Prepared for: FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE
PHASE 1 REPORT
Solid Waste Management Options Study Frederick County, Maryland
Prepared by:
10211 Wincopin Circle, Floor 4 Columbia, Maryland 21044
In Collaboration With:
Project Number: ME1306-01
30 September 2016
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled paper FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 6 DISCLOSURE ...... 7 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 8 1.1 Terms of Reference ...... 8 1.2 Study Goals and Objectives ...... 8 1.3 Applicable Regulations and Guidance ...... 9 1.3.1 COMAR 26.03.03 (Solid Waste Management Plans) ...... 9 1.3.2 COMAR 26.04.07 (Solid Waste Management Facilities) ...... 11 1.3.3 Maryland Recycling Act (MRA) ...... 11 1.3.4 Frederick County Regulations and Ordinances ...... 12 1.3.5 Maryland Zero Waste Plan ...... 12 1.4 Introduction to Geosyntec’s Technical Team ...... 13 2. REVIEW OF COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING SYSTEMS ...... 15 2.1 Overview ...... 15 2.2 Recycling ...... 16 2.2.1 Recycling Programs ...... 16 2.2.2 Composting ...... 17 2.2.3 Current Recycling Rates and Costs ...... 17 2.3 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) ...... 19 2.3.1 Programs and Facilities ...... 19 2.3.2 Current Waste Disposal Rates and Costs ...... 19 2.4 Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste ...... 20 2.4.1 Programs and Facilities ...... 20 2.4.2 Current Waste Disposal Rates and Costs ...... 20 2.5 Special Wastes and Other Programs ...... 20 2.6 Education and Outreach ...... 21 3. WHAT’S NEXT? PUBLIC FORUM WORKSHOPS ...... 22 3.1 Workshop Format and Structure ...... 22
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC i FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.2 Key Workshop Findings ...... 24 3.3 Detailed Workshop Results ...... 24 3.3.1 Options for Consideration ...... 25 3.3.2 Suggested Criteria for Evaluation of Options ...... 29 3.3.3 Additional Factors for Study Consideration ...... 32 4. STATE OF THE PRACTICE REVIEW ...... 35 4.1 Introduction ...... 35 4.2 Soft Infrastructure – Source Reduction and Separation ...... 36 4.2.1 Zero Waste ...... 36 4.2.2 Source Reduction (Waste Prevention) ...... 37 4.2.3 Recycling ...... 38 4.3 Hard Infrastructure – Waste Processing and Recovery ...... 40 4.3.1 Aerobic Composting Food Scraps and Other Organics ...... 40 4.3.2 Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste and Organics ...... 42 4.3.3 Reuse and Recycling of Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste ...... 44 4.3.4 Resource Recovery Facilities ...... 46 4.3.5 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) ...... 49 4.4 Comparison between Reported Waste Diversion and Recycling Rates ...... 50 4.5 Potential Funding Mechanisms for Waste Reduction and Recycling Efforts ...... 51 5. FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION OF OPTIONS ...... 53 5.1 Overview and Guiding Principles ...... 53 5.1.1 Definitions ...... 53 5.1.2 Boundary Conditions and Screening ...... 55 5.2 Establishing Waste Diversion and Recycling Targets ...... 56 5.3 Final Selection of Options ...... 58 5.4 Final Criteria for Comparative Evaluation of Options ...... 59 5.4.1 Primary Evaluation Criteria ...... 60 5.4.2 Secondary Criteria ...... 62 6. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 63
ME1306-01/MD16049.Fred Co SWM Study_Phase 1 Report_FINAL.doc ii FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
6.1 Overview of General Approach ...... 63 6.1.1 Options as Stand-Alone vs. Combined Applications ...... 63 6.1.2 Evaluation Relative to the Baseline (Out-of-County Landfill) ...... 64 6.1.3 Limited Sensitivity Analysis (Expected vs. Pessimistic Performance) ...... 64 6.2 Soft Infrastructure Options ...... 65 6.2.1 Waste Reduction Program for Schools ...... 65 6.2.2 Food Donation Programs ...... 66 6.2.3 Ban/Fees on Single-Use Non-Recyclable Materials ...... 66 6.2.4 Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Program ...... 66 6.2.5 Three-Bin Program ...... 68 6.2.6 Beverage Container Recycling Program (Bottle Bill) ...... 68 6.2.7 Expanded Recycling Programs for Businesses and Institutions ...... 69 6.2.8 Expanding Single Stream Recycling Access to Multi-Family Dwellings .. 70 6.2.9 Expanded Household Composting Program ...... 71 6.2.10 Promote “Free-Cycle” Programs and Swap Meets ...... 71 6.2.11 Architectural Salvage Program ...... 72 6.3 Hard Infrastructure Options ...... 72 6.3.1 Construction/Building Waste Recycling ...... 72 6.3.2 Develop Community-Scale Composting Program ...... 74 6.3.3 Develop Large-Scale Composting Program ...... 75 6.3.4 Develop Community-Scale Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Program ...... 77 6.3.5 Develop Large-Scale Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Program ...... 78 6.3.6 Develop Large-Scale Centralized Resource Recovery Park ...... 80 6.3.7 Out-of-County Landfill Disposal (Baseline Scenario) ...... 83 6.3.8 Enhanced Operation of Existing County Landfill ...... 84 6.3.9 Develop New County Landfill ...... 84 7. DISCUSSION OF PHASE 1 STUDY FINDINGS ...... 87 7.1 Outcome from Evaluation of Options ...... 87 7.1.1 Options with Negligible Contribution to Overall Study Goals ...... 87 7.1.2 Evaluation of Remaining Options ...... 88
ME1306-01/MD16049.Fred Co SWM Study_Phase 1 Report_FINAL.doc iii FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
7.2 Comparative Performance of Options ...... 90 7.2.1 Expected Performance ...... 90 7.2.2 Performance under Pessimistic Assumptions ...... 92 7.2.3 Options as Stand-Alone vs. Combined Applications ...... 95 8. FINAL OUTCOME AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 96 8.1 Options Eliminated as Offering Negligible Contribution to Study Goals ...... 96 8.2 Landfill Disposal Options...... 96 8.3 Options Not Recommended for Further Consideration in Phase 2 ...... 97 8.4 Options Recommended for Detailed Evaluation in Phase 2 ...... 98 9. NEXT STEPS ...... 100
TABLES Table 1-1: Statewide Goals in the Maryland Zero Waste Plan Table 5-1: What Counts Towards Waste Diversion and Recycling in Maryland Table 5-2: Waste Diversion and Recycling Targets for the Study Table 5-3: Expected Levels of Recyclables and Compostables in Residual Waste Stream
FIGURES Figure 2-1: Solid Waste Materials Flow for Frederick County Figure 3-1: Consolidated Criteria Voting Results across All Workshops Figure 3-2: Consolidated Criteria Voting Results, Workshops #1 Figure 3-3: Consolidated Criteria Voting Results, Workshops #2 Figure 3-4: Consolidated Criteria Voting Results, Workshops #3 Figure 3-5: Consolidated Criteria Voting Results, Workshops #4
ME1306-01/MD16049.Fred Co SWM Study_Phase 1 Report_FINAL.doc iv FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Figure 3-6: Consolidated Criteria Voting Results, Workshops #5 Figure 5-1: Screening Approach for Consideration of Options Figure 5-2: Final Selection of Evaluation Criteria Figure 7-1: Expected Performance – Soft Infrastructure Options Figure 7-2: Expected Performance – Hard Infrastructure Options Figure 7-3: Pessimistic Performance – Soft Infrastructure Options Figure 7-4: Pessimistic Performance – Hard Infrastructure Options
APPENDICES Appendix A: Public Forum Workshop Outreach Materials Appendix B: Public Forum Workshop Results Appendix C: Public Comments Received Appendix D: Option Evaluation Worksheets Appendix E: Summary Tables – Results of Option Evaluations Appendix F: Recommendations for Phase 2
ME1306-01/MD16049.Fred Co SWM Study_Phase 1 Report_FINAL.doc v FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Report describes findings from the first phase of a Solid Waste Management Options Study (Study). Initiated by Frederick County Executive Jan Gardner, the two-phase Study is being conducted to develop a long-term solid waste management strategy that is informed by and inclusive of county residents. Phase 1 is to develop community consensus on which viable waste management and recycling alternatives should be specifically studied and evaluated in more detail during Phase 2.
OVERVIEW: Current Solid Waste Program
The Frederick County Government (County) currently operates a transfer station, an active municipal landfill, a yard waste processing facility for mulching and composting, and a recycling center at the Reichs Ford Road facility. The County also manages several contracted services, including curbside collection of residential recycling. County services do not extend to trash collection, which is provided by municipalities or private haulers and contracted directly by municipalities, homeowners’ associations, or individual residents. Under this comprehensive set of services, the County currently achieves an overall recycling rate of about 50%, which exceeds the 35% target mandated under the Maryland Recycling Act but is significantly short of future recycling goals outlined in Maryland’s Zero Waste Plan.
The County faces some uncertainties and potential risks with its provision of solid waste disposal services. With limited disposal capacity at its active landfill, the County currently transfers about 90% of the solid waste collected to a private out-of-county landfill. Relying on this disposal option may not be financially sustainable over the long term.
GOAL: Identify Long-Term Solid Waste Options
Given these challenges, County Executive Gardner established a citizen Solid Waste Steering Committee and issued a competitive request for proposals. Geosyntec was selected as the County’s consultant to perform the Study, in conjunction with the Steering Committee, through a facilitated process of public discussion and input. Five outreach workshops, collectively called the “What’s Next? Solid Waste Public Forums,” were hosted between November 2015 and February 2016. Through discussions and structured brainstorming exercises, participants identified options to include in the Study and defined criteria for assessing those options. Details of the workshop format and output are provided in Section 3 of this Report. Concurrent with the Public Forum, Geosyntec conducted a review of current waste technologies and policies to supplement the workshop recommendations (see Section 4).
The Study set out to provide an objective review and evaluation of options for increasing recycling and waste diversion rates in the county. Various options were selected and evaluated against quantitative and qualitative performance criteria. The options and criteria were proposed by County residents who attended one or more of the public workshops. As such, they are collectively assumed to represent the views and aspirations of residents most concerned with waste management and recycling in the County.
The framework for evaluating options was built around definitions and criteria in the Maryland Recycling Act and Zero Waste Plan, as outlined in Section 5 of this Report. The Zero Waste Plan provides incremental voluntary goals for increasing overall recycling and waste diversion to 80% and 85%,
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 1 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
respectively, and 90% recycling of food and yard waste by 2040. However, the Study focuses on the costs and effects of implementing different options through 2025, since the nature of the County’s population and waste stream, as well as available technologies for recycling, are likely to evolve over the longer term. This affords the Study a forward-looking outlook while remaining grounded in programs/technologies that are commercially available.
The County currently achieves recycling and waste diversion rates of about 50% and 55%, respectively, based on the latest compiled data for 2015. Therefore, relatively modest improvements of about 15% are needed in the County’s overall recycling and waste diversion rates in order to achieve 2025 target levels of 65% and 70%, respectively. This represents additional recovery of 40,000 to 45,000 tons from the nearly 140,000 tons of waste landfilled annually. Significant improvement will be needed to achieve the 60% food waste recycling target for 2025, which represents recovery of about 15,000 tons annually. It is important to note that these rates are variable, which affects the actual recovery tonnages required in any given year.
OPTIONS In total, 20 options were evaluated on their expected environmental impact, lifecycle costs, and waste diversion and recycling rates. Section 6 of this Report details the evaluation process. Findings from the evaluations are discussed in Section 7, while recommendations are provided in Section 8. Options were categorized as either “soft” infrastructure (systems, such as programs affecting waste/recycling generation rates or collection) or “hard” infrastructure (physical structures or networks, such as facilities for processing waste/recycling). Options Recommended for Analysis in Phase 2 of the Study: The following six options appear to meet most of the County’s goals and are recommended for more detailed analysis during Phase 2 of the Study. • Waste reduction program at county schools – This would include collecting food waste for composting, and increasing recycling efforts. (soft) • Three-bin system for collection – Waste collection would separate trash, recycling, and food waste. (soft) • Food waste collection from restaurants – Commercial food waste would be collected for composting. (soft) • Community-scale, decentralized composting program – Food waste and other organic material would be collected for composting at small facilities. This could serve as a pilot for a larger-scale operation. (hard) • Development of a large-scale, centralized composting facility – A central countywide facility would process separated organic materials: primarily food waste, yard waste, and non-recyclable paper. (hard)
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 2 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Development of a large-scale, centralized resource recovery park – A resource recovery park would include a materials recovery facility with separate lines for source separated recyclables and mixed waste as well as onsite composting of recovered organic material. (hard)
A three-bin collection system and a restaurant food waste recovery program both perform well in terms of costs. Either of these programs also can achieve the target of 60% recycling of food waste by 2025. Recovering food waste from County schools did not perform well in the quantitative analysis because the amount of material recovered is expected to be modest. However, this option is recommended for further study due to its qualitative benefits and the additional educational advantages offered. Exposing students to the idea of separating food waste by the time they establish their own households should benefit the long-term sustainability of recycling in Frederick County.
Both community-scale and large-scale composting also performed well in the analysis.
Although very capital intensive, a resource recovery park offers high rates of recycling, waste diversion, and flexibility in terms of raw materials (referred to as feedstocks) using well established, mature technologies. A resource recovery park offers relatively attractive unit costs (per ton and per household), although it exhibits a number of cost sensitivities that need to be reviewed carefully. An additional advantage offered by a resource recovery park is that it can process and recover construction and demolition (C&D) waste, negating the need to construct a stand-alone C&D recycling facility.
It is noted that many soft infrastructure options are susceptible to underperforming on recycling rates while many hard infrastructure options are sensitive to cost overages. As such, wholesale rollout of programs is not recommended. Instead, the County is advised to explore incremental rollout on a pilot scale with expansion only after success can be demonstrated on a smaller scale.
The remaining 14 options were either not recommended for further consideration; eliminated from detailed analysis because they offer only a small potential contribution to future recycling or waste diversion targets; or consisted of landfill disposal of material not recovered from the waste stream. Options not recommended for Analysis in Phase 2 of the Study: Based on detailed evaluation in accordance with Phase 1 criteria and conditions, the following five options were not recommended for further consideration in Phase 2 of the Study: • Pay-as-you throw program – In this program, rates are based on volume. People are encouraged to reduce what they send to the landfill because they are charged based on the amount of trash set out for collection and disposal. (soft) o Other options were more effective and less expensive. • Expanded residential curbside recycling for multi-family dwellings – Residents of multi- family dwellings would be given access to single-stream recycling similar to what is currently available for single-family homes. (soft) o Other options were more effective and less expensive.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 3 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Development of construction and demolition waste recycling facility – A sorting facility would separate materials such as concrete, wood, shingles, brick, steel, carpet and drywall from other waste. Building materials often can be reused or recycled. (hard) o Construction and demolition waste recycling does not count toward Maryland Recycling Act or Zero Waste Plan recycling or waste diversion goals. Overall, construction and demolition waste recovery is better addressed within the context of a centralized resource recovery facility. • Community-scale, decentralized anaerobic digestion program – Anaerobic digestion is the controlled decomposition of biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. It creates biogas, which is a renewal energy, and digestate, which can be processed into compost or fertilizer. A community-scale program would involve small facilities in different locations around the county. (hard) o Community-scale anaerobic digestion performed poorly in terms of unit costs. The Zero Waste Plan requires that digestate must be marketed to qualify as recycling. • Development of large-scale, centralized anaerobic digestion facility – A countywide facility would process biodegradable material into biogas and digestate. (hard)
o Large-scale, centralized anaerobic digestion offers significant waste diversion capabilities, but is capital intensive and thus risky relative to more established and mature technologies such as composting. The Zero Waste Plan requires that digestate must be marketed to qualify as recycling.
Options Eliminated as Offering Negligible Contribution to Recycling and Waste Diversion Goals: The following options are worthy of consideration by the County but fall outside the scope of this Study. In many cases, they offer tangible and meaningful benefits to residents and businesses at relatively modest costs. They also may promote positive behavioral changes, particularly in children, and boost the image of Frederick County as an environmentally proactive and attractive location that offers a high quality of life. The options include: • Implementing a beverage container recycling program or bottle bill – This program would require deposits to be paid on beverages sold in recyclable bottles and cans. (soft) o Realistically, the implementation of a beverage container recycling program or bottle bill can only be achieved through State legislation. Therefore, it is not an option for consideration at the county level.
• Food donation programs – Restaurants, grocery stores, schools and other institutions would donate food to food pantries or other nonprofit organizations, rather than throwing it away. (soft) • Ban/fees on single-use, non-recyclable materials – This option calls for a ban on plastic bags and Styrofoam containers and materials. Restaurants and retail establishments would be prohibited from distributing the containers to customers. Alternatively, a per-bag fee would be placed on carryout bags distributed at stores and restaurants. (soft)
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 4 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Expansion of household composting – More families would be encouraged to compost food and yard waste. (soft) • Promotion of “free-cycle” programs and swap meets – With these programs, residents exchange unwanted items instead of disposing of them. (soft) • Architectural salvage program – This option focuses on materials from buildings slated for demolition or refurbishment. It could include a database to match materials to buyers. (soft)
Landfill Disposal Options: The final three options relate to landfill disposal of all material not currently recovered from the waste stream: • Continued waste transfer to a private out-of-county landfill o It should be noted that the option of continued waste transfer is a “special case.” All other options were evaluated in comparison to this baseline, which is a continuation of the County’s existing programs and operations. • Expanded operation of the existing Reichs Ford Road landfill o Expanding operation of the existing landfill is considered to be of negligible practical value, based on existing operations and constraints on further development of the Reichs Ford Road property. • Development of a new County landfill o Attempting to permit a new County landfill would likely be a time-consuming and unpopular endeavor and is not recommended.
Continued export of waste or developing a new County landfill are more cost-effective than any other option, but achieve none of the recycling and waste diversion goals established for the Study. Out-of- county disposal of 90% of unrecovered waste is expected to continue, although the quantity of the waste is likely to be reduced.
NEXT STEPS The next step in this Study (Phase 2) will be to provide a detailed analysis of the viability of each recommended option from Phase 1, both individually and in combination with all other appropriate options. As outlined in Section 9 of this Report, findings and recommendations from Phase 2 will be issued in a Final Report. The Final Report is intended to serve as a roadmap for the County to achieve recycling and waste diversion goals over the next ten years, with a view to continued achievement of more ambitious goals thereafter. The options selected for further analysis in Phase 2 are those that are considered to best divert waste from disposal, minimize environmental impact, and incur the least cost. However, it should be recognized that this does not and should not preclude the County from exploring other options in the future. This include options that offer modest improvements in the immediate term but may compound over time to create meaningful impacts.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 5 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Report was prepared for the Frederick County Solid Waste Steering Committee by Geosyntec Consultants of Columbia, Maryland in collaboration with A. Goldsmith Resources, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia and the Nexight Group of Silver Spring, Maryland. The Geosyntec team would like to acknowledge the considerable support and input provided by several individuals during preparation of this Report, notably:
Solid Waste Management Steering Committee members John Daniels (Chair), Peter Blood (Vice-Chair), Ellis Burruss, Don Briggs, Patrice Gallagher, David Gray, Kai Hagen, Phil LeBlanc, Pat Miglio, Joe Richardson, and Chris Voell
The Office of the County Executive, including County Executive Jan Gardner and Communications Director Vivian Laxton
The Frederick County Department of Utilities and Solid Waste Management, in particular Kevin Demosky (Director) and Phil Harris (Superintendent, Department of Solid Waste Management)
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 6 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
DISCLOSURE
Geosyntec Consultants (www.geosyntec.com) is a specialized consulting and engineering firm that works with private and public sector clients to address new ventures and complex problems involving our environment, natural resources, and civil infrastructure. Waste management planning, engineering, and design are important practice areas for the firm, both in the US and abroad. Geosyntec is active in the design and permitting of several of the solid waste management and recycling systems evaluated in this Study, including landfills, composting facilities, anaerobic digestion plants, material recovery facilities (MRFs), and transfer stations. The firm’s design activities in Maryland have been limited primarily to landfills, MRFs, and transfer stations. Geosyntec does not build, own, or operate any commercial waste management facilities and has no direct interest in application of any particular waste management or recycling system.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 7 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Terms of Reference
This Phase 1 Report was prepared for the Frederick County Solid Waste Steering Committee (Steering Committee) by Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) of Columbia, Maryland in collaboration with the Nexight Group (Nexight) of Silver Spring, Maryland and A. Goldsmith Resources, LLC (Goldsmith) of Atlanta, Georgia. The Geosyntec team was led by Mr. Jeremy Morris, Ph.D., P.E. and Mr. Thomas Ramsey, P.E., both Registered Professional Engineers in the State of Maryland.
This Report describes findings from the Solid Waste Management Options Study (Study) conducted for the Steering Committee by Geosyntec in accordance with Work Order No. 101-II- Y, effective 2 September 2015 under Contract #13-6(a) with the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (NMWDA). The scope of work for the Study was described in Geosyntec’s proposal dated 27 May 2015. Notice to proceed from the Steering Committee was provided via a letter to Geosyntec from the Frederick County Department of Utilities and Solid Waste Management (DUSWM) dated 10 September 2015.
1.2 Study Goals and Objectives
In response to the need for a long-term solid waste management and recycling strategy, Frederick County Executive Jan Gardner established the Steering Committee to help develop identify and evaluate viable solid waste management and recycling alternates through a facilitated process of public discussion and input. The County Executive’s vision for the role of the Steering Committee in this process is captured in this announcement1:
“Along with the assistance of a neutral facilitator, I have formed this special Steering Committee to help manage the process in the development of a sustainable and robust long-term solid waste program for Frederick County. My desire in creating the Steering Committee is to bring a good mixture of experience and viewpoints to the process which is designed to be as balanced and neutral as possible. We will also actively engage our citizens in looking at all the alternatives available to us such as resource recovery, composting, anaerobic digestion, zero waste initiatives, and other options. My objective is to have an open, transparent, impartial process that balances diverse viewpoints, ideas and perspectives.”
The Steering Committee includes members of the County’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee, the Sustainability Commission, and other citizens who have a history of constructive and
1 https://www.frederickcountymd.gov/WhatsNext
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 8 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
informed engagement in conversations about solid waste. County officials who currently manage solid waste programs also provide guidance.
Phase I of this Study aimed to gather ideas and priorities of County residents for solid waste management and recycling options. To this end, the Geosyntec Study Team was contracted to hold five facilitated community workshops throughout the County, collectively called the “What’s Next? Solid Waste Public Forum.” During these workshops, residents engaged in active dialogue and structured brainstorming exercises to identify options to include in the Study and to define criteria for assessing those options. Options may be considered as stand-alone or integrated systems or processes to address the County's waste disposal and recycling goals, and may include joint initiatives and cooperation with private or out-of-county entities. Concurrent to this Public Forum, the Study Team conducted a state-of-the-practice review of current waste technologies and policies to supplement the recommendations of County residents and to offer a baseline for future analysis and assessment.
Ultimately, the goal of Phase 1 of the Study is to develop a consensus on which viable waste management and recycling alternatives should be specifically studied and evaluated in more detail. The Steering Committee will use the Study findings in this Report to make recommendations to the County Executive as to which of the viable options should be studied further in Phase 2. This work will thus inform the County’s development of a long-term waste management strategy.
1.3 Applicable Regulations and Guidance
Subtitles 3 and 4 of Title 26 of the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) contain provisions related to solid waste management in the State of Maryland, as regulated by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Other regulations passed at the State and local level also govern solid waste management and recycling in Frederick County as described in this section.
1.3.1 COMAR 26.03.03 (Solid Waste Management Plans)
COMAR 26.03.03 requires each county to submit a solid waste management plan to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and identifies what must be included in these plans. The plans must cover “at least the succeeding 10-year period” and must be reviewed and updated as necessary at least every three years. The County must conduct a public hearing prior to adopting, amending or revising the plan.
The current Frederick County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), which covers the period 1998 to 2017, was originally adopted by the County on 30 June 1998. Occasional updates and amendments to the plan require approval by the Frederick County Government; under this
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 9 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
process, the SWMP was most recently amended and approved in June 2015. The SWMP serves as a planning tool for solid waste management into the 21st century and is the blueprint for accomplishment of the County’s goal to recycle waste as mandated by the State of Maryland (see Section 1.3.3 below). It is also the intent of the SWMP to develop and articulate issues that must be addressed in order to focus the community on the goals, objectives, and concepts of solid waste management through open and active public participation. When a consensus is reached through this process, additional planning, engineering and community involvement will define the specific sites, technologies, regulations, and policies needed to achieve these goals and objectives.
Requirements for SWMPs are continually updated through enactment of bills by the Maryland legislature. Recent additions of relevance to this Study include:
• Public Schools Recycling Plans (2010), which addresses the collection, processing, marketing, and disposition of recyclable materials from County public schools.
• Recycling – Apartment Buildings and Condominiums Act (2012), which addresses the collection and recycling of certain materials by certain property owners, managers and councils of apartment buildings and condominiums in their recycling plan, as well as a method for implementing a reporting requirement. This Act also required owners, managers, and councils of residential buildings with ten or more dwelling units to provide for recycling for residents on or before 1 October 2014.
• Recycling-Special Events Act (2014), which addresses the collection and recycling of certain materials by organizers of certain special events after 1 October 2015. This Act also requires organizers of special events meeting certain criteria to provide a recycling receptacle adjacent to each trash receptacle, ensure recycling receptacles are clearly distinguished from trash receptacles, and ensure that recyclable materials are collected for recycling.
The County’s current SWMP has been updated to include a plan for addressing these requirements.2 Solid waste planning in accordance with the SWMP is the responsibility of the Frederick County Government and a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), created for the purpose of recommending the soundest methods of waste disposal, recycling, and waste reduction and advising on specifically requested policy alternatives. The SWAC has 12 voting members who meet once a month.
2 The Frederick County SWMP can be downloaded from: https://frederickcountymd.gov/3563/Solid-Waste- Management-Plan
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 10 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
1.3.2 COMAR 26.04.07 (Solid Waste Management Facilities)
Title 26.04.07 of COMAR establishes the design and operating requirements for solid waste facilities including municipal landfills; rubble (construction and demolition) landfills; industrial waste landfills; land clearing debris landfills; solid waste transfer stations, processing facilities, and incinerator/waste-to-energy facilities; and natural wood waste recycling facilities. Title 26.04.07.02 provides definitions of waste materials, facilities, and other terms used in the regulations. It is noted that hazardous wastes and special medical wastes are strictly controlled by MDE under regulations promulgated specifically for these categories, not under COMAR 26.04.07. As such, these materials do not comprise part of the solid waste management system discussed in this Study.
MDE also enforces regulations for two additional recycling-related acts: the Scrap Tire Recycling Act (COMAR 26.04.08) and the Natural Wood Waste Facility Recycling Act (COMAR 26.04.09). Of interest to this Study, the wood waste recycling facility regulation establishes a permitting system for these facilities.
1.3.3 Maryland Recycling Act (MRA)
Originally passed in 1988, the MRA requires each jurisdiction in the State to develop and implement recycling programs. At the time the MRA was first passed, counties with a population greater than 150,000 were required to attain a 20% recycling rate, which is calculated by dividing the tons of material recycled by the tons of materials generated, which in turn is defined as the tons of material recycled plus the tons of material disposed. Maryland Chapter 692, Acts of 2012 increased the required recycling rate to 35% by December 2015 for counties with a population of greater than 150,000, which includes Frederick County.
To allow fair comparison between different counties, only certain materials can be included when calculating a county’s MRA recycling rate, which must be reported to MDE each year.3 These include paper, plastic, glass, metal, compostables, and a broad category of miscellaneous materials (in 2013, the miscellaneous materials reported by Frederick County as part of its recycling rate included roofing shingles, fiberglass, granule waste, and toner cartridges). Specific materials that are excluded from the calculation of the recycling rate include antifreeze, asphalt and concrete, coal ash, construction and demolition debris, land clearing debris, scrap automobiles, scrap metal, sewage sludge, soils, waste oil, and “other” materials. Although the tons of these materials recycled are not counted when calculating the county’s MRA recycling rate, they are still reported to MDE each year. This division of waste and recyclables into MRA
3Annual MRA reports for each county are available at: http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Land/RecyclingandOperationsprogram/CountyCoordinatorResources/Docum ents/'13%20MSWMR.pdf
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 11 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
and non-MRA materials is important in the context of understanding reported recycling and waste diversion rates for counties in Maryland versus local jurisdictions in other states or countries.
The MRA allows counties to take up to a 5% recycling credit for recovering energy from waste (considered resource recovery) if the county “achieves a reduction of at least 5% in the volume of its waste through the utilization of one or more resource recovery facilities in operation as of January 1, 1988.” Frederick County does not recover energy from waste and thus does not take up this credit. In addition to the MRA recycling rate, the County reports a waste diversion rate to MDE on an annual basis. The diversion rate includes the calculated MRA recycling rate plus up to 5% credit for specific source reduction activities. In recent years, Frederick County has earned the full 5% credit in recognition of its source reduction efforts.
1.3.4 Frederick County Regulations and Ordinances
A number of Frederick County regulations and ordinances apply to solid waste management and recycling. Of particular interest to this Study:
• The Countywide Comprehensive Plan (CWCP) provides a framework for establishing a long-range action plan for solid waste management.
• The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Sections 1-19-5.310, 1-19-10.800 and 1-19- 8.348 provide zoning regulations for solid waste management facilities.
• Frederick County Ordinance 06-03-399 put into effect a yard waste disposal ban that became effective on 1 May 2006. This ordinance bans all yard waste from disposal in the landfill or transfer facility.
• The Frederick County Recycling Plan serves as a blueprint for achieving recycling goals established under requirements of the MRA. Frederick County Board of County Commissioners established a waste diversion goal of 60% by the year 2025.
1.3.5 Maryland Zero Waste Plan
In December 2014, MDE published a document entitled “Zero Waste Maryland: Maryland’s Plan to Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle Nearly All Waste Generated in Maryland by 2040” (hereafter, the Zero Waste Plan or ZWP). The ZWP sets an overall 80% recycling goal and 85% waste diversion goal by 2040 with interim goals and material-specific recycling goals for food scraps and yard trimmings also established as shown in Table 1-1.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 12 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Table 1-1: Statewide Goals in the Maryland Zero Waste Plan
The ZWP acknowledges that what “counts” toward recycling and diversion goals is likely to evolve. Currently, MRA waste that is diverted through technologies that recover energy from waste, such as incineration and gasification, do not count toward the recycling goal (but would count toward the diversion goal) while MRA waste that is diverted through technologies like anaerobic digestion do count toward the recycling goal as long as the digestate is marketed. The ZWP contains a list of “suggested actions” to be taken over the next 25 years to achieve these goals. These actions are organized under eight objectives, including: increase source reduction and reuse; increase recycling access and participation; increase diversion of organics; address specific target materials; incentivize technology innovation and develop markets; recover energy from waste; collaborate and lead by example; and conduct education and outreach.4
1.4 Introduction to Geosyntec’s Technical Team
Geosyntec Consultants (www.geosyntec.com) is a specialized consulting and engineering firm that works with private and public sector clients to address new ventures and complex problems involving our environment, natural resources, and civil infrastructure. With over 30 years of service, Geosyntec’s solid waste professionals have been involved in more than 1,000 solid waste management projects, with lifecycle services to clients including pre-development planning and impact assessment, engineering design and permitting, bidding and procurement, construction management and quality assurance, operation and compliance, and renewable energy development and carbon emission reductions. An increasingly important component of Geosyntec’s services to solid waste clients is evaluation of financial performance, market valuations, cost of service analyses, and due diligence for asset acquisition and divestment. By combining technical expertise with financial acumen, we not only provide clients with
4 Maryland’s Zero Waste plan is available here: http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Marylander/Pages/ZeroWastePlan.aspx
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 13 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
technically sound projects but also to offer unbiased, objective advice that applies real-world, practical, market-tested knowledge of project risk and return in the context of competitive, regulatory, cost, and demand drivers.
Geosyntec’s team, led by Mr. Thomas Ramsey, P.E. and Dr. Jeremy Morris, Ph.D., P.E., has provided solid waste engineering and planning services to dozens of public and private clients across Maryland and the mid-Atlantic region. Mr. Ramsey’s 25-year career in solid waste management began with private solid waste companies where he managed numerous solid waste processing and disposal operations and capital projects, which has provided him with first-hand experience with the impacts of site characteristics and waste collection and handling constraints on economic and operational performance. He brings in-depth knowledge of planning and development of many types of solid waste facilities, including landfills, transfer stations, material recovery facilities (MRFs), and vehicle fleet maintenance facilities. Dr. Morris has served key technical and managerial roles on dozens of solid waste projects since joining Geosyntec in 2001 and is the author of over 50 technical articles and several guidance documents, including for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He also provides strategic advisory services on solid waste planning, including market valuations, lifecycle cash flow analyses, and feasibility studies for alternative waste conversion technologies and landfill-based renewable energy projects (solar, wind, and biogas utilization).
In this Study, solid waste management options are categorized as either “soft” infrastructure (i.e., systems and programs affecting waste/recycling generation rates or collection) or “hard” infrastructure (i.e., physical structures or networks, such as facilities for processing waste/recycling). As outlined above, Geosyntec’s experience is primarily with hard infrastructure; therefore, we engaged an expert in soft infrastructure, Ms. Abby Goldsmith (www.agoldsmithresources.com), to join the Study Team. With experience dating back to 1988, Ms. Goldsmith assists state and local governments, trade associations, and businesses with development and implementation of programs to reduce and manage solid waste more sustainably. She recommends waste reduction and recycling strategies based on client objectives and an assessment of current practices, and partners with clients to implement selected strategies through changes in operations and policies, procurement, or renegotiation of contracts, and also offers post-implementation performance monitoring. Ms. Goldsmith currently serves as the co- chair of the Atlanta Recycles Steering Committee and is an Honorary Board Member of the Georgia Recycling Coalition, having served as its founding President. Over the past 20 years, she has conducted training modules on planning, financing, and implementing waste reduction and recycling measures for the Georgia chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) and is a frequent presenter at state, regional, and national sustainability, recycling, and solid waste management conferences.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 14 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
2. REVIEW OF COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING SYSTEMS
2.1 Overview
Frederick County is governed by a charter government having an elected County Executive, who appoints division directors, as well as an elected County Council that is responsible for legislative matters. Solid waste administration is the responsibility of the County Executive and the Division of Utilities and Solid Waste Management (DUSWM), which was formed into its own division in February 2000 as a separate and distinct entity to the Division of Public Works. Within DUSWM, the Department of Solid Waste Management (DSWM) is responsible for implementing solid waste management programs.
At the start of Phase 1, the Study Team and Steering Committee worked with DSWM staff to gather information about the County’s current solid waste and recycling practices, including information about current collection processes, recycling and disposal practices, approximate costs to the citizens and businesses for the current system, and the make-up of County waste and recycling streams. This information, supplemented with additional research about alternative solid waste management practices and successful programs in other counties, provides a baseline for the Study as a whole and was used help to educate workshop participants during the Public Forum (see Section 3 and Appendix A), as highlighted in the snapshot graphic below.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 15 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
DSWM operates a transfer station, an active municipal landfill (Site B), a closed landfill (Site A), a yard waste processing facility (mulching and composting operation), and a recycling center at the Reichs Ford Road facility. DSWM also manages several contracted services, including curbside collection of residential recycling; however, their management does not extend to trash collection, which is provided by municipalities or private haulers and contracted directly by municipalities, homeowners’ associations, or individual residents.
DSWM operates as an enterprise fund, receiving no tax (General Fund) monies. Programs and services are funded through tipping fees and a system benefit charge (SBC), an annual charge included on the County’s property taxes and fees bill5. The tipping fees account for the majority of the funding, with the SBC serving to pay a portion of the reasonably anticipated capital costs and operating costs for solid waste disposal. The budget includes funding for costs associated with both recycling programs and waste disposal. By law, the enterprise fund must include a monetary reserve to fund at least 30 years of post-closure care and ongoing environmental compliance at both landfills. These monetary commitments are built into the tipping fee each year.
2.2 Recycling
2.2.1 Recycling Programs
A combination of public and private programs serve to address the recycling needs of the commercial and residential sectors. Several institutions (including the Frederick Memorial Healthcare Systems, Mount Saint Mary’s University, Frederick County Public Schools, and Hood College) contract privately for recycling services, while Frederick County Government offices are included in the current Frederick County Recyclable Materials Collection Service Agreement. Many businesses contract privately for collection and/or marketing of their recyclables, although some (e.g., grocery stores) generate large enough quantities that make it practical to provide their own marketing and collection.
Residential programs are provided in the form of curbside recycling or the Reichs Ford Road Center. In addition, there are private recycling centers that accept recyclable materials and, in some cases, pay for these materials. These materials are then transported for further processing or to end-use markets. The curbside collection program was initiated by the County in 1991 in conjunction with satellite recycling drop-off centers and expanded on multiple occasions
5 The charges are for both residential and non-residential properties. Residential rates are applied per dwelling unit for both single family ($88) and multi-family properties ($49). The bill shows the assigned Waste Generator Category (Single Family or Multi-family for residential and Low, Medium low, Medium, Medium high or High for non-residential), the number of billing units and the approved rate per billing unit for the assigned generator category. All information for the assessment of a property is based on the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation’s records.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 16 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
between 1991 and 2009 to collect materials from all municipalities and densely populated areas. The program changed from dual stream collection to single-stream collection in January 2009 and was fully expanded in May 2009 to offer all single-family households in the County with bi- weekly (every other week) curbside collection. Every single family home (SFH) is entitled to receive a cart at no additional charge, with the option of three different cart sizes. More than 73,000 SFHs participate in the program (of about 76,000 SFHs in the County, a very high participation level). With the closure of the County’s residential satellite recycling drop-off centers, other residents and commercial entities may bring recycling to the Reichs Ford Road Center.6
DSWM operates a single-stream recyclables transfer operation at the Reichs Ford Road transfer station, from which recycle loads are transported to a private out-of-county materials recovery facility (MRF).
2.2.2 Composting
Frederick County adopted Ordinance 06-03-399 in 2006 prohibiting the landfill disposal of yard waste. Yard waste is currently accepted at no charge at the Reichs Ford Road recycling center and Walkersville Heritage Farm Park. DSWM uses a grinder for mulching of woody yard waste material such as brush and branches at the primary recycling center located on Reichs Ford Road. In addition, DSWM operates a windrow composting operation at this same location which processes grass, leaves and clean wood products (e.g., pallets) into a finished grade compost marketed as ReviveTM, which is currently sold at $15/ton. Additionally, one decentralized yard waste collection center exists which accepts mixed yard waste, brush, branches, grass and leaves located at Walkersville’s Heritage Farm Park on property owned by the Town of Walkersville.
A number of County businesses contract privately for collection of their organic waste streams. Some of this material may be delivered to private composting operations and other processing facilities and not accounted for under DSWM’s composting operations.
2.2.3 Current Recycling Rates and Costs
Altogether, about 427,000 tons of waste was generated in Frederick County in 2013, of which 271,000 comprised MRA wastes. The County’s MRA recycling rate in 2013 (the most recent year for which fully-vetted data from MDE is available) was 49.5%, representing recovery of over 134,000 tons of materials (recyclables and compost) from the waste stream. This represents an increasing trend from 46.7% in 2012 and 34.3% in 2005. DSWM estimates that the current
6 On 5 September 2013, DUSWM presented a staff report that was approved by the County Government recommending establishment of a permanent Municipal Recycling Drop-Off Centers Initiatives and Incentives program for no more than five municipally-hosted drop off centers. It allowed each participating municipality to be reimbursed for up to $10,000 per year in documented expenses.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 17 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
MRA recycling rate in the County is above 50%. Frederick County’s MRA waste diversion rate was 54.5% in 2013, reflecting the 5% source reduction credits earned for promoting recycling programs.
