HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0002.000 2006-2008 JNTV or N,~
o.• , 1~
bi+%q, Barbara Bell
i ~
Director
Harry Kim
Mayor - - - Nelson Ho
Deputy Director
Ire OF~N~~
C~nul~lf~r >xf ~ttfutzii
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
25 Aupuni Street, Room 210 • Hilo, Hawari 96720-0252
(808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086
http'//co hawaii hi us/directory/dir envmn~
him
November 15, 2006
The Honorable Stacy Higa, Chair
And Members of the Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
r.~y
c>
cT>
Re: Waste-To-Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT) z
r~
2006 Annual Meeting C r ~ c
Dear County Council Members,
At the request of the Mayor, I attended the subject meeting on October 19-2Q 2006, along wt~i
Brad Kurokawa, Deputy Planning Director, and James Weatherford, Hawaii County residenf:° -
.'_J
-r7
I have enclosed the following for your information:
• Out-of--State Trip Report, including what we learned and where we go from here
• Conference Agenda
• List of Participants
If you have additional questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Barbara Bell
DIRECTOR
enclosures
cc: Harry Kim, Mayor
Brad Kurokawa, Planning
Comm. No. 2
Ref. To: ML
Ref. Uate,NOV 17 2006
l 43 ~ Hawari County is an equal oppormniry provider and employer.
• ~ .
o. „„w
t,;~; Barbara Bell
' Director
Harry Kim
Mayor ~ Nelson Ho
j"~ oi'~~°'• Deputy Director
C~>xunf~r >r~ ~ttfutzii
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
25 Aupuni Street, Room 210 • Hilo, Hawaii 967204252
(808) 961-8083 • Faz (808) 961-8086
emaiP cohdem(alco Hawai i hi us
Out of State Trip Report and Observations
WTERT Conference, October 19 - 20, 2006, New York City
Barbara Bell, Director, Department of Environmental Management
Brad Kurokawa, Deputy Director, Planning Department
What we learned:
1. The Europeans have done a very good job with waste-to-energy (WTE) and aze at the
cutting edge of developing technology. They have public acceptance of plants in densely
populated areas. People live close to many plants.
2. They sepazate ash into two types:
• Bottom ash (15%-20% of pre-incinerated waste)
• Air pollution control (fly) ash (1-3% of the pre-incinerated waste).
Bottom ash is utilized in vazious applications such as recycled material in road
construction and other aggregate projects. Fly ash, the more concentrated toxic of the two
ash by-products, is landfilled.
3. European population, as a whole, considers landfilling a very undesirable choice and
would rather see some productive use of their "waste". With decreasing land for
landfilling, WTE is slowly gaining favor as the technology of choice in conjunction with
#1 priority of recycling. Landfilling negatives include pollution, greenhouse gas
emissions and long term liability.
4. England's attitudes aze more like the US. They aze resistant to WTE and still rely on
landfills.
5. Banning landfilling was seen as necessary and beneficial by a few speakers (Switzerland,
Sweden, Germany, Austria) to encourage the move to waste-to-energy, i.e. Sweden:
higher taxes on landfilled waste, ban on landfilling of combustible waste and organic
waste.
6. US plants (and the law) aze not ready to use bottom ash in projects. It is mixed with the
fly ash and landfilled all across the US. This practice actually "contaminates" the total
ash by-product which then takes up more land fill space.
7. Covanta and Wheelabrator are the leaders in the US. They aze both on our short list for
the current 1tFP.
8. Energy revenues (electricity generation and district heating) aze a substantial part of the
economic equation. At our quantities, and in eazly discussions with HELCO, it could be
$100,000/yeaz. It is too early to give a closer estimate though we're looking at 3-5
megawatts (MW) of power per day.
9. WTE recovers virtually all metal for recycling. What they don't get on the front end, they
get at the back end.
Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
10. Amsterdam has the largest plant in the world-1 million tons/yeaz. Hilo would have
azound 75,000 - 77,000 tons/year.
11. In astate-of--the-art WTE plant, 50% of the costs are for cleaning the flue gas.
12. To instalUsite a new plant, you must have:
• Optimized recycling
• Pleasing architectural design
• Best methods of transporting waste to plant
• Best available control technology
• Dialogue with planners AND
• An excellent dialogue with the community.
13. In Denmazk, there aze many little plants because of topography- hilly country. In
Holland, there aze a few big plants because the geography is basically flat.
Where do we go from here? Recommendations:
1. Devise a plan, articulating the sustainability framework as a guiding vision to drive
County projects/programs and decision making. A clear, concise overarching vision that
starts with the "nice place to live" message and expands with simple logical principles
could be used as a concrete decision making tool to help resolve immediate and ongoing
issues like solid waste.
2. To move any waste-to-energy project forwazd, more education is needed, beginning with
the County Legislators and Administration, and then including the public. Many
municipalities send decision makers on site visits. Three sites could show the full
spectrum of options in an integrated solid waste management strategy that is, in turn,
related to the "big picture" Hawaz i Island vision and sustainability framework.
• EcoCycle in Boulder Colorado (super recyclers)
• A good US waste-to-energy plant. Actual site would be related to a vendor we aze
negotiating with for our project
• Danish, Swedish or Dutch waste-to-energy plant.
3. We intend to update our County Integrated Solid Waste Management plan in 2007 and
we hope the Council will take an active interest in the process. We need to create a public
process directly engaging the Council and the general public as stakeholders to come up
with agreed upon, island-wide, solutions.
4. Collaborative efforts such as looking at the State's Sustainability 2050 goals in terms of
energy, including waste-to-energy (Hawai'i Island carrying the lion's shaze of state
renewable energy goals) would be opportunities for creative problem solving and
recognizing our interdependency.
