Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences Engineering School for Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment. University of Florida 2/10/2017 1

Transcription

1 Stakeholder Working Group Meeting Florida Solid Waste Management: State of the State February 10, 2017 Best Western Gateway Grand San Felasco Conference Room Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences Engineering School for Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment University of Florida 2/10/ Introductions 2/10/

2 2016 Research Agenda 1. What are the economics, feasibility and value of collecting glass containers? 2. How does the environmental and economic sustainability of AD compare with other alternatives such as landfill bioreactors or incineration? 3. Research using life cycle analysis and cost analyses for alternative collection vehicle technologies may provide decision makers with more information when these acquisition choices are being made. 4. Research is needed for economic comparison of (a) landfilling versus (b) single stream recycling versus (c) waste to energy. 5. What methodologies might do a better job than Life Cycle Analysis for analyzing and answering this question (are current waste management systems cost effective)? 6. Research is needed to compare the energy and carbon foot prints of various solid waste management techniques including, but not limited to, landfilling, waste-to-energy (WTE) by incineration, recycling (specifically paper and plastics where WTE is available), gasification and composting. 7. Research is needed to evaluate the economic feasibility of recycling C&D in different areas of Florida, for example, a large high-density urban county (e.g., Miami-Dade County) as opposed to rural counties (e.g. Baker County). 2/10/ Solid Waste Management: State of State Motivation and Justification: Market values for recyclable commodities are lower than they have been in years. Recovered material purchasers (e.g., paper mills) are demanding higher quality product while at the same time product quality from many materials recovery facilities (MRF) has declined with the predominance of single stream programs. The waste stream has evolved less newspaper, more composite packaging 2

3 Commodities Pricing Recyclables Commodity Pricing Monthly Averages Solid Waste Management: State of State Motivation and Justification: More efficient collection vehicles and strategies Waste management technologies that were historically never considered feasible are actively being pursued Gasification, anaerobic digestion, source separated organics Statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements drive additional recycling or landfill diversion Florida 75% recycling goal; required C&D recycling where economically feasible Landfill costs remain low Low Solids Anaerobic Digestion System for SSO in Toronto, Canada 3

4 Project Objectives Form a state-wide stakeholder working group and foster a dialogue on the state of solid waste Compile cost data from Florida municipalities Estimate materials flow and composition for the Florida solid waste stream Create a database of commodities pricing for recyclables 2014 Florida Waste Generation: FDEP Annual Reports Project Objectives Develop a series of specific waste management options (for Florida conditions) and conduct an economic and environmental assessment of different waste management technologies LCA tools + collected data Evaluate the economic viability feasibility of CDD recycling, as well as emerging waste management technologies, for different FL regions Develop a publically available summary document that outlines the findings and provides data Whitepaper Produced as Deliverable for Hinkley Combustion Recycling Project 4

5 Sustainable Materials Management SMM is a systemic approach to using and reusing materials more productively over their entire life cycles. It represents a change in how our society thinks about the use of natural resources and environmental protection. By looking at a product's entire lifecycle we can find new opportunities to reduce environmental impacts, conserve resources, and reduce costs. 5

6 Project Tasks The proposed research project is broken down into the following four tasks: Task 1: Establish Stakeholder Working Group Task 2: Compile Available Data on FL Solid Waste Management Economics Task 3: Develop Waste Economic and Environmental Scenario Evaluations Task 4: Summary Whitepaper: Florida Solid Waste Management: State of the State 6

7 Today s Goals Discuss the current numbers with respect to how much waste is produced, recycled,, and in Florida. Explore data gaps with respect to waste amounts, disposition, and cost. Examine opportunities and limitations to reaching the current State recycling goal, and discuss how SMM might be integrated into alternative goals. Identify research and data gathering targets. Agenda Activity Introductions, and Agenda MSW Management in Florida The Current Numbers Discussion Lunch Moving toward SMM Goals for Economic Data Project Benefits and Next Steps Adjourn Schedule 10:00-10:15am 10:15-10:30am 10:30-11:00am 11:00-12:00pm 12:00-12:45pm 12:45-2:00pm 2:00-2:30pm 2:30-3:00pm 3:00pm 2/10/

8 /13/2017 MSW Management in Florida 2/10/ Historic Florida Solid Waste Management 40,000,000 State of Florida SWM ( FY) 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 State of Florida SWM Generation 2/10/

9 Historic Florida Solid Waste Management 40,000,000 State of Florida SWM ( FY) 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000, Landfill State of Florida SWM Combustion State of Florida SWM Recycling 2/10/ Historic Florida Solid Waste Management FDEP Florida MSW Collected 2/10/

