Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COM 0591.008 2002-2004
O 1V OR Harry Kim Barbara Bell Mayor Director ?Vrr OFMR�' &1untg of (�attiunit DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni street, Room 210 a Hilo, Hawari 967204252 (808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 20, 2004 TO: Council Chair James Y. Arakaki And Members of the HawWl CoAty Council FROM: Barbara Bell, RE: Resolution N Thank you for the vote of confidence in suggesting that we can achieve 95% diversion from landfills! There are 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 are 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 (IS WMP), 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. Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provider and employer Comm. No. S Ref. To: ireseetel rem Ref. Date Hawai'i County Council April 20, 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 toward 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 a two-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 are 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 are now available in draft form and extremely illuminating with regard to the status of existing technologies and the environmental impacts. Hawai'i County Council April 20, 2004 Page 3 Information about the actual costs associated with each technology is still insufficient, although it is clear that the operations of all available technologies are responsive to economies of scale. It is also clear 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 a non -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 Board Executive Summary, Evaluation of Conversion Technology Processes and Products Executive Summary, April 2004, Life Cycle and Market Impact Assessment Of Waste Conversion Technologies Draft Resolution No. 180-04 DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Life Cycle and Market Impact Assessment of Waste Conversion Technologies Executive Summary Apri12004 w ... IIIIIIIII INTEGRATED WA 'TR MANAGEMENT BOARD Zero Waste—You Make It Happen! DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor Terry Tamminen Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD Linda Moulton -Patterson Michael Paparian Board Chair Board Member Cheryl Peace Board Member Carl Washington Board Member Mark Leary Executive Director For additional copies of this publication, contact: Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS -6) 1001 1 Street P.O. Box 4025 Sacramento, CA 95812-4025 www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/ 1 -800 -CA -WASTE (California only) or (916) 341-6306 Publication #XXX -XX -XXX ® Printed on recycled paper containing a minimum of 30 percent postconsumer fiber. Copyright © 2004 by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without permission. The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, its employees, or the State of California. The State makes no warranty, expressed or implied, and assumes no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text. Any mention of commercial products or processes shall not be construed as an endorsement of such products or processes. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) does not discriminate on the basis of disability in access to its programs. CIWMB publications are available in accessible formats upon request by calling the Public Affairs Office at (916) 341-6300. Persons with hearing impairments can reach the CIWMB through the California Relay Service, 1-800-735-2929. The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to lake immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, Flex Your Power and visit www.consumerenergycenter.org[flex/indox.html. DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................................... l Background............................................................................................................................................ I CT Descriptions and Scenarios Analyzed.............................................................................................. l LIFECYCLE ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................... 6 MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENT...................................................................................................17 Abbreviationsand Acronyms.....................................................................................................................28 Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................30 SourceReference Notes..............................................................................................................................31 DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Executive Summa Background New technologies to convert organic and plastic wastes to fuels and electricity are rapidly emerging. To date, one such facility is scheduled for construction in Kings County, California. Assembly Bill 2770 (Chapter 740, Statutes of 2002) requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB or the Board) to prepare a report on these conversion technologies (CTs) to describe and evaluate their potential market and life cycle environmental impacts. These impacts are to be compared to those associated with the existing practice of disposal in landfills, as well as waste -to -energy (WTE) combustion and mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) composting. CIWMB awarded a contract to an RTI International* team to perform this work. The RTI team includes CT experts from National Renewable Energy Laboratory, MSW economics and financial experts from Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, and MSW management and recycling experts from Boisson & Associates. The University of California at Riverside is working under a related contract to evaluate the entire range of different CTs for their feasibility for commercialization in California. In general, our research sought to answer these primary questions: 1. What are the life cycle environmental impacts of CTs and how do these compare to those of existing MSW management practices? 2. What are the economic, financial, and institutional impacts of CTs on recycling and composting markets? The focus of this study is on CTs as management alternatives for the unrecovered portion of the MSW stream, which is otherwise disposed of in landfills. The goal of this research is to better understand the potential environmental and market impacts that may result from the implementation of CTs, as well as to identify potential tradeoffs of using CTs as alternatives to existing MSW management practices. It is not intended to make definitive conclusions about CTs. CT Descriptions and Scenarios Analyzed This study analyzed three CTs using a specified scenario for CT capacity in each of two regions. These are described in the following subsections. CT Descriptions The selected CTs are concentrated acid hydrolysis, gasification, and catalytic cracking. These specific technologies were selected because they were identified by the Board as the most promising near-term CTs for MSW in California. Table 1 summarizes information about the technical feasibility, feedstock compatibility, facility integration, environmental burdens, and technology development status for each technology. It should be noted that none of these facilities currently exist in the United States for treating mixed MSW. RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Table 1. Summary of CT Features Feature,, e ~; Acid Hydrolysis a m a��: asificatian Catalytic Clacking 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 (CO2) 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 for a 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 carbohydrates (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 are possible. Either concentrated or dilute acid can achieve the hydrolysis. Because the concentrated acid process is closer to 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 may be 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 OxyNolT"I, LLC, are currently commercializing concentrated acid technology. Neither company has a commercial facility, but Masada was awarded an air permit for a facility to process 230,000 tons per year (tpy) of MSW and other wastes in Middletown, NY.1 Gasification. In gasification, feedstock is converted to syngas, primarily carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (1-12), in an oxygen -deficient atmosphere. Gasification is endothermic and requires a heat source, such as syngas combustion, char combustion, or steam. The primary product of DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote gasification, syngas, can be converted into heat, power, or chemical products, or used in fuel cells. For this analysis, heat and power production are