additional equipment to reduce the moisture
in the resulting RDF to improve its heating quality. For example, in the Cheintex- Entsorga
HEBTOT process ("high efficiency biological treatment") an aerobic digestion module is utilized
to drive off the moisture from waste that has been shredded. This volume reduction technique
reported reduced the incoming waste by 80% with the retraining 20% being disposed of in a
landfill. In essence, except for this latter function, this process is very similar to "dirty"
materials processing facilities used for volume reduction at many front -end processing facilities
at RDF facilities. In Europe, there is a substantial market for such mechanical biological
treatment plants offered by Ensorga, which has been driven by the European Union's Landfill
directive that restricts the landfilling of biodegradable waste and stipulates a pre - treatment of
MS W. Many of these facilities are co- located with cement mills, RDF power plants, or even
coal -fired power plants.
Common disadvantages associated with such mechanical biological treatment plants include:
• Noise and odor associated with the dirty MRF processing;
v2.1 T 65 T 0/22/ T 2
100
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
• Air emissions from burning the RDF product;
Concerns with contamination and quality of the resulting biological compost product;
and,
+ The need for additional infrastructure to utilize the generated power.
12.4 ALTERNATIVE WC TECHNOLOGIES
The alternative waste conversion technologies are numerous and can be grouped many ways, but
for this discussion, SCS has grouped technologies by three major processes that include:
+ Thermal
+ Biological
+ Bio-Chemical
Within these groups are many methods and technologies that have been developed to extract
different benefits from the processed waste stream including;
• Gases for power production;
Gases for feedstock for vehicular fuels;
• Basic chemicals for use as a raw feedstock;
• Compost/ soil amendments; and,
• Slag for use an alternative building material.
A brief description of the main technologies in each of the three groups is presented below with
discussion as to potential relevancy to the Town and region, benefits, estimated costs, and
potential advantages and disadvantages.
12.4.1 Thermal
The thermal technologies are based on taking the solid waste and processing it under moderate to
very high temperatures in a closed reactor vessel, sometimes under pressure and with or without
the introduction of air or steam. Depending on the particular process, traditional recyclables may
be removed at the front end of the process or during the process stages. The predominant
processes are pyrolysis - gasification and autoclaving.
12.4.1.1 Pyrolysis - Gasification
In a pyrolysis process air is excluded from the reactor vessel and results in the waste
decomposing into certain gases (methane, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide), liquids
(oils /tar), and solid materials (char). The proportions are determined by operating temperature,
pressure, oxygen content, and other conditions. Because there is little to no air or oxygen, the
waste does not combust as it breaks down (there are no flames).
When the amount of air in the process is less than that required to support combustion, but
greater than in a pyrolysis process, the process is termed gasification. This process is typically
v2.1 166 10/22 /12
101
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
used to achieve a different balance of the gaseous by- products, mainly the production of a
hydrogen (H) -rich gas with smaller quantities of carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4) and
carbon dioxide (CO2). The refined gas, primarily H and CO, is termed syngas and has many
direct applications such as powering a turbine to produce electricity and potentially for use as a
feedstock to produce alternative vehicular fuel (ethanol), or other chemical compounds. Most of
these processes require an external heat source under normal operating conditions. This is
usually hot, clean air that captures heat from the downstream gas combustion process.
A basic gasification process is shown in Exhibit 12 -6. Gasification processes have attracted
much interest because the process is inherently more efficient than a combustion -based process,
the syngas is a relatively clean energy source and the plant may generate less troublesome air
emissions overall.
Exhibit 12-6. Basic Gasification Process
A relatively recent development for solid waste conversion using the gasification process, that
employs a unique heating source, is known as a plasma are converter. Although there are many
variations, a typical plasma are converter uses an array of plasma torches to generate
temperatures in the reactor of more than 5,000 °C. This extremely high temperature, coupled
with a gasification environment has shown potential in small laboratory test units to achieve a
very high efficiency in decomposing the organic fraction of the waste to syngas, while
generating a slag material from the inert fraction. The slag has potential for use as a substitute
ingredient in potentially many building materials, including concrete structural elements (e.g.,
wall panels and blocks, etc.) and asphalt.
A plasma is an ionized gas that results when a basic gas, such as nitrogen or air is passed through
an electrical are struck between two electrodes. The electrodes are constructed into a torch that
directs the plasma arc. The intense heat created by the arc can be used to treat many materials,
v2.1 1 67 10/22/12
TH ER %,iAL
( osificution)
1= errnenter
Air or 0s
Ethanol for
;-
Vehicle Fuel
MsW
Air Lock
- -
}�
• Potter
generation by
Rendar
various Means
MRF —�
{Gasifierr
1<mi3Sitrn
• other use3 in
Treatment manufacturing
Heat p
Ref�rramer
Source
Char
Ash Steam
A relatively recent development for solid waste conversion using the gasification process, that
employs a unique heating source, is known as a plasma are converter. Although there are many
variations, a typical plasma are converter uses an array of plasma torches to generate
temperatures in the reactor of more than 5,000 °C. This extremely high temperature, coupled
with a gasification environment has shown potential in small laboratory test units to achieve a
very high efficiency in decomposing the organic fraction of the waste to syngas, while
generating a slag material from the inert fraction. The slag has potential for use as a substitute
ingredient in potentially many building materials, including concrete structural elements (e.g.,
wall panels and blocks, etc.) and asphalt.
A plasma is an ionized gas that results when a basic gas, such as nitrogen or air is passed through
an electrical are struck between two electrodes. The electrodes are constructed into a torch that
directs the plasma arc. The intense heat created by the arc can be used to treat many materials,
v2.1 1 67 10/22/12
102
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options.
including MSW. Plasma arcs were commercialized in the metallurgical industry where the high
temperatures produced in the reactor vessel (potentially up to 10,000 °C) are used to create
special alloys. Some of the electric power generated by the plant is siphoned off to power the
torches. The basic plasma are process is shown in Exhibit 12 -7.
Exhibit 12 -7. Basic Plasma Gasification Process
THERMAL
(Plcisrna Gcisificcition)
Air, 0, or
$te o ra
/ • power
flASW p` generation by
Air Lcck ' various means
CMRFD,[], reactor •other use in
{Gasr6ier; Manufacturing
T Treatment
s 4 Herat SoLrca
(plasm torch,) iz Cooling Water Slag
Blowdown
12.4.1.2 Autoclave
The basic autoclave process has been in commercial use for decades, primarily in the medical
field for sterilizing instruments, some manufacturing uses and in the sterilizing of medical
wastes. In an autoclave process for solid waste, mixed MSW is fed into a reactor vessel where it
is subjected to heat, pressure and agitation. The reactor conditions cause the organic fraction of
the waste (i.e., food scraps, fiber /paper products and vegetation) to break down into a pulp -like
substance that potentially has reuse applications depending on the degree of post- processing
selected.
The pulp has been demonstrated with a few systems to be a useful soil conditioner and also is
being tested for use as feedstock for the production of ethanol, an alternative vehicle fuel and in
the production of a RDP for combustion in power plants. The process also claims to provide a
higher quality recyclable product. PIastic recyclable materials are softened and occupy less
volume downstream. Product labels on glass, plastics and metals are totally removed and these
materials also arc cleaned and sterilized. A basic autoclave process is shown in Exhibit 12 -8.
v2.1 168 10/22/12
103
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
Exblbit 12 -8. Basic Autoclave Process
TH ERIr1AL
(autoclave)
Steam
Heat Odor
Trealn�nl
-- Reactor'�p CPktic+�at
MSW [Atatarlove} Prcie rg BY-pradLvs_
- - -- • RDF for
pQxer P1art
Debris y Sail • £t MCA
Removal Pressure Anrendmeni
12.4.2 Biological
There are two types of biological processes being utilized for WC. These include the anaerobic
and aerobic process technologies. The following paragraphs briefly describe these technologies.
