HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-07-2008 - 7aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 7, 2008 Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Process Technology Assessment
Fs
14iUALOAkills
ATTACHMENT(S):
SWAB Recommendation
Final Report — Solid Waste Process
Technology Assessment (Under
Separate Cover)
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gayle Wilson, 968-2885
PURPOSE: To present an assessment report of solid waste processing technologies (WPT) as
possible alternatives to landfilling as a primary means of waste disposal.
BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners requested that an assessment of
alternative solid waste processing technologies be conducted and referred this request to the
Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB). At its February 7, 2008 meeting, the SWAB discussed
methods and rationale for evaluating alternative technologies. At the April 3, 2008 SWAB
meeting, an outline for a scope of work was adopted and utilized to develop a final scope of
work for Olver, Inc. In late April, staff authorized Olver, Inc. and its sub-consultant, GBB, Inc., to
proceed with the Waste Processing Technology Alternative Study. At the June 24 BOCC
meeting, a status report was provided. GBB, Inc. provided a presentation on the draft final
report to the SWAB at its August 7 meeting.
The consultant in the report concludes:
• the quantity of Orange County post diversion solid waste available for WPT is much less
than would support or justify any of the alternative technologies available or considered
in the report, .
• even with about 35% more waste available to process, the cost at least $100 per ton,
�
would be significantly greater and include more variability risk hen compared to th
approximately current $50 per ton for landfilling,
• the same principle of economies-of-scale apply to WPT as to transferring and land filling,
• residue/ash and by-pass material would still require disposal by land filling or, if feasible,
another alternative use,
• partnering with adjacent governments may provide the necessary quantity of waste
available to make a WPT project financially viable,
4
• many of the WTP discussed in the report are, at this time, considered unproven, have
limited operating experience, have only operated at a experimental scale or are presently
under development, have already been proven unreliable/infeasible, or still have very
high technological risk factors,
• mass burn waste to energy and pre-processing for a refuse derived fuel are the most
proven, environmentally secure, and technologically reliable WPT,
• County sponsorship and public ownership Would be required to insure capital, waste flow
control, and financing,
• all WPT are compatible with a high level of recycling, and
• siting a WPT will likely be as politically difficult as siting a landfill, although less space
would be required for the WPT.
The Solid Waste Advisory Board and staff advises:
While some WPT options may appear to have a degree of technical and environmental
feasibility, there is little short-term potential for waste processing technologies for Orange
County. There is insufficient waste available to support such a facility and the inherent
technological and financial risks are deemed exorbitant. It is felt that current energies and
attention should remain focused on completion of the transfer station development process and
the comprehensive, long-term, planning process underway by the Solid Waste Management
Work Group. Recommendations likely to surface through the Work Group's deliberations, if
ultimately adopted by the BOCC, will themselves require considerable time (3-5 years), energy
and resources to effectively implement.
Work Group recommendations are anticipated to be presented to the elected bodies by the
spring 2009. The SWAB discussed the report at its September 4 meeting and has developed a
recommendation (attached). The Solid Waste Management Department concurs with the
SWAB recommendation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving the Solid Waste
Process Technology Assessment. There would be considerable cost associated with the
adoption for implementation. The cost of conducting the technology assessment is $16,500.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the attached
report and request additional clarification or information if needed.
91
Memorandum
To: Board of Orange County Commissioners
From: Solid Waste Advisory Board
Jan F. Sassaman, PhD, Chair
Subject: SWAB Recommendations
Alternative Waste Processing Technologies Report
by GBB to Orange County
Dater September 24, 2008
At its August 7, 2008 meeting, the Solid Waste Advisory Board received a detailed
presentation from Harvey Gershman of Gershman, Brickner and Bratton (GBB) on Waste
Processing Technologies. Gershman's presentation was based on a study conducted for
the County that evaluated those technologies that might provide an alternative to
landfilling municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in Orange County that is not
separated and recycled or composted. The BOCC is scheduled to receive a similar
presentation on GBB's study results.
The GBB study calculated that at Orange County's current level of MSW generation of
fewer than 200 tons per day, the cost of financing, building, owning, and operating a
waste -to- energy plant would cost about $100 per ton after sale of electricity generated
from the heat recovered from incineration and sale of scrap metal recovered from the
residual ash. The cost per ton of owning and operating a facility declines with larger
.facilities, such as those investigated in the study that ranged from 600 to 3,000 tons per
day in capacity.
Current cost of landfilling waste at Orange County's landfill is $49 per ton; quoted tip
fees at nearby transfer stations in Durham are $40 at the City -owned facility and $42 per
ton at Waste Industries' private facility. Both the City of Durham and Waste Industries
truck the MSW delivered to transfer stations to remote private landfills, each about ninety
miles away from Durham; thus the tipping fees charged are assumed to cover the costs of
operating the transfer station, transport, and landfilling at the final destination. The GBB
study concluded that is it not economical in the short-run to consider a stand alone waste
combustion facility to handle waste from only Orange County and that the other
emerging technologies investigated in the study are at present not mature, practical,
proven, or appropriate for managing large quantities of mixed solid waste.
Consequently, at its September 4, 2008 meeting, the SWAB made the following
recommendations with respect to the County's near -term solid waste strategy.
1. Concentrate near -term solid waste management efforts on getting the
County's transfer station sited, permitted, designed, built, and operating,
rd
as well as on continuing the County's successful and aggressive recycling
efforts that are reducing the amount of waste to be landfilled.
2. Complete, adopt, and implement the Solid Waste Plan currently being
developed by the Solid Waste Plan Work Group consisting of county and
municipal elected officials, staff, and members of SWAB.
3. As the Solid Waste Plan recommendations are implemented and staff and
financial resources become available, reconsider and re- evaluate the use of
practical, proven alternative waste processing technologies once the
transfer station is completed and operating, and the current landfill is
closed out. The transfer station would likely be required as part of any
future alternative waste process system should such be developed in the
foreseeable future.
4. Based in part on UNC's commitment to reducing its carbon footprint,
explore with appropriate University staff the potential for using the current
coal co- generation plant to burn MSW (processed as refused derived fuel)
from Orange County or for building a new stand -alone facility to combust
waste to power the Carolina North campus.
5. Given that Orange County's waste stream is too small to readily justify its
own waste combustion unit, and the likely ten- to twenty -year drastic
reduction in available landfill space within a practical transportation
distance from Orange County, explore with other local governments,
electric generating utilities, and other relevant parties in and around the
Triangle J region, options for regional solutions to implement alternative
waste processing technologies. This exploration could include conducting
a regional waste summit in the next eighteen months wherein these
options were clearly laid out for consideration and future planning.
The. Solid Waste Advisory Board hopes that this review is useful to you in your
deliberations. We look forward to hearing your response to the GBB Report and are
ready to continue exploration of alternatives if and when the BOCC wishes to do so.
Alternative Waste Processing Technologies
Assessment
(A White Paper)
Prepared by:
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
8550 Arlington Blvd, Suite 203
Fairfax, VA 22031
1- 800 - 573 -5801
August 15, 2008
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ................................................ ............................... 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
ANDVENDORS ..................................................... ............................... 5
3.1
Mass- Bu rn/Waterwa I I 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
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
5.2 Effectiveness of Waste Processing Technologies ............................ 25
5'3 Environmental Issues of Waste Processing Technologies ................ 26
5.3.1 Air Quality ...................................................................... ^o
��
5.3.2 Water ............................................................................
6.0 OPINION ON WHICH WASTE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES SHOULD
Table 3-1. U.S. Mass- Bu U Facilities .................................................. 5
Table 3-2. Commercial Cellulosic Ethanol Plants in the U.S .................................. 8
1O
Table 3-3. EUogasPnlduc�onin Europe ...-..—._.—~—~..-.—..--.----.
1O
Table 3-4. Biogas Firms in Europe ..................................................................
Table 4-1. Techno|ngiee/Vmndors Mentioned in Recent Procurements ................... 22
Table 5-1.' Pro Forma Annual Operating Statement ............................................ 25
B-2
List of Figures
Figure 1-1-Solid Waste Management Hierarchy ................................................. 1
Figure 5-1'
Dioxin Emissions from VVTE Facilities, 1990 - 2OO5 ........................... 28
Figure 5-2.
Mercury Emission from VVTEFacilities, 1990 -2005 .......................... 28
Figure B-1.
VVatervvaUFurnaoe Secton...-..—'....---..—....-..--.--.—.. ��
Figure B-2.
Typical Mass-Burn WatmrvvaU System ............................................ B-S
Figure 8-3.
Typical Modular Combustion Sy�enn.—..-._~.-.._.~-.-.'.~.. B�
Figure 8-4.
'' Typical RDFCon�buatkoh Fad|�y—.--.--.-....-.—..—~--..—'B-7
Figure B-5.
Typical RDF Processing Schematic ................................................ B-8
FhJuna B-G.
TVooa| RDF Fluid Bed .'-...---....-.—~—.—.~-..._. o-9
Figure B-7.
''
Typical Ga�ficatk»nSystern--._...—~..-,—.~.-...-..—.—'.'-
B-1O
RgunaB-B.
ROFHuid|zad Bed Gasifica�onSystenn'-..-...--..-_.—..—.~
B-11
Figure B-9.
EnTech Process Schematic ........................................................
B-12
Figure B-10.
Process Diagram of Pyrolysis System -...—.'..—.^.._~--.—'.
B-13
Figure B-11.
Cross-Section ofa Plasma Arc Furnace ......................................
8-14
Figure B-12.
Process Flow of the BCyL Biomass Ethanol Plant ..........................
B-16
Figure B-13.
Process Flow for Anaerobic Digestion System o ...-.'~.'—'...-...'
B-20
Appendices
Ar1 Rrnlo Evaluated hv Recent Processing
' A-�
Studies orPnocurernents._..--...-.—.^.'~.'-.-_^.-...-...—.._~—'.~
A-2 Summary of Municipal Waste Processing Technologies ............................ A-2
8 Overview of Waste Processing Technologies .......................................... B-1
GBB/C07063-01 iii August 15, 2008
Executive Summary
This examination of alternative waste processing technologies (VVPT) was undertaken
at the behest of the Orange County Board of Commissioners to explore and evaluate
alternatives bo landfill disposal of the County's municipal solid waste. The purpose oy
this vvhibo 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 Pf2006-07, or
about 318 tons per day (TPD). Of that material, 52,900 tons or 173 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 dose 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, VVTE plants reduce
the processed waste tonnage by 75 percent and the volume by 90 percent. This
leaves residue, ash, which needs to be |andfi||ed in a permitted Subtitle D landfill.
In some states, ash may be used beneficially as alternative daily cover atlandfills.
Even at 75 percent reduction by weight, a VVTEfad||ty has a dramatic effect on the
amount ofresidual 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 �VVT�� technologies profiled include: mass-burn/watenwa||
' '
combustion, mass-burn/modular combustion, re fu se- d eri ved fuel (RDF)/ded|cabed
boiler, and RDF/fluid bed. Although VVTE plants range in size from 10 to 3,000 TPD
in the U.S., 71 percent are 500 TPD or larger. Mass-burn/wabenwa|| combustion is
the most prevalent VVPT in the U.S., employed at 65 of the 89 facilities. However,
no new mass-burn VVTE facilities have been built in the U.S. for over ten years. Ten
VVTE facilities currently operate in the Mid-Atlantic States region, processing almost
12,000 TPD. In North Carolina, New Hanover County owns e SOO TPD plant that
produces electricity. In contrast to its smaller presence in the U.S., VVTE is an
accepted and cornrnmn|y 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 cmrnnmmroia||y
proven using MBVVaaafeedstock.
