Organics Processing Technologies and Infrastructure Case Study Tracie Onstad Bills Northern California Director Sustainable Materials Management SWANA Western Regional April 13, 2016
Study Location Truckee Reno Auburn Lake Tahoe Sacramento
Feasibility Study Waste Characterization Modeling Site Location Constraints and Criteria Permitting Requirements and Regulations Organics Processing Technologies Feedstock and Product Markets Cost Model Recommendations Organics Management Plan
Material Composition Needs Business List NAIC Codes 2014 CalRecycle Waste Characterization Business Sector Data Steps: 1. Applied material densities from CalRecycle characterization 2. Estimated quantities for each material category 3. Scaled totals with actual annual tonnage
Business Sector Material Category Data Wholesale Wholesale Building Material & Garden Big Box Food Retail Big Hotels - Durables Nondurables Stores Stores Box Stores Venues Large Material type Disposal Disposal Disposal DisposalDisposal Disposal Disposal Tons per employee per year 1.2 1.4 3.2 2.4 1.4 0.1 2.0 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 9.7% 11.4% 5.8% 3.9% 6.0% 4.2% 3.2% Paper Bags 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Newspaper 0.9% 1.0% 0.5% 1.1% 1.2% 2.9% 9.0% White Ledger Paper 2.4% 1.3% 0.6% 0.2% 1.3% 1.0% 2.2%
Data Conversion Est. Weekly Trash Yardage Service Level Volume (80% TTSD Conversion Numbers - EST. WEEKLY TRASH Est Annual Trash Yardage Est. Annual Trash Pounds with TTSD Conversion Uncoated Corrugated White Ledger (Yards) full) POUNDS Volume Numbers Cardboard Paper Bags Newspaper Paper 0.16 0.2 56 13 2901 2.6 0.3 2.3 3.5 6 4.8 1114 125 28931 62.4 3.3 35.6 31.2 6 4.8 1114 62 14466 62.4 3.3 35.6 31.2 3 2.4 557 125 28931 17.9 1.9 50.2 12.1
Estimated Tonnage Total Weekly Trash Total Annual Trash Total Weekly Organics (all listed categories) Total Annual Organics (all listed categories) % Organics in Trash Estimated Pounds (Volume to Weight by Material Type) Standard EPA 3,163,743 118,332,371 1,635,710 61,474,534 52% Estimated Tonnage 1,582 59,166 818 30,737 52% Conversion to TTSD Tonnage 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 Tonnage (TTSD Conversion Factor) 822.57 30,766.42 425.28 15,983.38 52% TTSD 2014 Commercial Tonnage 655.88 24,531.81 339.10 12,744.46 52%
Final Numbers Total Estimated Organics Tonnage for County of Placer TTSD Estimated Commercial Tonnage Estimated Total Organics Tonnage Total Annual Food Scraps Total Annual Trimmings Total Annual Lumber Eastern Placer County (All) 24,531.81 12,744.46 6,310.40 1,109.86 1,129.27 El Dorado 190.68 95.26 47.11 6.43 11.79 Nevada County 612.36 305.08 120.40 28.76 10.44 Placer 2 689.94 338.68 147.53 36.98 24.22 Placer 3 14,136.55 7,382.09 3,694.47 632.64 707.35 Truckee 8,902.28 4,623.34 2,300.89 405.05 375.48
Placer County AB1826 Compliance - Businesses Total Number of Businesses Number of Business Accounts in Phase 1 (8CY or More of Organics) Effective April 1, 2016 Number of Business Accounts in Phase 2 (4CY or More of Organics) Effective July 1, 2017 Number of Businesses in Phase 3 (4CY or More of Trash) Effective January 1, 2019 El Dorado 12 0 0 6 Nevada County 32 1 3 13 Placer 2 46 0 1 18 Placer 3 522 20 35 239 Truckee 333 8 29 134 TOTAL 945 29 68 410
Siting Matrix Identified list of potential sites Evaluated the sites for suitability for organics processing Filtered out unacceptable sites Developed a short list of sites to conduct visits Developed a pro/con matrix of shortlisted sites Prepared findings and recommendations of the preferred sites 10
Criteria C. FACILITY LOCATION CRITERIA Land use and location: compatible with existing and surrounding land Access: Accessible by existing road network Located in proximity to waste generators Adequate space for proposed operations A. ERMRF- Upper Area Total Score B. ERMRF- Lower Area Total Score Total Score 8 4 8 6 6 SITE EVALUATION SCORING C. Full Circle 4 4 2 6 3 D. RT Donovan Total Score E. Truckee Tahoe Airport Total Score 8 8 6 6 6 F. Tahoe- Truckee Sanitation Agency Total Score 2 4 4 6 6 6 4 6 3 Property Owned by Agency 6 6 3 3 3 3 Need for Vector, Bird, and Animal Control Aesthetics: Potential for negative impacts to views and vistas 3 3 6 6 6 3 3 3 6 6 3 TOTAL 39 32 34 34 36 26 3
Technology Matrix Composting Windrow Composting (i.e., turned windrows) Aerated Static Pile (ASP) Composting Aerobic In-Vessel Composting Digestion Dry Anaerobic Digestion Wet Anaerobic Digestion Mechanical/Thermal Treatment Autoclave Masher/Dryer
Projections Material Flow Control and Contractual Obligations Waste Flow Projections Operations and Capacity Organics Projections Recycling Laws, Regulations and Program Changes