12.4.2.1 Anaerobic Process
Anaerobic digestion is the bacterial breakdown of organic materials in the absence of oxygen.
This biological process produces a gas, sometimes called biogas, principally composed of
methane and carbon dioxide. The anaerobic process is often used to treat organic wastes other
than nonsegregated MSW, and that is where it is used the most. This anaerobic process is used
to digest sewage sludge (i.e., biosolids — produced from treated sanitary sewage), yard
vegetation, agricultural wastes (both animal and plant) and some industrial waste sludge. The
number of plants processing these materials is currently hi the thousands worldwide.
The anaerobic digestion process occurs in three steps:
1. Decomposition of plant or animal matter by bacteria into molecules such as sugar.
2. Conversion of decomposed matter to organic acids. -
3. Organic acid conversion to methane gas.
Depending on the waste feedstock and the system design, biogas is typically 55 to 75% methane.
A basic anaerobic process is shown in Exhibit 12 -9.
v2.1 169 10%22,/12
104
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
Exhibit 12 -9. basic Anaerobic Process
f- M0711#14111GY_111
(Anclorobic)
steam Trentment
+ Maras •boiler fuel
MSW MSW sludUe , vmr
generation
MP.F _
� Redcror
Water,
Mixirg
FlenS
3aurte
Filtrate
Water
12.4.2.2 Aerobic Process
The aerobic process relies on a continuous supply of air to be mixed in with the waste material.
Again, the waste is ground up into pieces. Recyclable materials are removed before this process.
In a typical plant the waste is ground up and formed on an outdoor pad into long piles called
windrows. The windrows are agitated a few times per week to allow all parts of the pile to be
exposed to air. The agitation and aerating process can also be conducted in a vessel into which
air is forced. The aerobic environment supports a different, but also common microorganism
that, like the anaerobic process, feeds on the organic fraction of the waste. The waste is
converted to by- products that include CO2, water vapor and compost. Typically a site had to be
Iocated in a rural area; otherwise, the odors from the process could become a nuisance.
T 2.4.3 Bio- Chemical
The bio- chemical process is based on breaking down the cellulosic part of the organic fraction of
the waste stream. This would include certain foods (e.g., vegetables, fruits), paper products and
yard vegetation. Biosolids can also be added as a waste material. All other materials in the
waste stream should be removed prior to the process.
In the process, following drying and shredding of the waste, the prepared waste stream is mixed
with water and sulfuric acid in a closed reactor vessel. This causes a reaction that in conjunction
with common bacteria aheady in the waste, breaks down the material into sugar compounds and
a by- product known as lignin. There are some companies that are testing natural enzymes,
instead of the strong acid chemical, to initiate this reaction.
v2.1 170 10/22/12
105
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
The resulting sugar compounds and water are sent to a fermentation unit where yeast is added.
The yeast reacts with the sugars to convert them to alcohol. The alcohol mixture is then heated
and distilled to remove the solids. The resulting distilled alcohol (grain alcohol or ethanol) can
be used as fuel, The lignin by- product is sent to a gasifier where it is used to produce heat for the
drying process or can potentially be further processed for use as a fuel substitute in power plants,
A basic bio- chemical process is shown in Exhibit 12 -10.
Exhibit 12 -10. Basic Bio- Chemical Process
1310 - CHEMICAL
(Hydrolysis)
SE,Ka ge
Sludge
h+1sw
_ Fermerter Distiller
♦ MRF iiydroiysis Fti,urel
_¢ Reactor
Production
."cid Lignin
6iagos
Wurtewuter
Gasifier
1 2.5 STATUS OF COMMERCIAL OPERATING WTE AND WC
FACILITIES
12.5.1 Waste -to- Energy
At the time of this report, there are about 1,300 WTE facilities worldwide. Large numbers are
located in Europe (440) primarily because of the European Union's directive that requires. a 65%
reduction in the landflling of biodegradable MSW. Asian countries (Japan, Taiwan, Singapore,
and China) have the largest number (764) of WTE facilities worldwide. All of these countries
face Iimited open space issues for the siting of landfills and have large urban populations. One
of the largest current markets for WTE plant construction is in China, which is currently the
fourth largest user of WTE worldwide.
In the U.S., there are currently 89 WTE plants (Exhibit 12 -11) operating in 25 states managing
about 7% of the nation's MSW, or about 85,000 tons per day. This is equivalent of a base load
electrical generation of approximately 2,700 inegawatts to meet the needs of more than two
million homes, while servicing the waste disposal needs of more than 35 million people.
v2.1 171 10/22/12
we
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
Exhibit 12 -11. U.S. WTE Plants by Technology
Technology
Operating Plants
Daily Design Capacity
(Tons per day)
Annual Capacity
(Million tons)
Mass Burn
65
71,354
22.1
Modular
9
1,342
0.4
RDF — Processing and
Combustion
TO
15,428
4.8
RDP — Processing Only
5
6,075
1.9
RDF — Combustion Only()
5
4,592
1.4
Total U.S. Plants
94
98,791
30.6
WTE Facilities
89
92,716
28.7
(1) Plants that do not generate power onsite.
Source: Integrated Waste Management Services Association, 2010.
12.5.2 Waste Conversion
The following sections summarize existing infonuation on commercial operating WC plants
worldwide.
12.5.2.1 Plasma Arc Gasification
As shown in Exhibit 12 -12, there are four operating plants utilizing MSW as feedstock. Only
one of these, the Utashinai City plant, can be considered commercial; the others have been only
operated as pilots or intermediately operated for testing purposes. A pilot plant in Ottawa,
Canada is currently being tested by Plasco Energy and has only been intermediately operated
with a maximum continuous runtime of 36 hours using a pre - sorted, post - consumer waste stream
as feedstock. Plasco is currently in the process of converting this plant to commercial
operations, having successfully negotiated an operating contract with the City of Ottawa.
Exhibit 12 -12. Commercial Operating Plasma Arc Gasification
Facilities
Location
Throughput
Owner
Technology
Start of
Feedstock
(Tons per day)
Operator
Supplier
Operation
Yoshi, Japan
25
Hitachi Metals,
Westinghouse
1999
MSW
Ltd.
Plasma Corp.
Utashinai City,
200
Hitachi Metals,
Westinghouse
2003
MSW
Japan
Ltd.
Plasma Corp.
Mihami- Mikata,
22
Hitachi Metals,
Westinghouse
2002
MSW
Japan
Ltd.
Plasma Corp.
Blosolids
Ottawa, Canada
94
Plasco Energy
Plasco Energy
2007
Shredded MSW
Shredded Plastics
Source: SWANA, Waste Conversion Technologies, 2011; SCS files.