10 Historic Florida Solid Waste Management FDEP MSW Collected by Generator Type 2/10/ Historic Florida Solid Waste Management FDEP Florida MSW Management 2/10/

11 Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation July Resource Recovery and Management Act Created Resource Recovery Advisory Council to study resource recovery and make recommendations to insure that solid waste is recovered and recycled to the greatest extent practicable for continued use, and for use as a source of energy Required counties and municipalities to develop solid waste management plans and submit to state for approval. Plan should adequately provide for separation, processing, recovery, and recycling of solid waste Exempted communities from recycling where sufficient solid waste is not generated to make it economically practical Required all state offices to recycle paper 2/10/ Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation October /10/

12 Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation October /10/ Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation April 1987 MOBRO Garbage Barge 2/10/

13 Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation October Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA) Counties must establish recycling programs by July 1, 1989 Established 30% recycling goal by end of 1994 No more than ½ of goal could be met with yard trash, white goods and CDD Mandated recycling programs to separate and offer recycling for majority of: Aluminum cans Glass Newspaper Plastic bottles 2/10/ Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation September Amendments to SWMA Established 30% recycling reduction in landfill tonnage goal by end of 1994 No more than ½ of goal could be met with yard trash, white goods and CDD Counties with population less than 50,000 exempted Mandated recycling programs to separate and offer recycling for to be designed to recover a majority of: Aluminum cans Glass Newspaper Plastic bottles Steel Cans 2/10/

14 Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation September Amendments to SWMA Continued 30% reduction in landfill tonnage goal No more than ½ of goal could be met with yard trash, white goods and CDD Counties with population less than 50,000 75,000 exempted Mandated recycling programs be designed to recover a majority of: Aluminum cans Glass Newspaper Plastic bottles Steel Cans 2/10/ Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation Legislation Continued 30% reduction in landfill tonnage goal No more than ½ of goal could be met with yard trash, white goods and CDD Counties with population less than 75, ,000 exempted Recycling programs be designed to recover a majority significant portion of any 4 of these: Aluminum cans Glass Newspaper Plastic bottles Steel cans Cardboard Office paper Yard trash 2/10/

15 Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation July 2008 House Bill 7135 Established 75% statewide solid waste disposal reduction goal by 2020 Goal is aspirational rather than regulatory Solid waste used for production of renewable energy counts toward goal Each County shall develop and implement organic material composting plan Up to 10% and no less than 5% of organic material Unless county demonstrates impractical Encouraged each county to consider organics mulching plans Required FDEP to prepare recommendations to legislature by January 2010 about how to accomplish goal 2/10/ Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation January 2010 FDEP Report to Legislature 2/10/

16 Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation House Bill % statewide solid waste disposal reduction recycling goal by 2020 Goal is aspirational rather than regulatory Added Milestone goals: 40% by end of % by end of % by end of % by end of % by end of 2020 Required Counties to implement CDD recycling program. All CDD, to extent economically feasible, must be processed prior to disposal Directed FDEP to adopt rules establishing method and criteria for counting recycling rates 2/10/ Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation House Bill 7243 Provided criteria for renewable energy recycling credit Includes WTE and LFG Each MW-hr produced = 1 ton recycled material Each MW-hr produced = 2 tons recycled material if > 50% recycling Originating county gets WTE credits County with WTE facility gets out-of-county waste credit if debt service WTE ash does not count as solid waste County can get ½ recycling goal from use of yard trash or other clean wood or paper waste in innovative programs 2/10/

17 Florida Solid Waste Reduction Legislation House Bill 503 Revised criteria for renewable energy recycling credit Each MW-hr produced = 1 ton recycled material Each MW-hr produced = tons recycled material if > 50% recycling Originating county gets WTE credits County with WTE facility gets out-of-county waste credit if debt service WTE ash does not count as solid waste WTE ash that is recycled shall count toward recycling goals County with WTE facility gets out-of-county waste credit if debt service 2/10/ /10/

18 The Current Numbers 2/10/ Current Data All the available data is listed under the FDEP Solid Waste Management in Florida 2015 Annual Report and retrieved from RE-TRAC. ling/swreportdata/15_data.htm 2/10/

19 Current Data Reported Data 2/10/ Current Data Reporting System 2/10/

20 Current Data Reporting System 2/10/ Current Data Types of Recycling Credits Total Recycling Credits Traditional Recycling Credits Standard Recycling Credits Traditional recycling credits Renewable energy recycling credits As described by FDEP Only MSW material components recycled 2/10/