The historical and current context for development and use of VVTE in the U.B. is
explored, with waste processing technologies currently receiving renewed interest
due to: the proven VVTE 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
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 ofVVPT by other U.S' cities and
counties isdetailed. 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
ofVVPT is highlighted. Current VVPT procurements are outlined, including: a resource
recovery facility for Frederick and Carroll Counties, MD; expansion of the Harhond,
M[} VYTEfaci|ity; negotiations by the City of Sacramento, CA for a plasma gasification
project; | rovvand 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 VVTE plant expansions in Hillsborough and Lea Counties, FL,
that are currently being constructed. Atota| 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 $GO 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, naoant
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 intime. As mentioned earlier, there are Q9 V0TE 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 VVTE facility in
Orange County is estimated at $102 per ton. To improve the economics of utilizing
waste processing technology, Orange County would need to pa rt ner with an adjacent
community. The �1O2 per ton is not competitive with the County's current landfill
disposal fee of$4' or with Waste Industries' cost of$42 per ton to transfer and
dispose ofwaste.
Although currently unknown, the cost of the County's new transfer station and
|andfi|||ng 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 dosing,
VVPT 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 VTE plant feasibility study which considers mass-burn modular
technologies, and/or fuel production approaches.
GBB/C08027-01 ES-2 August 15, 2008
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 CRl258 (also known as Resource Conservation Recovery Act
~RCRAl Subtitle D), Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Under authority of
--RA, 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 /OBVVl'
Figure 1-1 shows U'S. EPA's hierarchy of integrated solid waste management which
|s illustrated in the form of pyramid ofranked
approaches. Source Reduction is at
the highest level (4) of the pyramid with |andfi||ing at the bottom. Recycling
comprises the middle blocks (B & Cl followed by combustion with energy recovery
(D) above combustion without energy recovery and |andfi||ing(E).
Figure 1-1_Solid Waste Management Hierarchy'
A \ |
\ i Source Reduction and Reuse
Composting
Materials Recovery
with Energy
Recovery
LandfilNng and incineration
without Energy Recovery
A+B+C+D+E=Capacity (Not to Scale)
As Orange County u its Solid Waste Management Plan en route toachieving
their goal of 61 ' waste reduction, the County should consider pursuing the
'
first two approaches: sou rce 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 bv the County, eliminating the need to landfill that portion of the waste
stream. The portion of waste generated that is not naoyo|ad or composted is hauled
'U.S. EFY\
GBB/C08027-01 August 15, 2008
to the Orange County Landfill or facilities. The County owns the local
municipal solid waste (MBV) landfill which is expected toreach 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 isthird
in the hierarchy: waste processing to
reduce the volume for land disposal. While
waste processing technologies ( PT) can include methods of volume reduction (ohnadding, compaction, baling, etc.), most such technologies involve some form of
="'tnoUad thermal treatment - incineration - with fuel production or energy
recovery. The County may wart to consider the need to address such waste
processing technologies as possible alternatives to landfill disposal. The capital
intensive approaches such asVTErequi r� a sufficient quantity of waste to be cost
effective: the more vvaeta/ the lower the per ton price.
The purpose of this white paper is to initiate that evaluation and brief the County's
solid waste ataf[ elected officials, Solid Waste Advisory Board, and citizens on state-
of-the-art so|ic'vva�� promessing technologies, emerging technologies and their
- ^s d d the potential of
applicability to the County's needs, an 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' Odisousses the woddvvide experience ofVVPT and respective vendors inthe
United States an d other countries,
as some of these technologies have operating
demonstrations or facilities outside u/ 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 nativas for
increasing their diversion rates, recovering more resources from their solid waste,
and delivering better service to their c |tizens ' Section 5.0 explores the aomnonio
feasibility, effectiveness, and environmental issues surrounding the use of the waste
processing technologies discussed. Section 6'0 presents opinions as to the most
app|icaNtechno|ogiosforfurtherconsidenationbytheCounty.
Appendix B reviews the available "proven" waste processing technologies, all of
which are I 'ncinen-tion-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/CO8027-01 2 August 15, 2008
2.0 Future Orange County Waste Disposal Needs
Based on current data, the County (exduding recycled material from the University of North Carolina (UN[)) 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 recyda b| es. Approximately 16,500 tons of material
were buried ina construction and demolition waste (C&D) landfill located inOrange
County and 8,700 tons of C&D were shipped for disposal out of the County. Tires,
clean wood, brush, appliances and scrap rnete| totaling 12,300 were also recycled in
2006-2007' That leaves approximately 62,900 tons of waste or 172 TPD from
Orange County di sposed in landfills both inside and outside the County ' This
tonnage could tle 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 y4SVV landfill is now projected to close in early 2O11. The County has
decided to manage its future »4SVV 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 »4SVV 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 2000, stricter enforcement of the rules governing C&D landfills
require the County to deposit furniture and other bulky ibamno in the lined MSVV
landfill. This may result in a shift of as much as 8,000 tons of waste a year from
C&[} landfills to MSVV landfills, shortening the life expectancy of the County's y4BVV
landfill byas much as five months.
As it is/ the County-generated 172 TPD is probably too snna|| 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 -]une 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
percent? constitutes nacyc|ab|es. The resulting 386,135 of MSVV could translate into
2 Simmons, Phil; Goldstein, Nora; Kaufman, Scott M.; Thuma|ks, Nickolas ].; and Thompson,
]c,]ames. "The State of Garbage inAnerica." 8iooyde, April 2OO6:Z5
«http://wwwjgpneas.comn/anchivea/_free/000848.htm|>.
3 August 15 2008
G8B/CO8O27-01 ,
approximately 1,000 lPD available regionally to make an alternative technology
mnons�cononmicaUyviab|e.
Traditional waste processing, technologies now in operation have the potential of
managing most of the residual waste. Generally, VVTE 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 |andfi||ed 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
VV[E facility has a dramatic effect on the amount of residual waste.
GBB/C08027-01 4 August 15, 2008
3,0 Worldwide Experience mf Waste Processing
Technologies and Vendors
Avahety ofVVPTare discussed in Appendix B and a summary matrix is in Appendix
A, Table Ar2' This section discusses the past and current experience ofVVPT in the
U.S. and elsewhere.
3,1 Surn/WateKwall Combustion
No new mass-burn NTE facilities have been built inthe 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 VVTE are operators, owners, or owner/operators of
exisUng �ci|ities. As shown in the Table 3-1, Covanta and VVheu|abratorown and
�-
operate the majority of privately-owned VTE facilities. Most of the VTE plants, both
public and private, are operated by Covanta, Monhenay/Veo|ia or VVhee|abnator.
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. 0U.S. Mass-88urn/WaterwaUU FaciUitieSs
Entity
Owned
Tons processed
per day
Operated
Tons processed
per day
ublic
39
260-3,000
12
200-500
Covanta
11
400-3,000
27
400-3,000
Wheelabrator
10
200-2,250
16
200-2,250
Other
3
550-2,250
1
200-1,3
Total
65_
65
Some of the mass-burn technology hadbeenpurohasedfromArnehcanfinnssuchas
Detroit Stoker, Combustion Engineering and Babcock &Wilcox, but the majority of
these existing systems s ara of European design. The two leading suppliers ofVVTE
grate systems
in the United States and overseas are The Martin Company of
Germany and Von Roll of Switzerland.
While new WTEfad|it' procurements have declined in the United States, the market
for this equipment has increased in Europa 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 VVTE facilities in the United States and overseas.
�
Modular �-'--� used sna U er NTEfaciihjas (between 80 - 360 TPD)
and for
industrial ' applications. Unlike mass burn/vatemvaU systems, there are a number of
American firms supplying such systems in the United States, and they are very
competitive in overseas markets as vvaU. The more active of these suppliers are
Consutech Systems of Richmond, Virginia, Enercon Systems, Inc. of Elyria, Ohio, and
»IntegratadVVasteManagamantSenvicesAssociadon,2OO4DinsctoryofVVTEPlanta
GBB/CO8027-01 5 August 15, 2008
Basic Environmental Engineering of Chicago. They have each been supplying
incineration systems for MSVV and other wastes for over 25years.
Other U.G. firms, such as Energy Answers of Albany, NY, and Covanta Energy of
Fairfield, N], are marketing project development and management services for VVTE
modular facilities.
3~3 Refuse-derived Fuel/Dedicated Boller
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
VVTE facilities currently in operation, Excel, Veo|ia and Covanto 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 VVtirtsi|i�'
3.4 RDF/Fluldized 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, VVI' 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 RDFfiring.
3.5 Gasification
Japan currently has seven plants operating with gasification technology. At least two
of these facilities fire MSVV, with the largest firing up to 700 TPC) of MSVV. In Europe
and Asia, approximately 2Osyngasgasification facilities are operating on MSVV. Most
of these facilities are relatively arna||, processing less than 10 TPD with none
designed to process more than 70 TP[}'
3.6 Pyrolysis
With / M5VV io haat�d in an oxygen-starved environment to produce a fuel
gas that i then incinerated to generate steam bnd/or electricity. In the 1970s, a
number of pyrolysis facilities were constructed using »4SVV as a feedstock. Several
were built with partial funding provided by U.B. EPA. The largest of these was the
Monsanto facility in Baltimore, MD, which had a capacity of 1,000 TPC>' This facility
did not meet its environmental requirements due to operational scale-up problems
and was born down. Other smaller, 100 to 200 7-PD, MGVV pyrolysis facilities were
built at that time by Union Carbide, AnooTorrax, and Occidental Petroleum. These
facilities were recipients of U.S. EPA grant funds and were dosed for operational and
financial reasons. Currently, there are no full-scale pyrolysis systems in connrnenja|
operation on MSVV in the United States. A pilot demonstration system has been
GBB/CO8027-01 6 August 15, 2008
operating in southern California for two years. It was built and is operated by
International Environmental Solutions, ofRmmo|and, CA.
3.7 Plasma Arc
The plasma arc furnace is 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 o
|aona arc systems firing MBV
in the United States
the time of this report. There are pilot plants used for ash
vitrification in Japan and a smaller Japanese facility firing MSVV, but attempts to
apply this process in the United States have not vet 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 ihsrn.
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
� i - �t�nns The Atlanta firm Geop|asnna has deve|opnmentcontract and is
incineration .
negotiating a contract for implementation of a large plasma arc facility for »4SVV 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 in2O1O.
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 biofue| produced from |ignoceUu|ose, a
structural material that comprises much of the mass ofplants. These facilities utilize
a variety of biomass feedstocks. Biomass 1s any living or recently dead biological
rnatahe| 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 MBVV. At the time of this report, no U.S, facilities are feeding MBVV but a
number of vendors are planning to use MSVVaaafeedstock.
Abengoa BioenergY owns and operates five cellulosic ethanol facilities throughout the
United Staten and Europe with a total, production capacity of over 200 nn|||ion 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'snarnep|aba
capacity to more than 200 million gallons per year inthe U.S. In addition, Abengoa
Bioenergy operates four plants inEurope.
The world's first commercial scale demonstration biomass plant is being constructed
by Bimanergy to exhibit its biomass-to-ethanol process technology. Located
in ' Babi|afuente (Salamanca), Spain, the biomass plant will process 77 tons of
agricultural resides, such, as wheat straw, each day and produce over 1.3 million
gallons
of fuel grade ethanol per, year. Bioothano| is most currently used in Brazil,
mna longstanding policies promote and encourage the use ofbioethano| as fuel for
transportation.
C1eanTech EUofbeds has cellulosic ethanol pilot plant operating on MSVV in Golden,
Table 3-2. Commercial Cellulosic Ethanol Plants in theU.S.