12.5.2.2 Pyrolysis Plants
As shown in Exhibit 12 -13, the use of pyrolysis technologies to process MSW has occurred
mainly in Japan and Germany where these plants reportedly process about two million tons of
materials per year.
v2.1 172 10/22/12
107
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
Exhibit 1213. Commercial Operating Pyrolysis Facilities Using
MSW
Location
Throughput
(Tons per Day)
Technology Supplier
Start of Operation
Toyohashi City, Japan
440
77 (Bulky Waste)
Mitsui Babcock
2002
Hamm, Germany
353
Techtrade
2002
Koga Seibu, Japan
286 (MSW and Biosolids)
Mitsui Babcock
2003
Yame Seibu, Japan
242
55 (Bulky Waste)
Mitsui Babcock
2002
Izumo, Japan
70,000 TPY
Thidde Hitachi
2003
Nishiburi, Japan
210
63 (Bulky Waste)
Mitsui Babcock
2003
Kokubu, Japan
178
Takuma
2003
Kyouhoku, Japan
176
Mitsui Babcock
2003
Ebetsu City, Japan
154
38 (Bulky Waste)
Mitsui Babcock
2002
Oshima, Japan
132
Takuma
2003
Burgau, Germany
154
Techtrade
1987
Itoigawa, Japan
25,000 TPY
Thidde Hitachi
2002
Source: SWANA, Waste Conversion Technologies, 2011; U.S. Department of Energy, 2011, "Draft
Environmental Assessment for Oneida Seven Generation Corporation, Energy Recovery Project, Green Bay, WL
There are no commercially operated facilities in the U.S., although a pilot facility was operated
in Green Bay, WI using American Combustion Technology pyrolytic systems for testing
purposes. Oneida Seven Generations, Inc. has plans to construct a pyrolysis facility using 148
tons per day of MSW and 61 tons per day of plastic waste in Green Bay, WI.
There were a number of full -scale MSW pyrolysis demonstration plants, which were constructed
in the U.S. during the late 1970s and early 1980s by Monsanto and Union Carbide. These
facilities were not commercially successful and were eventually shut down. Similarly, a 91 TPD
MSW pyrolysis facility was constructed in New South Wales, Australia in 2001 by Brightstar
Environmental. This facility incorporated the use of an autoclave process where the organic
fraction was dried before being sent to a pyrolysis vessel. This facility operated for only 6
months and was shut down due to its failure to sweet permitted conditions.
12.5.2.3 Anaerobic Digesters
There are nearly 240 anaerobic digesters (AD) facilities around the world with operating
capacities greater than 2,500 tons per year. These plants process not only the organic fraction of
the MSW waste stream but also organic waste from food industries and animal manure. Europe
leads in the number of AD plants and total installed capacity principally due to the European
Union Directive that requires member states to reduce the amount of landfilled organics by 65%
by 2020. As shown in Exhibit 12 -14, there are more than 120 plants processing the organic
fraction of MSW in Europe of about 4.6 million tons per year. The principal technologies used
around the world are provided by the following companies: Dranco, Kompogas, Linde, RosRoca,
Valorga, BTA, and Cites.
Y2.1 173 10/22/12
no
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
Exhibit 12 -14. European Countries With AD Facilities
Country
No. of Plants
Country Capacity
(ions per year)
Germany
55
1,250,000
Spain
23
1,800,000
Switzerland
13
130,000
France
6
400,000
Netherlands
5
300,000
Belgium
5
200,000
Italy
5
160,000
Austria
4
70,000
Sweden
3
35,000
Portugal
3
100,000
United Kingdom
2
100,000
Denmark
2
40,000
Poland
1
20,000
Total
127
4,605,000
Source, Levis, J.W., et. aL, "Assessment of the State of Food Waste
Treatment in the U.S. and Canada," Waste Management 2010 August -
September 30 (8 -9) 1486 -94.
Currently, there is only one commercially operated AD facility in the U.S, which is located on
the campus of the University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh. It processes about 6,000 tons of yard and
food wastes per year. Further, an AD facility digesting source- separated organics has been
commercially operating in Toronto, Canada for a number of years processing about 90,000 tons
per year. A second AD facility is currently under construction in Toronto and should be
operating within a year. Similar AD facilities have been authorized by Quebec City and
Montreal with additional facilities funded in the Province of Quebec.
Based on our understanding of the AD process and results of numerous feasibility and pilot
studies, SCS understands an AD operation of the size required to process the Town's waste
would require as few as three (3) to four (4) staff.
12.6 BENCHMARK METRICS
12.6.1 Summary of Current Town Solid Waste Statistics
As described in Section 2, at the writing of this report, the Town generates and disposes
approximately 17,000 to 18,000 tons per year of MSW and yard waste. Based on census data,
population projections, and current disposal practices, this volume is anticipated to reach
approximately 21,500 tons in 15 years and 27,400 tons in 30 years. These current and future
generation and disposal statistics equate to a design operating range of 55 to 90 tons per day,
assuming 6 days per week operations, while allowing 1 day per week for maintenance, repair,
and residuals management. As described, the Town has historically paid a tip fee of $57 per ton
to the Orange County Landfill, and anticipates lower tip fees with consideration of other disposal
options.
v2.1 174 10/22%12
109
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
12.6.2 Minimum Waste Throughput Processing Capacity
12.6.2.1 Waste -to- !Energy
As depicted in Exhibit 12 -2 in Section 12.3.3 above, WTE facilities require significant waste
throughput to be economically viable. For traditional WTE technologies, SCS typically projects
a daily throughput capacity of at least 100 to 300 tons per day required to substantiate siting a
new WTE facility. Such a facility would most likely consist of multiple, smaller capacity
modules, on the order of 250 to 100 tons per day or, several smaller facilities located in different
areas, and in both cases providing an aggregate capacity. Collaboration and regionalization is a
must to support such technologies.
12.6.2.2 Waste Conversion
Based on SCS experience, typical WC technologies, including thermal, biological, and -
bio- chemical are represented to operate on a comparatively smaller scale. Between these types,
generally, thermal technologies require more significant waste throughput to be economically
viable. Due to lesser equipment and energy requirements, biological technologies can generally
support smaller waste throughput.
12.6.2.2.1 Thermal
By a wide margin, the greatest amount of recent activity in WC technology is with the thermal
technologies, dominated by the plasma are conversion process. This is mainly due to its
potential for large power production and overall reduced air emissions.
The lacy of an operational track record for both large - scale and small -scale WC technologies
suggests to SCS that a WC technology plant should more likely be planned initially as a small
pilot - plant. A pilot plant, in SCS's opinion, based on proven laboratory and mini -pilot scale
technology, would be no more than about 100 tons per day with the potential for scale -up should
the technology be proven at the pilot stage and with regional collaboration.
The point here being, based on SCS's experience, the scalability of thermal WC technologies
may never exceed pilot scale without regional collaboration and population growth in Chapel
Hill.
12.6.2.2.2 Anaerobic Facilities
In Europe, the anaerobic process has been used successfully to process MSW. The sizes of these
plants reportedly range from 3,000 tons per year (TPY) to 182,000 TPY. Converted to a daily
capacity, and assuming a 6 -day per week processing schedule, these capacities range from 10
tons per day to 580 tons per day.
As noted in the paragraphs above, there are several operating AD facilities in North America in
the size range potentially generated by the Town. These facilities are successfully processing
from about 15 to 250 tons per day of food and yard wastes diverted from residences, restaurants
and businesses and converted into methane that is used to produce power.
v2.1 175 10/22/12
110
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
12.6.3 Summary of Readiness for Commercial Operations
Some, but not all of the alternative WC technologies are ready for commercial operation.