Waste-To-Energy Research
and Technology Council
l~~
WTERT 2006 Annual Meeting at Columbia University
NYC, October 19-20
Location: Davis Auditorium, Schapiro Center for Engineering and Physical Science
Research, Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science
530 West 120th St. (between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue), New Pork City (take
elevator to 4`" flaorJ
Thursday. October 19.2006
8:00 AM Registration and continental breakfast in lobby of Davis Auditorium
9:00 AM Welcome and introduction: Prof. Nickolas J. Themelis, WTERT Chair,
Director, Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University
9:15 AM Keynote presentatioti: Thermal Treatment -An essential element of
Sustainable Waste Treatment
Prof. Paul H. Brunner, Vienna University of Technology, Recipient of
the WTERT 2006 Education Award. (paul.h.brunner@iwa.tuwien.ac.at)
In the past century, material turnover in all sectors (residential, commercial,
industry, trade, agriculture) has increased tremendously and there are no signs yet that
this trend will change in the near future. Recycling can divert an important fraction of the
total waste stream back to consumption. However, due to energetic and economic reasons,
the total recycling of wastes is not feasible. Thus, means to dispose of large amounts of
wastes in a safe and goal oriented way is necessary. Goals of waste management
comprise protection of man and the environment, the conservation of resources such as
energy, materials and land, and after-care-free landfills (precautionary principle). Since
1
lf']ERT2006Annual Meeting New York City, October I9-20, 2006
wastes aze important carriers of hazardous as well as valuable materials, waste
management plays a major role in environmental protection and resource conservation.
In service oriented economies, non-hazardous wastes are lazger carriers of
hazardous substances than hazardous wastes. Hence, if risks from hazardous substances
are to be minimized, the environmentally safe management of non-hazardous wastes, in
pazticulaz municipal solid wastes, is crucial. State of the art thermal treatment is a feasible
way to process many hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. There are different thermal
processes available to treat waste materials; each has its specific advantages and
disadvantages. Investigations into mass balances of modern thermal processes show that
incinerator emissions can be much smaller than the most advanced standards. If state of
the art air pollution control technology is applied, flows of heavy metals and organic
substances from incinerators are insignificant in comparison to other emission sources.
The new question is what to do with the resulting incineration and filter residues. Results
from material flow analysis point to the large potential for future reuse. If long term
scenarios are investigated, it seems feasible that certain materials such as volatile metals
can be efficiently recycled by thermal processes. It is necessary to develop new stmtegies
in waste management such as combining energy recovery with materials recovery. If
introduced on a large scale, such reuse strategies could successfully compete with present
waste management trends, which are oftea based on dilution strategies.
10:00 AM Session 1 (Chair: Mr. Ted Michaels, President IW SA)
¦ Release of Trace Organic Compounds During MSW Decomposition
and Environmental Implications of W aste Management Using
Landfills and Waste-to Energy
Prof. Morton A. Barlaz, North Carolina State University.
(barlaz@eos. ncsu. edu)
Landfill gas contains numerous speciated organic compounds (SOCs) including
alkanes, aromatics, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, ketones, terpenes,
chlorofluoro compounds and siloxanes at ppm to ppt levels. The source, and rate and
extent of release of these compounds aze poorly understood. The objective of this study
was to characterize the release of SOCs and of the regulated non-methane organic
compounds (NMOCs), during the decomposition of residential refuse and its major
biodegradable components (paper, yard waste, food waste). Tests were tamed out under
anaerobic and also aerobic conditions in laboratory 8-liter reactors operated to maximize
decomposition and the rates of idMOC and also CH4 release were measured for refuse,
paper, yazd waste and food wastes. AiIvfOC release was faster than CIIa production in all
treatments. Terpenes and ketones accounted for 32 to 96% of SOC release in each
treatment, while volatile fatty acids were not a significant contributor. Release in aerobic
systems points to the potential importance of composting plants as an emissions source.
Life-cycle assessment (LCA) provides an analytical framework for an objective
compazison of alternative processes. The results of two LCA case studies will be
presented. The first is a hypothetical compazison of landfill disposal and mass bum
combustion. The second analyzes alternatives for solid waste management in the State of
Delawaze using an optimization model. The results of both studies illustrate the benefits
of combustion with respect to energy recovery and mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions.
10:30 AM Coffee Break (15 minutes)
2
lI'TERT 2006 Annual Meeting New York City, October 19-20, 2006
10:45 AM Session 1 (continued)
¦ Recent Developments in WTE Grate Combustion ("Mass Burn"):
Technology and Implementation
Dr. Edmund Fleck, Managing Director, Martin GmbH f Umwelt- and
Energietechnik; Chairman, European Suppliers of Waste to Energy
Technology (ESWET). (Edmund.Fleck@martingmbh.de)
Waste incineration plants were built as eazly as the 1850s. However, it took another
century for waste incineration to really start playing a role in treatment of municipal solid
waste (MSW). Landfill space became scarce in some countries while the standard of
living and, thus, the awareness of environmental quality increased. Legislation was put in
place in many countries, paving the way for substantial improvements in incineration
technology. Steam boilers recovered the energy contained in the MSW and Flue gas
treatment started with the removal of particulate matter. Removal of acid gas components
and heavy metals was made mandatory, followed by the requirements to reduce
emissions of NOx and organic compounds, most notably dioxins and furans. With the
adoption of EU Directive 2000/76, all EU member states have been required to meet
emission limits that are the most stringent for any industrial process by the end of 2005.
