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
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
Project Overview “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 of Washi ashington on 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 ormationa onal int nterv rvie iews ws with h ind ndustry stry, , go gove vern rnmen ment, t, and nd no non-govern vernmen ment prof ofess essional onals 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 ons Int ntent ent: Analyze and assess the potential impacts of WTE incineration on the waste management hierarchy and present key considerations for discussion 3 of 20
Case Studies of Existing WTE Operations 10 case studies examined > Domesti estic Facilities ties – Spok okane 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 oit Rene newabl able Power er – Whee eelabr abrato ator Baltimo ltimore > Int nternati ernationa onal Facilit ities ies – South th Skåne åne Waste te Compan mpany – Kalundb ndborg Eco-Industrial Industrial Park – Higas gashi hiyod odo Facto tory – Res estoffe toffen Energi gie Cen entr trale ale 4 of 20
Interviews with Stakeholders and SMEs 60 requests sent; 29 interviews conducted > Govern rnment ment > Communi munity ty Organi nizati zations ns State Departments of Ecology, – Center for Sustainable – Commerce Infrastructure Utilities & Transportation – Commission Puget Sound Partnership – King County Solid Waste – Zero Waste Washington – King County Council – Zero Landfill Initiative – City of Spokane Solid Waste – City of Spokane Energy & – > Private e Indus ustry try Sustainability City of Spokane Public Works – Waste Management Public – Spokane Regional Health District – Sector Partnerships Clean Air Agencies (ORCAA, – Resource Synergy – PSCAA, SWCAA, SRCAA) US Environmental Protection – Agency 5 of 20
Interview Responses “Do you consider WTE as a feasible option for solid waste management in Washington?” > Important ortant compon ponent ent of int ntegrate ated d waste te mana nage gemen ment t syst ystem em > 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 omenon 6 of 20
Interview Responses “Do you consider WTE as a feasible option for energy strategy in Washington?” > 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 oducti uction on is se s secondar dary y benefit efit of WTE 7 of 20
Interview Responses “What strategic benefits do you think WTE could provide in Washington?” > 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 ous metals, als, gy gypsum sum) > Minor nor Energy gy Gener eration ation 8 of 20
Interview Responses “What strategic drawbacks do you think come with WTE development in Washington?” > 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 ons 9 of 20
Interview Responses “What individuals or organizations would potentially support or oppose WTE development in Washington?” > Supp pporters orters – 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 onmental ental orga ganizati nizations ons > Opponent onents Supporters Opponents – Env nvir ironm onmental ental orga ganizati nizations ons – 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.” 10 of 20
Interview Responses “If another WTE facility were to be planned and developed in Washington, what critical factors should be considered during the siting process?” > Proximi ximity y to feeds edstock tock and nd other r SWM M inf nfras astru truct cture > Env nvir ironm onmental ental jus ustice tice impac acts ts > Site-specific specific env nvir ironm onmental ental impac acts ts > Using recover verable le land nd (e.g. g. brownf wnfiel elds ds) > Local econom onomic ic impac acts ts > Cost st eff ffectivenes ectiveness and nd fina nancing cing > Publ ublic ic opini nion on 11 of 20
Key Considerations Discussions “Essential factors” for r futur ure e WTE develop lopment ment and consi sider derati ation on > 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 12 of 20
Discussion: Strategic Consideration 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 > 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 on 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
Discussion: Siting Influences Co Co-loc ocati 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 onmen ental tal impac acts ts; env nvir ironm onment ental al jus ustice tice impac acts ts mus ust also o be limited > Co Collocati ocation on 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 onmental ental Jus ustice tice – Don’t further burden already -bu burdened dened communiti nities es 14 of 20
Discussion: Financial Considerations 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 ors – 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 15 of 20
Discussion: Health and Environmental Monitoring 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 oring and mitig igati ation on of envir ironme onment 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 16 of 20
Recommend
More recommend
