Developing a Zero Waste Implementation Plan, Montgomery County, MD MRN/SWANA-MidAtlantic Annual Conference Maryland Recycling Network

Transcription

1 Developing a Zero Waste Implementation Plan, Montgomery County, MD 2014 MRN/SWANA-MidAtlantic Annual Conference Maryland Recycling Network Bill Davidson, DSWS, June 19, 2014

2 Key Thoughts Eye on the Ball (Sustainability) Systems View / Systems Approach Complementary Goals / Technologies

3 Sustainability IPCC Definition, Sustainable Development : Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Paraphrase: Don t make life more difficult for our kids.

4 Sustainability How do we know what will or will not make life more difficult for future generations? The knowing, itself, is difficult! e.g. Then I beheld all the work, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yea he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

5 Sustainability The world is a complex place

6 Sustainability The world is a complex place (system) Material and Energy Life-Cycle Flows and the Associated GHG Sources and Sinks Source:

7 Sustainability The world is a complex place Managing for Sustainability Requires a Systems Approach (Not stove pipe thinking) Consider three types of societal goals: Environmental Energy Economic Are these three societal goals fundamentally antithetical?

8 Sustainability Are these goals Fundamentally Antithetical? Environment Energy Economic

9 What do you think? Are these goals Fundamentally Antithetical? Environment Energy Economic

10 Sustainability Fundamentally Antithetical? Environment Energy Economic

11 Sustainability Fundamentally Antithetical? Consider How We Know What We Know: Frameworks of Explanation Technical Disciplines Language & Terminology Institutional Stove Pipes Environment Economic Energy

12 Sustainability Energy Environment Economics My Personal View: If these goals are fundamentally antithetical, then we are cooked. Carry out actions that appear to achieve with shared goals. When we see apparent fundamental conflicts among these goals, we need to work to clean our glasses.

13

14 The Solid Waste Management Hierarchy Reduce Reuse Recycle Waste-to-Energy Landfilling

15 Municipal Sold Waste (MSW) MSW is not homogeneous (not like water) MSW is heterogeneous MSW is everything in our culture Hey, that s a lot to manage! MSW comes into our hands with little of our say as to how it was manufactured or what is it comprised of We look upstream and lament, Waste is a design flaw.

16 MSW Composition For further details see References page on DSWS Website.

17 Basis for composition of disposed waste is the 2012 waste sorts reconciled to systemwide CY12 disposed and recycled tonnages*. Banned ER15-04 Waste Recycling by Material Type: Achievement and Opportunity Generated (tons) Single-Family Captured (tons) Capture Rate % Generated (tons) CY12 Actuals Multi-Family Captured (tons) Capture Rate % Generated (tons) Non-Residential Captured (tons) Capture Rate % Opportunity Disposed by Sector (tons) Single- Family Multi-Family Non-Residential Currently Disposed (Tons) Subtotal, Banned Components 239, , % 35,324 8, % 316, , % 60,844 29, ,068 Paper 92,355 59, % 18,180 3, % 134,171 80, % 32,888 14,837 53, ,338 Glass 19,252 16, % 4, % 14,485 6, % 3,234 3,952 8,318 15,504 Other Ferrous 12,294 9, % 2,154 1, % 71,988 68, % 3, ,768 7,627 Yardwaste 99,701 94, % 4,585 3, % 76,154 71, % 5,066 1,582 5,050 11,697 Narrow-Neck Plastics 8,226 3, % 3, % 9, % 4,772 3,161 9,730 17,663 Ferrous/Bimetal Containers 4,279 2, % 1, % 6,344 1, % 2,089 1,293 5,099 8,480 Aluminum Beverage Cans 1, % % 1, % ,579 3,167 Other Aluminum (Foil) 1, % % 1, % 1, ,262 3,034 Other Non-Ferrous Metal % % % Potential and Encouraged Food Waste 45, % 15, % 87,449 7, % 45,605 15,996 80, ,713 Shopping Bags 1, % % 1, % 1, ,209 2,735 Other Film Plastic 18, % 5, % 27, % 18,478 5,652 26,662 50,792 Plastic Flower Pots % % % ,023 Plastic Tubs and Lids 2, % 1, % 4, % 2,558 1,135 4,777 8,470 Other Rigid Plastic 5,232 1, % 2, % 10,252 2, % 3,923 1,855 7,320 13,098 Textiles & Leather (no Rugs) 13, % 4, % 9, % 13,479 4,683 9,796 27,958 Carpets / Rugs 1, % 1, % 12,181 8, % 1,344 1,144 3,288 5,776 Wood Waste (including Pallets) % % 5,973 3, % ,092 2,972 Whole Tires (as Rubber) 2,220 2, % % 4,030 2, % ,254 1,415 Lubricants (e.g. Motor Oil) % % % Electronics 5,107 1, % 1, % 6,889 1, % 3,336 1,934 5,539 10,809 Batteries % % 2,464 2, % Latex Paint % % % Tire Steel % % % No Markets Other Wood 4, % 1, % 8, % Other Glass % % % Disposable Diapers 10, % 5, % 4, % Other Waste 57, % 17, % 72, % RRF Ash 62,487 15,652 53,996 TOTAL 409, , % 94,298 24, % 576, , % 145,502 60, , ,541 Notes: Banned ER15-04: These materials are required to be recycled under Executive Regulation 15-04, and are banned from disposal in waste from all sectors. Potential and Encouraged: Markets vary for these materials. Although not subject to the disposal ban, recycling is encouraged for all materials for which there are available markets. No Markets: No existing or anticipated markets for these materials. 17