Of the total 134,000 tons of material recovered in 2013, about 14,000 tons (10%) comprised yard waste composted by DSWM; about 16,000 tons (12%) comprised private composting; about 27,000 tons (20%) comprised single-stream recycling handled by DSWM; and the remaining 77,000 tons (58%) comprised materials handled by various private recycling operations. Figure 2-1 summarizes overall recycling and composting data.
Figure 2-1: Solid Waste Materials Flow for Frederick County
The County currently provides a curbside recycling program at a cost to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund of $3.25/month per household for collection service. Commercial entities are incentivized to bring recycling to the Reichs Ford Road Center through a reduced tipping fee ($25/ton) relative to waste disposal ($69/ton).
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 18 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
2.3 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
2.3.1 Programs and Facilities
With the exception of Fort Detrick (at which the U.S. Army manages its entire solid waste independently), most solid waste collected within the County for disposal is hauled to the Reichs Ford Road transfer station, either directly by individuals or by municipal or commercial haulers. The City of Frederick provides collection of solid waste using municipal employees and equipment. The remainder of the incorporated municipalities contract directly with private haulers. Citizens not living within an incorporated area of the County or certain homeowners’ associations are free to contract with any private hauler or take their waste directly to the landfill. Commercial and institutional establishments in the unincorporated area also contract directly with private haulers.
The active Site B landfill at the Reichs Ford Road facility is approximately 58 acres. Cell 3 (12 acres) is currently operational with 691,000 tons of capacity. DSWM received approval from MDE for a vertical expansion that will raise the overall height and provide for an additional disposal capacity of one million tons. Active methane gas extraction systems are operated in both the Site A and B Landfills. Methane is used on-site to generate up to 2MW of electricity under a landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) program, which is placed on the local electrical grid and sold with the County sharing in the revenue. The LFGTE project is part of a service agreement managed through NMWDA.
2.3.2 Current Waste Disposal Rates and Costs
As depicted on Figure 2-1, DSWM handled about 137,000 tons of MSW for disposal in 2013, of which 91% waste transferred to an out-of-county private landfill. The remainder was landfilled in Site B. Total tonnages in 2014 were slightly higher at about 149,000 tons, with approximately 94% of MSW transferred. This reflects DSWM’s pragmatic strategy of limiting disposal of MSW in Site B to about 8,000 tons per year. Under this mode of operation, permitted disposal capacity in Site B is anticipated to last until at least 2045.
The cost of transfer station operation and MSW disposal (particularly out-of-county transfer) vary based on fuel costs and other factors associated with balancing DSWM’s operating expenditures within the rules governing the enterprise fund. The current tipping fee at the Reichs Ford Facility (i.e., acceptance of MSW at the transfer station) is $69/ton for cash/check transactions or $76/ton for credit card transactions. DSWM pays about $55/ton for out-of-county transfer and disposal. Information on these and other fees is available on DSWM’s website.7
7 See: Fees & Payment Options, https://www.frederickcountymd.gov/535/Fees-Payment-Options
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 19 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
2.4 Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste
2.4.1 Programs and Facilities
COMAR 26.04.07.11 and 26.04.07.13 define land clearing debris and rubble, respectively, although it is common to use the term “C&D waste” to cover materials under these categories. As such, the term C&D is used in this Report to describe the relatively inert non-MSW waste stream, including concrete, lumber, plasterboard (drywall), steel, bricks, tiles, and asphalt, as well as land clearing debris (e.g., soil, tree stumps, roots, rocks). County operations generate small quantities of debris from cleaning streets, litter, and catch basins that are also accounted for in the C&D waste stream.
All C&D waste delivered to the Reichs Ford Road facility is currently handled as MSW although it continues to be accounted for as a separate waste type.
2.4.2 Current Waste Disposal Rates and Costs
Estimating the true rate of C&D waste generation rates in the County is difficult, not least because this waste stream is highly seasonal. Much of this material also flows out of the county (e.g., to the private C&D processing facility operated by Environmental Alternatives, Inc. in Montgomery County). DSWM estimates that C&D waste comprises about 17-25% of the total waste stream depending on economic conditions for the building industry. DSWM estimated total C&D tonnage remaining in the county at about 23,500 in 2013 and 29,000 in 2014. The recycling rate for C&D was about 1,500 tons in 2013.
The current tipping fee at the Reichs Ford Facility (i.e., acceptance of C&D at the transfer station) is $78/ton for cash transactions, which include those billed transactions paid by check, or $85/ton for credit card transactions. DSWM pays about $55/ton for out-of-county transfer and disposal, which is comingled with MSW.
Although this Study considers options for increasing the rate of C&D waste recycling in the County, it is noted that, as a non-MRA material, recycling C&D waste would have no effect on the County’s overall recycling and waste diversion percentages under the MRA. By the same token, it would also have no effect on achieving the goals of the Maryland ZWP.
2.5 Special Wastes and Other Programs
DSWM offers a number of special waste management and recycling programs targeted at seasonal waste streams (e.g., Christmas trees) as well as a wide range of bulky wastes (white goods), electronics, household hazardous wastes, and tires. The quantities of materials involved in these waste handling and recycling programs are small and have minimal impact on the County’s overall recycling and waste diversion goals. As such, although they represent important
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 20 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
services to County residents and businesses, their consideration is outside the scope of this Study.
2.6 Education and Outreach
DSWM invests in education and outreach as a means of increasing recycling. Outreach offerings are conducted by one outreach coordinator and a small contingent of other recycling office staff. This investment includes:8
• Preparation of printed materials (mailers, handouts, guidebooks, and posters);
• Advertising via radio, print, billboards, TransIt, and at cinemas;
• Conducting classes and training programs for community groups and schools;
• Hosting special events, community displays, demonstrations, contests, and award programs;
• Digital engagement and social media, including “my-waste”, a free app with complete recycling and waste info on-the-go; and
• Press releases and media relations.
Overall, DSWM spends about $1 per household per year on education and outreach, a portion of which is funded through grants, some of which are internally contract funded.
8 Additional information is available at: https://frederickcountymd.gov/1764/Recycling-Information
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 21 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
3. WHAT’S NEXT? PUBLIC FORUM WORKSHOPS
3.1 Workshop Format and Structure
The objective of the What’s Next? Public Forum Workshops was to gather input from Frederick County residents on the solid waste management and recycling options to consider in the Study, as well as the criteria that should be used to assess those options. A team of professional facilitators led each public workshop to focus discussions, optimize the use of time, and permit the lively exchange of ideas among participants.
Public Forums were held on the following dates:
1. 9 November 2015 – Winchester Hall, Frederick
2. 19 November 2015 – Oakdale High School
3. 7 December 2015 – Brunswick Volunteer Fire Company
4. 11 January 2016 – Urbana High School
5. 6 February 2016 – Thurmont Town Hall (rescheduled from 23 January due to inclement weather)
Workshops were well attended by local residents and elected officials as well as representatives from the Steering Committee, County Executive, and DUSWM. Because workshop participants were expected to have varying degrees of knowledge and understanding of local and regional waste management practices, educational materials were prepared to help inform their contributions. These materials were made available via the What’s Next? Solid Waste Public Forum website (www.frederickcountymd.gov/WhatsNext) prior to each forum and also as handouts at each workshop. Educational materials included a workshop background document outlining the workshop structure and scope and a factsheet summarizing Frederick County’s current solid waste management practices. Copies are provided in Appendix A.
At the five workshops, participants were encouraged to provide both verbal and written input during brainstorming exercises and open discussions. Each workshop included the following sessions:
• Opening Remarks, including a welcome and introduction from the County Executive or Steering Committee Chair/Vice Chair as well as review of current Frederick County solid waste management practices and recycling data;
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 22 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Brainstorming of solid waste management and recycling options that should be considered in the Study;
• Identification and ranking of criteria for objectively assessing and comparing solid waste management and recycling options;
• Discussion of other important factors for consideration in the Study, as well as suggestions for potential improvements to DSWM’s existing services.
A PowerPoint presentation was used to guide progress and input at each workshop, a copy of which is provided in Appendix A. The scope and boundaries of the workshops included the following:
• This effort is focused on municipal solid waste in Frederick County, including residential and commercial trash, recycling, yard waste, and building and construction waste. Wastewater, sewage, special and hazardous wastes, and defense-related waste are outside the boundaries of the Study.
• The County recognizes that past efforts for solid waste management have been met with mixed success. The Public Forum was designed to look forward at the best options for the future of the County, not back at past successes or failures. Accordingly, participants were asked to avoid lengthy speeches about what may have occurred in years past without also offering positive contributions for improving the future.
• The public forum workshops were intended to inform the solid waste management options and evaluation criteria against which options should be evaluated. No final decisions regarding solid waste management options or evaluation criteria were expected during the workshops.
• The Study will not directly consider siting issues for any future waste management facilities. Siting issues are outside the scope of the Study and were outside the scope of the Public Forum.
The Study will ultimately recommend approaches and technologies for managing Frederick County’s solid waste in accordance with the Maryland Recycling Act and Maryland Zero Waste Plan.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 23 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
3.2 Key Workshop Findings
During the Public Forum workshops, Frederick County residents identified solid waste management options for Study consideration, defined key criteria for assessing those options (e.g., cost concerns, environmental friendliness), and voted on the criteria they considered most important. At the end of each workshop, workshop attendees engaged in an open discussion about any other factors or issues they thought should be considered in the Study, or that should be considered by DUSWM and/or the County Executive in provision of services to residents.
Key input received at the workshops included the following: • Environmental impact – including impacts both within and outside of the County, as well as on current and future generations – is the most important criterion to use when assessing solid waste management options; • The County’s primary solid waste management methods should include recycling, composting, reuse, and source reduction, all of which must be improved before implementing new ways to manage the waste that remains; • Any effective waste management program will require targeted, comprehensive education to encourage and inform participation; • The County should proactively engage schools and businesses, including restaurants, through programs that incentivize participation and garner their support of the County’s solid waste management strategies; and • The County should expand the waste streams included in their current waste management services and increase access to these services across the County, particularly recyclables collection at commercial buildings, apartments and multi-family dwellings, and public event spaces.
Some residents also expressed concern that the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (NMWDA) hinders the County’s long-term flexibility by focusing on capital-intensive programs committed to single technologies.
3.3 Detailed Workshop Results
This section presents the synthesized conclusions from across all five workshops, including a categorized list of all solid waste management options recommended by participants and a synthesized list of the criteria to use when assessing those options. The criteria are ranked based on the number of points each received during the voting exercises. Complete results from each individual workshop are provided in Appendix B.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 24 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
In addition to receiving input at the workshops, residents were provided with the ability to submit comments via the What’s Next? website. Often these comprised more detailed follow up information in support of comments provided at a workshop. A complete file of comments received is provided as Appendix C.
3.3.1 Options for Consideration
Public Forum workshop participants brainstormed solid waste management and recycling options for consideration in the Study. The recommended options are grouped into the following categories: education, source reduction, recycling, composting, recovery and reuse, managing what’s left, and monitoring and enforcement. Although some activities and options may span multiple categories, they have only been listed only once to avoid duplication.
Options or Activities that were mentioned in three or more workshops are highlighted in bold green text in this section.
1. Education Initiatives: • Assess the efficacy of current waste management education programs to improve and better target future efforts • Work with cultural thought centers (e.g., churches and schools) to educate the public about responsible waste management • Provide metrics to residents, businesses, and institutions about how much they throw away and recycle to increase understanding of current habits and encourage course corrections • Focuses for residential education: o Household composting, including encouraging participation in the Master Composter Program or Neighborhood Soil Rebuilders training program o The costs and environmental impact of packaging to encourage consumers to avoid products with excess packaging o Communicating the concept of waste as a resource so people will manage their “waste” more responsibly o Provide education on how to recycle properly o Reducing food waste • Focuses for commercial and institutional education:
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 25 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
o Employee orientation and school curriculum that emphasizes personal responsibility and provides information about how to reduce, reuse, and recycle both at work/school and at home o Educating and monitoring custodians to ensure trash remains sorted o Educating businesses about reusable industrial container options (e.g., reusable pallets and bulk containers) to reduce their waste generation and operating costs
2. Source Reduction and Waste Minimization • Pay-As-You-Throw or Save-As-You-Recycle programs that allow haulers to offer customers a variable pricing plan • Waste reduction at schools, including by instituting trash-free school lunches, replacing Styrofoam trays with reusable ones, and encouraging teachers to provide materials electronically rather than in print • Increased use of reusable bags instead of plastic bags by educating consumers about reusable bags’ environmental benefits or instituting a fee for single-use bags • Bans on non-recyclable, single-use materials (e.g., Styrofoam) • Encouraging businesses to reduce their packaging by requiring the use of compostable containers (e.g., from cardboard or hemp-based plastics) or offering incentives to reduce packaging • ‘Biggest Loser’ contest, awarding the municipality with the most waste reduction over the course of one year
3. Recycling Programs • Three-bin recycling for compost, recyclables, and waste, with clear labels about what can be recycled and the landfill destination of the waste bin to encourage proper sorting • Bottle bill that requires deposits to be paid on beverages sold in recyclable bottles and cans, possibly with a program to give the money earned from recycling these bottles to charity • Integrated programs and incentives for the business community, similar to the Smart Organizations Reduce and Recycle Tons (SORRT) program in Montgomery County
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 26 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Expanded recycling services for multi-family dwellings, including by introducing building development regulations to ensure recycling programs are incorporated into building design, partnering with existing multi-dwelling locations to build customized recycling programs for each location, and increasing the frequency of collection to allow residents to store bins in their own apartment • New partnerships to accommodate more materials, including colored glass, more plastics, fabric, mattresses, and clamshell containers • Increased access to County recycling services, including at public events and spaces and on County streets • Incentive programs for recycling, including an annual celebration of County diversion, or fines for not recycling • One-stop site for all recycling for ease of participation • No commingled recycling (separate out glass from paper) • Single-stream recycling programs to make participation easier • Preventing litter from falling out of recycling trucks, potentially by adding a grate on the truck • Increased frequency of recycling collection • Legislation that encourages or requires builders to recycle their construction and demolition recycling
4. Composting and Anaerobic Digestion Operations • Large-scale County composting facility, with pickup and transport of compostable waste (e.g., food and yard waste) from households • Providing discounted or free composting tumblers for personal use • Composting programs in public spaces, including in restaurants, markets, and schools, particularly of paper towels from public restrooms • Organizing a food collection program and changing County zoning to permit composting partnerships with local farms and food pantries • Incentives such as property tax reductions for backyard composting • Incentives for businesses willing to serve as commercial composting facilities • Vermicomposting/worm farming
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 27 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Regional anaerobic digestion facility for food waste
5. Recovery and Reuse Options • Resource Recovery Parks at the County or regional level: sites where discards are taken to be prepared for reuse and then sold on the open market • ‘Free-cycling’ programs at landfills or other sites • Corporate reuse programs such as door-to-door collection (e.g., Goodwill clothing collection) or reduced tipping fees for companies that reuse • Changing County zoning and offering incentives to attract reuse, repair, and recycling businesses • Architectural salvage programs, similar to current programs in DC and Baltimore, that salvage materials from building renovations or demolition • Encouraging residents to put out bulk trash early for others to pick up • Residual Research Center to study new ways of recovering and reusing materials • TerraCycle model: work with company that partners with major brands to reuse their old materials
6. Managing What’s Left (Waste Disposal) • Increase operational efficiency at the existing County landfill (e.g., buy a more efficient and powerful trash compactor to expand the in-county landfill capacity, and invest the cost savings in zero-waste projects) • Use local landfills within the County or closer to the County • Place waste collection sites along railroad lines to reduce transportation costs • Revisit use of incineration, with revised regulations to substantially improve state oversight • Launch a “Big Sweep” program in which non-profits are sponsored in a walk-a-thon to collect litter along roads
7. Monitoring and Enforcement • Develop behavioral change programs
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 28 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Study countywide household recycling rates to identify regional pain points and respond with increased outreach and education in those areas • Create waste reduction goals to measure the County’s progress against those goals • Require schools and other institutions to participate in County waste programs, offering staff training and ensuring effective monitoring • Develop a Grants Management Program to facilitate and oversee all community composting activities • Enforce fines with surveillance cameras around sites with heavy littering • Collect data about the amount of waste diverted through backyard composting efforts
3.3.2 Suggested Criteria for Evaluation of Options
After defining the solid waste management options for consideration, County residents identified the criteria that should be used when assessing those options. They then ranked the criteria in order of importance, each participant selecting their top five most important criteria on the basis that their top criterion would be assigned five points in the final tally, their second-highest criterion would be assigned four points in the final tally, and so on, with the fifth-most important criterion receiving one point. A synthesized set of criteria from across all five workshops is provided in the list below, followed by charts illustrating the aggregated scores for each criterion across all workshops (Figure 3-1) and for each individual workshop (Figures 3-2 through 3-6).
Detailed list of consolidated criteria:
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability – includes carbon footprint, energy efficiency, avoidance of toxic releases (such as incineration), and full residue disposal
2. Ease of Implementation – includes the option’s enforceability, ease of siting, and dependence on education or behavior change, as well as the regulatory and legislative feasibility of implementing the option and whether the option leverages current County programs and infrastructure
3. Lifecycle Costs – includes transportation and infrastructure costs and costs to the County at the household, business, and government level
4. Waste Minimization – includes promotion of zero waste and source reduction, resulting in landfill diversion
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 29 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
5. Flexibility and Adaptability – includes the option’s scalability and longevity, as well as its dependence on technology and whether it minimizes long-term risk and uncertainty
6. Health and Safety – includes appropriate site validation, and the health and safety impacts on future generations as well as current generations
7. Economic Benefit – includes the option’s return-on-investment, and whether it creates jobs, generates new products, or produces energy
8. Acceptability to Public – includes whether the option bolsters the County’s image and is fair to all participants
9. Program Independence – includes whether the option depends on the involvement of NMWDA, increases local self-reliance, or preserves the service life of the existing County landfill
10. Quality of Life Impacts – includes social impacts, nuisance issues, and whether the option promotes the County’s cleanliness
Points awarded
Figure 3-1: Consolidated Criteria Voting Results across All Workshops
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 30 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Figure 3-2: Consolidated Criteria Voting Results, Workshop #1
Figure 3-3: Consolidated Criteria Voting Results, Workshop #2
Figure 3-4: Consolidated Criteria Voting Results, Workshop #3
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 31 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Figure 3-5: Consolidated Criteria Voting Results, Workshop #4
Figure 3-5: Consolidated Criteria Voting Results, Workshop #5
3.3.3 Additional Factors for Study Consideration
At the end of each workshop, workshop participants engaged in an open discussion about other factors that should be considered to improve solid waste management and recycling in the County. This included some useful input that may be helpful for the County Executive and/or DUSWM, but not necessarily a direct contribution to the Study in terms of defining options or criteria.
Key discussion points raised by public forum participants during the five workshops included the following:
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 32 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
1. Effective Collaboration and Leveraging Existing Knowledge
• A few participants stressed that effective legislation will require cooperation between county, state, and federal agencies. They recommended sharing the Study’s findings and conclusions with Annapolis to inform state-level waste management dialogue and programs, and including the Maryland delegation on emails about this Study.
• A few participants recommended that the County study the experiences of waste management programs across both the United States and Europe to leverage their successes. In particular, they suggested studying the programs and experiences of Loudon, Montgomery, and Carroll Counties and examining successful programs in Wellesley, Massachusetts.
• One participant recommended that the County engage other Maryland counties to build collective waste management solutions.
2. Maximizing Participation in Waste Management Strategies
• Participants suggested leveraging the Frederick County TV station for waste management and recycling education.
• Participants emphasized that waste management efforts will require cultural change, including teaching young children to value recycling and reuse and building consumer pressure against large companies that generate substantial waste.
• A few participants suggested that the Solid Waste Steering Committee recast the Study and their own name to emphasize the management of “unused resources” rather than the management of “waste.”
3. Other
• A couple of participants suggested that medical waste should be accounted for in County activity; private companies typically collect this waste and dispose of it through incineration.
• Multiple participants emphasized that, in the long term, the County must reduce the amount of waste it generates as well as improve the way it manages that waste.
• A couple of participants suggested that the County explore machinery advancements that could reduce waste management labor costs (e.g., machines that sort contaminated waste from recycling).
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 33 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Participants highlighted that the waste management program pursued is an opportunity to build Frederick County’s image as being progressive and intelligent.
• A few participants emphasized the value of solutions that don’t have a heavy technology capital expenditure to enable long-term flexibility and adaptability.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 34 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
4. STATE OF THE PRACTICE REVIEW
4.1 Introduction
A state-of-the-practice review and comparative analysis of “non-traditional” technologies employed by the waste management and recycling industry was conducted as part of this Study. This was originally anticipated to include review of hard and soft infrastructure based on best practices from national and regional efforts, including:
1. Single stream recycling and resource recovery facilities;
2. Source reduction and separation approaches (e.g., recycling, organics/food waste diversion) for processing of mixed waste; and
3. Waste processing (conversion) technologies that produce marketable products (e.g., compost, fertilizer, ethanol, etc.) and/or renewable energy (e.g., renewable natural gas, compressed natural gas, electricity, heat) from waste.
Factors to consider in each case include waste and energy trends that may facilitate or hinder adoption of these processes, costs and revenues association with implementation of these technologies, and the ability to implement combinations of programs or technologies to take advantage of any synergies.
The team focused on technologies that have been demonstrated to be commercially viable in North America in recent years. The review was also informed by the public comments received at the workshops as there would be little value in reviewing widely unpopular or cost prohibitive technologies and programs. In defining options for consideration in this Study, therefore, each suggestion from the public forums (Section 3.3.1) was screened for commercial viability and ranked based on suggested criteria (Section 3.3.2) as well as availability of data and extent to which similar solutions have been successfully implemented (number of projects, size, longevity) in other local jurisdictions in the US, particularly in Maryland. Following this state of the practice review, detailed discussion and analysis of selected options for consideration in the Study is provided in Section 5.
Relevant local examples are highlighted in green text boxes throughout Section 4.2
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 35 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
4.2 Soft Infrastructure – Source Reduction and Separation
4.2.1 Zero Waste
“Zero waste” is a guiding principle that demonstrates the intention to reduce the amount of solid waste requiring disposal to as close to zero as possible. The first line of Maryland’s Zero Waste Plan (ZWP) states: “Zero waste is an ambitious, long-term goal to nearly eliminate waste sent to landfills and incinerators and to maximize the amount of treated wastewater that is beneficially reused.” The Maryland ZWP sets a goal of diverting 75% of solid waste from disposal by 2025 and 85% by 2040. A local government can make progress toward zero waste through policies, programs, and facilities that discourage generation of solid waste in the first place (source reduction) and that divert what is generated away from disposal.
Some notable examples of local jurisdictions that have active zero waste plans and diversion targets in place include the following:
• Austin, Texas (Zero Waste Strategic Plan – adopted 2009) o 50% diversion rate milestone in 2015 o All commercial properties (including apartments) will be required to provide recycling by June 2017 o All food service businesses will be required to divert organic material in 2018
• Boulder County, Colorado (Zero Waste Action Plan – adopted December 2010) o 50% diversion by 2010 o Zero waste for disposal “or darn near” by 2025
• Los Angeles, California (Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan – adopted 2014) o Diversion goals unspecified o Zero waste ambitions go hand-in-hand with LA’s franchise zone plans, which increase the diversion rate for commercial real estate and apartments
• New York City (OneNYC Plan – adopted April 2015) o Reducing waste disposal by 90% relative to 2005 levels by 2030 o Expansion of organics curbside collection and local drop-off site programs to serve all residents by the end of 2018 o Single-stream recycling collection for metal, glass, plastic, and paper products by 2020
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 36 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• San Francisco, California (Zero waste goal for 2020, established through a long-standing list of resolutions) o As of 2014, the City claims to have achieved an 80% diversion rate o Recently, Waste Management sued the City to stop it from steering a $130 million waste disposal contract pact to Recology
• Seattle, Washington (Zero Waste Resolution – adopted July 2007) o Recycle 60% of the waste produced within the city by 2012 and 70% by 2025 o The city implemented an aggressive organics program, banned food waste citywide, and had planned on implementing $1 fines on residents for non- compliance (it suspended the fine in April 2015) o Recently, the city was sued by some residents in an effort to prevent haulers from inspecting waste bins
• Washington, DC (Waste Modernization Bill – adopted 2014) o Requires development of a zero waste plan to move city toward its goal of 80% waste diversion o The bill leaves open the possibility of implementing a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) system o The city also passed a Styrofoam ban by food service businesses in 2014
4.2.2 Source Reduction (Waste Prevention)
Source reduction, or waste prevention, means avoiding the creation of solid waste in the first place. Local governments can encourage source reduction through education, financial incentives (e.g., container deposit or bottle bills), and local policies (e.g., mandatory participation in recycling). However, source reduction efforts may have a more far-reaching impact when taken on a broader scale, for example, when policies are implemented at the state or federal level or when companies change the way products are designed, manufactured, and distributed.
All materials generated as solid waste can be targeted by source reduction activities. Education and outreach to promote source reduction is often aimed at reducing packaging and organics. For example, a local government may encourage residents to purchase items in bulk or to bring a reusable bag when shopping. Others may encourage residents to leave grass clippings on the mowed lawn or to compost yard trimmings and food scraps a home. Financial incentives, such as a variable pricing system (also called volume-based rates or “pay as you throw”, PAYT)
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 37 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
encourages generators to reduce any material that would otherwise be disposed by charging them based on the amount set out for collection and disposal. This approach, which has been adopted by several local jurisdictions in California, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin, is similar to the way residents and businesses pay for utilities such as energy and water use.
Some local ordinances and state laws are aimed at source reduction. For example, some local governments ban or impose a fee on the use or distribution of specific materials. These measures are typically aimed at packaging materials such as disposable bags or polystyrene containers. Material bans or fees may be more effective if they cover a larger geographic area. The Maryland legislature has considered legislation to prohibit stores from providing plastic bags to customers and/or to require stores to charge for bags (including in the 2016 session) but to date, these bills have not passed. Generally, the ability of source reduction efforts to have a significant impact on diversion depends on convincing individual generators to change their behavior. Local governments have had some success accomplishing this through outreach and education and through financial incentives that discourage the generation of waste.
Montgomery County, Maryland requires retailers to collect and remit a five cent excise tax on carryout bags (whether paper or plastic) both to reduce waste and litter.
4.2.3 Recycling
This sub-section addresses the collection, separation, and processing of clean, dry materials that would otherwise become solid waste and returning them to the marketplace as alternatives to virgin materials (hereafter described as “recyclables”). Recycling of yard trimmings and foods scraps is addressed separately under composting and anaerobic digestion in the next section.
The most common materials targeted for recycling include paper and paperboard; metal, glass, and plastic containers; scrap metal; film and bulk plastic; textiles, leather, and rubber; lead-acid batteries; tires; and electronics. Based on recent waste characterization data from other Maryland communities, the materials remaining in the waste stream with the largest potential for additional recycling are paper, cardboard and plastics. The way in which recyclables are collected and processed, especially from residents, has evolved over the years. More programs collect recyclables such as paper and paperboard and plastic, metal, and glass containers commingled together in a single cart (but separated from solid waste) for delivery to a material recovery facility (MRF), where they are sorted and processed for shipment to market. This “single stream” curbside recycling approach increases participation and decrease collection costs but it increases processing costs and contamination of recyclables with other materials.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 38 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Recycling is mandatory for all residential (single family and multi-family) and commercial properties in Montgomery County, Maryland. County Executive Regulation 15-04AM requires property owners and businesses to recycle a specified list of materials; submit a waste reduction and recycling plan that indicates how they will reduce solid waste being disposed by 50% annually; and report annually on tonnages being recycled and collected for disposal. Multi-family and commercial property owners (or their designees) must make recycling containers available at every location where there are solid waste containers and arrange for storage and collection of recyclables. Collectors of recyclables are required to deliver source- separated recyclable materials to recycling facilities. Montgomery County offers technical support to multi-family and businesses to comply with these requirements through the Division's SORRT (Smart Organizations Reduce and Recycle Tons) Program.
In recent months, both the solid waste industry press and mainstream media in the US (including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post) have run articles with the common theme that recycling has stalled and the outlook is dire.9 A recurring theme is the need to overcome common misconceptions that recycling can be free or even revenue generating, which is not realistic: recycling is a service, which like all services entails costs. Although materials can be successfully recovered and resold under recycling programs, these nevertheless represent materials that the original owner discarded as having no value. This does not mean, of course, that recycling efforts should be abandoned; there are many valid and responsible reasons for increasing recycling rates and diverting waste from landfills or incineration. Some of the more pertinent issues affecting the success of recycling programs include the following:
• Market Volatility – Prices for recyclable commodities depend on global factors, such as the price of oil, that often have little to do with solid waste management or recycling. In recent years, prices for many commodities have been low, negatively impacting recycling programs that rely on the revenue from the sale of recyclables for financial support.
• Contamination – Commingling recyclables in a single cart for collection has increased contamination. Markets for recyclable commodities are more tolerant of contamination when demand for recyclables is high. Recent market volatility and increased contamination have combined to create challenges for recycling programs, especially those that collect material single-stream. Some loads have been rejected because of contamination and some local governments are paying to recycle materials that historically they received revenue.
9 See for example: (1) “The Future of Recycling in the United States” editorial by Marc Rogoff and David Ross in March 2016 (Waste Management and Research, Vol. 34, Issue 3, pp.181-183); and (2) “So your Diversion Rate is Stagnant – Now What?” editorial by Jeffrey Murray (MSW Management, Nov/Dec 2015, p.8).
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 39 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Changes in the Solid Waste Stream – As product design and consumer behavior changes, the type of material generated has changed, necessitating modifications in the way recycling programs and facilities operate. For example, nationally, the proportion of newspaper generated has declined while the proportion of plastic and corrugated containers has increased.10 In addition, new packaging, such as flexible film and foil packaging may not be readily recyclable in existing programs and facilities, even though they may contribute to source reduction overall. Collection programs and processing facilities (and the financial expectations associated with them) must evolve to accommodate current and future changes.
• Generators Targeted – Recycling by residents alone will not meet State recycling and diversion goals. Businesses and institutions generate approximately half of the waste in most places and potentially even more of the recyclable material. Although local governments generally have less control over how materials and waste are collected from non-residential generators, recycling programs must target them as much, if not more, than residential generator to achieve recycling and diversion goals.
4.3 Hard Infrastructure – Waste Processing and Recovery
4.3.1 Aerobic Composting of Food Scraps and Other Organics
Aerobic composting involves the controlled biological decomposition of organic materials in the presence of oxygen. Composting can be performed on a very small scale, such as in a backyard static pile, or on a large commercial scale. Most organic materials, including yard trimmings, non-recyclable paper, and food scraps can be composted. These materials often make up a third of the MSW generated in the United States. Composting can offer significant lifecycle reductions in greenhouse emissions relative to landfill disposal of unprocessed organics. Large- scale composting is a mature technology in the US; several different commercially viable systems are available, including open windrows in which organics are piled in rows and continually turned (DSWM currently operates windrows for yard waste composting at its Reichs Ford Road facility); aerated static pile (ASP) processing, in which windrows are placed over a fixed aeration system, or in-vessel processing. ASPs can be operated under positive/ambient pressure, in which air moves out of the windrow, or reverse vacuum pressure, in which air is drawn into the system. In all cases, compost must be cured and screened for final production and marketing.
Some of the issues potentially affecting the success of composting programs are described below:
10 Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013, U.S. EPA, June 2013: https://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2013_advncng_smm_rpt.pdf
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 40 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Regulations – The State of Maryland is currently finalizing new rules for composting facilities that distinguish between facilities that accept yard trimmings only and those that accept other organic materials such as food scraps. MDE recently published a draft General Permit for Composting Facilities (GPCF) under Environment Article, §9-1725, Annotated Code of Maryland, and COMAR 26.04.11.11. The comment period on the draft GPCF ended on February 1, 2016 and MDE is in the process of reviewing the comments submitted. MDE’s goal is to approve and finalize the rules in 2016. Composting facilities that began operations on or before 1 July 2015 were required to submit an Existing Facility Notification (EFN) Form by 1 September 2015. DSWM’s Reich’s Ford Road Yard Waste Recycling Site was one of 22 facilities statewide that did so. These facilities must obtain either a GPCF or an Individual Composting Facility Permit by 31 December 2016.
• Odors – Composting facilities can generate odors, especially facilities that accept materials other than yard trimmings. Odors and contamination were cited as reasons that the Peninsula Composting Group’s facility in Wilmington, Delaware, which accepted much of the organic material collected in the New York City food waste recycling program, was not successful in renewing its permit in 2014. However, odors can be minimized through active monitoring and management to control moisture and oxygen. Siting and designing a composting facility to contain odors (e.g., by covering or enclosing materials, installing woodchip biofilters on reverse vacuum conduits beneath the compost piles/rows, and/or ensuring sufficient buffer areas between the facility and neighbors) can mitigate the impact of odors.
• Siting – Finding an acceptable location for a composting facility of any sort is challenging, but even more so for one that will be permitted to handle food scraps. As composting facilities accept a broader range of feedstocks, they need more space for operations and for buffer areas.
• Costs – The need for increased space plus the additional equipment, management, and monitoring that is required when composting facilities accept materials beyond yard trimmings increases both capital and operating costs. These costs must be incorporated when budgeting for a facility.
• Contamination – End users have minimal tolerance for contaminants in compost products. Some contaminants can be dangerous while others may just be unsightly. Composting facilities must be especially careful about what they accept and how the material is monitored and processed to ensure that the final product meets what are sometimes very stringent specifications.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 41 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Separation of Food Scraps – Generators can be resistant to sorting and storing food scraps for collection due to concerns about odors and encouraging vermin. However, many communities have overcome these concerns with outreach and education and by providing specialized containers and bags.
• Markets for Materials – It is important to identify the potential market for compost before choosing a technology and designing a system.
Prince George’s County, Maryland began a pilot program to accept food scraps at its Western Branch Composting Facility (operated by the Maryland Environmental Service) in 2013. The facility, which processes 55,000 to 60,000 tons per year of yard trimmings, accepts food scraps from a limited number of very closely monitored generators, including the cities of University Park and Takoma Park. Food scraps are mixed with yard trimmings and placed in covered, aerated heaps. The resulting product is marketed for landscaping, erosion control and green infrastructure projects.
Howard County, Maryland accepts food scraps from 10,000 residents along with its yard trimmings at a five ton/week pilot-scale composting facility at its Alpha Ridge Landfill. The yard trimmings and food scraps are ground and then are composted in aerated covered piles. The compost product is a soil amendment marketed for $19 per cubic yard as HoCoGro.
4.3.2 Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste and Organics
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the controlled decomposition of biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. This is usually performed in tanks, silos, or bunkers where oxygen is excluded and microbes and moisture are injected to control the process. AD is often used in conjunction with composting in which digestate from the AD process is cured in windrows. The products of AD are a methane-rich biogas and digestate. The biogas can be utilized as a renewable energy resource; for example, upgraded to pipeline-quality renewable natural gas (RNG), other types of fuel such as compressed natural gas (CNG), or used to generate electricity. The digestate can be further processed into soil amendment, mulch, or fertilizer. Such processing and marketing of digestate is required in order for AD to meet the recycling and waste diversion goals established under the Maryland Zero Waste Plan.
AD is a proven method of managing and processing many organic materials, including yard trimmings, non-recyclable paper, pre- and post-consumer food scraps, liquids, fats, oil, and grease. Although AD is widely used in the United States, most anaerobic digesters process homogenous materials that are not part of the MSW stream. Typical feedstocks for AD plants in the United States today include food processing residue, biosolids from wastewater treatment plans, and agricultural residue. Some wastewater treatment plants are co-digesting small
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 42 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
quantities of separated food scraps with biosolids. A 2015 state of the practice study estimated there were a total of 154 operation AD facilities in the US, which comprised 25 stand-alone facilities and 129 co-digestion facilities (75 on-farm and 54 WWTP). There were three stand- alone facilities reported in the northeastern US.11 An AD facility is planned to open this year at an existing privately-owned 62-acre compost facility in Suffolk County, New York. It is anticipated that this facility will handle 120,000 tons of food waste, 30,000 tons of fats, oils, and greases (FOG), and 10,000 tons of grass clippings from Long Island each year.
Some of the issues potentially affecting the performance of AD facilities are described below:
• Limited Operating History – There is relatively limited experience with commercial scale anaerobic digestion exclusively processing the organic fraction of MSW in the United States. However, there are many such facilities in Europe, several in Japan, and two in Canada (Toronto). Furthermore, several large-scale AD facilities designed to handle organics from MSW are in the planning stage or under construction across the United States, especially in states that offer financial or policy incentives to develop such facilities.
• Complex Technology – Anaerobic digesters need to be closely monitored and managed to control moisture, temperature and microbial activity. This is especially challenging with a feedstock that includes organics recovered from MSW which is less homogenous than the more homogeneous feedstocks typically processed at AD facilities.
• Contamination – No matter how well generators are educated to remove contaminants, AD facilities that accept organics from MSW will receive some plastic, metal, glass, and fragments of other non-organic materials. These materials cannot be digested and have the potential to damage equipment. AD facilities that accept organics from municipal solid waste require a rigorous pre-processing stage to remove contaminants. The City of Toronto reports that 12-14% of the material received at their AD facilities is removed as contaminants during pre-processing.
• Cost – AD facilities that are sized to handle a significant portion of the waste stream can be expensive to construct and operate. An 83,000 ton per year facility in Toronto cost approximately $74 million to construct, while a 335,000 ton per year facility comprising four separate digesters that is currently under construction at an existing transfer station in Perris, California has a reported capital cost of $100 million.12
11 Environmental Research and Education Foundation, Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste Report on State of the Practice, August 2015, 56pp
12 California MSW Organics Digester Prepares to Launch, BioCycle October 2015, Vol. 56, No. 9, p. 51
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 43 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Separation of Food Scraps – Generators can be resistant to sorting and storing food scraps for collection due to concerns about odors and vermin. However, many communities have overcome these concerns with outreach and education and by providing specialized containers and bags. The City of Toronto collects source separated organics from single and multi-family residences to its AD facilities. To encourage participation, the City provides bins, carts, and kitchen containers at no charge to residents. Residents are allowed to bag organics. Although debagging increases processing costs, the City considers such concessions to be key to participation.
• Markets for Materials – It is important to identify the markets for the biogas and digestate before choosing a technology and designing a system. Both the biogas and the digestate are likely to require additional treatment or processing to be marketable and the space and costs required to do this must be factored into the project economics.
4.3.3 Reuse and Recycling of Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste
C&D waste is generated when constructing, demolishing, or renovating buildings, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure and consists of materials such as concrete, wood, shingles, brick and clay, steel, cardboard, drywall, carpet, and plastic. Although not counted toward the MRA recycling rate, C&D comprises a large portion of what is disposed in landfills in Maryland and nationwide. Often these materials are relatively homogenous and clean, especially materials from the refurbishment of relatively new buildings, which makes them good targets for recycling and reuse.
Good quality C&D materials can be diverted for reuse through an online waste exchange – a “match.com” so to speak in which offerors may advertise available materials while buyers may post their wish list. Good examples include the Global Recycling Network (www.grn.com), which has a Construction and Demolition Materials Category where generators can list “Wood Waste” as well as “Brick, Block, and Concrete Wastes” for sale. Several independent architectural salvage and building materials reuse centers located in the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area are listed in the table below, which is provided by The Loading Dock of Baltimore (www.loadingdock.org). C&D materials can also exchanged at landfill drop-off or recycling centers.