(Operational xorUnder Construction)'
Company
Location
Feedstock
Capacity
gallons
per year)
Abengoa Bioenergy
Hugoton, 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
Ernmetsburg, IA
Corn cobs
25
Range Fuels
Treutlen County, GA
Wood waste
20
SunOpta
Little Falls, MN
Wood chips
10
Xethanol
Auburndale, FL
Citrus peels
8
None of these idants uses y4SVV s feedstock. As of January 2008, U.B. 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 p\SVV' The
total projected capital cost of those plants is $634 million, with DOE contributing
$199 rni|||on in the form of the grants.
3,8,2 Biogas - Anaenobic Digestion
Biogas or ' mixture a b«tune 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
Fiochar-[ropsoh 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 Fl and at high pressure. The most common
cata|Yots are ^ased on |ron and cobalt, although nickel and ruthenium have also
been used. The process produces a synthetic petroleum substitute for use as
synthetic fuel, biodiese|. 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 ofcompanies have commercial versions of the
technology, including:
1. Conoco-PhiUips- natura|gasaafeedstock
2. BP- natura|gaseafeedstoch
3' Shell Oil - natural gas asfeedstock
4. Saso| (South Africa) - coal and natural gas as feedstocks
^Source: Grainnet.00m Building Cellulose
GBB/C08027-01 8 August 15, 2008
5' Rentech (U.S.) - coal or coke asfeedstock
6. ChorenIndustres (Gammanv) -
7' Byntro|munl (U.S.) - used natural gas as feedstock in a demonstration for the
U.S. Air Force.
In addition, there are a number ofresearch 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, andenvironmental 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;
BernnenY alone had 3,500 that produced a total of 1,100 ;4VV. 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 Europa by the bkoInsUtuta and the InatitutfOr
Energebkin 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, results in 64 percent landfill gas, 18.8 from sewage
s|udge and 17.2 ' other. The largest producer ofbiogas is the United Kingdom, closely
followed by Germany. The biogas ia approximately 5O percent methane, mixed with
carbon dioxide and other gases.
GBBkCO8027-01 9 August 15,2OO8
Table 3-3. siogas Production in Europe
*Estimalio Source: evu/bser/enzono mote: I xTOE is equal oo$z1.6aMwh.
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
` duo�d as nn�diunn Btu fuel, oritcan be processed to produce e pipeline quality
pro ,
gas which is almost pure methane. Also, the biogas has two highly efficient uses: as
a gas for compressed dean natural gas (CNG)-capable vehides 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 Europa. Each has developed its own proprietary process, and some are
SO yamna old or older. Thera are over 200 operating plants, as shown in Table 3-4'
Table 3-4. U$iogamFirms in Europe
2004
2005*
Countries
Landfill
Gas
Sewage
Sludge Gas
Ither
.0il.gas
Total
Landfill
Gas
Sewage
Sludge Gas
Other
Biogas
Total
UK
1326.7
165.0
-
1491.1
1617.6
165.0
Germany
Linde BRV/KCA
Geffnany
573.2
369.8
351.7
1294.7
573.2
369.8
651 A
1594A
Organic Waste Systems
Belgium
Dranco,
Dry
14
750,000
Schmack Biogas AG
Germany
Euco/Coccus
Spain
219.1
52.4
23.6
295.1
236.5
56.8
23.6
316.9
France
Netherlands
127.0
48.7
77.0
48.6
3.0
28.9
207.0
126.2
129.0
48.7
77.0
48.6
3.0
28.9
209.0
126.2
R-
Poland
21.5
23.9
45.4
25.1
25.3
0.3
50.7
Austria
11.8
19.1
14.5
45A
11.8
19.1
14.5
45.4
Portugal
-
-
-
-
r4.5
E
- 4.5
-
-
-
10.0
10.0
*Estimalio Source: evu/bser/enzono mote: I xTOE is equal oo$z1.6aMwh.
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
` duo�d as nn�diunn Btu fuel, oritcan be processed to produce e pipeline quality
pro ,
gas which is almost pure methane. Also, the biogas has two highly efficient uses: as
a gas for compressed dean natural gas (CNG)-capable vehides 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 Europa. Each has developed its own proprietary process, and some are
SO yamna old or older. Thera are over 200 operating plants, as shown in Table 3-4'
Table 3-4. U$iogamFirms in Europe
Source: Eumbser/Ex2006
G8B/CO8027-01 10 August 15,2OOQ
Total
Firms
Countries
System
Waste
Types
Number of
Plants
Capacity
Linde AG Wies-baden
Germany
Linde BRV/KCA
Wet and dry
24
1,000,000
Kompogas AG
Switzerland
Kompogas
_Dry
24
4416,000
Organic Waste Systems
Belgium
Dranco,
Dry
14
750,000
Schmack Biogas AG
Germany
Euco/Coccus
Wet
Approx. 100
Unknown
Valorga International SAS
France
Valorga
Dry
12
1,047,000
GmbH & Co KG
Source: Eumbser/Ex2006
G8B/CO8027-01 10 August 15,2OOQ
Now, m�|��in��a������t�r u������a����
bionn —sna, 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
i |i s A¢ 1�OO btu per bionnethaneis heating value is too high
pipeline gas. , ,
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
i ba|ista d farnnersare therefore asking fora new |avythat
the country's �nvronmnen an
allows producers to feed their superior, renewable and green gas into the national
GBB/C08027-01 11 August 15, 2008
4.0 Recent Research/ Procurements for Waste
Processing Technologies by Others
The most recently constructed P ' ng VTEfad|ity1nthe U.S. commenced
operations i1996.-5 Sinoo that time,
no commercial plant has been implemented.
Several reasons account for this lull of activity in the WTE field:
1' Loss of Tax Cred -The 1986 Tax Reform Act eliminated the significant tax
benefits for project owners/developers, contributing to the pipeline of
2. Environmental Activism - Misinformation about air pollution and ash impacts,
and preferences for recycling, created public resistance.
3' »(1994) - Effectively ended legislated
flow ----,creatinguncertaintyintherevenuestreamforprojects'
4. Megafills - Lange landfills with |ovv tipping fees and no put-or-pay waste
supply requirement out-competed VVTE for the market.
5. Amendment to the Clean Air A (1998) - New regulations required retrofit on
VVT�cost� ef�*ct|vea�ofDeosrnbar2OOO
��ia�ngp|antsan�orovoup , '
G. -\/isib|e opposition by U.S. EPA to
preference combustion and for waste reduction/recycling sent negative
message about VYTE.
7. 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 dhwana in fmd|ibas developed earlier, and
making overall project economics less attractive.
In the past few years, however, interest in VVTE and waste conversion has begun to
grow again. This renewed interest in waste processing technologies is due to several
factors:
1. 'or environmental performance, reliability,
advancements in technology and successful ash handling strategies have
made VVTE an acceptable option to consider as part of waste management
planning.
2. With the i of oil now over $12O per barrel,
the cost of transportation fuels is making MSVV hauling and |andfi||ing more
expensive. In addition, the cost of electricity from fossil fuels is increasing,
making o|mc±hdty from waste more valuable and making VVTE more
competitive.
3' Many States are. requiring utilities to
g electricity from renewable sources, which
sometimes includes VVTE; the Federal government has included VVTE in its
definition of renewable energy.
4. In 2006, the U.S. EPA revised its waste
management hierarchy to include VVTE explicitly as the third priority after
waste reduction and recycling/composting.
5 Covan��2,250 TPD plant in Niagara Falls, NY.
6 C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town o[C1arkstnwn, 511 U.S. 383 (1994).
GBB/C08027-01 12 August 15, 2008
5' VTE h ps a smaller carbon footprint than
landfilling or fossil-fuel aneratade|ectr,»n/'
6. Reversal of Carbo - The 2007 Supreme Court decision in the Oneida-
Herkimer case'3 effectively restored to city and local governments the ability
no implement flow control, increasing the security of the waste stream to
support the financing ofVVTEprojects.
7. Long distance transfer and disposal,,getting more_expen
These and other local considerations have led a growing-number of communities tm
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 - VVTE 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 VVTE as a
waste disposal option.
4.1 Recent Research
4.1.1 New York City, NYe
In 2004, the City of New York commissioned a report to evaluate new and emerging
waste management and necvdingtechnologies and approaches. The objective ofthe
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
MSVV, and which were promising but in an earlier stage of development. It also
compared the newer technologies to conventional VVTE technology to identify the
potential advantages and disadvantages that may exist in the pursuit ofinnovative
technologies. Conventional VVTE was chosen as a point ofcomparison since such
technology was the most widely used technology available at the time for reducing
the quantity of|andfi||ed post-recycled waste.
The report was released in September 2004. 44 companies responded to the |nUba|
request for information. The City has commenced a siting Task Force to look at the
five boroughs to identify 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 toall proven and unproven technology vendors.
As part of the
— process ' the City collected information on capital cost from the
oupo||�ns. Based on six responses, the capital cost per installed ton for anaerobic
digestion
ranged from $74,000 (506 TPD) to $82,000 (500 TPD)} for gasification, the
range was �1�5,OOO �2,612 TPDl 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.
7 ��� N��� Sub�� Ya��k�S�n�a�Zam�
Thorneioe, Susan A., VVeh�, , ' ,
Maria. "The Impact ofMunicipal Solid Waste Management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
the United States." Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 52.. (Septembe
2002): 1000-1011.
8 United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, No. 05-
1345 2OO7VVL1237Q12(U.S.Ap�|3O,2OO7).
» Evaluation of New and Emerging Solid Waste Management Technologies, September 16,
2004.
GBB/CO8037-01 13 August 15,2OO8
4.1.2 City of Los Angeles, CA
_Phase Po
In 2004, the City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation (Bureau) began a study to
- t technologies capab|e of processing Black Bin
evaluate �4�VV alternative �r�at�n
rnahmha| (curbside-collected residential MSV) to significantly reduce the amount of
such material going to landfills. The Bureau's overall objective was to select one or
commercialized technology to
rnVne suppliers to develop a facility using proven an d conn
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 brief survey based upon the technology
screening criteria. The criteria applied were as follows:
°
Waste Treatabi|dy: The supplier was screened on whether they have MSWor
similar feedstock processing experience. _
°
Conversion Performance: The supplier was asked if their facility would
produrernarketab|ebyproduc±s-
• Throughput Requirement: This criterion was already met because the
technology passed the technology screen.
• Commercial Status: This criterion was already met because the technology
aa�adth�technu|ogysrne�n
p .
• Technology Capability: The supplier was asked if their technology had
processed atleast 25 tons per day offeedstock.
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.
ARequest for Qualifications ����s���a� ������t�
^ —
met the screening criteria. A gaza i|ad 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 RF]prooess.
As part of the process, the City collected information on capital cost from the
suppliers. Based on 10 responses, the capital cost per installed ton for anaerobic
d �o �99 OOOto ��O1 OOO' for the range vva� ��O OOO
digestion ranged nn ` , , ' ' , , ,
-
to $266,000; for pyrolysis, the range was . �GO , OOO to $221,000; onm mixed waste
m Request for Proposals for a Development Partner(s) �� Processing mg Mun ki pa | 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
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(QFP)
soliciting � competitive proposals for a development pa for processing MSV
utilizing alternative technologies premised on nesouncerecovery. The responsibilities
of the
development partners vveretofinance, 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) nnabario|
delivered to the facility. In addition, the City considered proposals from
emerging/experimental technologies that could process less than 2OO 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 ernenging/expehrnenta| technologies that did not meet those
requirements were not evaluated further. & total of 12 technology
suppliers submitted applications in August 2007' The City of Los Angeles' Bureau of
Sanitation has reviewed the proposals and received prosontationsbythepropooens-
The Bureau has conducted site analyses and visits to all facilities and is putting
together a recommendation y � b December 2008 of the finalists to be further
evaluated.