Today, waste-to-energy is accepted in many countries as an important step in the overall
sustainable waste management scheme. The priority of waste reduction and recycling is
recognized as are the drawbacks of landfilling, mainly in temrs of greenhouse gas
emissions, and long-term liability with risks of soil and groundwater pollution. In
addition, MSW is more and more recognized as a resource - of both energy and materials,
many efforts are under way to improve recovery efficiency, and some countries (e.g.,
Italy, Netherlands etc) are granting financial incentives for higher energy recovery.
Martin GmbH has concentrated very successfully on the combustion of MSW, first
on the Martin reverse-acting grate and, in 2002, by acquiring the forward pushing
horizontal grate of Alstom. Since 1955, over 660 WTE lines have been installed using the
Martin technologies. Technology improvements have included adaptation to varying
calorific value of the MSW, reduction of combustion related emissions, reduction of fly
ash, reducing boiler corrosion, and use of the combustion residues. .This papet will
describe highlights in the development history of Waste-to-Energy and its current role in
general. It will then present important key facts of the Martin experience and ongoing
development effects to advance this important technology.
¦ Industrial Installation and Testing of an Innovative Catalyst System
for NO: Removal in WTE Units
Dr. Antonio Bonomo, Director, Energy Division, ASM, Brescia, Italy;
Chair, Technical-scientific Committee, FEDERAMBIENTE, Rome;
President, Euroheat & Power (European Association of District Heating
and Cooling), Brussel. (The ASM Brescia WTE is the recipient of the
WTERT 2006 Industry Award) (abonomo@asm.it)
In 1997, in the construction phase of Brescia WTE plant (in operation since 1998
with 2 x 88.3 MWth units and since 2004 with the 3rd 100 MWth unit), a modification
was introduced to the project, with S 5 million additional investment, in order to leave the
provision for possible future installation of a "High Dust" catalyst, integrated in the
boilers.
All tlvee units have been equipped with Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)
system, still in operation with rather good results (80 mgQVm' NO,~. Even better results
3
WTERT 2006 Annua[ Meeting New York Ciry, October 19-10, 2006
can be obtained with a catalyst, but the conventional solution requires reheating the gases
and, therefore, considerable energy losses.
For these reasons ASM, in line with the "continuous improvement" stated the ISO
14000 certification of the Brescia WTE, decided to test an innovative "High Dust"
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) that is integrated in the boiler. The main
disadvantage of this process is that the catalyst is poisoned by the particles in the flue gas.
Therefore this technology has not yet implemented industrially.
After an extensive investigation, ASM decided to test a full scale application of
High Dust SCR to #2 unit of the WTE plant. This research project has been approved and
partly financed by the E. U Commission, within the program "NextGenBioWaste"
(Innovative Demonstration for the Next Generation of Biomass and Waste wmbustion
plants for energy recovery and renewable electricity production). In 2005, the SCR
equipment installation was.completed and in Mazch 2006 operation was started. The test
project will last four years, in several steps. The first five months of operation aze very
promising. If this test is proved successful, it could change the state of the art of NO,
control in WT'E plants.
¦ Maximum Recycling of Materials and Energy, Minimum Landfilling
Mr. Halcan Rylander, CEO SYSAV, Malmo, Sweden; and Chair,
ISWA Working Group on Thermal Treatment of Waste;
Past President ISWA (1996-98). (The SYSAV Malmo WTE was one of
the top finalists in the WTERT 2006 Industry Award)
(Hakan.Rylander@sysav.se)
Nine municipalities in southwest Sweden formed SYSAV in 1974. On January 1,
2004, the company's area of operation increased when a further five municipalities
became part-owners. The SYSAV operations are based on a joint business agreement
among the part-owners. The eco-cycle approach is the very foundation of the SYSAV
operations and the guiding strategy is to invest in a combination of methods to achieve
the most recycling possible. Our aim is to continuously improve and through regional
cooperation fulfill the increasingly high environmental requirements, improve the cost-
effectiveness of the operation and offer the best possible service to the participating
communities.
By using a combination of processing methods, SYSAV ensures that as much
waste as possible is reused or recycled either as material or energy. Combustible waste is
recovered in a WTE facility, as heat to the district heating system and as electricity.
SYSAV supplies the district heating system of the City of Malm? with 40% of its
demand and by 2008 it will increase to 60%. Garden and park waste aze converted to
nutrient-rich compost and prepacked soil. Construction and demolition materials are
sorted and resold. Wood is shredded into chips and sold as fuel. SYSAV deals with
hazardous waste and receives and dismantles electrical and electronic scrap. Waste
collection and transport is handled by the municipality's themselves and by contractors
engaged by municipalities and companies. In 2005, the SYSAV Group received a total of
871,000 tonnes of waste. Over 91 % was recycled as energy or materials and less than
9% was landfilled.
4
WTERT 2006 Annual Meeting New York Ciry, October I9-20, 2006
12:15 PM Lunch (to be served in Faculty Room of Low Memorial Library,
please see directions at the last page)
The sponsorship of this luncheon by Integrated Waste
Services Association is gratefully acknowledged t+~aneo
wstt:st
aaaotaarou
2:00 PM Session 2 (Chair: Prof. Maroo Castaldi, Columbia University)
¦ WTE Carbon Emission Credits: Now and Opportunities for the
Future
Dr. Frank Zeman, Lenfest Sustainable Energy Center, Earth Institute at
Columbia University.
The biomass fraction of MSW is considered in the E.U. and in several states as
"carbon-free" renewable energy. Also, additional cazbon savings are obtained by
avoiding the emission of non-captured methane at landfills. in the foreseeable future, the
cazbon credits of WTE can be increased by a) the use of "waste" steam for District
Heating and b) the capture of carbon dioxide in the WTE exhaust gas. (Note: WTERT is
collaborating with Beta Analytic of Florida and Wheelabrator Technologies in carbon
dating tests that will show the ratio of biomass- to fossil fuel-derived fuel in MSW
combusted in a WTE over a period of time.)