Many C&D materials that are not directly reusable can be recycled. When collected separately, materials such as untreated wood or rubble can be hauled directly to an end user for processing and incorporation into a product. For example, clean C&D wood may be delivered to a manufacturer of landscape products who shreds it and incorporates it into their product.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 44 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Comingled C&D is generally hauled to a processing facility where recyclable materials are sorted out of the residual waste stream. In many cases, C&D processing facilities (“mini- MRFs”) may be located at a landfill or transfer station where some C&D materials can be processed and beneficially reused on the landfill site. For example, untreated wood can be chipped and used as mulch while concrete, bricks, and stone can be crushed and used onsite in roadbeds and other construction purposes.
Some of the issues potentially affecting C&D diversion are described below:
• Green Building Specifications – As more building owners, developers, and contractors require their buildings to meet green building specifications, the infrastructure for collecting and processing C&D for recycling grows since recovering C&D provides credit in most green building certification programs.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 45 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Space to Separate – Space on construction sites is often constrained, limiting the number and size of containers that can be accommodated.
• Encouraging Participation – High turnover among construction workers and the pressure to complete the project may discourage them from properly separating materials for diversion, if required.
• Transporting Materials – C&D materials are typically heavy and bulky and thus can be costly to transport to distant markets.
• Markets for Materials – Although markets for some C&D materials are strong, the markets for others are either very limited or non-existent. As with recycling other materials, contamination can limit market access or value for materials. C&D materials generated during new construction are typically cleaner (and possibly even pre-sorted since construction may be staged with mostly one material being generated at each stage) than those generated during demolition.
Fauquier County in Northern Virginia developed a C&D waste recovery facility at the County’s Corral Farm Landfill to divert materials from disposal in 2007. Currently, about 40-45% of the C&D waste received at the facility is diverted for reuse or recycling including: drywall, asphalt shingles, concrete, rock, cinder block, glass, dirt, carpet, PVC pipe, plastic buckets, vinyl siding, wiring and cables, cardboard, wood, and metal.
4.3.4 Resource Recovery Facilities
Resource recovery facilities vary significantly in their level of sophistication and operational characteristics. In simple terms, a resource recovery facility is used to process MSW to extract materials of value for recycling, composting, anaerobic digestion, and/or conversion to energy. Operation can also include C&D recycling and redirection of suitable materials for architectural salvage and reuse. All resource recovery facilities essentially comprise two sequential processes:
• Materials recovery facility (MRF), which is used for separation of an incoming waste steam into different secondary materials and residual waste; and
• Secondary materials handling, which typically only includes loading and offsite transportation of materials separated at the MRF, but may include additional onsite treatment, processing, and utilization.
When waste arrives at a MRF, items that are heavy, bulky, or otherwise “unprocessible” are typically removed on the tipping floor. The remainder is placed on conveyors where additional
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 46 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
recyclable items are removed manually or, more commonly, mechanically (i.e., magnets remove metals, eddy currents remove aluminum, etc.). Modern mechanical-sorting facilities also have a density separator to remove heavy objects, an automated method to open plastic bags, screens to remove the small “fines” material (e.g., soil, grit, and small pieces of broken glass), and a 2D/3D separator to split flat items such as newspapers and magazines from those with shape such as containers13. More sophisticated plants also incorporate near-infrared optical units to split recovered plastics into different resin codes such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), also known as Plastic #1, or high density polyethylene (HDPE), which is Plastic #214. Material that is not recovered may go directly to a disposal facility or may be reprocessed to increase the overall materials recovery rate.
Because of potential differences in MRF operating conditions, different terms are often used to describe them. A “clean MRF” is used to process materials that have already been separated from general MSW at the source (e.g., from a single stream residential curbside recycling program). In this case, the processing serves to remove contamination (non-recyclables or excessively soiled materials that cannot be recycled) and to separate materials into different types (e.g., paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, etc.). At the other extreme, facilities may receive mixed MSW collected in a “one-bin” system in which households and other waste generators are directed to dispose of all their waste in a single bin or cart. Such facilities are described as a mixed waste processing facility (MWPF) or “dirty MRF.” Differences are mainly semantics, with proponents of MWPFs often seeking to differentiate their facilities from the public’s negative image of dirty MRFs. Muddling the distinction between a strictly “clean MRF” and a MWPF operation, a growing number of MRFs provide source separated material processing lines in conjunction with mixed waste processing lines to recover additional materials from the residual waste stream, either because source separation programs did not include these materials or because the generator did not participate or participated incorrectly.
Waste processing is like any processing: the better the input, the better the output. Clean MRFs thus provide much higher levels of materials recovery than a MWPF, because processing single stream source separated input is more efficient than processing mixed MSW. As such, it should be understood that eliminating the County’s existing curbside recycling program in favor of “one-bin” mixed waste collection and processing would be unlikely to increase the overall recycling and waste diversion rate achieved; indeed, recycling rates would likely decrease under this strategy. Therefore, should development of a resource recovery facility be contemplated by the County, it would need to include a MRF with separate processing lines for source separated materials and mixed waste. In this regard, higher levels of source separation by county citizens
13 See: “Mixed waste processing: Part 3 of 4” by B. Brickner and B. Kelly (MSW Management, Sept/Oct 2015, pp 30-38); and “Mixed waste processing: Part 4 of 4” by B. Brickner (MSW Management, Nov/Dec 2015, pp 36-41). 14 See: “Picking and choosing optical sorters and other waste recycling equipment: The development and use of optical sorters” by D.P. Duffy (MSW Management, Sept/Oct 2015, pp 40-47).
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 47 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
would result in better processing efficiencies. If the MRF was to be operated in conjunction with additional source reduction programs (e.g., separate collection of food scraps and other organics), processing efficiency would be improved still further, as the residual mixed waste stream would be reduced. The ideal case would be where 100% of input to the facility is source separated and fully recoverable (the zero waste scenario). Realistically, however, there will be a residual mixed waste stream and so a facility would be needed at which both source separated and mixed waste can be processed on different lines.
With regard to secondary materials handling, at most resource recovery facilities all recovered materials are typically shipped off-site as saleable recyclables or for use as feedstock in a composting, anaerobic digestion, or waste-to-energy facility located elsewhere. Alternatively, these other technologies may be part of the resource recovery facility itself, leading to development of a “resource recovery park” or “eco-park” where multiple reuse, recycling, composting, resource recovery, and other processing facilities are collocated with manufacturers and retailers that utilize the materials (and potentially energy) generated by these processes. A widely cited example of a resource recovery park at the public workshops was the Shoreway Environmental Center (SEC) in San Marcos, California, which is owned by the South Bayside Waste Management Authority and privately operated (www.RethinkWaste.org).
Some of the issues associated with resource recovery facilities are described below:
• Track Record – To date, many planned resource recovery facilities have not come to fruition and some that have opened often have not operated as planned. These projects have been delayed or canceled due to a myriad of factors which have included technology not performing as expected, higher costs and/or lower revenues than expected, and public opposition. For example, a 225,000 ton per year facility that opened in Montgomery, Alabama in 2014 to recover recyclables from MSW (the City of Montgomery had halted its curbside recycling program) was shuttered just over a year later, the operator citing insufficient markets for diverted materials.
• Reduced Collection Costs – Collection is typically the most expensive part of managing diverted materials or solid waste. Some communities promote a “one-cart” system, in which all municipal solid waste is collected to and delivered to a resource recovery facility, as a way to reduce collection costs by reducing the number of vehicles serving each household.
• Recovery Rates – Both communities that consider a resource recovery facility instead of source separation programs and those that consider a resource recovery facility in addition to source separation programs cite increased recovery as one of their main reasons for doing so. Some communities with low participation or high contamination rates in their source separation programs think that sending everything to a resource
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 48 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
recovery facility would result in a higher recovery rate. In 2011, the City of South Pasadena reported that the single-family residential recycling rate jumped from 6 to 25 percent when they switched from a system in which residents sorted recyclables into a separate container to a one bin system in which materials were sorted at a resource recovery facility. Other communities that consider a resource recovery facility in addition to source separation programs anticipate that this will allow them to divert the materials that remain after source separation programs has achieved their potential. Some communities look to resource recovery facilities, in addition to source separation programs, as necessary to achieve close to zero waste.
• Public Opposition – Some citizens object to resource recovery facilities because they are concerned these facilities discourage recycling. Some object because they believe generators should be responsible for diverting their own material for reuse and recycling, while others are concerned that resource recovery facilities do not or cannot recycle materials once they are combined with waste. Resource recovery facilities may also compete with source reduction programs, especially if they require a certain amount of incoming material to operate efficiently. A planned resource recovery facility in the City of Indianapolis intended to divert recyclables and process the remaining materials into a fuel for an existing waste-to-energy facility. Progress was recently halted after an Indiana court ruled in favor of a citizen group that claimed proper public notification procedures were not followed.
• Contamination – Some materials may be source separated or extracted from MSW with minimal contamination, such as plastic and metal containers. Other post-extraction materials, especially paper, paperboard, and cardboard, may not be acceptable for some end users. Consider for example: (1) pizza boxes are recyclable cardboard, yet are not widely recycled because of contamination with tomato sauce and cheese grease; and (2) motor oil bottles are typically manufactured from high density polyethylene, a recyclable plastic, but are not widely recycled because of difficulties dealing with the oily residue remaining in the bottle. In these cases, these theoretically recyclable materials may end up going for landfill disposal. Other forms of contamination include disposal of non- recyclable materials with recyclables. For example, low-grade plastics and composite cartons placed in curbside recycling carts along with recyclable plastics and paper. Industry observations are that contamination generally makes up 10-20% of a source separated load by weight.
4.3.5 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)
MBT was identified as an option to consider in this Study during one public workshop. MBT involves both mechanical and biological pre-treatment to contribute to diversion of MSW from
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 49 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
landfill when operated as part of a wider integrated approach involving additional treatment stages. Historically, technologies similar to MBT plants in the US and elsewhere were only developed in limited circumstances, including refuse derived fuel (RDF) processing plants and residual waste materials recovery facilities or “dirty MRFs”. This early generation of mixed waste processing facilities often encountered technical and marketing difficulties during operation and most have closed or been reconfigured. The first MBT plants were developed with the aim of reducing the environmental impact of landfilling residual waste. MBT therefore compliments, but does not replace, other waste management technologies such as recycling and composting as part of an integrated waste management system.
New MBT technologies are now second or third generation plants that are well established with proven examples of successful operation and bankable viability in Europe. As such, MBT is a considered a generic term for an integration of several mechanical processes commonly found in other waste management facilities such as MRFs, composting, or AD plants. MBT plants can incorporate a number of different processes in a variety of combinations and can be built for a range of purposes.
The MBT example cited in the public forum is the Entsorga WV facility in Martinsburg, West Virginia (http://www.entsorgawv.com/); however, this facility is still in the planning/permitting stages and not operational. Given that there are no commercially viable operating MBT facilities in the US and, therefore, no reliable cost and other data available, MBT will not be considered further in this Study.
4.4 Comparison between Reported Waste Diversion and Recycling Rates
As described in Section 1.3.3, the Maryland Recycling Act (MRA) establishes a recycling and waste diversion goal for each county. Counties must report annually how they are progressing toward each of these goals by calculating a recycling rate and a diversion rate in an annual report to MDE. The recycling rate is the percentage of MRA materials generated that is recycled and is calculated using the equation below:
MRA Recycling Rate = Tons of MRA Materials Recycled ÷ Tons of MRA Materials Generated
in which:
Tons of MRA Material Generated = Tons of MRA Materials Recycled + Tons of MRA Material Disposed
The above equations show that the recycling rate in Maryland is calculated only using materials defined as MRA waste (listed in Section 1.3.3). Recycling of non-MRA materials does not contribute towards the calculated rate. This illustrates how difficult it is to make direct comparisons between recycling data. Some states may include some or all of the materials that Maryland excludes or they may exclude some of the materials that Maryland includes in its
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 50 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
calculation of recycling rates. For example, Virginia counts yard wastes, vegetative wastes, tires, used oil filters, and antifreeze when calculating its recycling rate if they are generated from residential, commercial, or institutional sources. Materials that are reused also count toward Virginia’s recycling rate while these activities only count toward the source reduction credit in Maryland. California includes C&D waste, a non-MRA material, in calculation of recycling rates.
Similarly, a diversion rate is intended to measure how much materials are diverted from disposal, whether this is done through recycling or some other means. Even though regulations use the same language, States define terms differently. For example, States may or may consider waste- to-energy as recycling (Maryland does not) or diversion (Maryland does). In Maryland, the diversion rate is calculated by adding the recycling rate to a source reduction credit. The source reduction credit can range from 0-5% based on the number of source reduction activities implemented (MDE has a list of activities that qualify as part of the county’s annual tonnage report). Some states do not have the equivalent of a diversion goal. Others have a diversion goal (sometimes called a waste reduction goal) but there are many ways to measure progress toward these goals. For example, in addition to a recycling goal (40% by 2020), South Carolina has a goal of reducing per capita waste disposal to 3.25 pounds per day. This is a waste reduction goal since the amount disposed per capita is currently higher than that amount. Other states set a waste reduction goal that is based on reducing the amount disposed from an established baseline year. For example, Massachusetts has a goal of reducing the total amount of solid waste disposed by 30% between 2008 and 2020. These diversion and waste reduction goals are aimed at disposing of less whether that is accomplished through recycling or through source reduction or reuse.
In summary, when attempting to compare recycling rates between different jurisdictions, it is important to understand that what counts towards recycling, and how it is counted, can have a profound effect on the calculated rate.
4.5 Potential Funding Mechanisms for Waste Reduction and Recycling Efforts
Expanding waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and conversion may require investment and resources from multiple sources beyond municipal and local governments, businesses, and households as well as policies, financial stimuli, and other initiatives to successfully promote changing the status quo. Major sources include Federal/State governmental, private, and philanthropic (corporate and private) participation. Funding mechanisms take the form of grants, loans, loan guarantees, technical assistance and public–private partnerships (P3s). Access to these funding mechanisms has windows of opportunity and has to be carefully researched and pursued as part of the planning and design process for implementing a new recycling option.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 51 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
At the Federal level, multiple agencies including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), and Department of Agriculture (USDA) provide hundreds of millions of grants and loan guarantees for infrastructure development projects and programs. The programs have varied by region and availability. Additionally, Congress has passed legislation authorizing investment tax credits, enhanced tax credits, and enhanced depreciation to support investment. For example, in 2015 Congress enacted a tax package enhancing and expanding tax incentives for businesses by enabling them to deduct not just the cost but also half the potential profit from food donations.
Key funding mechanisms are also available at the State level. The Maryland Clean Energy Center (MCEC) and Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) are two agencies tasked with supporting project funding. MEA offers grants and loans; for example, MEA is administering the “FY16 CHP Grant Program” for combined heat and power (CHP) projects. This program has funding specifically reserved for projects that leverage biomass or biogas resources and thus could be applicable to anaerobic digestion (AD) projects.
Private companies develop equipment, processes, and projects effectively when there is a market return on the investment to enable the company to grow and hire. Returns in the waste processing, energy recovery, and recycling sector have been uncertain, which has required mechanisms to obtain capital, lower the cost of capital, and/or lower costs. Effective funding mechanisms include P3s, government loan guarantees, and tax incentives.
Investment funds, corporations, and foundations are a final source of financial resources for consideration. Impact investors (those looking to make a social impact) provide low or no cost funding for environmental or social infrastructure. Corporations and their foundations, as well as non-profit entities provide funds and program resources. For example, both PepsiCo and Coca Cola have recycling grant and program programs. Private foundations such as Greenworks provide grants and program support to expand education. An impact fund, The Closed Loop Fund, formed in late 2014 has raised $100 million and provides zero interest loans to municipalities to invest in recycling projects.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 52 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
5. FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION OF OPTIONS
5.1 Overview and Guiding Principles
As described in Section 3, the Study Team received several suggestions for options to improve solid waste and recycling in the County, many of which serve to change and sharpen the proposed approach for the evaluation task. In particular:
1. The focus should be more on combinations of programs, with significant consideration of soft infrastructure, as opposed to deep evaluation of individual “technologies” (hard infrastructure);
2. Waste-to-energy (WTE), whether mass burn incineration or more advanced technologies such as gasification or pyrolysis, should not be considered as these conflict with County residents’ interests and values and are too capital intensive;
3. The Study should be fully cognizant of zero waste principles and goals;
4. The Study should be more focused on mature options and not innovative, leading-edge technologies that are not proven to be commercially viable; and
5. The Study should learn from what is being done by other counties in Maryland and the mid-Atlantic region.
To guide the County’s future waste management strategy in accordance with these sentiments, the most practical framework around which to build the evaluation are the Maryland Recycling Act (MRA) and Maryland Zero Waste Plan (ZWP). These provide objective statewide goals, definitions, and boundary conditions against which to measure performance of different options. It is therefore assumed that Frederick County will adopted the goals of the Maryland Zero Waste Plan, which aims for overall recycling and waste diversion goals of 80% and 85%, respectively, across Maryland by 2040. Goals should be achieved through incremental targets established for 2020, 2025, and 2030. While the plan is not currently legally binding, it offers insight into the goals and priorities of the State’s policymakers and foretells legal requirements that Frederick County may face in the future.
5.1.1 Definitions
As noted in Section 4.4, definitions are important in establishing the framework and goals for any evaluation of recycling and waste diversion options, as what is included and how it is measured has an important bearing on results. To the extent possible, therefore, all definitions used in this evaluation are based on terminology contained in Maryland statues, the MRA, and Maryland ZWP, as follows:
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 53 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
• Zero waste means diverting nearly all waste from disposal, but there are varying definitions of “nearly all” and “disposal”. The ZWP sets “overall diversion goals.” Under the MRA, the diversion rate for a county is calculated by adding the recycling rate and a source reduction credit that is given for specified source reduction activities up to a maximum of 5%.
• Recycling means “returned to the marketplace in the form of raw materials or products” as defined under Environment Article §9-1701(n)(1) of the Maryland Code. MDE interprets the MRA to exclude waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration, gasification, and similar thermal technologies that destroy waste to recover energy from the definition of recycling.
• The MRA differentiates between “MRA” and “non-MRA” waste for calculating recycling and diversion rates. MRA waste includes solid waste from residential and commercial sources, some institutional sources (excluding medical waste), and industrial waste that is not disposed in private industrial landfills. Non-MRA waste includes (but is not limited to) construction and demolition debris, automobile components, sewage sludge, land clearing debris, agricultural waste, coal combustion by-products, and industrial waste disposed in private industrial waste landfills.
A summary is provide in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: What Counts Towards Waste Diversion and Recycling in Maryland
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 54 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
5.1.2 Boundary Conditions and Screening
A primary focus of this Study is to quantify the effect on overall recycling and diversion of MRA waste in accordance with Table 5-1 that may be achieved through implementation of different options suggested at the public forum workshops. A secondary focus is to assess the qualitative benefits of each option. As such, the Study will consider management strategies that also address non-MRA materials, such as C&D waste, since recycling these is also in the County’s interests and may have benefits beyond achieving the goals of the ZWP (e.g., avoided disposal, conservation of landfill airspace, or reduced costs).
This Study only addresses waste generated in Frederick County, wherever it is currently managed or disposed. Costs and activities associated with implementation of each option are presented objectively in Phase 1, with no discussion of public versus private costs and how the cost of service would ultimately be provisioned. With a few notable exceptions (e.g., implementing a full-service resource recovery park), the Study assumes that the County does not want to reconsider existing programs that would divert the material that is already being recycled through other means but is only targeting recovery of additional materials that are currently in the waste stream going to landfill.
Importantly, the Study focuses on the costs and effects of implementing different options over the next ten years, since the size and distribution of the County population, waste stream, and available options are likely to evolve significantly over a longer time span. In this way, achievement of the incremental recycling and waste diversion goals for 2025 under the ZWP is used as the primary filter for all options (Figure 5-1).
Figure 5-1: Screening Approach for Consideration of Options
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 55 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
This approach affords the Study a forward-looking, 10-year outlook while enabling considerations of options to be grounded in programs and technologies that are commercially available and cost-effective under current assumptions and data. It is envisioned that the County will seek incremental implementation of options that can be scaled-up to meet future ZWP targets beyond 2025. In this regard, the Study Team was also careful not to discard practical, popular, and cost-effective programs (e.g., increased household composting) that would have a small overall contribution to achieving the ZWP’s 2025 recycling and waste diversion goals. This was facilitated by allowing smaller options to be bundled such that contributions could be combined.
Other primary filters applied to avoid “fatal flaws” include public opposition to WTE technologies, the stated objective to only consider commercially viable (i.e., mature, proven) technologies, and exclusion of options that could fail regulatory compliance or are cost prohibitive. The ZWP supports opposition to WTE, since these technologies count only towards waste diversion and not recycling; therefore, based on the Study Team’s interpretation of Table 5-1, they can only contribute a maximum of 5% towards achieving ZWP goals.
5.2 Establishing Waste Diversion and Recycling Targets
Based on the ZWP framework outlined above, targets and improvement goals for the Study can be established based on review of current waste diversion and recycling rates in the County (Section 2). The level of improvement needed to meet the ZWP’s 2025 goals is summarized in Table 5-2 below.
Table 5-2: Waste Diversion and Recycling Targets for the Study
As illustrated in the table, relatively modest improvements of about 15% are needed in the overall recycling and waste diversion rates in order to achieve target levels. The current yard
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 56 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
waste recycling rate is not directly measured by DSWM but confidently it is assumed to be very high based on DSWM’s observational data (i.e., lack of yard waste in waste loads received at the transfer station). This is not surprising given that mandates banning disposal of yard waste in landfills exist at both the State and County level. It is assumed that little improvement in current yard waste recycling rates is needed; as such, additional recovery of yard waste is not targeted as part of this Study. Significant improvement is needed to achieve the 60% target for food waste recycling; again, the current recycling rate is not directly measured by DSWM but is confidently assumed to be low given the current lack of food waste recycling options in the County.
Based on the 2013 MRA data previously presented in Figure 2-1 and DSWM’s waste and recycling tonnage data for 2013 and 2014, the County needs to recover an additional 40,000 to 45,000 tons of material from the waste stream in order to boost recycling and waste diversion rates by 15%. This represents about 30% of the approximately 140,000 tons of waste currently landfilled each year. Detailed waste compositional data for Frederick County are not currently available; however, Table 5-3 summarizes data from recent surveys in three neighboring counties that also offer curbside recycling (i.e., can be assumed to have a residual solid waste stream with similar characteristics to Frederick County). This suggests that sufficient recyclables and compostables are available for recovery and confirms the low residual availability of yard waste. Red boxes in the table indicate main target materials.
Table 5-3: Expected Levels of Recyclables and Compostables in Residual Waste Stream
Sources: (1) “Montgomery County Waste Composition Study, Summary of Results,” report prepared by SCS Engineers, dated 26 July 2013; (2) “Prince George’s County, Maryland Waste Composition Study, November 2014 Results,” Attachment C of report prepared by SCS Engineers; and (3) “2013/2014 Waste Composition Study, Summary of Results, report prepared by SCS Engineers, dated 14 October 2014.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 57 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Based on data in Table 5-3, it is assumed that food waste comprises about 18% (i.e., the average of 20%, 19%, and 16% reported for neighboring counties) of the unrecovered waste stream in Frederick County. This value is comparable to the reported national average of 14.5%.15 Of the approximately 140,000 tons of waste generated in the County that is currently landfilled each year, therefore, about 25,000 tons is food waste. Recycling 60% of this would require recovery of about 15,000 tons of food waste each year.
5.3 Final Selection of Options
Based on the information above, in order to meet its targets the Study should focus on options for source reduction, recycling of MRA materials, and composting or anaerobic digestion (AD) as treatment technologies for recovered organics. The Study should also give some consideration to recycling of non-MRA materials, namely the C&D waste stream.
From input at the public forum workshops summarized in Section 3.3.1, recurring/related suggestions for options that the Study Team considered offer practical value to this Study were consolidated into seven main categories:
1. Measures to increase education and expand public outreach
2. Measures to boost source reduction and waste prevention, specifically: o Waste reduction program for County schools o Food donation programs o Ban/fees on single-use, non-recyclable materials such as plastic bags or Styrofoam o Pay-as-you throw (PAYT) programs
3. Measures to boost recycling, specifically: o Three-bin system for collection (recycling, composting, trash) o Expanded recycling programs for businesses and institutions o Beverage container recycling programs (bottle bill) o Expanded residential curbside recycling for multi-family dwellings o C&D waste recycling
15 EPA-530-F-14-001, “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012,” published February 2014. www.epa.gov/wastes
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 58 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
4. Measures to provide composting and AD operations, specifically: o Expansion of household composting o Development of community-scale (decentralized) composting program o Development of large-scale (centralized) composting facility o Development of community-scale (decentralized) AD program o Development of large-scale (centralized) AD facility
5. Measures to boost resource recovery and reuse, specifically: o Development of a large-scale centralized resource recovery park o Promotion of “free-cycle” programs and swap meets o Architectural salvage program
6. Measures to improve management of what’s left (waste disposal), including: o Continue waste transfer to a private out-of-county landfill (the “baseline” scenario in this Study) o Enhance or expand operation of the existing County landfill o Develop a new County landfill
7. Measures for monitoring and control/enforcement
Rather than representing options in their own right, Category 1 (education/outreach) and Category 7 (monitoring/enforcement) are tools/programs to increase participation or improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the other 20 options that listed under Categories 2 through 6. For this reason, and because attempting to quantify and assign a value to the effects of implementing such measures is complex and beyond the scope of Study Phase 1, they are omitted from further consideration here. They will be considered as part of the deeper evaluation of a subset of selected options recommended to proceed to Study Phase 2. Each of the facilities and programs listed under Categories 2 through 6 have costs and benefits/drawbacks that can be individually assessed in terms of its expected contribution to meeting the ZWP’s 2025 goals. Separate consideration can be given to the business/commercial versus the residential waste stream.
5.4 Final Criteria for Comparative Evaluation of Options
Based on input received at the public forum workshops summarized in Section 3.3.2, recurring/related suggestions for criteria against which to evaluate options were consolidated into ten groups. The criteria were ranked in order of importance, with each workshop participant selecting their top five most important criteria on the basis that their highest criterion would be
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 59 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
assigned five points, their second-highest assigned four points, and so on. A synthesized set of criteria from across all five workshops was illustrated along with the aggregated scores for each criterion across all workshops in Figure 3-1. However, based on review of the extent of overlap between a number of criteria and the desire to simplify the evaluation process to the extent practical, three of the original ten criteria were consolidated into seven criteria (Figure 5-2).
Figure 5-2: Final Selection of Evaluation Criteria
5.4.1 Primary Evaluation Criteria
The final selection of criteria presented in Figure 5-2 benefits the Study, as the three top-ranking criteria are also largely quantitative and provide a measure of more tangible aspects of program or facility development. As such, these are the primary means by which different options are objectively evaluated and are therefore afforded significantly more weight in the final analysis. These criteria are also applied to assess the effect of implementing an option relative to the “status quo” baseline scenario, which assumed continuation of all existing DSWM programs and transportation of about 90% of unrecovered waste for out-of-county disposal.
The primary criteria developed for the Study are listed below, along with a number of sub-level criteria that help explain and refine their application:
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 60 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
1. Environmental impact and sustainability:
o Transport impacts incurred/avoided (quantified in terms of annual CO2 emissions from truck transportation for collection and/or disposal of waste)
o Waste disposal impacts incurred/avoided (quantified as annual emissions of CO2 equivalents from uncontrolled landfill gas emissions) o Renewable energy production (quantified as annual emissions avoided by offsetting equivalent use of fossil fuels in energy generation) o Broader environmental/social impacts or benefits (e.g., production of beneficial products such as compost, reduced traffic, fuel and energy savings, impact on air/water quality or natural ecosystems
2. Costs and revenues: o Capital expenditure (CAPEX) for equipment purchases and costs for design, permitting, construction, commissioning, and start-up of new facilities o Annual operating expenses (OPEX), including equipment maintenance and repair, replacement costs, expected downtime and outages, etc. as well as avoided costs of existing operations that would be replaced by a new facility o Annual costs for final waste disposal incurred or avoided o Revenues from sale of renewable energy and/or compost o Net life-cycle costs (on a simple, non-discounted 10-year basis), in order to provide a longer-term comparison of expected costs per ton of waste recycled/diverted and costs per household or business involved
3. Waste minimization (source reduction): o Decrease in the quantity of waste generated (source reduction) o Contribution to recycling (recovery of clean MRA materials) in terms of overall annual tonnage and contribution to target levels for the Study o Contribution to composting (recovery of organics) in terms of overall annual tonnage and contribution to target levels for the Study o Contribution to waste diversion from landfill in terms of overall annual tonnage (MRA and non-MRA material) and contribution to target levels for the Study (MRA materials only) o Quantity of process residues or unrecovered portion of waste stream for disposal
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 61 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
5.4.2 Secondary Criteria
The four lower-ranking criteria in Figure 5-2 are more qualitative and measure more intangible aspects of program or facility development. As such, they are afforded significantly less weight in the Study, as they cannot be objectively used to compare options in the final analysis. These criteria are of more value in refining consideration of top performing options after evaluation of all options against the primary criteria. Strictly speaking, the final criterion listed (program independence) had much more emphasis placed on it by the Steering Committee than the public; however, the Study Team considers that this criterion may have received little public support because it was not well explained and understood in the workshops. This is an appropriate criterion to include given the Steering Committee’s leadership role in the Study.
1. Ease of implementation: o Simplicity, expected perception of fairness and overall acceptability to participants, and reliance on education or enforcement o Ease of integration into the County’s existing solid waste and recycling systems o Timeframe required before startup and operation o Broader effects in terms of likelihood of promoting behavioral changes
2. Flexibility: o Ability to respond and adapt to changes in population dynamics, regulations, County goals, or waste stream characteristics o Minimization of long-term risk and uncertainty
3. Health and safety:
o Factors affecting health and safety and nuisance issues (e.g., control of odors)
o Broader impacts on quality of life and the County’s image as a desirable location to live and work
4. Program independence:
o Contribution to program independence in terms of the County’s self-reliance and ability to extend the life of the County landfill (preservation of existing permitted airspace)
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 62 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
6. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS
6.1 Overview of General Approach
Each of the 20 options selected for consideration in Section 5.3 have costs and other benefits/drawbacks that can be individually assessed relative to the primary criteria listed in Section 5.4.1. The focus of Section 6 is to present a summary of input assumptions and main findings from evaluation of each option. Detailed evaluation worksheets for each option are provided in Appendix D; these list the basis of assumptions in more detail and provide references for sources of data used in support of the analyses.
6.1.1 Options as Stand-Alone vs. Combined Applications
Although the 20 options are listed under five separate categories in Section 5.3 based on output from the public forum workshops, these options should be grouped more simply as hard or soft infrastructure options in accordance with the information provided in Section 4. In summary, soft infrastructure options relate to programs, activities, or incentives that could be put in place to either reduce the total quantity of waste that will require handling by DSWM or to change to way in which different components of the waste stream (i.e., mixed solid waste, separated recyclables, and/or separated compostables) are collected from County households or businesses. Hard infrastructure options relate to new facilities developed to process waste either as a mixed waste stream or as separate materials.
In many cases, options are unlikely to be successful if implemented alone: for example, separate collection of food waste is wasted effort if there are no facilities available at which to process compostables. Conversely, a compost facility is of little value if source separated organics are not available for processing. A complete solution, therefore, often requires synergistic development of at least one soft and one hard infrastructure option. This is reflected in the way in which results are presented. As previously noted, the Study Team was also careful not to exclude practical, popular, and cost-effective options (e.g., increased household composting) that may have a small individual contribution to achieving target levels of recycling and waste diversion. In many cases, smaller options could be bundled such that contributions could be combined, which also takes advantage of possible synergies between different options. Again, this is reflected in the way results are presented. On the other hand, although not readily apparent from the way the results are presented, it is also important to recognize that the performance of stand-alone solutions (e.g., construction of a resource recovery facility which can process all mixed solid waste generated in the County) will be enhanced by additional upstream waste separation efforts. For example, mixed waste processing is made significantly more efficient by removing food waste from the incoming feedstock (assuming county citizens can be convinced to do so in the knowledge that mixed waste processing is available).
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 63 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
6.1.2 Evaluation Relative to the Baseline (Out-of-County Landfill)
As previously noted, to understand the results presented in this section it is vital to remember that the effects (costs, revenues, recycling tonnage achieved, emissions avoided, etc.) of implementing an option are presented relative to the “business as usual” or “status quo” baseline scenario, which is assumed to be continuation of all existing DSWM programs and transportation of about 90% of unrecovered waste for out-of-county disposal (any exceptions to this rule are explicitly identified). This means, for example, that costs shown are incurred in addition to current costs. To the extent possible, the additional costs of implementing an option are expressed as net unit costs ($/ton of material recycled or diverted from landfill) and as a monthly cost per household or business affected. Again, these unit costs are per ton of additional material recycled or diverted as a result of implementing the option.
6.1.3 Limited Sensitivity Analysis (Expected vs. Pessimistic Performance)
It is important to note that the Phase 1 evaluations are not intended to be exact, but rather to give a relative indication of how one option compares to another in a few key areas. Although every effort has been made to size different waste streams and processing facilities accurately based on the best available data, the Study Team is not overly concerned with capturing quantities or costs too precisely during this phase. The analysis needs only be detailed enough to have confidence in the selection of options, or bundles of options, that will be recommended for more detailed evaluation in Phase 2. To that end, options were initially evaluated on the basis of “expected” performance. This approach is important to allow each option to have a fair chance during the review process. As a counter-balance, a limited evaluation of “pessimistic” performance was also performed on some options that were considered to have high sensitivity to key assumptions. 1. Expected Performance: Evaluation under conditions for expected performance assumes the following: • High participation rates and levels of success following adoption; • CAPEX and OPEX as average values from reported cost data for comparable programs/facilities; • Sale of all energy produced at average reported values for electricity or renewable natural gas; • Sale of all compost produced at reported market rate (and thus avoidance of disposal of all organics diverted to composting); and • Ability to earn reasonable (albeit lower-bound) reported market rates for mixed recyclables.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 64 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
2. Pessimistic Performance: For pessimistic analysis, the following conditions are assumed: • CAPEX and OPEX were increased to maximum reported values for comparable facilities or programs; • Collection programs for recovery of recyclables and compostables (soft infrastructure) yielding only 60% of anticipated quantity of material; • Prices for energy and recyclables were reduced to 75% of the previously expected value; and • The maximum market for compost would be limited to 20,000 tons/year at $15/ton (approximately what DSWM currently sustains from sale of their ReviveTM compost produced at the Reichs Ford Road facility), with any excess compost production going to landfill for disposal.
The summary of results provided in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 below as well as the values utilized in the worksheet calculations provided in Appendix D reflect assumptions under conditions for expected performance. Consolidated results from analysis of each option under conditions of expected and pessimistic performance are provided in the summary table in Appendix E. The implications of expected versus pessimistic performance in terms of the overall findings and recommendations from Phase 1 of the Study are discussed in Section 7.2.
6.2 Soft Infrastructure Options
6.2.1 Waste Reduction Program for Schools
Overview and Assumptions: Based on MDE’s requirement to update the County’s Solid Waste Management Plan in 2010 to include a plan for recycling at all Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS), it is assumed that schools already have recycling programs in place such that no significant additional clean recyclables could be recovered. Therefore, this option focuses on recovery of food waste from school kitchens and cafeterias.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: Based on weekly collection of food waste and other compostables from FCPS cafeterias and kitchens during the academic year, it is assumed that about 1,240 tons/year of organics could be recycled (3% of overall recycling target, 8% of food waste recycling target).
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: Net annual CO2 emissions are about 97% of baseline, indicating negligible reduction from the status quo. Overall environmental and social impacts are positive.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 65 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Equipment Needs: It is assumed that the County would outsource weekly collection of food waste from about 60 FCPS locations for delivery to DSWM’s existing transfer station.
Capital (CAPEX): None
Operating Cost (OPEX): Cost of service = $180,000 per year
Revenue: None
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: $145/ton; $2/month per household
6.2.2 Food Donation Programs
Overview and Assumptions: This analysis focuses on diversion of edible food from the waste stream. The focus is on restaurants, food producers, grocery stores, schools, special event venues, and other institutions.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: Based on review of other food donation programs in the US, it is assumed that about 200 tons/year of organics could be recycled (0.5% of target).
Based on the small expected contribution to recycling tonnages, this option was not evaluated in further detail.
6.2.3 Ban/Fees on Single-Use Non-Recyclable Materials
Overview and Assumptions: This option investigates implementing a ban on single-use, non- recyclables containers and materials, specifically Styrofoam and plastic bags. Retail and restaurant establishments would be prohibited from distributing single-use plastic bags or Styrofoam containers to customers. Alternatively, a fee (e.g., $0.10 per bag) could be placed on carryout bags distributed at grocery stores and other retail and restaurant establishments.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: Negligible; however, implementing this option would be expected to have a positive effect on reducing contamination in recycling loads and increasing the overall value of mixed recyclables recovered by DSWM.
Based on the small expected contribution to recycling tonnages, this option was not evaluated in further detail.
6.2.4 Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Program
Overview and Assumptions: PAYT is an economic incentive program that encourages residents to reduce the amount of waste they generate by paying directly for trash services based on the
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 66 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
amount of waste they throw away, similar to the way they pay for utilities. The system motivates people to recycle more and think about how to generate less waste. PAYT can be implemented in different way; however, it is assumed that in Frederick County it will work on a per-container basis: households are charged for each bag of waste they generate. Residents will buy special colored/marked PAYT bags at local grocery, convenience, and hardware stores and gas stations. The PAYT bags are used only for trash, not for recycling. Only official PAYT bags will be accepted by trash collectors or for drop off at the transfer station. Based on review of PAYT charges in other US jurisdictions, a fair price for PAYT bags appears to be on the order of $2.00 to $2.25 for a 30-gal bag with maximum capacity of about 40 lbs. of trash.
For it to be successful and fair to all residents, it is assumed that PAYT would be implemented across all households in Frederick County, assumed to consist of about 76,000 single family homes (SFHs) and a further 14,000 units in multi-family dwellings (MFDs). SFHs are already offered curbside recycling by the County. Similar access to recycling will also have to be available at all MFDs if PAYT is implemented. Costs and equipment needs associated with recycling at MFDs is separately discussed in Section 6.2.8.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: An additional 15,560 tons/year of clean recyclables could be recovered (37% of target). As implemented, PAYT would not yield additional food waste or other organics for recycling.
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: Negligible reduction in net annual CO2 emissions relative to the status quo. Overall environmental and social impacts are positive.
Equipment Needs: Curbside recycling carts. It is assumed that all other equipment needs would be outsourced under a service contract.
Capital (CAPEX): $150,000 (additional 3,000 carts for SFHs that do not currently participate in curbside recycling; recycling at all MFDs is via service contract with no capital outlay).
Operating Cost (OPEX): Total cost of service = $6.31 million per year, based on $4.2 million for SFHs and $2.11 million for MFDs. However, this would replace current curbside recycling at SFHs, which costs $2.8 million annually. Total net cost of service = $3.51 million per year.
Revenue: 15,560 tons/year at $12/ton = $187,000 annually
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: $215/ton; $4.60/month per SFH, $12.50/month per MFD unit
It is important to note that the additional costs shown above are related to recycling only. Under a PAYT program, households will be required to pay for trash collection at $2.00 to $2.25/bag with a capacity 30 gal (40 lbs.), they lose the ability to independently contract and negotiate rates
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 67 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
for trash collection. Based on this, the average household cost for trash collection will be about $15 to $17/month ($180-$200 annually). This cost replaces rather than adds to their current cost.
6.2.5 Three-Bin Program
Overview and Assumptions: This option assumes that SFHs that currently participate in the County’s curbside recycling program (blue bin) would have that program extended to a three-bin program with separate collection of organics (green bin) and residual trash (black bin). Although households would be encouraged to dispose of yard waste along with food waste in the green bin, it is assumed that all yard waste materials would have already been separated from trash due to the county’s yard waste ban; therefore, the yard waste in the green bin is not considered an additional contribution to recycling/diversion. Only food waste is considered additional.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: 43,000 tons/year of organics could be recycled, which is about 100% of the overall recycling target and nearly three times the food waste recycling target.