21 Recycling Credits Traditional Recycling Credits Yard trash used as a landfill cover Other MSW used as landfill cover Treated contaminated soil used as a landfill cover Fuel or fuel substitute recycling credits Recycling of MSW material components 2/10/ Recycling Credits Renewable Recycling Credits Landfill gas generated from yard trash Landfill gas generated from MSW Waste To Energy Other renewable energy other than WTE Yard trash disposed beneficially in a landfill to generate energy other than landfill gas 2/10/

22 Management and Disposition of Waste Understanding the current 2015 collected data on Florida solid waste management through the use of bar graphs million tons sent to recycling 5.53 million tons sent to combustion million tons sent to landfilling 34.5 Million tons 2/10/ Management and Disposition of Waste million tons sent to recycling 5.53 million tons sent to combustion 1,558,686 tons sent to landfill million tons sent to landfilling 34.5 Million tons 2/10/

23 Management and Disposition of Waste million tons sent to recycling 4.19 million tons sent to combustion million tons sent to landfilling 32.8 Million tons 2/10/ Management and Disposition of Waste million tons sent to recycling 4.19 million tons sent to combustion 270,817 tons sent to recycling million tons sent to landfilling 32.8 Million tons 2/10/

24 Management and Disposition of Waste million tons recycled 3.92 million tons million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/ Management and Disposition of Waste Traditional Recycling Rate: 42% Total tons of MSW generated in Florida in million tons traditionally recycled 3.92 million tons million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/

25 Management and Disposition of Waste Portions of traditional recycling originate from combustion and landfill tons million tons traditionally recycled 3.92 million tons million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/ Management and Disposition of Waste million tons traditionally recycled 3.92 million tons 13,488 tons of fuel substitutes million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/

26 Management and Disposition of Waste million tons recycled 3.93 million tons million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/ Management and Disposition of Waste million tons recycled 3.92 million tons 823,974 tons yard trash used as landfill cover million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/

27 Management and Disposition of Waste million tons recycled 3.93 million tons 230,010 tons of other MSW used as landfill cover million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/ Management and Disposition of Waste million tons recycled 3.93 million tons 115,497 tons of treated soil used as landfill cover million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/

28 Management and Disposition of Waste Standard Recycling Rate: 39% 3.93 million tons million tons standard recycled million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/ Management and Disposition of Waste Portions of total recycling originate from combustion and landfill tons 3.92 million tons million tons traditionally recycled All million tons of traditional recycling count toward the total recycling rate million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/

29 Management and Disposition of Waste Portions of combustion count towards tons million tons traditionally recycled 3.92 million tons 3,024,339 tons of waste to energy million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/ Management and Disposition of Waste million tons traditionally recycled 3.92 million tons million tons 177,410 tons of renewable energy other than WTE 32.5 Million tons 2/10/

30 Management and Disposition of Waste million tons recycled 718,977 million tons million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/ Management and Disposition of Waste million tons recycled 718,977 million tons million tons 3,716 tons of yard trash disposed beneficially in a landfill to generate energy other than landfill gas 32.5 Million tons 2/10/

31 Management and Disposition of Waste million tons recycled 718,977 million tons million tons 13,602 tons of landfill gas from yard trash only 32.5 Million tons 2/10/ Management and Disposition of Waste million tons recycled 718,977 million tons million tons 282,553 tons of landfill gas from MSW only 32.5 Million tons 2/10/

32 Management and Disposition of Waste Total Recycling Rate: 53% million tons total recycled 718,977 million tons million tons 32.5 Million tons 2/10/ Florida Total Waste Generation Standard Recycling Rate: 39% Traditional Recycling Rate: 42% Total Recycling Rate: 53% million tons standard recycled 3.93 million tons million tons million tons traditionally recycled 3.92 million tons million tons million tons total recycled 718,977 million tons million tons 32.5 Million tons 32.5 Million tons 32.5 Million tons 32

33 Next, Let s Break This Down By 4 Major Categories 1. Residential MSW* 2. Non-residential MSW* 3. C&D Debris 4. Yard Trash *Not including yard trash or C&D debris. 2/10/ Assumptions There are assumptions that are made that are needed to find the data we are looking for. 2/10/

34 Assumptions Yard Trash and C&D Debris using best judgment yard trash and C&D Debris were removed from residential and nonresidential WTE & Landfill A portion of the collected tons for all MSW material components goes to either WTE or LF based on the relative amounts of each counties total WTE and LF 2/10/ State of Florida Total Waste Generation by Category Categorizing the total 32.5 million tons of collected MSW into the four categories 3.81 million tons yard trash million tons residential 8.95 million tons non-residential 9.64 million tons C&D Debris 32.5 Million tons 2/10/