¦ Comprehensive Comparison of Energy Recovery from MSW in
"Dedicated" WTEs and RDF in "Non-Dedicated" Cement Kilns and
Power Plants
Prof. Stefano Consonni ,Mario Grosso°, Michele Giugliano°, and Ms.
L. Rigamonti°'`, aDep't of Energy Engineering and °DIIAR -
Environmental Section of Politecnico di Milano; `currently WTERT intern.
(stefano. consonni @polimi. it)
Following the study presented at the 2005 WTERT Meeting on the assessment of
strategies for energy recovery from Municipal Solid Waste in "dedicated" WTE plants,
this work extends the scope of the analysis to strategies based on the co-combustion of
Refuse Derived Fuel in existing "non dedicated" industrial plants such as coal-fired
power plants and cement kilns. Both studies have been supported by Federambiente, the
federation of Italian public utilities operating in the environmental sector.
Consistently with the previous evaluation, the assessment proceeds from the
unsorted, "Residual" Waste left downstream of Material Recovery and follows its fate
along a number of alternative routes according to an LCA approach. In this presentation
the focus is on the routes going through "non-dedicated" plants, for which we develop
mass, energy, environmental and economic balances that specifically account for two
recent Italian experiences.
The overall energy balance is based on the performance estimate of the waste-to-
energy plant and of the co-combustion unit by means of a dedicated design and
simulation tool developed at Politecnico di Milano. Results have been validated with
actual data registered at state-of--the-art plants currently operating in Italy. Energy
consumption of the RDF production plant and of the handling of all the materials (waste,
RDF, solid residues) were also included in the energy balance.
5
WTERT 2006 Annual Meeting New York Ciry, October 19-20, 2006
The overall environmental balance takes into account alt the fluxes of pollutants
released in the environment by each process, including both direct (those released from
the waste treatment plants and from the transport of the materials) and indirect emissions
(those related to the production of the reactants and to the construction of the plants). The
positive emissions aze compared with the avoided emissions, that are those released from
fossil fuel-fired power production plants which produce the same amount of energy in the
case of dedicated incinerators, or those released from the amount of fossil fuel displaced
by the waste in the case of co-combustion.
Results are discussed in terms of specific energy production, of emission
inventories and of the principal impact indicators. For dedicated plants, energy recovery
(electric and thermal) plays a basic role in the environmental balance; if this is combined
with the very stringent air emission limits currently in force for WTE plants, a positive
net result is obtained (i.e. most of the emissions from the WTE plant are lower than those
from the power plants producing the same amount of energy). Co-combustion of RDF in
industrial plants shows interesting results, too, especially in terms of reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions; concerns related to the possible long-term effects of the
operation in co-combustion mode call for careful monitoring of the operational history.
Dedicated WTE plants fed directly with Residual Waste appear most suited to large
scale waste management systems with a highly concentrated waste production, even more
if the WTE cogenerates heat and power. The production of RDF and its co-combustion in
industrial plants might be preferable for small scale waste management systems where a
facility that can be adapted to co-combustion is available.
The potential of co-wmbustion on the national scale is finally assessed by referring
to the sites and the capacity for cement production now installed in Italy, as well as to the
coal-fired electric capacity envisaged for the near future.
¦ Innovative Concepts for Combining WTE and Natural Gas Turbine
Power Plants - An Economically Feasible Solution for Rio de Janeiro
Dr. Sergio Guerreiro, University of Brazil and Petrobras Distribuidora.
(sergiog@rjnet. com. br)
The waste situation in Rio de Janeiro has reached a point that pazallels what
happened in NYC: Gramacho, the last and largest landfill (8,000 tonnes/day) has reached
capacity and should be closed soon. There was a bid to build a new landfill, 40 miles
away from downtown Rio, but was cancelled due to lack of environmental permit and
strong opposition from the surrounding community. The only certainty is that the price of
waste disposal may open the door for a large WTE. The objective of this work is to make
WTE more economic by simplifying the design of WTE plants and also increase the
amount of electricity generated per ton of MSW. A huge step toward this goal seems to
be the combination of NG and MSW as was done a[ the Zabalgazbi, Spain, WTE.
However, the cost of the boiler and the high price of NG, anon-renewable fuel, requires
further improvement in the design. This can be done by removing the boiler from within
the furnace and mixing the hot gases from the incinerator with the exhaust of a natural
gas turbine to generate steam in a conventional Heat Rewvery Steam Generator.
Currently, a small non-commercial WTE plant in Rio, burning 30 ton/day of RDF
and producing 440 KW of power is being revamped to demonstrate the above concept.
The objective is to supply 4 MWe to the adjacent University of Brazil campus, 3 MWe
from NG and 1 MWe from MSW, i.e. 830 kWh per tonne.
3:30 PM Coffee Break (15 minutes)
6
FYTERT 2006 Annual Meeting New York City, October 19-20, 2006
3:45 PM Session 3 (Chair: Mr. Steve Goff, Director, Process Engineering, Covanta
Energy Corp.)
¦ WTERT Project for Increasing WTE Metal Recovery
Mr. Werner Sunk, WTERT/Earth Eng. Canter. (ws2172@columbia.edu)
Part of the WTERT effort to increase the amount of metals recovered in the U.S.
WTE industry was a survey to determine a) the equipment used for metal recovery at the
front- and back-end of U.S. WTE facilities, b) the correct amounts of metals recovered,
and c) the distribution in percent between front- and back-end recovered metals.
