Planning for Innovation in Waste Management and Recycling
February 10, 2012
Dr. John F. Katers, UW-Green Bay / SEH
Andrew Dane, AICP, Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH)
Current Experience
• Academic
– Associate Professor, Natural and Applied Sciences (Engineering), UW-Green Bay
– Co-Director, Environmental Management and Business Institute (EMBI)
• Business
– Project Design Leader, SEH
– Bioresources Development Manager, ENCAP
– Chair, Brown County Solid Waste Board
Previous Experience
• 1995 - 1999
– Commodity Specialist for the Wisconsin Recycling Market Development Board (RMDB)
• Assisted in market development efforts in Wisconsin for a range of recycled materials
– Recycling Specialist for UW-Extension
• Waste minimization and pollution prevention assessments for business/industry
• 1993
– Thesis on “The Economics of Recycling in WI”
Summary of the Opportunity
Waste is often a material in the wrong form
Waste = MISPLACED RESOURCE
Waste = ENERGY
Recycling is a small component in the overall system
Potential sources
- Municipal
- Industrial
- Agricultural
Opportunities
- Increasing landfill tipping fees and transportation costs
- Local resource assessments (waste sheds)
- Aggregation of wastes
Waste Management Hierarchy
• Reduce
– Zero Waste?
• Reuse
• Recycle
• Compost
• Energy recovery
• Land disposal
– Landfill, land application
• Burning without energy recovery
Reduce
• Waste Minimization / Pollution Prevention
– Education
– Maintenance
– Product design decisions
– Raw material selection
Non-toxic
Renewable
Abundant
Locally available
– Process changes
PRODUCER RESONSIBILITY / PROCESS EFFICIENCY!
Reuse - Tosca
• Refurbish beer barrels and cheese boxes
• Food Tech — Keg ER — History.com Videos#keg-er
• Completed an LCA on cheese boxes
– Driven by the likes of Wal-Mart
Wisconsin’s Recycling Law
Wisconsin Act 335
• Landfill/incineration bans
• Grants to “Responsible Units”
• Grants tied to “Effective Recycling Programs”
Benefits from Recycling
• Conservation of resources
• Avoidance of green house gas emissions
• Reduction of litter and illegal dumping
• Contribution to the local economy
– Jobs, business creation/expansion, business tax revenue, feedstocks for industry, revenue from recyclables
• Avoided expansion of landfills
Market Value of Landfilled Recyclables in Wisconsin
Avg Price
Per Ton Tons Market
Material Dec-’09 Landfilled Value
OCC $75 167,000 $12,525,000
ONP 6 $35 64,000 $2,240,000
Magazines $35 42,000 $1,470,000
Office Paper $215 31,000 $6,665,000
Mixed Paper $63 82,000 $5,166,000
Aluminum Cans $1,312 9,000 $11,808,000
Steel Cans $117 19,900 $2,328,300
Clear Glass $31 15,000 $465,000
PET $176 24,000 $4,224,000
HDPE clear $478 6,200 $2,963,600
HDPE colored $310 9,300 $2,883,000
Total $52,737,900
Recycling Funding
• RU Grants in Wisconsin
– Covered 30-40% of operating costs
– Elimination of all funding was considered during the last state budget deliberations
• Recycling Market Development Grants
– Planning Grants (RMDB)
– Low Interest Loans (RMDB)
– Demonstration grants (WDNR)
– Research Grants (UW System)
Economies of Scale by RU Size
Cost Comparisons By RU Size
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0
<2000
2,000-5,000
5.000-10,000
10,000-25,000
25,000-50,000
50,000-100,000
>100,000
Po
pu
lati
on
Siz
e
Avg Lbs/person Avg $/person Avg $/Ton
Emerging Trends
• Single Stream Collection
– Increase recycling rates, reduce costs
• Beyond the “Blue Bin”
– Trash and recycling synergies
– Waste sorting – quantify “wasted resources”
– Pay As You Throw (PAYT or VBF)
• Inter-government cooperation
– Joint contracting, services, outreach
– Local agreements or consolidation
New Opportunities: C&D Recycling
• Benefits
– New and expanded businesses
• local, regional
– Prolong landfill life
– Conserve resources
• Top materials
– Shingles (30%)
– Clean untreated wood (15%)
– Concrete and bricks (13%)
New Opportunities: Organics
Example: Madison and Fitchburg
– System:
• Residential curbside collection
• Currently processed at Columbia County
• Future opportunities - anaerobic digestion for energy recovery
– Benefits
• Reduced disposal costs and revenue generation from composting
• Potential source of renewable energy (CNG)
• Collection strategies
– Bi weekly collection of garbage and recyclables