35 State of Florida Total Waste Generation by Category Categorizing the total 32.5 million tons of collected MSW into the four categories million tons residential Million tons 2/10/ Residential Traditional Recycling Rate: 23% Portions of traditional recycling originate from combustion and landfill tons 1.65 million tons 2.33 million tons traditional recycled 6.19 million tons Million tons 2/10/

36 Residential 1.65 million tons 2.33 million tons traditional recycled 114,701 tons of other MSW used as landfill cover 6.19 million tons Million tons 2/10/ Residential Standard Recycling Rate: 22% 1.65 million tons 2.22 million tons standard recycled 6.30 million tons Million tons 2/10/

37 Residential Portions of total recycling originate from combustion and landfill tons 1.65 million tons 2.33 million tons traditional recycled All 2.33 million tons of traditional recycling count toward the total recycling rate 6.19 million tons Million tons 2/10/ Residential 1.65 million tons 2.33 million tons traditional recycled 6.19 million tons 147,511 tons of landfill gas from MSW only Million tons 2/10/

38 Residential 2.47 million tons recycled 1.65 million tons 6.19 million tons Million tons 2/10/ Residential 2.47 million tons recycled 1.65 million tons 1,655,536 tons of WTE 6.19 million tons Million tons 2/10/

39 Residential Total Recycling Rate: 41% 4.14 million tons total recycled 6.03 million tons Million tons 2/10/ Residential Waste Generation Standard Recycling Rate: 22% Traditional Recycling Rate: 23% Total Recycling Rate: 41% 2.22 million tons standard recycled 1.65 million tons 2.33 million tons traditional recycled 1.65 million tons 4.14 million tons total recycled 6.30 million tons 6.19 million tons 6.03 million tons Million tons Million tons 39

40 Non-Residential Categorizing the total 32.5 million tons of collected MSW into the four categories 8.95 million tons non-residential 8.95 Million tons 2/10/ Non-Residential Traditional Recycling Rate: 43% Portions of traditional recycling originate from combustion and landfill tons 1.71 million tons 3.79 million tons traditional recycled 3.98 million tons 8.95 Million tons 2/10/

41 Non-Residential 1.71 million tons 3.79 million tons traditional recycled 115,497 tons of treated soil as landfill cover 3.98 million tons 8.95 Million tons 2/10/ Non-Residential 1.71 million tons 3.79 million tons traditional recycled 115,309 tons of other MSW used as landfill cover 3.98 million tons 8.95 Million tons 2/10/

42 Non-Residential 3.56 million tons recycled 1.71 million tons 4.22 million tons 8.95 Million tons 2/10/ Non-Residential 3.56 million tons recycled 1.71 million tons 13,488 tons of fuel or fuel substitutes 4.22 million tons 8.95 Million tons 2/10/

43 Non-Residential Standard Recycling Rate: 40% 1.18 million tons 3.55 million tons standard recycled 4.22 million tons 8.95 Million tons 2/10/ Non-Residential Portions of total recycling originate from combustion and landfill tons 1.71 million tons 3.79 million tons traditional recycled All 3.79 million tons of traditional recycling count toward the total recycling rate 3.98 million tons 8.95 Million tons 2/10/

44 Non-Residential 1.71 million tons 3.79 million tons traditional recycled 3.98 million tons 135,042 tons of landfill gas from MSW only 8.95 Million tons 2/10/ Non-Residential 1.71 million tons 3.92 million tons recycled 3.85 million tons 8.95 Million tons 2/10/

45 Non-Residential 3.92 million tons recycled 1.71 million tons All 1,171,187 tons of WTE 3.85 million tons 8.95 Million tons 2/10/ Non-Residential Total Recycling Rate: 57% 5.10 million tons total recycled 3.85 million tons 8.95 Million tons 2/10/

46 Non-Residential Waste Generation Standard Recycling Rate: 40% Traditional Recycling Rate: 43% Total Recycling Rate: 57% 3.55 million tons standard recycled 1.18 million tons 3.79 million tons traditional recycled 1.71 million tons 5.10 million tons total recycled 4.22 million tons 3.98 million tons 3.85 million tons 8.95 Million tons 8.95 Million tons 8.95 Million tons C&D Debris Categorizing the total 32.5 million tons of collected MSW into the four categories 9.64 million tons C&D Debris 9.64 Million tons 2/10/

