FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT A Feasibility Study of the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
for solid waste
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT A Feasibility Study of the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 19, 2023 368 likes •581 views

WASTE-TO-ENERGY AS A TOOL FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT A Feasibility Study of the Implementation of Contemporary Waste Management and Energy Recovery Strategies in Washington State Presented By: Andrew Chesterfield, Hanna Navarro, Alex

slide-1
SLIDE 1

WASTE-TO-ENERGY AS A TOOL FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

A Feasibility Study of the Implementation of Contemporary Waste Management and Energy Recovery Strategies in Washington State

Presented By: Andrew Chesterfield, Hanna Navarro, Alex Reynolds, & Donnie Strohfus

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Agenda

Introduction and Project Overview Case Study Overview Interview Responses and Results Key Considerations Discussion Limitations and Conclusions Questions and Open Discussion Team Contact Information

2 of 20

slide-3
SLIDE 3

“What is the feasibility of implementing Waste to Energy (WTE) TE) as a a part rt of the he solid id waste ste mana nagement ement (SWM WM) ) and nd ene nergy gy strate ategies es

  • f Washi

ashington

  • n State

ate?” 1. 1. Revie view w acade ademic ic literatur ature, , policy y briefs efs, , mun unici icipa pal reports ports and nd studie dies 2. 2. Conduct nduct inf nformati

  • rmationa
  • nal int

nterv rvie iews ws with h ind ndustry stry, , go gove vern rnmen ment, t, and nd no non-govern vernmen ment prof

  • fess

essional

  • nals

s and nd subj ubject ect-ma matter ter exp xperts erts 3. 3. Exa xamine mine case ase study udy exa xampl ples es of exi xisti sting g WTE E oper erati ations

  • ns

Int ntent ent: Analyze and assess the potential impacts of WTE incineration on the waste management hierarchy and present key considerations for discussion

Project Overview

3 of 20

slide-4
SLIDE 4

> Domesti estic Facilities ties

– Spok

  • kane

ane WT WTE Facili cility ty – Mario ion County nty Energy gy from m Waste te – Hen enne nepi pin Energy gy Reco covery ry Center nter – Palm m Beac ach Rene newabl able e Energy gy Faci cili lity ty No. . 2 – Detr etroit

  • it Rene

newabl able Power er – Whee eelabr abrato ator Baltimo ltimore

> Int nternati ernationa

  • nal Facilit

ities ies

– South th Skåne åne Waste te Compan mpany – Kalundb ndborg Eco-Industrial Industrial Park – Higas gashi hiyod

  • do Facto

tory – Res estoffe toffen Energi gie Cen entr trale ale

10 case studies examined

Case Studies of Existing WTE Operations

4 of 20

slide-5
SLIDE 5

> Govern rnment ment

– State Departments of Ecology, Commerce – Utilities & Transportation Commission – King County Solid Waste – King County Council – City of Spokane Solid Waste – City of Spokane Energy & Sustainability – City of Spokane Public Works – Spokane Regional Health District – Clean Air Agencies (ORCAA, PSCAA, SWCAA, SRCAA) – US Environmental Protection Agency

60 requests sent; 29 interviews conducted

Interviews with Stakeholders and SMEs

> Communi munity ty Organi nizati zations ns

– Center for Sustainable Infrastructure – Puget Sound Partnership – Zero Waste Washington – Zero Landfill Initiative

> Private e Indus ustry try

– Waste Management Public Sector Partnerships – Resource Synergy

5 of 20

slide-6
SLIDE 6

> Important

  • rtant compon

ponent ent of int ntegrate ated d waste te mana nage gemen ment t syst ystem em

“Do you consider WTE as a feasible option for solid waste management in Washington?”

Interview Responses

> Preferr eferred ed over er landfi ndfill, ll, both h in h n hierarch chy and nd by int nterv rvie iewee wees > Worr rry of reduced ced rec ecyc ycling g and “feed the beast” phe henomenon

  • menon

6 of 20

slide-7
SLIDE 7

> Wash shington ngton enjoys ys cheap, p, abund ndant ant energy gy > Not class ssifi fied ed as r s renewab wable le under er CETA > Energy gy prod

  • ducti

uction

  • n is se

s secondar dary y benefit efit of WTE

“Do you consider WTE as a feasible option for energy strategy in Washington?”