assumed to be the primary uses. The method of heat and power generation varies and can include gas engines, steam cycles, and complex biomass integrated gasifier combined cycle (BIGCC) systems. Numerous large scale biomass gasifiers have been developed and have completed demonstration -scale testing and/or commercial deployment. At least seven technologies were identified as commercially proven on a large scale and were considered for inclusion in this study. Because of the State of California's limiting definition of gasification, which specifies no oxygen introduction to the gasification process, only the Brightstar Environmental Solid Waste Energy Recycling Facility (SWERF) technology was included for further study. Catalytic Cracking. In thermal cracking (e.g., pyrolysis) or catalytic cracking, waste plastics are converted into liquid and gaseous fuels. The addition of catalysts lowers the reaction time and temperature and can increase the selectivity of the products, but catalysts are generally expensive. H.SMARTech, Inc., has developed a commercial process for catalytic cracking of plastic wastes. After shredding, the plastic feedstock is melted and mixed with catalyst. The gaseous products are collected and oil is condensed. The oil is distilled into diesel and gasoline. Noncondensibles (e.g., propane) and gasoline are combusted in a gas turbine to provide process heat and electricity. The diesel fraction is shipped offsite. The catalytic cracking technology is designed for polyolefin plastics (e.g., grocery bags or agricultural film), a narrow spectrum of feedstocks. Other components (e.g., polyvinyl chloride [PVC]) must be removed before processing. ILSMARTech commercialized a polyolefin chemical recycling process in 1998 in Zabrze, Poland. The facility is the largest catalytic cracking plastics recycling plant in the world, with a capacity of 145,000 tpy of mixed plastics' ILSMARTech formed Plastics Energy LLC to build a 50 ton per day (tpd) (expected to expand to 100 tpd) facility in Kings County, California, by the end of 2004.' Other companies (e.g., Ozmotech`) have plastics pyrolysis facilities in Europe and Asia. CT Scenarios Analyzed and Key Assumptions The life cycle and market impact assessments are based on predefined future waste management scenarios in the greater Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay regions. These regions and scenarios were defined by CIWMB in the request for proposals for the study. Developing the most probable projected growth scenario for CT was not part of the study and should not be inferred from these scenarios. CTs are incorporated at varying capacities from the base year of 2003 to 2010 as follows 2003 (Base Year) • Three 500 tpd acid hydrolysis facilities in each region (1,500 tpd total) • Four 500 tpd gasification facilities in each regions (2,000 tpd total) • One stand-alone 50 tpd catalytic cracking facility in each region. Years 2004 to 2010 • One additional 500 tpd gasification plant built in each region in the year 2005 • Two additional 500 tpd acid hydrolysis plants built in each region in 2007 • One additional 500 tpd gasification plant built in each region in 2010. DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. It is assumed that the CT facilities will be colocated at materials recovery facilities (MRFs). Other assumed transportation distances between various facilities included in the scenarios are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Transportation Distance Assumptions -e.o c li y to ce "� files 3 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 Clara, Solano, Marin, 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 separation 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 separation systems). For this study, we assumed that 95 percent of the incoming unwanted materials were removed by the up -front separation 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. Cn DRAFT -For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Table 3. Assumed Annual Capacities and Incoming Waste Needs w9 b t&6,ri u.,lit �,, �„est., 3 .> Oti4,1- M-, ,.2"-:,i a!q.., iwl 4' # to ,, .` 2d0IN ,. r. TecHndlo 1, "m Tons Per Year (based on 329 operating days per year) Acid Hydrolysis 493,500 493,500 493,500 493,500 822,500 822,500 822,500 822,500 Gasification 658,000 658,000 822,500 822,500 822,500 822,500 822,500 987,000 Catalytic Cracking 16,450 16,450 16,450 16,450 16,450 16,450 16,450 16,450 Total 1,167,950 1,167,950 1,3321450 1,332,450 1,661,450 1,661,450 1,661,450 1,825,950 Required Incoming Tonnage Before Sorting -Greater Los Angeles Area Acid Hydrolysis 630,176 629,260 629,260 629,260 1,048,766 1,048,766 1,048,766 1,048,766 Gasification 737,681 734,863 918,579 918,579 918,579 918,579 918,579 1,102,294 Catalytic Cracking 1,092,230 1,092,230 1,064,427 1,064,427 1,064,427 1,064,427 1,064,427 1,064,427 Total 1,367,857 1,364,123 1,547,839 1,547,839 1,967,345 1,967,345 1,967,345 2,151,060 Required Incoming Tonnage Before Sorting -San Francisco Bay Area Acid Hydrolysis 641,780 643,525 643,525 643,525 1,072,542 1,072,542 1,072,542 1,072,542 Gasification 754,643 754,475 943,093 943,093 943,093 943,093 943,093 1,131,712 Catalytic Cracking 1,078,636 1,078,636 1,118,529 1,118,529 1,118,529 1,118,529 1,118,529 1,118,529 Total 1,396,423 1,398,000 1,586,618 1,586,618 2,015,635 2,015,635 2,015,635 2,204,254 • • DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Table 4. Assumed Percent Composition of Waste Sent to CT Facilitiesa t �„FfP"ZA a k451 $fir �s'4�.+'s-.' u�r-.:.2 •`°. -y3., s 4!.glffiz= uOEM ':., .XeewTj .c,'.*kc- - a.- - . • - • Removed -. Unremoved (Proces Miscellaneous a 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 .............. all Recovered and Recycled Removed -. Unremoved (Proces 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 compared 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. .,1 DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Process flow diagrams and descriptions were developed for the selected CTs based on designs used by specific vendors: concentrated acid hydolysis is based on the Masada OxyNo1TM technology, gasification is based on the Brightstar Environmental SWERF technology, and catalytic cracking is based on the Plastics Energy LLC/H.SMARTech technology. These are described in more detail below. Concentrated Acid Hydrolysis. Concentrated acid hydrolysis, illustrated in Figure A, is the most complex of the three processes evaluated. This process consists of seven major process areas: feed handling, hydrolysis, acid recovery and recycling, fermentation, ethanol recovery, wastewater treatment, and power production. The presorted feed is dried to 10 percent moisture and ground to less than 1 inch. It is then mixed with 70 percent sulfuric acid and heated. The solids are washed and separated from the sugar/acid mix. After another washing, the solids are sent to the gasifier and the wash water is recycled in the process. The sugar/acid mix is cooled before being sent to an ion exchange column. The U— G,— VM E."W. CO]. VGG Emkavm. W Nr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rn r NUVIaMs (CSLI E Nmmmla �~ Nor Nr Emkzvnz ......_................_... _... inzlaU w81x vOtC EmrcAlme b PoTY 1 o. aw E ProJud ENtl y( W. .1 U- N' PdMb Nr 1 /.811 Ekc ty N Czlzlyzl8 EmYekne Sp.nl bGek ,cn.n., lovlp c.1eM1 WD1e, C 11pT— Sb.m K blvnallyB •.. sA Figure A. Concentrated Acid Process Flow 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. 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 separated 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 (NO.). 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 noncarbohydrate 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 are 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, NO., 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 are 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., NO.) and greenhouse gases (e.g., CO2) from the gas engines and the reformer. However, all emissions are expected to be controlled with SCR and DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Cnmbust. 50 psi steam W MRF Figure B. Gasification Process Flow 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. oxidation catalysts. Air toxics such as metals and dioxins are expected to be minimal. In fact, all air pollutant concentrations in the exhaust gas from the reciprocating engines at the Brightstar Wollongong (Australia) facility were shown to be at or below the European Waste Incineration Directive.' Ash and char will also be generated. Toxicity Characteristic and Leaching Procedure (TCLP) data from RDF combustion ash and gasification by-products showed results that were significantly below applicable limits"' Wastewater releases (e.g., boiler blow down) will be minimal. The Brightstar gasifier in Wollongong was licensed for 30,000 tpy MSW.' It has not yet achieved its nameplate capacity, but has operated as a demonstration plant for about two years.' Catalytic Cracking. The major process areas for catalytic cracking are shown in Figure C and include feed handling, cracking, distillation, and power production. Baled plastics are sent to a feed shredder to reduce the material to less than 3 inches. The material is then cleaned with water and dried. Wastewater from the washing step, containing primarily dirt and paper, is collected and sent offsite to a publically owned treatment works (POTW). The shredded and cleaned feed is sent to a vessel where it is heated to 185 nC to melt the plastic. S..