47 C&D Debris Since C&D is assumed to not be and it is a single component of the MSW stream it has all three of the same recycling rates 5.35 million tons recycled 4.29 million tons Traditional Recycling Rate: 56% 9.64 Million tons 2/10/ C&D Debris Since C&D is assumed to not be and it is a single component of the MSW stream it has all three of the same recycling rates 5.35 million tons recycled 4.29 million tons Traditional Recycling Rate: 56% Standard Recycling Rate: 56% 9.64 Million tons 2/10/

48 C&D Debris Since C&D is assumed to not be and it is a single component of the MSW stream it has all three of the same recycling rates 5.35 million tons recycled 4.29 million tons Traditional Recycling Rate: 45% Total Recycling Rate: 45% Standard Recycling Rate: 45% 9.64 Million tons 2/10/ C&D Debris Generation 5.35 million tons recycled Traditional Recycling Rate: 45% Total Recycling Rate: 45% Standard Recycling Rate: 45% 4.29 million tons 9.64 Million tons 48

49 Yard Trash Categorizing the total 32.5 million tons of collected MSW into the four categories 3.81 million tons yard trash 3.81 Million tons 2/10/ Yard Trash Portions of traditional recycling originate from combustion and landfill tons Traditional Recycling Rate: 56% 2.14 million tons traditionally recycled 523,617 tons 1.14 million tons 3.81 Million tons 2/10/

50 Yard Trash 2.14 million tons traditionally recycled 823,974 tons of yard trash used as landfill cover 523,617 million tons 1.14 million tons 3.81 Million tons 2/10/ Yard Trash 523,617 tons Standard Recycling Rate: 35% 1.31 million tons standard recycled 1.96 million tons 3.81 Million tons 2/10/

51 Yard Trash Portions of total recycling originate from combustion and landfill tons 2.14 million tons traditionally recycled All 2.14 million tons of traditional recycling count toward the total recycling rate 523,617 million tons 1.14 million tons 3.81 Million tons 2/10/ Yard Trash 2.14 million tons traditionally recycled 523,617 million tons 346,208 tons of WTE 1.14 million tons 3.81 Million tons 2/10/

52 Yard Trash 2.14 million tons traditionally recycled 523,617 million tons 177,410 tons of renewable energy other than WTE 1.14 million tons 3.81 Million tons 2/10/ Yard Trash 2.66 million tons recycled 1.14 million tons 3,716 tons of yard trash disposed in a landfill to generate energy other than landfill gas 3.81 Million tons 2/10/

53 Yard Trash 2.66 million tons recycled 1.14 million tons 13,602 tons of landfill gas from yard trash only 3.81 Million tons 2/10/ Yard Trash Total Recycling Rate: 70% 2.68 million tons total recycled 1.14 million tons 3.81 Million tons 2/10/

54 Number of Counties 2/13/2017 Yard Trash Generation Standard Recycling Rate: 35% Traditional Recycling Rate: 56% Total Recycling Rate: 70% 1.31 million tons standard recycled 523,617 tons 2.14 million tons traditionally recycled 2.68 million tons total recycled 1.96 million tons 523,617 tons 1.14 million tons 1.14 million tons 3.81 Million tons 3.81 Million tons 3.81 Million tons Traditional and Adjusted Recycling Rates For All Counties Traditional Recycling Adjusted Recycling Percentage 2/10/

55 Number of Counties Number of Counties 2/13/ Traditional and Adjusted Recycling Rates For Residential (All Counties) Traditional Recycling Adjusted Recycling 2 0 Percentage 2/10/ Traditional and Adjusted Recycling Rates For Non-Residential (All Counties) Traditional Recycling Adjusted Recycling 1 0 Percentage 2/10/

56 Number of Counties Number of Counties 2/13/ Traditional and Adjusted Recycling Rates For Yard Trash (All Counties) Traditional Recycling Adjusted Recycling Percentage 2/10/ Traditional and Adjusted Recycling Rates For C&D Debris (All Counties) Traditional Recycling Adjusted Recycling Percentage 2/10/

57 Discussion Topics What are limitations to the existing numbers? How do we separate out residential and commercial better? What additional tonnage and disposition data should we try to collect? How can we best assist FDEP to get the best numbers possible? 2/10/ Getting to 75% 2/10/

58 Traditional Adjusted % Traditional 54% Adjusted 2/10/ Traditional Adjusted Constructed and operated WTE facilities in Orange and Duval Counties 42% Traditional 59% Adjusted 2/10/

59 Traditional Adjusted Established a Bottle Bill and Recycled 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, and Plastic Bottles 44.9% Traditional 56.6% Adjusted 2/10/ Traditional Adjusted Recycled 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard and Office Paper 51.4% Traditional 63.0% Adjusted 2/10/