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: Net annual CO2 emissions are only 18% of baseline, indicating very significant reduction relative to the status quo. Overall environmental and social impacts are positive.
Equipment Needs: It is assumed that the County would outsource weekly collection of organics for delivery to the DSWM transfer station. Thus, the County will not incur capital costs for trucks. However, the County would incur costs for green bins, which would be provided at no additional charge to participating households as is the case currently with blue bins (recycling carts).
Capital (CAPEX): $2.4 million (green bins for 73,000 homes)
Operating Cost (OPEX): Cost of service = $5.6 million per year
Revenue: None
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: $136/ton; $6.50/month per household
6.2.6 Beverage Container Recycling Program (Bottle Bill)
Overview and Assumptions: This option seeks to increase rates of beverage container recovery by implementing a refund program. Bottle bills (also known as container deposit laws) are a proven, sustainable method of capturing beverage bottles and cans for recycling. The refund value of the container (usually 5 or 10 cents) provides a monetary incentive to return the container for recycling.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 68 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: In the overall context of this Study, a bottle bill is not expected to have a significant effect on the quantity of recycling and waste diversion achieved in Frederick County, although it would likely increase the quality (i.e., reduce/eliminate contamination) in the materials targeted by the bill. This option is very specific to a limited range of the recycled waste stream that, with the exception of glass, is bulky and light.
Based on the small expected contribution to recycling tonnages, this option was not evaluated in further detail.
6.2.7 Expanded Recycling Programs for Businesses and Institutions
Overview and Assumptions: In this analysis, opportunities for expanding recycling services in Frederick County businesses and institutions (i.e., centers of employment, which includes the public sector) were explored. County schools are not included as these were evaluated separately (Section 6.2.1). Potential recovery of both clean recyclables (blue bin) and organics (green bin) were examined. The analysis focused on two factors: (1) how much control the County would be able to exert over a recycling program; and (2) whether implementing a program would have a meaningful impact on waste diversion.
Notwithstanding that commercial recycling data indicate that recycling rates at county businesses could be boosted by about 10%, yielding 11,000 tons/year of additional recyclables (26% of target), the County does not currently provide recycling collection services for businesses. The relatively high recycling rates apparently already achieved by many in the commercial sector (as indicated by overall MRA data) suggests that DSWM’s approach of encouraging voluntary independent recycling is already successful. However, recent studies of commercial recycling rates in Frederick City and Brunswick suggest that rates could be improved by 20% rather than only 10%, in which case this option could be reexamined. At this stage, the Study Team recommends that the County not attempt to boost recovery of clean recyclables by direct involvement in blue bin recycling programs that businesses can arrange for themselves.
Instead, the County could seek to boost recovery of food waste through green bin recycling (i.e., offering a food waste recovery program). The most pragmatic approach is to target restaurants and grocery stores as the two largest groups contributing to food waste. Additional high-volume food waste generators that could be considered include food producers, special event venues, and institutions. However, further analysis indicated that grocery stores would likely yield only about 900 tons/year; therefore, grocery stores are dropped from further consideration in this Study. Each store should be encouraged to develop an individual food waste recycling program, with DSWM providing advice and support. As a result, the Study Team elected to focus evaluation of this option in Phase 1 on the quantity of food waste that could be recovered from restaurants, so as to explore whether this option is likely to contribute significantly to meeting the goals of the Study. If selected for more detailed evaluation in Phase 2, consideration of best
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 69 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
practices for food waste collection from restaurants could be extended to other high-volume food waste generators.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: 23,800 tons/year of food waste could be recycled (57% of overall recycling target and 1½ times the food waste recycling target).
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: Net annual CO2 emissions are only 64% of baseline, indicating significant reduction relative to the status quo. Overall environmental and social impacts are positive.
Equipment Needs: It is assumed that the County would outsource weekly collection of organics from restaurants for delivery to the DSWM transfer station.
Capital (CAPEX): None
Operating Cost (OPEX): Cost of service = $1.39 million per year
Revenue: None
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: $58/ton; $200/month per restaurant
6.2.8 Expanding Single Stream Recycling Access to Multi-Family Dwellings
Overview and Assumptions: In this analysis, it was assumed that all 14,000 multi-family dwellings (MFDs) in the County would be provided with access to single stream recycling, similar to what is currently available for single family homes. Only clean, dry recyclables (plastics, paper and card, glass, metals) will be collected. Separate collection of organics is not addressed at this time. It is assumed that MFD tenants will be responsible for interior containers and that landlords/management will be responsible for making any necessary changes to waste collection infrastructure. Based on required changes to the County’s Solid Waste Management Plan in 2014 following enactment of HB 179/11 by the Maryland legislature, owners of buildings with more than 10 units are required to provide access to recycling. Therefore, only the costs of providing access at smaller units are estimated here.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: Based on an estimated number of 4,000 households in MFDs with 5 or less units (i.e., provision of recycling at an addition 800 currently unserved MFD locations), an additional 1,120 tons/year of clean recyclables could be recovered (3% of overall target).
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: Negligible increase in net annual CO2 emissions relative to the status quo. Overall environmental and social impacts are positive.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 70 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Equipment Needs: It is assumed that collection of recyclables would be outsourced to a private company, and thus the County will not incur capital costs for containers or trucks.
Capital (CAPEX): None
Operating Cost (OPEX): Cost of service = $480,000 per year
Revenue: 1,120 tons/year at $12/ton = $13,500 annually
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: $417/ton; $10/month per household
6.2.9 Expanded Household Composting Program
Overview and Assumptions: In this analysis, the potential impact of expanding home composting on overall recycling and waste diversion rates was examined. DSWM already has a well-publicized “Composting at Home” program in place, and sells Geo-Bin composters and provides composting education to citizens.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: It is assumed that home composting would be undertaken only at single family homes that already participate in the County’s curbside recycling program. Although households would be encouraged to compost yard waste along with food waster in their Geo-Bins, it is assumed that all yard waste materials would have already been separated from trash due to the county’s yard waste ban; therefore, the yard waste is not considered an additional contribution to recycling/diversion. Only food waste is considered additional.
The evaluation showed that for every additional 1,000 homes that signed up for Geo-Bin composting, about 600 tons of organics would be recycled each year. At best, this program makes a negligible contribution to recycling and waste diversion in the County. Nevertheless, such programs are of high value and should continue to be supported and publicized by DSWM.
Based on the small expected contribution to recycling tonnages, this option was not evaluated in further detail.
6.2.10 Promote “Free-Cycle” Programs and Swap Meets
Overview and Assumptions: This option examines the effects of promoting “free-cycle” program or swap meets for county citizens to exchange rather than dispose of unwanted items. After consideration, the Study Team considers these to be outside the scope of the Study. The County already provides citizens recycling drop-off for white goods, automatic materials (used motor oil, antifreeze, etc.), bulky/oversized rigid plastics (e.g., lawn furniture), flexible foam, and scrap metal. Informational resources regarding recycling of these materials are available in
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 71 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
the Residential Guidebook. DSWM also supports several initiatives associated with hard-to- recycle materials, including state-funded events such as Tire Amnesty Day and electronics recycling events.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: In the context of this Study, it is very unlikely that these programs will have a meaningful impact on tonnages of recycled materials.
Based on the small expected contribution to recycling tonnages, this option was not evaluated in further detail.
6.2.11 Architectural Salvage Program
Overview and Assumptions: This option is concerned with salvaging of architectural materials from buildings slated for demolition or refurbishment. Overall, implementing an architectural salvage program (ASP) in Frederick County is probably best pursued as a voluntary program in which efforts are made to allow assessment and recovery opportunities before any demolition of a property that meets certain criteria (older than certain age, larger than certain square footage, etc.). Alternatively, affording such opportunities could be made mandatory through local policy or ordinances. The Study Team’s limited experience with ASPs suggests that the best strategy may be for the County to promote beneficial reuse databases – a “match.com” so to speak for architectural enthusiasts in which offerors may advertise available materials while buyers may post their wish list. Several local architectural salvage and building materials reuse centers in the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area are listed in the table provided in the state of the practice review on C&D recycling and reuse in Section 4.3.3.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: Since most construction materials are non- MRA, architectural salvage will have no effect on tonnages of recycled materials recovered in the context of this Study.
Based on making no contribution to recycling tonnages, this option was not evaluated in further detail.
6.3 Hard Infrastructure Options
6.3.1 Construction/Building Waste Recycling
Overview and Assumptions: Given that the County has no direct role in the construction and building industry, and the reasonable assumption that simply banning acceptance of C&D wastes at DSWM’s transfer station (TS) would simply drive these materials to nearby out-of-county facilities, it is assumed that the most equitable and effective way to significantly increase rates of C&D recycling in the County would be for recycling to be mandatory. This would most likely be controlled and enforced as part of a local permit to construct or similar ordinance specifying a
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 72 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
percentage of total C&D waste to be diverted or the classes of materials to be diverted. It is assumed for this analysis that 75% overall diversion would be established as the goal (i.e., 75% of C&D waste loads would be delivered to a C&D processing facility rather than the TS).
This option would involve installing a small sorting system (“mini-MRF”) tailored for C&D materials processing at the existing TS, assuming sufficient space is available. As C&D waste loads are typically collected directly from building sites (i.e., separate to general MSW collection), trucks carrying C&D loads can be directed to the mini-MRF upon arrival at the TS. Recovery of small quantities of C&D materials intermixed with general MSW loads will not be attempted. Therefore, it is assumed that aside from the mini-MRF itself, no additional infrastructure will be required and intra-facility material transfer costs are ignored.
Capacity Estimate: 20,000 tons/year average throughput
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: Estimated rates of C&D recovery at a mini- MRF are 50%, meaning that about 10,000 tons of materials could be recycled each year with 10,000 tons remaining disposal. It is noted that recycling C&D waste, a non-MRA material, would have no effect on the County’s recycling/waste diversion percentage under the MRA. By the same token, it would also have no effect on achieving the goals of the Maryland ZWP.
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: Negligible reduction in net annual CO2 emissions relative to the status quo. Overall environmental and social impacts are neutral.
Equipment Needs: Construction and operation of a mini-MRF, with disposal of unrecovered residuals.
Capital (CAPEX): $2.2 million
Operating Cost (OPEX): Average = $1 million per year, based on $45-$55 per ton
Residue Disposal Costs: 10,000 tons/year at $55/ton = $550,000
Avoided Costs: $550,000, based on 10,000 tons of material recovered and diverted from landfill disposal at $55/ton
Revenue: Material sales of 10,000 tons per year at $30/ton = $300,000
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: $92/ton; business cost, no additional direct cost for households
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 73 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
6.3.2 Develop Community-Scale Composting Program
Overview and Assumptions: This analysis involves a decentralized approach to composting in which small-scale composting facilities would be installed in different locations around the County to process source separated organics (primarily food waste, yard waste, and non- recyclable paper). Processed compost must be cured and screened for final production and marketing.
It is assumed community-scale facilities could be located on private land (e.g., hosted at a farm or other agribusiness, or at a landscaper business). A single full-time operator would be needed. The County would issue RFPs for private development and operation of each facility, and provide a guarantee of feedstock delivery from residential/commercial collection programs for source separated organics (food waste, yard waste, and non-recyclable paper). Facilities could be sited to take maximum advantage of local availability of source separated organics. This scale of composting operation could serve as a pilot program for the County and/or gradually ramped up by installing addition larger-capacity facilities as the popularity and reliability of source separation programs increases.
Costs for finding land zoned for composting and/or land purchase or host fees are not included in this analysis. Compost facilities that exceed certain footprint thresholds trigger additional permitting and operating obligations under Maryland law; potential costs that would be incurred if these thresholds were triggered are not included in this analysis (i.e., it is assumed in Phase 1 that such obligations do not apply). It is also noted that grants/loans from USDA or other federal or state sources may be available for development of composting facilities; however, these were not investigated as part of this analysis.
Capacity Estimate: This analysis focuses on estimating unit processes and costs per individual community-scale composting operation. It is assumed that each community-scale composting operation would process on the order of 20 tons/day, 5 days per week, such that the nominal capacity of the facility is 5,000 tons/year.
Based on 20% mass reduction in the aerobic degradation process and 15% contamination level, 5,000 tons/year of organic feedstock would generate 3,250 tons/year compost (for sale) and 750 tons/year residuals (for disposal).
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: 5,000 tons of MRA material would be diverted from landfill (12% of target); therefore, each community-scale facility has the potential to contribute in a meaningful way. Building six facilities around the county would result in a 72% contribution, which is very significant.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 74 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: Changes in net annual CO2 emissions relative to the status quo are accounted for under soft infrastructure options that collect organics for delivery to the facility. Overall environmental and social impacts are positive.
Equipment Needs: Construction and operation of a composting facility, with disposal of unrecovered residuals.
Capital (CAPEX): $5 million
Operating Cost (OPEX): Average = $375,000 per year, based on $75 per ton
Residue Disposal Costs: 750 tons/year at $100/ton (transport to the DSWM transfer station plus subsequent disposal) = $75,000
Avoided Costs: $235,000, based on 4,250 tons of material recovered and diverted from landfill disposal at $55/ton
Revenue: Compost sales of 3,250 tons per year at $25/ton = $80,000
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: $127-$143/ton (depending on compost sales); about 25 cents per month per household
6.3.3 Develop Large-Scale Composting Program
Overview and Assumptions: This analysis involves implementing a centralized composting facility in the County to process source separated organics (primarily food waste, yard waste, and non-recyclable paper). Composting is a mature technology in the US; several different commercially viable systems are available, including: (1) open windrows in which organics are piled in rows and continually turned (DSWM currently operates windrows for yard waste composting); (2) aerated static pile (ASP) processing, in which windrows are placed over a fixed aeration system; and (3) in-vessel processing. In all cases, compost must be cured and screened for final production and marketing. Deciding on which type of process to develop is not part of this analysis, which assumes that capital and O&M costs are similar for all types of facilities and vary based on capacity only.
It is assumed that the facility will be owned/developed by DUSWM and located on County property at or near the landfill, although operation may be contracted to a private operator. A large composting operation is expected to require about 20 acres and cannot, therefore, be assumed to be constructed at the existing landfill/TS site. Therefore, cost estimates provided herein include land purchase, although it is assumed the new property is relatively close to the existing TS such that intra-facility material transfer costs are ignored. Regional variations in land value relative to reference costs cannot be fully accounted for. It is noted that grants/loans
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 75 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
from USDA or other federal or state sources may be available for development of a composting facility; however, these were not investigated as part of this analysis.
Capacity Estimate: Design capacity = 100,000 tons/year; expected throughput under maximum rates of organics recovery in the County under current conditions is 90,000 tons/year.
Based on 20% mass reduction in the aerobic degradation process and 15% contamination level, 90,000 tons/year of organic feedstock would generate 60,000 tons/year compost (for sale) and 13,500 tons/year residuals (for disposal). This is 40,000 tons in addition to the yard waste compost currently produced and marketed by DSWM.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: An additional 70,000 tons of MRA material would be diverted from landfill (167% of the target).
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: Changes in net annual CO2 emissions relative to the status quo are accounted for under soft infrastructure options that collect organics for delivery to the facility. Overall environmental and social impacts are positive.
Equipment Needs: Construction and operation of a composting facility, with disposal of unrecovered residuals.
Capital (CAPEX): $25 million
Operating Cost (OPEX): Average = $3.3 million per year, based on $33 per ton
Residue Disposal Costs: 13,500 tons/year at $55/ton = $750,000
Avoided Costs: Waste disposal = $3.11 million, based on 56,500 tons of additional material recovered and diverted from landfill disposal at $55/ton; Displacement of DSWM’s existing composting operation saves $540,000 in operating costs annually
Revenue: Additional compost sales of 40,000 tons per year at $15/ton = $600,000
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: $33-$41/ton (depending on price earned for compost: the lower-bound value assumes all compost is sold at $15/ton, the upper-bound assumes all compost is given away for free). Household cost is $2-$3/month. It should be noted that the $33-$41/ton lifecycle cost is based on expected conditions and is heavily impacted by avoided disposal of compostables. If most of the compost produced cannot be given away and needs to be disposed of (as evaluated under the pessimistic analysis), then much of the avoided cost of disposal is lost.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 76 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
6.3.4 Develop Community-Scale Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Program
Overview and Assumptions: This analysis involves a decentralized approach to organics management in which small-scale AD facilities would be installed in different locations around the County to process source separated organics (primarily food waste, yard waste, and non- recyclable paper). The AD process generates biogas with high methane content, which can be upgraded to pipeline-quality gas, other types of fuel such as compressed natural gas (CNG), or used to generate electricity. Several different commercially viable AD systems are available, which can operate as wet or dry processes. Deciding on which type of process to develop is not part of this analysis, which assumes that capital and O&M costs are similar for all types of facilities and vary based on capacity only. To meet requirements for recycling under the Maryland ZWP, the residual digestate needs to be composted, cured, and marketed as a fertilizer or soil amendment.
It is assumed that a facility could be located on private land (e.g., hosted at a farm or other agribusiness, or at a landscaper business). Two full-time operators would be needed. It is anticipated the County would put out RFPs for private development and operation of each facility, and provide a guarantee of feedstock delivery from County-managed residential/commercial collection programs. AD facilities could be sited to take maximum advantage of availability of source separated organics. This scale of AD operation could serve as a pilot program for the County and/or be gradually ramped up by installing addition larger- capacity facilities as the popularity and reliability of source separation programs increases.
Costs for finding land zoned for AD/composting and/or land purchase or host fees are not included in this analysis. It is noted that grants/loans from USDA or other federal or state sources may be available for development of AD facilities; however, these were not investigated as part of this analysis.
Capacity Estimate: This analysis focuses on estimating unit processes and costs per individual community-scale AD operation. It is assumed that each community-scale composting operation would process on the order of 20 tons/day, 5 days per week, such that the nominal capacity of the facility is 5,000 tons/year.
Based on 65-70% mass reduction in the anaerobic degradation process and 15% contamination level, 5,000 tons/year of organic feedstock would generate 1,500 tons/year of digestate, of which 750 tons is compost (for sale) and 750 tons is residuals (for disposal).
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: 5,000 tons of MRA material would be diverted from landfill (12% of target); therefore, each community-scale facility has the potential to contribute in a meaningful way. Building six facilities around the county would result in a 72% contribution, which is very significant.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 77 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: Changes in net annual CO2 emissions from transportation and landfill emissions relative to the status quo are accounted for under soft infrastructure options that collect organics for delivery to the facility. A small emission offset relative to the baseline exists due to generation of renewable energy. Overall environmental and social impacts are positive.
Equipment Needs: Construction and operation of an AD plant plus composting facility for curing digestate, with disposal of unrecovered residuals.
Capital (CAPEX): $5 million (AD plant) plus $2 million (composting facility) = $7 million
Operating Cost (OPEX): $160/ton (AD plant) plus $100/ton (composting) = $800,000 plus $150,000 = $950,000 per year
Residue Disposal Costs: 750 tons/year at $100/ton (transport to the DSWM transfer station plus subsequent disposal) = $75,000
Avoided Costs: $235,000, based on 4,250 tons of material recovered and diverted from landfill disposal at $55/ton
Revenue: Energy Sales of 100-250kWh/ton at $0.055/kWh, average $10/ton = $50,000; Compost sales of 750 tons per year at $25/ton = $15,000
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: $285-$298/ton (depending on compost sales); $1-$2/month per household
6.3.5 Develop Large-Scale Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Program
Overview and Assumptions: This analysis involves implementing a centralized AD facility in the County to process source separated organics (primarily food waste, yard waste, and non- recyclable paper). The AD process generates biogas with high methane content, which can be upgraded to pipeline-quality gas, other types of fuel such as compressed natural gas (CNG), or used to generate electricity. Several different commercially viable AD systems are available, which can operate as wet or dry processes. Deciding on which type of process to develop is not part of this analysis, which assumes that capital and O&M costs are similar for all types of facilities and vary based on capacity only. To meet requirements for recycling under the Maryland ZWP, the residual digestate needs to be composted, cured, and marketed as a fertilizer or soil amendment.
It is assumed that the AD facility will be owned/developed by DUSWM, although operation may be contracted to a private operator, and that the facility will be located on county property at or near to the landfill and TS such that intra-facility material transfer costs are ignored. Cost
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 78 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
estimates provided herein therefore include land. Regional variations in land value relative to reference costs cannot be fully accounted for. It is noted that grants/loans from USDA or other federal or state sources may be available for development of an AD facility; however, these were not investigated as part of this analysis.
Capacity Estimate: Design capacity = 100,000 tons/year; expected throughput under maximum rates of organics recovery in the County under current conditions is 90,000 tons/year.
Based on 65-70% mass reduction in the anaerobic degradation process and 15% contamination level, 90,000 tons/year of organic feedstock would generate 30,000 tons/year of digestate, of which 16,500 tons is compost (for sale) and 13,500 tons is residuals (for disposal).
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: An additional 70,000 tons of MRA material would be diverted from landfill (167% of the target).
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: Changes in net annual CO2 emissions from transportation and landfill emissions relative to the status quo are accounted for under soft infrastructure options that collect organics for delivery to the facility. Emission offsets as a result of renewable energy generation equate to net emission of 87% relative to the baseline, a small but meaningful reduction. Overall environmental and social impacts are positive.
Equipment Needs: Construction and operation of an AD plant plus composting facility for curing digestate, with disposal of unrecovered residuals.
Capital (CAPEX): $35 million (AD plant) plus $15 million (composting facility) = $50 million
Operating Cost (OPEX): $6 million/year (AD plant) plus $1 million/year (composting)
Residue Disposal Costs: 13,500 tons/year at $55/ton = $750,000
Avoided Costs: Waste disposal = $3.11 million/year, based on 56,500 tons of additional material recovered and diverted from landfill disposal at $55/ton. Displacement of DSWM existing composting operation also saves $540,000 in operating costs annually.
Revenue: Energy Sales of 100-250kWh/ton at $0.055/kWh, average $10/ton = $900,000; Compost production at 16,500 tons per year is below current output from DSWM yard waste composting operation (therefore no additional revenue is earned).
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: $117-$130/ton (depending on price earned for energy and compost: the lower-bound value assumes all compost is sold at $15/ton, the upper-bound assumes all compost is given away for free). Household cost is $8-$9/month. It should be noted that the lifecycle cost shown is based on expected conditions and is heavily impacted by avoided
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 79 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
disposal of compostables. If most of the compost produced cannot be given away and needs to be disposed of (as evaluated under the pessimistic analysis), then much of the avoided cost of disposal is lost.
6.3.6 Develop Large-Scale Centralized Resource Recovery Park
Overview and Assumptions: In this analysis, constructing and operating a large-scale resource recovery park (RRP) for centralized solid waste management and recycling was evaluated. As described in Section 4.3.4, a base assumption for increasing overall recycling and waste diversion is that the County’s existing single stream (S-S) curbside recycling program and other recycling activities will be continued. As such, the RRP must include a MRF with separate lines for processing S-S materials and mixed waste. It is also assumed that developing the RRP must be compatible with future expansion of S-S recycling to multi-family units, implementing a three-bin program for separate recovery of organics, and operation to include C&D recycling. The current throughput at DSWM’s transfer station (TS) is assumed for sizing the RRP operation. Based on this, the mixed waste processing line at the MRF will initially be larger than the S-S materials processing line; however, implementation of expanded S-S recycling and/or three-bin collection of organics would change the relative size of these waste streams over time. The MRF design would have to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate this.
The term “resource recovery park” was widely discussed in public workshops; use of this term as opposed to a center or facility implies full on-site processing of separated waste components rather than transfer of all materials offsite. The Study Team has interpreted the term to mean an integrated facility featuring a MRF with separate lines for S-S materials and mixed waste followed by onsite composting of recovered organics. This would negate the need to develop composting or AD facilities as a stand-alone option (as evaluated previously). All unrecovered material not suitable for recycling or composting is assumed to go for landfill disposal. It is noted that a number of public contributors to the discussion on RRPs during the workshops envisioned a more sophisticated facility comprising the collocation of reuse, recycling, composting, manufacturing, and retail businesses. Such a facility could be a private business, a public/private partnership, or a County-owned operation. Based on the Study Team’s knowledge of and research on operating RRPs, however, developing such a facility at the current time would be overly ambitious. As such, the recommendation for a RRP as described herein is significantly more modest, although the County could seek to expand the scope of the facility in the future.
The building footprint for a large MRF is dependent on technology-specific design aspects as well as the amount of floor space reserved for temporary storage of incoming material and processed material, and could be expected to range from 100,000-150,000SF. A staff of about 75 would be needed for a large facility operating two shifts, five days per week. Site size would be dictated by building size and layout requirements for other equipment and structures, roadways and requirements for large truck queuing and movements, organic feedstock
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 80 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
management activities, recyclable storage and load-out activities, stormwater management, and landscaping and green buffer zones. Overall, developing a large-scale MRF with onsite aerobic composting would be expected to require 10-20 acres and as a result it is assumed it cannot be constructed at the existing landfill/TS site. A new site would thus be required, unless sufficient space could be made available by demolishing and replacing the existing TS. Cost estimates provided herein therefore include land, although regional variations in land value cannot be fully accounted for. It is assumed that the County would seek to privately contract development and operation of the facility. Developing a RRP will replace DSWM’s current TS operation and recovery of recyclables will replace DSWM’s current shipping of S-S materials to Waste Management Recycle America (WMRA).
Capacity Estimate: The MRF is assumed to have the same throughput as the current TS. DSWM data for 2014 put the throughput at about 210,000 tons/year, comprising 160,000 tons of MSW, plus 25,000 tons of C&D waste and 25,000 tons of S-S materials from residential curbside collection and commercial drop-off at the TS. Allowing for population growth, the MRF should have a design throughput size of 250,000 tons per year. A compost facility with final capacity of about 70,000 tons/year will also be required (including 20,000 tons/year of yard waste).
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: It is assumed that overall recovery rates from the mixed waste processing line will be 30% for both organics and recyclables (i.e., 60% total), with contamination levels assumed at 15%. Average recovery rates from the S-S materials processing line will be 85%, leaving 15% contamination. Average recovery of C&D material will be 50%.
Assuming total throughput of 210,000 tons, of which 185,000 tons were originally destined for landfill disposal, this equates to:
• Organics recovery from mixed MSW of 160,000 x 30% = 48,000 tons for composting
• Recyclables recovery from mixed MSW of 160,000 x 30% = 48,000 tons for resale
• Recyclables recovery from S-S materials of 25,000 x 85% = 21,250 tons for resale
• C&D recovery of 25,000 x 50% = 12,500 tons for resale
Additional MRA waste diversion will be 96,000 tons/year (organics and recyclables recovery of 48,000 tons each). This is more than twice the overall target recycling target and three times the food waste recycling target.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 81 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Non-MRA waste diversion (C&D recovery) will be 12,500 tons/year. Total waste disposal will be (160,000 x 40%) + (25,000x15%) + (25,000x50%) = 80,250 tons/year.
Based on 20% mass reduction in the aerobic degradation process and 15% contamination level, 70,000 tons/year of organic feedstock would generate 46,000 tons/year of compost (for sale), of which 26,000 tons is additional to existing yard waste composting, as well as 10,000 tons/year of residuals (for disposal).
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: Net annual CO2 emissions are only 59% of the baseline, indicating significant reduction relative to the status quo. Overall environmental and social impacts are positive.
Equipment Needs: Construction and operation of a MRF, construction and operation of a composting facility to process recovered organics plus yard waste diverted from existing DSWM operation, and disposal of unrecovered residuals.
Capital (CAPEX): $40 million (MRF) plus $20 million for compost operation
Operating Cost (OPEX): Average for MRF = $9.45 million per year (based on $45 per ton); Average for compost operation = $2.31 million (based on $33/ton)
Residue Disposal Costs: Compost residues of 10,000 tons/year at $55/ton = $550,000; Recycling residues of 11,250 tons/year (15% of 48,000+25,000 tons) at $55/ton = $620,000
Avoided Costs: MRA waste disposal = $5.23 million, based on 96,000 tons of material recovered and diverted from landfill disposal at $55/ton; Non-MRA waste disposal = $660,000, based on about 12,000 tons of C&D material diverted from landfill disposal at $55/ton; Displacement of DSWM’s existing composting operation saves $540,000 in operating costs annually; Current cost of TS operation, which is eliminated and replaced by MRF operation, is estimated based on the difference between the landfill gate fee for MSW ($69/ton) and the cost of disposal ($55/ton) for 210,000 tons/year = $3.15 million
Revenue: Additional compost sales of 26,000 tons/year at $15/ton = $390,000; Additional recyclable sales of 48,000 tons/year at $70/ton = $3.5 million; C&D material reuse of about 12,500 tons/year at $30/ton = $360,000
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: $47-$87/ton (depending on cost offset by revenues from sale of recovered materials and compost). Household cost is $8-$9/month. It should be noted that this lifecycle cost is based on expected conditions and is heavily impacted by avoided disposal of compostables. If most of the compost produced cannot be given away and needs to be disposed of (as evaluated under the pessimistic analysis), then much of the avoided cost of disposal is lost.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 82 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
6.3.7 Out-of-County Landfill Disposal (Baseline Scenario)
Overview and Assumptions: In this analysis, the “status quo” (baseline) option of continuing to transfer 90% of MSW for disposal at an out-of-county private landfill facility was evaluated. In this analysis, it is assumed that options for increasing source separation, recovery, and/or processing of recyclables and organics have not been implemented. As such, current throughput at the TS and tonnages for disposal are assumed to remain.
Capacity Estimate: DSWM data for 2014 put the throughput at the TS about 210,000 tons/year, comprising 160,000 tons of MSW, plus 25,000 tons of C&D waste and 25,000 tons of S-S materials from residential curbside collection and commercial drop-off at the TS.
Of the 160,000 tons of MSW, it is assumed that 150,000 tons will be transported off-site for disposal while 10,000 tons will be disposed of on-site in the County landfill. This evaluation should thus be fully consistent with DSWM’s estimates for the remaining service life of the County landfill, which extends beyond 2040 under current assumptions.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: None
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: This option establishes the baseline for net annual CO2 emissions against which other options are evaluated. Overall, this option results in annual emissions of 1,200 tons of CO2 from trucking and 52,300 tons of CO2 equivalents from uncontrolled landfill emissions. Although not quantified, this option does support landfill gas-to- energy. Environmental and social impacts are exported, a negative condition.
Equipment Needs: Evaluation of options focuses on what additional operations and costs/revenues would be associated with implementing an option. Costs and operations for this option, as the baseline, are assumed based on current operations and services. As such, no additional costs are incurred and no additional revenues are generated.
Capital (CAPEX): None
Operating Cost (OPEX): As current
Disposal Costs: As current
Avoided Costs: None
Revenue: As current
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 83 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: The combined cost of TS operation and MSW disposal is assumed at $69/ton, based on DSWM’s current MSW tip fee at the County landfill. The additional costs per ton and per household of this option are zero.
6.3.8 Enhanced Operation of Existing County Landfill
Overview and Assumptions: After due consideration, this option was excluded from further analysis. The Study Team finds no basis for DSWM to make meaningful improvement to their current landfill disposal operation in terms of preserving airspace and extending the service life of the facility. From what has been observed, DSWM provides modern landfill management techniques (e.g., high compaction rates, limited daily cover soil) that minimize consumption of airspace. DUSWM has already secured approval for vertical expansion of the Site B landfill, providing for an additional one million tons of future disposal capacity. The current practice of limiting on-site disposal to about 8,000 tons/year and transferring the remainder off-site for disposal is responsible in terms of managing the County’s disposal assets.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: None
This option was not evaluated in further detail.
6.3.9 Develop New County Landfill
Overview and Assumptions: In this analysis, the cost of developing a new County landfill as an alternative to out-of-county disposal is evaluated. It is assumed that implementation of this strategy would take place in the near future; therefore, to allow direct comparison with other options the current waste throughput at the TS and tonnages for disposal are assumed to be valid. Whether or not the existing landfill airspace is fully consumed before developing new capacity is ignored, such that closure costs at the existing landfill are not included (in any case, these should be funded independently). In this analysis, it is assumed that options for increasing source separation, recovery, and/or processing of recyclables and organics have not been implemented. The County’s existing yard waste composting operation will continue independent of the new landfill facility.
Consistent with all other evaluations, this evaluation focuses on what additional operations and costs/revenues would be associated with implementing this option. As such, costs and revenues associated with existing operations that will remain in place (such as the TS and yard waste composting) are ignored.
Capacity Estimate: DSWM data for 2014 put the throughput at the TS about 210,000 tons/year, comprising 160,000 tons of MSW, plus 25,000 tons of C&D waste and 25,000 tons of S-S materials from residential curbside collection and commercial drop-off at the TS.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 84 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Because of the need to handle different waste streams, and the need to retain the flexibility to implement options for increasing source separation, recovery, and/or processing of recyclables and organics, it is assumed that the TS will remain in operation. All MSW and C&D waste handled at the TS will be disposed of in the new County landfill. It is assumed that the new landfill is relatively close to the TS such that intra-facility transportation can be ignored.
Expected Recycling/Waste Diversion Achieved: None
Environmental Impacts and Sustainability: This option is comparable to the baseline except that annual emissions of 1,200 tons of CO2 from trucking waste out-of-county are avoided, a negligible overall reduction. Although not quantified, this option is also assumed to support landfill gas-to-energy. This is an unprogressive option with mostly negative associations.
Equipment Needs: Construction and operation of a new landfill.
Capital (CAPEX): The annual disposal tonnage totals 185,000 tons. It is assumed that the County will seek to develop a 20-year landfill operation. Based on Geosyntec’s experience, a nominal 200,000 ton/year landfill with waste disposal rate growing at 1-2% annually (to allow for population growth) will require a 200-acre property of which 150 acres will be developed as lined disposal cells. It is assumed the County could acquire this property at a lump sum cost of $20 million ($100,000/acre).
Based on Geosyntec’s experience with construction of landfill operations in Maryland, capital costs for development of a new landfill facility are assumed at $500,000/acre ($350,000/acre for liner construction and $150,000/acre for closure cap construction). In the first ten years of operation (the period of interest for lifecycle cost comparison in this Study), construction of 75 acres of liner will be required, at a total cost of $26.25 million. In addition, about $10 million in infrastructure and equipment costs (access roads, weighbridge, leachate management, gas management, trash compactor, etc.) will be incurred.
Operating Cost (OPEX): Operating costs are assumed at $25/ton, based on Geosyntec’s experience with Maryland landfills. Based on tonnage of 185,000/year, annual operating costs are estimated at $4.63 million.
Disposal Costs: Over a 10-year lifecycle period, the average disposal cost is about $55/ton. This is the same cost as currently incurred for disposal.
Avoided Costs: Disposal of 185,000 tons/year of waste in other landfills at $55/ton
Revenue: As current
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 85 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Equivalent 10-year Lifecycle Cost: The combined cost of TS operation and MSW disposal are assumed to remain at $69/ton, based on DSWM’s current MSW tipping fee. The additional costs per ton and per household of this option are relative to the baseline are negligible.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 86 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
7. DISCUSSION OF PHASE 1 STUDY FINDINGS
7.1 Outcome from Evaluation of Options
The primary goal of the analysis presented in Section 6 was to identify potential options for boosting overall rates of recycling and waste diversion in the County by at least 15% by 2025 in order to meet the target levels of 65% and 70%, respectively, specified under the Maryland Zero Waste Plan (ZWP). Achieving the targets equates to recovering about 40,000-45,000 tons from the current disposal waste stream. Significant improvement is also needed to achieve the 60% target for food waste recycling specified in the ZWP given the current lack of food waste recycling options available in the County. Achieving this target equates to recovering about 15,000 tons of food waste from the current disposal waste stream.
Initially, all 20 options selected from the public forum workshops were assessed in terms of their expected contribution to meeting the ZWP targets. Where options were found to offer at least a meaningful contribution, detailed consideration of their costs and other factors were individually assessed relative to the primary evaluation criteria listed in Section 5.4.1. These options form the bulk of the discussion in the remainder of Section 7, which serves as the basis for making recommendations from Phase 1 of the Study. In a minority of cases, options were found to offer only a small contribution to future recycling/diversion rates or were not really aligned with the Study objectives; these were eliminated from further analysis. However, this does not mean that the latter group of options should be completely eliminated from consideration. In many cases, they offer tangible and meaningful benefits to the County at relatively modest cost and with limited operational disruption. This is briefly discussed next.
7.1.1 Options with Negligible Contribution to Overall Study Goals
Of the 20 options selected for evaluation in the Study, seven were eliminated from detailed analysis. These comprised six soft infrastructure options and one hard infrastructure option as follows: 1. Expanded operation of the existing County landfill 2. Implementing a beverage container recycling program or bottle bill 3. Food donation programs 4. Ban/fees on single-use, non-recyclable materials (plastic bags and Styrofoam) 5. Expansion of household composting 6. Promotion of “free-cycle” programs and swap meets 7. Architectural salvage program
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 87 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Expanded operation of the existing County landfill (the only hard infrastructure option in the above list) was considered to be of negligible practical concern after review of DSWM’s existing operations. Implementing a beverage container recycling program or bottle bill can realistically only be achieved through legislation enacted at the State level, and thus is not an option for consideration at the County level.
While outside the scope of this Study, the other five soft infrastructure options listed above offer benefits to residents/businesses and are worthy of consideration by the County. They may promote positive behavioral changes, particularly in children; project an image of the County as an environmentally proactive and attractive location that offers a high quality of life; and/or improve the performance of other options (e.g., implementing a plastic bag/Styrofoam ban would likely reduce contamination levels in curbside recycling loads and increase the overall value of mixed recyclables recovered by DSWM). Household composting programs offer high value at low cost and should continue to be supported and publicized. Food donation programs at schools or other community centers offer positive engagement opportunities for students and are attractive to local business participation and sponsorship. DSWM has a good track record in education, outreach, and support of community recycling and waste prevention. Overall, it is recommended that the County continue to support such initiatives and help sponsor ideas and innovation in this regard.
As previously discussed in Section 3.3.3, it should also be remembered that workshop participants engaged in open discussions about factors that could be considered to generally improve solid waste management and recycling in the County. This included some useful input (e.g., need for effective collaboration and leveraging of existing knowledge) that may be helpful for the County Executive and/or DUSWM, but does not directly contribute to this Study in terms of defining options or criteria.
7.1.2 Evaluation of Remaining Options
Of the 20 options selected for evaluation in the Study, 13 were evaluated in detail. These included five soft infrastructure options and eight hard infrastructure options, including the baseline “business as usual” option of continued waste transfer to a private out-of-county landfill.
The soft infrastructure options include (Section 6.2): 1. Waste reduction program at County schools (expanded recycling and food waste/organics collection) 2. Pay-as-you throw (PAYT) program 3. Three-bin system for collection (separate food waste/organics collection at single family homes already participating in curbside recycling)
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 88 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
4. Expanded recycling programs for businesses and institutions (food waste collection from restaurants) 5. Expanded residential curbside recycling for small (<5 units) multi-family dwellings
The hard infrastructure options include (Section 6.3): 1. C&D waste recycling 2. Community-scale (decentralized) composting program 3. Development of a large-scale (centralized) composting facility 4. Community-scale (decentralized) AD program 5. Development of large-scale (centralized) AD facility 6. Development of a large-scale centralized resource recovery park 7. Continued waste transfer to a private out-of-county landfill 8. Development of a new County landfill
Consolidated results from analysis of each option under conditions of expected and pessimistic performance are provided in the summary tables in Appendix E. As indicated in those tables, each option was rigorously evaluated against the primary criteria for environmental impact, represented quantitatively by calculated net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation, waste disposal, and renewable energy generation; lifecycle and other cost factors; and waste diversion and recycling rates.
