Chapter 8 Waste Sector

Transcription

1 Chapter 8 Waste Sector Sector Overview Overview of GHG Emissions Relative to other sectors in Pennsylvania, the waste sector produces a moderately low amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Figure 8-1 shows historical and projected GHG emissions from sources in the waste sector. Emissions from waste management consist largely of methane (CH 4 ) emitted from landfills, while emissions from wastewater treatment include both methane and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). Emissions are also included for municipal solid waste (MSW) combustion. Overall, in 2000 the waste management sector accounted for about 3.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMtCO 2 e) of GHG emissions; about 1.3% of Pennsylvania s total gross emissions on a consumption basis. In 2020, gross GHG emissions for the sector are estimated to increase to about 4.4 MMtCO 2 e (or by 0.64 MMtCO 2 e from 2000 levels) accounting for about 1.5% of the state s total gross GHG emissions on a consumption basis. Based on information provided by the Industry and Waste Subcommittee of the Climate Change Advisory Committee (CCAC), the collection of landfill gas (LFG) will continue to increase during the forecast period thus mitigating the overall growth in emissions for the sector. Figure 8-1. Recent and Projected GHG Emissions from the Waste Sector, Pennsylvania, MMtCO 2e MSW Landfills Industrial Landfills Waste Combustion Municipal Wastewater Industrial Wastewater Source: PA DEP and CCS Calculations. MMtCO 2 e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; MSW = municipal solid waste. 8-1

2 Key Challenges and Opportunities Pennsylvania's waste sector is very advanced in terms of capturing and utilizing landfill methane emissions. Several opportunities remain, however, for the Pennsylvania waste sector to reduce GHG emissions. Most of the GHG benefit from this sector would be indirect, in the form of offseting fossil fuel-generated electricity production, as well as reduced production of packaging and products from raw materials. These GHG reductions may or may not be realized within Pennsylvania s borders. The principal means to reduce emissions in the waste sector are: Improving methods for managing MSW, including additional recycling and composting; Utilizing a larger portion of collected LFG to generate energy and/or provide an alternative source of natural gas with a high energy content (i.e., British thermal units [Btu]); Exploring the use of technologies such as anaerobic digestion to reduce methane emissions from wastewater treatment plants and decomposition of organic MSW and produce biogas that can be used to generate energy (electricity or direct heat) on-site or delivered to market as a natural gas substitute; and Continuing to develop clean MSW combustion waste-to-energy (WTE) technology to reduce the amount of waste transported to landfills and generating electricity to offset fossil fuelbased electricity. The largest challenges facing the implementation of programs that would take advantage of the above opportunities are financing for necessary capital expenditures, availability of mechanisms and incentives to encourage MSW diversion (to recycling or composting facilities), and overcoming public perception of digestion or WTE facilities. Overview of Work Plan Recommendations and Estimated Impacts The Industry and Waste Subcommittee membership includes Terry Bossert (Chair), Richard Allan, George Ellis, Jan Jarrett, Al Magnotta, Paul Opiyo and Ed Yancovich. James Elliott (alternate for Al Magnotta), David Vollero and Mark Hammond contributed to the development of the work plans. The CCAC analyzed six work plans and is recommending five work plans for the waste sector that offer the potential for significant, cost-effective GHG emission reductions. The five recommendations address a diverse array of activities capturing emission reductions both within and outside of Pennsylvania s borders. Table 8-1 presents the analytical results for the five work plans; impacts are presented on an annual basis for 2020 and on a cumulative basis for the 2009 to 2020 period. The last column of Table 8-1 summarizes the number of CCAC members that voted to approve, disapprove, or abstained from recommending that Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) include the work plans in the Pennsylvania Climate Action Plan. The Waste 3 work plan titled Reduced Transportation of Waste was not recommended by CCAC and the Subcommittee because the original work plan was modified to move parts to other work plans and there was not adequate data to quantify. Analysis of the work plans indicate that if the five work plans are fully implemented they have the potential to reduce annual emissions in 2020 by 5.9 MMtCO 2 e at a cost savings of 8-2