60 Traditional Adjusted Food Waste Recycling (composting) to 80% 47.0% Traditional 57.7% Adjusted 2/10/ Traditional Adjusted Recycle 80% of C&D and Yard Trash 52.4% Traditional 64.1% Adjusted 2/10/

61 Traditional Adjusted Recycle 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard, Office Paper, Yard Trash, C&D and Food Waste 66.0% Traditional 76.7% Adjusted 2/10/ Discussion on Recycling Rates and Reaching 75% 2/10/

62 Thoughts over Lunch Approaches for reaching 75% Alternatives metrics for setting goals and tracking progress (SMM?) What is the best way to assess the different pathways to reach 75% (or other goals)? Costs Energy Greenhouse gas emissions 2/10/

63 Sustainable Materials Management 125 Tools for Assessing Life Cycle Impacts More and more tools are becoming available to the solid waste practitioner to assess life cycle impacts of solid waste management. Let s review one of these and evaluate how it might be used as part of this project. 2/13/

64 Example Tools for Assessing Lifecycle GHG Emissions EASETECH (Denmark) Environmental Assessment System for Environmental Technologies MSW-DST (US) Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool WARM (US) Waste Reduction Model WRATE (UK) Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment EPA WARM Model 2/10/

65 Waste and Climate Change The relationship of waste management to climate change Waste management alternatives Source reduction Recycling Biological treatment Thermal treatment Land disposal Assessment tools Potential for outcomes Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Consider Solid Waste Municipal Solid Waste Demolition Debris Solid Waste Industrial Waste Electronic Scrap 65

66 How do our waste management choices impact climate change? How do we quantify impact? GHG Emission Factors Net CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalents (MTCO2E) Mass of Waste MTCO2E Ton Waste 66

67 Collection and Transportation CO2 Collection and Transportation Solid Waste Waste Management Facility CO MTCO2E Ton Waste Distance Final Disposition Landfill CO2 CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O Thermal Solid Waste Waste Management Facility Biological 67

68 Landfilling Landfill in India Landfill in South America Construction Equipment Operation CO 2 Decomposition Primarily anaerobic What about carbon storage? Is all carbon the same? C 6 H 10 O 5 + H 2 O 3CH 4 + 3CO 2 GHG Emit to Atmosphere Capture and Flare Energy Recovery Biological Treatment Construction Equipment Operation CO 2 What about carbon storage? Is all carbon the same? Anaerobic Digestion in Canada Composting Primarily aerobic process C 6 H 10 O 5 + 6O 2 6C H 2 O Anaerobic digestion Energy Input Composting in Philippines C 6 H 10 O 5 + H 2 O 3CH 4 + 3CO 2 Energy Output 68

69 Excess Air Combustion in Taiwan Thermal Treatment Construction Equipment CO 2 Operation Is all carbon the same? Gasification in US Excess Air Combustion CO 2, N 2 O Energy Output Pyrolysis, Gasification Syngas and other products (CO, H2, Carbon) Energy Output Combustion Liquid Fuel CO 2, N 2 O Recycling CO2 CO2 CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O CO2 Raw Materials Extraction Manufacturing Solid Waste Waste Management Facility 69

70 Recycling CO2 CO2 CO2 CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O Raw Materials Extraction Manufacturing Solid Waste Waste Management Facility Source Reduction CO2 CO2 CO2 CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O Raw Materials Extraction Manufacturing Solid Wast e Waste Management Facility 70

71 Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks US EPA ( GHG Emission Factors Net CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalents (MTCO2E) Mass of Waste MTCO2E Ton Waste 71

72 Emissions, Sinks and Offsets Net GHG Emission per ton = GHG Emissions GHG Sinks &Offsets C + O2 CO2 For thermal or biological treatment, often only counted if non-biogenic carbon Electrical power offset Carbon sequestration and storage Typical Units: Metric Tons of CO 2 Equivalents per Ton of Waste (MTCO 2 E/ton) Biogenic vs Non-Biogenic Biogenic Carbon Paper & Paperboard Food Yard Trimmings Wood Leather Rubber Textiles (cotton) Non-Biogenic Carbon Plastic Textiles (synthetic) CO 2 Nonbiogenic Carbon 10% CO 2 Biogenic Carbon 90% EPA Waste Reduction Model Assumes 10% Non-Biog 72

73 Carbon Sequestration and Storage Landfills Storage of carbon in plastic Storage of carbon in some fraction of biogenic materials Biological Treatment Sequestration of soil carbon if land applied Power Offsets The emissions that are offset depend on the source of the offset power. If WTE offsets power from coal, GHG reduction If WTE offsets power from nuclear, net GHG emission MTCO2E/M Wh Coal Oil Natural Gas Sources: EPA Warm Documentation; Kaplan et al., 2009; Covanta Nuclear Standard WTE New WTE 73

