waste management al*?'ernatives - pollution …infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/08/07881.pdf · ·...
TRANSCRIPT
WASTE MANAGEMENT AL*?'ERNATIVES
BUNCOMBE C O U N T Y
A N ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE
PREPARED BY:
JAMES M. PHILLIPS BUNCOMBE COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 25 VALLEY STREET ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28801
I
INTRODUCTION
Over the past two years Buncombe County has spent over $100,000
in consulting fees with state grant monies contributing $10,000
of this amount exploring various solid waste disposal options.
We have investigated the options open to the county from the
perspectives of the merits of a particular technology,
environmental acceptability and economics of a given technoloqy.
Keeping within the scope of this paper I will present cost tables taken from a recent report prepared for Buncombe County, as well
as, current and planned waste reduction programs for Buncombe
County and associated cost.
WASTE TO ENERGY ASSESSMENT
Attached you will find cost comparison tables taken from a recent
study completed by the engineering firm of HDR for Buncombe
County. On table 5-18 you will notice a set of figures labeled
R.W. Beck which represent figures that this engineering firm had
arrived at in reviewing the HDR report. The major difference in
the figures shown in cases 3 and 6 represent each firms feelings on steam revenues that a waste to energy facility could realize.
The case studies shown on the follow tables are:
Case 1. 200-tpd pelletizing facility - d-RDF sales to a single
market with composting and material recovery.
Case 2. 420-tpd pelletizing facility - d-RDF sales to multiple markets with composting and material recovery.
Case 3 . 420-tpd RDF processing and dedicated boilers for steam
generation.
2
Case 4. 420-tpd HDF processing and dedicated boilers for power
generation.
Case 5. 420-tpd mass-burn facility with power generation.
Case 6. 400-tpd mass-burn facility with steam generation.
To understand and quantify the economic impact of several key
assumptions in the base cases, selected alternative cases were
developed to provide a sensitivity analysis as follows:
Sensitivity A : Same as its base case except that it includes a
residue composting operation (there are no l A , 2 A ,
S A , or 6 A cases).
Sensitivity b: Same as its base case except that it assumes
private ownership (there are no lB, 2B, or 6B cases).
W 4
I v)
W 2
m
i5 N
4
V
PI
0 c r
V
aJ
5 a, +-,
Lo
V
L
c, V
aJ W
.C
- V
L
+I
V
W
W
.C
c
V
L
&I
V
0)
W
.C
c
V
L
c,
V
W
W
- e
V
L
c, V
aJ
W
.r
- 5 aJ c,
m
5 aJ c,
m
E
m
aJ c, v)
VI c, W
al n
e e
VI c, 0
)
aJ n
7 c
2
L
aJ c
W
2, c,
c
I1) 0
V
a, c, 4
>
L
.?-
n
h
c, c 3
-0
V
aJ c, m
>
L
.C
n
b
c, c 3
0
V
h
s 3 0 V aJ c,
4
>
L
.r
n
h
c, c 3 0
V
h
Y c 3
0
V
h
c,
c 1
0 0
h
c, c
0
V
a
n
- c VI L aJ 2
m
N
N
.-I In
v)
m
W
W d I
m
m
m
d
U>
In
d
d
v)
o?
m
h
v)
W
W
v)
hl
v)
d
W
0
0,
'p,
4
v)
m
W
d
W
'0.
v)
rl
0
W
o?
v)
cu '0,
h
m
v)
u)
W
cu 4
Q)
N
m
aJ 3
VI V
I
.r
e4
U c
0
m
U
aJ m
m
2 N m
d
h
N
Ln .. h
4
d
W
cn v)
4
W
W
h 4
W
cn v)
N
W
W d
v)
W
0
cu
W 2
m
v)
cn v)
W
cv v)
m
c, VI 0
V
VI c
0
c,
L a
a. 0
a
c,
0
I- .r
a
c
In
d
m
In
In
U
d
"0,
8
h
v)
0
cn '4
In
v)
rl 4
h .. v)
cn
W
'p,
m
W
m
v)
0
m
h
W
0 4
m
W .I
d 0
m
m
m
v)
cn cu
aJ V
>
L
al m
c,
W
.r
n
n
cn a, W
E:
m
In
0, 0
4
4
h
s 2
W 0
"3, d
4
d
h
v)
m
.-I .. m
h
'0,
N
rl
N
cu '0,
d
F.4
h
h
N
m
d
.. 0, 'p,
N
d
W
v)
cn '0,
rl
W
W
d;
VI c, V
I 0
u
m 3
c c
<
4
c,
0
I- e
-
W
.-4
9
In
h
W
cn N
h
m
m
0.