3 $365 million on a net present value basis (NPV). 1 The weighted-average cost-effectiveness of the work plans combined is estimated to be a net savings of about $62 per ton of CO 2 e reduced ($/tco 2 e) in From 2009 through 2020, the work plans (if fully implemented) are estimated to reduce cumulative GHG emissions by 37 MMtCO 2 e with a potential cost savings of about $300 million on a NPV basis. The weighted-average cost-effectiveness of the work plans combined is estimated to be a net savings of about $8/tCO 2 e for the 2009 through 2020 period. To yield the levels of GHG savings described here, the recommended work plans need to be implemented in a timely, aggressive, and thorough manner. Table 8-1. Summary Results for Waste Sector Work Plan Recommendations Work Plan No. Work Plan Name 1 Landfill Methane Displacement of Fossil Fuels 2 Statewide Recycling Initiative 4 Improved Efficiency at Wastewater Treatment Facilities 5 6 Waste-to-Energy Digesters Waste-to-Energy MSW Sector Total After Adjusting for Overlaps Reductions From Recent State and Federal Actions Reductions From Recent State and Federal Actions GHG Reductions (MMtCO 2 e) Annual Results (2020) Cumulative Results ( ) Cost- GHG Costs Costs Effectiveness Reductions (NPV, (Million $) ($/tco 2 e) (MMtCO 2 e) Million $) Cost- Effectiveness ($/tco 2 e) CCAC Voting Results (Yes / No / Abstained) 0.1 -$0.1 -$ $11 -$19 21 / 0 / $41 -$ $246 -$7 21 / 0 / x $0.5 -$ $3.2 -$ / 0 / $0.1 $ $0.7 $ / 0 / $8.1 -$ $40 -$28 19 / 1 / $50 -$8 37 -$299 -$8 0.0 $0.0 $ $0.0 $ $50 -$8 37 -$299 -$8 GHG = greenhouse gas; MMtCO 2 e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; $/tco 2 e = dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent; NPV = net present value; NQ = not quantified; MSW = municipal solid waste. Negative values in the Cost and the Cost-Effectiveness columns represent net cost savings. The numbering used to denote the above work plans is for reference purposes only; it does not reflect prioritization among these important work plans. Description of Work Plan Recommendations The waste sector has several opportunities for mitigating GHG emissions from reduced methane generation at landfills, generating energy (electricity and direct heat) to offset fossil fuel-based energy production, reducing methane generation from wastewater treatment and organic MSW management, and reducing energy embedded in products and packaging produced from raw 1 The net costs or cost savings, shown in constant 2007 dollars, are based on fuel expenditures; operations, maintenance, and administrative costs; and amortized, incremental equipment costs. All net present value analyses here use a 5% real discount rate. 8-3

4 materials. The CCAC work plan recommendations are described briefly here and in more detail in Appendix I of this report. Figure 8-2 displays the percentage of reductions that each work plan contributes to the total reductions associated with all five work plans combined. The recycling work plan contributes the largest reduction, at 93%. Note that the wastewater work plan contributes a slight amount to total reductions, but it is too small to be seen in the figure. Figure 8-2. Contribution by Each Work Plan to Total Emission Reductions Associated with the Work Plans Combined for the Waste Sector The percent contribution by each work plan is calculated by dividing the cumulative reduction ( ) for the work plan by total cumulative reductions for all work plans combined (i.e., 37 MMtCO 2 e). See Table 8-1 for numeric values used to calculate the percentages shown in this figure. Waste 1. Landfill Methane Displacement of Fossil Fuels Recovery and beneficial use of methane from landfills increased sharply in the United States between 1990 and 2001, with the result that estimated emissions of methane from landfills fell 38% from 258 MMtCO 2 e to 161 MMtCO 2 e in that period. 2 Pennsylvania has moved aggressively to require large landfills to collect and control LFG emissions, and it is believed that results at Pennsylvania landfills between 1990 and 2001 were even better than the national average. This work plan recommends increased utilization of collected LFG for energy generation, specifically direct heat. The CCAC recommends a target that would increase the percentage of LFG utilized for energy generation from 69% to 80% by Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2007, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA-0573(2007), December 2008), page 28, Table