•........•............................y is Prelq essed MSW • • .�Gaefierl • se is Rd er Cyclone Gee Water Colon -�S.bdng • Brine Reformer COml%xsbsn • Trearrenl Air se • • Residual • Hydmcartor5 Boiler Feedwaler Spent • Cenlnluge Mix Tank Gas C r •• char • De. emulsrier Mx Tank Water is is 1 • Engine Steam Waste heat n Geo -set Airoustion Comb IMw Water • rewwry Control ~ Emissions EI is • • br Intemal Use Spent Catalyst catalysts Electnaty Feel.ler Ammonia Combustion At Figure B. Gasification Process Flow 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. oxidation catalysts. Air toxics such as metals and dioxins are expected to be minimal. In fact, all air pollutant concentrations in the exhaust gas from the reciprocating engines at the Brightstar Wollongong (Australia) facility were shown to be at or below the European Waste Incineration Directive.' Ash and char will also be generated. Toxicity Characteristic and Leaching Procedure (TCLP) data from RDF combustion ash and gasification by-products showed results that were significantly below applicable limits"' Wastewater releases (e.g., boiler blow down) will be minimal. The Brightstar gasifier in Wollongong was licensed for 30,000 tpy MSW.' It has not yet achieved its nameplate capacity, but has operated as a demonstration plant for about two years.' Catalytic Cracking. The major process areas for catalytic cracking are shown in Figure C and include feed handling, cracking, distillation, and power production. Baled plastics are sent to a feed shredder to reduce the material to less than 3 inches. The material is then cleaned with water and dried. Wastewater from the washing step, containing primarily dirt and paper, is collected and sent offsite to a publically owned treatment works (POTW). The shredded and cleaned feed is sent to a vessel where it is heated to 185 nC to melt the plastic. DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. . 14 1 ,Z 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 (M) from the grid. In addition to the diesel and electricity products, the process will have combustion emissions (criteria pollutants and toxics), VOC emissions from organic storage and drying operations, 10 DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. wastewater, and spent catalysts. The largest source of air emissions will occur from the gas turbine, but these emissions should be well below acceptable limits because of the clean fuel. Limited amounts of miscellaneous organic air emissions will also likely occur from other processing points (e.g., valves, storage tanks). Wastewater releases will be low and will be composed of rinse water and cooling tower blow down. Solid waste, composed of feedstock inerts and spent catalyst, will also be generated. Yield losses may occur from inert fillers or pigments. The catalytic cracking technology is designed for a narrow spectrum of feedstocks (polyolefin plastics, e.g., grocery bags). Other components (e.g., PVC) must be removed in the MRF before processing. Although the technology is narrowly focused, this waste stream currently has limited other recycling avenues." Life Cycle Results for Scenarios Analyzed The results of the life cycle study are presented for the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay regions for the CT scenarios as compared to scenarios using existing MSW management practices across a time period of 2003 to 2010. The complete set of scenarios consists of the following: 1. Landfill with no gas collection (worst landfill case) 2. Landfill with gas collection and flaring (average landfill case) 3. Landfill with gas collection and energy recovery (best landfill case) 4. WTE 5. Organics composting 6. CTs. Landfill, WTE, and composting are included as reference cases. For each scenario, the results for selected life cycle parameters for CT -based management are shown in Figures D through K. The life cycle parameters include net annual energy consumption, sulfur oxides (SO.) emissions, NO, emissions, and carbon equivalents. A positive value represents a net life cycle burden. A negative value represents a net life cycle savings or avoidance for that parameter. In effect, a negative values indicates that energy and materials offsets from any particular scenario are less than those associated with the processes included in the scenario. Key Findings from the Life Cycle Study Although we used the best available information to characterize the CTs, they do not yet exist in California, and thus we had to make a number of assumptions about their design and operating characteristics. Therefore, the results and findings from this study need to be taken in context and considered as general directional results rather than absolute results. Further research will be needed to test and evaluate operating facilities. Finding #1: The amount of energy produced by the CTs is significant. Although significant, the energy offset related to the CTs is less than the potential amount of energy saved through the additional recycling achieved by the CT scenarios. Energy is consumed by all waste management activities (collection, MRF, transportation, treatment, disposal), as well as by the processes to produce energy and material inputs to the CTs. Energy offsets can result from the production of fuels or electricity, as well as from the recovery and recycling of materials. As shown in Figures D and E, the CT scenarios range from about 7 to 10 times lower in net energy consumption as compared to the landfill scenarios and are net energy savers. The energy savings attributed to the CTs result from a combination of electricity, 11 0 DRAFT—For iscussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. fuel, and materials (recycling) offsets. It is interesting to note that 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. Scenarios Analyzed CT Scenario Breakdown 4,000,000 2,000,000 i • 2,000 000 • 20 -4,000,000 m -4,000,000 , 5 RA ® -6,000,000 - Cl 2007 -3,000,000 x' 2010: -10,000,000: ` _ _ - • -14 012,000,000 0 .: -16,000,000 • A � — r r — Figure D. Los Angeles Region, Annual Net Energy Consumption Figure E. San Francisco Region, Annual Net Energy Consumption 12 Scenarios Analyzed CT Scenario Breakdown 4,000,000 - . 2,000,000 --- — 078 r 2,000,000 -. - -- 4,000,000 - - m2003-2,000,000 -.02005 a -6,00,0,000 - - - r_,C] 2007 _8,000,000 Y — ®2010 -10,000,000'- -12,000,000 -14,000,000 -16,000,000 ' ep � Figure E. San Francisco Region, Annual Net Energy Consumption 12 DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Finding #2: For criteria air pollutants, the CTs are not necessarily better than existing options. The cases of NOx and SO, are described. NO, emissions result largely from the combustion processes, and thus NO,, offsets can result from the displacement of combustion activities, mainly fuels and electrical energy production. As shown in Figures F and G, the CT scenarios appear to produce about the same levels of net NO., emissions than the landfill scenarios, without energy recovery. The landfill scenario with gas collection and energy recovery has about one-third the level of net NO,, emissions as the CT scenario. Note that there is a higher level of uncertainty regarding air pollution control requirements for CTs. We used conservative estimates for NO., production. With additional controls, NO., could be lowered. The WTE scenario resulted in the lowest amount of NO,, emissions and was the only scenario that resulting in a net NO,, savings. Figure F. Los Angeles Region, Annual Net NO,, Emissions Scenarios`Analyied a C7 Scenario Breakdown 6,000,000 - 4,000,000:,- 2.,000,00b ,000,000 -2.,000,000 - - 1 M,2003 a • 11 2003 0q 2007: o n 201101 2,000,000 -4,000,000----- U. w W - £0. 0 Figure G. San Francisco Region, Annual Net NO. Emissions 13 r 0 0 DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. SOX emissions are also largely a product of combustion processes, and SOX offsets can result from the displacement of combustion activities, mainly fuels and electrical energy production, as well as the use of lower -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 SOX 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 SOX emissions and, along with the landfill with energy recovery scenario, resulted in a net SOX savings. Scenarlos Analyzed CT Scenario E!