74 Methodology for determining overall MTCO2E for a waste management system Identify waste flows associated with different technologies Apply GHG emission factors (EF) for each waste flow Compare MTCO2E to baseline or alternative system Scenario 1 M waste 1 EF waste2,scenario 1 + M waste 2 EF waste 2,scenario 1 + = MTCO2E scenario 1 Scenario 2 M waste 1 EF waste2,scenario 2 + M waste 2 EF waste 2,scenario 2 + = MTCO2E scenario 2 Examination of Typical Output 74

75 WARM GHG Emission Factors for Recycling Aluminum Cans Cardboard Newspaper Computer Steel Cans PET Plastic HDPE Plastic Glass Asphalt Shingle Drywall GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton) -10 Comparison of PET Plastic and Office Paper GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton) PET OP

76 Food Waste GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton) Landfilling Combustion Composting Aluminum Cans GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton)

77 Combustion and Landfilling GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton) Combustion Landfill HDPE Mixed Paper Food Scraps Tires Carpet Impact of Transportation GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton) Miles to Recycling Facility 77

78 Landfill Gas Management Choice GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/ton) No recovery Flare Energy Recovery Summary and Conclusions Decision makers have a suite of tools available for assessing the relative GHG impact of different waste management systems and technologies. These tools continue to be developed and refined. Major observations: Source reduction and recycling have a major impact on GHG footprint The impact of transportation is much less pronounced than other components of the waste management system Since methane plays such a large role for GHG emission estimates, assumptions made regarding landfill gas management are very important 78

79 Examples of How WARM can be Utilized EPA WARM Scenario 1 GHG Savings A municipality is evaluating the option of either combusting or composting their yard trash (yard trimmings). Municipality Municipality Combusting Composting WTE 2/10/

80 EPA WARM Scenario 1 GHG Savings If they collect 110 tons per day. Which option results in the lowest GHG emissions (MTCO2E) per year? Combusting= -6,022 MTCO2E/yr Municipality Combusting WTE 2/10/ EPA WARM Scenario 1 GHG Savings If they collect 110 tons per day. Which option results in the lowest GHG emissions (MTCO2E) per year? Composting= -7,227 MTCO2E/yr Municipality Composting 2/10/

81 EPA WARM Scenario 1 GHG Savings If they collect 110 tons per day. Which option results in the lowest GHG emissions (MTCO2E) per year? Municipality Municipality Combusting: -6,022 MTCO2E/yr Composting: -7,227 MTCO2E/yr WTE 2/10/ EPA WARM Scenario 1 Energy Savings If they collect 110 tons per day. Which option results in the lowest GHG emissions (million BTU) per year? Municipality Municipality Combusting: -99,572 million BTU/yr Composting: 23,287 million BTU/yr WTE 2/10/

82 EPA WARM Scenario 2 GHG Savings A municipality is evaluating two option for managing cardboard in their waste stream. Option 1 Option 2 Municipality Municipality 50% 50% WTE MRF Landfill 2/10/ EPA WARM Scenario 2 GHG Savings If they collect 20 tons per day of cardboard (OCC). Which option results in the lowest GHG emissions (MTCO2E) per year? Option 1 = -3,723 MTCO2E/yr Municipality Recycling Landfill MRF Landfill 2/10/

83 EPA WARM Scenario 2 GHG Savings If they collect 20 tons per day of cardboard (OCC). Which option results in the lowest GHG emissions (MTCO2E) per year? Option 2 = -10,548 MTCO2E/yr Municipality Combustion WTE 2/10/ EPA WARM Scenario 2 GHG Savings If they collect 20 tons per day of cardboard (OCC). Which option results in the lowest GHG emissions (MTCO2E) per year? Option 1 = -3,723 MTCO2E/yr Option 2 = -10,548 MTCO2E/yr Municipality Municipality 50% 50% WTE MRF Landfill 2/10/

84 EPA WARM Scenario 2 Energy Savings If they collect 20 tons per day of cardboard (OCC). Which option results in the lowest GHG emissions (MTCO2E) per year? Option 1 = -48,472 million BTU/yr Option 2 = -55,918 million BTU/yr Municipality Municipality 50% 50% WTE MRF Landfill 2/10/ Application of SMM Alternative recycling targets? 2/10/