5 Key implementation steps that could be taken to achieve this target are: providing tax credits for LFG utilization projects, prioritization of rights-of-way for LFG projects, and the provision of assistance for potential project operators to identify the nearest economical end uses. The full implementation of work plans 2, 5, and 6 would slightly reduce the GHG reductions from this work plan, due to the reduction in the amount of waste deposited in landfills (and the corresponding LFG produced by that waste). This change in GHG reductions, however, would be slight, as waste that is already in place will generate the most LFG over the life of the projects that would meet the target of this work plan. The principal ancillary benefit associated with this recommendation is fossil fuel conservation/savings because energy generated from landfill methane displaces energy generated from traditional sources of fossil fuels. All 21 members of the CCAC approved of recommending this work plan to DEP for including it Pennsylvania s Climate Action Plan. Waste 2. Statewide Recycling Initiative Based on data analyzed by the Northeast Recycling Council s (NERC's) Environmental Benefits Calculator, Pennsylvania saved 2.5 million metric tons (MMt) of Carbon equivalent, or 9 MMtCO 2 e of emissions, as a result of recycling approximately 4.9 MMt of materials in Energy conserved from manufacturing products using recycled feedstock rather than virgin raw materials, or non-renewable resources, resulted in the savings of 98 trillion Btu of energy in 2005, enough to power over 941,000 Pennsylvania homes for one year or the equivalent of conserving 786 million gallons (MMgal) of gasoline. PA DEP could target recycling programs to specifically begin or increase collecting those materials that provide the maximum GHG reductions. Aluminum, steel, cardboard, and paper should be initially targeted, as these materials will yield the greatest GHG reductions. Act 101, the Municipal Waste, Planning Recycling and Waste Act Reduction of 1988, provides the foundation for recycling that has resulted in comprehensive environmental and economic benefits for Pennsylvania. The CCAC recommends a target that would increase the current MSW recycling rate of 28.2% to the target diversion rate of 42.4% by This rate represents the total mass of MSW diverted (recycled or composted) divided by the total MSW generated in Pennsylvania. Implementation of this work plan requires cooperation between many levels of government, including the DEP and municipalities. Act 101 could serve as a framework that would be built upon to provide funding for local recycling activities and establish access to recycling for many Pennsylvanians living in less densely populated areas. Additional attention will be paid to establishing and expanding markets for recyclable materials. For example, the work plan includes recommendations to amend Act 101 to: 1. Require recycling programs for smaller populations and densities to capture more recycled materials from rural areas; 2. Increase public recycling availability for public areas in which waste receptacles are placed (e.g., airports, parks, and retail outlets). Appropriate language can be incorporated into the Act 101 amendments and 3. Develop a legislative package to address changes needed to achieve increased recycling at the source of generation, encourage market development and limit disposal of recyclable materials at landfills and other disposal facilities. Certain materials, such as plastic bottles 8-5

