HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0591.007 2002-2004 JMYY OF
4~••i
Harry Kim Barbara Bell
Mayor .re- - .
•y':;.~~=~-, Director
1rF Oi•N•~
l'LIIlITi~'~J II~ '~M~1TtItt
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
25 Aupuni Street, Room 210 • Hilo, Hawari 96720-4252
(808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Apri12Q 2004 x«rwco
.y y.-..__-.~.
TO: Council Chair James Y. Arakaki ~f11e -.-1; e
And Members of the Haw Co ty Council pore ~Coun ~Counctl i'
ry
FROM: Bazbaza Bell, Directc~
RE: Resolution No. 180- 4
Thank you for the vote of confidence in suggesting that we can achieve 95% diversion from
landfills! There aze groups throughout the world who have set Zero Waste as a goal and although
a diversion rate of 95% is theoretically possible, it is not a rate that has currently been achieved
by U.S. municipalities, with or without high-tech waste reduction technologies. Reports indicate
that the best rates achieved, between 80-85%, are accomplished through a mix of resource
recovery (recycling) in combination with a high tech waste reduction technologies. These rates
have been achieved only in urban settings with large economies of scale where the logistics and
costs of advanced collection and disposal systems have been addressed.
I believe we would be setting an unrealistic goal, especially with a 10-year timeline. However, if
you aze serious about conserving our landfill airspace, we will do a rough cost estimate for the
next 10 fiscal years. It is a given that more financial resources will be necessary for the
manpower and equipment needed to achieve this ambitious goal.
THE EXISTING PLANS:
To achieve the 80% diversion rate goal set by the 2002 Update to the Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan (ISWMP), any waste reduction technology implemented within the County
will need to draw upon the island-wide waste stream to provide cost effective processing. To
avoid negative impacts to our island's environment, avoid compliance violations, and mitigate
road congestion we must consider how best to:
• Develop the acreage at Pu'uanahulu Landfill which has been set aside for resource
recovery,
• Establish a viable fleet for cross island trucking, whether privately or publicly owned, and
• Fund and recruit additional staff to oversee both low and high tech resource reduction
activities.
Comm. No. ~ ~ •
Ref. To: p~eaeeh0
Hnwai'i County is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Ref, Date
Hawaii County Council
Apri12Q 2004
Page 2
Additionally, we must be fiscally prudent in our adoption of a waste reduction technology such
that we don't impede economic growth.
The implementation of our solid waste plan to achieve the goal of 80% diversion by 2014 has
been assisted by expert consultants and includes input from the State Department of Health and
all the other county solid waste divisions in the State of Hawaii. The reality of implementing
any plan requires modifications as new information is discovered. However, to drastically alter
that plan at this point will require additional resources.
The solid waste management plan adopted as a result of the ISWMP requires addressing the
logistical requirements of resource recovery first. The time line provided in the EIS shows that
the progress made towazd selection of a high-tech waste reduction technology is actually on track
and on schedule.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
Since August 2002, the Department of Environmental Management has:
• Finalized the Update to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan,
• Completed an action plan relative to the ISWMP's recommendations,
• Established a working relationship with our regulators, the State Department of Health,
• Organized atwo-day informational session for Council members from various waste
reduction technology representatives,
• Completed an EIS which provides specific details and timelines for our solid waste
management plan,
• Taken over all operations of the Kea'au Recycling and Reuse Center since the EPA grant
expired.
• Directed a study on island-wide Transfer Station enhancements, with priorities and levels of
service,
• Developed a draft RFI for waste reduction technologies, and
• Conducted numerous community meetings as an integral element of all our programs.
NEW INFORMATION:
Also attached aze the draft executive summaries of two comprehensive studies just completed on
the status of waste reduction technologies. This brand new information was not available at the
time the Update to the ISWMP was finalized. The status of waste reduction technologies is
changing rapidly in today's world, which prompted the California Assembly to pass Bill 2770 in
2002 to conduct a thorough analysis of waste reduction processes and products. The first reports
generated by this legislation aze now available in draft form and extremely illuminating with
regard to the status of existing technologies and the environmental impacts.
Hawaii County Council
Apri120, 2004
Page 3
Information about the actual costs associated with each technology is still insufficient, although
it is cleaz that the operations of all available technologies are responsive to economies of scale.
It is also cleaz that no thermal process alone can deal with 80% of the waste stream and that such
diversion rates are achieved only through the combination of low and high tech modes of
resource recovery. Although waste to energy is a desirable product for our island's economic
growth, it should be noted that the general rule of thumb is that the net gain in energy is only
around 5% of the current BTUs consumed by the population generating the waste stream. For
our County, that would mean that the net energy produced would be in the range of 6-8
megawatts. Although increasing our generating capacity with anon-imported fuel source is
desirable, the net gain would not provide a sizable increase to our existing generation capacity.
I would like to recommend that the Council either defer action on Resolution No. 180-04, to
more carefully consider the exact level of landfill diversion we will set as a County goal, or
consider the attached draft.
cc: Harry Kim, Mayor, County of Hawaii
attachments: California Integrated Waste Management Boazd Executive Summary,
Evaluation of Conversion Technology Processes and Products
Executive Summary, Apri12004, Life Cycle and Mazket Impact Assessment
Of Waste Conversion Technologies
Draft Resolution No. 180-04
DRAFT -For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
Draft Executive Summary:
Evaluation of Conversion Technology Processes and Products
Prepared for:
California Integrated Waste Management Board
1001 I Street
P.O. Box 4025
Sacramento, CA
95812-4025
Contract Manager: Fernando Berton
Submitted:
April 2004
Colin Hackett Robert B. Williams
William Welch Daza Salour
Thomas D. Durbin Bryan M. Jenkins
Joshua Pence Rizaldo Aldan
College ofEngineering-Center for Dept. of Biological and Agricultural
Environmental Reseazch and Technology Engineering
University of California University of Califomia
Riverside, CA 92521 One Shields Avenue
(909) 781-5791 Davis, CA 95616
(909) 781-5790 fax Phone: (530) 752-6623
fax: (530) 752-2640
ES-i
DRAFT -For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
Executive Summary
The diversion of materials from landfill is one of the central goals of the California Integrated
Waste Management Board (CIWMB) as well as an important societal issue. Diversion efforts in
Califomia have increased substantially in Califomia since the passage of AB 939 in 1989,
establishing a target of 50% diversion from landfills by 2000. Although the diversion rate in
Califomia is estimated to be approximately 47%, over 37 million tons of material is still disposed
of in landfills. Of the materials landfilled, 79% of the material is organic (biomass and plastic
cazbonaceous material) that could potentially be processed to provide chemical energy or be
converted into other useful products. The 30 million tons of organic waste currently landfilled
annually contain the equivalent energy of over 60 million barrels of crude oil, or could support
2370 MW of electrical power (if all energetic components were to be converted to electricity),
representing about 5% of the electric capacity available to the state (51,000 MW) and 6% of
electric energy consumption.
There are a number of potential options for reducing the current amount of waste disposed in
landfills. These include reducing the generation of waste, increasing the amount recycled, and/or
diverting a portion of the stream through other conversion processes. The recycling mazket is
well developed and plays an important role in the waste infrastructure. Much of the readily
recyclable materials are already pulled from the waste stream, however, and barriers such as
economic collection and processing remain for other materials. Programs to reduce waste at the
source aze also used in azeas such as Europe. Although these programs have had some success, it
is unlikely that such programs could be applied to achieve a zero waste objective. The
combustion or incineration of waste is another option that has increasingly been used in Europe
and Japan. Incineration remains controversial, however, due to public perceptions of
environmental impacts, and it is unlikely that incineration systems could be widely applied in the
State without considerable opposition, even though improvements have been made over the
years to reduce harmful emissions.
In order to further explore options for reducing the landfill disposal of organics, legislators and
the CIWMB have put in place several different programs. These include new legislation (i.e.,
recently enacted AB 2770), and the initiation of information gathering activities such as
technology evaluations, life-cycle analyses, and mazket assessments. One of the main focuses of
these programs is the evaluation of altemative conversion technologies, or conversion methods
that do not employ full oxidative combustion (commonly called incineration). These include
thermochemical processes such as pyrolysis and gasification and biochemical processes such as
aerobic and anaerobic digestion and fermentation. Questions remaining for these technologies
include the types of feedstocks that could potentially be utilized, the technical viability of the
processes, the resultant products from the processes, their environmental impacts, and financial,
economic, social and political feasibilities.
This report provides an in-depth technical evaluation of alternative conversion technologies to
address issues related to technical viability and environmental impacts. As part of this
evaluation, a comprehensive survey of companies, institutions, and technology developers was
ES- I
DRAFT -For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
liquid materials using thermally driven chemical processes is regazded as a continuum of
processes ranging from thermal decomposition in a primarily non-reactive environment,
(commonly called pyrolysis) to decomposition in a chemically reactive environment (usually
called gasification if the products are primarily energetic gases or complete combustion if the
products aze fully oxidized). Pyrolysis can be considered an incomplete gasification process, in
which a mixture of gaseous, liquid and solid products are produced, each of which may have
some irnmediate use to sustain the process. The characteristics of each of these different
processes can also vary depending on the oxidizing or reducing media, process temperature and
process pressure.