e
m
Q
m
W
v)
m
*..
h
h
m
m
m
W
N
Ln ., W e
v)
0,
h
(0
m
v)
2 4 cu
m
h
0,
4
VI W
3
c
W
>
W
CZ
m
a3 W
In
W
a3
h 0..
m
m
a: h d 4
m
W
W 4 4
0
r(
W
cn
01
4
m
m
u) 2
0
m
h
'0.
m
W
N
h
u)
d
h
h
L
00 0
v) 4
c,
VI 0
0
h
Y
.r e
c
u a
LL
Y
aJ z
3
c
0
c, m
L
aJ
0
cc 0
L
10 aJ * c, VI L
cc aJ c
c,
cn c
L 3
v
U
aJ VI VI aJ V
0
L 0.
aJ +J VI 4 I
cc 0
c
0
c,
c
V
4
aJ L
0
Y-
h
c, c 1
0
V
aJ c
c,
0
c,
c, VI 0
V
Y
W c
aJ Y
VI
.r
n
.r
c
.r
VI .c
E
.a
I .
'
li II -1
I .I
I- , L L <
<7
Ln
.-+
m
ru 4
4
4
4
W
m
h
aJ
d
d
In
m
9
m
N
m
8 s m
4
0
0
N
ID
9
In
d
N
h
c,
c 3
0
V
v) c,
aJ aJ c c
n c,
v)
uo
?g v
u
d
r..
.-+
0
0
m
h
h
W W
m
Ln
d
N
m
In
01 m
W W
0
m
d
m
N .. 0 0
0
m
d
0.
m a
N
h
+ c 3 0
V
v) e,
0)
aJ - c n c, v)
LO
n
n
48
v
u
N
CU
r-. W
10
N
W
aJ Ln
W
In
s In
m
10
1
W
m
In
0 0
m
d d I
0
0
0
m
d
9
d
In
U
h
c,
C 3 0 0
E
aJ c,
v)
m
U
0: n
m
m
h.
N
h
h
10
m
W
0
W
9
In
m
W
h
W
0
h
8
m
h
N
0
0
9
x d 4
a
U
h
c,
c 1
0
u
5 aJ c, v) c, v) 0
UE
eu
n
no
s
5 a
0
m
U
m
4
Ln
m
U
m
Ln
m
W
U
In
m
In
0 0
m
Q
d .. 8 9
0
m
4
,-i
In
U
0)
c, 0
w
L
.F
a
5 W
c,
v,
U
e
n
m
m
4
.-+ d
h
m
h
m
a0 h
m
h
9
m
N
W
h
W
Q,
In
0 0
m
d d .. 0
0
0
m
d
9
"0 h
d
h
c, C
1
0
u
U
L
e, V
W
W
.F
c
U
oc n
U
m
4
4
U
0
.--I
m
m
m
m
a3 h
In
m
Ln
W
4
h
0
h
0 0
h
N
".
0 0
0
m
d
9
? 0
In
h
c,
C 1
0
u
u-
L
4-2 V
aJ W
.r
7 c,
v)
0 n
UE
n
o
cz
u
s
m
0
4
m
m
0,
h
.--I h
Ln
W
m
m
d
W
h
In
m
In
0
0
m
d d
0 0
0
m
4
9
?