6 and aluminum cans, have well-established markets and processing facilities to handle increased recycling. A disposal ban would require diversion of certain recyclable materials from the waste stream at the source of generation, e.g. businesses and homes, by encouraging additional drop-off centers, recyclable hauling contracts and other implementation options. Increasing recycling of waste materials has intrinsic benefits beyond reducing GHG emissions. Diverting recycled materials from disposal will ultimately reduce the amount of land needed for landfills. Recycling materials displaces virgin resources in manufacturing which saves nonrenewable resources (e.g. fossil fuels) as well as reduces the need for consumption of those resources which are renewable. This lowered consumption translates to more standing forest and less mineral extraction. A lessened reliance on natural resource extraction to produce goods also yields less pollution. Most importantly, maximizing recycling has benefits of a qualitative nature whose values aren t often recognized. The first step to a truly sustainable society is not depleting the resources which sustain it. Recycling is an important means to accomplish this goal. All 21 members of the CCAC approved of recommending this work plan to DEP. The Industry and Waste Subcommittee noted that this work plan does not include or contemplate regulatory imposed waste bans. Waste 4. Improved Efficiency at Wastewater Treatment Facilities Wastewater treatment plants typically are the largest consumer of electricity on most municipal bills, often consuming more than one-third of the energy consumed for all municipal services. In many instances, opportunities exist to reduce energy consumption at these facilities. The savings realized by energy-efficient measures could be used to fund improved water quality. In fact, in cases where a facility starts using denitrification for the beneficial uptake of nitric acid, there would be a recovery of 60% of the cost of nitrification and improved water quality at the same time. Cost savings are certain, and the savings could escalate as energy costs continue to rise. The CCAC recommends assisting 3 to 4 additional treatment plants per year from 2010 through 2020 to improve energy efficiency, reducing both GHG emissions and operation costs. The implementation of a program to meet this target would be largely the responsibility of PA DEP. The CCAC recommends that DEP increase personnel assigned to the Outreach Assistance Provider Program wastewater treatment plant outreach by 50%, provide grant funding for wastewater plant upgrades, and improve ease of permitting for wastewater plant upgrades. All 21 members of the CCAC approved of recommending this work plan to DEP. Waste 5. Waste-to-Energy Digesters This work plan includes recommendations for incentives to encourage an expansion of regional digesters that can offer larger-scale and higher technology treatment. Regional digesters would accept manure from smaller farms, as well as food and green waste from nearby municipalities that otherwise would not be able to provide enough feedstock for a digester. Thermophilic anaerobic digestion is the preferred strategy for future digestion facility planning, rather than the common mesophilic technologies that predominate on U.S. farms and wastewater treatment plants. Technologies common in Europe provide for mixed feedstocks, yield more gas, and are more 8-6

7 efficient than manure-only digesters. The effluent (digestate) is closely monitored and can yield precision-agriculture soil amendment with a guaranteed nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium analysis for fertilizer application. Depending on the exact technology/vendor selected for these digesters, about 50% of the input is manure, and the remainder is some combination of food residues, crop residues, yard wastes, organic fraction of MSW, or sewage sludge. The European model for centralized digestion relies on processes that digest waste that has a moisture content of less than 25%. Utilizing drier feedstock creates a higher biogas yield and allows for a more stable digestion process that requires less mixing and disposal of wastewater. Based on data provided by DEP on residual waste availability, it appears that York and Adams counties are potential locations for digestion facilities. These data, in addition to the availability of manure and organic MSW in Pennsylvania, suggest that there would be ample feedstock to support four additional anaerobic digesters, each requiring 25,000 tons of waste feedstock per year. For a digester project to reach its full environmental and economic potential, a constant feedstock supply is required. The target recommended for this work plan is to establish between one and four new regional anaerobic digesters by 2025, beyond those that are currently in the permitting or planning phases. For the purposes of the analysis of this option, it was assumed that one new digester would be built in 2012, one in 2014, one in 2016, and one in The ancillary benefits associated with this work plan include some reduction in landfill use, reduced energy use from fewer vehicle miles traveled to other disposal locations, and improved soil structure for agricultural purposes through the land application of organic matter resulting from the digesters. All 21 members of the CCAC approved of recommending this work plan to DEP. The CCAC recommends that the following implementation steps be considered in order to achieve the targets noted above: Allowance of renewable energy credits for carbon offset trading. Provision of renewable energy grants and loans from federal, state, and municipal funds. Purchasing agreements with utilities for electricity and direct heat provided by digestion facilities. Streamlining of the permitting process to allow location within 30 miles of a reliable feedstock source. Waste 6. Waste-to-Energy MSW In 2006, Pennsylvania saved approximately 2.3 MMtCO 2 e as a result of recovering energy from 2.92 million tons of municipal and residual waste. 3 The Commonwealth can reduce additional emissions by recovering energy from additional Pennsylvania municipal and residual wastes. 4 3 As presented by Brian Bahor, Covanta Energy at the May 10, 2007 Solid Waste Advisory Committee Meeting; meeting materials can be found at under the link Waste as an Alternative Fuel 4 link is at 2006 Residual Waste Biennial Report Data (Excel spreadsheet 2006_rw.xls). 8-7