Combustion Definition
Combustion is the oxidation of the fuel for the production of heat at elevated
temperatures without generating commercially useful intermediate fuel gases, liquids, or
solids. Combustion of MSW or other secondary materials is generally refen•ed to as
incineration. Flame temperatures range typically between 1500 and 3000°F depending on
fuel, stoichiometry, fiunace design, and system heat loss. Particle temperatures in
heterogeneous (e.g., reactions between solid and gas phases) combustion can differ from
gas temperatures depending on radiative conditions. Continuous combustion of solids
involves the simultaneous processes of heat and mass transport, progressive pyrolysis,
gasification, ignition, and burning, with fluid flow. Nomrally, combustion employs an
excess oxidizer to ensure maximum fuel conversion, but it can also occur under fuel rich
conditions. Products of combustion processes include heat, oxidized species (e.g. cazbon
dioxide [COZ], water [HZO]), products of incomplete combustion and other reaction
products (mostly as pollutants), and ash. Other processes, such as supercritical water
oxidation and electrochemical oxidation can produce similaz end products at lower
temperatures.
Gasification Defmition
Gasification typically refers to conversion via the duect intemal heating provided by
partial oxidation using substoichiometric air or oxygen. Alternative configurations using
either indirect heating methods such as externally fired burners or autothemral methods
using exothermic reducing reactions have been demonstrated. While gasification
processes vary considerably, typically gasifiers operate between 1300 and 1500°F. The
process is generally optimized to produce fuel or feedstock gases (either synthesis gas if
used for specific chemical synthesis, or producer gas if used as fuel gas), principally
consisting of cazbon monoxide (CO), HZ, methane (CH4), and lighter hydrocarbons in
association with COZ and NZ depending on process used. Gasification processes can also
produce liquids (tars, oils, and other condensates) and solids (chaz, ash) from solid
feedstocks. However, most gasification processes aze designed to generate fuel or
synthesis gases as the primary product. Fuel gases can be used in intemal and external
combustion engines, fuel cells, and other prime movers. Gasification products can be
used to produce methanol, Fischer-Tropsch (FT) liquids, and other fuel liquids and
chemicals, (see section 4 on Conversion Products of this report). Gasification of solids
with subsequent combustion of the gasification-derived fuel gases generates the same
ES-3
DRAFT -For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
appropriate temperatures for the facultative and methanogenic bacteria degrading the
waste substrates. The cazbon/nitrogen (C/1~ ratio of the feedstock is especially important.
Biogas can be used after appropriate gas clean-up as a fuel for engines, gas turbines, fuel
cells, boilers, industrial heaters, other processes, and the manufacturing of chemicals.
Aerobic Digestion Definition
Aerobic conversion includes composting and activated sludge waste water treatment
processes. Aerobic conversion uses air or oxygen to support the metabolism of the
aerobic microorganisms degrading the substrate. Nutritional considerations are also
important to the proper functioning of aerobic processes. Aerobic processes operate at
much higher reaction rates than anaerobic processes, but generally do not produce useful
fuel gases.
Fermentation Definition
Fermentation is generally used industrially to produce fuel liquids such as ethanol and
other chemicals (e.g., lactic acid used in producing renewable plastics from biomass).
This process operates without oxygen. Cellulosic feedstocks, including the majority of
the organic fraction of MSW, need pretreatment (acid, enzymatic, or hydrothermal
hydrolysis) to depolymerize cellulose and hemicellulose to monomers used by the yeast
and bacteria employed in the process. Ethanol and COz aze byproducts of anaerobic yeast
fermentation. Ethanol inhibits microbial growth, essentially halting the process when
ethanol concentration is neaz 12%. Ethanol must be distilled from the dilute fermentation
product in order to be used as fuel. Processes aze also in development that would convert
ethanol to hydrogen without distillation. Although fermentation and anaerobic digestion
aze commonly classified sepazately, both aze biochemical feanentation methods designed ~i
to produce different products. Lignin in biomass is resistant to fermentation and as a
byproduct of the process is typically considered for use as boiler fuel or as a feedstock for
thermochemical conversion to other fuels and products.
A summary schematic of thermochemical and biochemical processing of MSW is presented in
Figure FS-1.
ES-5
DRAFT -For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
Physicochemica/conversion pathways
Physicochemical conversion involves the synthesis of products using physical chemistry and
chemical processing at ambient temperatures and pressures. It is primarily associated with the
transformation of fresh or used vegetable oils, animal fats, greases, tallow, and other suitable
feedstocks into useful liquid fuels and chemicals such as biodiesel, frequently by
transesterification, areaction of anorganic glyceride with alcohol in the presence of catalyst.
Feedstocks
The feedstocks that can be utilized with alternative conversion processes aze primarily the
organic materials that aze now being landfilled. These include paper, cazdboazd, plastic, food,
green waste, and other waste. A summary of the waste material currently being landfilled,
including the potential chemical energy of each component, is provided in Table ES-1.
Thermxhemical process can potentially process all the organic portion of the waste stream that
is currently going to landfill. Some presorting and/or processing of MSW would be conducted
prior to thermal conversion for extraction of recyclable materials, size reduction compatible with
the process, and drying of the material, if needed.
The biochemical processes can convert only the biodegradable fraction of feedstocks. Metals,
glass, mineral matter, and the current waste plastic streamr aze inert to biodegradation. Higher
moisture feedstocks tend to be good candidates for biochemical processes. Biochemical
conversion technologies prefer source-sepazated green or food waste, or the biogenic fraction of
MSW after sorting. Some biochemical systems (so called `high solids' reactors) can accept
unsorted MSW (shredded or crushed to appropriate size, e.g., less than 2 inches) in the reactor.
The materials inert to biodegradation will simply exit as part of the digestate.
Paper/cazdboazd is the lazgest category of the material (on both a mass and energy basis) that
could be processed by conversion technologies. Paper and cazdboazd material comprise 11
million tons or 30% of the currently landfilled material. On an energy basis, however,
paper/cardboard represents neazly half (44%) of the potential chemical energy in the waste
stream. Although recycling of old comtgated containers (OCC) and old newspaper (ONP)
materials is a well developed industry in California, the recycling rates for these components aze
still only 52 and 58%, respectively. The collection of materials is one issue with recycling of
OCC and ONP, including the problem of capturing OCC from small businesses. Although mixed
paper is also recycled, the value of mixed paper as a commodity is relatively low making it more
difficult to process economically. Overall, the paper/cazdboazd recycling rate in California is
only slightly higher than 30%, or 4.5 million tons of material.
From an energy standpoint, plastic is the second most important component of the waste stream,
representing some 30% of the potential chemical energy. On a weight basis, plastics and other
textiles represent 4.2 million tons. of landfilled material or 11% of the total mass. On a
volumetric basis, however, plastic materials may occupy as much as 22% of the space in a
~ Plastics made from biodegradable feedstocks aze not yet commercial but aze being developed by a number of
manufactures and severs(research institutions and National Labs.
ES-7
DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not quote or cite.
landfill due to their comparatively lower density. Plastic materials in the waste stream present in
the highest amounts include high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polyethylene (PET), and durable
plastics. Although some plastic recycling markets are well developed, the overall recovery of
plastics is approximately 5%. PET bottles have the highest recycling rate at approximately 35%.
HDPE containers aze the next highest category of recycled plastics with a rate of 13°'0. A primary
issue that impedes plastics recycling is that the cost of collecting and processing typically
exceeds the value of the material. The number of new containers has also increased in recent
years, resulting in corresponding decreases in the overall recycling rate even though the total
amount recycled has increased.
Thermochemical processes currently represent the only strategy that would be applicable for
plastics conversion. With a high percentage of the total available chemical energy in mixed
MSW, plastics could be attractive materials for thermochemical processes. With the appropriate
thermochemical processes, it could even be possible to produce petroleum-like base products
such as ethylene that could be utilized for new plastics production while correspondingly
displacing petroleum use. Thermochemical techniques have previously been developed for
plastics recycling. These wnversion technologies could also be applied to the growing problem
azeas of electronic components, consumer appliances, and plastic packaging materials. It is worth
noting that some plastic components such as PVC contain chlorine in their composition. Since
chlorine is a precursor to dioxin formation, these components would either have to be
preprocessed and removed from the waste stream or appropriate exhaust remediation technology
would have to be used.
Biochemical processes are applicable for treating the biodegradable portion of the waste stream.
Primary feedstocks would be green and food wastes, although other biomass could also be
converted. Lignin is lazgely undegraded in most fermentation systems (including anaerobic
digestion) and hence remains as a residue of the process. Lignin represents approximately 28%
of typical softwood, up to 50% for nut shells, with lower percentages for grasses, straws, and
other herbaceous materials. Paper is primarily cellulose but may be coated or otherwise treated
and include other constituents such as clay and heavy metals from pigments. Sludge products
may have value as fertilizer or soil additives if heavy metal concentrations can be kept
sufficiently low. The lower temperatures of biochemical treatment have some advantages in
terms of reducing the potential formation of pollutant and hazardous species compazed with
higher temperature thermal processes, but cannot process the full waste stream.