85 The Problem with Recycling Rates Recycling Rate = Waste Recycled Waste Recycled+Waste Disposed Doesn t track efforts in reduction All materials are treated equal All recycling is treated equal 2/10/ Alternatives to Recycling Rate Metrics Establish Baseline Disposal Metric 40,000,000 State of Florida SWM ( FY) 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000, Landfill State of Florida SWM Combustion State of Florida SWM Recycling 2/10/

86 SMM Metric With tools like WARM and DST we can predict the net carbon and energy offset/emissions associated with solid waste management strategies. For example, in 2015 Florida s waste stream: Traditional Recycling Rate = 42% Adjusted Recycling Rate = 54% MTCO2E Emissions = million MTCO2E Energy usage = -219 million mmbtu 2/10/ What do we compare this to? Let s consider the following: The Statute with Florida 75% recycling goal was issued in Let s use 2008 as our baseline. Traditional Recycling Rate = 28.4% Adjusted Recycling Rate = 41.5% MTCO2E Emissions = million MTCO2E Energy usage = -147 million mmbtu 2/10/

87 What do we compare this to? Let s consider the following: The Statute with Florida 75% recycling goal was issued in Let s use 2008 as our baseline. Traditional Recycling Rate = 28.4% Adjusted Recycling Rate = 41.5% MTCO2E Emissions = million MTCO2E Energy usage = -147 million mmbtu We developed a hypothetical waste management profile that would have corresponded to a 75% recycling in 2008 (included some additional WTE). Traditional Recycling Rate = 59.6% Adjusted Recycling Rate = 75.3% MTCO2E Emissions = million MTCO2E Energy usage = -275 million mmbtu Our Target 2/10/ % Traditional 54% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E 2/10/

88 Constructed and operated WTE facilities in Orange and Duval Counties 42% Traditional 59% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E 2/10/ Established a Bottle Bill and Recycled 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, and Plastic Bottles 44.9% Traditional 56.6% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E 2/10/

89 Recycle 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard and Office Paper 51.4% Traditional 63.0% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E 2/10/ Food Waste Recycling (composting) to 80% 47.0% Traditional 57.7% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E 2/10/

90 Recycle 80% of C&D and Yard Trash 52.4% Traditional 64.1% Adjusted Target = -26 million MTCO2E 2/10/ Target = -26 million MTCO2E Recycle 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard, Office Paper, Yard Trash, C&D and Food Waste 66.0% Traditional 76.7% Adjusted 2/10/

91 % Traditional 54% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 2/10/ Constructed and operated WTE facilities in Orange and Duval Counties 42% Traditional 59% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 2/10/

92 Established a Bottle Bill and Recycled 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, and Plastic Bottles 44.9% Traditional 56.6% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 2/10/ Recycle 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard and Office Paper 51.4% Traditional 63.0% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 2/10/

93 Food Waste Recycling (composting) to 80% 47.0% Traditional 57.7% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 2/10/ Recycle 80% of C&D and Yard Trash 52.4% Traditional 64.1% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 2/10/

94 Recycle 80% of Glass, Aluminum Cans, Plastic Bottles, Newspaper, Cardboard, Office Paper, Yard Trash, C&D and Food Waste 66.0% Traditional 76.7% Adjusted Target = -275 million mmbtu 2/10/ Discussion of Recycling Metrics 2/10/

95 $/ton 2/13/2017 Economics Another major goal of the project is to assess the economics associated with various waste management strategies. What are the costs associated with the various strategies that a municipality may choose to target recycling or SMM metrics? 2/10/ Monthly Averages Apr-01 Jan-04 Oct-06 Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14 Sep-17 Date Magazines Corrugated Sorted Office Soft Mixed Boxboard White Ledger Newspaper Flint Glass PET Amber Glass Rigid HDPE Colored HDPE Green Glass 1-7 Comingled Sorted Loose Steel White Goods Baled PP Natural HDPE Sorted Baled Aluminum Total 2/10/

96 $/ton 2/13/ Mixed Recyclables Commodity Prices Feb-05 Jul-06 Nov-07 Mar-09 Aug-10 Dec-11 May-13 Sep-14 Jan-16 Date 2/10/ Economic Discussion Topics Suggestions for economic anlaysis? 2/10/

97 Next Steps on Project Complete the waste mass and disposition analysis. Gather and organize cost information. Continue statewide assessment of materials management options and associated recycling metrics, lifecycle impacts, and costs. Conduct detailed municipal specific system evaluations. Meet with working group again, and then eventually draft white paper, and discuss with a larger audience. 2/10/ ttown@ufl.edu steven.laux@essie.ufl.edu manshassi@ufl.edu 2/10/