PhaseIII
Phase DI will start before the end of the yea: 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 Evaluati 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
-----=aUon v Loa Angeles County itself was considered important, poimportant, as
stakeholders in |e evaluation extended beyond the County and the implications of
this effort would be regional.
In August 2OO5,the evaluation report was adooted. Phase Iresulted in identification
of a preliminary short list of technology suppliers and MRF/TB sites, along with
development of long-term strategy for implementation of conversion technology
demonstration facility at one of these sites. The County intentionally pursued
integrating a conversion technology facility ate MRF/7S site in order to further divert
post-recycling residual waste from |and#||ing and take advantage of number of
beneficial synergies from co-locating a conversion facility at MRF.
z/iNd.
12 Los Angeles County
October 2007.
Conversion Technology Evaluation Report ~ Phase II - Assessment,
GBB/CO8027-01 15 August 15, 2008
In ]uk/ 2006, the County further advanced �s efforts to foc|�aba of
conversion -�' technology demonstration facility. The approach was multi-disciplined,
in�environmental analysis and conatruc±abi|ity. Key Phase II study areas
• Ao independent evaluation and verification of the qualifications ofselected
technology suppliers and the capabilities of their conversion technologies;
• An independent eva|uabonnf candidate �4RF/TBahes,todetemninusu�abi|�y
for i 'Uabon,intagratonandmparatonofoneofthetechno1ogiee;
• A review of the required permits to facilitate the project;
• Identification of funding opportunities and financing means;
• Identification | 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 onPhase II, and represented am|mination of
appnoximate��ey�r�wm�'��u���t�C�n�' ���m�n|���
issued Request ' for Offers /RFO1 early in 2008 fora demonstration to be constructed
at any one of four sites by the selected vmn dor . The five conversion technology
suppliers considered and their corresponding technologies
offered were: Arrow
Ecology utilizing anaerobic digestion; Changing World Technologies utilizing thermal
depo|yrnerization; 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 »4FlF, Community
Recycling/Resource Recovery, Inc. YqRF, is located in L.A. County. The Perris
»4RF/Transfmr Station and the RobertA. 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 MFlF is in Orange
Phase III — Evaluation,..and Presentation of Request for Offers
Phase III of the '- is expected be finalized by the end of 2008'Atthe time of
this report, the County had received several offers, with a deadline of August 15,
2008 for receipt.
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 'hese offers and the presentation of the results tothe Board. Phase IV
of the project will begin in 2009.
z»ibid.
GBB/C08027-01 16 August 15, 2008
4.1.4 King County, WA
A proviso to the 2007 King �mn� S�� Waste Division required that the
Division prepare a comparative evaluation of waste conversion technologies U.e'
NTEindnenabonl and waste export. After review and comment on the draft report
by the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (PBVMA[) and
others, the final report was submitted tothe King County Cound|on August O,3OO7.
Based on the report, MSVMAC made the following recommendations to the Council:
1 ���e0ng�u|�C��|��nue�mm���c��e�����
' export bv implementing the recommendations intheSo/ |dNasteTranaferand
Waste Export System Plan.
2 ' That every avenue to extend the life of the Cedar Hills LandfillLandfill 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
nnaxirnurn flexibility for long-term planning.
3 That no �/�� ��u�� � expended � �e e�� � 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
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 kequest 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 TPO 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 MSVV into various fuels or energy' However, the Authority is
dependent on bond financing for its projects, and the lending community insisted on
GBB/CO8027-01 17 August 15, 2008
proven technology as a minimum requirement for making capital available to the
In October 2OOG, the Authority solicited Proposals from qualified, firms
in the refuse management and power facility construction and operation fields to
provide for the construction, testing, operation and maintenance of 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
Pnoposer (Company) on a long-term basis (at least 20 years from thcommercial operationdahs). The site was tobe provided bv 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 atthe 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 90OTPDresource recovery facility to be located in Frederick County to
*
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 VVhee|abnaborTechno|ogies' As part ofthe initial review,
the Authority met with Covanta and VVhedabratorto clarify their proposals and to
ensure that the initial financial modeling results correctly represented their proposals
time f report, and mat the needs of the local jurisdictions. of the rn� o this jurisdictions. As s repo , 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 nnns with Qualified .e""="y'^~ to provide — 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) fora
Resource Recovery Facility ��QF� located in Harford County, Maryland. This vvasthe
' ' �b� procurement being conducted by the
second step in the two-step competitive p -'
18 August 15, 2008
GBE�CO8O2/-01 ,
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 VVTE
capacity in two ways: (1) additional capacity at the current facility to meet Ha
rford
County's needs, but not provide significant additional energy tothe Aberdeen Proving
Ground (A -)/ and (2) build a new RRFto accommodate the waste disposal needs of
Harfo rd County, including oapao ityfor some of the waste disposal needs ofadjacent
"Bas- Realignment and Closure c±" [BRAI affected counties (Baltimore and Cecil
had
Counties), and provide a greater amount of the energy needs of APG ' AP(�
agreed ^ |ease 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 VVheelobratorTechnologies
proposals as responsive and will continue the procurement process with those finns.
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 and of September 2008, followed by final
selection and negotiations.
4.2.3 City of Sacramento, CA
In August 2OO7,the ' ofSa nento,CAissuedanRFQ soliciting an experienced
and qualified firm to partner with itto process MSN 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 MSVV in excess ofwhatthe City currently disposes
of, approximately 2,300 TPQ 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 wide range of useful by-products that could be
marketed for revenue sharing bv 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 atechnica| evaluation of the responses
and went to the Council to request an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement
(ENp\ ) 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 connnnenoie| level (Westinghouse Plasma Corporation). A
decision on the implementation of the project is expected in the near term.
4.2.4 KBrowmard County, FL
The 8n»vvand County Solid Waste Disposal District ( in ]uk/ 2007 was
considering changes to its solid waste management infrastructure in the near term.
Because its disposal contracts with two privately-owned VVTE 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/CO8027-01 19 August 15, 2008
meet all or a ofthe District's future solid Waste processing and |
'
requirements, and that were consistent with its long-term objectives. While this was
not procurement, it was understood that information obtained during the process
would be used to support future procuramnent(s)'
The expressions of interest were due bv October 2OO7, and 35vendors responded to
the REFI. To date The Bn»vxand County Solid Waste Disposal District, Resource
Recovery Board has received all the expressions ofinterests 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 VVTE solutions.
Negotiations for a contract extension are taking place with VVhedabrator, and a
decision to move to forward is expected |n2OO8.
4.2.5 St. Lucie County, FL
On April 30, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners, Sc 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 MSVV for St' Lucie
County. The due date for the qualifications was May 2OO6.
There was only one mnttotheRFOkssuedbvtheCounty:] a.
Asof November 2007, the development contract has been signed, and the County is
moving fo'--- with the project. The developer plans to process 3,000 TPO,
genenating -- 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 hoconstruct. Construction is slated to begin in G - 8 months pending
4.2~6 Hawaii County, HI
In 1995, the County started searching for alandfill replacement. After searching for
more than a decade and spending about $1 million, it selected VVheelabrator
Technologies Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary ofHouston-based Waste Management
Inc. VVhee|abrator emerged from a field of three finalists, including Covanta, which
runs HPovveron Oahu, and L-Con Contractors, a partnership with 8adovv Projects,
Inc ' In January 2OO8, the County received abe�-and-fina| offer from Vhem|abrator. In May, the County Council voted against the 650 TPO project because of the
estimated
$12.5 million cost, leaving the County with no plan for dealing with Hilo-
area trash after 3O12.
4.2,7 Pinellas County, FL
Pinellas County had three companies bid on the contract to operate the existing VVTE
plant. The process began with an RFQto pre-qualify fimms. The three firms that were
pre-qualified all submitted bids. Those respondents were Wheelabrator, Covanta and
Veo|ia The bid went out in September 2006 for an operator replacement for an
existing 2,000 ton per day plant and was awarded toVeo|ia in January 2007. Veo|ia
actually began operating the facility effective May 7,2OO7.
4.2.8 Hillsborough and Lee Counties, FL
Two operating mass-burn vvatervvaU facilities in Florida began expansions in 2007. In
Lee County, the 1200 TPD plant will add a third line with a 636TPD capacity, using
the same Covanta technology as the two operating lines, at a cost of $123.2 million
2O August 15, 2008
G8E�CDQO��-01 ,
or $194,000 per ton of installed capacity. Hillsborough County sole-sourced to
----nta a new GOOTPD 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
,OOO
per installed ton of capacity. The project is expected toba completed, tested
and accepted bv the County in July 2OO9'
4.2.9 Fairbanks North Star Borough, AK
The Fairbanks North Star Borough (F0BB) is soliciting proposals for optimizing the
management of the MGVV stream. The F |SG is seeking a long-term partnership to
innp|annant a method for economical disposal of the community's y4SVV while
returning energy savings to the Borough - with an emphasis on waste reduction,
recycling and VV[Eoptions. Proposals were due May 39,2OO8.
The following dates represented the FNGB's beet 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/September2000
Assembly Approval of Contract Award Septennbe[/Oc±ober2OO8
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 isreached.
4.2.10 City of Tallahassee, FL
The City of Tallahassee, FL, aPubUc 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 PlSVV 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 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 3007. To data, 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 2D1O.
GBB/CO8027-01 21 August 15, 2008
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 in some way for consideration as
waste processing solutions for the local entities. These 70 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 tech no|ogies/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 bum, represented by Covarta and
VVheoabratmr, who have the most commercial experience of any of the vendors
listed. Second on the list is gasification firm IVVT, which employs the Thannooe|ect
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 depo|ynnehzotionfirm. While this review isnot
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 |andfi||ing MSVV.
Table 4-1. TechnoUogies/VendomsMentioned in Recent Procurements
Vendor-designated
Technology
Vendor
Total
Times
Cited
Mass Burn
Covanta Energy Corporation
7
Mass Burn
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.
5
Anaerobic Digestion,__
Systems
Anaerobic Digestion
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. (WRSI)
4
Anaerobic Digestion
Arrow Ecology and Engineering_
3
Anaerobic Digestion
Urbaser
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
I Thermal Depolyrnerization
I Changing World Technologies
3
GBB/C08027-01 22 August 15, 2008
5.0 Opinion on Economic Feasibility, Effectiveness,
and Environmental Issues of Waste Processing
Technologies
5.1 Economic Feasibility 0f Waste Processing Technologies
t��hnokxz��, including capital
The economic characteristics of the waste processing ~/
and operating costs and risk, are sumnnnah Generally, �adin�mb|�Ar�inAppandi�A. �n�na||y,
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 m 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 recyc|ab|es. 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 pnocu rem ent/deve|oprnentand 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 VVTE strategy for the future management of �o MG\N that is not
neduced/' used/recvced, a representative preliminary project pro forma Operating
Statement was prepared. By deriving an order-of-magnitude cost per ton for the
�ir and disposal of»4SVV using a waste processing technology, the County
processing p
can oo-- a -- e 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/watemva|| 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 VVTE 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 ofsingle-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
1 Lower financing �os��' Tax-exempt debt is generally less costly than
' private debt-equity structures, even if the private portion of the
financing io 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 iniUa|finandng, usually 2O-
' |d still b the owner of the plant, reaping the benefit 3Oy�ars,the�ountywou a �
of lower disposal costs without debt service payments, and not subject to
market pricing by a private mwneropenator. 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 capaoity.