– Weekly collection of organics
Composting – City of Appleton, WI
• Biosolids and Yard Waste
Landfills
• Shift away from municipally owned landfills
– Very few municipal landfills still exist
– Landfills are getting larger
Energy recovery opportunities
– Out-of-state waste
• Potential Issues
– Loss of other solid waste services
• Education
• HHW facilities
Example: Brown County Solid Waste Department
• Formed in the early 1970s at the request of cities, villages and towns
– Incinerators being shut down
– Operates as an Enterprise Fund
• Constructed the first two sanitary engineered landfills in Wisconsin (1975/1976)
• Dual stream recycling established in 1992
• Constructed a HHW facility in 1998
– Currently coordinate with Outagamie and Winnebago
Example: Brown County (cont.)
• Cooperative agreement with Brown, Outagamie and Winnebago Counties established in 2002
– BOW agreement runs through 2027
• Constructed a waste transfer station in 2003
• Constructed BOW single stream MRF in 2009
• Constructed a gas-to-energy facility in 2009
• Currently in the process of extending solid waste agreements with municipalities
– 10 year contracts
• New landfill construction in 2018/2019
Incineration / Combustion
• Oneida Seventh Generation Project
– Proposed gasification project in Green Bay, WI
– 150 tons/day of MSW
– Met with significant local opposition, but all permits
have been approved
• Issues
– Potential loss of Brown County’s largest customers
– Impact on the BOW agreement
– There will be other projects like this in the future, which will impact the long-term solid waste planning process for the region
Opportunities
• Integrated Solid Waste Management
– Think about the overall waste management hierarchy and how that applies to our communities
– There are problems/opportunities beyond just MSW
• Efficiency
– Current need for municipalities to reduce costs
Program changes – contract reviews, collection changes, material changes, reduction in education
Consolidation
Program elimination
PROJECT BACKGROUND
1. A significant amount of organic materials are generated
annually in Brown County a. Dairy Farms – “Dairy Donut” of Wisconsin
b. Meatpackers
c. Rendering facilities
d. Municipal wastewater treatment plants
e. Paper mill residuals
f. Others materials
2. The cost of managing these materials has been increasing
Example: Brown County Waste
Transformation Initiative (BCWTI)
3. There have been significant environmental impacts
associated with current management practices a. Surface water quality (nutrients)
b. Ground water quality (pathogens, nitrogen, etc.)
c. Air quality / odor
4. Opportunities exist to better manage these materials a. Need to get key stakeholders involved
b. Economies of scale exist
c. These projects can be a win-win for the community and the environment
BCWTI (cont.)
1. Brown County Land Conservation Department
2. Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District
3. Appleton Sewerage District
4. JBS Packerland
5. American Foods Group
6. Sanimax
7. AgVentures
8. Daanen and Jansen
9. FEECO
10. ENCAP
11. UW-Green Bay
12. Wisconsin DNR
BCWTI Stakeholders
1. Financial contributions of $250,000 from stakeholders
2. AFG constructed an anaerobic digester
• Utilizing “waste” from other local generators, including JBS
Packerland
3. Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District considered several options for a
planned system upgrade for 2014
• “Economic Engine” for the region
• Potential marketing/sales of biosolids through ENCAP
4. Business relationship established between many stakeholders
BCWTI Results
Example: Dane County Manure Digester
Project Driver – water quality issues
• Clear Horizons system
• Serves a cluster of three dairy farms in Waunakee
First centralized digester in Wisconsin
• Primary feedstocks are manure and some high strength wastewater from local food processors
Local Resource
UW-Green Bay
• Called Eco-U in the early 1970s
• Undergraduate program
in Environmental Science
• Graduate program in
Environmental Science and Policy
• Faculty involved in research related to waste
management and resource recovery
VIDEO – UWGB, FEECO, ENCAP Collaboration
http://blog.uwgb.edu/inside/index.php/featured/leading-
learning/03/16/making_wonders_out_of_waste/
Questions?