To fully understand the results presented and discussed in Sections 6 and 7 and the tables in Appendix E, it is reiterated that the effects (costs, revenues, recycling tonnage achieved, emissions avoided, etc.) of implementing an option are presented relative to the “business as usual” or “status quo” baseline assumption, which is continuation of all existing DSWM programs and transportation of about 90% of unrecovered waste for out-of-county disposal. In other words, costs shown would be incurred above current costs if an option were to be implemented. Environmental impacts are measured as a percentage above or below baseline GHG emissions, with business as usual defined at 100%. Recycling and waste diversion are expressed in terms of total annual tons of additional material that would be recovered as a result of implementing an option.
It is also reiterated here that costs and activities associated with implementing an option are presented objectively in Phase 1, with no detailed consideration of public versus private costs and how the cost of service would ultimately be provisioned. The Phase 1 evaluations are also not intended to be exact, but rather to give a relative indication of how one option compares to another in a few key areas. Although every effort has been made to size different waste streams
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 89 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
and processing facilities accurately based on the best available data, the Study Team is not overly concerned with capturing quantities or costs too precisely during this phase. The analysis needs only be detailed enough to have confidence in the selection of options or combinations of options that will be recommended for more detailed evaluation in Phase 2 of the Study. To that end, options were initially evaluated on the basis of expected performance as presented in Section 7.2.1. As a counter-balance to potentially overly-optimistic projections, however, a limited evaluation of “pessimistic” performance was also performed to account for the sensitivity of some options to key input assumptions in the analysis (see Section 7.2.2). Both sets of results are summarized in the tables in Appendix E. For ease of identification and comparison, significant differences are highlighted yellow in the pessimistic table. An opposing “optimistic” performance analysis was not performed due to scope and time constraints for the Phase 1 Study. Although both an upside (optimistic) and downside (pessimistic) analysis are often included in feasibility studies for infrastructure development, an upside analysis is generally more beneficial for commercial developers. In this evaluation of potential non-commercial infrastructure development by the County, the Study Team considers that it is more important for the Steering Committee to recommend options for further investigation on the basis of expected and pessimistic performance.
7.2 Comparative Performance of Options
7.2.1 Expected Performance
Figures 7-1 and 7-2 below provide a comparative illustration of results from evaluation of soft and hard infrastructure options, respectively, under assumed conditions for expected performance. This approach is important to allow each option a fair chance of competing against other options before more pessimistic consideration is given to their performance. Conditions for expected performance were detailed in Section 6.1.3 and include, for example, high participation rates and levels of success following adoption of an option; capital and operating costs as average values from reported cost data for comparable programs/facilities; and ability to sell recyclables, compost, and renewable energy generated at fair market prices. In both figures, each option is plotted in terms of its average annual cost on a 10-year lifecycle basis versus the maximum quantity of MRA waste that could be recycled or diverted following implementation. The size of the blue bubble for each option represents the magnitude of environmental impacts (i.e., smaller bubbles represent lower net impacts relative to the baseline). Presented in this way, ideal options would plot as small bubbles in the bottom right hand corner of the chart, while undesirable options would plot as large bubbles in the top left hand corner.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 90 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Figure 7-1: Expected Performance – Soft Infrastructure Options
In Figure 7-1, multi-family recycling and schools food collection both plot in the bottom left corner of the chart; as such, these options contribute little towards increasing MRA waste recycling but are not very costly in overall terms (although they are costly on a per-ton or per- household basis). The two most promising options appear to be three-bin collection, which plots high in terms of cost but singlehandedly achieves the MRA waste recycling target, and restaurant food collection, which contributes less towards MRA waste recycling than three-bin collection but is much less costly. Importantly, both three-bin collection and restaurant food collection exceed the target of 15,000 tons of food waste recycling. PAYT plots in the least desirable location of all the options shown.
In Figure 7-2, the two gray bubbles are approximate projections of where community-scale composting and AD would plot if five 5,000 ton/year facilities were to be built rather than just one. In this way, the annualized lifecycle cost versus expected tons of MRA waste diverted can be approximated for anywhere between one and five facilities by plotting off the red lines on the chart. Based on this, community-scale composting, if scaled up along the red line, could make a reasonable contribution to MRA waste diversion at relatively modest cost. However, scaling up a community-scale AD program would migrate up to plot in the least desirable location on the chart.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 91 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Figure 7-2: Expected Performance – Hard Infrastructure Options
Large-scale composting occupies the most ideal location on the chart (i.e., high MRA waste diversion achieved at modest overall cost). Building a large-scale AD plant or resource recovery park offers similar or higher rates of MRA waste diversion, respectively, but at much higher overall costs. Landfill and C&D waste recycling are the lowest cost options, but offer no MRA waste diversion (although C&D waste recycling does divert waste from landfill, this cannot be captured on the chart as presented because it involves non-MRA waste).
7.2.2 Performance under Pessimistic Assumptions
As a counter-balance to the results obtained under expected performance assumptions, a limited evaluation of “pessimistic” performance was also performed to account for the sensitivity of some options to key input assumptions in the analysis. Sensitivities tested (as detailed in Section 6.1.3) include: increasing capital and operating costs to maximum reported values for comparable facilities or programs; recovery of recyclables and compostables at only 60% of expected quantities; prices for energy and recyclables at only 75% of expected values; and – most importantly – capping the market for compost at 20,000 tons/year, with any excess compost production going to landfill for disposal. The latter significantly alters cost offsets from avoided disposal but does not alter MRA waste diversion tonnages since, under the current rules of the
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 92 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
MRA and ZWP, credit is earned simply by diverting organics for composting, regardless of the ultimate fate of compost produced. The ZWP stipulates that digestate from AD processing must be diverted from landfill in order for AD to qualify as recycling (see Table 5-1); however, because of the efficiency of AD waste conversion, even the large-scale AD option evaluated in the Study would produce less than 20,000 tons of compost annually.
Results from evaluation of soft and hard infrastructure options under pessimistic assumptions are depicted in Figures 7-3 and 7-4, respectively. In both figures, each option is plotted in terms of its average annual cost on a 10-year lifecycle basis versus the maximum quantity of MRA waste that could be recycled or diverted following implementation. Again, the size of the blue bubble for each option represents the magnitude of environmental impacts. The dashed outline bubbles and arrows indicate the significant changes relative to expected performance.
In Figure 7-3, multi-family recycling and schools food collection remain plotted in the bottom left corner of the chart. Three-bin collection now plots much further to the left on the chart and fall well short of achieving the MRA waste recycling target on its own, although it still exceed the target of 15,000 tons for food waste recycling. Restaurant food collection also plots further to the left, contributing less towards the MRA waste recycling target than previously but remaining on target for singlehandedly achieving the food waste recycling target. PAYT remains plotted in an undesirable location on the chart.
Figure 7-3: Pessimistic Performance – Soft Infrastructure Options
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 93 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
The amount of leftward movement exhibited by options between Figures 7-1 and 7-3 illustrates the appreciable risk of not achieving overall and food waste recycling targets after investing in implementing a soft infrastructure option. Increases in bubble sizes illustrate the reduced offset in landfill emissions that would result from lower recovery of organics from the disposal waste stream.
In Figure 7-4, the two gray bubbles again project where community-scale composting and AD would plot if five rather than one facility were built. Based on this, community-scale composting, if scaled up along the red line, could make a reasonable contribution to MRA waste diversion at relatively modest cost even under pessimistic assumptions. However, scaling up a community-scale AD program would migrate up to plot in the least desirable location on the chart. Large-scale composting still occupies the most ideal location on the chart, while the overall costs of building a large-scale AD plant or resource recovery park increase significantly. Landfill and C&D waste recycling remain the lowest cost options, but offer no MRA waste diversion.
Figure 7-4: Pessimistic Performance – Hard Infrastructure Options
The amount of vertical movement exhibited by options between Figures 7-2 and 7-4 illustrates the appreciable risk of incurring higher-than-expected costs after deciding to invest in implementing a hard infrastructure option. Increases in bubble sizes again illustrate the reduced
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 94 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
offset in landfill emissions that would result from lower diversion of organics from the disposal waste stream.
7.2.3 Options as Stand-Alone vs. Combined Applications
From examination of the results presented above, it is evident that most options, however promising, are unlikely to be fully successful or cost-effective if implemented alone: for example, separate collection of food waste may be wasted effort if there are no facilities available at which to process compostables. Electing to transport organics to a private processing facility outside the County may achieve the goals of waste diversion but at increased cost. Conversely, building a compost facility is of little value if source separated organics are not available for processing. A complete solution, therefore, often requires synergistic development of at least one soft and one hard infrastructure option. On the other hand, although not readily apparent from the way the results are presented, it is also important to recognize that the performance of stand-alone solutions (e.g., construction of a resource recovery facility which can process all mixed solid waste generated in the County) will be enhanced by additional upstream waste separation efforts. For example, mixed waste processing is made significantly more efficient by removing food waste from the incoming feedstock.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 95 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
8. FINAL OUTCOME AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The final outcome from Phase 1 is to develop a shortlist of options for more detailed analysis in Phase 2 of the Study, which will be recommended to the County Executive and County Council by the Steering Committee. Based on review of findings summarized and discussed in Section 7, the Study Team’s tentative conclusions and recommendations for shortlisting options for more detailed examination in Phase 2 are summarized below.
8.1 Options Eliminated as Offering Negligible Contribution to Study Goals
Of the 20 options selected for evaluation in the Study, six soft infrastructure options were eliminated from detailed analysis as offering only a small potential contribution to future recycling or waste diversion. These include: • Implementing a beverage container recycling program or bottle bill • Food donation programs • Ban/fees on single-use, non-recyclable materials (plastic bags and Styrofoam) • Expansion of household composting • Promotion of “free-cycle” programs and swap meets • Architectural salvage program
Implementing a beverage container recycling program or bottle bill can realistically only be achieved through legislation enacted at the State level, and thus is not an option for consideration at the County level. While outside the scope of this Study, the other options listed above are worthy of consideration by the County. In many cases (e.g., expanded household composting), they offer tangible and meaningful benefits to residents/businesses at relatively modest costs and limited operational disruption. They may also promote positive behavioral changes, particularly in children, and boost the image of Frederick County as an environmentally proactive and attractive location that offers a high quality of life.
8.2 Landfill Disposal Options
Of the remaining 14 options that were evaluated in Phase 1, three consist of landfill disposal of all material not currently recovered from the waste stream. These are: • Continued waste transfer to a private out-of-county landfill • Expanded operation of the existing County landfill • Development of a new County landfill
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 96 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
Expanding operation of the existing County landfill was not evaluated in detail; this is considered to be of negligible practical value after review of DSWM’s existing operations and constraints on further development of the Reichs Ford Road property.
Continued export of waste or developing a new County landfill are more cost-effective than any other option, but obviously achieve none of the recycling and waste diversion goals established for the Study. In particular, attempting to permit a new County landfill would likely be a time- consuming and unpopular endeavor and is not recommended. It should be noted that the option of continued waste transfer is a “special case” because, for ease of cross comparison, all other options were evaluated relative to this baseline representing DSWM’s continuation of existing programs and operations. As such, it is assumed that out-of-county disposal of 90% of unrecovered waste will continue regardless of what other options are implemented (i.e., other options can reduce the quantity of unrecovered waste, and hence reduce the County’s reliance on private disposal operations, but cannot completely eliminate the need for some disposal).
8.3 Options Not Recommended for Further Consideration in Phase 2
Of the remaining 11 non-landfill options evaluated in accordance with Phase 1 criteria and conditions, five options were not recommended for further consideration in Phase 2. These are: • Pay-as-you throw (PAYT) program • Expanded residential curbside recycling for multi-family dwellings • Development of C&D waste recycling facility • Community-scale, decentralized anaerobic digestion (AD) program • Development of large-scale, centralized AD facility
With regard to soft infrastructure options, PAYT and recycling at multi-family dwellings perform least well and entail high overall and unit costs ($/ton of material recovered) relative to other options. With regard to hard infrastructure options, community-scale AD performed poorly in terms of unit costs and is not recommended. While large-scale AD offers significant waste diversion capabilities, it is capital intensive and thus risky relative to an alternative like large-scale composting. Composting of MSW-sourced organics is also a more established and mature technology than AD in the United States. In addition, the ZWP clarification that digestate must be marketed increases the overall pressure on performance for an AD plant relative to a composting facility. As outlined below, another capital intensive option – building a resource recovery park (RRP) – offers higher rates of recycling and waste diversion than AD and is also more flexible in terms of feedstock tolerances. The materials recovery facility (MRF) and composting operation at the core of this option are also well established, mature technologies in the US. In other words, if the County is to adopt a capital intensive technology, a RRP is a better
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 97 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
option than a large-scale AD plant. C&D waste recycling does not count towards MRA or ZWP recycling or waste diversion goals and thus offers no advantages in this regard. Overall, C&D waste recovery is better addressed within the context of a RRP.
8.4 Options Recommended for Detailed Evaluation in Phase 2
Of the original 20 options, six options appear to meet many of the County’s goals based on evaluation against Phase 1 Study criteria and conditions, and are recommended for more detailed analysis in Phase 2. These are: • Waste reduction program at County schools (expanded recycling and food waste/organics collection) • Three-bin system for collection (separate food waste/organics collection) • Food waste collection from restaurants • Community-scale, decentralized composting program • Development of a large-scale, centralized composting facility • Development of a large-scale, centralized resource recovery park (RRP)
Implementing a three-bin collection and/or restaurant food waste recovery program perform best in terms of overall and unit costs (per ton and per household/business) of waste recycling. Either of these programs can also achieve the specific target of 60% recycling of food waste by 2025. Both programs are recommended for consideration in Phase 2. It is noted that the limited sensitivity analysis performed did not significantly change the overall results in terms of how these soft infrastructure options performed on a comparative basis; however, it does serve to illustrate that these options are particularly susceptible to underperformance in terms of MRA waste recovery rates. Of the two recommended options, residential three-bin collection appears more sensitive to changes than restaurant food waste collection. As such, wholescale rollout of a three-bin program to all eligible households is not recommended; the County would be better advised to explore incremental rollout on a pilot scale with program expansion only after success can be demonstrated on a smaller scale and affected parties (not least DSWM) gain some experience with the process. Similarly, smaller-scale rollout of a program for collection of food waste from restaurants on a voluntary basis first is recommended rather than a full countywide effort. Methods and targets for incremental rollout of these programs should be evaluated in Phase 2.
It is also noted that the option for expanded recycling and recovery of food waste from County schools did not perform well in the quantitative analysis because the amount of material recovered is expected to be modest, no more than 1,250 tons/year. However, collection of food waste from schools should be examined further due to its qualitative benefits and the additional
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 98 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
educational advantages offered. Exposing students in grade and high schools to the idea of separating food waste by the time they establish their own households should make the transition to a universal three-bin collection system easier over the longer term.
Due to high rates of recycling and waste diversion achieved, a RRP offers relatively attractive unit costs (per ton and per household) although it exhibited a number of cost sensitivities in the pessimistic analysis. Overall, the option of building a RRP is recommended for evaluation in Phase 2. An additional advantage offered by a RRP is that it can process and recover C&D waste, negating the need to construct a stand-alone C&D recycling facility.
Both community-scale and large-scale composting performed well in the analysis and were relatively robust in the limited sensitivity analysis. Large-scale composting is the best overall performer; however, as noted previously, investing in a large-scale composting facility is of little value until the County’s ability to divert sufficient organics for processing has been demonstrated. As such, implementing a large-scale facility represents a significant capital cost risk. Although large-scale composting is recommended for evaluation in Phase 2, the County would be better advised to explore incremental developing of composting capacity by developing one or two community-scale facilities as a pilot program, with expansion only after the success of both organics recovery programs (see above) and composting operations has been demonstrated. Methods and targets for incremental development of community-scale composting should be evaluated in Phase 2. Following from the above, another key objective for Phase 2 should be to investigate optimal combinations of the three soft infrastructure programs and three hard infrastructure technologies recommended from Phase 1.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 99 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
9. NEXT STEPS
Based on the Phase 1 Report, the Steering Committee recommended to the County Executive that all six of the options recommended in Section 8.4 should be studied further in Phase 2. The County Executive formally accepted this recommendation (noting that no particular order or preference is given to any one option), and directed the Study Team to proceed with Phase 2 of the Study (Appendix F). In providing direction to proceed, however, the County Executive has requested that an additional option be considered: potential co-digestion of food waste with biosolids at the Ballenger-McKinney Wastewater Treatment Plant. A phased approach to providing additional capacity and upgrading the plant to achieve Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) levels of treatment is in place, including installation of anaerobic digesters once flow at the facility approaches 10 million gallons per day. This option was not specifically studied during Phase 1, but overlaps meaningfully with other options and may offer a pragmatic approach for beneficial reuse of food waste diverted from county restaurants and/or households as recommended. As such, it will be investigated as a seventh option in Phase 2.
Phase 2 of the Study will provide detailed analysis of the actual viability and efficacy of each option, both individually and in combination with other options, and will investigate optimal approaches for incremental rollout of programs to minimize capital cost and other risks. Analyses performed will include: • Technology screening of hard infrastructure options and feedstock specification; • Characterization of the various waste streams that may serve as feedstock based on implementing soft infrastructure options; and • Financial modeling and detailed analysis of each option (including performance under expected, optimistic, and pessimistic assumptions).
Findings and recommendations will be synthesizing into a Final Report, which will incorporate this Phase 1 Report. The Final Report is intended to serve as a roadmap for achieving the recycling and waste diversion goals established for this Study over the next ten years, with a view to continued achievement of more ambitious goals thereafter.
It is reiterated here that the options selected for further analysis in Phase 2 are those that are considered to best divert waste from disposal, minimize environmental impact, and incur the least cost. However, it should be recognized that this does not and should not preclude the County from exploring other options in the future. This include options that offer modest improvements in the immediate term but may compound over time to create meaningful impacts.
ME1306-01/MD16049.FRED CO SWM STUDY_PHASE 1 REPORT_FINAL.DOC 100 FREDERICK COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING COMMITTEE Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Report
APPENDICES
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Phase I Report Appendix A Public Forum Workshop Outreach Materials
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Frederick County, Maryland
Solid Waste Steering Committee
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled paper Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Public Forum Background Document
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Public Forum Background Document
Background To help develop a long-term solid waste management and recycling program for Frederick County, the County Executive launched a robust public outreach process with input and guidance from a citizen steering committee. The goal is to gather ideas from county residents and ultimately identify viable waste management alternatives for Frederick County. To involve county residents in the strategy development, the County is soliciting community input through five facilitated community workshops held at locations throughout the County, collectively called the What’s Next? Solid Waste Public Forum. The Solid Waste Public Forum will provide the community with the opportunity to share ideas and suggest solid waste management options for consideration and to prioritize the criteria for assessing and selecting the options for inclusion in the strategy. Five community workshops are scheduled at the following times and locations:
Date Time Location Monday, November 9, 2015 7 – 9 pm Winchester Hall, 1st floor 12 East Church Street Frederick, MD, 21701 Thursday, November 19, 2015 7 – 9 pm Oakdale High School, Room B200 5850 Eaglehead Drive Ijamsville, MD 21754 Monday, December 7, 2015 7 – 9 pm Brunswick Volunteer Fire Company 1500 Volunteer Drive Brunswick, MD 21716 Monday, January 11, 2016 7– 9 pm Urbana High School, Media Center 3471 Campus Drive Ijamsville, MD 21754 Saturday, January 23, 2016 10 am – 12 pm Thurmont Town Hall 10 Frederick Road Thurmont, MD 21788
To learn more about current solid waste management in Frederick County, please reference the Frederick County Solid Waste Management factsheet available at the What’s Next? Solid Waste Public Forum website (www.frederickcountymd.gov/WhatsNext).
1
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Public Forum Background Document
Workshop Format and Structure Each workshop will be led by a team of professional facilitators to focus discussions and optimize the use of time to permit the lively exchange of ideas.
Prior to the workshop: Participants should review this document, as well as the accompanying factsheet about Frederick County Solid Waste Management, to establish a baseline of information for discussion.
During the workshop: Participants will actively share ideas through facilitated sessions. Structured brainstorming and critical analysis will be used to envision the future strategy for Frederick County solid waste management. Participants will be encouraged to provide input both verbally and through written format during the workshop.
Public Forum Workshop Agenda Opening Session • Welcome and Opening Remarks • Overview of Workshop Format and Structure • Review of Frederick County Solid Waste Management and Recycling Brainstorm Solid Waste Management Options Focus Question: What solid waste management options would you suggest we consider in this options study?
Rank Criteria for Assessing Solid Waste Management Options Focus Question: What criteria are most important to you in evaluating solid waste management options?
Open Discussion Focus Question: What other issues that are important to you have we not discussed?
Review and Discuss Ranked Criteria (Output from Workshop) Closing and Adjourn
Workshop Scope and Boundaries • This effort is focused on solid waste in Frederick County, including residential and commercial trash, recycling, yard waste, and building and construction waste. • The community forums are designed to look forward at the best options for the future of the County, not back at past successes or failures. Participants are asked to avoid lengthy speeches about past experiences and offer positive contributions for improving the future. • The Public Forum is intended to inform the solid waste management options and evaluation criteria against which options should be evaluated. No final decisions regarding solid waste management options or evaluation criteria will be made during the Public Forum workshops. • The Public Waste Management Options Study will recommend approaches and technologies for managing Frederick County’s solid waste management in the most advantageous way. Issues such as the future siting of facilities are outside the scope of this study.
2
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Public Forum Background Document
Ground Rules for Participation To ensure the workshops are as inclusive and productive as possible, the County has established ground rules for participation. Please follow these ground rules during the Public Forum: • Be respectful and listen to others • Be collaborative • Brainstorm - all ideas are good ideas • Stay focused and on task • Be concise • If you are attending multiple Public Forum workshops, allow citizens who have not yet contributed to do so before repeating viewpoints expressed at prior workshops
Expected Outputs and Timeframe The results of each workshop will be summarized into a report that will inform the overall Solid Waste Management Options Study.
After completion of all the workshops, a Draft Report on the Study will be prepared by the County’s consultant. An additional “Synthesis Workshop” will be held on February 29, 2016 to summarize findings and guide report preparation. The Draft Report will be submitted to the County Executive by March 31, 2016, after which a mechanism for public review and submission of comments on the Draft Report will be provided via the What’s Next? Solid Waste Public Forum website.
Based on comments received on the Draft Report, a Final Report will be prepared and submitted to the County Executive by May 31, 2016. A mechanism for public review and submission of comments on the Final Report will again be provided, details of which will be communicated via the What’s Next? Solid Waste Public Forum website.
Recommendations from the Final Report will inform a deeper study of feasible options for implementing changes to the County’s Solid Waste Management and Recycling Program. The schedule for this extended study will be communicated after completion of the Final Report.
Contact Information Questions and comments about the Solid Waste Public Forum can be addressed to: John Daniels, Chair Solid Waste Steering Committee [email protected]
Additional Resources To learn more about solid waste management, please refer to resources provided at: http://frederickcountymd.gov/5634/Waste-Management-Trash-and-Recycling
Check out My Waste App – Download free for your smartphone or tablet
3
Frederick County Solid Waste Management
Where Are We Now? The Frederick County landfill is filling up, so most of our waste is currently being trucked out of state to other landfills. While many of Frederick’s citizens use the range of recycling services in place, more can be done to reduce the amount of waste produced in the county and to find sustainable alternatives to disposal in landfills.
In 2013, Frederick County in county generated approximately 49.5% 50.5% 9% recycledii landfill + 427,000 5% total tons of waste creditsiii out of of which 271,000 tons 54.5% Waste Diversion Rate 91% county are MRA waste.i
Frederick County currently offers a range of recycling services and solid waste management initiatives to residents and businesses:
Residential, single-stream contracted curbside The county’s only public landfill facility recyclables collection program Waste transfer operations Single-stream recycling drop-off center Special disposal programs Single-stream recyclables transfer operation Environmental compliance Drop-off site recycling programs for other materials, including automotive materials, scrap metal, appliances, Health and safety compliance electronics, flexible foam, and bulky rigid plastics Four municipal recycling drop-off centers What’s Next? We’re currently exploring new approaches to solid waste management. We welcome your input at a series of upcoming public forums that will help shape the future of solid waste management in Frederick County.
For public forum dates and times, visit: www.frederickcountymd.gov/6489/Solid-Waste---Whats-Next
For more information on the waste reduction, recycling, and other disposal options available in Frederick County, take a look at the Residents’ Guide to Solid Waste Management in Frederick County available at: www.FrederickCountyMD.gov/WasteManagement.
iMRA (Maryland Recycling Act) waste = Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) plus industrial waste from non-private, industrial waste landfills. iiRecycling rate based on MRA waste and MRA recyclables. iiiSource Reduction Credits for promoting waste reduction. Percent Disposition of MSW in the 50+1 States Ranked in order of fraction diverted from landfill (size of orange bar) Based on 2014 survey at Columbia University, New York
Source: Themelis N.J. and Shin D. (2015) “Survey of MSW Generation and Disposition in the US,” MSW Management Magazine, November/December 2015, pp. 18-24
MARYLAND
26% 13% 23% 38%
KEY:
All 2011 data, except where asterisked (*), which is 2008 data projected to 2011 January 2016
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Public Outreach Workshops 9 November 2015 – 23 January 2016
Facilitated on behalf of the Solid Waste Steering Committee by:
Introduction to the Study Team
Ross Brindle Jeremy Morris Tom Ramsey
Geosyntec is the County’s Consultant for the Study Nexight is Geosyntec’s Subconsultant
1 January 2016
Introduction to the Study Team
Solid Waste Steering Committee John Daniels - Chairman
Workshop Agenda
Public Forum Workshop Agenda 10:00am – 10:20am Opening Session • Welcome and Opening Remarks • Overview of Workshop Format and Structure • Review of Frederick County Solid Waste Management and Recycling 10:20am – 10:50am Brainstorm Solid Waste Management Options Focus Question: What solid waste management options would you suggest we consider in this study? 10:50am – 11:10am Rank Criteria for Assessing Solid Waste Management Options Focus Question: What criteria are most important to you in evaluating solid waste management options? 11:10am – 11:35am Open Discussion Focus Question: What other issues have we not discussed that are important to you? 11:35am – 11:50am Review and Discuss Ranked Criteria 11:50am – 12:00pm Closing
2 January 2016
Welcome and Opening Remarks
www.frederickcountymd.gov/WhatsNext
Workshop Scope and Boundaries
Goal: Active Sharing of Ideas through Transparent Process • Intended to inform the County’s long-term planning and decision making • Focused on: Residential and commercial trash Recycling Yard waste Food waste • Forward looking • No final decisions will be made during the workshops • No detailed consideration of siting issues
3 January 2016
Workshop Ground Rules
Goal: Active Sharing of Ideas through Transparent Process • Please follow these ground rules: Be respectful and listen to others Be collaborative Brainstorm – all ideas are good ideas Stay focused and on task Be concise • If you have attended multiple Public Forum workshops, allow citizens who have not yet contributed to do so before repeating viewpoints expressed at prior workshops
Expected Outputs and Timeframe
Phase I of the Study • Key outputs from each workshop will include the following: Options to consider as part of the study Ranked criteria for screening/assessing options Other factors and issues to consider • Draft Report will be prepared after completion of all workshops Summary “synthesis” workshop on 29 February 2016 Mechanism for public review and comment • Final Report to County Executive by 31 May 2016 Phase II of the Study • Recommendations from Phase I carried forward into a deeper study of feasible options for implementing changes Keep up-to-date: www.frederickcountymd.gov/WhatsNext
4 January 2016
Review of County Solid Waste Management
Regulation under the Maryland Recycling Act (MRA) • The MRA establishes recycling goals for all Maryland Counties based on population – Through 2015, Frederick County was required to recycle 20% of the solid waste generated – This rate increases to 35% in 2016 • To allow fair measurement across counties, waste and recycling is divided into MRA and non-MRA materials • MRA materials are municipal solid waste (MSW) plus some industrial wastes
www.mde.maryland.gov/recycling
Review of County Solid Waste Management
Recycling under the Maryland Recycling Act (MRA) • What counts towards MRA recycling? Paper, Plastic, Glass, Metal, Compostables Misc. (e.g., in 2013, Frederick County recycled roofing shingles, fiberglass, granule waste, and toner cartridges, amongst other materials) • Over 134,000 tons of MRA materials were recycled in the county in 2013 • What doesn’t count towards MRA recycling? × Antifreeze, Asphalt, Concrete, Construction Waste, Land- clearing Debris, Scrap Automobiles, Scrap Metal, Sewage Sludge, Soils, Waste Oil, … • Over 36,000 tons of non-MRA materials were recycled in the county in 2013 How and what you measure is important
5 January 2016
Review of County Solid Waste Management
Recycling in Frederick County under Maryland Recycling Act (MRA) • MRA Recycling Rate 49.5% in 2013 (134,128 tons) Up from 46.7% in 2012 and 34.3% in 2005 Ahead of 35% MRA goal by Dec. 2015 • MRA Waste Diversion Rate (WDR) 54.5% in 2013 Calculated from MRA Recycling Rate plus 5% source reduction credits for promoting recycling programs
Review of County Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Materials Balance for Frederick County (2013)
Total MRA Waste
271,000 tons
Residential Commercial Yard Waste & Recycling Recycling Compostables Trash 27,000 tons 77,000 tons 30,000 tons 137,000 tons
MATERIALS VARIES COMPOST LANDFILL RECOVERY 53% is 91% is Out-of-County FACILITY Commercial Disposal (MRF)
134,000 tons diverted from landfill Source: 2013 MRA Report (49.5%) Tonnage values rounded to nearest 1,000
6 January 2016
Review of County Solid Waste Management
Zero Waste Maryland • “Zero Waste Maryland: Maryland’s Plan to Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle Nearly All Waste Generated in Maryland by 2040” (issued December 2014) 80% overall recycling goal 90% recycling goal for food scraps 90% recycling goal for yard trimmings 85% diversion goal • Incremental goals set between 2015 and 2040 • The Plan acknowledges that what counts toward recycling and diversion goals varies and is likely to evolve http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Marylander/Pages/ZeroWastePlan.aspx
Review of County Solid Waste Management
Zero Waste Maryland – Suggested Actions for Counties • The Plan suggests eight primary actions to be taken over the next 25 years to achieve the goals, including: Increase source reduction and reuse Increase recycling access and participation Increase diversion of organics Conduct education and outreach
http://www.frederickcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter
7 January 2016
Review of County Solid Waste Management
Zero Waste Maryland – Suggested Actions for Counties • The Plan suggests eight primary actions to be taken over the next 25 years to achieve the goals, including: Address specific target materials Incentivize technology innovation and develop markets Recover energy from waste Collaborate and lead by example
Total MSW Generation by Material in the U.S., 2011
Brainstorm Focus Question #1
What solid waste management options would you suggest we consider in this study? Current Residential Commercial Yard Waste & Recycling Recycling Compostables Trash 27,000 tons 77,000 tons 30,000 tons 137,000 tons
MRF VARIES COMPOST LANDFILL Future Recyclables How can we increase the size of the blue bars?
MSW How can we decrease the size of the orange bar?
Food Can we recover food waste from MSW for separate processing? Waste Should food waste be co-processed with yard waste and sewage sludge?
What can we do to reduce the size of all bars?
8 January 2016
Brainstorm Focus Question #1
What solid waste management options would you suggest we consider in this study?
Residential Commercial Yard Waste & Recycling Recycling Compostables Trash 27,000 tons 77,000 tons 30,000 tons 137,000 tons
MRF VARIES COMPOST LANDFILL Discussion Topic 1: Discussion Topic 2: What could or should be What could or should we do done to increase recycling ? with the rest? Mandatory Recycling? Resource Recovery Center / 3-Bin Curbside? Mixed Waste Processing Food Waste Composting/AD? Facility? Extended Producer Separation of Materials for Responsibility? Energy Recovery? Offer Financial Incentives? Stabilization prior to Disposal?
Workshop Focus Question #2
What criteria are most important to you in evaluating solid waste management options?
Some Criteria proposed by the Steering Committee and Previous Workshop Participants Lifecycle Costs Flexibility and Adaptability Environmental Impacts Landfill Diversion Carbon Footprint Zero Waste Number of Jobs Created Sustainability Quality of Life Economic Benefit Public Health and Safety County Image Program Independence Energy Production Enforceability Ease and Simplicity Fair to all Participants Dependence on Education
9 January 2016
Workshop Focus Question #3
Open Discussion: What other issues have we not discussed that are important to you?
Review and Discuss Ranked Criteria
What criteria are most important to you in evaluating solid waste management options? (Output from Workshop)
10 January 2016
Thank You for Your Time and Contributions!
Reminder of Upcoming Workshop: Synthesis and Feedback from the Public Forums
Date Time Location
Monday Winchester Hall, 1st floor 7 – 9 pm 12 East Church Street 29 February 2016 Frederick, MD, 21701
www.frederickcountymd.gov/WhatsNext
11
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Phase I Report Appendix B Public Forum Workshop Results
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Frederick County, Maryland
Solid Waste Steering Committee
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled paper
Appendix B: Public Forum Workshop Results November 9, 2015 Public Forum Results Solid Waste Management Options for Consideration During an open discussion, workshop attendees identified the following solid waste management options for inclusion in the Solid Waste Management Options Study:
• Resource Recovery Parks (i.e., discards are taken to the park where they are prepared for reuse and then sold on the open market) • Fabric recycling • Pay-As-You-Throw programs • Mattress recycling • Vermicomposting/worm farming: using worms, in addition to microbes and bacteria, to turn organic waste into fertilizer • Three-bin recycling (composting, recycling, and trash) • No commingled recycling (separate out glass from paper) • TerraCycle model: recycle difficult-to-recycle waste through a company that partners with major brands to reuse their old materials, offering monetary incentive for charitable organizations of participants’ choice • Source reduction, such as charging for bags at grocery stores • Construction and demolition debris recycling • Composting programs, including at restaurants and markets • Integrated programs with the business community (like the SORRT [Smart Organizations Reduce and Recycle Tons] program in Montgomery County) • Bottle deposit on all disposable containers with collection sites to return bottles • Easily accessible recycling in multi-dwelling buildings • Recycling at County festivals and public events Ranked Evaluation Criteria Participants then identified criteria that should be used when assessing solid waste management options. After defining these criteria through open discussion, participants ranked the criteria by order of importance: each participant selected the top five most important criteria, giving the most important criterion five points and the fifth-most important criterion one point.1 In response to the ranking exercise, several participants emphasized that all of the criteria discussed are important to consider and that none should be excluded as a result of the prioritization exercise.
1 Participants who indicated an equal distribution of points across their top five criteria received three points for each criteria, to ensure that all participants allocated 15 points each.
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
The graph on the following page shows the aggregated scores for each criteria, followed by a detailed list of all criteria (including criteria that did not receive any points).
Importance of Criteria for Evaluating Solid Waste Management Options, by Top Score
Points Awarded: 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Environmental impact* Total lifecycle cost* Public health and safety Flexibility and scalability* Includes all waste streams Acceptability to public Revenue generation and job creation Educational requirements Simplicity and accessibility Years of landfill life extended Involvement of NMWDA, autonomy of County** Total volume diverted from landfills Generates new products/other residual benefits Worker safety Dependence upon enforcement County image for attracting residents/businesses Residue disposal Extent of program changes required Ease of siting Energy and transportation Program independence Integration with Livable Frederick Plan Other***
*These are combined responses to prevent votes from being split across redundant entries. If participants ranked more than one entry within one group, their scores were aggregated to ensure each participant retained 15 points. **While most attendees did not write in removal of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (NMWDA) on their score sheets, several participants voiced the desire to remove NMWDA from the County's future waste management operations. ***Other responses included requiring public schools to participate in the waste disposal program. November 9, 2015
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Detailed List of Criteria Points Environmental impact: local and remote impacts on land, water, and air; carbon footprint; 200 welfare of current and future human communities Total lifecycle cost to taxpayers and other individuals, capital intensiveness 52
Public health and safety (emissions, odors, vermin, traffic, noise, etc.) 50 Flexibility and scalability (incl. technology commitment, longevity of the solution, ability 44 to handle future growth of the community) Includes all waste streams (e.g., single-family homes, multi-family dwellings, businesses, 28 industry) Acceptability to public 24
Revenue generation and job creation, potential for economic growth to alleviate poverty 23
Educational requirements (public, County staff, citizenship, etc.) 19
Simplicity and accessibility 14
Years of landfill life extended 12
Involvement of NMWDA, autonomy of County 12
Total volume diverted from landfills (both in and out of county) 11
Generation of new products or other residual benefits 11
Worker safety 6
Dependence upon enforcement 5
County image for keeping and attracting residents and businesses 5
Residue disposal 4
Extent of program changes required 4
Ease of siting 4
Energy and transportation 3
Program independence 2
Integration with Livable Frederick Plan 2
Other: public schools required to participate 1
All involved sites are validated with the most rigorous processing requirements 0
Relevant experience 0
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Other Factors for Study Consideration The workshop participants also engaged in discussion focused on other factors that should be considered during the Solid Waste Management Options Study. Key discussion points included the following:
• Effective legislation will require cooperation between county, state, and federal agencies. • Frederick County should leverage programs and experience from Loudon, Montgomery, and Carroll Counties and examine successful programs in Wellesley, Massachusetts. • The County should develop incentive programs for recycling, including an annual celebration of County diversion, to encourage participation from residents and businesses. • Recycling education is critical to increasing the county waste diversion rate. The County should use the Frederick County TV station for recycling education, emphasize outreach to schools, and study ways to promote behavioral change. • Fines for commingling or disregard for recycling would provide a deterrent that could encourage increased County recycling.
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
November 19, 2015 Public Forum Results Solid Waste Management Options for Consideration During an open discussion, workshop attendees identified the following solid waste management options for inclusion in the Solid Waste Management Options Study:
• Pay-As-You-Throw programs • Three-bin recycling (i.e., composting [including food scraps], recycling, and trash) • Composting programs similar to those in San Francisco • Providing composting tumblers for county compost collections, or discounted tumblers for personal use • Resource Recovery Parks (i.e., discards are taken to the park where they are prepared for reuse and then sold on the open market, such as parks being set up by North American Zero Waste) • Multi-stream recycling with clear labels indicating what can be recycled and specifying the landfill destination of non-recyclable waste to encourage proper sorting (like Whole Foods’ waste management) • Single-stream recycling programs to make participation easier, particularly at condos, apartments, and businesses who do not currently participate in the County recycling program • Encouraging retailers and fast food companies to reduce non-recyclable waste (e.g., Styrofoam) that comes from packaging • Using landfills within the county or closer to the county, but reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfills • Researching waste management programs in other counties (including techniques, policies, incentives, and educational programs), to identify new options and understand the environmental and economic impacts of existing programs • Working with recycling partners that can accommodate a wider variety of plastics • Integrated programs with the business community (like the SORRT [Smart Organizations Reduce and Recycle Tons] program in Montgomery County) • Increasing the budget and emphasis on solid waste management education • Developing enforcement policies and legislation (like those in Montgomery County) Ranked Evaluation Criteria Participants then identified criteria that should be used when assessing solid waste management options. After defining these criteria through open discussion, participants ranked the criteria by order of importance: each participant selected the top five most important criteria, giving the most important criterion five points and the fifth-most important criterion one point.
The graph on the following page shows the aggregated scores for each criterion, followed by a detailed list of all criteria (including criteria that did not receive any points).