Thermochemical Process Descriptions and Current Status
Thermochemical Process Descriptions
Pyrolysis and gasification are processes designed for the conversion of cazbonaceous feedstocks
to liquid or gaseous products. Pyrolysis is an endothermic process where materials aze thermally
degraded without the addition of any air or oxygen. Pyrolysis produces both gaseous and liquid
products as well as residual solids, but is generally optimized for production of liquid fuels.
Gasification processes aze generally optimized for the generation of energetic or synthesis gases.
Gasification can occur via direct internal heating provided by partial oxidation using
substoichiometric air or oxygen or by indirect heating methods.
ES- 9
DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not quote or cite.
Ititsx9bnR~:inai+~t+~E~9uc}:
' ~t~88;at~ra~dri~:
orpatiri<(energy:'
paper & r~r86bar4: ~rrergetta
• .plesti~it: ''Gases: _
rrd TSat
f~M54Y Separetioh r ( ~Gas~c (arRtional) -
l. ta9iflc8tl
r I
oR ; Tieattrient Cleaned
~ - - ettre ( Rt+a~r` 1 ~ Removed EoergOtTc Ezhaust
C)- or' . . ~i~Ash Removed.. Gases
j Mechanics! N , ites{i?ira, syrithC~Sis ~ p~rticle-
PreProcessing F' ~ I- `aea~xttN` Exhaust'ftue
(size njduucNorr: i ~Ysi~. ; , Mattel gas ~tmr=
- mtldit~al+~' 1 !Rf~ rru.+t ttemtmeM~ta
dcylpgat i . _ 1 -
treed~~ - - remov~-
F.~tte#nal~9viher potiutarits
1 i ...:.~wrr~..:-.. ~~-c..~ [I~Raefied~~OT~
~ Process Fearl t1~ supply FtgsSuppty IrdBrsuPP!Y) FnteMal
1 tPCessurirattori.. firom sit' t'irm+' .
i ~sturrY pump sepaPrittaiii Gteem 'Cbrri6~
bon ElecUtc
power
~ ec~-~ $Y~m` t ~ Tu[ti}ne j genera~r
l I r
l j if <3team'8efotroer Air ___1
~ 1 j ~ Exportei!
--------~---^-~-a ElectriciH
tagerdt Fa~elsJCtie[ril~ats
paahed 6ine• Eteect~'teeYF?ger :AsTi (3fOr. - 12ecyoted Water _
pottedLhe t~aetfl~x ..~=j73g
~gIIdLRaa Maas€low~ metals (;bndapsate~.cOntemiheMs
#ached Una e~o~ead:~aMrtn;7md Rxcrdx+ts tbarecYdi .acids: bases)
derxrteemmnortpdiebA,ffc.readio[~~M- !~CY4'lln9.f
Figure ES-2. Schematic Diagram of Gasification Process with Front End Pyrolysis Process.
ES- 11
i
DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not quote or cite.
exposure (<1 second). Rapid quenching is necessary to freeze the decomposition roducts and
condense species before simpler molecules (lower moleculaz mass) aze formed that ~emain gases
under ambient conditions. This process results in a product that is up to 80% liquid >~y weight.
The pyrolyzing/gasifying media can also be vaned by using hydrogen and/or ste I. Significant
differences in the product distribution can occur when using hydrogen and/or steam a reactant.
Hydrogen gas can be used to enhance chemical reduction and suppress oxidat' n from the
elemental oxygen in the feedstock. This process, known as hydropyrolysis, w s originally
developed to enhance the production of energetic gases from the pyrolysis of c 1. Water or
steam can also be incorporated into the thermochemical process to not only change the resultant
gases and vapors but also to increase the porosity of the resultant chaz. By creatin a very high
surface area and porosity, activated cazbon (chazcoal) can be formed. Steam yrolysis or
gasification can also be used to achieve adequate results at lower temperature but higher
pressures than processes conducted in the absence of water, or dry processes. is ability to
pyrolyze and gasify wet streams of carbonaceous material using chemically reduci g processes
appears to have some distinct advantages over the more traditional dry and partia ly oxidative
methods. It should be noted that water and elemental oxygen are both typically fou in biomass
feedstocks. Most biomass materials usually contain between 25% and 45% by mas (weight) of
elemental oxygen, so some oxidative reactions will occur during pyrolysis, ven though
additional oxygen is intentionally excluded from the process.
Plasma azc and radio frequency (or microwave) heating is a technique for providi g heat from
electricity for gasification, pyrolysis, or combustion depending on the amount of rea live oxygen
or hydrogen fed to the reactor. Very high temperatures aze created in the ionized plasma (the
electric azc [plasma] can reach temperatures of 9,000 - 27,000°F; the non-ionized gases in the
reactor chamber can reach 1,700 - 2,200°F; and the molten slag is typically azou d 3,000°F).
Plasma arc heating can provide advantages in controlling the combustion proces ,but at the
same time it is less efficient that direct heating due to the need to produce electricit . As a result
of this inefficiency, plasma arc technologies are often used for more specialized fee stocks such
as medical waste.
Catalytic cracking is a subclass of thermochemical conversion usually applied polymeric
wastes to produce liquid fuels (primarily gasoline) in an oil refinery. The addition o catalysts to
enhance the kinetics of this method of pyrolysis has created many commercial imp ementations
that aze trade secrets and proprietary. However, the deactivation of these catalysts b the chlorine
present in PVC plastics, makes the genera] application of this technology proble alit without
expensive sorting and pre-treatment of the plastic from the MSW stream. Th market for
petrochemicals and polymeric materials derived from petroleum is highly tom etitive on a
worldwide basis. The use of catalytic cracking to convert waste polymeric materi is (plastics)
into fuels is well established within oil refinery complexes worldwide. The catal 'c cracking
process is shown schematically in Figure ES-4.
~I
ES- 13
i__
DRAFT' - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not quote or cite.
To date, a lazge number of gasification and pyrolysis technologies have been developed and
demonstrated on levels from laboratory scale through pilot and fully commercial scale.
Gasification of coal remains the largest use of the different technologies, although the
commercialization of gasification for waste is growing, particularly in Japan as well as Europe.
In general, most of the identified pyrolysis and gasification facilities are operational at a level of
200 tons per day (tpd) capacity or less. In Europe, a limited number of pyrolysis technologies are
operating at a scale above the 50,000 tons per year (tpy) for MSW or other general wastes,
although a number of vendors indicated plans for development of facilities at that scale. It should
be noted that some facilities operating or since abandoned have had operational issues in either
commissioning or actual operation, including the now abandoned Siemans facility at Frirth. For
gasification in Europe, the SVZ facility at Schwarze Pumpe in Germany is one of the largest
facilities with a capacity of 450k tpy of solid waste and 55 tpy of liquid waste. There aze other
gasification facilities operating a smaller level or in the planning stages in Europe, although
again, the applications appear to be primarily niche applications or in areas where projects were
supported by public agencies. The use of gasification for the processing of coal is more widely
applied and much of this technology can be utilized for processing MSW. This includes
TyssenKrupp Uhde, which has over 100 gasifiers in place primarily for coal.
Gasification and pyrolysis appear to be applied at a slightly larger scale in Japan. Licensees
Mitsui and Takuma of the Siemens gasification + pyrolysis process both have plants that have
been in operation since the 1990s, with additional plants in the planning or construction phases.
Thermoselect and Thide Environmental licensee Hitachi also have a small plants in operation.
Nippon Steel has approximately a dozen plants ranging from 80 to 450 tpd, with most being
operational. This includes two plants of 100 and 450 tpd capacities that have been operating
since the late 1970s. Ebara/Alstom has a 450 tpd facility in place and an additional 7 plants in
various stages of operation, commissioning, and planning. This includes a 1,500 tpd facility that
is scheduled for commission in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in May 2006. Hitachi metals has also
commissioned a 300 tpd facility in Utashinai City, Japan with several other smaller facilities.
Several facilities in Califomia or nearby states are currently operating at a small scale or are
being commissioned at a larger scale. Balboa Energy Technologies Inc has issued two licenses
for its pyrolysis technology to companies in the Southern California area. International Energy
Solutions (IES) is one license holder. IES has constructed a 50 tpd facility in Romoland, CA and
is currently in the final stages of obtaining a permit to operate. The Romoland facility will accept
a variety of feedstocks, including pretreated medical waste, electronic waste and fireworks in
conjunction with dried sewage sludge. The Sipprelle Investment Group in Long Beach, CA is the
second Licensee and they are currently planning for a unit, with the feedstock to be determined.
North American Power currently has a facility running in Las Vegas, Nevada. This facility is
capable of processing a range of feedstocks including MSW, tires, industrial and medical waste,
and liquid sludges. A catalytic cracking facility is also being planned in Hanford, CA for the
processing of 50 tpd of mixed plastic waste with another 50 tpd of capacity planned for a second
stage.