Exhibit 12 -15 summarizes the technologies discussed herein and whether, in SCS's opinion, they
are ready for pilot plant or commercial operation on a scale necessary to serve the Town or
Region.
Exhibit 1215. Summary of Main Processes
Process
Pre- Processing
By- Product
Primary
Product
Pilot Plant
Readiness
Commercial
Readiness
Pyrolysis
High
Ash
Syngas /Oil
Yes
No
Gasification
Medium
Ash /Slag
Syngas /Char
Yes
No
Autoclave
Low
None /Recyclables
Pulp
Yes
Yes
Anaerobic Digestion
Medium /High
Filtrate Water
Biogas /Compost
Yes
Yes
Hydrolysis
High
Waste Water /Ash
Ethanol
Yes
No
Aerobic Digestion
Medium /High
None
Compost
Yes
Yes
Plasma Gasification
Claims Law /High
Slag
Syngas
Yes
No
As depicted, each of the seven technologies have demonstrated pilot plant readiness either
nationally or internationally; however, only three of the technologies appear ready for
commercial scale operations. These three technologies are the biological processes and the
Autoclave process. With the exception of the autoclave, each of these technologies requires pre-
processing requirements to remove potential contaminants from the incoming waste stream.
12,6,4 Capital and Operating Costs
As described, due to the relatively recent development of the alternative WC technologies, there
are few, if any, full -scale operational plants in the U.S. Thus, there are not reliable figures
readily available for capital and operating costs.
Two large, relatively recent studies were conducted as part of a detailed review of alterative
waste conversion technologies in the U.S. The on -going studies were sponsored by Los Angeles
County California, as continuation of that region's program initiated in 2003 to further address
the regions acute problems with energy pricing and availability, air quality, traffic congestion
and reliance on landfills that had limited useful life. The original study screened 27 technologies
in the initial phase (2005) and reduced the list to 5 "finalists" technologies in the subsequent
2007 report. The finalists are planning to build small -scale demonstration plants to prove their
respective technologies.
Although there have been other large alternative technology screening /evaluation studies
conducted (i.e., New York City, 2004), the L.A. County studies seem to have the most detailed
information on projected U.S. -based plant costs and economics. Exhibit 12 -16 summarizes the
project economics for five finalist biological and thermal alternative WC technologies that were
developed as part of the L.A. County study in 2007.
v2.1 176 10/22/12
c
O
0
❑
O
O,
G7
0 ❑
3 0
0
a �-
�' u
N a
Cti v
0
u
N �
C
a �
a
CL Z3
E — 0 0
U u)
,4�
O y
O
O
O
O U
U
W ~
V O
� •N
•Q L
L a
�F C
O O
a �
r
O
en O
t0
+O
O
.n E
xs
W H
' a �0
O O'
CO N
4') 0�
CO
'o
N
M
Ch
�L
❑� 0
c
4. N .� t-
'D O
N
N
F
C
0 .� !!J O
S a 0 *'
N N
'o CT
O
LO
Ch
h
U Q LL.
❑ F
u
'D
d d
Co
O
O
0
E 0—
I�
10
O
U
wO
O O O
O
O
a D r
E > }
O d
O O
d
d
O
.y
coo
O
d
Q )
O 'V
N
O
M
w
M C3
M
0
O O
O
O
O
O
❑ n
O
O°
O
O
C]
O
F u
�°.
0
O
� M
0
0 0
0
O
d
O O
O
O
0 u
O O
00
°
ol O
to
C
N
rF ch
lr
co
V . p c
0 00
0
00
0
a O N o
0 C]
O
C3
0
C1
N
j 0. 7
h
CV
04
M
O O
O
O
O
0 0
O
0
°
O}
O d
0
O
d
C3
0
°
°
N am)
M
N
Lo
Gl'� ❑d
O O
Cq
N
M
N
7
❑ Q
C
d
0 O
C
O
0
0
0
ZA
O F
p
co
R
v �
In
m
Q-
M
F
y
u
0
C
O
C
O
0
'
v_
u
0 p 0
0 .n
E
F
0 C a
mQ� ❑�°vt7�r��
QJ j. a
tf
a❑
O
O
N
N
S3
O
0
'II
a
0
73
v
a
Q
a
t
O
M
a
[L
O
_5
w
T
O
c
u
U3
F
a
.i
a
O
V
a
C
u a
N
O � �
V o �
Q C �
J ❑ C
a a ❑
E o
O 0 u
O p
N E
O 0
� d T
N F �
4 0
� ❑ N
a 0
� T D
CL
N
T
W H t;
111
a
N
N
O
112
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
The costs and economic summaries were provided by the selected technology vendors, using
some pricing assumptions for specific items provided by the planning committee and applicable
to southern California only. The consultant retained by L.A. County conducted an independent
review of the costs and economics provided by the vendors and concluded that the figures
provided were, in general, reasonable estimates that snatched with the independent assessment's
conclusions.
12.6.5 Tipping Fee Survey
Exhibit 12 -17 compiles costs from the 2005 and previously discussed 2007 L.A. County studies.
The middle column are tipping fees summarized from the economic projections rendered in the
2005 study, which had similar pricing and cost assumptions as in the 2007 follow -on study.
Tipping fees in the 2005 study ranged from $61 to $197 per ton for the eight vendors. Two
plants exhibited tipping fees in the $50 to $70 per ton range, while six were higher than that.
Exhibit 12 -17. Summary of Economic Data(l )
Technology
(2)Projected
Design Capacity
(TPD)
MCalculated
Tipping Fee
($ ton)
P)Calculated
Tipping Fee
($ ton)
Biological (Anaerobic)
100
93
58
Biological (Anaerobic)
100
67
--
Biological (Anaerobic)
100
197
--
Thermal (Autoclave)
--
--
92
Thermal (Plasma -Arc)
100
172
-
Thermal (Gasification)
150
6T
58
Thermal (Gasification)
300
186
132
Thermal (Pyrolysis - Gasification)
100
129
69
MExcerpted and Summarized from the L.A. County, California Conversion Technology Evaluation Report,
Phase I Assessment.
12iTons per year (TPY), demonstration plant only.
(3]Adjusted Tipping Fee from Exhibit 12 -16, based on Phase II Study.
L.A. County considered a tipping fee in the range of $50 to $70 per ton, to be competitive with
the tipping fees charged by the large regional landfills serving the area. Exhibit 12 -17 indicates
that two of the four thermal technologies and one anaerobic technology, provided costs that
indicated the plant could offer a tipping fee in the $50 to $70 per ton range.
The difference in tipping fees from 2005 to 2007 probably reflects some differences in the
pricing assumptions in individual studies including; proposed plant capacities were larger in
2007, and purchase pricing structure for the power produced was revised. It is also assumed that
the market conditions for the development of these plants from 2005 to 2007 likely became more
favorable as basic energy costs in the U.S. continued escalating.
12.6.6 Comparison to WTE Fees
Because conventional WTE plant technology has been in existence for decades, with hundreds of
plants operating in the U.S. and abroad, comparative cost information is more established;
although a completely new WTE plant has not been constructed in the U.S. in more than 10
v2.1 178 10/22/12
113
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
years. Exhibit 12 -18 presents a visual summary comparison of the tipping fees estimated for the
alternative WC technologies in the L.A. County studies and the tipping fees for operating WTE
plants. The graph shows that the appropriate "average" tipping fee for a WTE plant is about $60
per ton. The estimated "low" and "high" range is estimated to be from about $35 to $80 per ton,
respectively.