h
e
aJ c, w
L
m
n
- V
L
c,
V
aJ W
.r
7
u. n
oc
m
U
N
m
.-I a)
N
h
Ln
W
4
W
9
m
m
In
h
In
2
8 d In
m .. 0
0
0
m
4
9
h
0
U
h
c, c 3
0
u
V
L
c, V
0
)
W
- - c
L
f
m
v)
VI a
r
In
U
a
U
h
m
W
m
In
cn In
9
m
N
ul
'9 d
W
h
0
a
d
In
m
8
0, 0
m
d
h
0
U
aJ c,
m
w L
0-
7
u L
c,
V
0)
w
- - c
L 3
m
v)
v)
z m
In
N
m
m
U
h
Q
m
U
0
U
9
In
s In
m
In
W
h
0
a0 d
In
m
0
0
0
m
d
9
9 a
F3
h
c, c 1
0
u
I
aJ c,
v)
L 3
m
v)
v)
m
r
W
S
ul m
Y
- O
c 0
c1
L
aJ n
v)
v L
m
h
n
U
- 1
V
N
d
v) c,
U
aJ m
W L
L 0
\
'0 c
m
aJ c,
VI
m 3
% 0
C 0
c,
L
W a. ul -0
L
m
h
n
V
.F
3
V
*d
-0
Wa
J
WE
31
-v
)
Vv
)
cm
.r
v)
ClC
00
C 'F
c,
L- U
v)-
c,m
m
v
0
Va
J
E
v3
c-
mo
-1>
**
am
m
a
4
L
cr: a n
5
Y 5
b
Upon reviewing the previous tables and line graph three points
will become apparent. The first being that at the present time a
waste to energy facility represents a considerable increase in
tipping fees as compared to the county's current tip fee of
$13/ton. Secondly, as shown on the line graph, all disposal
options including landfilling wi.11 increase with time and last
you will notice that there is a point in time where the cost of
landfilling and waste to energy cross.
Points one and two can be explained by the high capitol cost and
debt incurred as a result of the construction of a waste to
energy facility along with the results of inflation over time
covering all aspects of solid waste collection and disposal.
-Point three, where the cost of landfilling compare with the cost
of' waste to energy, are a result of many factors including:
1 The waste to energy facility has been paid off and revenues
collected for the sale of energy can be realized.
2 Revenues from the sale of electricity or steam will likely
increase with time .as a resul% of economic factors.
3 The amount of available land, increased cost to construct
landfills as a result of tighter environmental regulations and
future problems sitting landfills due to various local factors.
4 Under most cases no revenues will be realized from a closed
landfill.
Although these figures are site specific to Buncombe County.
They do represent a realistic dollar amount that communities
across North Carolina can expect to absorb as a result of future
solid waste disposal cost.
7
C U R H E NT C 0 U NT Y P KOG R A M S
Currently Buncombe County is operating a small recycling center
at its landfill alonq with the recent purchase of a brush tub
grinder for the chipping of wood waste and wooden pallets. In
addit-ion a county office paper and cardboard recycling program is
in t h e planning stages.
C O U N T Y RECYCLING CENTER
In October of 1987, the county opened a small recycling center at
.its landfill for the collection of aluminum, newspaper, cardboard
and glass. The center works on the basis of persons bringing a
set amount of recyclable goods where in turn their disposal fee
at the landfill is waived. The cost of setting up the center was
$2,500 and consisted of site preparation and pavement. To date
the center has worked well and received more materials than
originally expected. The possibility of other centers opening up
throughout the county at this time is unknown.
REVENUES/VOLUME OF MATERIAL PROCESSED TO DATE
MATERIAL REVENUE VOLUME
Aluminum 5233
News Paper $178
Cardboard 545
Glass $140 - - - - - -
$596
6001bs.
24,0001bs.
4,0001bs.
33,0001bs. - - - - - - - - - - -
61,60001bs.
8
BRUSH TUB GRINDER
The purchase of a tub qrinder and associated cost are as follows:
CAPITOL COST
Grinder $129,000
Site prep S 25,000
Loader $ 30,000
- - - - - - - - - 5184,000
0 & M/Yr. 512,300
Revenue $4/cubic yard
An estimated 10 % reduction in waste being disposed of in the
landfill is projected with the implementation of this program.
OFFICE PAPER RECYCLING PROGRAM
An office paper and cardboard recycling program is in the
planning stages for selected county offices. The program will
recycle high grade white ledger and computer paper along with
cardboard collected from the Courthouse, Jail, Health Department
and Purchasing Departments. An estimated 30 tons of paper and
cardboard are projected to be recycled through this program.