_' 'Scenarios Analyzed �� ��� .• CT Scenario Breakdown 2,000,000 2,000,000 ----- _---- 1 0 -2,000,000 -2,000,000 -♦ X -1,000,000 . ® =4,000,000 _ 0 : - 2003 N -6,000,000 20031 ,000,000 - 02005 o 20r"7,, -8,000,000 C320071 ❑ - - A ® 2010 -10,000,000 ®2010 , ,1 • -10,000,000 -- -12,000,000 _- -12,000,000 - _ -14,000,000 I I -14,000,000 -16,000,000 -16,000,000 --. > ;u ce UJ Ll >+ Y £ is O U t7 Figure H. Los Angeles Region, Annual Net SO. Emissions f _ 'Scenarios Analyzed �� ��� .• CT Scenario Breakdown 2,000,000 ._. • 1 0 � -2,000,000 . ® =4,000,000 _ : - 2003 N -6,000,000 02005 - -8,000,000 - ❑ - - A • •— ®2010 , ,1 -10,000,000 -- _- -12,000,000 - _ I I -14,000,000 -16,000,000 --. Y Figure I. San Francisco Region, Annual Net SOX Emissions 14 DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Finding #3: From a climate change perspective, CTs are generally better than existing management options except for WTE. Carbon (i.e., greenhouse gas) emissions can result from the combustion of fossil fuels and the biodegradation of organic materials (e.g., methane gas from landfills). Offsets of carbon emissions can result from the displacement of fossil fuels, materials recycling, and the diversion of organic wastes from landfills. As shown in Figures J and K, the CT scenario performs at a level that is comparable to landfill disposal scenarios that collect and manage the landfill gas. The primary drivers for carbon emissions in the CT scenario are the residual waste that is disposed of in landfills, CO2 emissions from the process steps, and carbon offsets associated with energy and 10,OO�J,OOC X3,000,0OC 6,000,OOC 4,000,OOC 2,000,OOC ' h . m C Sccn;ariosAn'alyzgd O ■ 2003 of 2065 f ® 2007 ! 1l 2010 L- -- -2,000,000 G f3 r M U Figure K. San Francisco Region, Annual Net Carbon Emissions 15 0 0 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 CTs 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 are based on a single emission test as reported by Brightstar, 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, the CT processes, WTE, and coal boilers all have lower emission factors for dioxins and furans than landfilling has; however, if landfill fires are excluded, they have higher emission factors. Table 6. Comparison of Dioxins and Furans and Other Hazardous Air Pollutants n�� i1�� a tc ICU y Dioxins and 1.47E-04 4.72E-04 4.78E-05 1.42E-04 4.28E-04 No data furans f (6.87E-03) Lead 7.58E+01 1.70E+02 No data No data 3.96E+02 No data Cadmium 3.91 E+00 1.19E+01 No data 1.42E+02 3.96E+01 No data Mercury 6.23E+01 7.86E+01 6.20E-01 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 a Emission factors for an average facility, in mg/Mg of coal fired, based on nationwide emissions data for 1994, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Utility Air Toxics report.12 b Emission factors for a large combustor in 2000, in mg/Mg of waste fired, per Walter Stevenson of U.S. EPA.13 ° Landfill values do not include potential emissions from vehicles and equipment operating at the landfills. Parenthetical value for dioxins and furans includes landfill fires. d Emission factors for gasification based on concentration data reported by Brightstar.14 e Emission factors for hydrolysis based on concentration permit limits for Masada plant in Middletown, NY. f Dioxins and furans values are in mg international toxic equivalents (ITEQ)/Mg of waste or coal. Finding #S: 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, the 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 ILS DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. environmental burdens. Similarly, the preprocessing requirements of gasification mean that glass and metals are recovered and can be recycled. Any benefits from recycling (i.e., offset of virgin materials extraction and processing) will likely occur at regional or global levels. Finding #6: It is important for CT facilities to achieve high performance in terms of conversion efficiencies and materials recycling. In terms of life cycle energy consumption, employing the CTs may result in a net energy savings as compared to landfill disposal options because the CTs produce energy (electrical energy and fuels), which offsets energy production from fossil sources. The magnitude of the energy-related offsets is significant and results from both the production of energy at the CTs and from additional materials recycling. Finding #7: CTs would decrease the amount of waste disposed of in landfills. We assumed that about half of the incoming material that is removed from the CT processes is recycled and the other half landfilled (except for metals, for which we assumed about 70 percent recycled and 25 percent landfilled). Because of the burdens associated with landfill disposal, the CT scenario would look worse if zero recycling were assumed and much better if high rates of recycling were assumed. In addition, the LCA does not capture issues about landfill space and the potential benefits of CTs in reducing the amount of needed landfill space as a result of materials recovery. Finding #8: CTs can result in increased materials recovery and recycling as a result of large associated benefits. For this study, we assumed that about half of the incoming material that is removed from the CT processes is recycled and the other half landfilled (except for metals, for which we assumed about 70 percent recycled and 25 percent landfilled). The offsets associated with recycling are very significant from a life cycle perspective. Therefore, the CT scenario would look much worse if zero recycling were assumed and much better if high rates of recycling were assumed. Finding #9: CTs are not equivalent in terms of life cycle environmental performance. Although all CTs recover energy and/or materials for recycling, it appears that acid hydrolysis and catalytic cracking may be better than gasification in terms of life cycle environmental burdens. The disadvantage of gasification is the lower conversion efficiency and the high level of control needed (ammonia input) for NO, air emissions control. Finding #10: No CT facilities exist in the United States for MSW, and therefore, there is a high level of uncertainty regarding their environmental performance. There is much uncertainty about the amount of unwanted metals, glass, and plastics that the CT facilities will be able to remove through the up -front separation and preprocessing steps. For this study, we assumed a 5 percent contaminant level entering the CT process. Higher levels of process contaminants would result in higher levels of local pollutants. MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENT AB 2770 included the requirement that the CIWMB's report on CTs include a "description and evaluation of the impacts on the recycling and composting markets as a result of each CT." The purpose of the market impact assessment (MIA) was to estimate the impacts that CTs might have on existing and future recycling and composting markets. The impacts were separated into two categories: (1) economic and financial impacts, and (2) institutional impacts on recycling and composting markets. More specifically, this MIA estimates and comments on whether the 17 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 are summarized in Table 7. Table 7. Summary of MIA Objectives Effects on recycling and composting industries as a result of increases or decreases in feedstock supply If a tonnage effect, estimate economic gains or losses If a price effect, estimate economic gains or losses Methodology Effects on hauler contractual relationships Effects on municipal contractual relationships Effects on regional recycling and composting infrastructure Effects of put -or -pay contracts on recycling and composting businesses Our general approach was to collect data regarding the current marketplace, 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 researching 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. • Develop CT configuration assumptions and other key modeling assumptions • Develop baseline projections for recycling and composting • Estimate impacts of CT on recycling and composting. A financial model was developed to input and summarize data and to perform certain calculations. Key Findings of MIA The key findings of the MIA are grouped into the following categories: • Feedstock Requirements and Recovery Rates for Selected CTs • Current State of Commercial Development of CTs • CT Pricing and Contractural Arrangements • Relative Size of CT Configurations Versus Regional Landfill Markets • Role and Relative Size of Material Recovery Facilities Versus Regional CT Configurations • Control of Hauling Arrangements in Two Regions • Projections of Future Increases in