Exhibit 12-18. Summary of Tipping Fee Range for Technologies
200
c 160-1 — - -
D
140 Approx. national
120 average $60 /ton +
100 ' —
0 80
w
60 / —
CL 40
~ 20
Thermal(1) Thermal(2) Biological(2)
(WTE only) (Alternative Processes) (Anaerobic)
Technology
(1 ) Existing operating plants. Le end
(2) Proposed demonstration, small -scale Low end
plants only. (B plants total) High end
The tipping fee ranges for alternative technologies are provided as a crude comparison to the
WTE tipping fee. A large tipping fee range, from low to high, is evident. These plots reflect
expected uncertainties and risks at the time of the studies, which would not be unusual for
technology that is still in the development or pilot plant stages. Most WTE plants in the U.S.
have a capacity anywhere from 500 to about 4,000 tons per day and this affords them a valuable
"economy of scale" over the much smaller proposed alternative technologies.
Such a large range of tipping fees for alternative WC technologies may not actually be the case if
a study were done today. Projected tipping fees are a function of many regional cost- factors,
including:
• Power production/ quality and quantity of syngas;
+ Air emissions and treatment;
+ Market for by- products;
• Downtime/ equipment reliability;
• Pre - processing requirements (sorting equipment, NW, etc.);
• Operator experience;
• Financial contributions by vendor;
v2.1 i79 10/22/12
114
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
• Ancillary costs (transmission line, etc.); and,
• Contractual obligations.
However in SCS's opinion, these summary costs for alternative WC technologies suggest that
tipping fee ranges are likely to be somewhat higher than a WTE plant, until enough of the plants
are operating and hard costs are generated to validate that they can operate at a tipping fee
comparable to a WTE plant.
12.6.7 Advantages and Disadvantages
All of the alternative WC technologies have some potential benefits and disadvantages. The
over - riding aspect of all of the alternative WC technologies is that they are relatively new and
thus do not have a "track record" from which one can derive hard conclusions related to actual,
proven benefits and disadvantages. So, SCS can only postulate what the actual advantages,
disadvantages, and economics might be. This exercise is based on assessing the information
available from vendors, review of operational history for some very small -scale pilot plant
facilities that may have operated intermittently, and evaluation of these technologies that are
processing waste streams other than a normal mixed municipal solid waste.
Exhibit 12 -19 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative technologies and
the WTE technology. We offer the following generalized conclusions, in addition to the
comments in the table, about the viability of the teclnnologics:
• Biological (anaerobic). Commercial scale proven at smaller capacities (i.e., 200 to
300 tons per day) in Europe. Developing a consistent market for the compost by-
product is a major challenge and affects the operating economics. Only a few sjnall
scale plants are currently planned in the U.S.
• Thermal. Generally unproven at a commercial scale. One small pilot facility (85 tons
per day) is operating in Canada. A complex process that must be optimized to
provide the desired high- quality synfuel. There is much planning activity in the
industry and in the next 5 years there will likely be some operational plants to better
demonstrate the potential scalability and viability of these technologies.
Bio- Chemical. Unproven at a commercial scale. A few plants have been planned, but
have been delayed. Tied to the dynamic market for ethanol and competition with
many other processes that do not use MSW.
v2.1 180 10/22/12
115
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
Exhibit 12 -19. Advantages and Disadvantages to Waste Processing
Technologies
Process
Advantages
Disadvantages
Thermal — Pyrolysis
Gasification
Potential for high power production, high
conversion
Untested, possibly high O &M costs,
ash disposal
Thermal — Autoclave
Provide higher quality recy fables
Lack of market for compost
Biological — Aerobic
Proven, "low" tech. Emissions less of a
concern,
Some odor; Lack of market for
compost, low conversion
Biological — Anaerobic
Low emissions, low odor
Lack of market for compost
Plasma Gasification
Potential for high power production, high
conversion
Untested, possibly high O &M costs,
safety concerns, slag market ( ?)
Bio- Chemical (Hydrolysis)
Fuel production, biosolids processing
Untested, treats only cellulosic part of
waste
WTE Plant
Proven large -scale technology
Large volumes of unusable ash, costly
air emission control systems
12.7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO POSITION THE TOWN FOR
POTENTIAL WTE AND WC TECHNOLOGIES
As the Town moves forward on its strategic planning initiative, SCS makes the following
recommendations to help position the Town with relation to MITE and WC technologies:
Many of the WTE and WC (thermal) technologies appear to be cost prohibitive with
the current and projected MSW waste flow of the Town. The capital and pre-
processing costs of these technologies, at the current time, appear to be cost
prohibitive to reasonably recover the initial necessary investments compared to other
solid waste management alternatives. It is our opinion, therefore, that regional efforts
will be necessary to secure the desired waste flow to provide economies of scale for
these technologies.
Consequently, we would recommend that the Town implement a "wait and see
approach" as for WTE and WC (Thermal) technologies offered in the U.S.
marketplace. As noted in this report, many of these technologies are currently
unproven on the commercial scale in the United States. However, firms like
Entsorga, Harvest Power, and Plasco are rapidly progressing in finalizing plans to
commercialize their technology. Construction and subsequent observation of these
plants will provide much needed detailed capital and operating information to support
the Town's decision making.
• Based on its projected economy of scale and initial investment requirements, the WC
technology that may be most applicable to the Town, at this time, would be anaerobic
digestion. This technology has proven to be successful in the processing of organics
and MSW both in Europe, and now in North America at the waste flow level
generated by the Town. The technology allows for scalability if other neighboring
v2.1 1 8i 10/22/12
116
AD Comprehensive Review of
Solid waste Collection and Disposal Options
localities decide to collaborate on the project in the future. The biogas produced
could provide a valuable energy asset for Town facilities.
Capital needs required to construct and operate an anaerobic digester operations
include: an organics receiving area(s), reactor charnber(s) (i.e., enclosed vessel), and
processing equipment (i.e., wheel loader or conveyors). One initial challenge to
implement this technology; however, is that the Town would need to initiate some
form of separate organics collection, or post collection segregation, similar to what
has been instituted by the City of Toronto. For example, under its "Green Bin
Program," the City allows participants (residential and multi - family residents) to
place organics (e.g., food wastes, soiled paper towels and food packaging, coffee
grounds, etc.) out for separate collection along with refuse and recycling. The City
provides roll -carts for residential customers while multi - family complexes are
provided either bulk bins or roll -carts with residents given in -unit organics containers
to collect their organics. The City has provided an extensive public education and
outreach program. Should the Town consider a similar organics program, it is
expected that organic wastes collection be carefully considered for its application
towards and anaerobic digester operation.
It is SCS's recommendation that the Town continue to pursue potential synergies
between innovative technology vendors, local institutions of higher education, and
professional associations to attract interest in fostering further feasibility studies
and /or development of pilot studies. This recommendation is more fully discussed in
the following section of the Report.
v2.1 182 10/22/12
117
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
13.0 ALTERNATIVE TF-C H- NOLOGIES - COLLABORATION
WITH AREA INSTITUTIONS
13.1 UNIVERSITIES
Another waste management option for the Town is to pursue the implementation of Waste
Conversion (WC) technologies in collaboration with area universities. Chapel Hill is located in
the Research Triangle, so named in 1959 with the creation of Research Triangle ParIc, a research
park between Durham and Raleigh. "The Triangle" is anchored by Dunce University (Duke),
North Carolina State University (NCSU), and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(UNC). Each university has its distinctive character and long -term sustainability program.