Non-combustion thermochemical conversion processes for woody biomass and some energy
crops have also been implemented to some degree elsewhere in North America. The FERCO
gasification process, developed by Battelle operated a gasifier co-located with awood-fired
ES- 15
DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not quote or cite.
amino acids. In acetogenesis, acid forming bacteria use these by-products to generate
intermediary products such as propionate and butyrate. Further microbial action results in the
degradation of these intermediary products into hydrogen and acetate. Methanogenic bacteria
consume the hydrogen and acetate to produce methane and carbon dioxide. A schematic of a
single stage anaerobic digestion process is provided in Figure ES-6.
Fermentation is used industrially to produce fuel liquids such as ethanol and other chemicals.
This process operates without free oxygen. Although fermentation and anaerobic digestion aze
commonly classified separately, both aze biochemical fermentation methods designed to produce
different products. Hydrolysis is used to pretreat cellulosic feedstocks to sepazate the cellulose
and hemicellu]ose from the cellulo-lignin matrix and depolymerize the compounds into simple
sugars. Hydrolysis methods include the use of acid solutions (either strong or weak acids),
enzymes, and/or hydrothermal means. A schematic of a fermentation process using a 2-stage
dilute acid hydrolysis process is shown in Figure ES-7 while a fermentation process using
concentrated acid hydrolysis is shown in Figure ES-8.
Particulate Organic Material
HYDROLYSIS
Sugars, Amino acids, Organic acids
ACETOGENESIS
Acetate, Hydrogen
METHANOGENESIS '
Methane
COZ
Figure ES-5. Anaerobic digestion block diagram
Adapted from Gujer, W., and Zehnder, A. J. B. (1983). "Conversion processes in anaerobic digestion." Wat. Sci.
Tech., 15, 127-167.
ES- 17
DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not quote or cite.
Feedstock Size Concentrated H2SOa
Reduction Water
151 Stage 2nd Stage
Cellulose Hydrolysis Hydrolysis
Decrystallization
Steam/
L' Electricity
a Generation
0
'F
m
~i'
w
m
W
Acid ~ agars Ethanol
Reconcentration
Concentration
Water Fetmentor
Neutralization/
Detoxification Gypsum
(Adapted from http://www.ott.dce.gov/biofuels/concentrated.htmll
Figure ES-8. Schematic of concentrated acid hydrolysis fermentation
Ethanol can be produced once the cellulose has been hydrolyzed, and conditions are made
favorable (e.g., pH and temperature). A variety of microorganisms (bacteria, yeast, or fungi)
ferment cazbohydrates to ethanol under anaerobic conditions. If there is no net cell production,
the maximum possible yield of ethanol is 0.51 (corresponding to 51% of the cazbohydrate mass
converted to ethanol), with the balance being carbon dioxide. Typically, 5-12% of the
carbohydrate is converted to cell mass, which results in the most practical ethanol production
processes converting no more than 46% of the fermented cazbohydrate to ethanol. The remaining
liquid broth is recycled or sent to a wastewater treatment facility for appropriate management.
The lignin and residual cellulose can be dried and used as boiler fuel for electricity or steam
production. When fermenting stazch materials, such as com grain, high value feed products aze
produced. High value derivatives may also be possible from cellulosic feedstocks.
Aerobic digestion is a biochemical process for converting biogenic solid waste into a stable,
humus-like product. Aerobic conversion uses air or oxygen to support the metabolism of the
aerobic microorganisms degrading the substrate. Aerobic conversion includes composting and
activated sludge wastewater treatment processes. The process of composting produces useful
materials, such as mulch, soil additives and amendments, and fertilizers. Aerobic processes
ES- 19
DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not quote or cite.
3.0
2.5
a
0 2.0
c
0
E 1.5
i^
a 1.0
a
m
U
0.5
0.0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Figure ES-9 Growth Solid Waste Anaerobic Digester Capacity in Europe
'Data were projected for 2004
Fermentation of biomass material into ethanol is fully commercial for sugaz and starch based
feedstocks. It is not yet commercial for cellulosic biomass (because of added expense or low
sugaz yields of hydrolysis processes) and is the subject of intense basic research. There aze also
several facilities utilizing fermentation that are operating or being commissioned. The Masada
OxyNol process is under construction in Middleton, NY. This facility is permitted for 230 kta
MSW and 71 kta bone dry biosolids with an output of 8.5 million gallons of ethanol per year
expected. A facility is also planned for the Genahol process in Grove City, Ohio. The facility '
will be designed fora 275 kta capacity, which will yield 10 million gallons of ethanol.
With respect to California, other than one full-scale landfill bioreactor demonstration project,
there are no existing biochemical processing facilities using anaerobic digestion or fermentation
methods in the State. There aze several proposed facilities including one for Califomia State
University -Channel Islands offered by Onsite Power Systems using a design developed at UC
Davis. Recent announcements indicate that Los Angeles and the City of Lancaster are
investigating anaerobic digestion projects with Bioconverter LLC. In at least two jurisdictions in
Califomia which aze investigating alternatives to landfill and have received proposals from
technology suppliers, biochemical conversion is ranked among the finalists or even the only
qualifying processes.
ES- 21
DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not quote or cite.
potential environmental impacts of California-based facilities. In addition, there aze alternative
waste conversion sites under development in California. Direct measurements from these
facilities aze planned as these sites come on line, providing for objective independent verification
of environmental performance.
Current information suggests that thermochemical and biochemical waste conversion processes
can be operated in a manner that presents no greater threat to human health or the environment
than current waste disposal practices. That being said, properly designed processes must address
air emissions, solid waste residues, liquid wastes, nuisance factors, and risk factors.
Air Emissions
While biochemical processes have gained widespread acceptance for treating various feedstocks,
thermochemical processes have met with resistance from the environmental community and the
public at lazge. Some of this resistance has stemmed from the misperception that pyrolysis and
gasification processes are vaziations. of incineration or "mass bum." It is important to note,
however, that alternative thermochemical conversion processes differ in several key respects
from incineration:
• Pyrolysis and gasification processes use very little air/oxygen or none at all
• The volume of output gases from a pyrolysis reactor or gasifier is much smaller per ton of
feedstock processed than an equivalent incineration process. While these output gases
may be eventually combusted, the alternative processes provide an intermediate step
where gas cleanup can occur. Mass burn incineration is limited application of air
pollution control equipment to the fully combusted exhaust only.
• Output gases from pyrolysis reactors or gasifiers aze typically in a reducing environment,
and can be treated with different technolog;es compazed with a fully combusted
(oxidative) exhaust.
• Subsequent combustion of low moleculaz weight producer gases from pyrolysis and
gasification processes can be much cleaner than combustion of raw feedstocks (similaz to
combustion ofnatural gas vs. coal).
These factors make control of air emissions less costly and less complex than that required for
incineration.
While exhaust gas cleanup of thermochemical conversion processes may be easier than that
associated with incineration, proper design of the process and emissions control systems is
necessary to ensure that health and safety requirements aze met. The output gases of pyrolysis
and gasification reactors (and subsequent combustion processes, if applicable) can contain a
variety of air pollutants that must be controlled prior to dischazge into the ambient air. These
include particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NO,), oxides of sulfur (SOx), dioxins and
fiirans, hydrocazbon (HC) gases, multiple metals, and cazbon monoxide (CO). There aze many
strategies for controlling emissions from thermochemical conversion processes, and they aze
highly dependent on the process requirements of each individual facility.
ES- 23
DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not quote or cite.
dust, and litter aze not typically associated with the reactor component of the system. Co-location
of conversion facilities at existing solid waste facilities will not result in any increased traffic
because the existing transportation infrastructure can be used and material can be transported via
conveyor belts. Traffic impacts may exist due to offsite transportation of commercial products
and byproducts for mazketing and disposal.
Other Risks
Other risks associated with altemative conversion technologies include potential acid spills in
biochemical processes and leaks or breaches in high-pressure thermal conversion systems. Tt is
expected that these risks can be adequately managed within the well-defined risk abatement
mechanisms already in place for industrial processes.
Environmental Conclusions
From an environmental perspective, advanced alternative waste conversion technologies have
several potential benefits over mass incineration or even landfilling. These include a potential for
a lower overall environmental impact compazed with existing practice, increased conversion
efficiencies to useful products, and an enhanced compatibility with existing recycling and
composting operations. These advantages aze maximized when combined with existing policy
requirements for waste streams. Finally, there aze no "one size fits all" regulations on pyrolysis
and gasification systems (due to the wide range of process pazameters, end-use of products, and
degree of air pollution control). They are generally regulated on a case-by-case basis.
Socio-Economic Impacts of Alternative Conversion Processes
As a resource, the organic portion of the MSW materials being buried in California landfills each
yeaz represent approximately an estimated chemical energy equivalence of over 60 million
barrels of crude oil or 2370 MW of electrical power. At a mazket price of over $37 per barrel,
this energy resource could be considered to be worth over $2.2 billion. For thermochemical
process, plastics aze a particularly attractive component of the MSW stream, since they represent
over 30% of the chemical energy in California MSW, and are growing at almost twice the rate of
biochemically derived organic materials.