Therefore, a questionnaire was developed and sent to the headquarters of the major WTE
companies. Fifty three WTE plants all over the U.S. participated in ow survey and
provided data for the year 2004.
By comparing the data provided by the responding WTEs with the estimated
amounts of ferrous (5%) and non-ferrous (0.7%) metals generated in U.S. MSW, we
calculated that 48% of ferrous and 9% of non-ferrous metal input are recovered at these
53 WTE facilities every year. The remainder is landfilled and represents a total revenue
loss that could add up to 5162 millions per year.
Mass bum plants recover an average of 43% of the ferrous and 5% of the non-
ferrous metals; RDF plants recover an average of 71% of ferrous and 30% of non-ferrous
metals, i.e. significant more metals from the MSW input.
Analysis of the front- and back-end recovery at mass bum and RDF plants shows
that at mass bum plants only 1% of the ferrous metal is recovered at the front-end and
99% from the ash. In compazison, RDF plants recover 88% of the ferrous metal at the
front-end and only 12% after combustion. The breakdown for non-ferrous metals shows
that for mass-bum plants 6% of the assumed non-ferrous-input is recovered at the front
end and 94% are recovered at the back-end of mass bum plants. At RDF plants, only 2%
of the total non-ferrous input are recovered al the front-end and 98% on the back-end.
Our analysis shows that there is room-for increasing metal recovery of both ferrous
and non-ferrous metals at several mass bum facilities, since some WTE plants recover
less than 10% of the input ferrous metals. The overall non-ferrous recovery is very low
for mass-burn plants and low for RDF facilities, Since the value of WTE metals has
increased appreciably recently, due to increased consumption in China, it is a good time
to consider plant modifications that will help increase metal recovery.
¦ Reforming Landfill Gas to Syngas (research by Tracy Jackson, Noah
Whitmore, and M.J. Castaldi)
Prof. Marco Castaldi, Columbia University. (mc2352@columbia.edu)
According to the EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (WMW Review Issue
2006) landfills generate about 26% of the U.S. methane emissions. Methane is the second
most important greenhouse gas (GHG) and globally it accounts for about 18% of the total
climate radiative forcing. Since landfilling will continue to be used in the foreseeable
future, it makes sense to design landfills that captwe the maximum possible amount of
methane. However, the use of LFG is plagued by low and fluctuating calorific value
resulting in flame instability, higher undesirable emissions and compromised fuel
efficiency, due to the periodic need for supplemental fuel. Also, because of the low
heating value of LFG, most engines need to be modified considerably and, once modified,
they require a consistent composition of the fuel (e.g. 50% CH4 and 50% C02). When
the methane content drops, secondary fuel has to be added to ensure stable combustion of
the engine. This vaziation leads to higher pollutant emissions, such as NOX, CO and
unburned hydrocazbons (UHC) and emissions waiver aze often requited before LFG
thermal energy projects are permitted. The cost of fuel upgrading, need to use specialized
7
WTERT 2006 Annual Meeting New York Ciry, October 19-20, 2006
power generators, and permitting costs have prevented widespread use of LFG so that
much of the LFG captured is flared off.
This WTERT project is an in-depth study of the potential for partially reforming
LFG gas and the effects of the participatory mechanism of I-I2 in emissions reduction,
subjects that have not been examined much in the scientific literature. The presence of
C02, N2, H2O and some 02 in the fuel stream makes this system unique with regazds to
previously examined high energy gaseous fuels such as natural gas, propane, etc. An
investigation into the catalytic reforming of landfill and anaerobic digestion biogas (I,FG)
to synthesis gas has begun. Thermogravimetric analysis work was performed over 0.5°fo
]?t/y-AI203 and Au/y-A1203 catalysts. Variables such as reforming temperature, C02
concentration, and effect of pre-reduction have been studied. EDX analysis was used to
confirm the deposition of carbon on the catalyst surface.
¦ A Frank Appraisal of the Future of Using U.S. WTE Ash Outside
Landfills
Prof. Frank Roethel, SUNY at Stony Brook and WTERT Reseazch
Associate and Prof. Nickolas Themelis, Columbia University.
(froethel@notes.cc.sunysb.edu, njtl@columbia.edu)
Mass burn WTE facilities generate bottom ash, from the combustion grate, and
"fly" ash, from the Air Pollution Control system. Roughly, six million tons of bottom ash
and one million tons of APC ash are generated nationally. The volatile metals and the
minute amount of organic compounds that are captured in the APC system end up in the
fly ash. In most cases, the two ash streams are mixed with water to form what is called
"combined ash". While combined ash typically is determined non-hazardous in
accordance with the TCLP protocol, is it the best way in the long run? Beneficial
utilization has been studied to exhaustion in the US and, unlike Europe, has not
progressed. The barriers to ash utilization aze varied but opportunities for ash reuse aze
not one of the obstacles. Markets for the processed ash and fmancial limitations limit the
azeas where ash utilisation can be successful, but there would be many more
opportunities if the ash streams were kept separate.
WTERT has equipped a TCLP lab at Columbia and looked into several beneficial
uses of WTE ash outside landfills, such as formation of lazge concrete blocks in Bermuda
and remediation of old strip mines in Pennsylvania. We have concluded that by not
mixing APC ash with bottom ash, and controlling combustion so as to obtain alow-
carbon bottom ash, the chances of using the bottom ash beneficially will increase
appreciably.' Separating the two streams of ash requires equipment modifications at
existing WTEs and also a simple method for processing the APC ash within an existing
WTE facility so that it becomes inert, can pass the TCLP test, and be disposed at MSW
landfills. With respect to new WTEs or WTE expansions, WTERT definitely
recommends that the plant design include separate handling of the two ash streams.