Tonnage Projections Estimated Commercial Mixed Tons - at a 2% increase in volume each year (including Organics) Eastern Placer County Esimated ANNUAL Tonnage PROJECTIONS Estimated Organics Tons (All Categories) Estimated Organics Tons (Food Scraps, Yardwaste and Lumber Only) for all Placer County Estimated Organics Tons (Food Scraps, Only) for all Placer Estimated Organics Tons (Food Scraps, Yardwaste and Lumber Only) for Placer 3 and Truckee Only Estimated Organics Tons (Food Scraps Only) for Placer 3 and Truckee Only 2015 25,095 13,049 9,034 6,023 8,281 6,023 2020 27,707 14,407 9,974 6,650 9,143 6,650 2025 30,590 15,907 11,013 7,342 10,095 7,342
Potential Feedstock Generators Material Estimated Cubic Yards Per Week Estimated Cubic Yards Annually Distance from Truckee (miles) # of Businesses Interested # of Businesses Not Interested # of Businesses Did Not Return Call Total Businesses Contacted Yard Trimmings 200 10,400 10 to 90 3 1 7 11 Wood Waste 350 18,200 10 to 50 3 0 0 3 Bio Solids 25 1,300 10 to 50 2 1 1 4 Total 575 29900 10 to 90 8 2 8 18
Potential Markets Material Estimated Cubic Yards Per Week Used Distance from Truckee (miles) # of Businesses Interested # of Businesses Not Interested # of Businesses Did Not Return Call Total Businesses Contacted Compost / Soil Amendment 2,031 13 to 85 11 7 0 18 Compressed Natural Gas 0 0 to 37 1 2 1 4 Dry Digestate 0 87 1 0 0 1 Liquid Digestate 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solid Pulp - Refuse Derived Fuel 0 87 1 0 0 1
Cost Model Financial Data and Background Info Organics Processing Technologies Hauling / Processing Scenarios A cost model was developed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the financial requirements for each scenario analyzed.
Base Assumptions Total food waste available: 6,000 (tpy) Capture rate: 50% Total food waste collected: 3,000 tpy Days collected per year: 260 days/year 300 Pounds per customer per pick-up: Capital cost financing: 5% interest rate, 20 years, 5% cost of capital to finance Contractor overhead: 10% Contingency: 15%
Recycling Technical Assistance Collection Yellow Bag Bin Collection Processing Compost (Windrow/Aerated Static Pile/In-Vessel) Direct Haul to Composter Anaerobic Digestion (Dry/Wet) Autoclave SAFE
Estimated Capital Costs Windrow Composting ($1,277,000) Aerated Static Pile ($1,336,000) In-Vessel Composting ($2,250,000) Autoclave ($5,300,000) SAFE ($5,580,000) Dry/Wet Anaerobic Digestion ($6,137,000 -$7,001,000)
Estimated Operations & Maintenance Costs In-Vessel Composting ($308,280) Windrow Composting ($487,000) Aerated Static Pile ($508,000) Autoclave $710,000) SAFE ($772,000) Dry/Wet Anaerobic Digestion ($969,000 - $923,000)
Estimated Collection & Hauling Costs In-Vessel Composting - $951,280 ($206) Donovan Haul - $1,046,000 ($227) Windrow Composting -$1,151,000 ($249) Aerated Static Pile -$1,130,000 ($245) Full Circle - $1,195,000 ($259) Autoclave - $1,353,000 ($293) SAFE - $1,359,000 ($294) Dry/Wet Anaerobic Digestion $1,572,000 - $1,518,000 ($341-$329)
Technology Scores TECHNOLOGY SCORE Criteria A. TECHNOLOGICAL Status of technology WINDROW COMPOSTING IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING DRY ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AUTOCLAVE 54 57 53 54 31 10 10 10 10 SAFE 5 Feedstock Material 8 8 4 8 4 Power requirements 2 2 2 1 2 B. COUNTY CRITERIA 20 13 16 17 23 Capital costs ($/ton of daily capacity) 8 4 4 8 8 By-Product revenue 0 0 0 3 6 Energy Revenue 0 0 3 0 TOTAL 74 70 69 71 54 0 23
Technology / Site Score SITE SCORE Windrow Composting ASP Composting TECHNOLOGY SCORE In-Vessel Composting Dry Anaerobic Digestion Wet Anaerobic Digestion Autoclave 74 74 70 69 65 71 46 ERMRF-Upper Area 39 113 113 109 108 104 110 93 ERMRF-Lower Area 32 106 106 102 101 97 103 86 Full Circle 34 108 108 104 103 99 105 88 RT Donovan 34 108 108 104 103 99 105 88 Truckee Tahoe Airport 36 110 110 106 105 101 107 90 SAFE Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency 26 100 100 96 95 91 97 80 24
Conclusion An estimated 6,000 tons of organic is generated A growth rate of 2% per year over 20 years was established for all incoming tonnage Based on the scoring and weighting criteria established for the project, the autoclave, and windrow and aerated static pile composting technologies ranked the highest. Capital costs range: $1.3 - $6.1 million Long Term: Eastern Regional MRF-Upper Area site ranked highest Short-term: R.T. Donovan site for transporting organic materials
Thank You! Tracie Onstad Bills SCS Engineers (925) 426-0080 tbills@scsengineers.com