The broad implementation of altemative conversion technologies could impact the State
economy in number of different ways, including the introduction of new sources of products and
energy, the diversification of product mazkets, extension of landfill lifetimes, increased
recycling, decreased environmental impacts, job creation, as well as the specific economic issues
related to the plant itself.
One of the most important economic impacts could be the introduction of new sources of
products and energy. The application of conversion technologies to the waste stream could
provide up to 6% of the state's current electricity consumption and help in achieving the goal of
20% renewable energy by 2017 required under the California Renewables Portfolio Standard
Program (RPS). Other important product streams could be synthetic products including a wide
range of liquid fuels and chemicals. The introduction of new production facilities for a range of
fuel and chemical products could also provide a beneficial diversity to the mazketplace. This
ES- 25
DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not quote or cite.
subsequent conversion to electricity is likely to have some minimal emissions benefit. In
comparison, these effects need to be evaluated against the emissions that would be generated
from more traditional natural gas powerplants, as well as emissions of biogas from landfills.
Similar comparisons should be made for the disposal of solid or liquid residues from conversion
technologies with the corresponding direct disposal of products in landfill. It is also important
that, to the degree possible, these comparisons be made from an objective technical perspective,
as opposed to a purely political perspective.
Recommendations
The following aze recommendations related to the azea of alternative conversion technologies.
• Amore formal evaluation should be conducted of conversion technology vendors
interested in mazketing in California. This evaluation should include more specific
information than can be obtained in a scoping study such as the present work. This
information should include economic cost estimates, emissions data from third party
sources, and more specific detail on commercial status, including possible site visits for a
limited number of akeady commercialized technologies. This evaluation should be
conducted by a neutral, independent, third party.
• Improve Characterization of MSW. In order to predict the behavior of conversion
systems and estimate type and quantity of emissions, detailed chemical composition and
physical properties data for feedstocks is necessary. Much information exists in the
literature, but a review should be done to see if sufficient data exist to compile this data
for typical California waste streams. Where gaps aze identified in the data, samples of
California waste stream should be analyzed to fill these information gaps. The type of
chazacterization by component and by gross sample includes:
o Proximate, ultimate, and other elemental analysis including ash, metals, and toxic
cogeners
o Higher Heating Values (HHV)
o CelluloseJhemicellulose/lignin distribution in cellulosic components
o Characterize protein/cazbohydtate/fats for typical food wastes
Recommendations could be made on the basis of these results as to what components
should bepre-sortied from MS W being used for conversion.
• Investigate and make recommendations to improve estimates of solid waste generation
rates (not only the disposed fraction of MSW). Survey the literature and apply models
and estimates to the California waste stream to verify or improve upon existing method
for estimating California waste generation.
• Additional data should be collected on emissions from thermochemical conversion
technologies. These emissions studies should be conducted by an independent third party
and could include facilities at locations throughout the world. These emissions studies
should include measurement of metals, dioxins and furans, and other hazazdous
compounds in addition to criteria pollutants. The emissions results should be norrrralized
to a standazd use indicator such as volume or mass of material processed so that the
values can be compazed with other processes. These chazacterizations are typical of the
type performed in life cycle assessment.
ES- 27
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
Life Cycle and Market Impact
Assessment of Waste
Conversion Technologies
Executive Summary
April 2004
INTCCRATED
WwSTE
MANAGHMCNT
80wR0
Zero Waste-You Make It Happen!
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary l
Background ............................................................................................................................................1
CT Descriptions and Scenarios Analyzed 1
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................................................6
MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................17
Abbreviations and Acronyms .....................................................................................................................28
Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................................30
Source Reference Notes ..............................................................................................................................31
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
Table 1. Summary of CT Features
Technical Feasibility Yes Yes Yes
Feedstock Constraints Carbohydrate fraction Carbohydrate fraction, Polyolefin plastic only
lignin, plastics
Possible Product(s) Ethanol, carbon dioxide Electricity Low sulfur diesel
(COZ) Heat Electricity
Electricity, steam, lignin
Gypsum
Environmental Impacts
Air Combustion emissions Combustion emissions Combustion emissions
Water Onsite wastewater Minimal Minimal rinse water
Solid treatment (WWT) Ash and char Spent catalyst
required
Ash, char, gypsum
Commercial Status No commercial facilities Numerous commercial Facility in Poland
Masada OxyNol facilities (none for MSW Kings County, CA,
received air permit fora in the United States) facility in 2004
NY facility Large demonstration Several plastic pyrolysis
facility in Australia plants in Europe and
Asia
Featured Technology Masada Brightstar Plastics Energy LLC
Vendor
Concentrated Acid Hydrolysis. In acid hydrolysis, an acid (e.g., sulfuric acid) is used to convert
cazbohydrates (e.g., cellulose and hemicellulose) from waste into five- and six-carbon sugars that
can be fermented into ethanol or other useful products. High (i.e., greater than 90 percent)
conversions of carbohydrates aze possible. Either concentrated or dilute acid can achieve the
hydrolysis. Because the concentrated acid process is closer [o commercialization than the dilute
acid process, it was selected for this study.
The primary product from acid hydrolysis is ethanol. By-products include lignin solids, gypsum,
and possibly carbon dioxide. Lignin can be burned in a boiler to create process steam and
electricity for sale or process use. Gypsum maybe sold for use in a variety of processes, such as
wallboard production, road bed stabilization, landfill cover, soil amendment, or land/mine
reclamation. If the gypsum cannot be reused, it is landfilled. A large market exists for carbon
dioxide.
Two companies, Arkenol and Masada OxyNo1TM, LLC, are currently commercializing
concentrated acid technology. Neither company has a commercial facility, but Masada was
awazded an air permit for a facility to process 230,000 tons per year (tpy) of MSW and other
wastes in Middletown, NY.~
Gasification. In gasification, feedstock is converted to syngas, primarily carbon monoxide (CO)
and hydrogen (Hz), in anoxygen-deficient atmosphere. Gasification is endothermic and requires a
heat source, such as syngas combustion, char combustion, or steam. The primary product of
2
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
It is assumed that the CT facilities will be colocated at materials recovery facilities (MBEs). Other
assumed transportation distances between various facilities included in the scenarios are shown in
Table 2.
Table 2. Transportation Distance Assumptions
Waste Management Facilities
Collection to MRF/CT Facility 15
Collection to Transfer Station 15
Collection to Landfill or WTE or Compost 15
Transfer Station to Landfill or WTE or Compost 45
MRF/CT or WTE or Compost Facility to Landfill 25
Remanufacturing Facilities
Aluminum 500
Glass 200
Paper 250
Plastic 250
Steel 500
CT Feedstock Assumptions
Table 3 summarizes the assumed annual capacities and incoming waste needs based on the
composition (see Table 4) of waste landfilled in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay regions.
The Greater Los Angeles region includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and
San Bernardino. The San Francisco Bay region includes the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa,
San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Claza, Solano, Mazin, Napa, and Sonoma.
It is important to remember that CT facilities are handling waste material that is currently being
(and will otherwise be) sent to landfills for disposal. Since the CT facilities can only accept
certain materials in their process, they employ up-front material sepazation activities similar to
those found in a mixed waste MRF (with the exception of a few pieces of specialty equipment,
such as autoclaves and floatation sepazation systems). For this study, we assumed that 95 percent
of the incoming unwanted materials were removed by the up-front sepazation and that 5 percent
enter the CT process as contaminants. Of the material removed, we assumed the split between
recovery for recycling versus landfill disposal as listed in Table 5.
4
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
Table 4. Assumed Percent Composition of Waste Sent to CT Facilities'
Paper 32.5 31.5 32.2 31.6
Plastic 11.5 11.7 10.8 11.1
Metals 7.6 7.3 9.6 9.6
Glass 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.9
Organics 42.8 43.9 41.6 41.9
Miscellaneous 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9
' It was assumed that construction and demolition, industrial, and hazardous waste would not be sent to CT facilities.
Note: values may not sum to100 percent due to rounding.
Table 5. Assumed Percent of Material Recovered for Recycling and Landfill Disposal
Recovered and Recycled 50 50 50 70
Removed and Landfilled 45 45 45 25
Unremoved (Process Contamination) 5 5 5 5
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
AB 2770 included the requirement that CIWMB's report on CTs "describe and evaluate the life
cycle environmental and public health impacts of CTs and compare them with impacts from
existing solid waste management."
To meet this requirement, a life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted for the selected CTs. Our
general approach was to develop mass balance and life cycle inventory (LCI) modules for the
selected CTs and use RTI's Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW-DST) to
capture the other life cycle components (e.g., collection, transfer, materials recovery, compost,
combustion, landfill), energy production, transportation, and materials production activities.
An LCA is not a risk assessment, but rather shows the difference in total energy consumption and
emissions of proposed CT scenarios as compazed to baseline scenarios of landfill disposal and
WTE. Concentrations of pollutants at a given time and location are not captured by an LCA. A
study to identify concentrations would need to be site-specific and is outside the scope of this
effort.