It is believed that readily available and inexpensive technologies to render the APC
ash inert aze currently available. Removal of the APC ash component will enhance
opportunities for large volume applications of bottom ash, reduce significantly the
regulatory barriers associated with ash utilization, and move the U.S. closer to the
strategies that have been employed in Europe for several years.
8
WTERT 2006 Annual Meeting New York City, October 19-20, 2006
5:15 ~ 6:30 PM Poster Session (Foyer in front of Davis Auditorium)
¦ Federico Barrai: Trace Contaminant Removal Via Enhanced Mass Transfer
Selective Catalytic Reaction
¦ Maxime du Bois and Alexandra Bowen: Waste Management and WTE in
France
¦ Heidi Butterman: Biomass Gasification
¦ Georgia Columbus: Technical Economics Study of the First WTE in Greece
(Attica)
¦ Paula Estevez: Technical Economics Study of the First WTE in Chile
(Santiago)
¦ Eilhann Kwon: Combustion Reactions of Rubber
¦ Shang-Hsiu Lee: Study of Corrosion of Superheater Tubes Under Controlled
Gas-Metal Temperature Gradients
¦ Masato Nakamura: Physical and Stochastic Modeling of Transport
Phenomena of Municipal Solid Waste (IbiSW) Particles on a Traveling Grate
¦ Lucia Rigamonti: Municipal Solid Waste Management in Italy
¦ Priscilla UBoa: Combined Heat and Power from Waste-to-Energy Plants
¦ Noah Whitmore: Greenhouse Gas Reforming to Produce Syngas
¦ Yue Zhou: Downhole Combustion Method [or Methane Gas Production from
Methane Hydrate
6:45 PM WTERT Awards Dinner (Presidents' Room of Faculty House, please
see directions at the last page)
The sponsorship of the WTERT 2006Awards Dinner by
the Solid Waste Processing Division ofASME
r so cE~s4ixa °~rts
International is gratefully acknowledged ~ ~ °
¦ Presentation by Prof. M.J. Castaldi of the WTERT 2006
Education Award to Prof. Paul H. Brunner, Vienna University of
Technology
¦ Presentation by Prof. N.J. Themelis of the WTERT 2006
Industry Award to the ASM Brescia (Brescia, Italy)
9
WTERT 2006 Annual Meeting New York Ciry, October 19-20, 2006
Fridav. October 20, 2006
The Friday session is open to the public
8:30 AM Registration and breakfast in lobby of Davis Auditorium
9:00 AM Session 4: Waste Management in Large Cities (Session Chair: Prof. N.J.
Themelis)
¦ The State of WTE in Europe
Mr. Ferdinand HIeppmann, President, and Dr. Ella Stengler, Managing
Director, Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP).
(ella.stengler@cewep.com)
CEWEP was founded in 2002 and represents 330 Waste-to-Energy Plants from
across Europe: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. Its goals are to
promote WTE as a renewable source of energy, highlight the fact that recycling and
energy recovery aze complementary and both divert waste from landfilling, in accordance
to the EU landfill ban of combustible waste, and ensure that EU waste policy moved
towards a level playing field so that there is no "eco-dumping" from one country of the
union to another. CEWEP represents European WTE facilities at the EU level, through
analysis of legislation on the environment and by providing information on the Waste-to-
Energy sector to the Commission, Council and European Parliament. CEWEP also serves
as a platforn for the exchange of experience between members and advances scientific,
technical and practical aspects of WTE.
¦ Discussion of Policies Related to WTE Industry in the E.U. and the
U.S.
¦ An American in European WTE
Mr. Jeffrey Aarnly, Xcel Energy Company, Red Wing, Minnesota.
(jeJjrey.l. harnly@xcelenergy. com)
In coordination with WTERT, Mr. Haznly visited this year several WTEs in Europe.
EU continues to be on the cutting edge of WTE technology. More lines are being
constructed and existing facilities are retrofit for improved performance and higher
capacity. WTE is the most resourceful alternative as compared to Mechanical-Biological
Treatment (MBT) and composting. Examples of WTE by-product advances are: Fly ash
mixed with asphalt for roads, bottom ash as aggregate, de-icing salt for roads, and refined
HCL from the flue gas. A large number of WTEs in the northern nations, such as
Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands derive revenues from both district heating and
electrical generation. Another advantage is the formation of large consortiums of
municipalities that have have long tern contracts with the haulers (10-25 years). Refuse
in some states is becoming a competitive commodity, causing new contracts to be agreed
to with lower tipping fees. Judicious land usage, reduction in resources required for long
distance hauling of waste to landfills, and avoidance of the long term liabilities that are
associated with landfills are some other factors to be considered when deciding on
methods for the disposal of waste. On Ute basis of this survey of several EU WTEs', it
was concluded that NYC and other large American cities have the opportunity to develop
10
WTERT 2006 Annual Meeting New York Ciry, October 19-20, 2006
a comprehensive waste disposal progrnm, based on recycling whatever can be recycled
and combusting the rest in WTEs.
Facilities visited by Mr. Hamly (Jan -May 2006):
Spittelau -Wien, Austria - Femwamre Wien GmbH; Arnoldstein, Austria - Kammer
Restmullverwertungs Gmbh; Sotec - Freiburg-im-Breisgau, Germany; MVR
Mullverwertung Rugenberger Damm -Hamburg, Germany; US Reno-Nord -Aalborg,
Denmazk; SYSAV -Malmo, Sweden; Kristinehedsverket -Halmstad, Sweden;
Vattenfall Varme Uppsala AB -Uppsala, Sweden; Clergy-Pontoise -Clergy-Pontoise,
Onyx, Fmnce; Afval Energie Bedrijf -Amsterdam, Netherlands; Vestforbraending -
Glostrup/Copenhagen, Denmazk; Afvalverbraending Zuid Nederland (AZN)) - Moerdijk,
Netherlands.