Recycling • Impacts on Markets for Recycled Paper • Impacts on Markets for Recycled Plastics • Impacts on Organics and Landfill Markets. Feedstock Requirements and Recovery Rates for Selected CTs Finding #1: Gasification can process 69-74 percent of the incoming waste stream, recycle 8 percent of the incoming waste stream, and must dispose of the remaining 18-23 percent of the waste stream. According to facility proponents, gasification can accept mixed solid waste for processing. In this context, "mixed waste" includes residuals from MRFs and waste normally sent to landfills. To prepare the waste for processing, certain materials must be removed for disposal or redirected to other facilities. Certain recyclables must be removed and can be recycled. The remaining materials are suitable for processing (see Table 8). Finding #2: Acid hydrolysis can process 61-64 percent of the incoming waste stream, recycle 12-13 percent of the incoming waste stream, and must dispose of the remaining 23- 26 percent of the waste stream. According to facility proponents, acid hydrolysis can accept mixed waste for processing. In this context, "mixed waste' includes residuals from MRFs and waste normally sent to landfills. To prepare the waste for processing, certain materials must be removed for disposal or redirected to other facilities. Certain recyclables must be removed and can be recycled. The remaining materials are suitable for processing (see Table 9). 19 0 0 DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Table 8. Gasification Materials Disposition _- -� f a� Maternal Types Paper, plastics, organics and mixed residue Glass and metals, portion that can be recycled Construction and demolition debris, household hazardous waste, special waste, and the portion of the glass and metal waste streams that cannot be recycled T -`=U M Percentage of Wash Percentageof Waste` Disposition Streamn the Greater ' Stream in the San µ L®s Ang les Area francisco Bay Area Processed by 74% 69.2% gasification Recycled 7.5% 8.1% Disposed Table 9. Acid Hydrolysis Materials Disposition 18.5% 22.4% 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 are no current markets 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. Table 10. Catalytic Cracking Materials Disposition Plastic film that can be Processed by 4.5% processed by catalytic catalytic cracking cracking Current State of Commercial Development of CTs 3.7% age of Waste iin the San Bay Are aa Finding #4: For the technologies included in this study, no commercial -scale CT projects have been completed in the United States at this time, but one facility will break ground this year in California and another will break ground in New York. Several jurisdictions or groups of jurisdictions in California are researching CTs, and some have requested information or proposals from CT vendors. Several jurisdictions in California are researching CTs in California: • The City of Los Angeles has begun a technical study of technology options • A group of twelve jurisdictions in Santa Barbara County has issued a request for information and received responses from more than a dozen vendors • Alameda Power and Telecom has requested proposals and is in the process of reviewing them • The Coachella Valley Association of Governments has received proposals from interested vendors and has conducted interviews • The County of Los Angeles has created a subcommittee of its Integrated Waste Management Task Force to review technology options. Plastic Energy LLC has plans to break ground this year on a 50 tpd (expected to expand to 100 tpd) catalytic cracking facility in the City of Hanford, in Kings County. One acid hydrolysis plant is scheduled for construction in Middletown, New York, by Masada OxyNo1,TM LLC. CT Pricing and Contractual Arrangements Finding #5: Since CT facilities require such large capital investments (ranging from $40 million to $70 million), the facilities will likely require contractual commitments from municipalities or haulers to secure the waste streams that will supply the facilities. The Masada plant that is to be built in Middletown, New York, has put -or -pay contracts with local jurisdictions that require a tight range of waste quantities to be delivered to the facility, from 100 percent to 108 percent of the amount committed to in the contract. There are monetary penalties for too little or too much waste delivered. The length of the contract is 20 years. Finding #6: CT facilities may have tipping fees that range from $25 to $65 per ton of waste delivered, depending on location and other factors. Facility proponents have offered prices as low as $25 per ton, as estimated in the Santa Barbara County request for information process, and as high as $65 per ton, for the signed contract in Middletown, New York. In addition to the capital and annual operating costs of the facilities, local landfill prices affect costs. With the acid hydrolysis process, 10 percent of the waste emerges as residue and must be disposed of in a landfill at the local rate of $75 per ton, which 21 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) are 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 landfill 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 various 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 area, 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 area 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, MR.F residuals could comprise just over half 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" MRFs, 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 are 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 are determined 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 • r� DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. 81 percent is hauled by private companies under contract with the City, and the remaining 17 percent is hauled by a variety of private companies who contract directly with residents. In the San Francisco Bay area, some jurisdictions have separate agreement for hauling and landfill disposal, but very few jurisdictions in either area exercise direct control over specific recycling or composting facility arrangements. In general, the contracts for hauling usually specify that recycling and composting must be accomplished, but do not specify facilities or prices. In addition, some of the cities that exercise the most municipal control over recycling and composting contracts are also the least likely politically to change their recycling and composting policies. Finding #10: The commercial sector waste is less regulated than the residential sector in the Greater Los Angeles area, with 4 percent of the waste being collected municipally, 48 percent through contracts with waste haulers, and the remaining 48 percent open to competition from multiple haulers. In the San Francisco Bay area, nearly all of the commercial waste is hauled by contract haulers. Projections of Future Increases in Recycling Finding #11: Based on the data gathered for this study, recycling growth rates (in the absence of CT facilities) are estimated at an average of approximately 2 percent per year for paper, plastics, and organics. Recycling tonnage growth (or decline) occurs as a result of several factors, including population growth, changes in material types used to manufacture products, and implementation of new or expanded diversion programs. Nationwide, plastics and paper recycling rates have not increased much in the last few years. Nationwide recycling rates for newspaper and corrugated cardboard are above 70 percent, suggesting there is little room for growth. In California, many jurisdictions have achieved the 50 percent recycling goal, while other jurisdictions continue to strive toward achieving 50 percent diversion. A few jurisdictions have goals above 50 percent, including the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco. The statewide average diversion rate was 47 percent in 2003. Projected future growth of recycling (assuming CT facilities are not developed) was computed using population growth rates, rates of growth or decline of specific material types, and documented plans for increased recycling program implementation from jurisdictions. Growth rates are different for each material type in the study (paper, plastics, and organics.) Additional growth in recycling programs is possible as a result of technology advances and implementation of new programs, but these possibilities could not be quantified for this study. Current and projected quantities of the recyclables targeted in this study are shown in Table 11. Table 11. Current and Projected Quantities of Paper, Plastics, and Organics Recycling _ o e os nge 35,ni ancisco f� tons) 010 tons r 00 ons 3'�tit s �0 -Mf tons Paper 4,900,000 5,900,000 2,000,000 2,400,000 Plastic 180,000 340,000 100,000 180,000 