Interview Responses

7 of 20

slide-8
SLIDE 8

> Wast ste Trea eatme tment nt Benefi fits ts

– Reduced ced solid id waste ste bur urden den – Fewer er long ng-term term methane ane emissio ssions – Material erial recove very (e.g.

  • g. ferr

rrous

  • us metals,

als, gy gypsum sum)

> Minor nor Energy gy Gener eration ation

“What strategic benefits do you think WTE could provide in Washington?”

Interview Responses

8 of 20

slide-9
SLIDE 9

> WTE is s expens nsive ive > Public ic resi sist stanc ance, , NIMB MBYs, s, and NOTEs Es > Siti ting ng challeng lenges es > Potent ntial ial emission

  • ns

“What strategic drawbacks do you think come with WTE development in Washington?”

Interview Responses

9 of 20

slide-10
SLIDE 10

> Supp pporters

  • rters

– Gove vernmen ment off fficials, icials, espe pecial ially ly Ki King ng Count unty – “...depends on the specifics of a given plan.” – Local res esiden dents ts – Env nvir ironm

  • nmental

ental orga ganizati nizations

  • ns

> Opponent

  • nents

– Env nvir ironm

  • nmental

ental orga ganizati nizations

  • ns

– Local res esiden dents ts – Curr urrent ent tip fee e rec ecipi pients ents (e.g.

  • g. landfi

ndfills) ls) – “...depends on the specifics of a given plan.”

“What individuals or organizations would potentially support or oppose WTE development in Washington?”

Interview Responses

Opponents Supporters

10 of 20

slide-11
SLIDE 11

> Proximi ximity y to feeds edstock tock and nd other r SWM M inf nfras astru truct cture > Env nvir ironm

  • nmental

ental jus ustice tice impac acts ts > Site-specific specific env nvir ironm

  • nmental

ental impac acts ts > Using recover verable le land nd (e.g.

  • g. brownf

wnfiel elds ds) > Local econom

  • nomic

ic impac acts ts > Cost st eff ffectivenes ectiveness and nd fina nancing cing > Publ ublic ic opini nion

  • n

“If another WTE facility were to be planned and developed in Washington, what critical factors should be considered during the siting process?”

Interview Responses

11 of 20

slide-12
SLIDE 12

“Essential factors” for r futur ure e WTE develop lopment ment and consi sider derati ation

  • n

> Pa Part t of compr prehensi hensive ve SWM M st strategy ategy > Siti ting ng > Financ ancia ial l Cost st > Envir ironm nmenta ental l & healt lth h impacts ts > Public ic engag gageme ment nt

Key Considerations Discussions

12 of 20

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Any futur ture e WTE development lopment must st be st strategic ategically ally planne nned d to complem lement ent and accompany any curr rrent nt wast ste managem gement ent prio ioriti rities

Discussion: Strategic Consideration

> WTE can be implemen emented ted well or poorl rly

– Success ss is dependen endent t on inclu lusi sion n withi thin n larger er strategic tegic goals als

> No evid idenc ence e tha hat t Washi ashington

  • n sho

hould d shif hift curr urrent SWM WM priorit rities ies > Some e degr gree ee of waste ste is ine nevit vitable able

13 of 20

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Co Co-loc

  • cati

ating g WTE E faci acilit ities ies ne near ar exi xisti sting g inf nfrastru structu ture e can inc ncreas ease e eff ffici icienc ency y and nd decrea ease se env nvir ironm

  • nmen

ental tal impac acts ts; env nvir ironm

  • nment

ental al jus ustice tice impac acts ts mus ust also

  • be limited

> Co Collocati

  • cation
  • n with exist

isting ng infr frastr astructur ucture

– Transpor nsportation tation Netwo works ks – Feeds dsto tock – Proxi ximity y to Downstr nstream am Users s

> Env nvir ironm

  • nmental

ental Jus ustice tice

– Don’t further burden already-bu burdened dened communiti nities es

Discussion: Siting Influences

14 of 20

slide-15
SLIDE 15

WTE develop lopment ent and operation ation is e s expensi nsive ve and energy gy resa sale le to Wash shington ngton utili liti ties es presen sents ts futu ture challe lenges nges > Sign gnific ificant nt Financ ancial ial Factors