¦ More energy from WTE: District Heating in Denmark and Potential
for the U.S.
Ms. Bettina Kamuk, Ramboll, Denmark and Ms. Priscilla Ultoa,
WTERT. (BKC@ramboll.dk; pau2102@columbia.edu)
This paper will present an overview of the development of District Heating in
Detunazk and in the United States using Waste-to-Energy (WTE). Currently, all WTE
plants in Denmark provide heat for District Heating in Denmark. In fact, 18 % of the
national district heating is provided by WTE. In contrast, there are few WTE plants in the
U.S. that supply steam for District Heating, most of them only genernte power to the grid.
As fossil fuel prices increase and new WTEs are located closer to communities so to
decrease truck transport, it is expected that DH will be examined for new WTE
installations in the U.S. Contrary to intuition heat can be transported, either as hot water
of steam over long distances with very low heat losses. The factors that need to be
considered in designing WTEs that provide both electricity and heat will be discussed.
10:45 AM Coffee Break {15 minutes)
11:00 AM Session 4 (continued)
¦ Waste Fired Power Plant, City of Amsterdam: Designed for Output of
Energy and Materials
Mr. Hendrikus de Waart, consultant to AEB, presenting on behalf of Mr.
Dawn van der Linde, Managing Director, Afval Energie Bedrijf,
Amsterdam, Netherlands. (Note: The AEB Amsterdam WTE was one of
the three top finalists in the WTERT 2006 Industry Award)
(linde@afvalenergiebedrijfnl)
The City of Amsterdam started the process of waste management some 125 years
ago and the combustion of waste in 1919. Over the years, the Waste and Energy
Company of the City of Amsterdam (Afval Energie Bedrijf or AEB) has improved the
thermal efficiency, increased the quality of the by-products and reduced the
environmental impact to negligible levels.
With the start-up of the two high efficiency lines of the WFPP next year,
Amsterdam shall be processing 1.5 million tons of solid municipal waste annually,
making it the largest facility in the world. Ow new WFPP incorporntes some 30 or so
innovative and unique technologies (10 of which patented).It will produce power with a
net electric energy efficiency to the grid of 30%, which we believe is also a world's first.
11
WTERT 2006 Annual Meeting New York City, October 19-20, 2006
In addition we incinerate sewage sludge, produce steam, provide district heating and
produce and recover valuable materials, all contributing to the operating results.
Even more importantly than economics, is the much reduced environmental impact.
Our air emissions are less than 20% of the very stringent limits set by the EU and Dutch
regulators. Emissions to surface water are zero and presently less than 1% of the total
throughput ends up as an inert landfill. We have designs presently being tested, to make
this zero.
WFPP has acquired the "Green Status" which signifies minimal environmental
impact. This is also the reason why AEB has sailed through the permitting for the
expansion, without a single protest from the community or the NGO's.
¦ Advancing U.S. Recycling by Means of Improved Data Collection and
Analysis
Mr. Scott Kaufman, Manager, EEC Recycling Project and Prof. N.J.
Themelis, Director EEC, Columbia University.(smk2108@cohunbia.edu)
The two major sources of US MSW generation and disposition data -the
EPA/Franklin Report and the Earth Engineering Center's (EEC)/BioGycle "State of
Gazbage" Survey -vary greatly in their reported tonnages, indeed, for the yeaz 2003, the
EPA reported that there were 236.2 million tons of MSW generated. For 2004 (the
closest available yeaz to 2003), the EECABioCycle survey, based on data provided by the
waste management departments of the fifty states, reported 388 million tons of MSW, a
difference of nearly 151 million tons, or more than 50 percent. A discrepancy this large
cannot be ignored and was discussed this fall with senior officers of the USEPA Office of
Solid Wastes (EPA/OSWER). Without accurate measurement of materials flows through
the solid waste management infrasWcture, it is very difficult to adequately plan the
technological, economic, and policy measures necessary to optimize the system. This
presentation will highlight EEC's efforts to improve the accuracy, reliability, and general
availability of MSW data. It will also describe the ongoing effort, supported by EPA
Regions 3 and 9 and by Aluminum Association Inc., to create at Columbia University a
national database of reliable recycling data. The objective is to collect and analyze data
from a multiplicity of sources and provide reliable information that will be used to
increase collection and processing efficiencies and advance recycling technologies.
¦ Panel Discussion: "Challenges and opportunities for waste management
in large urban centers".
12:30 PM End of Meeting
12
WTERT 2006 Annual Meeting New York City, October 19-20, 2006
Directions
120th STREET
i
w
WTERT
Meedug
Lunch at FAYERYYEA
'FacWty Raam" 1 W
~ ~ ii~
WTERT Diuner at
'Faculty Houu
1®I
116th STREET
Lunch at "FACULTY ROOM" (Low Memorial Library)
{i
,iii
STAIRWAY EtEVAT00.