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Importance of Criteria for Evaluating Solid Waste Management Options, by Top Score:
Points Awarded: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Environmental Impacts
Flexibility and Adaptability
Zero Waste
Lifecycle Costs
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty
Capital Intensiveness of Program
No Involvement of NMWDA
Acceptability to Public
Quality of Life
No Incineration
Sustainability
Number of Jobs Created
Clear Timeframe for Implementation
Economic Benefit
County Image
Dependence on Education
Longevity of the Solution
November 19, 2015
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Detailed List of Criteria Points Environmental Impacts (both within and outside of the County), including Carbon 34 Footprint Flexibility and Adaptability (open to advances in technology) 18 Zero Waste 15 Lifecycle Costs 11 Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty 10 Capital Intensiveness of Program 8 No Involvement of NMWDA, or other parties that present a conflict of interest 7 Acceptability to Public 7 Quality of Life 5 No Incineration, or programs with similar emissions 5 Sustainability 4 Number of Jobs Created 3 Clear Timeframe for Implementation 3 Economic Benefit 2 County Image 1 Dependence on Education 1 Longevity of the Solution 1 Public Health and Safety 0 Program Independence 0 Enforceability 0 Fair to all Participants 0 Landfill Diversion 0 Energy Production 0 Ease and Simplicity 0 Management Requirements 0 Inclusive of all Waste Streams (e.g. biological, businesses, apartments, etc.) 0
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Other Factors for Study Consideration The workshop participants also engaged in discussion focused on other factors that should be considered during the Solid Waste Management Options Study. Key discussion points included the following:
• Public Forum participants recommended that the County communicate about the Solid Waste Public Forum through local publications to increase attendance and participation. (County representatives indicated that the County Executive did a media blast to all municipalities and distributed a media release prior to the meeting.) • Participants stressed the importance of making sure all municipalities are aware of this program and future programs; perhaps the County Executive should ask municipalities to send representatives to these meetings. • Participants expressed interest in additional statistics, including the amount of landfilled waste that is food waste, the results from recent Montgomery and Anne Arundel County waste sorts, the amount of Frederick County construction and demolition waste, the cost per ton of transporting landfilled waste out of the state, and the amount of landfilled waste from residents with curbside recycling access. • Participants suggested that medical waste should be accounted for in County activity; private companies typically collect this waste and dispose of it through incineration. • Participants highlighted that the waste management program we pursue is an opportunity to build Frederick County’s image as being progressive and intelligent. • Participants noted that it is important to recognize the elements of our waste management that can be controlled by the County, and what must be handled by the State (e.g., bottle laws must be handled by the State). They suggested including members of the Maryland delegation in the e-mail communications about these meetings and their findings could help expand the programs’ reach. • Participants emphasized that these efforts will require cultural change; we must teach young children to value recycling and reuse, and we must build consumer pressure against large companies that generate substantial waste.
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
December 7, 2015 Public Forum Results Solid Waste Management Options for Consideration During an open discussion, workshop attendees identified the following solid waste management options for consideration in the Solid Waste Management Options Study: Source Reduction • Pay-As-You-Throw programs, potentially requiring haulers to offer customers a variable pricing plan • Trash-free lunches at schools, including replacing Styrofoam trays with recyclable or reusable trays • County-wide ban on Styrofoam • Fee for single-use plastic bags • Legislation/incentives to improve companies’ packaging materials (e.g., a ban on non-recyclable packaging materials, or requiring the use of compostable containers such as those made from hemp-based plastics) Recycling • Three-bin recycling (i.e., composting [including food scraps], recycling, and trash) • Glass-recycling program that can accommodate colored glass • Bottle bill (i.e., a deposit on beverages sold in recyclable containers, which is paid back once the bottle is returned to the vendor or a bottle return facility) • Curbside recycling for commercial buildings • Accessible recycling at public events, including at county fire stations and other public event spaces • Collecting recycling once a week and trash every other week to encourage recycling and send a message that residents should strive to reduce waste • Legislation that encourages/requires builders to recycle their construction waste • Financial incentives that encourage businesses to recycle and reuse Composting • Small-bin worm farming (i.e., using worms, in addition to microbes and bacteria, to turn organic waste into fertilizer) to increase composting in townhouses, restaurants, or other non-rural sites • Incentives (e.g., property tax reductions) for backyard composting, similar to the county rain barrel program, and data collection about the amount of waste diverted through backyard recycling efforts • Composting programs in schools to manage their food and organic waste • Collecting paper towels from public restrooms for composting • Incentives for businesses willing to serve as commercial composting facilities Reuse • Program for households to provide their food waste to local farmers for use as livestock feed • Architectural salvage programs, similar to DC and Baltimore programs that hire people to deconstruct architectural waste for reuse • Sites where people can drop off unwanted items that may be of value to others and/or take home items that others dropped off (e.g., “Bone yards” similar to those in Brunswick)
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
• Building in a window of several days before the County’s bulk trash collection for people to put out their items early, encouraging others to pick it up for their own use to keep it from becoming part of the waste stream • Eco-Industrial Parks (i.e., an industrial park where firms collaborate to reduce their energy and material use), including: o Resource Recovery Parks: sites where discards are taken to be prepared for reuse and then sold on the open market o Symbiotic Industrial Parks: industrial parks where industrial plants use the by-products of each other’s production in their own feedstock o Agro-Eco Industrial Parks: eco-industrial parks that provide support for sustainable farming and food processing • Supporting or building organizations’ door-to-door collection of waste that can be reused (e.g., Goodwill’s clothing collection) • Financial incentives that will encourage recycling or reuse businesses (e.g., thrift stores) to come into the County • Reducing tipping fees for companies that make efforts to reuse materials, reducing the amount of trash contributed to the waste stream Education • Providing residents with information on how much they throw away and recycle (e.g., a program in Australia where residents can earn prizes if their waste bins are free of recyclable materials) to help residents better understand their habits and make course corrections • Educating businesses about reusable industrial container options • Develop county-wide curriculum that educates students, starting with elementary schools, about the importance and practices of composting, reducing, reusing, and recycling to improve waste management practices at school and at home • Developing a training curriculum for businesses to use during employee orientations to teach employees about reducing, reusing, and recycling both at work and at home Other • Surveillance cameras around common dump sites with heavy littering to enforce existing fines • Bring back the “Big Sweep” program (i.e., non-profits are sponsored in a walk-a-thon to collect litter along roads) • Incineration, with revised regulations to substantially improve state oversight Ranked Evaluation Criteria Participants then identified criteria that should be used when assessing solid waste management options. After defining these criteria through open discussion, participants ranked the criteria by order of importance: each participant selected the top five most important criteria, giving the most important criterion five points and the fifth-most important criterion one point.
The graph on the following page shows the aggregated scores for each criterion, followed by a detailed list of all criteria (including criteria that did not receive any points).
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Importance of Criteria for Evaluating Solid Waste Management Options, by Top Score
Points Awarded: 0 1020304050
Environmental Impacts Lifecycle Costs Zero Waste Sustainability Encourages Source Reduction Ease and Simplicity (User-Friendly) Likelihood of Effecting Behavior Change Fair to all Participants Economic Benefit Flexibility and Adaptability Enforceability Public Health and Safety Landfill Diversion Carbon Footprint Dependence on Education Availability of Data to Assess the Program County Image Ability to Educate the Public about the Option Number of Jobs Created
December 7, 2015
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Detailed List of Criteria Points
Environmental Impacts, both local and out-of-County 41
Lifecycle Costs, both financial and energy 31
Zero Waste 31
Sustainability 29
Encourages Source Reduction 28
Ease and Simplicity (User-Friendly) 24
Likelihood of Effecting Behavior Change 15
Fair to all Participants 13
Economic Benefit 13
Flexibility and Adaptability 12
Enforceability 11
Public Health and Safety 10
Landfill Diversion 10
Carbon Footprint 7
Dependence on Education 7
Availability of Data to Assess the Program 6
County Image 5
Ability to Educate the Public about the Option 5
Number of Jobs Created 2
Quality of Life 0
Program Independence 0
Energy Production 0 Takes advantage of existing times/spaces where people are meeting and collaborating 0 together
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Other Factors for Study Consideration The workshop participants also engaged in discussion focused on other factors that should be considered during the Solid Waste Management Options Study. Key discussion points from individual participants included the following:
• Recommendation that the County share its findings and conclusions in Annapolis to help inform State-level waste management dialogue and programs. The participant further recommended that the County engage with other Maryland counties to learn from each other’s programs and to build collective waste management solutions • Recommendation to study waste management programs around the United States and in Europe to learn from their successes • Suggestion to explore machinery advancements that could reduce waste management labor costs (e.g., machines that sort contaminated waste from recycling) • Emphasis that, in the long term, the County must reduce the amount of waste it generates as well as improve the way it manages that waste • Emphasis on the value of solutions that don’t have a heavy technology capital expenditure to enable long-term flexibility and adaptability • Discussion about how the entirety of a Frederick County school being taken out of commission will be recycled
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
January 11, 2016 Public Forum Results Solid Waste Management Options for Consideration During an open discussion, workshop attendees identified the following solid waste management options for consideration in the Solid Waste Management Options Study: Source Reduction • Encourage teachers to provide more materials electronically rather than in print • Replace Styrofoam with reusable trays and utensils in school cafeterias • Encourage increased use of reusable bags instead of plastic bags o Educate consumers about the environmental benefits of reusable bags o Charge a fee for plastic bags in retail and grocery stores • Encourage manufacturers to produce longer-lasting products and encourage people to hold on to their goods rather than constantly upgrading to the newest technology or product • Hold ‘Biggest Loser’ contest, awarding the municipality that reduces its municipal solid waste by the largest amount each year • Voluntary pay-as-you-throw or save-as-you-recycle programs Recycling • Three-bin recycling, especially in school cafeterias • Bottle bill (i.e., a deposit on beverages sold in recyclable containers, which is paid back once the bottle is returned to the vendor or a bottle return facility) o Potential program to give the money earned from recycling to charities • Tiered dumping/tipping fees for haulers based on the percent of waste their customers recycle • Recycling of clam shell containers and other mass-produced goods that can’t currently be recycled • Offer county recycling services to commercial properties, including small businesses and residences located on commercial properties • Ban non-recyclable materials (e.g., Montgomery County’s ban on Styrofoam) • Establish one-stop site for all recycling (e.g., batteries, fluorescent bulbs) to reduce energy required to recycle certain materials • Prevent litter from falling out of recycling trucks (e.g., a grate on the back of the truck) Composting • Participate in the Master Composter Program or Neighborhood Soil Rebuilders training program to educate County residents about backyard composting • Change Frederick County’s zoning to permit composting partnerships with local farms (e.g., private residences or restaurants could donate their food waste to farmers) o This would also increase locally-produced foods, reducing packaging • Develop a Grants Management Program to facilitate and oversee all community composting activities • School composting program for cafeteria food scraps similar to the one in Howard County • Establish County-wide yard waste composting program that includes pickup and transportation to the composting site • Build large-scale composting facility
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
• Compost food waste from large institutions • Incentives for composting Reuse • Free-cycling programs at landfills (e.g., a drop-off point for high-quality, too-good-for-the-landfill waste) • Resource recovery parks (i.e., sites where discards are taken to be prepared for reuse and then sold on the open market) • Change County zoning to encourage development of reuse, repair, and recycling businesses Education • Assess efficacy of current waste management education programs • Educate grocery stores and restaurants about food waste policies to divert waste to local farms or shelters, and work with them to change any policies that inhibit recycling or reuse • Educate consumers about ways to reduce their food waste • Education programs on how to recycle (e.g., store plastic bags within one another so they won’t fly out during transport) • Education program in schools about public responsibility • Education program to reframe waste as a resource, so people will manage their “waste” more responsibly Monitoring and Implementation • Create waste reduction goals to measure the County’s progress against those goals • Brand the County’s waste management strategy and establish a mascot to increase participation • Require that schools and other institutions participate in County waste programs, offering training to staff and ensuring effective monitoring Other • Buy a more efficient and powerful trash compactor to expand the in-county landfill capacity, and invest the cost savings in zero-waste projects • Place waste collection sites along railroad lines to reduce transportation costs • Include bio-solids in the County’s waste management plan • Develop phone app that sends reminders for solid waste pickup dates, or an annual calendar of solid waste pickup dates (e.g., MyWaste, which currently send reminders for recycling and yard waste pickup dates) Ranked Evaluation Criteria Participants then identified criteria that should be used when assessing solid waste management options. After defining these criteria through open discussion, participants ranked the criteria by order of importance: each participant selected the top five most important criteria, giving the most important criterion five points and the fifth-most important criterion one point.
The graph on the following page shows the aggregated scores for each criterion, followed by a detailed list of all criteria (including criteria that did not receive any points).
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Importance of Criteria for Evaluating Solid Waste Management Options, by Top Score
Points Awarded: 0 20406080 Environmental Impacts Zero Waste Carbon Footprint Lifecycle Costs Sustainability Impact on Future Generations Education and Teach-ability Flexibility and Adaptability Ease and Simplicity Draws on Proven Systems/Lessons-Learned No Toxic Releases Public Health and Safety Increases Local Self-Reliance Economic Benefit Speed to Implementation Landfill Diversion Nuisance Issues Quality of Life Regulatory and Legislative Feasibility Fair to all Participants Number of Jobs Created Enforceability Integration into Existing Systems Leverages Existing Programs and Infrastructure Energy Production Dependence on Education County Image Cohesion and Coordination
January 11, 2016
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Detailed List of Criteria Points Environmental Impacts, both within and outside the County 73 Zero Waste 60 Carbon Footprint 42 Lifecycle Costs (ranked by cost reduction per ton of waste produced) 36 Sustainability 36 Impact on Future Generations 28 Education and Teach-ability 27 Flexibility and Adaptability 26 Ease and Simplicity 24 Draws on Proven Systems/Lessons-Learned, especially through use of statistics 22 No Toxic Releases 21 Public Health and Safety 20 Localized Solutions, Increases Local Self-Reliance (e.g., benefits farms and economic 19 development, doesn’t depend on out-of-county options) Economic Benefit 17 Speed to Implementation 15 Landfill Diversion 12 Nuisance Issues (e.g., noise, odors, traffic) 10 Quality of Life 9 Regulatory and Legislative Feasibility 9 Fair to all Participants 7 Number of Jobs Created 6 Enforceability 6 Ability to Integrate into County Waste Management System 6 Leverages Existing Programs and Infrastructure 5 Energy Production (e.g., anaerobic digestion) 4 Dependence on Education 4 County Image 2 Cohesion and Coordination of Different Components 1 Program Independence 0
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Other Factors for Study Consideration The workshop participants also engaged in discussion focused on other factors that should be considered or communicated during the Solid Waste Management Options Study. Key discussion points from individual participants included the following:
• To inform efforts, one participant suggested obtaining data and feedback from the county materials recovery facility to pinpoint and address current recycling pain points. • Participants expressed interest in remaining engaged with the outcome of the Solid Waste Management Options Study following the conclusion of the Public Forum meetings. Additional opportunities include attending the Steering Committee meetings every third Thursday at 7:00pm at Winchester Hall, reviewing and providing comments on publicized Public Forum reports (available on the What’s Next? website), and submitting additional ideas for solid waste management options via email. • In response to questions from a couple participants, the County Executive indicated that the County faces no hard deadlines for developing their solid waste management strategy. • When asked if there was any risk that Pennsylvania could refuse to landfill Frederick County’s waste, a County consultant indicated that Pennsylvania could not legally refuse the waste but could increase the taxes they collect on the waste disposed of in their state.
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
February 6, 2016 Public Forum Results Solid Waste Management Options for Consideration During an open discussion, workshop attendees identified the following solid waste management options for consideration in the Solid Waste Management Options Study: Recycling • Recycling for multi-dwelling locations (e.g., apartment complexes), such as: o Setting regulations for building development that ensure recycling programs are incorporated into building design (e.g., installing recycling chutes) o Partnering with existing multi-dwelling locations to develop customized recycling programs for each location o Increasing the frequency of recycling collection to allow residents to store recycling bins in their own apartments • Strengthening recycling programs in schools, including by educating and monitoring custodians to ensure trash remains sorted • Three-bin recycling (i.e., composting [including food scraps], recycling, and trash) • Pay-As-You-Throw programs • Providing public recycling bins on County streets • Studying County-wide household recycling rates to identify regional pain points, and responding with increased outreach and education in those areas • Partnering with other counties to build a regional Resource Recovery Complex (i.e., sites where discards are taken to be prepared for reuse and then sold on the open market) • Launching a Residual Research Center to study ways of using materials that are currently unable to be recovered • Recycling metals through out-of-county recycling centers (e.g., current program in Montgomery County) • Identifying recycling partners for all plastic types to build more local recycling capabilities • Expanding retailer/commercial recycling participation (e.g., grocery stores offering incentives to customers that bring recyclables back to the store) Composting • Developing a centralized (community-wide or County-wide) composting service • Educating residents about household composting • Providing bins to households for composting • Providing separate trash collection and food waste collection programs (e.g., the waste collection system that used to be offered in D.C.) • Organizing a food collection program for giving unused food to food pantries or livestock • Encouraging composting in restaurants and other large producers of food waste Education • Working with churches, schools, and other cultural thought centers to educate the public about responsible waste management
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
• Behavioral change programs targeted toward different groups of people (e.g., those who actively engage in recycling and composting, those who are willing to engage in recycling and composting, and those who are resistant to recycling and composting) • Encouraging consumers to avoid items with a lot of packaging by educating them about the costs and environmental impact of packaging • Developing a curriculum for the County to use to teach students about the value of recycling Other • Researching current best practices for waste streams • Developing a regional digestion facility for food waste (e.g., anaerobic digestion) • Encouraging businesses, especially through incentives, to reduce their packaging (e.g., produce packaging in grocery stores) Ranked Evaluation Criteria Participants then identified criteria that should be used when assessing solid waste management options. After defining these criteria through open discussion, participants ranked the criteria by order of importance: each participant selected the top five most important criteria, giving the most important criterion five points and the fifth-most important criterion one point.
The graph on the following page shows the aggregated scores for each criterion, followed by a detailed list of all criteria (including criteria that did not receive any points).
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Importance of Criteria for Evaluating Solid Waste Management Options, by Top Score
Points Awarded: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Lifecycle Costs Sustainability Environmental Impacts Household Costs Economic Benefit Public Health and Safety Ease and Simplicity Social Impact Flexibility and Adaptability Quality of Life Promotion of Reuse and Source Reduction Fair to all Participants Business Costs Energy Production Dependence on Education Government Costs Return on Investment Infrastructure & Transportation Requirements Low-Tech Enforceability Landfill Diversion Longevity Program Independence Promotes Cleanliness of the County
February 6, 2016
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Detailed List of Criteria Points Lifecycle Costs 38 Sustainability 30 Environmental Impacts, both within and outside the County 22 Household Costs 19 Economic Benefit 15 Public Health and Safety 10 Ease and Simplicity, including convenience and accessibility 10 Social Impact, including dependence on behavioral change 10 Flexibility and Adaptability, e.g., no dependence on technology 8 Quality of Life 7 Promotion of Reuse and Source Reduction 7 Fair to all Participants 6 Business Costs 5 Energy Production, weighed against environmental impact 4 Dependence on Education 3 Government Costs 3 Return on Investment 3 Infrastructure and Transportation Requirements 3 Low-Tech 3 Enforceability 2 Landfill Diversion 2 Longevity 2 Program Independence 1 Promotes Cleanliness of the County 1 Carbon Footprint 0 Number of Jobs Created 0 Zero Waste 0 County Image 0 Energy Efficiency 0 Non-Incineration 0
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Other Factors for Study Consideration In addition to the feedback provided above, one participant recommended that the Solid Waste Steering Committee promote word-of-mouth communication through social “hubs” (e.g., churches and schools) to share information about the study and public hearings with residents who do not read online communications. A few participants also suggested that the Solid Waste Steering Committee recast the study and their own name to emphasize the management of “unused resources” rather than the management of “waste”.
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study: Phase I Expanded Summary Report
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Phase I Report Appendix C Public Comments Received
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Frederick County, Maryland
Solid Waste Steering Committee
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled paper
Jeremy Morris
From: whatsnext
------From: Laxton, Vivian Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:13:44 AM To: whatsnext Subject: Twitter suggestion Auto forwarded by a Rule
1
Solid Waste - What's Next?
Solid Waste Steering Committee members pictured above (left to right): Chris Voell, Joe Richardson, Kai Hagen, Patrice Gallagher, Peter Blood, Chairman John Daniels, Phil LeBlanc, County Executive Jan Gardner, Ellis Burruss, and Don Briggs. Not pictured: David Gray and Pat Mylio (alternate).
Public Forums
The Solid Waste-What’s Next Steering Committee will hold public forums to allow citizens to help shape the future of solid waste management in Frederick County.
The forums are scheduled for the following dates and locations:
◦ November 9, 7:00 p.m., Winchester Hall, 12 East Church Street, Frederick (Watch Video)
◦ November 19, 7:00 p.m., Oakdale High School, 5950 Eaglehead Drive, Ijamsville
◦ December 7, 7:00 p.m., Brunswick Fire Company,1500 Volunteer Drive, Brunswick
◦ January 11, 7:00 p.m., Urbana High School, 3471 Campus Drive, Ijamsville
◦ January 23, 10:00 a.m., Thurmont Town Hall, 615 East Main Street, Thurmont
Frederick County Executive Jan Gardner will develop Frederick County’s next long-term solid waste strategy through a facilitated process, which included the appointment of the Steering Committee to develop viable waste management alternates. Enable Google Translate “Along with the assistance of a neutral facilitator, I have formed this special Steering Committee to help manage the process in the development of a sustainable and robust long-term solid waste program for Frederick County. My desire in creating the Steering Committee is to bring a good mixture of experience and viewpoints to the process which is designed to be as balanced and neutral as possible. We will also actively engage our citizens in looking at all the alternatives available to us such as resource recovery, composting, anerobic digestion, zero waste initiatives and other options. My objective is to have an open, transparent, impartial process that balances diverse viewpoints, ideas and perspectives.”
The Steering Committee includes members of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, the Sustainability Commission and others who have been engaged in conversations about solid waste. County officials who currently manage solid waste programs will also provide guidance.
Citizens are encouraged to attend upcoming public forums to present suggestions and ideas about solid waste alternatives and to ask questions of the Steering Committee. Suggestions and ideas also may be submitted using this email.
For more information, call the Frederick County Solid Waste Management Department at 301-600-2960.
Enable Google Translate
What is the typical useful life and output of land fill gas used to generate electricity and does it have a declining life curve over time and if so what is the typical life pattern cure and return on investment.
LANDFILL GASES VS INCINERATION WASTE DISPOSAL
http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm
If incineration of solid waste reduces volume by 80% to 90% how does this figure into the reduction of gases in land fills as compared to no incineration of solid waste. It would seem the residue from incineration would produce a minimum amount of gas per cubic ft. as compared to solid waste land fill.
How much gas per ton of incinerated waste is there as compared to gases per ton of not incinerating solid waste assuming both go a land fill?
OVER ALL LONG TERM COSTS OF LANDFILL VS INCINERATION WITH ELECTRIC GENERATION USING LAND FILL GASES AND RECOVERED HEAT OF INCINERATION
How does long term, 30 years for example, incineration of solid waste cost per ton with electric generation from the heat of incineration compare to long term costs of land fill acreage acquisition and costs of gas recovery and building electric generation to use the recovered gases and the amount of electricity generated, taking into account:
The costs and uncertainty of land fills and of trucking solid waste
The emissions of trucks carrying solid waste and returning
The tires and other nanoparticles contributions to the atmosphere
The return of selling electricity from a WTE vs. the cost and maintenance of building systems for landfill gas generation electricity.
2 The cost of including electric generation in a incinerator system WTE (Waste to Energy) to use the heat generated in the volume reduction process of solid waste incineration. How does adding electric generating capabilities to make an WTE compare to long term costs and electricity generated from land fill gases.
RETURN ON SELLING ELECTRICITY VIA LANDFILL GASES VS WTE
If electric generation selling prices make a WTE prohibitive then is it also prohibitive for land fill gas systems considering that the WTE process has the advantage it will reduce land fill gases to almost nothing. If the argument is that using land fill gases to generate electricity reduces greenhouse gases then WTE has the advantage of being a point source diversion of greenhouse gases.
Is there a long term projection on the cost of electricity increase if a large percentage of electric generating plants are forced to quit using coal and have to build other systems?
OTHER FACTORS OF A WTE
A WTE can be used to process waste water treatment plant sludge thereby reducing the costs of that process, especially if the transport of sludge to the WTE is a local trip.
The electricity generated by a WTE is not a declining commodity with time as it is with land fill gas generated electricity.
Electricity costs/markets are not stable and as power plant electric generation goes from coal to gas to alternate modes such as wind the costs of generating electricity may increase substantially. The Paris talks on world climate indicate that fossil fuels for electric generation may be reduced considerably thus possibly driving up the cost of electric generation.
A WTE is a point source of air pollutants and can therefore be easier to monitor and install better filters and incineration techniques for reduction of pollutants as technology improves.
3
AIR POLLUTIONS OF INCINERATION VS LAND FILL
What are the overall emissions, per ton, of solid waste disposal to landfills vs incinerator ash and waste including all the transportation pollution? Emission from trucking solid waste to other landfills is a case of not having pollutants at one place but the philosophy of solution of pollution by dilution does not change the total amount of pollutants into the atmosphere from transporting solid waste, local or long haul. Can pollutants from WTE can be more effectively measured and controlled as a point source?
RECYLING
Recycling is a big factor in reducing solid waste but I feel there is no 'standard' for local entities to compute recycling for accurate comparisons. Please consider a way to quantify recycling percentage.
I have written several times before of my concerns that my polyester shirt partly made of , say, 15 plastic soda bottles, means those bottles were recycled but how can that be when the shirt will be disposed of when used up, it just takes the 15 bottles longer to get to a solid waste end. That has to be true !!!
If what is called recycled can again be processed into other products that can be recycled then that is true recycling but if what is called recycled has a numbered recycled life process before it gets discarded as waste then it would seem that would not fit the definition of recycling.
I just saw a business show where purses were made of recyclable bottles and again, those purses will go to the landfill for disposal when they are discarded so again, are the plastic bottles really recycled or just on a prolonged trip to a landfill.
In principle, water is an example of something that is truly recycled.
I believe my concerns have merit.
4
Respectfully submitted,
Rolan O. Clark
5
Sierra Club – Catoctin Group - Recommendations to the SWSC
The Sierra Club – Catoctin Group (Frederick, Carroll & Washington counties) recommends that the Frederick County Solid Waste Steering Committee consider the following information and ideas for their solid waste future.
~ The official Sierra Club Zero Waste policy begins on page one (1) of this paper. ~ The official Sierra Club Composting policy begins on page three (3) of this paper. ~ The Sierra Club – Catoctin Group fully supports the Frederick Zero Waste Alliance five-point position paper, and its associated details. We work closely with the Alliance on local solid waste issues. ~ Novel ideas for helping achieve Zero Waste in Frederick County begin on page four (4) of this paper. ~ Lastly, the Sierra Club – Catoctin Group urges support for the proposed “MD Redeemable Beverage Container Refund and Litter Reduction Act”; page five (5) of this paper.
Zero Waste Cradle-to-Cradle Principles for the 21st Century Policy The Sierra Club’s policy for reducing waste is based on Zero Waste. Zero Waste is a design principle and planning approach for the environmental management of resources. It aims to prevent waste by design rather than manage it after the fact. Sierra Club’s Zero Waste policy addresses not only the quantity of waste we generate, but also its toxicity, its contribution to climate change, and the important links between waste reduction and corporate responsibility. The goals of the Sierra Club Zero Waste policy integrate social, environmental and economic outcomes: • Protecting public health and the environment from pollution and greenhouse gas production. • Conserving raw materials and energy in the production, transportation, and disposal of goods. • Reducing over consumption by encouraging the consumer to eliminate the purchase of unnecessary goods and packaging, especially single use, disposable items. • Facilitating community economic development and local jobs in repair, refurbishing and recycling. • Internalizing environmental and social costs in the prices of products and services. • Encouraging “Cradle to cradle” design and management systems that cycle all materials safely back into the environment or the marketplace.
In pursuing these goals, the Sierra Club adopts the following principles: 1. Zero Waste Hierarchy: Environmental management of materials and energy should adhere to this order of priority: first, reduce the use of materials and energy and the use of toxic substances to a minimum (through design for the environment); second, repair and reuse, extending the service life of materials and products; and third, recycle, conserving as much as possible of embodied value. 2. Government Responsibility to protect the commons: Governments at all levels are obligated to protect public health and the environment. They do this by fostering an economic system Page 1 – Sierra Club – Catoctin Group – Jan. 11, 2016 that fully values environmental and social costs and by providing public services and amenities that the market cannot or should not provide. The removal of government subsidies for the extraction of virgin materials and other subsidies for wasteful consumption are key elements of this principle. 3. Producer and Consumer Responsibility for products: Any producer introducing products and services into commerce should design them in accordance with the Zero Waste Hierarchy and to make returning used products for reuse, repair or recycling as easy as purchasing new products. Consumers are responsible for returning those products for reuse or recycling to services provided by producers or their agents. 4. Transparency and Accountability: Waste program development and operation are open and provide opportunity for input to all stakeholders. Industry is accountable to both government and consumers for environmental outcomes.
In accordance with these goals and principles, the Sierra Club adopts the following specific policies, which apply to municipal solid waste both in the United States and internationally:
(1) The Sierra Club supports Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) (1) implemented through legislation and regulation that specifies, for each designated product category: • Producers (or first importers) must have an approved plan for how they will recover, at no cost to taxpayers, their products when consumers are done with them, as a condition for sale in a jurisdiction. • Social and environmental standards that must be met in the plan, including adherence to the Zero Waste Hierarchy, no export of discarded products containing hazardous materials to poor countries, and no use of prison labor. • Measurable results, outcomes and deadlines (e.g., recovery or disposal rates); • Consequences for non-compliance.
(2) The Sierra Club supports local government initiatives to support EPR and the Zero Waste Hierarchy, specifically: • Official commitment to Zero Waste and EPR via resolutions, ordinances and plans based on comprehensive waste characterization studies and highest best use of materials. • Complete assessment of environmental and health effects should be made for all waste-management processes considered. • Selective bans on the sale of non-recyclable products and on the disposal of recyclable materials like plant material and products for which there are local recycling or EPR programs; and caps (limits) on disposal. • Land use policies and zoning that encourage development of reuse, repair and recycling businesses in business districts. • Ensuring adequate local infrastructure for managing food scraps and yard trimmings (grass, leaves, brush and branches, and tree stumps), returning these materials to the soil, and recovering energy through natural biological processes that preserve the ability of the material to be used as soil amendment. • Providing public education about energy and resource conservation, successful Zero Waste plans, and existing EPR services.
(3) The Sierra Club supports government measures to ensure public involvement and Page 2 – Sierra Club – Catoctin Group – Jan. 11, 2016 transparency: • The public should have access to full information and ample opportunity to comment on Zero Waste plans, including EPR stewardship plans and community programs for managing food scraps and yard trimmings. • Local governments should be required to create advisory committees with voting representatives from a wide range of non-governmental organizations representing environmental interests to help develop all programs dealing with products found in the waste stream and to review all plans and legally binding programs developed for the jurisdiction. • Data regarding the performance of Zero Waste and EPR programs should be presented regularly on the internet and in local media.
(1) Extended Producer Responsibility means whoever designs, produces, sells, or uses a product takes responsibility for minimizing the product's environmental impact throughout all stages of the products' lifecycle—and the greatest responsibility lies with producers (brand owners) because they make critical design and marketing decisions. EPR is sometimes called product stewardship.
(4) The Sierra Club supports government measures to prevent harm to human health and the environment from the management of wastes, in our country and in other countries: • Discarded products, packaging, food scraps, yard trimmings and any remaining residual garbage should be managed as close as possible to the point of generation. • The United States should ratify the Basel Convention and support the proposed ban on the export of discarded products containing hazardous substances from rich countries to poor ones.
(5) To promote these goals, principles and policies, the Sierra Club will: • Show how waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting can significantly reduce the creation of greenhouse gases. • Work toward the adoption of laws, regulations, and international agreements to implement this policy.
Approved by the Sierra Club Board of Directors, February 23, 2008. https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/uploads- wysiwig/ZeroWasteExtendedProducerResponsibilityPolicy.pdf
Policy on Compost and Composting In 2009, an estimated 30% of compostable organics (1) ended up in the nation’s landfills. This green waste should instead be converted into high-quality compost that can safely be used to restore and maintain healthy farmland, vegetable gardens, parks, playgrounds, and urban landscapes.
The Sierra Club supports: • Reducing food waste and reusing grass clippings before they are composted. • Small- and medium-size composting of organics, such as home composting, vermin composting, and on-site composting on family farms, community gardens and nurseries. Small scale composting operations minimize the use of fossil fuel and adverse health and environmental impacts. Backyard composting is layered, watered, and stirred, and should Page 3 – Sierra Club – Catoctin Group – Jan. 11, 2016 be treated to encourage the growth of oxygen-loving (aerobic) decomposers, which release CO2 rather than methane. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas which is released under the oxygen-starved conditions created by landfill disposal of organic waste. • Large commercial composting facilities, provided that they are sited and designed to protect public health and the environment, located within 50 miles of where feedstock is generated, minimize truck traffic, and fully address community / host concerns, especially in underserved, disadvantaged neighborhoods. • Where composting is not feasible, processing organics in anaerobic digesters to create methane as a renewable, non-fossil source of fuel energy. • Developing national statutory compost standards designed to ensure no net degradation of soils and groundwater and to prevent adverse impacts on human and livestock health. • Accurate and complete labeling of all compost products.
The Sierra Club opposes: • Using contaminated toxics-containing or pathogen-containing waste as a compost ingredient. Such wastes would include, for example, coal ash, spent foundry sand, industrial sludge, and municipal sewage sludge. • Decreasing the potential for environmentally responsible composting by mixing clean compostable waste streams with contaminated waste streams. (1) “Organics” refers to food scraps, grass clipping, leaves, brush, branches, other landscape trimmings, clean wood, and some plant derived food processing by-products and food-soiled paper products.
Board of Directors, August 19, 2010 https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/uploads-wysiwig/compost.pdf
Novel ZW ideas to consider:
~ 1.) Investigate compaction rates at the existing landfill. If improved compaction rates are achievable, consider buying a better waste compactor and landfill more waste at a higher compaction rate, thereby saving money in transport costs to out-of-state landfills. The cost savings should be earmarked to fund zero waste projects within the county.
~ 2.) Investigate a sticker based – volunteer participatory, “Barbara Fritchie the Recycler” - Save As You Recycle (SAYR) system. • Residents would volunteer to join this system and receive a large member-sticker- emblem to be placed on their waste can/toter • 52 sticker emblems would be furnished to each participant to be placed on each bag discarded – 30 gallon bags (up to 25 pounds of waste) allowed per bag • Additional sticker emblems could be purchased at a calculated cost • This SAYR system could potentially reduce the discarded waste by approximately 50% • Participants might be able to receive a cost rebate off their System Benefit Charge as an incentive to participate • Haulers would be required to make a note of untagged bags, if that situation occurs. (Untagged bag costs would be added to the SBC line item.)
Page 4 – Sierra Club – Catoctin Group – Jan. 11, 2016 ~ 3.) Consider offering ’tiered’ dumping/tipping fees to haulers based on the percentage of waste their customers recycle - versus the percentage of discarded waste.
~ 4.) Incentivize a SAYR type system in the twelve (12) Frederick County municipalities - SAYR works most efficiently in densely populated areas.
~ 5.) Create a “Biggest Loser” contest for municipalities. A possible approach could be reducing the dumping fee for the municipality with the greatest decrease in discardable waste. A sliding- scale for fee reductions could also be developed as incentives for other municipalities.
~ 6.) ‘Brand’ the Frederick County Recycling Initiative with a “Barbara Fritchie - the Recycler” type mascot figure Make it fun for citizens to participate in waste reduction, especially young children.
~ 7.) Consider a name change of the existing landfill to reflect “resource recovery”, in some capacity. This name change would help to re-brand the facility and perchance change the collective mindset.
Legislation Endorsement: Endorse the “Maryland Redeemable Beverage Container Recycling Rebate and Litter Reduction Program Act” as proposed in the 2016 Md, Legislature.
This statewide bill has the potential of increasing bottle and aluminum can recycling three-fold. Ten (10) U.S. states have established refund systems in place for Maryland to use as a study guide. The Maryland Environmental Service will administer the program. Automated return machines will be used for redemptions, in addition to bulk return. Billions of beverage containers could be recycled statewide.
Closing: The Sierra Club – Catoctin Group is very interested in resource conservation issues and offers its assistance to Fredrick County and the SWSC as we move forward. Please feel free to contact me at 410-857-4129 or email [email protected].
Yours truly,
Daniel Andrews- Volunteer Chairman – Sierra Club, Catoctin Group
Page 5 – Sierra Club – Catoctin Group – Jan. 11, 2016 Received from Kathleen McKaig-Rak, 29 January 2016
+++
What’s Next Frederick County Solid Waste Comments:
First, I would like to applaud an excellent public comment meeting held Jan 11, 2016 at Urbana High School—informative and collaborative. Thank you.
Below are some information and links that I have run across as to what some other counties are doing with solid waste. In particular these communities use a variety of approaches both in their waste handling and in their education/information strategies.
In Tucson, AZ: (Pima County) 1) Compost Cats-Student volunteer group from U of Arizona which has evolved into larger scale community composting. http://www.compostcats.com/
08/06/2015 – Compost Cats has become the City of Tucson's official composting service! Chet Phillips, Compost Cats Project Director, says that, "The approval of the deal by the mayor and council is the culmination of more than four years of vision, re-envisioning and hard work by my students, myself, and many other partners."
The Compost Cats work to reduce waste and greenhouse gas emissions and increase local food security by diverting food scraps, landscape clippings, and paper from landfills and turning it into a high quality soil amendment for local agriculture and landscaping use.
What do the Compost Cats do? Our compost has its roots in local businesses and organizations around Tucson. Our crew partners with the City of Tucson to collect food waste and scrap from local business and the University of Arizona. After completion of a pickup, the food scraps are taken to the San Xavier Cooperative Farm, where the waste is then laid out in windrows.
The Cats work with the San Xavier Co-op Farm, located south of Tucson on the Tohono O'odham Nation. Here, the program uses farming equipment generously provided by the friendly folks at San Xavier Farm and Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona to prepare the compost for sale.
Event staffing and Education: As part of our greater effort to educate the community about waste reduction, we offer composting services for your event! Typical packages include compost coaching, bins, bin transport, and onsite personal. Compost coaching is personalized instruction on what can be composted. Our coaches stand near the bins and assist event goers in sorting their waste into the proper receptacle, diverting food scraps from the landfill, and minimizing the impact of your event on our planet!
If interested in our services, please contact us compost [email protected] In your event inquiry, please be sure to include a rough description of when your event will take place, how long the event will take, how many people you are anticipating attending your event, and an estimate of how much disposable material you think could be produced.
We appreciate any time we can get out into the community and talk compost. Providing a green standard is of the utmost importance to us, and we hope that by helping to make your event more sustainable, we can make a lasting difference in our community.
While we work with businesses around Tucson and compost at local events, we are currently unable to do residential pickups. For general information regarding the Compost Cats, please email [email protected].
For inquiries involving purchasing compost, please see our Sales page.
If you are a business in Tucson that would like to join our program, please contact Tom Scott with the City of Tucson at (520) 269-9174.
If you would like to volunteer with the Compost Cats, please email compost [email protected] Like us on Facebook and keep up with other sustainability news on our Facebook Page!
ASUA Compost Cats University of Arizona PO Box 210017 Rm 404 Attn: Chet Phillips Tucson, AZ 85721
2) Scraps on Scraps-- green business that picks up compostable food scraps on a subscription basis—almost like a reverse CSA.