Of course/ the actual procurement method should be the result of an open
procurement process with several alternatives open to proposers bo suggest asthey
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 tone per year, which equals an availability of
' ----'
about 80 percent.
The remainder of the annual waste generated would need
to be transferred
and | a dfiUed; a cost of $50.00 per ton has been assumed
for bypass.
2 Ash Generation/Disposal. Using a rule of thumb, 35 percent of the annually
' ''
processed waste /^21,900 tons) would remain as ash after the thermal
recovery process. e
ash can be disposed at landfill at $50.00 per ton but
may have to be di- posed separately from the bypassed waste in an ash noro� fi'|| ' If found tobe hazardous, ash would need to b eseparately disposed
of as a hazardous waste. The cost of such ash management would be in the
range o `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 sot at $150,000 per ton of
installed capacity or 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 a||-in cost of financing
using revenue bonds was estimated at S percent for 25 years, an annual
financing factor ofO.OG51, bringing net annual debt service to $3.99 million.
4 Electricity Revenues. The n�� amount of electricity generated from the
' t 3�O kilowatt-hours per ton
system, excluding in-plant use was s et a kilowatt-hours
processed. The assumed price of the electricity sold was $O.O6 per kilowatt-
hour, which is typical of what many plants receive for their electrical sales.
electrical "|ec±rica| 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
5' Materials Revenues. Ferrous metals can be recovered from the bottom ash and sold as scrap on the open market' It va sassumed that 2 percent ofthe
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.
G. 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 baas presented in Table 5-1'
Table 5-1. Pro Forma Annual Operating Statement
Revenues
Electricity $1,839,600
Ferrous Recovery ¢140,160
Total Revenues $1,979,760
Costs
Operating &Maintenance
Ash Disposal
ByPaeaDispmsa|
Annual Debt Service
operator Revenue Sharing
Total Costs
$4,993,200
$1,095,000
&66O,O0O
$3/}91,D76
$183,960
$10,923,236
Net Cost $8,943/476
Net Cost/Ton $102.09
The a���uo���e��|�yw�|dne��bei����� and �m0U�. T�
estimated produced is projected at $50 per ton in Table 5-1'
The cost per ton is quite sensitive to the phma of electricity. For example, if|tcould
be assumed that electricity could ba sold for $O,O9 per kilowatt-hour instead of¢O.OG
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 VVPT will have some residual in need of disposal, when discussing
effectiveness of VVPT/ 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|andfi||ing is scarce and several countries have banned landfills, the
GBB/CO8027-01 25 August 15,2OO8
ash is processed torecyc e the ferrous and nonferrous metals and the remainder is
graded and used in road and other construction.
The biological processes produce residues aswell. These are of two types: (1) inert
residues that are |andfi||ad and ��l organic residues that be cured to he a soil
^ '
amamendment or compost. Biological VVPT 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 therna| options and theanaerob
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, VVTE ash must be tested to ensure it is non-
hazardous' The test iscalled the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)'
Genera||y, thebottornash has not been dassifiedasa hazardous rnataria|,subject tu
ash testing and analysis. Fly ash, however, will have a higher concentration of heavy
�
neta|sand may also contain residual organics. As such,
it would ||he|y be classified
sa hazardous material if it fails toxicity
testing, unless itiacombined with bottom
ash, as is the current U.B. practice.
It should be noted that communities with aggressive, comprehensive recycling
programs and programs focused on removing tm«icsfrom the MSVV stream, such as
those to divert used electronics (e-wastal, household hazardous waste (HHVV),
nnercurytherrnonnetans,fluorescent light �x±~res,batteries, various metals and white
goods and the like, could be expected to have a post-diversion 4S
V stream for
combustion containing less toxic materials and thus the ash from combustion to have
a lower po bantia| to exhibit hazardous characteristics upon 7CLPtesting.
The solids residual from high temperature systems, such as plasma-arc or
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 O||.
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 ibsno which is nonno||y directed to a solid waste landfill. However,
digestion, like combustion, is a concentrating process. This is the result of the
converted to s and utilized or released into the atmosphere.
organicnmatt�rb�|ng ozn«�i the gas
will be part of the residue but in a higher
As a result toxic materials n � wo
concentration than in the hg��a| feedstock. These claims are unproven in plants
operating using MSVVasfeedstock.
5.3 Environmental Issues of Waste Processing Technologies
5.3.1 Air Quality
5.3.1.1 Applicable Regulations
solid waste incinerators, vvhdl the U.S. EPA refers to as Municipal Waste
Combustors, are regulated under the federal Clean Air Act, originally passed by
Congress in 1969 and updated in 1967, 1970, 1977,1990 and 1995 and 1998'
Numerous city and local governments have enacted similar legislation, either
GBB/CO8027-01 26 August 15,2OO8
implementing federal programs or filling in kzca|k/ important gape 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 now source performance
standards
(0SPS) and regulate pollutants. For thermal destruction of solid waste/ the NSP5
control particulate attar (PM), su|furdioxide/53ol, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
oxides (NO,), hydrogen chloride (HC�|)" dioxins/hn~no cadmium, lead, mercury,
fugitive ash and opacity. 0B�� are detailed in Chapter 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 60 (40 CFR Part 60), an d are intended primarily to establish
nninirnurn 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 (H4Ps). These pollutants
include asbestos ~ benzene, beryllium, inorganic arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and
vinyl chloride. National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NEBHAPs)
are detailed in
CFR Part 61 and establish rnininnunn nationwide requirements for
existing and new facilities.
The post-199ONBH/require the maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
for
ap" rbou|ar industrial source category, and are often referred to as "MACT
s""n"a"^"'" The pno-19S- Clean Air Act prescribed a risk-based chenica|-bv-chen|ca|
approach. The 1990 Clean Air Act Anendnenta outlined a new approach with two
main ain components. The first component involves establishing techno|ogy-basad
source category standards, and the second component involves addressing any
significant remaining risk after the national standards are in place. The NESHAPa
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
111 112
emissions limits applicable to new Municipal Waste Combustors are:
0oxin/funan�C[JO/CDF� 13nanognarns per dry standard cubic rneter
Cadmium �C ` ^ 10 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
Lead (Pb) ^ -' 140 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
Mercury ^ � ^Hgl 50 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
" ~'
Particulate Matter . ^ �PM� 20 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
Hydrogen chloride 25PPy�or95 percent reduction
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) (HCl) ' 3Oppmnor8O percent reduction
Nitrogen Oxides ^/N xl 180 pprn dry volume, and 150 pprn dry volume after
first year ofoperation
A new source review (NSA) permit is naqu|nad 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 ofa VVTEfaci|ity on Long
Island, NY. This chemical, toxic to animals in even very small quantities, was
considered a major pollutant. Other VTE plants were tasted , as well as other
GBB/C08027-01 27 August 15, 2000
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
4,500 4,173 3,998
4,000 —
3,500
3,000
CV
LLS 2,500
2,000
1,500
UJ 1,000
577
366
500
40.6 12.0
7
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
.Toro
pl-
tz
40.0
30.0
LU
5 20.0
2
M1011
MR
Year
05
91TIN
14 Emissions from Large MWC Units at MACT Compliance, Docket A-90-45 (Large MWCs), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Is Ibid.
GBB/C08027-01 28 August 15, 2008
5.3.2 Water
Mass-bum and RDFimdneration technologies e�W���������m �U
- h
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, nd cooling towers or cooling water ponds are provided as part of the
facility. 'Airu»o|ed condensers are an option, but they increase capital costs and
reduce net power production.
If the energy is going toasteam 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 rnayongenerate steam and
electricity for sale, such as district heating/cooling projects or those with a significant
steam user in proximity of the VVTE facility site.
Technologies ouch . asgasification and anaerobic digestion will not necessarily use a
t� stream for use off-site and not require a condenser
bo||�r. Theyrn�yg�nena aga�
cooling watarsystenn. They may utiUzethe gas to povvera turbine orpiston engine.
=
These approaches are n ot i'n' harent vabsrus�na,
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 recyded' 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.
OBB/CO8027-01 29 August 15, 2008
6.0 opinion on Which Waste Processing Technologies
Should Be Considered for Orange County
Of the vxeote processing technologies examined, only \NTE is a proven technology
which could be recommended for implementation consideration bv Orange County at
this point in time. As mentioned earlier, there are 09 VVTE plants generating power
in the U.S. and hundreds worldwide. The other technologies discussed are in various
stages ofdevelopment.
The alternative technologies are not mature enough to mitigate the risks potentially
inherent with their implementation:
• Risk of technical failure -Tho'tachno|ogyisunproven.
• Risk of pricing uncertainty - Should the: County enter into a purchasing
agreement with a vendor for a VVFT, the ultimate price paid may be much
higher than that ind|oated in the proposal.
• Risk of environmental non-compliance - The technology's environnn�nta|
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 co at to process a ton of waste at VTE facility in ]range
`
County is�1O2. To�mnpn ethaeoznornicsofuti|izingwasteprooessingtechno|ogy,
-
Orange County would need to pa rtn�rwith an adjacent connunity . The $102 1O2perton
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 |andfi||ing at a
investigates th stof
remote 'ibais unlikely toneach$1OOperton. As the County eoo
transfer and disposal in preparation of its landfill closing, VVP[ 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 \NTE plant feasibility study which considers both mass-burn and modular
technologies, and/or fuel production approaches.
GBB/CO8027-01 30 August 15, 2008
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
-x-161 — w_i Cirmc Fw:%hiatpd by Recent Waste Processing Studies or Procurements
Technology
Jurisdiction
G�
y��
\0y
Qr
\os
�Ae
Qr °�
cci
d�°
Q,ca
crl
O�
Q,ca JcA•
p°
��
trO
,
� °•
aG °JCrI'�'�±'�c•�1•��aa
Qv
Qv
�, `Ja
Vendors
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Global Environmental Technolo ies
X
1
1
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Consulech Systems LLC
X
1
Advanced Thermal Recycling
Basic Envirotech Inc.
X
2
Aerobic com ostin
Wright Environmental Management Inc. (Wrighti right
X
X
1
Aerobic composting
American
X
1
Aerobic composfln2
Horstmann Recyclingiechnik GmbH
X
1
Aerobic Digestion
Mining O anirs
X
1
Aerobic Digestion
Real Earth Technologies
X
1
Aerobic Digestion
American Bio-Tech
X
1
Aerobic Digestion
HotRot orts Ltd, or Outspoken Industries
X
1
Aerobic Digestion intemational
Bio Recovery Corporation IBR
X
3
Anaerobic Di estion
Arrow Ecology and Engineering
X
X
X
2
Anaerobic Digestion
Canada Composting
X
X
1
Anaerobic Digestion
Kame/DePlano
X
1
Anaerobic Digestion
New bio
X
1
Anaerobic Digestion_
O awodd
X
2
Anaerobic Digestion
Organic Waste Systems
X
X
1
Anaerobic Di estion
VAGRON
X
X
4
Anaerobic Digestion
Valo a S.A.S. alo a /Waste Recovery Systems
X
X
-
X
1
Anaerobic digestion
Canada Composting, Inc. CCI
X
1
Anaerobic'di estion
organic Waste Systems N.V. (OWS)
X
1
Anaerobic digestion
ISKAGmbH
X
1
Anaerobic digestion
Arrow Ecology Ltd. Arrow
X
1
Anaerobic digestion.
