1 / 26

Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project

Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project. Policy Evaluation Progress Report September 25, 2014. Key Questions. How should processing of MSW be integrated into the solid waste system in the East Metro area?

troy-lester
Download Presentation

Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Project Policy Evaluation Progress Report September 25, 2014

  2. Key Questions How should processing of MSW be integrated into the solid waste system in the East Metro area? What should be the role of the Counties with regard to integrating processing in the solid waste system?

  3. Guiding Principles Plan for a 20-30 year horizon; Build on the current system and allow changes in processing to emerge over time; Assure flexibility; Manage risks; and Pivot the view from “waste” to “resources” to add value to the local economy and environment.

  4. Today’s Progress Report • Confirm the Scope for Resource Management • Updates on Technology Issues • Waste composition study results • Meeting a 75% recycling goal by 2030 • Anaerobic Digestion • Gasification • Policy Update • Waste Assurance • Governance

  5. Scope for Resource Management Roadmap to guide technology changes in the future How selected technologies could be implemented over time Guides future policy decisions: Will be used to analyze waste assurance, ownership, governance, and finance issues

  6. Timeline

  7. Scope for Resource Management Looking ahead at the next 10 years Agree-ment with RRT in Effect 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Continued use of combusion if Gasficiation is not feasible 2018 to 2022 is a phased approache to change conversion technology for RDF Continue to use RDF Technology with combusion for electrical generation More intense efforts to increase source separation of recyclables & organics from residential and non-residential generators Potential Procure & Construct MWP at Newport Potential MWP for recycling & organics at Newport Evaluateneed for MWP SaniGreen or other Anerobic Digester constructed & operational Explore development of Gasfication as a market & procure services Gasification siting, permitting, construction, testing Gasification siting, permitting, construction, testing RDF Gasificiation system using RDF from Newport Note: Shaded steps represent uncertainty in timing and the need for the previous step to be successful

  8. Waste Composition Study • Study conducted in June-July 2014 • Residential waste 45% • Commercial waste 55% • Top ten categories for both lacking in traditional recyclables. • Several of the top ten categories will be difficult to manage and/or do not have readily available end markets • Food waste - a clear target • “Consistent with waste sort studies completed in jurisdictions with mature, aggressive recycling and diversion programs”

  9. Meeting a 75% Recycling Goal To meet 75% recycling goal, 3 alternatives were studied: • Increase collection of Source Separated Organics and Recycling (SSO/R) from residents and commercial sectors. • Use Mixed Waste Processing (MWP) technology at Newport to separate waste sent to the facility and recover recyclables and organics before processing the remaining waste into RDF. • Use a combination of SSO/R and MWP.

  10. Important to Note Uses current data (2013 – 2014) to forecast Looks at currently recyclable materials (metal, glass, paper, plastic, organics) and adds yard waste Includes “non-traditional” items, such as bulky material, carpet, etc. Assumes that markets are available for recovered recyclables

  11. Current Recycling & Organics Trends: 53% Recycling

  12. Including Yard Waste R/W Generate = 921,000 tons per year 53% Currently Recycled = 487,000 tons per year To meet 75%, R/W Needs 204,000 tons per year of “new” recyclable tons– a 22% increase in recycling

  13. Additional “New” Recycling Tons for SSO/R

  14. Can we reach 75% with SSO/R? Assume aggressive capture rates from both residents and commercial sector “New” tons estimated = 103,000 tons per year or 11.2%, bringing total recycling rate to 64.2% Cannot achieve 75% recycling rates with SSO/R alone

  15. Costs for Implementing SSO/R The additional 11.2% in recycling has costs to implement Estimated Costs by Sector:

  16. Can we reach 75% with MWP? MWP technology does fit with the existing Newport facility Assuming installation of two line MWP system “New” tons estimated = 4.6% Bringing total recycling rate to 57.6% Cannot achieve 75% recycling rates with MWP at Newport alone

  17. Costs for Implementing MWP MWP system generates potential revenue from recovery of ferrous material and cardboard Assuming amortized capital costs at 4% over 20 years, the annual costs range from $938,000 to $1,453,000.

  18. Can we reach 75% with SSO/R + MWP? If enhanced SSO/R were implemented, the amount of material available for MWP would be reduced. “New” tons estimated = 14.1% Bringing total recycling rate to 67.1%

  19. Findings and Next Steps • By using very aggressive source separation programs, and implementing mixed waste processing at the Facility, Ramsey and Washington Counties could achieve a recycling rate of 67%, short of the 75% by 2030 goal • There are one-time and ongoing costs to achieve this • Success in recovery depends on strong markets for the materials that are separated for recycling • Next Steps: • Peer Review of this analysis • Carbon and Energy Analysis • Economic Analysis • Additional Policy Discussion

  20. Anaerobic Digestion SaniGreen update Metropolitan Council IPIP program

  21. Gasification – RFEI Responses • Request of Expressions of Interest issued to 8 potential providers of MSW gasification • Four responses • Coronal, St. Paul, MN • Enerkem, Montreal, QE • Fiberight, Baltimore, MD • Sierra Energy, Davis, CA • Report summarizes responses

  22. RFEI Summary • Factors reviewed: • Technology description • Products and potential markets • Residuals and emissions • Water use and wastewater • Flexibility • Reference facility • Project approach • Projected economics • Use of Newport

  23. Gasification – Learning from RFEI Gasification continues to have significant potential Limited number of companies with proven gasification capabilities Technologies vary Products vary: syngas (energy products); diesel fuel, cellulosic ethanol, methane, hydrogen, industrial chemicals, CNG vehicle fuel

  24. RFEI Summary • Next steps: • Continued evaluation of the technology • Tour of Edmonton Waste Management campus and Enerkem • Attend Renewable Energy from Waste Conference in San Jose with tours • Attend Mechanical Biological Treatment Workshop in San Jose prior to Conference • Meet with representatives of Fiberight at Conference in San Jose • Consider a site visit to Fiberight reference facility in Lawrenceville, VA • Consider a site visit to the new MWP facility in Montgomery, Alabama

  25. Policy Recommendations Waste Diversion Goal Recycling Market Development

More Related