If you would like your food scraps picked up, Scraps on Scraps is a local business that does just that! http://scrapsonscraps.com/
SIMPLICITY RULES Our model is simple, to make things easier for you. Scraps on Scraps believes that small changes can make a big difference for our planet. With an estimated two thirds of all solid waste being compostable, doing your part to keep food waste out of the landfill means a healthier tomorrow. For only $13 per month you can help create a more sustainable Tucson. 1. Sign up online. 2. A five gallon bucket, complete with our air tight, water tight lid, will be delivered to your house. 3. Using our compost resource guide, start filling up your bucket. 4. Every other week set your bucket outside and we will swap it out with a new one. 5. Eat. Compost. Repeat. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Why should I compost? Keeping your compostable materials out of the landfill is a great way to reduce your carbon footprint. For more information on the importance of composting check out the links we have provided below under "resources." What is "food waste?" We don't just want your leftovers. We want your byproducts, your apple cores, banana peels, the lettuce that is rotting in your refrigerator. Your leftovers can go in there too, but we want all of it. Why would I pay you to pick up my food waste when I can just put it in the trash? Our model is based around a gap in the waste processing in Tucson. You pay for trash and recycling to be picked up, we are just a service that augments that. Shouldn't I just compost at home? We love hearing from people who compost at home, but for many households our service is a great alternative if you don't have space or time to maintain a compost pile. Can I get some of my compost back? We do not currently offer a compost return program. As we scale, we hope to be able to offer compost back to our customers. Where does my food waste and other compostable materials go? We have chosen to partner with organizations that address issues related to food equity and conscious consumerism in regards to our food. Current customers compost is given to the Las Milpitas Farm at the Community Food Bank. For more information on Las Milpitas, visit the "resources" page below. For additional information please call 520.333.7106 or email [email protected].
3) The Tucson area also has some highly successful private landfill/recycling businesses. Below is an example of commercially run Tucson area landfill/recycling centers—making a business of composting and recycling (including foam products), as well as making some new products from recycling such as fire logs: http://tanksgreenstuff.biz/ tanks green stuff also delivers finished compost, mulch etc. http://www.thefairfaxcompanies.com/recycle-and-landfill-services/
Operate landfill/reclamation centers, including food waste, foam etc. Deliver finished compost and garden products, as well as recycled aggregate and fire logs made from compressed locally recycled wood. http://www.thefairfaxcompanies.com/garden-landscape-products/
4) City/County of Boulder, CO Zero waste plan –very good information, great graphics http://www.bouldercounty.org/env/recycle/pages/recyclingcenterfacts.aspx
https://bouldercolorado.gov/zero-waste https://bouldercolorado.gov/zero-waste/what-goes-where
Some clips from the Boulder website: Recycling & composting tips what goes where? Zero Waste Boulder
• Residents • Businesses • Property Managers
• What goes Where • Strategic Plan • Regulations • Sustainability in Boulder
• Livestream of Oct 15 eTown event
• Bummed about packaging? Recycle block styrofoam and foam packing sheets at the Center for Hard to Recycle Materials. • Got old electronics? Keep lead, mercury, and arsenic out of our environment by recycling TVs, computers and phones at CHaRM. Resources in boulder Boulder has facilities for just about every item you'd want to donate, recycle, or compost. Look below for a list of community resources. Searching for TIPS on reducing, reusing, recycling or composting? Get the tips Center for Hard to Recycle Materials (CHaRM) Recycle electronics, appliances, styrofoam, plastic bags, yoga mats–you name it. 6400 Arapahoe Rd. Boulder 303-444-6634 Wood Waste Drop-off Center Dispose of clean wood waste (50% off standard rates for city businesses) 5880 Butte Mill Road Boulder CO 80305 303-444-2037 Visit the website Recycling Drop-off Center Recycle large amounts of material. 1901c 63rd Street Boulder CO 80305 720-564-2251 Yard Waste Drop-off Center Dispose of yard waste (reduced rate for city businesses) 5880 Butte Mill Road 303-444-2037 Hazardous Materials Management Facility (HMMF) Properly dispose of hazardous items such as batteries, motor oil, paint, and cleaning agents. 1901c 63rd Street 720-564-2251 ReSource Yard Drop off or pick up salvaged building materials, such as wood, doors, windows, sinks and more. 6400 Arapahoe Rd 303-419-5418 Art Parts Donate or buy reused art, craft, school and office supplies 2870 Bluff St. 720-379-5328
Tips & Tricks • Reduce & Reuse • Recycle • Compost If you can eat it, you can compost it. Boulder’s curbside compost program accepts yard waste and food scraps, including meat, bones and dairy. Read up on composting tips for the home and learn how to keep pesky flies away during the hot summer months.
• Reduce & Reuse 1. Reuse what you have • Wash and reuse food containers instead of tossing single-use bags and containers • Wash and reuse clothes, sheets and towels • Repair broken items – toys, appliances and electronics can sometimes be an easy fix • Buy used – it’s amazing what kinds of unique and quality items you may find • Donate unwanted goods whenever possible – someone will likely have another use in mind Reuse programs in Boulder County Reuse facilities, thrift stores, freecycle, and more! iFixit Use free online guides or get in-person help to repair household items and electronics
Ready to take the next step? Find more information to put these ideas into action. Residents Businesses Property Managers
5) Home composting of food scraps:
A good solution for home composting of dairy, meat etc scraps: http://www.compostec.ca/ The Green Cone Food Waste Digester Shopping wisely, cooking smart and eating leftovers will reduce kitchen waste streams...but how to manage the rest? The Green Cone will take fruit/veg scraps but it's digesting capacity is best used for the kitchen waste streams that you shouldn't normally compost (meat scraps, bones, seafood waste, oils/grease, dairy and even pet waste!).
A proven solution that's sustainable and right on site; without worry of stirring, animal interference or smells. The Green Cone System was designed in Ontario in 1988 to get rid of kitchen waste hassle free and is still made in Canada out of mostly recycled materials. The Green Cone works quickly to digest almost all organic waste with minimal effort. It's double walls heat up in the Sun and cycle oxygen to the chamber below which is humid and connected to the surrounding soil. This is the perfect microsystem for the natural processes of digestion, decomposition and dehydration. Doing all three aerobically (with oxygen) reduces possible odours and means that the Green Cone can handle all sorts of organic waste unlike a regular composter.
North Eastern United States: Signature South Eastern United States: Tarriver Trading Post
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Phase I Report Appendix D Option Evaluation Worksheets
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Frederick County, Maryland
Solid Waste Steering Committee
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled paper
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Community-Scale AD Facility
Overview:
This analysis involves a decentralized approach to organics management in which small-scale AD facilities would be installed in different locations around the County to process source separated organics (primarily food waste, yard waste, and non-recyclable paper). The AD process generates biogas consisting primarily of methane and CO2, which can be upgraded to pipeline-quality gas (biomethane), other types of fuel such as compressed natural gas (CNG), or used to generate electricity. Several different commercially viable AD systems are available, which can operate as wet or dry processes. Deciding on which type of process to develop is not part of this analysis, which assumes that capital and O&M costs are similar for all types of facilities and vary based on capacity only. To meet requirements for recycling under the Maryland ZWP, the residual digestate needs to be composted, cured, and marketed as a fertilizer or soil amendment.
AD is a proven method of managing organic materials in the US, including MSW organics, wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge, and agricultural waste. A 2015 state of the practice study estimated there were a total of 154 operation AD facilities in the US, which comprised 25 stand-alone facilities and 129 co-digestion facilities (75 on-farm and 54 WWTP). There were three stand-alone facilities reported in the northeastern US. Most AD facilities are small- to medium-scale operations.
This analysis focuses on estimating unit processes and costs per individual community-scale AD operation. It is assumed that each community-scale composting operation would process on the order of 20 tons/day, 5 days per week, such that the nominal capacity of the facility is 5,000 tons/year (TPY). Facilities will be located on private land (e.g., hosted at a farm or other agribusiness, or at a landscaper business). Two full-time operators would be needed. It is anticipated the County would put out RFPs for private development and operation of each facility, and provide a guarantee of feedstock delivery from County- managed residential/commercial collection programs. AD facilities could be sited to take maximum advantage of availability of source separated organics. This scale of AD operation could serve as a pilot program for the County and/or be gradually ramped up by installing addition larger-capacity facilities as the popularity and reliability of source separation programs increases.
Costs for finding land zoned for AD/composting and/or land purchase or host fees are not included in this analysis. It is noted that grants/loans from USDA or other federal or state sources may be available for development of AD facilities; however, these were not investigated as part of this analysis.
Reference:
Environmental Research and Education Foundation, Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste Report on State of the Practice, August 2015, 56pp.
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Community-Scale AD Facility
Sources of Data and References:
Cost Estimate:
AD Facility: Cost data for small/medium scale AD facilities in the US are reproduced in the table below.
Land Area Capacity (TPY) Capital Cost Operating Cost Reference Requirements King County, WA 1,000 $2.5-$4M $200/ton <1 acre study, 2014 Sierra Nevada, CA 3,000 $192-$204/ton* 1.5 acres study, 2015 5,000 $4-$5M $600-$800K Houston- Galveston, TX 10,000 $6-7M $0.8-$1.1M study 2013
Based on the above, the capital cost for a 5,000 TPY facility are estimated at about $5M. The operating costs are assumed at $800K, or $160/ton.
Composting of Digestate: According to a USEPA 2012 study (Table 4-2, p61), the average conversion efficiency of waste to methane in an AD facility is 60-75%, meaning that a 5,000 TPY facility would leave 1,250-2,000 TPY of digestate. It is assumed that higher levels of efficiency can be more easily controlled in smaller facilities; therefore, it is assumed that about 1,500 TPY of digestate will be generated. The King County 2014 study states that about 15% of organic feedstock is residuals (contamination with plastics, etc.) that cannot be digested or composted and needs disposal. Based on this, it is assumed that 5,000 TPY feedstock would generate on average 1,500 TPY digestate for composting, of which 750 TPY will eventually be screened as residuals for disposal. Therefore, processing 5,000 TPY of organic feedstock will result in 750 TPY of compost product.
A chart showing extrapolation of capital costs for composting facilities was presented separately. Based on this, it is assumed that a 1,500 TPY facility to compost (cure) pre-digested materials at the AD facility would require about $2M in capital. An operating cost of $75/ton was assumed for a 5,000 TPY facility, which is about twice DSWA’s reported cost for operating the county’s existing 20,000 TPY yard waste composting operations. This is appropriate given that unit costs will be higher at a small-scale facility. It is assumed that a 1,500 TPY facility would have slightly higher operating costs of, say, $100/ton. Based on this, annual operating costs will be $100 x 1500 = $150,000.
Disposal of Residuals: 750 TPY of residuals would require transportation to the landfill for disposal. It is assumed this could be provided for at $100/ton, of which $55/ton would go toward DSWM’s disposal cost. This yields a total disposal cost for residuals of $100 x 750 = $75,000/year.
Avoided Costs (Waste Disposal): 4,250 tons/year of organics would be diverted from landfill disposal. DSWM reports average disposal costs of $55/ton, a total cost offset of 4,250 x $55 = $233,750, say $235K.
Sources of Data:
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Community-Scale AD Facility
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 14-20
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
USEPA 2012, State of Practice for Emerging Waste Conversion Technologies. Document EPA 600/R-12/705, October 2012, www.epa.gov/ord
Conversion Technology Workshop Houston-Galveston Area Council. Presented by David Yanke, Abby Goldsmith, and Scott Pasternak, SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure LLC, September 13, 2013
USEPA 2012, State of Practice for Emerging Waste Conversion Technologies. Document EPA 600/R-12/705, October 2012, www.epa.gov/ord
Organics Processing Technologies and Infrastructure Case Study for Sierra Nevada communities, CA. Tracie Bills, GLOBAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYMPOSIUM 1-3 FEB 2016, 12pp.
Revenue Estimate:
Energy: Revenues would primarily be generated from the sale of fuel or electricity produced from the biogas. According to the 2014 King County WA study, if producing biomethane, output could be expected to range from 1,200-2,400CF/ton. If producing electricity, net output could be expected to range from 100-250kWh/ton. Assuming 5,000 TPY, biomethane output could be 6-12 million CF/year while electricity output could be 0.5-1.25 million kWh. Assuming biomethane sale at $5/1000CF or power sale at $0.055/kWh, revenues could range from approximately $5 to $14 per ton of organic waste processed. It is assumed in this analysis that average revenues from energy sales would be $10/ton, or $50K/year if 5,000 tons are processed.
Compost: Processing 5,000 tons of organics in an AD facility would be expected to produce about 750 tons of marketable compost. Based on DSWM’s current sale of Revive Compost at $15/ton, this could yield revenues of 750 x $15 = $11,250. However, Howard County reports seeking $19/CY for compost from its pilot facility. Assuming a density of cured compost of 1000 lbs/CY = 0.5 tons/CY, this equates to $38/ton. Therefore, revenues could be higher than currently sought by DSWM for a niche product from a small-scale “boutique” composting operation. If compost could be sold for $25/ton, this would yield revenues of 750 x $25 = $18,750. Overall, it is assumed that revenues of about $15K/year could be obtained.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slide 14
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
Howard County Food Scrap and Yard Trim Composting Program Factsheet: https://www.howardcountymd.gov/PilotCompost
Compost data: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/NWREC/sites/default/files/pg_programs/nursery/digger_articles/digger_2010_10_p41- 46.pdf
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Community-Scale AD Facility
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Transport emissions: How much CO2 is emitted/saved by implementing this option? No additional offsets – transportation emissions are part of source separation and collection analyses.
Landfill methane: How much CH4 (in terms of CO2 equivalent) is emitted/avoided by implementing this option? No additional offsets – emissions offsets are part of source separation and collection analyses.
Renewable energy: Emission offsets are estimate on the basis of electricity production only; different values would be obtained if biomethane is used to produce CNG or otherwise offset use of fossil fuels in transportation. Assuming 5,000 TPY, electricity output could be 500-1200 MWh. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel based electricity generation are summarized in the table below. Power generation in Maryland is a blend of nuclear (38%), hydroelectric/renewables (7%), and fossil fuels (55%). Assuming an equal distribution between coal (210 lbs/kWh) and natural gas (120 lbs/kWh) in the latter regard, average CO2
emission per kWh are estimated at (2.10+1.20)/2 x 55% = 0.9 lbs CO2/kWh. Therefore, generating 500K-
1.2M kWh could offset about 225-563 tons of CO2 annually, say 400.
Sources of Data
US Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11
Maryland power generation fuel sources: http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=MD#tabs-4
Other impacts: social, environmental: Positive – instilling source separation of food waste and organics as goals for households and businesses in the county should have a long term beneficial effect on society. Community-scale AD and composting provides some job/business creation opportunities. A positive effect on earth resources would be associated with the generation of renewable energy and beneficial use of compost. Minor environmental benefits are achieved by reducing transportation distances for wet (heavy) organic waste. AD and composting should have very little impact on air or water quality or natural ecosystems assuming suitable controls on emissions and odors are installed. Modest amounts of hydrocarbon fuel and electrical energy are required to support operation.
4
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Community-Scale AD Facility
2. Costs and Revenues See above calculations
County Image: Positive effect of helping to meet Maryland ZWP goals on a small, sustainable scale. Diversion of waste from landfill receives widespread public support.
Energy Production: Modest: Assuming 5,000 TPY, electricity output could be 500-1200 MWh. Assuming average power consumption per US home of 12,000 kWh/year, this is sufficient to power about 40-100 homes. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3
3. Waste Minimization See calculation above. 5,000/42,000 tons MRA material would be diverted from landfill = 12%; therefore, each community-scale AD facility has the potential to contribute in a meaningful way. Building six facilities around the county would result in a 72% contribution, which is very significant.
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: N/A – behavioral changes and challenges are associated with upstream source separation of organics, not downstream operation of the AD facility. However, citizens should be motivated to help support facilities operated as small-scale businesses in the county.
4. Ease of Implementation Implementing AD would require significant changes specific to the County beyond behavioral changes in organics disposal by citizens and businesses and modification of collection systems to accommodate source separated organics. These are discussed in relation to analyses of recycling and source separation options. Yard waste is already separately collected and processed. County-level changes could include providing special staff training, public outreach and education, helping facilities contract with end users for bulk sale of compost, or overcoming siting/zoning challenges.
Timeframe: This option would take at least 2 years to implement, including design/permitting, bidding, construction, commissioning and startup.
5. Flexibility - Low System downtime for planned and unplanned maintenance and repair should be expected. Due to the putrescible nature of the feedstock, the AD facility must consistently process incoming feedstock and cannot allow it to be stored for lengthy periods of time. Most AD facilities are designed to have some flexibility in throughput capacity to meet short-term fluctuations in feedstock quantity. Facilities are scalable, but that would require planning to ensure sufficient capacity exists or can be added for additional waste staging, storage, and handling, and to provide space for future expansion of processing capacity and support systems. The system would be relatively adaptable to changes in the composition of the organic feedstock.
5
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Community-Scale AD Facility
Composting of post-digestion source separated waste can be expected to produce residue consisting of contaminants that are mixed in with the organic material (e.g., food packing materials). Limiting residue requires strong educational outreach to provide for effective source-separation.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: Costs and revenues are subject to a reasonably high levels of uncertainty and market risk.
6. Health and Safety AD and composting would have very little effect on human health assuming suitable control measures for air emissions and odor associated with feedstock handling and processing and biogas use.
7. Program Independence Individual facilities will have modest impact, but installing 5-10 facilities would to make a very significant impact on reducing the total tons of materials needing to be landfilled and extending the life of the landfill.
6
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Large-Scale AD Facility
Overview:
This analysis involves implementing a centralized anaerobic digestion (AD) facility in the County to process source separated organics (primarily food waste, yard waste, and non-recyclable paper). The AD process generates biogas consisting primarily of methane and CO2, which can be upgraded to pipeline-quality gas (biomethane), other types of fuel such as compressed natural gas (CNG), or used to generate electricity. Several different commercially viable AD systems are available, which can operate as wet or dry processes. Deciding on which type of process to develop is not part of this analysis, which assumes that capital and O&M costs are similar for all types of facilities and vary based on capacity only. To meet requirements for recycling under the Maryland ZWP, the residual digestate needs to be composted, cured, and marketed as a fertilizer or soil amendment. It is assumed that the AD facility will be owned/developed by DSWM, although operation may be contracted to a private operator, and that the facility will be located on county property at or adjacent to the landfill and TS such that intra-facility material transfer costs are ignored. Costs for finding land zoned for large-scale composting and/or land purchase are not included. It is noted that grants/loans from USDA or other federal or state sources may be available for development of an AD facility; however, these were not investigated as part of this analysis.
AD is a proven method of managing organic materials in the US, including MSW organics, wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge, and agricultural waste. A 2015 state of the practice study estimated there were a total of 154 operation AD facilities in the US, which comprised 25 stand-alone facilities and 129 co-digestion facilities (75 on-farm and 54 WWTP). There were three stand-alone facilities reported in the northeastern US.
Reference:
Environmental Research and Education Foundation, Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste Report on State of the Practice, August 2015, 56pp.
Capacity Estimate:
AD of source separated organics would require changes to current collection practices in the County to provide for collection of food waste and other suitable organic feedstock separately from recyclables and non-recoverable trash. Previous analyses have estimate the quantities of materials that could be available, summarized as follows:
• Schools Waste Reduction Program: <1,000 tons per year (TPY) • Three-bin program at 73,000 households that participate in curbside recycling: 43,000 TPY • Food Waste Recovery from Restaurants: 24,000 TPY
In addition, DSWM reported yard waste composting of about 16,300 tons in 2013 and 21,000 tons in 2014, indicating an average 20,000 TPY of yard waste could be redirected to the new AD facility.
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Large-Scale AD Facility
Altogether, an AD facility with capacity of about 90,000 TPY (1+43+24+20=88) would be required to process all source separated organics that could potentially be available if all of the above programs were implemented to their full extent. Assuming a 20-year service life for the AD plant, and allowing for ongoing population growth in Frederick County, a capacity of 100,000 TPY is assumed for estimating purposes.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slide 14
Cost Estimate:
AD Facility: Various cost data for operating and planned AD facilities in the US are reproduced in the table below.
Land Area Capacity (TPY) Capital Cost Operating Cost Reference Requirements 5 acre (plant); King County, WA 80,000 – 160,000 $30-$60M $35-$75/ton 15 acres (total) study, July 2014 Houston- 20,000 $9-$10M $1-$1.3M/year Galveston, TX study Sept 2013 Not stated $82/ton USEPA, 2012A $800-900/ton Large-Scale $70/ton USEPA, 2012B design capacity* * Based on urban facility in Toronto, Canada; these costs are considered excessive relative to this study and not used
Based on the range provided, it is estimated that the capital cost for a 100,000 TPY facility would be about $35M. Scaled linearly, the operating costs indicated equate to about $4.4M, $6.5M, $8.2M, and $7M (say $6M on average) for a 100,000 TPY facility.
Composting of Digestate: According to the USEPA 2012A study (Table 4-2, p61), the average conversion efficiency of waste to methane in a large-scale AD facility is 60-75%, meaning that a 100,000 TPY facility would leave 25,000-40,000 TPY of digestate, average 32,500 TPY. The King County 2014 study states that about 15% of feedstock is residuals (contamination with plastics, etc.) that cannot be digested or composted and needs disposal. Based on this, it is assumed that 90,000 TPY feedstock would generate on average 30,000 TPY (32,500 x 90/100) digestate for composting, of which 13,500 TPY (90,000 x 15%) will eventually be screened as residuals for disposal.
The King County study estimated that an aerobic composting facility sized to handle 23,000 TPY of source separated organics would incur capital costs of about $15M; therefore, it is assumed that a 30,000 TPY facility to compost (cure) pre-digested materials at the AD facility would require about the same capital. DSWM reported operating costs for composting 16,300 tons of yard waste at Reichs Ford Road and Walkersville as $540,000 in 2013, or about $33/ton. Assuming similar operating costs, $33 x 30,000 = $990,000, say $1M.
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Large-Scale AD Facility
Disposal of Residuals: 13,500 TPY of residuals would require landfill disposal. DSWM reports average disposal costs of $55/ton, yielding a total disposal cost for residuals of $742,500, say $750K.
Avoided Costs (Composting Operation): The current cost of operating composting facilities at Reichs Ford Road and Walkersville would be offset by operating an AD facility. DSWM reported these costs as $540,000 in 2013, or about $33/ton.
Avoided Costs (Waste Disposal): 70,000-13,500 = 56,500 additional tons/year diverted from landfill disposal. DSWM reports average disposal costs of $55/ton, a total cost offset of 56,500 x $55 = $3.11M
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 14-20
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
Conversion Technology Workshop Houston-Galveston Area Council. Presented by David Yanke, Abby Goldsmith, and Scott Pasternak, SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure LLC, September 13, 2013
USEPA 2012A, State of Practice for Emerging Waste Conversion Technologies. Document EPA 600/R-12/705, October 2012, www.epa.gov/ord
USEPA 2012B, Food Scrap Recycling: A Primer for Understanding Large-Scale Food Scrap Recycling Technologies for Urban Areas: https://www3.epa.gov/region1/composting/pdfs/FoodScrapRecycling.pdf
Revenue Estimate:
Energy: Revenues would primarily be generated from the sale of fuel or electricity produced from the biogas. According to the 2014 King County WA study, if producing biomethane, output could be expected to range from 1,200-2,400CF/ton. If producing electricity, net output could be expected to range from 100-250kWh/ton. Assuming 90,000 TPY, biomethane output could be 108-216MCF/year while electricity output could be 9-22.5 million kWh. Assuming biomethane sale at $5/1000CF or power sale at $0.055/kWh, revenues could range from approximately $5 to $14 per ton of organic waste processed. It is assumed in this analysis that average revenues from energy sales would be $10/ton, or $900K/year if 90,000 tons are processed.
Compost: If 90,000 tons are processed, it would be expected that about 30,000 of digestate will be generated, from which 16,500 (30,000-13,500) tons of usable compost would be produced. This is less than DSWM’s current volume of sales of Revive Compost at $15/ton, therefore no additional revenue would be realized.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slide 14
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Large-Scale AD Facility
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Transport emissions: How much CO2 is emitted/saved by implementing this option? No additional offsets – transportation emissions were calculated as part of previous source separation and collection analyses.
Landfill methane: How much CH4 (in terms of CO2 equivalent) is emitted/avoided by implementing this option? No additional offsets – emissions were calculated as part of previous source separation and collection analyses.
Renewable energy: Emission offsets are estimate on the basis of electricity production only; different values would be obtained if biomethane is used to produce CNG or otherwise offset use of fossil fuels in transportation. Assuming 90,000 TPY, electricity output from biomethane could be 9-22.5 million kWh. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel based electricity generation are summarized in the table below. Power generation in Maryland is a blend of nuclear (38%), hydroelectric/renewables (7%), and fossil fuels (55%). Assuming an equal distribution between coal (210 lbs/kWh) and natural gas (120 lbs/kWh) in the latter regard, average CO2 emission per kWh are estimated at (2.10+1.20)/2 x 55% = 0.9 lbs CO2/kWh. Therefore, generating 9-22.5 million kWh could offset about 4,000-10,000 tons of CO2 annually, say 7000.
Sources of Data
US Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11
Maryland power generation fuel sources: http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=MD#tabs-4
Other impacts: social, environmental: Positive – instilling source separation of food waste and organics as goals for households and businesses in the county should have a long term beneficial effect on society. A positive effect on earth resources would be associated with the generation of renewable energy and beneficial use of compost. Environmental impacts are reduced, as less wet (heavy) waste is transported out of county. AD would have very little impact on air or water quality or natural ecosystems assuming
4
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Large-Scale AD Facility
suitable controls on emissions are installed. Modest amounts of hydrocarbon fuel and electrical energy are required to support operation.
2. Costs and Revenues See above calculations
County Image: Positive effect of meeting/exceeding Maryland ZWP goals. AD could have a positive effect on the livability and character of the surrounding community at the landfill and TS, associated with improved handling of organic waste (e.g., improved odor management practices).
Job Creation: A large-scale AD facility would create 10-25 new positions.
Energy Production: High: Assuming 90,000 TPY, biomethane output could be 108-216MCF/year while electricity output could be 9-22.5 million kWh. Assuming average power consumption per US home of 12,000 kWh/year, this is sufficient to power 750-1875 homes. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3
3. Waste Minimization See calculation above.
70,000/42,000 tons MRA material to be diverted from landfill = 167% very significant contribution
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: N/A – behavioral changes and challenges are associated with upstream source separation of organics, not downstream operation of the AD facility.
4. Ease of Implementation Implementing AD would require significant changes specific to the County beyond behavioral changes in organics disposal by citizens and businesses and modification of collection systems to accommodate source separated organics. Yard waste is already separately collected and processed. Such County-level changes could include increasing staff levels, providing special staff training, public outreach and education, additional handling equipment at TS, contracting with end users for sale of energy and compost, and increasing facility maintenance work load. Siting could be a challenge.
Timeframe: This option would take at least 2 years to implement, including design/permitting, bidding, construction, commissioning and startup.
5. Flexibility - Low System downtime for planned and unplanned maintenance and repair should be expected. Due to the putrescible nature of the feedstock, the facility must consistently process incoming feedstock and cannot allow it to be stored for lengthy periods of time. Most large-scale AD facilities would be constructed with multiple digesters, and most digesters have some flexibility in throughput capacity to meet short-term fluctuations in feedstock quantity. An AD facility can be scaled up, but would require planning during design and construction to ensure sufficient capacity exists or can be added for additional waste receiving,
5
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Large-Scale AD Facility
storage and handling, and to provide space for future expansion of digestion capacity and support systems. The system would be relatively adaptable to changes in the composition of the organic feedstock.
Anaerobic digestion of source separated waste can be expected to produce residue consisting of contaminants that are mixed in with the organic material (e.g., food packing materials). Limiting residue requires strong educational outreach to provide for effective source-separation.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: Costs and revenues are subject to a high level of uncertainty and market risk. This option would be unlikely to offer an opportunity for a regional sharing of the risks or benefits.
6. Health and Safety AD would have very little effect on human health assuming suitable control measures for air emissions associated with feedstock handling and biogas use.
7. Program Independence High. Anaerobic digestion of source separated organic waste with beneficial use of the compost product would be expected to have a positive effect on landfill operations by significantly reducing the total tons of materials needing to be landfilled and extending the life of the landfill. The removal of organic waste from the material being disposed would reduce the quantity of landfill gas produced.
6
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Community-Scale Composting
Overview:
This analysis involves a decentralized approach to composting in which small-scale composting facilities would be installed in different locations around the County to process source separated organics (primarily food waste, yard waste, and non-recyclable paper). Composting is a mature technology in the US; several different commercially viable systems are available, including: (1) open windrows in which organics are piled in rows and continually turned (DSWM currently operates windrows for yard waste composting); (2) aerated static pile (ASP) processing, in which windrows are placed over a fixed aeration system; and (3) in-vessel processing. In all cases, compost must be cured and screened for final production and marketing. Deciding on which type of process to develop is not part of this analysis, which assumes that capital and O&M costs are similar for all types of facilities and vary based on capacity only.
This analysis focuses on estimating unit processes and costs per individual community-scale composting operation. It is assumed that each community-scale composting operation would process on the order of 20 tons/day, 5 days per week, such that the nominal capacity of the facility is 5,000 tons/year (TPY). Facilities will be located on private land (e.g., hosted at a farm or other agribusiness, or at a landscaper business). A single full-time operator would be needed. The County would put out RFPs for private development and operation of each facility, and provide a guarantee of feedstock delivery from residential/commercial collection programs for source separated organics (food waste, yard waste, and non-recyclable paper). Facilities could be sited to take maximum advantage of availability of source separated organics. This scale of composting operation could serve as a pilot program for the County and/or gradually ramped up by installing addition larger-capacity facilities as the popularity and reliability of source separation programs increases.
Costs for finding land zoned for composting and/or land purchase or host fees are not included in this analysis. It is noted that grants/loans from USDA or other federal or state sources may be available for development of composting facilities; however, these were not investigated as part of this analysis.
Capacity Estimate:
According to a 2004 study, reductions in mass from composting averaged 19.4% of initial mass and ranged from 11.5% to 31.4%. Based on this, a 20% mass reduction is assumed. A 2014 study for King County, WA states that about 15% of organic feedstock is residuals (contamination with plastics, etc.) that must be screen out of compost for disposal. Based on this, it is assumed that 5,000 TPY organic feedstock would generate on average 4,000 TPY of compost, of which 750 TPY will be screened as residuals for disposal. Therefore, processing 5,000 TPY of organic feedstock will result in 3,250 TPY of compost product.
Sources of Data and References:
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Community-Scale Composting
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
Calculating the Reduction in Material Mass and Volume during Composting, Gary A. Breitenbeck and David Schellinger. Compost Science & Utilization Volume 12, Issue 4, 2004 pp. 365-371
Cost Estimate:
Composting Facility: Cost data for small/medium scale composting facilities in the US are reproduced in the table below.
Land Area Capacity (TPY) Capital Cost Operating Cost Reference Requirements Howard Co., MD 260 $800K $38.50/ton* ¾ acres pilot facility 2015 Sierra Nevada, CA 3,000 $110/ton** 2-3 acres study, 2015 23,000 $15M $75-$85/ton King County, WA 84,000 $25M $75-$85/ton study, 2014 * net (collections, transport and processing, minus revenues from sale of finished product) ** including capital cost financing: 5% interest rate, 20 years, 5% cost of capital to finance
Based on extrapolation of the capital costs in the table in the chart above, it is estimated that the capital cost for a 5,000 TPY facility would be about $5M. An operating cost of $75/ton is assumed, which is about twice DSWA’s reported cost for operating the county’s existing 20,000 TPY yard waste composting
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Community-Scale Composting
operations. This is appropriate given that unit costs will be higher at a small-scale facility. Based on this, annual operating costs will be $75 x 5000 = $375,000.
Disposal of Residuals: 750 TPY of residuals would require transportation to the landfill for disposal. It is assumed this could be provided for at $100/ton, of which $55/ton would go toward DSWM’s disposal cost. This yields a total disposal cost for residuals of $100 x 750 = $75,000/year.
Avoided Costs (Waste Disposal): 4,250 tons/year of organics would be diverted from landfill disposal. DSWM reports average disposal costs of $55/ton, a total cost offset of 4,250 x $55 = $233,750, say $235K.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 14-20
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
Howard County Food Scrap and Yard Trim Composting Program Factsheet: https://www.howardcountymd.gov/PilotCompost
Organics Processing Technologies and Infrastructure Case Study for Sierra Nevada communities, CA. Tracie Bills, GLOBAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYMPOSIUM 1-3 FEB 2016, 12pp.
Revenue Estimate:
Processing 5,000 tons of organics would be expected to produce about 3,250 tons of marketable compost. Based on DSWM’s current sale of Revive Compost at $15/ton, this could yield revenues of 3,250 x $15 = $48,750. However, Howard County reports seeking $19/CY for compost from its pilot facility. Assuming a density of cured compost of 1000 lbs/CY = 0.5 tons/CY, this equates to $38/ton. Therefore, revenues could be higher than currently sought by DSWM for a niche product from a small-scale “boutique” composting operation. If compost could be sold for $25/ton, this would yield revenues of 3,250 x $25 = $81,250. Overall, it is assumed that revenues of about $80K/year could be obtained.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slide 14
Howard County Food Scrap and Yard Trim Composting Program Factsheet: https://www.howardcountymd.gov/PilotCompost
Compost data: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/NWREC/sites/default/files/pg_programs/nursery/digger_articles/digger_2010_10_p41- 46.pdf
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Transport emissions: How much CO2 is emitted/saved by implementing this option? No additional offsets – transportation emissions are part of source separation and collection analyses.
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Community-Scale Composting
Landfill methane: How much CH4 (in terms of CO2 equivalent) is emitted/avoided by implementing this option? No additional offsets – emissions offsets are part of source separation and collection analyses.
Other impacts: social, environmental: Positive – instilling source separation of food waste and organics as goals for households and businesses in the county should have a long term beneficial effect on society. Community-scale composting provides some job/business creation opportunities. A positive effect on earth resources would be associated with the beneficial use of compost. Minor environmental benefits are achieved, by reducing transportation distances for wet (heavy) organic waste. Composting should have very little impact on air or water quality or natural ecosystems assuming suitable controls on emissions and odors are installed. Modest amounts of hydrocarbon fuel and electrical energy are required to support operation.
2. Costs and Revenues See above calculations
County Image: Positive effect of helping to meet Maryland ZWP goals on a small, sustainable scale. MSW composting generally receives widespread public support.
3. Waste Minimization See calculation above. 5,000/42,000 tons MRA material would be diverted from landfill = 12%; therefore, each community-scale facility has the potential to contribute in a meaningful way. Building six facilities around the county would result in a 72% contribution, which is very significant.
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: N/A – behavioral changes and challenges are associated with upstream source separation of organics, not downstream operation of the composting facility. However, citizens should be motivated to help support composting facilities operated as small-scale businesses in the county.
4. Ease of Implementation Composting of organics would require significant changes specific to the County beyond behavioral changes in organics disposal by citizens and businesses and modification of collection systems to accommodate source separated organics. These are discussed in relation to analyses of recycling and source separation options. Yard waste is already separately collected and processed. County-level changes could include providing special staff training, public outreach and education, helping facilities contract with end users for bulk sale of compost, or overcoming siting/zoning challenges.
Timeframe: This option would take over one year to implement, including design/permitting, bidding, construction, commissioning and startup.
5. Flexibility - Low Due to the putrescible nature of the feedstock, the composting facility must consistently process incoming feedstock and cannot allow it to be stored for lengthy periods of time. Most composting facilities are
4
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Community-Scale Composting
designed to have some flexibility in throughput capacity to meet short-term fluctuations in feedstock quantity. A composting facility is scalable, but that would require planning to ensure sufficient capacity exists or can be added for additional waste staging, storage, and handling, and to provide space for future expansion of processing capacity and support systems. The system would be relatively adaptable to changes in the composition of the organic feedstock.
Composting of source separated waste can be expected to produce residue consisting of contaminants that are mixed in with the organic material (e.g., food packing materials). Limiting residue requires strong educational outreach to provide for effective source-separation.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: Costs and revenues are subject to a reasonably high levels of uncertainty and market risk.
6. Health and Safety Composting would have very little effect on human health assuming suitable control measures for air emissions and odor associated with feedstock handling and processing.
7. Program Independence Individual facilities will have modest impact, but installing 5-10 facilities would to make a very significant impact on reducing the total tons of materials needing to be landfilled and extending the life of the landfill.
5
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Composting
Overview:
In this analysis, the potential impact of expanding home composting on overall recycling and waste diversion rates is examined. DSWM already has a well-publicized “Composting at Home” program in place, and sells Geo-Bin composters (see image on right) to citizens at the wholesale price of $20. The kit provided by DSWM comes with informative handouts on composting methods, tips, and facts. DSWM also provides online informational resources and manages a Home Composting Demonstration Area (HCDA), located at the recycling drop off site at the Reichs Ford Road facilities. More than 10 different types of commercially available compost bins suitable for home use are exhibited at the HCDA. DSWM also provides free home composting classes, primarily in the spring but available on request year-round. In summary, the current composting at home program is robust and it is difficult to envision how much DSWM could improve their current service in this regard.
Analysis: How much waste can be recycled or diverted from landfill?
A brief examination of expected waste diversion is provided here. It is assumed that home composting would be undertaken only at single family homes that already participate in the County’s curbside recycling program. Although households would be encouraged to compost yard waste along with food waster in their Geo-Bins, it is assumed that all yard waste materials would have already been separated from trash due to the county’s yard waste ban; therefore, the yard waste is not considered an additional contribution to recycling/diversion. Only food waste is considered additional.
DSWM data (2014) puts total curbside recycling at 20,093 tons/year, which puts average household recycling = 20,100/73,000 = 0.28 tons/year
USEPA data (2012) puts average MSW generation at 4.4 lbs./capita/day
Frederick County statistics (2015) put population at 241,616 in 89,935 households, which is 2.7 persons per household. Average household waste generation is then 4.4/2000 x 365 x 2.7 = 2.17 tons/year
Non-recycled waste is then 2.17-0.28 = 1.89 tons/household/year
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Composting
Data from Montgomery County, PG County, and AA County puts average proportion of compostable organics (food waste and non-recyclable paper) in residual household trash at (31+26+36)/3 = 31%
Therefore, the quantity of organics that could be collected = 1.89 x 0.31 = 0.59 tons/household/year, say 0.6 tons.
Based on this, for every additional 1,000 homes that signed up for Geo-Bin composting, 0.6 x 1000 = 600 tons of waste would be diverted from landfill disposal each year.
600/42,000 tons MRA material to be diverted from landfill = 1.5% negligible contribution
To make a meaningful contribution to waste diversion and achievement of the Maryland ZWP goals for 2025, a very large number of households would be required to sign up. For example, 10,000 homes would make a 15% contribution.
At best, this program makes a negligible contribution to recycling and waste diversion in the County. Nevertheless, such programs are of high value and should continue to be supported and publicized by DSWM. But in the context of this study, there is no basis for further consideration.
Sources of Data:
Frederick County online resources for Composting at Home program, including downloadable factsheet “Give Backyard Composting a Try”: https://www.frederickcountymd.gov/3730/Composting-at-Home
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 10-11
EPA-530-F-14-001, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012, dated February 2014. www.epa.gov/wastes
Frederick County population statistics: https://frederickcountymd.gov/1480/Population-Employment-Projections
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Composting
Analysis: What are the equipment needs and costs?
Overall costs associated with this program are small; households pay a nominal fee for the Geo-Bin and then contribute only sweat equity. It is assumed that DSWM’s costs are recovered through bin sales and existing budget allocations to the Composting at Home program. Some reductions in waste collection and transportation are achieved, but the associated costs are small.