Organics, including ADC 3,100,000 3,300,000 1,700,000 1,900,000 23 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. However, 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 for a 10 -year 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 of the 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 year. The increases averaged 6.8 percent per year 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 year 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 areas have increased by 209 percent, and represent 48 percent of the total exports for this period. Impacts on Markets for Recycled Plastics Finding # 14: 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 seek 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. Impacts on Organics and Landfill Markets Finding #15: Assuming no diversion credit is allowed for CTs, it is unlikely that significant quantities of green waste that are currently delivered to composters or to landfills as ADC will be redirected to CT facilities for the following reasons: 1. Currently, jurisdictions that contract for source -separated collection of green waste will continue to require their contractors to deliver green waste to facilities that qualify for diversion credit. Approximately 80 percent of the green waste delivered to diversion facilities is delivered by either public agencies or haulers under contract to public agencies. 2. Green waste delivered to diversion facilities at posted rates probably is delivered by self - haulers that are not regulated by contractual arrangements with public agencies. Approximately 20 percent of the green waste delivered to diversion facilities pay the posted rates. These self -haulers will deliver their green waste loads to the most economical facility. Currently, these self -haulers pay posted rates at green waste facilities of $11 to $31 per ton in the Greater Los Angeles area and $15 to $40 in the San Francisco Bay area. It is unlikely that CT prices will be competitive for most of this tonnage. Furthermore, CT facilities will be most interested in steady waste flows from contract haulers rather than the uneven flow delivered in loads from self -haulers. 3. There is sufficient refuse tonnage available to fully utilize the capacity of the proposed CT configurations that is currently paying higher disposal tipping fees than the fees charged by green waste facilities. As a result, CT facilities, in order to maximize profit, are likely to charge tipping fees that are competitive with landfill costs. A CT tipping fee of $30 to $40 per ton in the Greater Los Angeles area and $40 to $50 per ton in the San Francisco Bay area should be able to attract sufficient refuse to be used as feedstock, and there would be no need to lower CT prices to attract green waste. The above assessment is contingent on a policy of not providing diversion credit for CT facilities If diversion credit was provided without regulatory measures to protect current feedstock, public agencies would have an economic incentive to discontinue separate green waste collection and instead deliver mixed loads of refuse and green waste to CT facilities, because it would likely be less costly as a result of savings in waste hauling costs. Changes in Job Creation as a Result of Conversion Technology Facilities Finding #16: Preparing feedstock for use in CT facilities generates additional recycling - related jobs in two ways, as listed below. For the purpose of determining the number of jobs potentially generated, we assumed that facilities were operating at the capacities listed in Table 3. Additional MRF Sorting Positions Feedstock must be sorted in a specific manner prior to use in any of the three types of CT facilities reviewed in this study. For acid hydrolysis and gasification, the most likely feedstock has been determined to be material destined for a landfill. Whether or not this material includes residuals from MRFs, this material must be sorted in a specialized way and will require additional sorters to remove recyclables and contaminants. Feedstock for catalytic cracking facilities would not need to be sorted on a separate facility line. Catalytic cracking facilities would accept only film plastic, which could be sorted from an existing material recovery facility line that is already sorting clean recyclables or mixed waste. It would also require additional workers on existing sorting lines. 25 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 are at 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 market 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. It 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 area landfill market by about 20 percent in 2003, rising to 29 percent in 2010. M. DRAFT -For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Table 12. Additional Material Diverted Through Conversion Technology Sorting e'°.._ i.,.i,cy- �, ater�a -� � 000 ons � f OF _ _�03 � ,y �< s4 ,fc �. Ton�2010 .a.- t,,•, .z' .�. _ �obs� 010 Greater Los Angeles Area - Acid Hydrolysis Plastic 77.1 36,109 2,784 61,353 4,730 Glass 5.0 17,960 90 28,946 145 Metal 8.3 35,778 297 57,656 479 MRF 0.82 89,847 74 147,955 121 Total 3,245 5,475 San Francisco Bay Area - Acid Hydrolysis Plastic 77.1 34,784 2,682 59,419 4,581 Glass 5.0 18,628 93 31,050 155 Metal 8.3 46,208 384 77,223 641 MRF 0.82 99,620 82 167,692 138 Total 3,241 5,515 Greater Los Angeles Area - Gasification Glass 5.0 21,024 105 30,423 152 Metal 8.3 41,882 348 60,599 503 MRF 0.82 62,906 52 91,022 75 Total 505 730 San Francisco Bay Area - Gasification Glass 5.0 21,904 110 32,763 164 Metal 8.3 54,334 451 81,483 676 MRF 0.82 76,238 63 114,246 94 Total 934 Greater Los Angeles Area - Catalytic Cracking MRF - sorting of film plastics 0.82 16,450 13 16,450 13 San Francisco Bay Area - Catalytic Cracking MRF - sorting of film plastics 0.82 16,450 13 16,450 13 Calculated using jobs per ton factors in the upon "U.S. Recycling Economic Information Study" by R. W. Beck, Inc., July 2001. Assumes CT facilities are operating at full capacity under proposed configurations. See Table 3 for tonnage. 27 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 CO2 — carbon dioxide CT — conversion technology CWIMB — California Integrated Waste Management Board EPA — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency H2 — hydrogen HAP — hazardous air pollutant ITEQ — international toxic equivalent kW — kilowatt LCA — life cycle assessment LCI — life cycle inventory analysis MIA — market impact assessment MW — megawatt MRF — materials recovery facility MSW — municipal solid waste MSW -DST — RTI's Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool N%— nitrogen oxides POTW—publically owned treatment works PVC — polyvinyl chloride RDF — refuse derived fuel SCR — selective catalytic reduction SWERF — Solid Waste Energy Recycling Facility SO, — 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. WTE — waste -to -energy W W T — wastewater treatment C, 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. HSMART Presents an Advanced Catalytic Cracking Technology, 2002 LEA/CIWMB Partnership Conference, <h //www ciwmb ca eov/part2000/Events102Conf/Com Tec/Plastic.hun> (October 8, 2003). Menville, R., SWERF ME, Technical Presentation. Emissions Table. 2004. Niessen, Walter, Charles Markes, and Robert Sommerland, Evaluation of Gasification and Novel Thermal Processes for the Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste, NREL/TP430-21612, August 1996. NYSDEC, Air Title V Facility, Permit ID 3-3309-00101/00003, Mod 1, Issued to Pencor, Masada Oxynol LLC, October 1, 2001. Ozmotech's municipal recycling facility setup now complete, Mapslink, <h //www.ozmotech.coui.au news4.html> (October 11, 2003). Stevenson, Walter, U.S. EPA, personal communication with Mark Bahner, April 1, 2004. SWERF®, Wollongong NSW, Australia, <ht�t '//www brightstarenviromnental.coin/htinVproiects/aus.htm#sta a#g stage-> (October 8, 2003). U.S. EPA, Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Eeletric Utility Steam Generating Units — Final Report to Congress, EPA453/R-98-004, February 1998. Wootton, P., "FW: Final questions for Ron Menville of Brightstar;' January 5, 2004, e-mail to J. Simpson and R. Menville. 30 DRAFT—For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Source Reference Notes NYSDEC. Air Title V Facility, Permit ID 3-3309-00101/00003, Mod 1, Issued to Pencor Masada Oxynol LLC, October 1, 2001. ' Ibid. ' Ibid. ° Ozmotech's municipal recycling facility setup now complete, Mapslink, <htV://www.ozmotech.com.au/ilews4.html> (October 11, 2003). ' R. Menville, SWERFME, Technical Presentation, Emissions Table. 2004. 6 Niessen, Walter, Charles Markes, and Robert Sommerland, Evaluation of Gasification and Novel Thermal Processes for the Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste, NREL/TP- 430-21612, August 1996, pg. 3-12. ' Ibid., pg. 6-11. s SWERF®, Wollongong NSW, Australia, <http://www.brightstarenvironmental com/htmUi)roiects/aus htm#sta a#e stage> (October 8, 2003). ' P. Wootton. 