Cilec
X
X
X
2
Anaerobic digestion
Global Renewables/ISKA
X
X
4
Anaerobic Digestion
Waste Recovery Seattle, Inc. RSI
X
X
X1
X
X
3
Anaerobic Digestion
Urbaser
X
1
Composting
Zenker
X
1
Com paring
RRI - Switzerland
2
Gasification
SRI Energy
X
X
1
Gasification
Dynerology
X
X
X
X
3
Gasification
Ebam
1
Gasification
Ecosystem Projects
X
1
Gasification
Emerald Power/Isabelia Ci
X
1
Gasification -
GEM America
X
1
Gasification
ILS Partners/ romex
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
Gasification
Interstate Waste Technolo iesnbermoselect i
1
Gasification
Jov Theodore Somesfalean
X
1
Gasification
Kame /DePiano
X
3
Gasification
Taylor Recycling Facility
X
X
X
1
Gasification
Thermo enics
X
2
Gasification
Primene RRA
X
X
1
Gasification
Omnifuei /Downstream Systems Omn
X
3
Gasification
Whitten Group /Entech Renewable Energy System
X
X
X
1
Gasification
Energy Products of Idaho (EPI)
X
1
Gasification
Bri htstar Environmental
X
1
Gasification
Omnifuel Technologies, Inc.
X
1
Gasification
Green Ener Co
X
X
1
Gasification
Envire el
X
1
Gasification
Zia Metallurgical Processes, Inc.
1
Hydrolysis
Arkenal Fuels
X
1
Hydrolysis
Biofine
X
1
Hydrolysis
Masada O nol
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Mass Bum
Covanta Energy Corpora tion
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
Mass Bum
WheelabmtorTechnologies Inc.
X
X
1
Mass Bum
Veolia Environmental Services
2
Mass Bum
Se hers Ke el Technolo , Inc. Se hers
X
X
1
Other Thermal Microwave
Molecular Waste Technologies. Inc.
X
X
3
Plasma Gasification
Global Energy Solutions
X
X
1
Plasma Gasification
GSB Technologies
X
1
Plasma Gasification
Peat Intemational/Menlo Int.
X
2
Plasma Gasification
Rigel Resource Recovery and Conversion Company
X
X
1
Plasma Gasification
Solana Group
X
1
Plasma Gasification
Starlech Environmental
X
X
2
Plasma Gasification
Geo lasma LLC
X
1
Plasma Gasification
Plasma Environmental Technologies, Inc.
X
1
Plasma Gasification
Plasco Energy Group
X
X
1
Plasma Gasification
USST
1
pyrolysis
Entro icTechnologies Corporation
X
3
roi sis
Pan American Resources
X
X
X
Z
Pyrolysis
WasteGen Ltd. /TechTrade asteGen
X
X
1
Pyrolysis
Con it Industries
X
1
Pyrolysis
Gmveson Energy Mana emant
X
X
3
Pyrolysis
intemationai Environmental Solution
X
X
1
Steam Classification
BLT/Wodd Waste Technolo ies
X
3
Thermal De o lymerization
Changing World Technolo
I X
I
X
X
1
Thermal O ddalion
Zeros Technology Hoidin
X
Footnote:
r ------ _..1....1u...a .. ......,1,s,.sa
--1 1n In—I °°vemment
GBB/C08027 -01 A -1 August 15, 2008
Im
0
"6
c
u
0
I-
Im
0
CL
0
U
m
m
O
c
E
E
A
w
0
0
r1l
9
N
r,
C,
C"
>
IS
0
Z;
PEE
a
w
. C,
25
E
u
u
-2 -06
E m w p
E'@
w' m -
OB
E
W
'u
E
'M u E
c E
c
u n
c
MMU2: 2
E
Ou
�.2 E
ME
iZm w E
�O�R 0
'u
�E
w
=;u
o
a
U E
a
o
u o
UA
a
a UR
c
0 Mj= a
a
'-' M.
Pam
0 a -a
E - - r' 9
win 41
w in E
- 6 -.
CL 4)
>
a p
=
u M
a w w w
u
r- Qj
>
2=
0
a r
E 0
o o M W E
W.T
m
Mm Z
0
Mm M
n
M9
m
-
g:
E 0
m. u
U, U
C C
m :SE
.16 a
-ro
E
0 0 a
a
w ,
a M 0
co
0 0'
E w 4:�
12: u Zu
F)
U2
�; - o
T 0
0
u
a.
SSE- o
�c tcn'
B ton
-
m in
T
B . m Vi=m
-iG
a
-r, w
x
Iz
5E-m
(U rn
M
w -C B
0 w 'd
:1 0
B a
-C 0
0
0
to w >
0 x -0
N
0 2 07-2
.
cd Ln,6
mE
z 2 w
. >
m 'm
11
>
u
m
E.8 E 4&0
4plo
E E i!
E
EE
A m >
0
8
M rn
w
V
ul
Ln
V
W
co
C
m
0
u
B !3
a
u
S M
P
0 4r,
8
u
41r
B
B
ocwc
B
03
=.a
�n C,
w
M
maven Eo
mavm
u
1;
w
,w
.
�E
0 r'4
> 0
E 0. w.
>
E
0
0
p
w
0 w
O.
P:g 2
:5
-voi - -g
m
- -
�wl
2 w
COH
0
U a w
u t7m
0 m
a.!
0
M.
r-
UO .=w
-'a
12 E T w
a E
W
8-,.n GG
m
,
12 0
C
- w
a
Cd 0
Ic -0
r
WU
u: 0
aAa
t rz
, C� , 0
a
E �-wa: a
w- L .11.1
(v 03
'a
E
o
RAM
2 Ei
RAM
M
2
0
IA 2;5
2. a w
>
. w -r . M
.,m -F.
0 a
-ui
0
inBz
E m
N
M -=
E m m
E "m C
W
Zo mm
2 =1 =
-1 r
a
M R
w
w
3
'E
(U L3
U)
2: OE
W
0 M
C) E
0 a
o w .0
<.Om f
Z"
>
0
w
c
(V 0
>
(U
acid
r W E
u
8
U.c
>
0
w u
a 2
a)
= 2
C.c W
UR
I rc-u
fa
'm
M
M=
E
E
75
E �32 E
r,
E -:5
5 1.) B
ME
D=
0
0
MBM
XIB
w 4)
w
x
W.W w
:F
'Ei
B�
u
ozo
C,
-6 u
m
m 42 F-
m m
F-
tn _M
rl
2
w
±e
F-
O
f, - "
Cl
V
O
C,
M
m
'01
a
-m 0
B
9"
.2 r
I
E 2:
>
75 0
w a
-5 :3
Q! -
5
E U)
Mz
'CL
73 F-
23 11
is
N
OM
-0
0 M
�0 w
0
u a
to
750
wm
M
0 2
9 m:
Z F-15
z
2: [Lt!
UT F-
w
Cc' CD
" -5
(U'o
a
w
a mw
o T
0
w r
. I -
w
te
3::, . C.
'.
a w
- a
e
E
-0
E
3-1 2
th g
>• C
0
i
M
0
c
fi > ME
w 2
8 m
- CW
3:
th m
- uj
r, �
E
0
u
a
00
Ev f w
a -) E
a
0 3:
r. in RE
2: LU
chs
U m
w
E >.
rZ5
1) ME
U.
M
~
uc
m > E
tn 0 8
mz ±4
X CA 8
a
rl
Ch tn
om
2.
-
w
w
-0
cu
u r
12
x
m .0
V
a-o= w
M
om
w
u
(U 15
. E
'!
B
. E
V
a <
R
om
0 w E
Fu
ti 0
M
M r
m
o
-0 u
th J2 w C,
o
0 0
0
w
w
'a w
mp
-0
t2
B
In @ a
2
w
2
P E
am�
B
u
ME
-� a a
I m'm
M-0 a
R-
'Ow OM
E:;
E r w w o
G
-0 m
uw -0
2
r
5 - a E
w
C)
0:5 ,
"r >
.0
m W" 0
Pu
B
U. 2'
�
IW2 -x W.
-w . 2
I -
m w -rw-
m u
a
c
I � �
2
0 , w w
MW
E49
ml E
U"
in 16 - 5
'n t 0, E
w >0
two
Ou
CL T ,
w 1.
'm
T
m= T
z w CL
m
w
2 tn >= mu
2: 0
Ln u
p E!
12
c-0
?: r
-
w
w 0,
W - .
B
v it
0
w >
16
E m
a)
th
5z�
0
Z E
w
Z .
> 'a n
w
umu
-W
w
2
70
2 m -
0
12
u
E t
m
w a)
a g=t'B
�
T Eg.
P-6 �w
�2- B tj
> w
w a m
w >
lw mc.
Ma
6 tit lw
3ZO-0 w
'a Ls 76
u
c 0 0 ma
E E
E
=1
_0
z o w 0
w
m
0
m
m 0
A
0
2 V
0)
E
G
.
w
U. -a
Q
U)
m
@
IL
w
0
0
r1l
9
N
r,
C,
Overview of Waste Processing Technologies (WPT)
GBB/C08027 -01 August 15, 2008
Appendix B
Overview of Waste Processing Technologies (WPT)
1~1 ""Proven" Technologies
Waste has been converted to beneficial use on o large scale for well over 100 years.
vv�h electric was first to M5VV in 1894 in New
Incineration ( known as
York City. Sinoathattirn�,theburningofi�SVV vv�henergYnecmvery^no�
~~ '' -
VTE) 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:
: This is the controlled combustion of organic or inorganic
waste with more than the ideal air /stoiohiornethc1 requirement - excess air - to
assure that complete burning occurs.
Starved air incineration utilizes less air than conventional
incineration, " and it produces similar in appearance
to that from a conventional
incineration process. The -� so� that result are burne d in a second chamber. The
lower air requirement leads to
smaller equipment sizes. This process, however, is an
incineration process.
Refuse-derived Fuel (RD : An RDF system processes waste by shredding it and
removing " '~''~~~ metals ' in preparation for combustion. The -removal of non-
combustibles can increase the specific heat content by over 1O percent and can allow
for revenues from the metals removed.
It has been found that recycling, the nmost /neferrod waste mnanagenment option aside
from waste reduction, increases when VVT� exists in the United States as well as in
other countries' As shown in 8�Cmz�'s "2OO6 State of G
arbage in America," (http'//wvw' jgpnyss.00n/archives/_ƒree/OOO84 Q . ht |), mo st of the states with large
rates have recycling rates higher than the national recycling
energy recovery percent.' These recycling rates range from 43 percent in Minnesota
av�ragec��m'� p� .
�-- ' - l to percent in Connecticut
(where 21 percent of the waste is burned for energy) pa
^whe°= O5 percent of the waste is burned for energy). North Carolina illustrates the
!,ve-~- with 19 percent recycling and '9 percent combustion for energy'
inverse with
where VVTE exists, there is greater public awareness of waste disposal
and the need to deal with waste reduction overall.
Other methods of MBVV disposal, such as mixed-waste composting and |andM||ing,
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. Landfi||ing 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 potentasoarbon dioxide, which is generated from VVTE), and creates other
---�
1 BI Cycle includes recycling, composting, yard waste, VVTEand|andfiUod|ecdoninhsfigures -
EPA reports MGV from a slightly different source. They include coUactonrecaiptsfordonest^
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 byB�Vg6e is reflected in the difference in recycling
rates in the United ~States in 2006, which is reported es32.596 by EPA and 28.596 byBioc���.
GBB/CO8027-01 B-1 August 15, 2008
environmental impacts, like uncontrolled discharge of |eachate that may pollute
groundwater sources.
\0TE 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 WrE 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. Th�techno|ogyisw�||te��dandisusadnmorathananyntharforVVPT
' Table B 1 illustrates the use of VVTE
� facilities in the United States and overseas. a -
technology throughout the world.