8 The burning of solid waste reduces GHGs from avoided landfill emissions and the displacement of traditional fossil fuel energy sources, despite the fact that the operation of WTE facilities and the burning of waste also produce GHG emissions. The CCAC recommends an increase in WTE derived from MSW by 20% by 2020 and 40% by 2030 at existing facilities. Implementation of this target would require incentives for WTE MSW, including making it easier to divert waste to privately-owned WTE facilities and the inclusion of WTE in the state renewable energy standards. Long-term implementation actions include regulatory changes to further reduce obstacles to the use of waste as an energy source. Nineteen of the 21 CCAC members approved and one member disapproved of recommending this work plan to DEP, while one member abstained from voting on the work plan recommendation. One concern raised was recommending this work plan on the basis that moving forward with WTE using current technology is not as beneficial as utilizing new technology such as atmospheric incineration or plasma gasification. The work plan, as recommended by the remaining members of the CCAC, emphasizes the expansion of WTE potential at current facilities. Conclusion Greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector primarily result from landfills (methane). Other GHG emission sources include municipal solid waste (MSW) combustion and wastewater treatment plants. Opportunities to reduce GHG emissions from the waste sector include: using a larger fraction of collected landfill gas (LFG) to generate energy as well as being a fuel source for direct heat, thus resulting in fossil fuel combustion reduction; expansion of regional waste-toenergy anaerobic digesters and MSW combustors; and expansion of recycling initiatives. Next Steps Pathways to Implementation The Landfill Methane Displacement work plan W-1 can be implemented by DEP which has existing robust regulatory authority for the collection and management of landfill gas under Act 97 Solid Waste Management Act of 1980 and the municipal and residual waste regulations. Supporting mechanisms would utilize a larger portion of collected landfill gas to generate energy and/or provide an alternative source of natural gas with high energy content. These types of projects have proven successful at several landfills, both public and privately owned; for example, Frey Landfill in Lancaster County and Modern Landfill in York County. EPA has an established program to encourage beneficial use of landfill methane. DEP could implement this work plan by prioritizing projects with economic development benefits or enhanced renewable energy technologies. Statewide Recycling Initiative work plan W-2 can be implemented to increase the recycling rate from 28.2 percent to the target diversion rate of 42.4 percent by There are areas of high opportunity for improvements in levels of recycling. These are Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and 5.3 million tons is probably combustible portion of the total 19.4 million tons of residual waste ( 2006 PA RW tab of spreadsheet). Additional 4.1 MMTCO 2 -e is times 5.2 million tons residual waste (same multiplier as that used by Covanta). 8-8

9 Allegheny County. New programs have been implemented with incentives for residents and businesses to recycle a greater variety of materials. For example, single stream recycling program began in Pittsburgh in 2008 and more materials can be recycled with this collection method. DEP has legislative and regulatory authority through Act 101 Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act of Supporting mechanisms include coordination between many levels of government, including local municipalities and DEP. Funding opportunities exist and should continue to support county plans and programs and to encourage cooperation among neighboring municipalities to achieve economies of volume. DEP can develop strategies to support recycling industries and promote new public-private partnerships. Legislative changes to Act 101 would require recycling programs for smaller populations and densities to capture more recycled materials. Increased recycling availability for public areas, e.g. airports, parks, conferences and exhibits and retail outlets, is needed as an amendment to Act 101. To further stimulate recycling opportunities, an DEP could ultimately ban those materials from disposal or processing. The department believes that waste bans are an option for implementation through revisions to existing waste regulations or legislative statute. Improved Efficiency at Wastewater Treatment Facilities W-4 can be coordinated by DEP Office of Water Management. An increase in staff would be necessary for the Outreach Assistance Provider program to assist 50 percent more wastewater treatment facilities. The Waste-to Energy Digesters work plan W-5 can achieve results by use of renewable energy grants and loans from municipal, state and federal funds. These incentives would encourage an expansion of regional digesters than can offer larger-scale and higher technology treatment. The mixed feedstocks for this advanced digester include manure from smaller farms as well as food and green waste from nearby municipalities. York and Adams Counties are potential locations due to the proximity to several large food processing facilities. Waste-to-Energy Municipal Solid Waste W-6 recommends the expansion of existing waste-toenergy facilities. This could be accomplished through dedicated solid waste funding. The work plan did not include new facilities; however, enhanced technologies are possible for future application. 8-9