2004. "FW: Final questions for Ron Menville of Brightstar," January 5, 2004, pg. 6. E-mail to J. Simpson and R. Menville. 10 H.SMART Presents an Advanced Catalytic Cracking Technology, 2002 LEA/CIWMB Partnership Conference, <http://www.ciwrnb.ca.gov/part2000/Events/02Conf/ConvTec/Plastic.htm> (October 8, 2003). � � Larry Buckle, H.SMARTech Inc., personal communication with V. Putsche, October 7, 2003. 12 U.S. EPA, Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Eelctric Utility Steam Generating Units —Final Report to Congress, EPA -453/R-98-004, February 1998. Executive Summary. " Walter Stevenson, U.S. EPA, personal communication with Mark Bahner, April 1, 2004. " SWERF®, Wollongong NSW, Australia, <http://www.brightstarenvironmental.com/html/projects/aus.htm#stake#staee> (October 8, 2003). 31 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 10011 Street P.O. Box 4025 Sacramento, CA 95812-4025 Contract Manager: Fernando Berton Submitted: April 2004 Colin Hackett William Welch Thomas D. Durbin Joshua Pence College of Engineering -Center for Environmental Research and Technology University of California Riverside, CA 92521 (909) 781-5791 (909) 781-5790 fax Robert B. Williams Dara Salour Bryan M. Jenkins Rizaldo Aldas Dept. of Biological and Agricultural Engineering University of California One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Phone: (530) 752-6623 fax: (530) 752-2640 ES -i DRAFT — For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Executive Summa 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 California have increased substantially in California since the passage of AB 939 in 1989, establishing a target of 50% diversion from landfills by 2000. Although the diversion rate in California 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 carbonaceous 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 market 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 are also used in areas 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 market assessments. One of the main focuses of these programs is the evaluation of alternative 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 -1 DRAFT — For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. liquid materials using thermally driven chemical processes is regarded 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 are 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 immediate 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 referred to as incineration. Flame temperatures range typically between 1500 and 3000°F depending on fuel, stoichiometry, furnace 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 muss transport, progressive pyrolysis, gasification, ignition, and burning, with fluid flow. Normally, 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. carbon dioxide [CO23, water [H2O3), products of incomplete combustion and other reaction products (mostly as pollutants), and ash. Other processes, such as supercritical water oxidation and electrochenucal oxidation can produce similar end products at lower temperatures. Gasification Definition Gasification typically refers to conversion via the direct internal heating provided by partial oxidation using substoichiometric air or oxygen. Alternative configurations using either indirect heating methods such as externally fired bumers or autothermal 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 carbon monoxide (CO), H2, methane (CH4), and lighter hydrocarbons in association with CO2 and N2 depending on process used_ Gasification processes can also produce liquids (tars, oils, and other condensates) and solids (char, ash) from solid feedstocks. However, most gasification processes are designed to generate fuel or synthesis gases as the primary product. Fuel gases can be used in internal 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 carbon/nitrogen (C/N) 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 Ivy the yeast and bacteria employed in the process. Ethanol and CO2 are byproducts of anaerobic yeast fermentation. Ethanol inhibits microbial growth, essentially halting the process when ethanol concentration is near 12%. Ethanol must be distilled from the dilute fermentation product in order to be used as fuel. Processes are also in development that would convert ethanol to hydrogen without distillation. Although fermentation and anaerobic digestion are commonly classified separately, both are biochemical fermentation methods designed 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 ES -1. ES -5 DRAFT — For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not cite or quote. Physicochemical Con version 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 transesterifrcation, a reaction of an organic glyceride with alcohol in the presence of catalyst. Feedstocks The feedstocks that can be utilized with alternative conversion processes are primarily the organic materials that are now being landfilled. These include paper, cardboard, 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. Thermochemical 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 streams are inert to biodegradation. Higher moisture feedstocks tend to be good candidates for biochemical processes. Biochemical conversion technologies prefer source -separated 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/cardboard is the largest category of the material (on both a mass and energy basis) that could be processed by conversion technologies. Paper and cardboard material comprise 11 million tons or 30% of the currently landfilled material. On an energy basis, however, paper/cardboard represents nearly half (44%) of the potential chemical energy in the waste stream. Although recycling of old corrugated containers (OCC) and old newspaper (ONP) materials is a well developed industry in California, the recycling rates for these components are 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/cardboard 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 Plasties made from biodegradable feedstocks are not yet commercial but are being developed by a number of manufactures and several 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 are the next highest category of recycled plastics with a rate of 13%. 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 conversion technologies could also be applied to the growing problem areas 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 largely 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 compared 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 carbonaceous feedstocks to liquid or gaseous products. Pyrolysis is an endothermic process where materials are 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 are 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. { `b 9,811iA tid •;�less;$�..c raMtow E��ctables� ► ``i��tal • paper. Csrc�na�rd • ;'pl�sti . S� fsaratlon I Preprocessi, eq-:rad4C'0'0X. ,rdrAbg'-, f � �eeded� I R;.. pare Remove O dAgh � du �{et, Fa6d legends Dastred Une?]aefrlciD�!er Dotted Urge- Keaitftow Sold Une s.tiiw. i ,ache lne-,m. ..46 QR.wid,p.Y *MW ¢eraoite�a �comcno,�pdiabatic,rsact� a►�s!e�: _ G$g: Treattnbrit ,Energetid Gases: T�eatrnep tgPb �a�1 Removed: synths iv Pbr�Cle F..�tte�nal Burr►er IAf'sopply) AjA metals teoyolng) Figure ES -2. Schematic Diagram. of Gasification Process with Front End Pyrolysis Process. ES- 11 Cleaned nExhaust' Eiuses lergeti''c Ezhau.sVfluo ga�a�ter= tteat�:to:: :reritcive- pollutants. �Ctmi�ustlon .Electric Ei gl": or power Tu�tflne 1 generator Air _..._..--i- f-.. Exported E{ec:tnctiy FuelsJChenii�ats :96cyrjed WMer Cor►de:tt�te «X�r1't�i:rrtin8nts for T- ecycHng. (acids, bases). press ttizatlom,. from air ' stutty: pump; sepa*tjo gTil tefartragr. .: l system'. , ef�Tte�t: 1 I Steam-Refdmei legends Dastred Une?]aefrlciD�!er Dotted Urge- Keaitftow Sold Une s.tiiw. i ,ache lne-,m. ..46 QR.wid,p.Y *MW ¢eraoite�a �comcno,�pdiabatic,rsact� a►�s!e�: _ G$g: Treattnbrit ,Energetid Gases: T�eatrnep tgPb �a�1 Removed: synths iv Pbr�Cle F..�tte�nal Burr►er IAf'sopply) AjA metals teoyolng) Figure ES -2. Schematic Diagram. of Gasification Process with Front End Pyrolysis Process. ES- 11 Cleaned nExhaust' Eiuses lergeti''c Ezhau.sVfluo ga�a�ter= tteat�:to:: :reritcive- pollutants. �Ctmi�ustlon .Electric Ei gl": or power Tu�tflne 1 generator Air _..._..