Table B-1. WTE Facilities Worldwide
Source: "The ZOO8IWSA Directory cnmmsue-ro-cner v rla"`=, ".=y...~ ,,.~~
Management Services Association website
Table G-2 illustrates the size and ownership ofVVTE facilities in operation in the
United States. Fifty-two percent of the facilities are owned by public entities,
�Vhee|abrabmrToc�' Technology (Waste Management Inc.) owns 13 percent, [�nvanta
�1 '''--=nt^and other private firms own 13 percent. Private
Energy owns percent,
companies own more of the larger facilities.
Table B-2. WTE Facilities in the United States
Size
(Ton Per Day)
Number of
Amount of MSW Managed by WTE as a,
Location
Facilities
% of Total MSW Generated —
12.5% based on MSW reported by U.S. EPA and
USA
89
BioCycle's data
500-999
400
Varies from country to country
Europe
1,000-1,999
11
Japan
100
70 to 80%
6
12
is
Other nations (Taiwan,
70
Varies from country to country
89
Source: "The ZOO8IWSA Directory cnmmsue-ro-cner v rla"`=, ".=y...~ ,,.~~
Management Services Association website
Table G-2 illustrates the size and ownership ofVVTE facilities in operation in the
United States. Fifty-two percent of the facilities are owned by public entities,
�Vhee|abrabmrToc�' Technology (Waste Management Inc.) owns 13 percent, [�nvanta
�1 '''--=nt^and other private firms own 13 percent. Private
Energy owns percent,
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
101-499
14
5
19
500-999
8
17
25
1,000-1,999
11
9
20
2,000
6
12
is
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/CO8027-01 B-2 August 15, 2008
Table B-3. 0V.S.WTE Plants by Technology
iiiart
Operating
Daily Design
Annual Capacity 1
Technology
Plants
Capacity (TPD)
(Million Tons)
Mass Burn
65
71,354
22.1
Modular
9
1,342
0.4
1988
electricity
Covanta Arlington-Alexandria, Inc.
3000
RDF-Processing &
10
15,428
4.8
Combustion
NASA and City of Hampton/City o f Hampton
240
RDF-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
_�u`al . C;pacity 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.
2 Total Plants includes RDF Processing facilities that do not generate powe r on site.
Source: J.V.L. Kiser and M. Zannes, Integrated Waste Management Services Association, April 2004.
In the region, 1OWTE facilities currently processing almost 12,000 TPDof
MSW. Table 8-4 describes those plants.
Ft-,d- WTE Plants in Region
Location
North Carolina
New Hanover County
South Carolina
Charleston
Virginia
Alexandria
Fairfax County
Hampton
Harrisonburg
Portsmouth
Maryland
Baltimore
MarfbpdCounty
|
Montgomery County
_
Size
iiiart
Energy Product
Owner/Operato�_
(TP
Date
500
1984
electricity'
New Hanover County
600
1989
steam &electricity
AT&T/Montenay Charleston RRI
975
1988
electricity
Covanta Arlington-Alexandria, Inc.
3000
1990
electricity
Covanta Fairfax, Inc.
NASA and City of Hampton/City o f Hampton
240
1980
steam
200
1982
steam & electricity
City of Harrisonburg
Southeastern Public Service Authority
John Hancock Life Insurance Company/
2250
1985
electricity
Wheelabrator Baltimore, L.P.
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal
360
1988
steam & electricity
Authority/Energy Recovery Operations, Inc.
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal
1800
1995
electricity
Authori!y/ Covanta Montgomery, Inc.
" originally built as a^sU am" plant, the facility now gcnzr zs". ===�~^..~~.
Source: integrated Waste Management Services Association
The following sections describe the basic types ofMBVV combustion technologies, all
of which have been in use for decodes in the U.S'
z New Hanover County G overnmen� Department of Environmental Management websita.
B-3 August 15,2OO8
1.1.1 Mass-Surn/Waterwall Combustion
In mass-burn vvatarvvaU combustion, y�GVV i� placed directly into the system for
�incineration with no pre-processing except for removal of identifiable white goods
) Waste i� placed onto �
(refrigerators, washing machines, microwave ovens, occ''' with || built of water
^nsbe at the bottom of combustion chamber in a furnace vv walls grate
�s shown in Figure B-1. Air for combustion is forced through the grates
tubes, �fina air) and through parts in the sides of the combustion chamber (over-fire
.-
Figure B+1~ WaterwaUUFummace Sections
Half the heat generated from the burning waste is absorbed by the vvatenwa||s and
the balance heats water in the boiler, as shown Figure B-2.
3 Source: Babcock and Wilcox.
B-4 August 15,2OO8
Q.i� �� �~�
Fftd
Line i
S'ad
Ul
Figure B-2~ Typical Mass-Burn WaterwaUU
The off-gas exiting the boiler passes through an air pollution control system where
the majority of�|��is�mm� and isdi�a���n�ha����
atmosphere. VV -- is burned out to an ash |/ the furnace. Heat extracted from the
--' ^ ~~~-
watenwa||s and the boiler section generates steam vh|oh ^ in most facilities, is
directed to a turbine generator for electric power production. VVatenwa|| 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
b| efficient in the burnout of waste and in the
their operation, and �r� reasonably e
generation of energy.
1~1.2 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 13-
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/CO8027-01 B-5 August 15, 2008
Figure B-3. Typical Modular Combustion Sysneml
Less than the ideal �otoichkon�otrc1 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 vvestm 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 channber. With less air, the fans can bosrna||ar 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 fora
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 vvabenwa|| unite in waste
burn'outand 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 Fuel/Dedicated Boiler
RDF,inits simplest form, is shredded mBNwith ferrous metals removed. Additional
processing, such as screening, can be applied to the incoming waste stream to nanuve and recover glass, aluminum,
and other non-combustible materials.
Additional processing stages
may also be placed in the processing line, such as
sSource: Consutech Systems, Richmond, VA.
GBE/C08027-01 B-6 August 15,2OOQ
pelletizing. Pelletizing is the compression of "fluff" RDF into dense pellets generally
to be fired along
with |unnp coal. The pellet size depends on the size of the coal used
in existing power plants.
RDF production is 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 ~ e grate, nd the hot gases generated will pass through a wabanwa|| section and
then a boiler ` section. . This system is similar to the mass-burn vvatanwa|| facility
except in the nature of waste charging and burnout.
Figure B_4^ Typical RDF Combustion FaclDeys
The unique feature of RDF systems is in the 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.
^Sourca: Energy Answers Corporation.
GBB/C08027-01 B-7 August 15, 2008
Figure B-5~ Typical RDF Processing SchernatiC7
Other configurations may include additional separating equipment or exclude
trornnmeUs, 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 ofthe incoming waste stream is converted into ROFfor
the thermal process.
An advantage of this system is in the removal of nlete|a and other materials from the
waste stream. VVhUa 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 Pm|rn Beach, Florida, the
nominal ],OOO 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.
' ' | f nnbue�ib|�� the specific heat content of the RDF can be
With the removal o non-oo /
increased by 10 percent over the original y4SVV.
1.1.4 Fuel/Fluidized Bed
In this incineration process, 4BV is shredded to less than four inches mean particle
described in 1 3 � above) to produce the fuel
size (the / . . _- _.
^- bed f d i a vertical cylindrical furnaca
(see Figure B-5) 'before it is blown into a � o sand n ~
^mt air is also injected into the bed �orn below, and the sand has the appearance of
Hot fluid as hot air agitates the sand particles. Moisture in the RDF is
~ evaporated almost instantaneously upon entering the bad, and organics burn out
�vapo nn
'~^~~ — --- '—d in freeboard, ''thevoh rneabov�tha bed. Stearn tubes
both within the bed an n the u '
-
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.
r source: generic.
GBB/C08027-01 . B-8 August 15, 2008
Ded
(ye,fi=�i
4a �
lag m6 ran o""k,
Bas""mw
Figure B-6. Typical RDF Fluid Bed SystemB
Fluid bed incineration is more efficient than grate burning-based incineration ~
systems. The bad is very effective i n
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 PSV 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.
Ga�uuce�o ' Heating of organic waste to produce a burnable gas (approximately
id mix) for As long astheoff�
85 percent hydrogen and carbon monoxide rn�^ '
gas produced from the' system is usable and burned off-site, the system is gasifier,
not an incinerator. Typically, the energy in MSVV is both used to fire the systenn and
contained in the gas product.
' Aforrn of gasification where organic waste is heated without air. A gas is
z������ ' that i� burned in the gaseous phase, requiring much less oxygen than
generated
^''~^ '~ --'�'-- the ~ � generates a char, or depending on
conventional incineration. This process also gene , '
�"
the process temperature. (Fht is a glassy, g
nanuiar 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 aoanincinerator.
Plasma arc' ' Plasma arc refers to the means of introducing heat into the process.
Essentially " 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 |s classified aoanincinerator. If the system
8 5ource: Energy Products nf Idaho, Coeur DY\lene,ID.
GBB/C08027-01 B-9 August 15, 2008
generates an off-gas that contains burnable gases (e.g., hydrogen and carbon
monoxide) that can be used off-site,it can bo classified aaagasifier.
1.2.1 Gasification
Gasification is the heating ofan organic waste (MSW) to produce a burnable gas
(approximately 85 percent hydrogen and carbon monoxide mb') for use off-site-
While pyrolysis systems are primarily focused on waste destruction, a gasifier is
designed primarily boproduoa usable gas. As shown inHgunaB-7,Thernose|ect,a European firm represented in the U.S.
by InterCity Waste Technologies of
Malvern,
PA, has developed a system composed of 4OOTPD modules processing M5V.
Waste
Figure B-7. Typical Gasification Systern9
is fed into a gasification chamber to begin the heating process, after being
sufficient only to maintain the
cornpressedtonsrnoveentrapped air' Smrneoxygen,
eotad into t|' r�actor vvh�re
heat necessary for the process to proceed, |o /n] /e
temperatures in excess of3,OOO»Fare generated. At this high temperature, organic
materials in the y4SVV 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, etc., and
removed, and the gas can be used for power generation, heating,
' ,,"
or other purposes. Th e 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.
eSource: International Waste Technologies, Malvern, PA.
GBB/C08027-01 B-10 August 15, 2008
superheated St= Heater
40000
Fluidized bed
1,300-1,4001C
500-600V
Nan combust]es Molten slag
I StUMTUNne '
Econonuzer Air Bag Filter
Preheater
LJ
Figure B-S. RDF Fluidized Bed Gasification Systernlo
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 13-8) 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.
10 source: Ebara Corporation, Tokyo.
GBB/C08027-01 B-11 August 15, 2008
Figure B-9~ EnTechU»rocess
As shown in Figure B-9, 4SN is classified by combination bag breaker and gravity
separator process, termed a Kinetic Streamer. Oversize materials, which are
basically inorganic,are directed either to a plastics pecyder or a non-plastics etics
recycling station, while the majority of waste (presumably organic) is directed to
dryer to remove entrained moisture. The dryer utilizes the latent heat inherent in
and
the organic content of the waste to produce the heat necessary for to drive the
nn
gasification process. The syngas can be fired in e waste heat boiler r e
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 orcharcoal from wood. Both a char and a gas are
generated. The gas isburned out in e gaseous phase, requiring much less oxygen
than incineration. The char will usually melt at the temperatures within the pyrolysis
chamber and ||| b discharged along with a black gravel-like substance, termed frit'
n i the |ao� of air entering the chamber and the
Advantages of this process one
resulting smaller size of system components. Without air ' there is little nitrogen
have a h�en many
oxide generation and low particulate /sooO formation. . There e
attempts to develop this technology outside ^ 'a laboratory or a pilot plant. In full-
scale demonstrations in the 1870s, 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" MSVV 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 th e ma| 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 asanincinerator.