-
cpaa[nors
STAIRWAY STAIRWAY
o -
NNN[N
13
a
x
U
A
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ U ~ ~n
en ~ ~ ~
~ ~ U
y ~ w 3
Y T ~ ?o z o a ~
W U ~ ~ ti ~ Vj
W .fib- ~ ~ ~ ~ A a ~°n ° ~ 00 ° o °D ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ b ~
y^ ~ O ~ W W ~ N y ~ N W ~ ~ ~ W p ~ ' ~ ~
~ •c a v 'D a Y ~ ~ s a a~ U U 3~ w ~ b U
~ ~ v~ ~ o ~ E" ~ ~W o ~ ~ o ~ W W ~ ,~G U ~ ~ W
• ~ ~ A .'7 Z U~ U W C7 U PG ~ U~ W W A~ H W O W
a
p
x ? a> is ~ cd ~ a q`q a[i O x O a0i O ;d ~ O b ~
t?.s. ~
~ o U 5-' W CQ Q W z~~~ a W x W~~ F A
N
N O
v`i' A ~ ~
C7 N > ~.I N cC 5. O iet 23 N ~ 'd P O L+ b
.c~v'~~"~. ~ ~ •N ~ ~ ctt ~ •c~ ~ ~7 h~„ p y ~ y c~ c~2A,". 7y~i O N itt
s-7' ~ d 00 PO pq CQ pq Oq PU pq PC P4 W W Pq Pq pq U C.J C.) U U C.)
.N
~ ~
~ c
~ p
U ~ ~ a
~ z O ~ z ~ Uv cx3 ~ F' ~ x
z ~
.T. ~ y y Vim' m ~ N wig. Q F'.
a~ w ~
z?y C7 w w a o w x 3 z A~
p U RI i~" F+' ~ U ~ N C p ~ ~ V U y y ~ y N
U O W ~ ~ . • ~r yRt~ ~ 00 Ri ~ ca ti
ti~ v ~ o~ U~~ Y Ha," ~ U~ W~ A ar ~ w a~ o
~ W ~ y ,,~CC ~ 0 {0.{xx1~ `~j ~ p t~% ~ ~ R: ~ C°C y ~ ~ o
W W ~ ~ F ~ P. ~ Q U 3 00 ~ ~ F ~ U ~ U C7 ~ x CCGG W
~ ti
x ~ •a. b •ou ~ ~ '~,d- o ca ~ y O y ,~a~yi •o ~i
b ~ cd O y ~ N N ~ O O ~ N 'O • cd ~ N ~ ~'i O b~D id
w x~ a A C7 ~ 3 x c~ a s u: w" U w> Ur ~ a w°~
a,
~:;~C~~w ~ ~ ~ ~ p
ce Oa P. 'O p ~ m c~ ~ aNi ~ O ° ~ T ~ cd
F.' F.' .C J." ~ O O cd cc~~~ O ~ f'"' ~ a7 O vOi ~ 'n bA
U U U U U U U Q v w w w w w w w w C7 C7 ~ x x x x
i a ~
d ~
x
0 0
drs. o °
~ ~ U
~ o
~ U
~ v ~
~ A Y A
~ o ~
° ~'o a
C ~y ti q
~y Y ~ ~y O S
" ~ W O
~ ~ ~ x o
m A ~ .ti N cad ~ '.7 U N O vi ~ cd i U R'i
O ~ ~ .ti ~ ~ ^ ~ Y 'V Y Y ~ U c3 ~ ~ ~
'CV U ~ U O ~ ~ Y p~'~ H O try
a ° ° > pC w w ~ ~ 3 0 ~ ° w w o o-p Y
~ Y U ~ ai wo W W ~ ° U .d ~ ci W U G y O
[3l RS 6'0 `J
o~ a~ w w U U~ oa 3~~ w~ .5 i~. x~~ U z A Z U
a
i~' ~ ° CC1 ~ v~ w a1 w ~ v~ A z a A F• Z ~ ~ ~ ° A ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ 3 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o
x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z z z o
z
b
A ~ a
3 v
in p a . ~
~
ro ~ O $ ~ ~ a~i ~
n ~ 3 ~ ~ a' ~ T T a~i
~ ~ O b ~ U N U ~ 7 ~N r~~' ~ ctl N 'z
ou ~ ~ wl~«°. ~ o ~ ~ ~ o p ti ~ ~ ti v U ti
;~y° ~ a 3 a w ° N a o ~ b ro ova m o w
w w
w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° .c w ~
* iC w~
~ > is F ~ ~ ' ~ H ~ 'Y ~ ~ " H ~ W ~ W ~
~ U~~ 3 ~ v '3 W 3 ~ w w U A x w U~ a~ Gq
T
°
~ ~
° O Y wl 4+ N C3 c~ •y ~ •^,S ~ O N y t~ .ri ~ RS V N
i Z F~ A A U~ a a w .s ~ N A a U W~~~ E-~
7~-'i C ? cd ° r. `y~ t~+ [~°;i, L°~ ° ~ ~ N cd ~ ~ X00 a~'i ~ a~i
f°/I i~d N Y+ a~+ ~ (p i-~ T ? ~ U ~ ~ N U N .L~i R N ~ °
0
a
~
U ~
~ L1 ~
~ y~ o
- w }'i Y ~ y ti N ii ti
z z
~i Y
~ ~ T
p :n a w~ 3~ w a W W w
v ~ ~ o ~ ~
0 0 o z a~ a A
U U U~~ o yip 3~ U
U U V 'b N ~ ~ cV C„) ~ p
W W W ~ aq ~ o W W ~ W
E-H H H ~y ~ o c'~i T F" y `'S U
.oa' F H H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CL' A ~ ~
3 3 3 w° a° 3 v tv a U w
v
f~ ~ N
a+ c~ V y c~ N C ~ ~ O N w ~
w. a Z a A ~ ~ z H w x
~
v
a
a ~
0
z ~ ~ ~ b o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
y ~ a ~ d
_ o
H H~~~ 3~~~~ 3 N N N