The following section briefly includes a general summary of current sustainability and solid
waste management programs at the three universities and initial discussions with their
sustainability directors to gauge the level of interest in collaborating with the Town on WC
technologies. Several of the projects described below provide flagship examples of the
possibilities that may spring from successful collaboration between WC technology vendors,
university research resources, and private industry. Particularly, SCS believes collaborative
resources within the Town are optimal for development of anaerobic digestion of organic waste
with cooperation from UNC Chapel Hill, based on recent collaborative success in this
technology by Duke.
13.1.1 Duke !University
Duke has developed a Climate Action Plan that will guide the University towards carbon
neutrality by 2024. As part of that effort, Dunce University established The Dunce Carbon Offsets
Initiative (DCOI) to help meet the University's carbon neutrality commitment. The DCOI's
mission is to develop local, state, and regional carbon offset projects that yield significant
benefits beyond greenhouse gas emission reductions. Benefits the DCOI looks for in projects are
additional environmental and public health protection, job creation opportunities, energy savings,
and habitat protection.
For example, Duke University and Duke Energy have partnered to pilot an innovative systern for
managing hog waste that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, generate renewable energy, and
substantially eliminate a host of pollutants and issues associated with the waste from swine
farms, including odors, ammonia, nutrients and pathogens. This system is located at Loyd Ray
Farms, an 8,600 -head swine finishing facility in Yadkin County, NC 23. It is intended to serve as
a model for other hog farms seeking to manage waste and develop on -farm renewable power,
The project involves the capture of methane generated by the hog waste. Hog waste generated at
the farm is directed into a lagoon which acts as an anaerobic digester. The decomposing hog
waste generates methane gas which is captured and collected under a plastic cover over the
Iagoon /anaerobic digester, The gas collected under the digester cover is used to power a 65 -1 {W
microturbine, the electricity from which is used to support the operation of the innovative waste
23littp:/ /sustainability.duke.edu/carbon offsets/Projects /loydray.html
v2. 1 183 10/22/12
118
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal {options
management system. Any electricity not needed to power the anaerobic digester operations is
kept on the farm to support normal farm operations. Like a traditional waste lagoon, the
remaining liquid waste flows to an aeration basin which treats the water to address ammonia and
other residual pollutants so that it can be re -used for irrigation and barn - flushing.
The project is also creating carbon offset credits through the documented and verified destruction
of the methane gas. These carbon offset credits are shared by Duke University and Google. The
project also produces renewable energy credits (RECs) which Duke Energy counts towards its
NC Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (REPS) requirements for the
generation of electricity from swine waste.
Discussions with Ms. Tavey McDaniel, the University's Sustainability Director indicated that
they would welcome discussions with the town on potential collaborative research on waste -to-
energy (WTE) and WC technologies.
13.1.2 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
SCS met with representatives of UNC to review their current solid waste programs and
initiatives, and to identify possible areas of collaboration with the Town. In 2010, UNC initiated
a study team to evaluate alternative energy technologies and make recommendations of viable
options. As part of a long -term Climate Action Plan (CAP), the University has committed to end
the use of coal on campus by 2020, and is evaluating the switch to biomass and natural gas,
13.1,2.1 Landfill Gas
Currently, UNC is partnering with Orange County to utilize landfill gas (LFG) supplied from the
County's landfill. The initial phase of this project in 2010 -2011 constructed a pipeline from the
landfill to the power plant and modified UNC's existing boilers to co -fire coal and LFG. In
future phases of this project, as part of upgrades to the University's power supply system, the
University is constiucting a new campus power plant to bum LFG with the gas transported via an
extension of this pipeline from the landfill.
13.1.2.2 Biomass Feedstock Implementation
Furthermore, UNC has conducted pilot studies with their boilers to co -fire biomass in the form of
torrefied wood pellets. The goal of these studies is to evaluate various feedstock, integrating the
biomass processing and handling with boiler operations, and resulting energy potential. The
results of these studies are under consideration and further studies are in discussion.
Based on these ongoing initiatives at UNC and the current state of many of the WTE and
alternative WC technologies summarized in Section 12, collaboration with the Town to initiate
another large -scale strategy (e.g., mass burn, or other thermal gasification technology) is in the
near term unlikely. Furthermore, the University's existing boilers represent a useful life to the
year 2040, at which time another technology may become feasible for consideration.
v2.1 184 10/22/12
119
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options
13.1.2.3 Anaerobic [Digestion Potential
SCS initiated discussions with UNC staff to see if future collaboration opportunities would make
sense for the Town. UNC staff confirmed UNC's desire to end its use of coal on campus and to
move to renewable energy supplies. The current effort to burn LFG is one move in that
direction. UNC is interested in looking at the feasibility of anaerobic digestion to process the
university's food waste and biomass requiring disposal. They recognize a significant advantage
of anaerobic digestion in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the coal -fired boilers as well
as providing renewable energy supplies.
Food waste is currently collected by Orange County at four campus locations (e.g., dining
facilities) and hauled off campus to Brooks Contracting where it is composted in windrow piles.
This existing operation is a key development towards a successful digester project in that source
separation of organics and food waste is presently occurring and these operations do not need
development. Furthermore, with the proven operations of firing LFG in the campus boilers,
biogas generated by an anaerobic digestion operation may simply be fed into and blended with
LFG in the existing pipeline, thereby reducing the need for a separate conversion unit associated
with the anaerobic digestion. unit. However, SCS's discussions with UNC staff recognized that
siting an anaerobic digester operation at the landfill, near the campus power plant, or elsewhere
on campus would likely present challenges. SCS recognizes that the development of the new
Carolina North campus and construction of a second power plant to support this campus while
utilizing the LFG presents a unique collaborative opportunity to include anaerobic digestion in
the design of this infrastructure and its utilities.
UNC staff has noted that a few other academic communities have successfully implemented (or
are evaluating) anaerobic digestion systems to manage their food wastes, and thus supporting
sustainable, green campus operations to include: the University of Wisconsin and Michigan State
University. Therefore, the interest in developing this technology is high. University staff
believes other neighboring communities could partner on such a project. While implementing an
anaerobic digester project to manage campus and Town organic and food waste would impact
the current aerobic composting operations, UNC staff also recognize the addition of many other
sustainable benefits including greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, generating RECs and carbon
offset credits, and promoting safety by eliminating long hauling.
13.1.3 North Carolina State University
NCSU houses a department of Waste Reduction and Recycling (WRR) which is also the name of
one of the eight key focus areas for the Campus Environmental Sustainability Team (CEST).
The goal of WRR is to divert university waste from the landfill through education, efficient
processes and operational endeavors. Since establishing the office in 2001, NC State has seen
WRR's efforts make tremendous improvements to the campus solid waste management
program. As of 2010, the University has reportedly achieved a 45.45% diversion rate. The
University has set a goal of 65% diversion rate by 2015, as outlined in the Sustainability
Strategic Flan.
NCSU has a had a long history of solid waste recycling going back to 1975 when the University
began hand sorting of campus recyclables. A campus -wide curbside recycling program was
v2.1 185 10/22/12
120
Comprehensive Review of
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Options ® EMBEGER '
initiated in 1.98 &, which involved a residence hall pilot program beginning in 1990 and yard
waste recycling a few years after that. Currently, NCSU's organic materials (i.e., dining hall
food waste, animal bedding, yard waste, etc.) are collected and composted by Brooks
Contracting like UNC.