Life Cycle Inventory Modules for CTs
The life cycle boundaries for each CT include not only the inputs and outputs to the technology,
but also processes that supply inputs to those operations, such as fuels, electricity, and materials
production. Likewise, any useful energy or products produced by the CT system are captured by
the inventory. In selecting parameters to include in the inventory, our goal was to identify all
relevant inputs and outputs to each technology. No primary data collection was conducted for this
study, because CT facilities for MSW do not currently exist in the United States. Therefore, we
relied on publicly available sources of information about planned U.S. facilities or existing
foreign facilities, as well as direct communication with the technology vendors.
6
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
recovered sugar is further concentrated using a reverse osmosis system. It is then neutralized and
any solids are removed. The concentrated, cleaned sugar stream is sent on to fermentation, and
the acid is sent to acid recovery.
The acid recovery system is composed of an ion exchange bed, which will elute the acid and
sugar at different times. The acid/water mix is sent to evaporation to concentrate the acid before
recycling to the hydrolysis steps. The sugar solution is neutralized with lime, any gypsum formed
is sepazated out, and the sugar is sent to fermentation. Ethanol is recovered from the fermentation
product stream via distillation and dehydration.
Non-MSW inputs to the process are water, sulfuric acid, lime, denaturant (gasoline), ammonia,
and catalysts. The process generates all of its own heat, steam, and electricity. Outputs consist of
the ethanol and electricity products, volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from storage,
combustion emissions, ash, gypsum, treated wastewater, and spent catalysts. The gasifier will
require air pollution control. Ammonia injection was assumed for control of nitrogen oxides
(NOx). The ethanol and denaturant storage tanks may also require controls to minimize losses.
Inert feedstock constituents for acid hydrolysis include glass, plastics, and metals. In addition,
lignin and other noncazbohydrate fractions of the MSW will not be converted to ethanol.
Hydrolysis technologies have air, solid, and water releases. Air emissions are generated primarily
from lignin combustion with small amounts of ethanol emitted from the fermentors, storage
tanks, and distillation columns. Concentrated acid hydrolysis will generate large quantities of
gypsum, which may be sold, depending on market conditions. However, in some cases, the plant
would have to pay to haul the excess gypsum away. If lignin is combusted onsite, ash will also be
generated for disposal. Wastewater releases will occur from boiler and cooling tower blow down
as well as process wastewater. Due to the relatively high potential BOD content of the process
wastewater, it will be treated on-site before release to a POTW.
Gasification. The process for waste gasification is illustrated in Figure B and described below.
Following preprocessing in the adjacent MRF, the feedstock is sent to the main gasification area.
Here, the feedstock is heated, pyrolyzed and reformed into syngas, bio-oils and char. The char is
recovered from the other products via a cyclone, cooled with a water quench, and sent offsite.
The syngas and bio-oils are scrubbed and cooled to recover the bio-oil. Heavy bio-oils and some
of the syngas are recycled to the reformers, where they aze combusted to fuel the reformer. The
majority of the syngas and the light bio-oils are combusted in reciprocating engines to generate
electricity. Waste heat from the engines is converted to steam and hot water for use in the process
and for export to MSW processing (i.e., the autoclave). The engine exhaust will be subject to air
pollution controls. At a minimum, CO, NOx, and VOC control will likely be required. For large
facilities (e.g., greater than 2 megawatts [MW]) such as the one proposed, a combination
oxidation catalyst and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is used.
Process inputs are composed of MSW, combustion air, water, ammonia, and catalysts. Electricity,
wastewater, spent catalysts, char, emulsified bio-oil, and combustion emissions aze the process
outputs.
Gasification is compatible with the organic fraction (e.g., yard wastes, wood wastes) and plastic
fraction of the MSW feedstock or refuse-derived fuel (RDF). Metals, glass, and other recyclables
should be removed in the MRF. Power produced by the facility can be readily integrated into the
power grid.
Gasification produces air pollutants (e.g., NOx) and greenhouse gases (e.g., COZ) from the gas
engines and the reformer. However, all emissions are expected to be controlled with SCR and
8
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
w_~.
a
.......1......,...
~a : ~
~
e.:..,
~ °
....1
....wn
Figure C. Plastics Catalytic Cracking System Diagram
The process flow diagram shows only major process areas; for simplification, not all internal
process streams are shown. The boundary of the CT is noted by a dotted line, with all streams
crossing this line representing a life cycle material or energy input or output.
The melted plastic is mixed with catalyst and reacted in the cracker. Cracked gas components
leave the reactor and are sent to the distillation area. The liquid fractions (diesel and gasoline) are
condensed and separated via distillation. The diesel fraction is sent to product storage. The
gasoline fraction is sent to the gas turbine along with the light ends (e.g., butane and propane)
from the cracking process. Plastics Energy LLC will use the H.SMARTech process and a
proprietary metal silicate catalyst to crack the plastics, resulting in yields of 83 percent for diesel,
14 percent for gasoline, and 3 percent for light gases.10
The rest of the process is similar to a gas turbine facility. The gaseous and gasoline fractions are
combusted in the turbine to generate electricity. The hot exhaust gas from the turbine is used to
provide process heat. SCR reduces NO, emissions in the turbine exhaust. SCR will require
ammonia injection and an SCR catalyst.
As shown in the diagram, the system has only three inputs besides the feedstock: catalyst, water,
and air. The cracking catalyst is a metal silicate; its exact formulation is proprietary. The SCR
catalyst may be a zeolites or vanadium-based catalyst. The process will be almost self-sufficient
in energy, requiring only 500 kilowatts (kW) from the grid.
In addition to the diesel and electricity products, the process will have combustion emissions
(criteria pollutants and [oxics), VOC emissions from organic storage and drying operations,
10
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
fuel, and materials (recycling) offsets. It is interesting to note [hat the energy-savings potential
resulting from the additional materials recycling is significantly greater than the net energy
production potential. Even the best-case landfill scenario (with gas collection and energy
recovery) is significantly higher in energy consumption than the CT scenario. The WTE scenario
significantly outperformed all other scenarios for net energy consumption. The factors that lead to
WTE's high net energy savings include high electricity production and some steel recycling
offsets. v.
Wiz' SCE ~ f ~a.! . .fi kip,~ni wn
'~xim x - rvw-. ~+x+ry
tea.
- _
Figure D. Los Angeles Region, Annual Net Energy Consumption
Figure E. San Francisco Regien, Annual Net Energy Consumption
12
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
SOx emissions are also largely a product of combustion processes, and SOx offsets c:m result from
the displacement of combustion activities, mainly fuels and electrical energy production, as well
as the use oflower-sulfur-containing fuels. As shown in Figures H and I, the CT and landfill
disposal scenarios without energy recovery from landfill gas have approximately the same level
of net SOx emissions. The landfill with gas collection and energy recovery performs better than
the CT scenario. As in the case of NO„ there are uncertainties about the specific air pollution
control devices that would be used at CT facilities and the resulting level of SOx control that
could be achieved. Catalytic cracking generates a significant SO, offset because of its production
of low-sulfur diesel. It is likely that with additional air pollution controls at the acid hydrolysis
and gasification facilities, the levels of SOx emissions could be reduced. The WTE scenario
resulted in the lowest amount of net SO, emissions and, along with the landfill with energy
recovery scenario, resulted in a net SO, savings.
Figure H. Los Angeles Region, Annual Net SO, Emissions
t
- .
Figure I. San Francisco Region, Annual Net SOx Emissions
14
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
materials offsets. WTE is again the best performer in this category because of its large energy
offset and some steel recovery for recycling.
Finding #4: There are not enough data to adequately assess the potential for C'I's to
produce emissions of dioxins and furans and other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
With respect to other pollutants of concern, such as dioxins and furans, toxics, and heavy metals,
data were not available for all of the processes in each scenario to develop comparable results. In
addition, test data were not available from the technology vendors to associate levels of these
pollutants to specific waste constituents. However, we compared available data on dioxins and
furans and other HAPs from CT processes to existing activities that involve the combustion of
wastes and coal, as well as landfill disposal. As shown in Table 6, CT-related data were only
available for gasification and acid hydrolysis. Further, the gasification data aze based on a single
emission test as reported by Brightstaz, and the hydrolysis data are based on permit limits for the
Masada plant in Middletown, NY (so actual emissions would probably be lower). Table 6 does
not show any clear differences between HAP emission factors for the CT processes, WTE, and
coal utility boilers. The CT processes, WTE, and coal boilers all have higher emission factors for
mercury than landfilling does. If landfill fires are included, [he CT processes, WTE, and coal
boilers all have lower emission factors for dioxins and furans than landfilling has; however, if
landfill fires aze excluded, they have higher emission factors.
Table 6. Comparison of Dioxins and Furans and Other Hazardous Air Pollutants
Dioxins and 1.47E-04 4.72E-04 4.78E-05 1.42E-04 4.28E-04 No data
furans' (6.87E-03)
Lead 7.58E+Ot 1.70E+02 No data No data 3.96E+02 No data
Cadmium 3.91E+00 1.19E+01 No data 1.42E+02 3.96E+01 No data
Mercury 6.23E+Ot 7.86E+01 6.20E-Ot 9.46E+01 1.58E+02 No data
Hydrochloric 1.64E+05 9.55E+04 No data 2.36E+04 No data No data
acid
e Emission factors for an average facility, in mglMg of coal fired, based on nationwide emissions data I'or 1994, from
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Utility Air Toxics report.'