  • rs

– Ene nergy Mark rket et Compet petit ition ion – Ene nergy Recovery very Eff ffici icienc ency y – Ong ngoing Mainte ntenan ance e and nd Co Complianc liance e – “Renewable” Classification Limitations

Discussion: Financial Considerations

15 of 20

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Addit itional ional WTE developm elopment ent in Wash shing ngton ton must st maintai tain n dilig igent ent and contin inuous uous monit itoring

  • ring and

mitig igati ation

  • n of envir

ironme

  • nment

ntal al and healt lth h risk sks. s. > Envir ironm nmenta ental l and Health th Risk sks

– Emissio ssions

> Greenhou nhouse se Gases > Air Pollu lutan tants ts > Toxins xins

> Risk sks s to Water er Sour urce ces > Handl dlin ing g of Ash sh

Discussion: Health and Environmental Monitoring

16 of 20

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Publ ublic ic opini nion

  • n for

r WTE E is mixed and nd driven ven by mul ultiple ple inp nput uts; ; additi tiona

  • nal WTE deve

velopm

  • pment

ent in n Washi ashingt gton

  • n mus

ust inc nclude de consider derabl able e and nd comp mprehe ehensive sive pub ublic ic eng ngagement agement and nd cooper

  • perat

ation ion

Discussion: Public Engagement and Cooperation

> Publ ublic ic eng ngagement ement and nd educati ation

  • n improves

es

  • ut

utcomes

  • mes of comp

mprehens ensive ive SWM M str trate ategie gies

– Publi lic c awarene eness ss of recy cycl cling ng and waste te reducti duction

  • n

priori ioritie ties

> Priva ivate-pu public blic coope perati ation

  • n and

nd partners tnership ip inc ncreases eases accoun

  • untabi

tabilit lity y and nd transpar parenc ency

– Impr prove ved d compli mpliance ance and acco coun untab tabil ility ity – Impr prove ved d resili silience nce of SWM poli

  • lici

cies and strate tegies gies

17 of 20

slide-18
SLIDE 18

> Limitations ations to St Stud udy

– Broad and gener neral l scope e of s study y (i.e. e., , limited ed analysis of compli licate cated d issue) – Limite ted d sample le size (e.g. .g., , limited ed environme nmenta ntal l justice ce and communi munity ty-orient iented ed orgs, private te indus ustry ry input) ut) – Hypot

  • the

heti tica cal l applicati cation

  • n

> Future e Resear arch Recommend endatio ations ns

– Direct ct publi lic c and indus ustr try y opinio ion/ n/feedba feedback ck polling ng – Site-spe peci cifi fic c com

  • mparison
  • n of
  • f G

GHG pot

  • tency

ncy and emission ion impacts cts – Specif ecific ic study y of r resea earch ch of moder ern n WTE technol hnologi

  • gies

es and approache aches (e.g., g., gasifica icati tion,

  • n, pyroly

lysis is, , etc)

Limitations and Conclusions

18 of 20

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Questions and Open Discussion

19 of 20

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Team Contact Information

Andrew Chesterfield, MPA ‘20 agchest@uw.edu Academic c Focus: s: Leadership & Decision-making Career Intere rests: s: Natural Resource Stewardship, Energy Policy, Agriculture Policy, Parks Management & Climate Change Mitigation www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-chesterfield Alex Reynolds, MPA ‘20 areyno@uw.edu Academic c Focus: s: Environmental & Energy Policy, Community Economic Development Career Intere rests: s: Energy Infrastructure, Public Financial Management, Planning, Contract Management https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexr1010/ Hanna Navarro, MPA ‘20 hanavarr@uw.edu Academic c Focus: s: Environmental Policy & Management Career Intere rests: s: Climate & Energy Policy, Policy Analysis, Social Justice www.linkedin.com/in/hannanavarro Donnie Strohfus, MPA ‘20 dstroh@uw.edu Academic c Focus: s: Analysis & Evaluation, Public Financial Management Career Intere rests: s: State & Local Government, Program/Project Management, Policy Analysis, Public Utilities & Operations Management www.linkedin.com/in/donnie-strohfus