In January, 2011, NCSU broke ground on a $61 million performance contract with Ameresco,
Inc., part of which will install an 11 Megawatt (MW) Combined Heat and Power (CEP) system
in Cates Utility Plant. The CEP system, also called cogeneration, will pay for itself through
energy savings over 17 years. The upgrade at Cates Utility Plant is expected to be completed in
summer 2012.
Initial discussions with NCSU's Sustainability Director, Ms. Tracy Dixon, suggested that NCSU
would be interested in partnering with the Town to consider and solicit applicable research grant
and .educational funding to initiate feasibility studies to involve the development of a WTE or
WC technology (e.g., anaerobic digestion) in the region.
Y2.1 186 10/22/12
Update on Waste Conversion
Progress in North America
San Jose, CA
Harvey W. Gershman
President
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
November 18, 2014
GBB Overview
MSW Management in North America
Status of Renewable Energy from Waste
Trends and Expectations for the Future
Update on Waste Conversion Progress 122 November 18,2014
in North America
RENEgy
WABLE
FROM WASTE
CONFERENCE
G BB --Quality —Value —Ethics —Results
• Established in 1980
• Solid Waste
Management and
Technology
Consultants
• Helping Clients Turn
Problems into
Opportunities
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 2
Update on Waste Conversion Progress
in North America
123 November 18,2014
RENEWABLE
Energy
FRF j0.','6ASTF
CONFERENCE GBB Waste Technology Services
• Economic, technical, and r 'x
environmental reviews PECe1YER
• Markets development
• Process planning and design
• Waste characterization and
sourcing .•
• Procurement and negotiation
assistance
• Independent feasibility
consultant
• Technology due diligence
• Acceptance testing and
operations monitoring
RENEWABLE
Energy
i'F,OM �diHSTP
CONFERENCE
Renewable Energy from Waste
*RENEWABLE
FROM WASTE
CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 17-20,201411 SAN JOSE, CALIFOR� jA
Food Waste or Fuel Source?
BMW fi❑DL
.e... uaa o-sMyl+:4. Iubl'rnl.pw ar}brrse'keaed
,,,, I.vndmb ar.. amore w y v..aa,eM. R I . iH.bY' PI Yp Md a 30-
pNm un be. iaoE wWe b M Tatli caner d w Id wNnY b Ee caiWM
N M al....e e.eww ie P9lvmre b M1N k�8a+y eeaa4nee M
GHxrY,H M1ob 0uW0eenp�spepenwq eM.aR fa
[aMmevs miaxh b FW b war b a9 frmrre
FeYMnm b ur rrw mem�un we are. wwa eM6 eneavq
-"kv ww n'e•eMOara. eFr erpbix T V3 {HMpn.ppeF
FeW,rin •peeryreW�eael kee eweb eeCaeeF la ppeaweek, )t ....c.. uee..� +.
preM el We�eCnuV<9pal wef waw IM.'a'+I. a rang K inc�n uen
orver RPY1 Tha wepa n a iesory tl� can Gveed b rod�ce Moms tw oawer oroG�rHOn w
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 3
Update on Waste Conversion Progress
in North America
124 November 18,2014
AE�VEWABLE
Energy
N%F',ER
CO tifJFERENCE MSW Disposition in the U.S.
EPA Estimate: SOG 2013 results:
251 million tons (2012)
389 million tons (2011)
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 4
Update on Waste Conversion Progress 125
in North America
EKffiy
CON%',ER MSW Going to Landfill — EPA 2012
CONFERENCE
What's Left After Recycling
Food waste
21.1%
Wood
8.2%
Plastic
17.6%
5.1%
'Rubber, leather
& textiles
Other 11.2%
4.3%
Paper &
paperboard
14.8%
Yard trimmings
8.7%
Metals
9.0%
En�erASY`E
ERCYhS1h�F�`'rg U.S. Waste Management Infrastructure
CONFERENCE
November 18,2014
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 5
Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) 586
Composting 2,300
*Excludes
facilities that
Mixed Waste Processing Facilities & Hybrid MRFs 70*
solely produce
RDF
Mass Burn WTE 65
Modular WTE 9
RDF - Processing or Combustion 20
Anaerobic Digestion 19
Transfer Stations 3,350
Landfills 1,908
Landfill Gas Projects (LFG) 636
November 18,2014
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 5
Update on Waste Conversion Progress
in North America
126 November 18,2014
RENEWABLE
Energy
CONFERENCE
Energy /Fuel Product Values Are Key
Power 600 kWh @ $0.06 / kWh
Synthetic Crude 1 barrels @ $80 / barrel
$36.00
$80.00
Ethanol 50 gallons @ $2.50 /gallon $125.00
++ sale of chemical feedstocks, heat and /or recovered metals
System Capital Costs and O &M Costs impact the NET MSW costs!
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 6
Update on Waste Conversion Progress 127 November 18,2014
in North America
RENEWABLE
Energy
CONFERENCE Legislative Highlights
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 7
California — MSW
Vermont — Universal
allowed as engineered
Recycling Act requires°
-
fuel to power cement
1 diversion of food waste, yard x
kilns; new al of 75 %
waste, and wood debris j
1 from landfill, continued EPR ti
diversion
Massachusetts— ban on and e -waste laws
_
disposal of food and yard
waste, policies to
fr
encourage growth of AD j
~`
Rhode Island - beginning - Connecticut - Ban of
commercial food waste from
L
Jan. 1, 2016, required
landfills for generators of
se
separation of organic p g two or more tons of food
U.S. Renewable Fuel _ _,
waste including food waste
Standards and
scraps and composting 7f..
Biofuels Pathways
J`` or other beneficial reuse
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 7
Update on Waste Conversion Progress
in North America
128 November 18,2014
RENEWABLE
Energy
Ci7MFEREh10E
"" N',F''ERF Increased Interest
Worldwide in
Renewable EfW Technologies
476 Technology /Project
157 Commercial or
Development Companies
Demonstration Facilities
• 28 Aerobic Composting
70 Anaerobic Digestion
• 106 Anaerobic Digestion
• 30 Ethanol Fermentation
• 57 Gasification
• 117 Gasification
• 10 Plasma Gasification
• 30 Plasma Gasification
12 Pyrolysis
• 31 Pyrolysis
• 63 WTE: mass burn, modular,
dedicated boilers, and RDF
• 69 Others (e.g., thermal
cracking, hydrolysis, steam
reforming, agglomeration,
de- polymerization)
Source: Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.., June 2014
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 8
Update on Waste Conversion Progress 129
in North America
RENEWABLE
Energy
CONFERENCE Mass- Burn WTE Facilities Under
Construction
E..RENEWABLE
nergy
F°'`''`FER Mixed Waste Processing for
CONFERENCE
Significant Landfill Diversion
• More recyclables and organics
— Recyclables can be an additional 15 to 35%
— Organics can be an additional 20%
• Use cleaner /drier Refuse Derived Fuel in:
— Existing mass burn facilities
— Cement kilns, biomass, and coal boilers
— New dedicated boilers /WTE facilities permitted
with MACT
— Conversion technologies
November 18,2014
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 9
Update on Waste Conversion Progress 130 November 18,2014
in North America
RENEWABLE
Energy
CONFERENCE Montgomery, AL - Infinitus
• High -tech 80,000 square feet
"state -of- the -art" Mixed Waste
Processing Facility
• Capital cost in excess of $30
million
• First "One Bin for All" in 211t
Century in the U.S.