Dr. John F. Katers
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
2420 Nicolet Drive
Green Bay, WI 54311
Phone: 920-465-2278
E-mail: [email protected]
Andrew Dane, AICP
• BS Biology & MS Urban Planning
• 15 years of planning and community development experience.
• Planning and feasibility analysis for variety of waste to energy opportunities.
• Currently assisting confidential client with pre-feasibility study to determine potential for organics recycling.
“Organic Waste to Energy Opportunities”
• What are they?
• Why should planners care?
• What role can we play?
• Case study
– UW-Oshkosh “Dry” Digester
Organic Waste to Energy: Biogas
Organic Waste to Energy Opportunities
“Organic Waste to Energy Opportunities”
• Why should planners care?
“Organic Waste to Energy Opportunities”
• What role can planners play?
UW-Oshkosh Case Study
• UW-O owns and operates the facility. There are 30 similar systems operating in Europe and Asia.
• 1st in North America
• The system required 4-5M in capital investment with an estimated payback period of 7 to 10 years.
Feedstocks
• UW-Oshkosh’s system is designed to accept roughly 8,000-10,000 tons/year of feedstock.
• Food and yard waste, animal bedding waste, and crop residues.
• The campus produces roughly 500 tons of food waste.
• The intent is to source from within 30 miles of the facility.
• About half of the digested feedstock used as soil amendment.
Technology
• Single batch system for biomass conversion to compost and methane gas.
• There are four fermenter bays located adjacent each other. Each bay is 23 ½ feet by 16 feet by 70 feet deep.
• A front loader is used to mix each batch and to add and remove material from each bay.
• The average retention time per batch is 28 days, after which time ½ the material (200 tons of digestate) is removed as compost product and ½ is returned to the bay
Technology
• Glycol heating is used within the walls and floor of each digester bay to stimulate digestion.
• Gas production occurs within each bay and within the percolate storage tank. Gas is collected in a large flexible rubberized diaphragm which sits on top of the four bays (2nd floor of the facility).
• Gas production is converted to energy using a 370 kW Combined Heat and Power Mann Internal Combustion Engine located outside the facility.
Markets
• Power is sold back to the grid.
• At full capacity the facility would provide 10% of UW-Oshkosh’s energy.
• The CHP plant is currently running at 190 kW/hr on
average.
Operations
• Regular monitoring and testing is conducted to monitor feedstock characteristics, percolate, and digestate.
• The facility can be monitored and operated on-site and remotely using a PC.
• The control room includes safety and gas monitoring equipment and alarm system.
Opportunities & Challenges
• Opportunities
• The Oshkosh WWTP is located across the street from the digester. There are plans to receive excess gas from the WWTP, which is currently flared, in order to boost energy production. Sludge from the WWTP may be tested to determine its potential as a feedstock.
• There is interest in doing research with Mirel, a bio-plastics company.
Opportunities & Challenges
• Challenges associated with Digester:
• Food waste with plastics and other contaminants are not accepted by the facility.
• Logistics are a challenge given limited amount of land at the site; it makes loading/un-loading more difficult
• Odor smells like a farm.
• The feedstock storage area is not heated (despite unused heat from the engine), making maintenance/cleaning during the winter a challenge with freezing hoses, etc…
• The drains in the storage area were undersized; they are being upgraded by the contractor.
• The engine generator is designed to run 24X7; however with current gas production it is only running 20 hrs/day.
Conclusion
• Organic waste to energy opportunities are poised to grow
• These opportunities closely tied to land use, economic development, natural resource, and other “planning” issues
• Planners can play a key role facilitating “successful” projects
Questions?
Andrew Dane, AICP
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc (SEH)
Phone: 920-585-3593
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. John F. Katers
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay/SEH
Phone: 920-465-2278
E-mail: [email protected]