--i- f-.. Exported E{ec:tnctiy FuelsJChenii�ats :96cyrjed WMer Cor►de:tt�te «X�r1't�i:rrtin8nts for T- ecycHng. (acids, bases). DRAFT — For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not quote or cite. exposure (<1 second). Rapid quenching is necessary to freeze the decomposition products and condense species before simpler molecules (lower molecular mass) are formed that remain gases under ambient conditions. This process results in a product that is up to 80% liquid by weight. The pyrolyzing/gasifying media can also be varied by using hydrogen and/or steam. Significant differences in the product distribution can occur when using hydrogen and/or steam as a reactant. Hydrogen gas can be used to enhance chemical reduction and suppress oxidation from the elemental oxygen in the feedstock. This process, known as hydropyrolysis, was originally developed to enhance the production of energetic gases from the pyrolysis of coal. 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 char. By creating a very high surface area and porosity, activated carbon (charcoal) can be formed. Steam pyrolysis or gasification can also be used to achieve adequate results at lower temperatures but higher pressures than processes conducted in the absence of water, or dry processes. This ability to pyrolyze and gasify wet streams of carbonaceous material using chemically reducing processes appears to have some distinct advantages over the more traditional dry and partially oxidative methods. It should be noted that water and elemental oxygen are both typically found in biomass feedstocks. Most biomass materials usually contain between 25% and 45% by mass (weight) of elemental oxygen, so some oxidative reactions will occur during pyrolysis, even though additional oxygen is intentionally excluded from the process. Plasma arc and radio frequency (or microwave) heating is a technique for providing heat from electricity for gasification, pyrolysis, or combustion depending on the amount of reactive oxygen or hydrogen fed to the reactor. Very high temperatures are created in the ionized plasma (the electric arc [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 around 3,000°F). Plasma arc heating can provide advantages in controlling the combustion process, but at the same time it is less efficient that direct heating due to the need to produce electricity. As a result of this inefficiency, plasma arc technologies are often used for more specialized feedstocks such as medical waste. Catalytic cracking is a subclass of thermochemical conversion usually applied to polymeric wastes to produce liquid fuels (primarily gasoline) in an oil refinery. The addition of catalysts to enhance the kinetics of this method of pyrolysis has created many commercial implementations that are trade secrets and proprietary. However, the deactivation of these catalysts by the chlorine present in PVC plastics, makes the general application of this technology problematic without expensive sorting and pre-treatment of the plastic from the MSW stream. The market for petrochemicals and polymeric materials derived from petroleum is highly competitive on a worldwide basis. The use of catalytic cracking to convert waste polymeric materials (plastics) into fuels is well established within oil refinery complexes worldwide. The catalytic cracking process is shown schematically in Figure ES -4. ES- 13 DRAFT — For Discussion Purposes Only. Do not quote or cite. To date, a large 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 Fiirth. For gasification in Europe, the SVZ facility at Schwarce 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 are 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 California 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 a wood -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 are commonly classified separately, both are biochemical fermentation methods designed to produce different products. Hydrolysis is used to pretreat cellulosic feedstocks to separate the cellulose and hemicellulose 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 CO2 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 SizeI I Concentrated H2SO4 Reduction is' Stage 2nd Stage Cellulose Hydrolysis Hydrolysis Decrystallization a L' Steam Elerc ity Gea 0 tion eo Acid Sugars Ethanol Reconcentration d Concentration Water Neutralization/ Fermentor Detoxification Gypsum (Adapted from bttv7//www.ottdoe.povfbiohLels/concentrated.html) 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 carbohydrates 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 carbohydrate 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 carbohydrate 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 starch materials, such as corn grain, high value feed products are 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 w 2.0 0 C 0 1.5 E Z' W 1.0 0 R , V 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 sugar and starch based feedstocks. It is not yet commercial for cellulosic biomass (because of added expense or low sugar yields of hydrolysis processes) and is the subject of intense basic research. There are 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 for a 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 are several proposed facilities including one for California 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 California which are 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 are alternative waste conversion sites under development in California. Direct measurements from these facilities are 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 large. Some of this resistance has stemmed from the misperception that pyrolysis and gasification processes are variations. 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 bum incineration is limited application of air pollution control equipment to the fully combusted exhaust only. • Output gases from pyrolysis reactors or gasifiers are typically in a reducing environment, and can be treated with different technologies compared with a fully combusted (oxidative) exhaust. • Subsequent combustion of low molecular weight producer gases from pyrolysis and gasification processes can be much cleaner than combustion of raw feedstocks (similar to combustion of natural 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 are 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 discharge into the ambient air. These include particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NO.), oxides of sulfur (S%), dioxins and furans, hydrocarbon (HC) gases, multiple metals, and carbon monoxide (CO). There are many strategies for controlling emissions from thermochemical conversion processes, and they are 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 are 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 marketing and disposal. Other Risks Other risks associated with alternative conversion technologies include potential acid spills in biochemical processes and leaks or breaches in high-pressure thermal conversion systems. It 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 compared with existing practice, increased conversion efficiencies to useful products, and an enhanced compatibility with existing recycling and composting operations. These advantages are maximized when combined with existing policy requirements for waste streams. Finally, there are no `one size fits all" regulations on pyrolysis and gasification systems (due to the wide range of process parameters, 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 year represent approximately an estimated chemical energy equivalence of over 60 million barrels of crude oil or 2370 MW of electrical power. At a market price of over $37 per barrel, this energy resource could be considered to be worth over $2.2 billion. For thermochemical process, plastics are 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 alternative 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 markets, 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 marketplace. 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 are recommendations related to the area of alternative conversion technologies. A more formal evaluation should be conducted of conversion technology vendors interested in marketing 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 already 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 are identified in the data, samples of California waste stream should be analyzed to fill these information gaps. The type of characterization 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 Cellulose/hemicelluloscAlignin distribution in cellulosic components o Characterize protein/carbohydrate/fats for typical food wastes Recommendations could be made on the basis of these results as to what components should be pre-sortied from MSW 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 hazardous compounds in addition to criteria pollutants. The emissions results should be normalized to a standard use indicator such as volume or mass of material processed so that the values can be compared with other processes. These characterizations are typical of the type performed in life cycle assessment. ES- 27