• Main equipment subcontractor,
Bulk Handling Systems
— One -line, 40 ton per hour input
for 100,000 tons per year
— 60 % material recovery guarantee
plus other organics separation
capabilities
• Commercial operations began
April 2014
RENEWABLE
Energy
CO `ER RDF in
CONFERENCE
Cement Kilns
,--r
Source: GBB 2014
• Huge consumer of fossil fuels
• Closed systems; ash in fuels stays in cement
• 107 cement plants in 36 U.S. states
— Top five companies collectively operate 49.6 percent of U.S.
clinker capacity
— Estimated 76.7 percent of U.S. clinker capacity is owned by
companies HQ'd outside of the U.S.
• 16 plants in Canada
— Eight companies operate in five provinces and produce over
98% of the cement used in Canada
— Nearly 90% of capacity under multinational owners
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 10
Update on Waste Conversion Progress
in North America
Enemy
FROM 5ViSTE
CONFERENCE MBT Concept
131 November 18,2014
Source
Separated
Oraanics
Ongrgy
CONFERENCE
• Pre - treatment of waste dedicated to landfills
• Recover recyclables and fuel /energy from
mixed MSW otherwise going to landfill
• Stabilizing organics fraction
German MBT
System
81% of German household goes
waste to MBT Plants;
0.4% goes to LF
Green Dot
Producer
Responsibility
RDF Users Source ,
Separation
German
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 11
Source
Separated
Recyclables
Products:
MSW
Mechanical & Biological
Recyclables
source
Mixed MSW Treatment Plant
Compost
7
Biogas/ Electricity
RDF /EF
Source
Separated
Oraanics
Ongrgy
CONFERENCE
• Pre - treatment of waste dedicated to landfills
• Recover recyclables and fuel /energy from
mixed MSW otherwise going to landfill
• Stabilizing organics fraction
German MBT
System
81% of German household goes
waste to MBT Plants;
0.4% goes to LF
Green Dot
Producer
Responsibility
RDF Users Source ,
Separation
German
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 11
Update on Waste Conversion Progress 132 November 18,2014
in North America
RENEWABLE
Energy
CONFERENCE
Gasification Technologies
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 12
Update on Waste Conversion Progress
in North America
RENEWABLE
Energy
FRFAII, ',^ ASTF
CONFERENCE plastic to Oil Technologies
133 November 18,2014
• Thermal conversion in the absence of oxygen
• Non - recyclable plastics to oils, fuels
• Plastics -to -Oil Technologies Alliance formed by ACC
Source: RES
Polyflow
E..RENEWABLE
FROM nergy
CONFERENCE
agilyH r4 RESPaLYFLaw°
Anaerobic Digestion
Biological degradation of
organic material in
absence of oxygen
• Biogas fuel for electricity
and /or
heat production; can be
conditioned to pipeline quality
• Digestate for soil amendment,
animal bedding, or rolled into a
composting process
• 19 plants operating in the US
x
r
2� Plastic20it
dwo^"
A
VADXX ENERGY'
Quasar Energy- Cleveland, Ohio
Source: GBB 2014
CR &R Eisenmann — Perris, CA
(under construction)
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 13
Update on Waste Conversion Progress 134 November 18,2014
in North America
EneriyFROM %PASTE
CONFERENCE Companies in U.S. at Work with AD
fbiagas USA I ntfl--
Organic Waste Systems CF)ECC
Mac.,
EISENMANN MBE O
�i HARVEST'
R)awr of m-
Bh._FERM' r?
v1E5NANN Group q U� a ans ur
P: rK, 'ft—; br logj''s C hi A Co. KG
�'�ttieEnergy
ZeroWI I C. '
ENEWG V. I.iC.
Remy mod Fn , �eiob Z— Naser
EngWAB`E
FROh „RT9Y Anaerobic Digestion Commercial
CONFERENCE
Projects
No. of
Company Product
Feedstock Featured plants in N. America commercial
plants OR
Mixed org. waste/ Richmond Energy Garden, Canada
eT
HARVEST' Electricity /CNG
food waste/ yard London Ontario Energy Garden, Canada 3
7lnnnnf We-
waste Energy Garden in Bay Lake, FL
r
FOG/ food waste/ Wooster Water Pollution Control Plant, OH
q{ J j Electricity /CNG
Collinwood BioEnergy, Cleveland, OH 13
biosolids/ biomass
s, a,
Haviland Energy, OH
Food waste/ yard Monterey Regional Waste Management District
Ze7o►Na51[^ Electricity /CNG
ZWEDC— San lose, California 4
waste SSE Scavenger— South San Francisco, California
Food waste/ yard 1 under
CNG
Perris, CA
waste construction
Electricity
Source Separated Disco Road and Dufferin, Toronto
z
V� /eloe�esr
Organics Canada
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 14
Update on Waste Conversion Progress
in North America
RENEWABLE
Energy
FRFA',, ',^ ASTF
CONFERENCE State of the U.S. LFG Industry
• LFG is extracted from landfills using a
series of wells and a blower /flare
system
• Collected gas goes to a central point
for treatment and conversion /sale
• 636 operational LFG energy projects
in the U.S. [July 20141
— 1,978 MW and 305 mmscfd
• EPA estimates an additional 440
MSW landfills could turn their gas
into energy
— Enough to power 500,000 homes
135 November 18,2014
f
Maui, HI LFG System
RENEWABLE
v ����� ery
�,
Technologies and Risk
)NEERENCE
Alternative
Processing for
Risks/Liability
Proven commercial technology
Risk Summary
Low
Recyclables and Fuel
Composting
Proven commercial technology
Low
Mass Burn Combustion
Proven commercial technology
Low
RDF Combustion
Proven technology; limited U.S. commercial
Moderate to Low
experience
Anaerobic Digestion
Proven technology; limited U.S. commercial
Moderate to Low
experience
Mixed -Waste
Previous large failures; limited large -scale plants in
Moderate to High
Composting
operation; product quality issues
Previous failures at scale; no operating experience
Pyrolysis and
with large -scale operations in the U.S.; full -scale
High
g
Gasification
demonstrations nearing operation
Landfill Gas Recovery
Proven commercial technology
Low
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 15
Update on Waste Conversion Progress
in North America
136 November 18,2014
RENEWABLE
Energy
i-ROM,�,, %. _TF
CONFERENCE
Opinion of Trends for Future
• More mixed waste processing (MBT is coming to
North America!)
— Added recycling side - benefit
— Most conversion technologies require pre - processing
for feedstock preparation
— Cement kilns and coal -fired boilers potential RDF users
— CNG from AD projects and municipal fleet use
• New conversion technology facilities and "One -
bin" key to watch
• 'Environmentalists' and 'Zero Waste' proponents
fight non - recycling only alternatives
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 16
Update on Waste Conversion Progress 137 November 18,2014
in North America
E eriyFROM %PASTE
CONFERENCE
Legislation and Regulations
• Will more states ban food scraps from disposal?
• Will North American landfill disposal become more
expensive?
• Permitting needs to be streamlined /rational
• Several states stepping up recycling /diversion goals and
producer responsibilities
• USEPA needs to help lead the way with RFS2 and EF
rules
• Will there be local leadership willing to make changes to
their waste management systems at generally higher
costs?
• Waste is very recyclable and it is also very renewable!
• A lot less waste to landfills is better!
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.. 17