° Emission factors for a large combustor in 2000, in mg/Mg of waste fired, per Walter Stevenson of U.S. EPA.'
`Landfll values do not include potential emissions from vehicles and equipment operating at the landfills.
Parenthetical value for dioxins and furans includes landfill fires.
° Emission factors for gasification based on concentration data reported by Brightstar.'°
° Emission factors for hydrolysis based on concentration permit limits for Masada plant in Middletown, NY.
r Dioxins and furans values are in mg international toxic equivalents (ITEQ)/Mg of waste or coal.
Finding #5: Like recycling, CTs will likely result in greater local environmental burdens
and a potential reduction in regional or global burdens.
One important point to consider when reviewing and interpreting the life cycle results is that the
values are summarized over different locations and time frames. Thus, [he local versus regional
nature of the environmental burdens and offset benefits is not conveyed. Many of the
environmental burdens associated with CTs will be local, while many of the offset benefits will
be regional or global. For example, the considerable preprocessing of waste and other process
steps of gasification result in the release of pollutants at the local level. Gasification also produces
electrical energy, which may displace regional electrical energy production and thus regional
16
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
development of CTs in California will have negative, neutral, or positive impacts on the paper,
plastic, and organic materials management industries' ability to remain viable and/or expand. It
also assesses possible current and future economic and financial impacts on these industries,
including changes in
• Feedstock composition
• Price
• Employment
• Output
• Business elimination and creation
• Competitiveness
• Revenue
• Profit.
The objectives of the MIA aze summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Summary of MIA Objectives
Effects on recycling and composting industries Effects on hauler contractual relationships
as a result of increases or decreases in Effects on municipal contractual relationships
feedstock supply
Effects on regional recycling and composting
If a tonnage effect, estimate economic gains or infrastructure
losses
Effects of put-or-pay contracts on recycling
If a price effect, estimate economic gains or and composting businesses
losses
Methodology
Our general approach was to collect data regarding the current mazketplace, including quantities
and compositions of various waste and recycling streams; the entities that make decisions
regarding disposition of these materials (generators, jurisdictions, MRF operators, and haulers);
the reasons for those decisions (AB 939 regulatory mandates, political mandates, costs and
transportation distances); and quality and quantity needs of paper and plastic recycling processors
and exporters and the composting industry. We then modeled the relationships of material
movement through the system, including prices paid at various points. We then overlaid the
conversion technology system configurations, quality, composition, and price of material needs in
order to estimate what might occur if such facilities were developed.
Our general methods included reseazching existing reports and articles and examining them for
useable data; contacting industry associations for published reports and forecasts; collecting data
from CIWMB in-house databases; compiling data from in-house databases, files and reports; and
conducting surveys and interviews to collect primary data and "industry expert" forecasts and
opinions.
In general, our work was organized into the following steps:
18
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
Table 8. Gasification Materials Disposition
Paper, plastics, organics Processed by 74% 69.2%
and mixed residue gasification
Glass and metals, portion Recycled 7.5% 8.1
that can be recycled
Construction and demolition Disposed 18.5% 22.4%
debris, household
hazardous waste, special
waste, and the portion of
the glass and metal waste
streams that cannot be
recycled
Table 9. Acid Hydrolysis Materials Disposition
Papor, organics and mixed Processed by 65°/, 61
residue acid
hydrolysis
Plastics, glass and metals, Recycled 12% 13%
portion that can be recycled
Construction and demolition Disposed 23% 26%
debris, household
hazardous waste, special
waste, and the portion of
the plastics, glass and
metal waste streams that
cannot be recycled
Finding #3: Catalytic cracking can process 3.7-4.5 percent of the incoming waste stream.
The remainder would be processed as normal at MRFs.
According to facility proponents, it is most practical for catalytic cracking to accept only
specially prepared loads of plastic film for processing (see Table 10). This plastic film would
come from MRFs and waste normally sent to landfills because there aze no current mazkets for
this material. Plastic bags must be pulled from the mixed waste stream at either clean or dirty
MRFs, or can be segregated at businesses that generate a great deal of plastic film. It is
technically feasible to use other types of plastics as feedstock as well, as long as PVC is excluded.
Of materials that are currently disposed in landfills, approximately 10 to 11 percent are plastics.
The total amount of plastics that may be suitable for catalytic cracking is likely 7 to 9 percent of
all wastes currently being disposed.
20
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
equates to $7.50 of the $65 per ton processing fee. Host fees (in lieu of business license fees for
the host jurisdiction) aze another significant component of the overall cost; host fees are nearly
$8 per ton for the facility at Middletown, New York.
Relative Size of CT Configurations Versus Regional Landfill Markets
Finding #7: Based on the assumed configuration of conversion facilities that were chosen for
evaluation in this study, CT tonnage would represent about 8 percent of the landfill tonnage
in the Greater Los Angeles area in 2003, increasing to 11 percent of the landfill tonnage in
2010. The exact same configuration of facilities would have a greater impact on the San
Francisco Bay area landfill market; CT tonnage would represent about 20 percent of the
IandCdl tonnage in 2003, rising to 29 percent in 2010.
The hypothetical configuration used for this study amounts to approximately 1.4 million tons of
waste being sent to vazious CT facilities in each of two regions. Through growth in the number of
facilities, the hypothetical annual tonnage requirement will rise to 2.2 million tons in 2010. In the
San Francisco Bay azea, approximately 6.5 million tons of waste were landfilled in 2002, and in
the Greater Los Angeles area, approximately 19 million tons of waste were landfilled in 2002.
After accounting for population growth and growth of diversion programs, estimated disposal for
the San Francisco Bay azea is approximately 6.7 million tons of waste for 2010, and 20 million
tons in the Greater Los Angeles area in 2010,
Role and Relative Size of Material Recovery Facilities Versus Regional CT Configurations
Finding #8: MRF residuals are sufficient to supply the hypothetical configuration of CT
facilities in the Greater Los Angeles area throughout the study period of 2003 to 2010. In
the San Francisco Bay area, MRF residuals could comprise just over halt of hypothetical
CT demand. However, all of the facilities would need specialized or additional processing in
order to create appropriate feedstock-typical MRF residuals are not suitable for any of
the technologies studied without further preprocessing.
Residuals from "clean" MILFs, which receive and sort cleaner loads of recyclables, such as
recyclables from residential curbside collection programs, amount to under 100,000 tpy in each of
the two regions. Capacities of mixed waste processing facilities amount to over 600,000 tpy in the
San Francisco Bay area and nearly 6 million tpy in the Greater Los Angeles area.
However, residuals from any type of MRF ("dirty" or "clean") may not be attractive CT facilities.
While some contaminants are removed during processing of mixed waste, so aze desirable
materials, such as paper, organics, and plastics. Residuals from either source-separated or mixed-
waste loads will still need to be sorted again prior to entering the CT vessel. Contaminants to the
CT processes would still remain in the feedstock even after mixed waste processing. Whether
residuals from mixed waste processing or other waste goes to a landfill versus a CT facility may
depend primarily on transportation economics, which aze detemtined by location, travel time, and
distance.
Control of Hauling Arrangements in Two Regions
Finding #9: According to the survey data collected for this study, in the Greater Los
Angeles area, approximately 42 percent of residential waste is hauled by municipally owned
and operated collection vehicles, 54 percent is hauled by private companies under contract
with the City, and the remaining 4 percent is hauled by a variety of private companies who
contract directly with residents. In the San Francisco Bay area, approximately 3 percent of
residential waste is hauled by municipally owned and operated collection vehicles ,
22
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
Impacts on Markets for Recycled Paper
Finding #12: Implementation of any of the three selected technologies is not likely to
increase or decrease the recycling of paper.
Feedstock must be sorted prior to use at acid hydrolysis or gasification facilities. Unacceptable
materials, such as metal and glass, must be removed from the mixed waste steam prior to entering
the conversion process, which would slightly increase recovery of these materials. I[owever,
paper is a desirable feedstock for these two technologies and it would not be recovered from the
mixed waste stream for recycling. Catalytic cracking uses only plastic that is positively sorted
from the waste stream and therefore would have little or no effect on paper markets.
While paper is an acceptable feedstock for acid hydrolysis and gasification, the recent values of
baled paper make it unlikely that paper will be directed to a CT facility. Paper markets have
historically been very volatile, with high prices for a given year being twice that of low prices for
that year. However, average annual paper prices have been above zero fora 10-yeaz period for all
paper grades and have gone over $100 per ton for some grades of paper. Acid hydrolysis and
gasification projects will require a payment (a tip fee) to accept materials, and that tip fee will
likely be in the range of prices charged at local landfills ($25 to $60 per ton).
Finding #13: Exports of paper, particularly to China, have increased dramatically over the
past five years. These exports are exerting upward pressure on prices in the paper markets
and are providing an outlet for all otthe paper that is collected.
Paper exported from this country has grown significantly in recent years: by 77 percent from
1993 to 2002, or an average of 5.9 percent per yeaz. The increases averaged 6.8 percent per yeaz
for the more recent period of 1998 to 2002. Nationwide, 24 percent of the paper recovered in the
United States is exported for recycling.