18 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Effects Material Type GHG Emissions per Ton of Material Recycled Rather Than Combusted (MTCO 2 E) GHG Emissions per Ton of Material Combusted (MTCO 2 E) Mandated for Recycling; Banned From Trash Can Recyclable Paper Glass Bottles and Jars Other Ferrous Yardwaste Narrow-Neck Plastics Ferrous/Bimetal Containers Aluminum Beverage Cans Other Aluminum (Foil) Other Non-Ferrous Metals Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Reference: USEPA WARM Model, Version 12

19 Recycling & WTE Target Different Types of Materials Mandated for Recycling; Banned From Trash Can Material Type Recyclable Paper Glass Bottles and Jars Other Ferrous Yardwaste Narrow-Neck Plastics Ferrous/Bimetal Containers Aluminum Beverage Cans Other Aluminum (Foil) Other Non-Ferrous Metals It would make little sense for these materails to go to a WTE Facility. Renewable Energy Generated per ton of MSW (kwh/ton) Mixed Municipal Solid Waste 576

20 System Wide Economics Under Full Cost Recovery Financing County Contract Refuse Collection for Homes In Lower Part of County (Service Provided Since WWII) Cost of Special Services (e.g. Curbside Recycling) Provided Just to Single-Family Homes, New in FY93 Base System Benefit Charge + Disposal Fee = Covers Basic Disposal System; Components Made Equally Available to Everybody About the Same

21 Haulers $ per Household Recycling Included Recycling Included (2/wk) (2/wk) (2/wk) Economics of WTE Helped Make Expanded Recycling Affordable Over the Years $350 $300 Curbside Recycling Begins Solid Waste Charge History FY93 - FY14 RRF Begins Operation August, FY96 = 1st Year of System Benefit Charges Under New System of Finance. Full Cost Accounting Revenues = Expenses (No General Fund Support) Separate Fee for Each Service $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $ Disposal Fee (on Tax Bill After 8-93) Base System Benefit Charge Incremental System Benefit Charge (Recycling) Refuse Collection *Beginning August 31,1993, haulers are no longer charged a Tipping Fee. Instead, homeowner pre-pays the Tipping Fee in Solid Waste Charge on property bill.

22 Environmental Aspects of WTE Thoroughly Assessed

23

24 Zero Waste Definition: is an ambitious, long-term goal to nearly eliminate solid waste sent to landfills and incinerators. - MD Draft Plan

25 In Montgomery County No MSW delivered to the County winds up using any permitted airspace in any landfill. Could there be better uses for the solid matter remaining after energy recovery? Of course! Should we endeavor to maximize recycling? Of course, and especially for the materials that we have banned from the trash cans. Meanwhile, Waste-to-Energy (WTE) should not be equated with disposal. WTE is an integral part of a systems approach to solid waste management system consistent with the goal of sustainability.

26 Possible Different Hierarchies For Different Types of Materials? Everything? Thing Group 1 Thing Group 2 Thing Group 3 Reuse Reuse Anaerobic Decomposition Reuse Recycle WTE Recycling Composting WTE + WTE + WTE Thing Group N Reuse Future Tech + Stable Carbon Reuse Sequester?

27 We Will Do Our Best With a Systems Approach MATERIAL FLOW DIAGRAM Fiscal Year 2013 C&D Exported by Private-Sector Collectors (Did not go through County Transfer Station) MSW Exported by Private- Sector Collectors (Did not go through County Transfer Station) 0 7 Market Private Sector Recycling, Various Locations 1 Total County Waste Generation 8 County Yard Waste Composting Facility, Dickerson, MD Compost Market 9 Materials Market Mulch Users KEY: 2 3 County Recycling Center (Drop- Off and MRF) Residue Local C&D Recycler Rubble Landfill, MD 4 Solid Waste Transfer Station, Derwood, MD 5 Non-Proc. Landfill, VA Waste-to-Energy Resource Recovery Facility in Dickerson, MD (Operated by Covanta, Inc.) Ash Recycling Contractor 1, 7 Audited or otherwise documented. Often based on truck scales of others. Data is from State-certified County truck scales Owned by County. Data is from State-certified truck scales, privately operated under contract to County. This color indicates C&D waste, which is not MSW, not eligible for recycling and is not to be included in recycling rate calculation.* 6b 6 6a a a Ferrous Market Ferrous Market Landfill Cover; Ferrous Market Landfill Cover; Ferrous Market Total Waste Generation, Including C&D Exported by Private Sector 1,343,365 County-Managed Waste (CMW) = a +6b ,197,974 MSW Generated (above less streams 4, 5 and 6a) 1,095,150

28 Many Technologies Are Needed

29 Future In Our Hands The world is a complex place. That we seek explanations for how the world works, and that we are capable of doing so, is uniquely human. Problems are solvable. David Deutsch

30 Key Thoughts Eye on the Ball (Sustainability) Systems View / Systems Approach Complementary Goals / Technologies

31 Bill Davidson, DSWS,