`1Souroe: Entach.
GBB/C08027-01 B-12 August 15, 2008
Water
Dried
organic
organic
<
6[
R si
si u
Syngas
Kinetic
Dryer
Gasifier
Streamer
Solid
Residue
Figure B-9~ EnTechU»rocess
As shown in Figure B-9, 4SN is classified by combination bag breaker and gravity
separator process, termed a Kinetic Streamer. Oversize materials, which are
basically inorganic,are directed either to a plastics pecyder or a non-plastics etics
recycling station, while the majority of waste (presumably organic) is directed to
dryer to remove entrained moisture. The dryer utilizes the latent heat inherent in
and
the organic content of the waste to produce the heat necessary for to drive the
nn
gasification process. The syngas can be fired in e waste heat boiler r e
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 orcharcoal from wood. Both a char and a gas are
generated. The gas isburned out in e gaseous phase, requiring much less oxygen
than incineration. The char will usually melt at the temperatures within the pyrolysis
chamber and ||| b discharged along with a black gravel-like substance, termed frit'
n i the |ao� of air entering the chamber and the
Advantages of this process one
resulting smaller size of system components. Without air ' there is little nitrogen
have a h�en many
oxide generation and low particulate /sooO formation. . There e
attempts to develop this technology outside ^ 'a laboratory or a pilot plant. In full-
scale demonstrations in the 1870s, 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" MSVV 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 th e ma| 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 asanincinerator.
`1Souroe: Entach.
GBB/C08027-01 B-12 August 15, 2008
FRDcEssFLOW DPJMW
Figure B-10~ Process Diagram of aPyrolysis System—
1,2.3 Plasma Arc
Plasma arc technology is a gasification ' that uses the intense heat generated
by a plasma torch to drive the process. Not energy generation is
not established
based on Japanese and European experience. Itisa pyrolysis- related process where
i
little or no oxygen is injected into a reactor. Atypi oa unit is shown in Figure 8-11 . .
Electric current is passed through o series of torches at the bottom of avnaaotor,
which heat process gas (not shown) to a temperature in excess of5,OOO F. This
«« - ^ ithin the over 3 �OO^F and, as air is provided
hotgasatr��nm heetswaat�w � '--
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
a|enenbo| compounds, such as hydrogen, oxygen end carbon, with some o f this
carbon converting tocarbon monoxide o r methane. The gas flow will have a high
_
enough'heat content to be able to ou��in its own combustion and b� used as a ru a|
gas external tothe 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
b itab|�for0U or use a� a construction residue orfh may ay � suitable
12 Source: Integrated Energy Systems, Inc, Rnmokand, CA.
1� �OO8
,
GB8/C08027-01 B-13 'my"=t
NISW IN
j rl
'L
CONTROLLED
CONTROLLED
Alk
AIR
PLASMA HEATING SYSTEM
PLASMA HEATING SYSTEM
Figure B-11. Cross-Section of a Plasma Arc Furnace 13
1.3 siologicall Fuel Production
Producing a"fuel" m�fmmo�an��ma�ra�inwas�bvb�ogca| �
��-- i U this fuel product takes the shape of
termed biological fuel production. Typically,
combustible gas or liquid formed when organic n ataho| in waste .breaks; down.
Decomposition of the organic portion of waste by microorganisms in the absence of
oxygen ' known as "anaerobic digesting,"creates methane (CH^) and other gases in
combination with about half the energy of natural gas. This bipgao can be used as a
fuel and burned for energy or power production directly. it can also be refinad.bu 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.
13Beoplasma, Atlanta, GA.
- August 2008
8 ,
GBB/CO8O2J-01 ' 14 ._�--
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 8 -12; however, steps 2, 3 and 4 are
shown in one stage or process. Abengoa accomplishes these steps in a single
reactor.
1. 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
son
������xmm��m������0 Plant 14
Figure B-12. Process Flow of the - _. ..~
2.
Hydrolysis
nn�edof long chaimsuf sugar nno|ecuhas. In order to
The cellulose nnu|eou|�san�corn,----
break the cellulose down into sugars, the hydrolysis process is employed. There are
two major cellulose hydrolysis processes:
al Acid hydrolysis - dilute add may be used under high heat and high pressure,
^ or more concentrated acid can be used at lower temperatures and pressure. A
deoryata|ized cellulosic mixture of add and sugars nnac±o in the presence of
water to complete individual sugar molecules (hydrolysis)-
bl Enzymatic hydrolysis - uses several enzymes at various stages of this conversion and has the advantage that |ignoceUu|oaic 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
G B-16 Augu��15,2OO8
BE�CO8O2�-01
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 a000np .. oneo with
membranes. The lignin also contains about half of the energy and can ba used asan
energy source for the process.
^&. Fermentation
Once the cellulose has been broken into sugars, microorganisms are used to ferment
the sugar and pnoducaethano|. Traditionally, baker's yeast has long been used in
the brewing industry to produce ethanol from hexoseo (6-carbon sugar). When
|ignoce||u|osic biomass ' 's hydrolyzed tm produce sugars, several sugars are produced
including xy|oee and mrabinose (5-carbon sugars). A s a result, specially engineered
microorganisms, mainly yeasts, have been developed and utilized in fuel ethanol
production from aa||u|mse'
S. Distillation
The liquid resulting from fermentation is separated from any solids and heated to
vo|at|ze the ethyl alcohol which is then condensed. The process is repeated to
increase the ethanol concentration. An adsorption technique may be used toremove
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:
• AbangoaEUoenergy
• 4Jico
° B|ueFineEthano|
°
China Resources Alcohol Corporation (CRACl
°
Dyadic International, Inc.
° GneenFie|dBhano|
~
Gulf Coast Energy
° IogenCorporation
° y4aacorna
� PC}ETBionefinery
°
Range Fuels
� Bun[)pta Inc.
°
Verenium Corporation
° Xethano|
1.3.2 BWogam
Roger Haug defines composting as "the biological decomposition and stabilization of
' -
organic substrates, under conditions that allow development of thernophUic
temperatures as a result of biologically produced heat, to produce a final product
that is stable, free of pathogens and plant seeds, an d can be beneficially applied to
land." Composting of M�V or a portion of MSV suc h as yard waste is usually
carried out in the presence of air (aerobically)
to produce a soil amendment and to
reduce the amount of MSV being deposited in
landfills. When composting is done in
the absence of air (anaerobically), the biogas produced contains a significant amount
Roger T. Haug, The Practical Handbook of Compost Engineering, Lewis Publishers, 1993.
Aug�at15 2OO8
GGE/CO8027-01 B-17 ,
of methane, about 50 percent. To capture this bkogas the process must be in a
closed vessel.
When anaerobic digestion is applied to the organic fraction of MSW, the primary
purpose- ofthefac|ity shifts from landfill diversion tobiogasproduction. There are
| nt� both in, h�torca||ythat have been
rnanyana�nobicdiges�|on p� .
plants --- ' ' �� Hoxvev�r, most of
installed produce and u�|i�� biogas as well aornanegea waste. ,
^--
these facilities utilize sewage sludge, anima| manures and other homogenous wastes
as feedstock. Very few utilize MSVVasafeedstock.
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
sane period to use anaarobio digestion to tat industrial effluents and agricultural
sludges, although there are a number of ��anp| �� dating back to the 1950s .
In the
last ten 'years or so in Europe, because of the introduction of requirement that the
separated organic fraction of »By be treated before landfill disposal, anaerobic
digestion has been adopted for this'urpooe. Anaerobic digestion has long been
popular in India where a large number of small and simple plants are in use
offering fa bas�d
s�
processing farm wastes. Currently, a nunnberofvendors are o rng rnm-
aternsin both Europe and the United States.
The process ofproducing biogasfionm y4S\N bv anaerobic digestion has similar steps
to the production of liquid b|ofue| discussed above. Tha process includes:
1 - A"pretreatn)ent" phase to make the organic material more available for
digestion bv 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
pro o'
processes on u�' 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 pendadgroxvth'
• U''mw and down-flow anaerobic attached growth,
• Fluidized-bed attached growth,
• UoOovv anaerobic sludge blanket (uaeb),
• Covered anaerobic lagoons,
�
Membrane separation anaerobic processes, and
° Dry process anaerobic digestion ofMSVV'
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 discharge treated effluent to specified water quality standard, and
biogas production may /
just incidental; or
2' To provide treatment ofa waste material, /n duding4By /
to make itsuitable
for diversion away from landfill, with biogas generation optimized for revenue
creation, and potential sales of fibrous and liquid fertilizer by-products.
GBB/CO8027-01 I B-18 August 15, 2008
Table 8-5 provides a list of vendors that are offering anaerobic digestion systems in
Europe and The table categohzesthe technologies ofhamad bv moisture
level, process -- —� temperature (nmeomphi|io |ovv temperature and thenmophi|ic high
tannperaral/ ndnunmberof ' gesof the process. The U.S. EPA nacen�ypublished
an industry ^directory for firms offering equipment and services in this technology. ^"
Table B_5. International Anaerobic Digestion and Blogas Vendors
Anaerobic
Digestion
F__ Wet
Wet
Dry
Dry
Wet
Wet
!Technology Provider Single-Stage:
Single-Stage
Single-Stage
Single-Stage
Multi-Stage
[Mesoph�ilic
Multi-Stage
Mesophilic
Thermophilic
Mesophilic
Thermophilic
Thermophilic
iArrowBio
jBTA
jCiTEC
GRL
Grontmij
iHese
-V
Passavant
IRosRoca.. -V
jWehrle
Mechanical-Biological-Treatment: A Guide for Decision Makers - processes pmiceoono nurxcu�i,Jux.w=
Consultancy Services, ZOU5
16 Industry Directory for On-Farm Biogas Recovery Systems, U.B. EPA, March 2008.
GBB/C08027-01 B-19 August 15, 2008
1,3.3 Anaerobic Digestion
As applied to the processing of MSVV, anaerobic digestion is a wet treatment process
vvhons waste is first pre-sorted and then fed into water tanks' Using agitators,
pumps, conveyors and other rnabsha|s handling equipment, MSVV is wetted and
dissolved. Metals, glass and other constituents of MSVV 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 bo sufficient to generate anoff-gas' The process is
shown in the schematic in Figure B-13'
Figure B-13. Process Flow for Anaerobic Digestion SyStemm 17
This gas is rich in methane and other organics and can be burned asa 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 gzi| 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.
ArnovvBio of Haifa, Israel, is an example of vendor that is offering to construct
anaerobic digestion facilities to process MSVV in the United States. They have
responded to procurements in Los Angeles and New York. They operate e 300 TPD
full-scale MSVVdemonstration process line in Tel Aviv, illustrated in Figure B-14' 17
The system operates without high temperatures or pressure. In theory, it is
en±nenne|y simple, relying on non-specialized mechanical equipment (pumps,
screens, macerators, tanks/ conveyors, etc.) for operation. Digestion occurs through
the presence of natural microorganisms in MSVV, 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 ofMSVV 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 snna|| fraction that it will have no
significant effect on digester cultures.
The system is equipment and labor intensive. A|thoUgh redundancy is normally built
into the system, with multiple process lines and duplication of critical pumps,
17 Source: ArrowBio, Haifa, Israel.
GBB/CO8027-01 B-20 August 15, 2008
conveyors, etc., additional equipment adds tothe number ofseparate 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 stnoarn' To combat this, a higher level of pre-
processing is being implemented so that future applications can operate more
Figure B-14.ArromNBiio Facility in Haifa
GBB/CO8027-01 B-21 August 15, 2008