Although this amount is small compared to the county's total
waste stream of 150,000 tonslyr, it is hoped that this program
will spur public invol.vement and education on the merits of
recycling for possible future county recycling programs.
u PH 0 J EC T COST / Ct F F I C E PAPER P E? OG R A M
Paper S h r e d d e r s5,ooo Lease of Bailer 33,0UO/yr
Paper H o l d e r s 52,500
Collection Containers 31,500
Print-ing Cost $1 000 - _ _ _ - _
$13,000
PROJECTED REVENUES
SSOO.OO/YR
In reviewing the above .programs you will notice that a capitol
cost of $199,000 has been spent by Buncombe county with the State
possibility granting 358000 towards the Office paper program
through the Pollution Prevention Pays Program. Translating this
capitol cost to a per ton disposal basis equates to S13.30/ton
not including any revenues received . The county's current 1
tipping fee is $13.00/ton.
From the above information it should be noted that a volume
reduction or recycling program for the most part is not a money
making operation. however, The benefits that a community can
realize are the conservation of valuable landfill space and
natural resources.
I
CONCLUSION
With the ever increasing waste generated by our population each
year and an increase of environmental regulations as they apply
to the disposal of solid waste. It is apparent that as time
progresses there will be, from an economic standpoint, no easy or
inexpensive means by which communities may dispose of their solid
waste.
North Carolina is not. alone in this dilemma, However I feel that
steps can be taken at the state level that could not only reduce
the amount of solid waste generated each year within North
Carolina but could also help and guide communities in the
direction of solid waste disposal and management. I offer the
following suggestions for consideration:
1 The introduction of legislation aimed at reducing the amounts
or types of waste being disposed of in landfills, such as a
bottle or container bill or packaging legislation.
2 Through properly advertised and expanded grantlmatching grant
programs the state could help communities investigate various
solid waste technologies/practices that would focus on their
specific waste needs.
3 The creation of a properly staffed clearing house who would
collect and make available information, previous studies
completed by communities, technical feasibility and cost
associated with various options and technical support to a
community desiring this service. This clearing house concept
could be coupled with the above grant programs to minimize
duplicated expense and effort on both the part of the state and
local communities.
11
4 The state could o f f e r low interest loans on large capitol
items and equipment f o r the purposes of' waste volume reduction or
programs aimed at decreasing a communities dependance on
1-andfilling as its only means of waste disposal.
5 Investigate the possibility of increasing the revenues
realized to a electrical generator under the current Public
Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA).
6 Is their a possibility of the state becoming involved in the
financing of large capitol solid waste projects where the private
sector could, before recent tax law changes, again realize
financial benefits from the investment into waste to energy
projects.
7 Offer state tax incentives to businesses involved in the
secondary materials market or the production of goods from post
consumer wastes, thus stimulating the incentives for recycling
portions of our waste stream.
The area of thoughtfully planned out waste management is becoming
a very complex issue that many communities are experiencing
today. For the most part a waste to energy facility will be the most complex and costly undertaking that a community will
experience. Looking back in retrospect at my experience
throughout the process of investigating the options open to
Buncombe County. I feel that the following conditions must be
present for a program of this nature and magnitude to be
successful:
1 A waste disposal crisis must exist.
2 A strong commitment both politically and financially must be
present from a communities governing body.
3. 2
3 The public must be informed on the crisis and involved in the
decision making process in regards to specific technologies hE:ii , . j
considered.
4 Adequate staff and resources must exist.
From the standpoint of Buncombe C o ; i ~ , : , y ! s experience 1 :.4:z:i that
all points except # 3 have c~isted and g i v c n the search f o r
disposal options the ni;jinentum needed to ai-rive at the point where
the county can confidently L V . ) ~ a realistic future cost
associated with solid wa:;i..e disposal.
J r i closing 1 w ~ ~ u l d make two points that where the county could
have saved not only time and effort but expense in arriving at
thls point of the project. They are:
1 Prior to traveling down the road of investigating the complex
and technical nature of a resource recovery facility. I feel that the attendance of technical workshops aimed at better
educating and in turn familiarizing staff could have been
beneficial.
2 Conducting an in depth qualifications and experience of
consultants in the field of waste management and resource
recovery prior to entering into contracts with specific firms
would have saved considerable expense to the county.
A t the present time Buncombe County is in the process of
negotiations with a local industry about the possibility of
entering into a steam purchase agreement if the county decides to
construct a waste to energy facility. Along with the above the
Buncombe County Environmental Affairs Board has instructed staff
to assist the board in devising a waste management plan for the
county in addition to a public information program.