Locally, exports from the Greater Los Angeles area increased 9.6 percent per yeaz on average
from 1998 to 2002, and exports from the San Francisco Bay area increased an average of
10.9 percent per year from 1998 to 2002. China has been the dominant driver of these increases in
paper exports. During the five-year period from 1998 to 2002, exports to China from these two
California port azeas have increased by 209 percent, and represent 48 percent of the total exports
for this period.
Impacts on Markets for Recycled Plastics
Finding # I4: Plastics recycling will increase if acid hydrolysis facilities are built, because
plastics must be removed prior to processing.
Metals and glass recycling will increase as a result of both acid hydrolysis and gasification,
because those materials must be removed prior to processing. However, of the materials targeted
in this study (paper, plastics, and organics), only plastics recycling will increase, and only by acid
hydrolysis preprocessing. Currently, only those plastics with positive economic values are
typically recycled. In contrast, feedstock preparation for acid hydrolysis would see6: to remove
ALL plastics.
If catalytic cracking facilities are developed, and if those facilities target plastic bags, then
jurisdictions might be encouraged to add plastic bags to their curbside recycling programs for
subsequent separation at a MRF. Residents might stop returning plastic bags to grocery stores for
recycling as a result of the convenience of placing materials in their curbside recycling bins.
24
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
R.W. Beck, Inc., determined in the U.S. Recycling Economic Information Study (July 2001) that
based on the MRFs they studied, a cumulative annual throughput of 3,625,000 tons at an MRF
resulted in 2,606 jobs, or a ratio of 0.7 jobs per 1,000 tons of annual throughput. Assuming a 15
percent contamination rate, that equates to 0.82 jobs per 1,000 tons recovered.
Whether the new positions aze a[ an existing facility or on a line set up specifically for CT
sorting, increased sorting will translate to increased workers needed. Using R.W. Beck's ratio,
acid hydrolysis sorting requirements could add from 74 to 138 sorting jobs in each region over
the term of this study. Gasification sorting needs could add from 52 to almost 94 positions.
Sorting out the additional film plastic for catalytic cracking could add 13 positions.
2. Additional Recovered Material
This additional sorting of acid hydrolysis and gasification feedstock will result in the recovery of
additional recyclable materials. When these materials are recycled back into the mazket for
remanufacturing, additional jobs could be created relating to the use of this recovered material, as
shown in Table 12.
3. CT Facility Jobs
Additional workers would be employed to operate CT facilities. Using a rough estimate from the
projected number of jobs at the Masada plant under construction, CT facilities will generate 0.76
jobs per 1,000 tons of throughput. I[ is not clear how many of these jobs are sorting jobs.
4. Landfill Job Losses
CT facilities would decrease the amount of waste disposed in landfills, which would result in a
net loss in revenues to landfills. Decreases in tonnage and revenues to landfill may result in job
losses at landfills in proportion to the loss in tonnage. CT tonnage would decrease tons sent to
landfills by about 8 percent in the Greater Los Angeles area in 2003, increasing to 11 percent of
the landfill tonnage in 2010. The exact same configuration of facilities would decrease tons sent
to landfills in the San Francisco Bay azea landfill mazket by about 20 percent in 2003, rising to
29 percent in 2010.
26
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AB -assembly bill
ADC - alternative daily cover
BIGCC -biomass integrated gasifier combined cycle
CO -carbon monoxide
COZ -carbon dioxide
CT -conversion technology
CWIMB -California Integrated Waste Management Board
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hi -hydrogen
HAP --hazardous air pollutant
ITEQ -international toxic equivalent
kW -kilowatt
LCA -life cycle assessment
LCI -life cycle inventory analysis
MIA - mazket impact assessment
MW -megawatt
MRF -materials recovery facility
MSW -municipal solid waste
MSW-DST - RTI's Municipal Solid Waste Decision SuppoR Tool
NOx -nitrogen oxides
POTW - publically owned treatment works
PVC -polyvinyl chloride
RDF -refuse derived fuel
SCR -selective catalytic reduction
SWERF -Solid Waste Energy Recycling Facility
SOx -sulfur oxides
TCLP -toxicity characteristics and leaching procedure
tpd -tons per day
tpy -tons per year
VOC -volatile organic compound
28
DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote.
Bibliography
Buckle, Larry of H.SMARTech Inc., personal communication with V. Putsche, October 27, 2003.
H.SMART Presents an Advanced Catalytic Cracking Technology, 2002 LEA/CIWMB Partnership
Conference, <ht[o:%/www.ciwmb.ca eov/nari2000/Eventsi02Conf/ConvTec/Plastic hhn> (October
8, 2003).
Menville, R., SWERFME, Technical Presentation. Emissions Table. 2004.
Niessen, Walter, Chazles Mazkes, and Robert Sommerland, Evaluation of Gasification and ,Novel
Thermal Processes for the Treatment ojMunicipal Solid Waste, NREL/TP-430-21612, August
1996.
NYSDEC, Air Title V Facility, Permit ID 3-3309-00101/00003, Mod 1, Issued to Pencor, Masada Oxynol
LLC, October I, 2001.
Ozmotech's municipal recycling facility setup now complete, Mapslink,
<http://www.ozmotech com aiJnews4 html> (October 11, 2003).
Stevenson, Walter, U.S. EPA, personal communication with Mark Bahner, April 1, 2004.
SWERF®, Wollongong NSW, Australia,
<htlu://www.briehtstarenvironmental com/htnil/projects/aus htm#staee#stage> (October 8, 2003).
U.S. EPA, Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Eelctric Utility Steam Generating Units -
Fina1 Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-98-004, February 1998.
Wootton, P., "FW: Fina( questions for Ron Menville of Brightstar," January 5, 2004, a-mail to J. Simpson
and R. Menville.
30
COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII
RESOLUTION NO. 180-04
DRAFT -APRIL 20, 2004
A RESOLUTION THAT SUPPORTS THE PROCESS TO BRING ONLINE A WASTE REDUCTION
TECHNOLOGY AS SPECIFIED IN THE UPDATE TO THE INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Hawaii County Council, pursuant to the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS),
Chapter 342G, adopted the Hawaii County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) by
Resolution 291-94 on October 5, 1994; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the HRS, Chapter 342G-24, the Update to the Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan for the County of Hawaii was prepared by Hazding ESE and adopted by Resolution
238-02 by the Hawaii County Council on November 20, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Update to the ISWMP sets diversion goals for increasing the rate of waste
diversion from landfills from the (1) current rate of 15% to 45 using low tech and available recycling
and resource recovery strategies to a (2) future overall rate of 80% by the year 2014 by adding high-tech
waste reduction strategies; and
WHEREAS, the Council supports, in light of the strong island-wide public opposition to the
idea of transporting rubbish across the island, achieving the diversion goal established by the Update to
the ISWMP sooner than 2014 if feasible; and
WHEREAS, the Council, in addition to addressing the concerns of residents of Hawaii County
with regazd to the issue of hauling rubbish across the island, is cognizant that time is of the essence in
supporting the Update to the ISWMP policy objective with regard to procurement of a waste reduction
technology due to the pending closure of the South Hilo Sanitazy Landfill; and
WHEREAS, choosing a cost effective and environmentally appropriate waste reduction
technology will be a time consuming process (the Update to the ISWMP estimates that it will take a
minimum of 5 to 7 years whereas the H-Power plant on Oahu required 11 years to plan and implement)
because it involves planning, procurement, design, permitting, and construction before it becomes
operational.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the County of Hawaii that, in
order to expedite the selection and implementation of the a waste reduction technology as stipulated in
the Update to the ISWMP and address the issues cited above, the Department of Environmental
Management is urged to immediately take the following steps to:
1. Disseminate an RFI- request for information.
2. Conduct a thorough examination of the status of waste reduction technologies, develop a
comprehensive vendor list, and evaluate responses to the RFI.
3. Prepare and disseminate an RFP-request for proposal.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department of Environmental Management is
requested to provide a timeline to the Council for the RFI, evaluation process, and RFP by May 1, 2004.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that starting June 1, 2004, the Department of Environmental
Management is requested to provide reports every other month relating to the RFI, evaluation process
and RFP to the Chair of the Committee on Pazks and Environmental Management.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be transmitted to Harry Kim,
Mayor, County of Hawaii and Bazbaza Bell, Director, Department of Environmental Management,
County of Hawaii, and the Environmental Management Commission.
Dated at Hawaii, this day of 2004.
INTRODUCED BY:
COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII
COUNTY COUNCIL ROLL CALL VOTE
County of Hawai`I Avss NOES ABS Ex
H110, HaWal`I ARAKAKI
CHUNG
I hereby certify [hat the foregoing RESOLUTION was by ELARIONOFF
The vote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the JACOBSON
County of Hawaii on
TULANG
REYNOLDS
ATTEST: SAFARIK
TYLER
HOLSCHUH
Reference:
COUNTY CLERK CHAIRMAN & PRESIDING OFFICER RESOLUTION
NO.