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Large-Scale Composting
Overview:
This analysis involves implementing a centralized composting facility in the County to process source separated organics (primarily food waste, yard waste, and non-recyclable paper). Composting is a mature technology in the US; several different commercially viable systems are available, including: (1) open windrows in which organics are piled in rows and continually turned (DSWM currently operates windrows for yard waste composting); (2) aerated static pile (ASP) processing, in which windrows are placed over a fixed aeration system; and (3) in-vessel processing. In all cases, compost must be cured and screened for final production and marketing. Deciding on which type of process to develop is not part of this analysis, which assumes that capital and O&M costs are similar for all types of facilities and vary based on capacity only. It is assumed that the facility will be owned/developed by DSWM and located on county property at or adjacent to the landfill, although operation may be contracted to a private operator. Costs for finding land zoned for large-scale composting and/or land purchase are not included. It is noted that grants/loans from USDA or other federal or state sources may be available for development of a composting facility; however, these were not investigated as part of this analysis.
Capacity Estimate:
Composting of source separated organics would require changes to current collection practices in the County to provide for collection of food waste and other suitable organic feedstock separately from recyclables and non-recoverable trash. Previous analyses have estimate the quantities of materials that could be available, summarized as follows:
• Schools Waste Reduction Program: <1,000 tons per year (TPY) • Three-bin program at 73,000 households that participate in curbside recycling: 43,000 TPY • Food Waste Recovery from Restaurants: 24,000 TPY
In addition, DSWM reported yard waste composting of about 16,300 tons in 2013 and 21,000 tons in 2014, indicating an average 20,000 TPY of yard waste could be redirected to the new centralized facility.
Altogether, a composting facility with capacity of about 90,000 TPY (1+43+24+20=88) would be required to process all source separated organics that could potentially be available if all of the above programs were implemented to their full extent. Allowing for ongoing population growth in Frederick County, a capacity of 100,000 TPY is assumed for estimating purposes.
According to a 2004 study, reductions in mass from composting averaged 19.4% of initial mass and ranged from 11.5% to 31.4%. Based on this, a 20% mass reduction is assumed. A 2014 study for King County, WA states that about 15% of organic feedstock is residuals (contamination with plastics, etc.) that must be
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Large-Scale Composting
screen out of compost for disposal. Based on this, it is assumed that 90,000 TPY organic feedstock would generate on average 72,000 TPY (90,000 x 80%) of compost, of which 13,500 TPY (90,000 x 15%) will be screened as residuals for disposal. Therefore, processing 90,000 TPY of organic feedstock will result in 72,000-13,500 = 58,500 TPY of compost, say 60,000 TPY.
Sources of Data and References:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slide 14
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
Calculating the Reduction in Material Mass and Volume during Composting, Gary A. Breitenbeck and David Schellinger. Compost Science & Utilization Volume 12, Issue 4, 2004 pp. 365-371
Cost Estimate:
Composting Facility: Various cost data for construction and operation of large-scale composting facilities in the US are available. A 2014 study for King County, WA estimated that an aerobic composting facility sized to handle 23,000-84,000 TPY of source separated organics would require capital of about $15-$25M. Based on this, it is assumed that a 100,000 TPY facility would require about $25M. DSWM reported operating costs for composting 16,300 tons of yard waste at Reichs Ford Road and Walkersville as $540,000 in 2013, or about $33/ton. Assuming similar operating costs, $33 x 100,000 = $3.3M.
Disposal of Residuals: 13,500 TPY of residuals would require landfill disposal. DSWM reports average disposal costs of $55/ton, yielding a total disposal cost for residuals of $742,500, say $750K.
Avoided Costs (Composting Operation): The current cost of operating composting facilities at Reichs Ford Road and Walkersville would be offset by operating a centralized composting facility. DSWM reported these costs as $540,000 in 2013.
Avoided Costs (Waste Disposal): 70,000-13,500 = 56,500 additional tons/year diverted from landfill disposal. DSWM reports average disposal costs of $55/ton, a total cost offset of 56,500 x $55 = $3.11M
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 14-20
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
Revenue Estimate:
Based on the calculation above, processing 90,000 tons of organics would be expected to produce about 60,000 of compost, of which 40,000 tons are additional. Based on DSWM’s current sale of Revive Compost at $15/ton, this could yield revenues of $600,000.
Sources of Data:
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Large-Scale Composting
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slide 14
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Transport emissions: How much CO2 is emitted/saved by implementing this option? No additional offsets – transportation emissions were calculated as part of previous source separation and collection analyses.
Landfill methane: How much CH4 (in terms of CO2 equivalent) is emitted/avoided by implementing this option? No additional offsets – emissions were calculated as part of previous source separation and collection analyses.
Other impacts: social, environmental: Positive – instilling source separation of food waste and organics as goals for households and businesses in the county should have a long term beneficial effect on society. A positive effect on earth resources would be associated with the beneficial use of compost. Environmental impacts are reduced, as less wet (heavy) waste is transported out of county. Composting should have very little impact on air or water quality or natural ecosystems assuming suitable controls on emissions and odors are installed. Modest amounts of hydrocarbon fuel and electrical energy are required to support operation.
2. Costs and Revenues See above calculations
County Image: Positive effect of meeting/exceeding Maryland ZWP goals. MSW composting generally receives widespread public support.
3. Waste Minimization See calculation above.
70,000/42,000 tons MRA material to be diverted from landfill = 167% very significant contribution
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: N/A – behavioral changes and challenges are associated with upstream source separation of organics, not downstream operation of the composting facility.
4. Ease of Implementation Composting of organics would require significant changes specific to the County beyond behavioral changes in organics disposal by citizens and businesses and modification of collection systems to accommodate source separated organics. Yard waste is already separately collected and processed. County-level changes could include increasing staff levels, providing special staff training, public outreach and education, additional handling equipment at TS, contracting with end users for bulk sale of compost, and increasing facility maintenance work load. Siting could be a challenge if insufficient space is available at the landfill.
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Large-Scale Composting
Timeframe: This option would take 1-2 years to implement, including design/permitting, bidding, construction, commissioning and startup.
5. Flexibility - Low Due to the putrescible nature of the feedstock, the composting facility must consistently process incoming feedstock and cannot allow it to be stored for lengthy periods of time. Most large-scale composting facilities would be designed to have some flexibility in throughput capacity to meet short-term fluctuations in feedstock quantity. A composting facility is scalable, but would require planning during design and construction to ensure sufficient capacity exists or can be added for additional waste staging, storage, and handling, and to provide space for future expansion of processing capacity and support systems. The system would be relatively adaptable to changes in the composition of the organic feedstock.
Composting of source separated waste can be expected to produce residue consisting of contaminants that are mixed in with the organic material (e.g., food packing materials). Limiting residue requires strong educational outreach to provide for effective source-separation.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: Costs and revenues are subject to a reasonably high levels of uncertainty and market risk. This option would be unlikely to offer an opportunity for a regional sharing of the risks or benefits.
6. Health and Safety Composting would have very little effect on human health assuming suitable control measures for air emissions and odor associated with feedstock handling and processing.
7. Program Independence High. Composting of source separated organic waste with beneficial use of the compost product would be expected to have a positive effect on landfill operations by significantly reducing the total tons of materials needing to be landfilled and extending the life of the landfill. The removal of organic waste from the material being disposed would reduce the quantity of landfill gas produced.
4
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Disposal – Expand Existing Landfill
Overview:
After review, this option was excluded from further analysis. Geosyntec can find no basis for DSWM to make meaningful improvement to their current landfill disposal operation in terms of preserving airspace and extending the service life of the facility. From what Geosyntec has observed, DSWM provides modern landfill management techniques (e.g., high compaction rates, limited daily cover soil) that minimize consumption of airspace. DSWM has already secured approval for vertical expansion of the Site B landfill, providing for an additional 1M tons of future disposal capacity. The current practice of limiting on-site disposal to about 8,000 tons/year and transferring the remainder off-site for disposal is responsible in terms of managing the County’s disposal assets.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 15-20
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Disposal – New Landfill
Overview:
In this analysis, the cost of developing a new County landfill as an alternative to out-of-county disposal is evaluated. It is assumed that implementation of this strategy would take place in the near future; therefore, to allow direct comparison with other options the current waste throughput at the TS and tonnages for disposal are assumed to be valid. Whether or not the existing landfill airspace is fully consumed before developing new capacity is ignored, such that closure costs at the existing landfill are not included (in any case, these should be funded independently). In this analysis, it is assumed that options for increasing source separation, recovery, and/or processing of recyclables and organics have not been implemented. The County’s existing yard waste composting operation will continue independent of the new landfill facility.
It is noted here that consistent with all other evaluations, this evaluation focuses on what additional operations and costs/revenues would be associated with implementing this option. As such, costs and revenues associated with existing operations that will remain in place (such as the TS and yard waste composting) are ignored.
Capacity and Cost Estimate:
DSWM data for 2014 put the throughput quantities as the current TS quantities at about 160K tons of MSW (based on out-of-county transfer of 149K tons representing 94% of the waste stream), plus 25K tons of C&D waste, plus about 25K tons of S-S materials from residential curbside collection and commercial drop-off at the TS. Because of the need to handle different waste streams, and the need to retain the flexibility to implement options for increasing source separation, recovery, and/or processing of recyclables and organics, it is assumed that the TS will remain in operation. All MSW and C&D waste handled at the TS will be disposed of in the new County landfill. It is assumed that the new landfill is relatively close to the TS such that intra-facility transportation can be ignored.
The annual disposal tonnage totals 160 + 25 = 185K. It is assumed that the County will seek to develop a 20-year landfill operation. Based on Geosyntec’s experience, a nominal 200,000 TPY landfill with waste disposal rate growing at 1-2% annually (to allow for population growth) will require a 200-acre property of which 150 acres will be developed as lined disposal cells. It is assumed the County could acquire this property at a lump sum cost of $20M.
Based on Geosyntec’s experience with construction of landfill operations in Maryland, capital costs for development of a new landfill facility are assumed at $500,000/acre ($350,000/acre for liner construction and $150,000/acre for closure cap construction). In the first 10 years of operation (the period of interest for lifecycle cost comparison in this study), construction of 75 acres of liner will be required, at a total cost
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Disposal – New Landfill
of $350,000 x 75 = $26.25M. In addition, about $10M in infrastructure and equipment costs (access roads, weighbridge, leachate management, gas management, etc.) will be incurred.
Total capital costs = $20M + $26.25M + $10M = $56.25M
Operating costs are assumed at $25/ton. Based on tonnage of 185K/year, annual operating costs are estimated at 185,000 x $20 = $4.63M.
Over a 10-year lifecycle period, the average disposal cost is about $55/ton, based on [$56.25M/10 + $4.63M]/185,000. This is the same cost as currently incurred for disposal.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 15-20
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Transport emissions: How much CO2 is emitted/saved by implementing this option? Negligible impact on emissions due to waste collection as no additional collection is required.
Developing a new in-county landfill as defined in this option would prevent transfer of 90% of 185K TPY of waste to an out-of-county facility. Assume the out of county landfill located a 100-mile round trip distance away. Assume that 100CY walking floor trucks are used, that each hold an average of 22 tons each. The total quantity of waste not transported = 0.9 x 185K = 166,500 tons/year ÷ 22 tons/truck = 7,568 (say 7,600) truckloads per year. This would have required 7,600 x 100 = 760,000 miles of truck traffic per year.
Total emissions = 760,000 miles/year ÷ 6.4 mpg x 22.2 lb. CO2/gal. x 1/2000 lb/ton x 0.907 ton/Mg = 1,196, say 1,200 Mg CO2/year
Heavy Duty Truck Mileage 6.4 2 http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb02 [mpg] 08 CO2 emissions conversion 22.2 3 U.S. EPA Document: EPA420-F-05-001 [lb/gal]
3 Landfill methane: Based on Staley & Barlaz (2009), the methane yield of food waste, L0, is about 300 m 3 3 CH4/dry Mg. Food waste moisture content, w, is 70%. Therefore, L0 = 90 m /wet Mg, or 100 m /wet ton. The methane yield of mixed paper is about 146 m3 CH4/dry Mg, with moisture content of 6%. Therefore, 3 3 L0 = 137 m /wet Mg, or 152 m /wet ton. Food degrades too fast for methane to be captured in a LFG system; therefore, all methane is released when food waste is disposed in a landfill. Paper degrades more slowly and would be captured by a LFG collection system at an average efficiency of 75% based on the USEPA’s AP-42 document. Other materials in MSW and C&D waste streams have negligible impact on emissions, as these materials are either non-degradable (e.g., plastic, concrete) or degrade slowly (e.g., wood). Most of the methane generation from the latter would be captured by the LFG system.
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Disposal – New Landfill
Data from Montgomery County, PG County, and AA County (see below) puts the average proportion of food waste, and paper (recyclable paper and card plus non-recyclable paper) in residual household trash at (20+19+16)/3 = 18% and (16+20+15+11+7+16)/6 = 14%, respectively.
3 3 Food waste: 160,000 tons/year x 18% x 100 m /ton = 2.88M m CH4
3 CH4 (Mg/yr) = [CH4 m /yr)] x [16.04 (molecular weight of CH4)] x [1 Mg/10^6 g] x [1mol/24.04L @ STP] x [1000L/m3]
CH4 Mg/yr = 2.88 x 106 x 16.04 x 1/106 x 1/24.04 x 1000 = 1,922 Mg/yr
1,922 Mg/yr x 21 GWP = 40,354 tCO2e
3 3 3 Paper: 160,000 tons/year x 14% x 152 m /ton = 3.40M m CH4 x 0.25 not captured = 851,200 m CH4
CH4 Mg/yr = 851,200 x 16.04 x 1/106 x 1/24.04 x 1000 = 568 Mg/yr
568 Mg/yr x 21 GWP = 11,927 tCO2e
Total emissions = 40,354 + 11,927 = 52,281, say 52,300 Mg CO2/year
References:
Staley, B. F. and M. A. Barlaz, 2009, “Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield,” J. Environ. Eng. 135, 10, p. 901- 909
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995) AP-42, 5th Edition, Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, Volume 1: Stationary point and area sources, Section 2.4: Municipal solid waste landfills. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1995, Supplement E (November 1998), draft update in review (October 2008)
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Disposal – New Landfill
Energy Production: No change, assuming methane generation at the new County facility is used to support LFGTE.
Other impacts: social, environmental: Negative – utilizing disposal as the primary means of waste management is not progressive and does not contribute to establishing recycling goals for households. Homes near the landfill facility are affected by operations and potential odors. Although environmental impacts are not sustained due to disposal operations being properly regulated, there are no other long term beneficial effects on society.
2. Costs and Revenues See above calculations
County Image: Negative, except with regard to cost.
3. Waste Minimization This option does not divert any additional waste from disposal, and makes no contribution to meeting the goals for the Maryland ZWP.
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: Low – this option is equivalent to the status quo in terms of consumer behavior.
4. Ease of Implementation Low – significant resistance to permitting and constructing a new landfill should be expected.
Timeframe: Significant lead time required for permitting, 5-10 years.
5. Flexibility – Low This option commits the County to operating their own landfill facility.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: Yes. Capital and operational costs for landfills are very well defined and not subject to a high level of uncertainty. Landfill disposal is not affected by changes in the nature of waste streams. This option is sensitive to market conditions for energy or recyclables.
6. Health and Safety Low: Implementing this option would have little effect on human health and safety or ecosystem health assuming effective environmental controls are installed.
7. Program Independence High: The County has full control over waste disposal.
4
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Out-of-County Disposal
Overview:
In this analysis, the “business as usual” (baseline) option of continuing to transfer 90% of MSW for disposal at an out-of-county private landfill facility is evaluated. This evaluation should thus be fully consistent with DSWM’s estimates for the remaining service life of the County landfill, which extends beyond 2040 under current assumptions. In this analysis, it is assumed that options for increasing source separation, recovery, and/or processing of recyclables and organics have not been implemented. As such, current throughput at the TS and tonnages for disposal are assumed to remain.
Capacity, Cost, and Revenue Estimates:
DSWM data for 2014 put the throughput quantities as the current TS quantities at about 160K tons of MSW (based on out-of-county transfer of 149K tons representing 94% of the waste stream), plus 25K tons of C&D waste, plus about 25K tons of S-S materials from residential curbside collection and commercial drop-off at the TS. This totals 160 + 25 + 25 = about 210K.
Of the 160 TPY of MSW, it is assumed that 150 TPY will be transported off-site for disposal while 10 TPY will be disposed of on-site in the County landfill.
It is noted here that evaluation of options has focused on what additional operations and costs/revenues would be associated with implementing an option. Costs and operations for this baseline are assumed based on current operations and services. As such, no additional costs are incurred and no additional revenues are generated.
The cost of TS operation and MSW disposal is assumed at $69/ton, based on DSWM’s current MSW tip fee at the County landfill.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 15-20
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Transport emissions: How much CO2 is emitted/saved by implementing this option? Negligible impact on emissions due to waste collection as no additional collection is required.
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Out-of-County Disposal
Continuing out-of-county disposal as defined in this option would result in landfill disposal of 160K TPY of MRA waste and 25K TPY of non-MRA waste, a total of 185K TPY. Assume 90% of waste will be transferred to an out of county landfill located a 100-mile round trip distance away. Assume that 100CY walking floor trucks are used, that each hold an average of 22 tons each. The total quantity of waste transported = 0.9 x 185K = 166,500 tons/year ÷ 22 tons/truck = 7,568 (say 7,600) truckloads per year. This requires 7,600 x 100 = 760,000 miles of truck traffic per year.
Total emissions = 760,000 miles/year ÷ 6.4 mpg x 22.2 lb. CO2/gal. x 1/2000 lb/ton x 0.907 ton/Mg = 1,196, say 1,200 Mg CO2/year
Heavy Duty Truck Mileage 6.4 2 http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb02 [mpg] 08 CO2 emissions conversion 22.2 3 U.S. EPA Document: EPA420-F-05-001 [lb/gal]
3 Landfill methane: Based on Staley & Barlaz (2009), the methane yield of food waste, L0, is about 300 m 3 3 CH4/dry Mg. Food waste moisture content, w, is 70%. Therefore, L0 = 90 m /wet Mg, or 100 m /wet ton. The methane yield of mixed paper is about 146 m3 CH4/dry Mg, with moisture content of 6%. Therefore, 3 3 L0 = 137 m /wet Mg, or 152 m /wet ton. Food degrades too fast for methane to be captured in a LFG system; therefore, all methane is released when food waste is disposed in a landfill. Paper degrades more slowly and would be captured by a LFG collection system at an average efficiency of 75% based on the USEPA’s AP-42 document. Other materials in MSW and C&D waste streams have negligible impact on emissions, as these materials are either non-degradable (e.g., plastic, concrete) or degrade slowly (e.g., wood). Most of the methane generation from the latter would be captured by the LFG system.
Data from Montgomery County, PG County, and AA County (see below) puts the average proportion of food waste, and paper (recyclable paper and card plus non-recyclable paper) in residual household trash at (20+19+16)/3 = 18% and (16+20+15+11+7+16)/6 = 14%, respectively.
3 3 Food waste: 160,000 tons/year x 18% x 100 m /ton = 2.88M m CH4
3 CH4 (Mg/yr) = [CH4 m /yr)] x [16.04 (molecular weight of CH4)] x [1 Mg/10^6 g] x [1mol/24.04L @ STP] x [1000L/m3]
CH4 Mg/yr = 2.88 x 106 x 16.04 x 1/106 x 1/24.04 x 1000 = 1,922 Mg/yr
1,922 Mg/yr x 21 GWP = 40,354 tCO2e
3 3 3 Paper: 160,000 tons/year x 14% x 152 m /ton = 3.40M m CH4 x 0.25 not captured = 851,200 m CH4
CH4 Mg/yr = 851,200 x 16.04 x 1/106 x 1/24.04 x 1000 = 568 Mg/yr
568 Mg/yr x 21 GWP = 11,927 tCO2e
Total emissions = 40,354 + 11,927 = 52,281, say 52,300 Mg CO2/year
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Out-of-County Disposal
References:
Staley, B. F. and M. A. Barlaz, 2009, “Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield,” J. Environ. Eng. 135, 10, p. 901- 909
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995) AP-42, 5th Edition, Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, Volume 1: Stationary point and area sources, Section 2.4: Municipal solid waste landfills. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1995, Supplement E (November 1998), draft update in review (October 2008)
Energy Production: Waste degradation and methane generation at both the County facility and out-of- county private landfill is used to support LFGTE. The scale of the contribution is not quantified.
Other impacts: social, environmental: Negative – utilizing disposal as the primary means of waste management is not progressive and does not contribute to establishing recycling goals for households. Although environmental impacts are not sustained due to disposal operations being properly regulated, there are no other long term beneficial effects on society.
2. Costs and Revenues See above calculations
County Image: Negative, except with regard to cost.
3. Waste Minimization This option does not divert any additional waste from disposal, and makes no contribution to meeting the goals for the Maryland ZWP.
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: Low – this option represents the status quo.
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Out-of-County Disposal
4. Ease of Implementation High, since this option represents existing operations
Timeframe: Existing
5. Flexibility – High - Medium This option does not commit the County to implementing any new programs or building any new infrastructure or facilities. The County is free to make changes as deemed appropriate in the future. The only inherent inflexibility is relative to the terms of the contract in place for out of county waste disposal.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: Yes. No capital expenditure is incurred and operational costs are well defined and not subject to a high level of uncertainty. Landfill disposal is not affected by changes in the nature of waste streams.
6. Health and Safety Low: Implementing this option would have little effect on human health and safety or ecosystem health assuming effective environmental controls are installed at DSWM facilities and the private landfill used for disposal.
7. Program Independence Medium: Continuing under this option has a significantly positive effect on the County’s own landfill airspace capacity by reducing the total tons of materials landfilled and extending the life of the facility. However, final disposal is with a third-party, so the County does not have full control over source-to- disposal flow of waste.
4
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recovery and Reuse
Overview:
This option is concerned with salvaging of architectural materials from buildings slated for demolition or refurbishment. As such, it is outside the scope of the study. Furthermore, since most construction materials are non-MRA, architectural salvage will have little effect on tonnages of recycled materials recovered in the context of this study and meeting the goals of the Maryland ZWP.
Overall, implementing an architectural salvage program (ASP) in Frederick County is probably best done as a voluntary program in which efforts are made to allow assessment and recovery opportunities before any demolition of a property that meets certain criteria (older than certain age, larger than certain SF, etc.). Alternatively, affording such opportunities could be made mandatory through local policy or ordinance. Geosyntec’s limited experience with ASPs suggests that the best strategy may be for the County to promote beneficial reuse databases – a “match.com” so to speak for architectural enthusiasts in which offerors may advertise available materials while buyers may post their wish list.
Several local architectural salvage and building materials reuse centers in the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area are listed in the table below.
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recovery and Reuse
Overview:
This options examines the effects of promoting “free-cycle” program or swap meets for county citizens to exchange rather than disposal of unwanted items. After consideration, Geosyntec considers these to be outside the scope of the study. The County already provides citizens recycling drop-off for white goods, automatic materials (used motor oil, antifreeze, etc.), bulky/oversized rigid plastics (e.g., lawn furniture), flexible foam, and scrap metal. Informational resources regarding recycling of these materials are available in the Residential Guidebook. DSWM also supports several initiatives associated with hard-to- recycle materials, including state-funded events such as Tire Amnesty Day and electronics recycling events.
Overall, it is recommended that the County continue to support recycling events and helps sponsor ideas and innovation in this regard. However, in the context of this study it is very unlikely that such programs will have a meaningful impact on tonnages of recycled materials. As such, this option is not evaluated further.
Example of Swap Shops includes iWasteNot Systems, Inc., an exchange service in Minnesota
References:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slide 21
DSWM Residential Guidebook: https://frederickcountymd.gov/4046/Residential-Guidebook
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recovery and Reuse
Overview:
In this analysis, constructing and operating a large-scale resource recovery park (RRP) for centralized solid waste management and recycling is evaluated based on maximizing recovery of recyclable materials and organics from either a mixed solid waste stream, single stream (S-S), or both. A modern MRF incorporates equipment and advanced technology to sort and separate materials, regardless of whether handling S-S material or mixed MSW. As such, developing a MRF is compatible with expansion of S-S recycling to multi- family units or implementing a 3-bin program for separate recovery of organics. Operation can also include C&D recycling and redirection of suitable materials to an Architectural Salvage Program. For conservatism in terms of costs, this analysis assumes that options for increasing source separation and recovery of recyclables and organics have not been implemented. As such, current throughput at the TS is assumed to size the RRP operation.
The term “resource recovery park” was widely discussed in public workshops; use of this term as opposed to a center or facility implies full on-site processing of separated waste components. Therefore, it is assumed that the RRP will comprise a two-line MRF with onsite composting of recovered organics. This would negate the need to develop composting or AD facilities as a stand-alone option. Composting is a mature technology in the US; several different commercially viable systems are available, including: (1) open windrows in which organics are piled in rows and continually turned (DSWM currently operates windrows for yard waste composting); (2) aerated static pile (ASP) processing, in which windrows are placed over a fixed aeration system; and (3) in-vessel processing. In all cases, compost must be cured and screened for final production and marketing. Deciding on which type of process to develop is not part of this analysis. Potentially producing a cleaner, higher heating value fuel equivalent refuse derived fuel (RDF) product from MRF residuals is not considered in this analysis; therefore, all unrecovered material not suitable for recycling or composting is assumed to go for landfill disposal.
The building footprint for a large MRF is dependent on technology-specific design aspects as well as the amount of floor space reserved for temporary storage of incoming material and processed material, and could be expected to range from 100,000-150,000SF. Staffing needs for a large facility operating two shifts, five days per week, could be expected to range from 75 to 100. Site size would be dictated by building size and layout requirements for other equipment and structures, roadways and requirements for large truck queuing and movements, organic feedstock management activities, recyclable storage and load-out activities, stormwater management, and landscaping and green buffer zones. However, developing a large-scale RRP for mixed waste processing of MSW and S-S materials to recover additional recyclables, with separation of the non-recyclable organic fraction for processing by aerobic composting should be expected to require 10-20 acres and cannot, therefore, be assumed to be constructed at the existing landfill/TS site. A new site would thus be required, unless sufficient space could be made available by demolishing and replacing the existing TS. Cost estimates provided herein therefore include land,
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recovery and Reuse
although regional variations in land value cannot be accounted for. It is assumed that the County would seek to privately contract development and operation of the facility. Developing a MRF will replace DSWM’s current TS operation and recovery of recyclables will replace DSWM’s current shipping of S-S materials to Waste Management Recycle America (WMRA).
Capacity Estimate:
In terms of capacity requirements, it is assumed that the MRF would have the same throughput quantities as the current TS. DSWM data for 2014 put these quantities at about 160K tons of MSW (based on out- of-county transfer of 149K tons representing 94% of the waste stream), plus 25K tons of C&D waste, plus about 25K tons of S-S materials from residential curbside collection and commercial drop-off at the TS. This totals 160 + 25 + 25 = about 210K. Allowing for population growth, the MRF should have a design throughput size of 250K tons per year (TPY).
Data on recovery rates differ, for example:
• A 2014 study for King County, WA investigated installation of a 280K TPY MWPF with separation of the non-recyclable organic fraction for processing by aerobic composting, and landfilling of the remaining fraction of waste. This study estimated average recovery of about 30% by weight of the mixed waste as an organic fraction for composting. • The same study estimated C&D recovery rates at a MRF at about 50%. • Greenwaste Recycling in San Jose, CA with separate delivery of both mixed MSW and S-S loads touts a recovery rate of 98% from the S-S feedstock, 75% recovery on the mixed MSW line, and a total facility diversion of 88%, which includes recovery of organics. • Brickner (2015) reports MRF recovery rates of 50-70% for paper and cardboard, 75-90% for plastics, 90-95% for metals, and 80-90% for organics. • Shoreway Environmental Center (SEC) in San Mateo County, CA processes about 425K TPY (comprising about 100K mixed MSW, 100K post-MRF and public S-S recyclables, and 125K post- TS recyclables and organics) and diverts an average of 225K from landfill disposal, about 53%. • Geosyntec’s experience with advanced MRFs puts overall recovery at 50-60%, with about 15% contamination of recovered recyclables and organics.
Data from Montgomery County, PG County, and AA County puts average proportion of residual organics (food waste and non-recyclable paper) in household waste at (31+26+36)/3 = 31%, and the residual proportion of recyclables (paper, cardboard, and plastics) at (32+43+27)/3 = 34%.
Based on the above, it is assumed that overall recovery rates from mixed MSW will be 30% for both organics and recyclables (i.e., 60% total), with contamination levels assumed at 15%. Average recovery rates from S-S materials will be 85%, leaving 15% contamination. Average recovery of C&D material will be 50%.
Assuming total throughput of 210,000 TPY, of which 185K was originally destined for landfill disposal, this equates to:
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recovery and Reuse
• Organics recovery from mixed MSW of 160,000 x 30% = 48,000, say 50K TPY for composting • Recyclables recovery from mixed MSW of 160,000 x 30% = 48,000, say 50K for resale • Recyclables recovery from S-S materials of 25,000 x 85%) = 21,250, say 20K TPY for resale • C&D recovery of 25,000 x 50% = 12,500, say 12K TPY for resale • Additional MRA waste diversion of 160,000 x 60% = 96,000, say 95K TPY • Non-MRA waste diversion of 25,000 x 50% = 12,500, say 12K TPY • Total waste disposal of (160,000 x 40%)+(25,000x15%)+(25,000x50%) = 80,250 = 80K TPY
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 10 and 20
Data on SEC from South Bayside Waste Management Authority, 2014 Annual Report: www.RethinkWaste.org
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
Greenway Recycling data reported in: Brickner B. and Kelly B (2015) Mixed waste processing: Part 3 of 4. MSW Management, Sept/Oct 2015, pp 30-38
Brickner B. (2015) Mixed waste processing: Part 4 of 4. MSW Management, Nov/Dec 2015, pp 36-41
Cost Estimate:
MRF: The 2014 study for King County, WA estimated that a 280K TPY MRF would require $30-$40M in capital and entail O&M costs of $30-$45/ton of material processed. Brickner (2015) reports $50M capital
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recovery and Reuse
costs for a 300,000 TPY MWPF opened in 2014 in Sun Valley CA; $8M in building and land cost plus a further $15M in equipment for the 185K TPY Infinitus facility in Montgomery AL; and $45M for the planned 250K TPY Covanta facility in Indianapolis IN.
Based on the above, a capital cost of $40M is assumed for a 250K TPY facility. Assuming processing of 210K TPY, average operating costs are assumed at $45 x 210,000 = $9.45M.
Composting Operation: A 2014 study for King County, WA estimated that an aerobic composting facility sized to handle 23,000-84,000 TPY of source separated organics would require capital of about $15-$25M. A 50K TPY facility is needed based on the above calculation, although yard waste from DSWM’s existing composting operation could be added. DSWM reported composting of 16,300 tons in 2013 and 21,000 tons in 2014, indicating an average 20,000 TPY of yard waste could be redirected to the new facility, bringing its required capacity to 70,000 TPY, the cost of which is estimated at about $20M. Care should be taken to ensure the composting site is easily scalable to accommodate increased organics recovery from future source separation (e.g., by implementing a 3-bin program for residential collection).
DSWM reported average operating costs for composting yard waste at Reichs Ford Road and Walkersville at about $33/ton. Based on this, operating under the initial assumptions for MRF output would cost 70,000 x $33 = $2.31M.
According to a 2004 study, reductions in mass from composting averaged 19.4% of initial mass and ranged from 11.5% to 31.4%. Based on this, a 20% mass reduction is assumed. 15% of the organic feedstock is contamination (plastics, etc.) that must be screen out of compost for disposal. Based on this, it is assumed that 70,000 TPY organic feedstock would generate on average 56,000 TPY (70,000 x 80%) of compost, of which 10,000 TPY (70,000 x 15%) will be screened as residuals for disposal. Therefore, processing 70,000 TPY of organic feedstock will result in 56,000-10,000 = 46,000 TPY of compost.
Disposal of Composting Residuals: 10,000 TPY of composting residuals would require landfill disposal. DSWM reports average disposal costs of $55/ton, yielding a total disposal cost for residuals of $550K.
Disposal of Recycling Residuals: (50K+25K) x 15% = 11,250 TPY (say 11K TPY) of recycling residuals would require landfill disposal at a total costs of $55/ton, which is $618,750, say $620K.
Avoided Costs (Composting Operation): The current cost of operating composting facilities at Reichs Ford Road and Walkersville would be offset by operating a centralized composting facility. DSWM reported these costs as $540,000 in 2013.
Avoided Costs (TS Operation): The current cost of TS operation is estimated based on the difference between the landfill gate fee for MSW ($69/ton) and the cost of disposal ($55/ton), say $15/ton. Avoided TS costs for 210K TPY would total 210,000 x $15 = $3.15M.
Avoided Costs (MRA Waste Disposal): 95K tons/year diverted from landfill disposal. DSWM reports average disposal costs of $55/ton, a total cost offset of 95,000 x $55 = $5.23M.
4
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recovery and Reuse
Avoided Costs (Non-MRA Waste Disposal): 12K tons/year diverted from landfill disposal. DSWM reports average disposal costs of $55/ton, a total cost offset of 12,000 x $55 = $660K.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 14-20
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
Calculating the Reduction in Material Mass and Volume during Composting, Gary A. Breitenbeck and David Schellinger. Compost Science & Utilization Volume 12, Issue 4, 2004 pp. 365-371
Brickner B. (2015) Mixed waste processing: Part 4 of 4. MSW Management, Nov/Dec 2015, pp 36-41
Revenue Estimate:
Compost: Based on the estimates in the previous section, about 46,000 TPY of saleable compost will be generated, of which 26,000 tons are additional. Based on DSWM’s current sale of Revive Compost at $15/ton, this could yield annual revenues of 26,000 x $15 = $390,000.
Recyclables: A study by Brickner and Kelly (2015) estimated that recovered recyclables from MRF- processed S-S materials with 15% residual contamination could sell for $73-$110/ton, depending on commodity market conditions. The same study reports that Kent Count. MI sells recyclables recovered at their MRF at $84/ton in 2015, down from $125/ton in previous years. Given the current depressed long- term outlook for commodity pricing, it is assumed that a lower-bound $70/ton could be achieved.
Based on the estimates in the previous section, the MRF would recover an additional 50K TPY of recyclables. At $70/ton, this could generate annual revenues of 50,000 x $70 = $3.5M.
It is noted that current revenues obtained for S-S materials after shipping from the TS to WMRA will likely be much lower than revenues received for direct recovery and sale of these materials at the new RRP; however, in the interests of conservatism the cost difference is assumed zero in this analysis.
C&D Recycling: The 2014 study for King County, WA estimated an average value of recovered material of between $20 and $40 per ton recovered, say $30/ton.
Based on the estimates in the previous section, processing 25K TPY of C&D waste through the MRF would recycle about 12K TPY. At $30/ton, this could yield annual revenues of $360K.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slide 14
Brickner B. and Kelly B (2015) Mixed waste processing: Part 3 of 4. MSW Management, Sept/Oct 2015, pp 30-38
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
5
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recovery and Reuse
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Transport emissions: How much CO2 is emitted/saved by implementing this option? Negligible impact on emissions due to waste collection as no additional collection is required. No additional offsets are earned for future changes to waste collection, as transportation emissions associated with these options are attributed to previous source separation and collection analyses.
Developing a RRP as defined in this option would result in diversion of 95K TPY of MRA waste and 12K TPY of non-MRA waste, a total of 107K TPY. Assume 90% of waste will be transferred to an out of county landfill located a 100-mile round trip distance away. Assume that 100CY walking floor trucks are used, that each hold an average of 22 tons each. The total quantity of waste diverted from the disposal stream = 0.9 x 107K = 96,300 tons/year ÷ 22 tons/truck = 4,377 (say 4,400) truckloads per year. This would require 4,400 x 100 = 440,000 miles of truck traffic per year.
440,000 miles/year ÷ 6.4 mpg x 22.2 lb. CO2/gal. x 1/2000 lb/ton x 0.907 ton/Mg = 692, say 700 Mg
CO2/year
Heavy Duty Truck Mileage 6.4 2 http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb02 [mpg] 08 CO2 emissions conversion 22.2 3 U.S. EPA Document: EPA420-F-05-001 [lb/gal]
Landfill methane: How much CH4 (in terms of CO2 equivalent) is emitted/avoided by implementing this option?
3 Based on Staley & Barlaz (2009), the methane yield of food waste, L0, is about 300 m CH4/dry Mg. Food 3 3 waste moisture content, w, is 70%. Therefore, L0 = 90 m /wet Mg, or 100 m /wet ton. Food degrades too fast for methane to be captured in a LFG system; therefore, all this methane would be released if the food waste was disposed in a landfill. However, other materials present in the organic waste stream degrade slowly and would mostly be captured by a LFG collection system; as such, emission from these organic components are ignored. For ease of calculation, it is assumed that food waste comprises 30% of the organic waste diverted from landfill by building the RRP.
3 3 Food waste: 50,000 x 30% tons/year x 100 m /ton = 1.5M m CH4
3 CH4 (Mg/yr) = [CH4 m /yr)] x [16.04 (molecular weight of CH4)] x [1 Mg/10^6 g] x [1mol/24.04L @ STP] x [1000L/m3]
CH4 Mg/yr = 1.5 x 106 x 16.04 x 1/106 x 1/24.04 x 1000 = 1,001 Mg/yr
1,001 Mg/yr x 21 GWP = 21,017 tCO2e = 21,000 Mg CO2/year
6
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recovery and Reuse
Removal of other materials from the landfill waste stream would have negligible impact on emissions, as these materials are either non-degradable (e.g., plastic, concrete) or degrade slowly (e.g., paper, wood). Most of the methane generation from the latter would be captured by the LFG system.
References:
Staley, B. F. and M. A. Barlaz, 2009, “Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield,” J. Environ. Eng. 135, 10, p. 901- 909
Other impacts: social, environmental: Positive – instilling recycling and composting as goals for households should have a long term beneficial effect on society. Environmental impacts are reduced, as less waste is transported out of county and landfilled. Modest changes to existing social impacts, although creation of 75-100 jobs in the county is significant. Positive effect of recovering recyclables on reducing consumption of virgin materials. A positive effect on earth resources would be associated with the beneficial use of compost. Modest amounts of hydrocarbon fuel and electrical energy are required to support operation. Significant land is required for facility development.
2. Costs and Revenues
See above calculations
County Image: Positive effect of meeting/exceeding Maryland ZWP goals. MSW recycling and composting receives widespread public support.
3. Waste Minimization
See calculations above.
This option diverts an additional 48K TPY of organics and 48K of recyclables from disposal. 96,000/42,000 tons MRA materials to be diverted from landfill = 229% very significant contribution
In addition, 12,000 TPY of non-MRA materials are diverted from landfill
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: Low – most benefits of the RRP occur independent of consumer behavior.
4. Ease of Implementation
Relatively high, since changes in consumer and business behavior are not required for successful RRP performance. Redirecting current TS traffic and operation to the MRF would not be operationally complex. County-level changes would include increasing staff levels, providing special staff training, additional handling equipment at the MRF, increasing facility maintenance work load, and contracting with downstream processer or end-users for bulk purchase of collected materials and compost. Siting could be a significant challenge if insufficient space is available at the landfill/TS.
The RRP is highly compatible with other options under considering for increasing recycling and waste diversion in the County.
7
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recovery and Reuse
Timeframe: This option would take at least 3-4 years to implement, including design/permitting, bidding, construction, and commissioning.
5. Flexibility - Medium
The MRF and composting facility would be designed to have some flexibility in throughput capacity to meet short-term and seasonal fluctuations in feedstock quantity and composition. The system would be relatively adaptable to changes in the composition of the feedstock. However, the system is not readily scalable.
Due to the putrescible nature of the feedstock, the composting facility must consistently process incoming feedstock and cannot allow it to be stored for lengthy periods of time. Most large-scale composting facilities would be designed to have some flexibility in throughput capacity to meet short-term fluctuations in feedstock quantity. A composting facility is scalable, but would require planning during design and construction to ensure sufficient capacity exists or can be added for additional waste staging, storage, and handling, and to provide space for future expansion of processing capacity and support systems. The system would be relatively adaptable to changes in the composition of the organic feedstock.
Composting of source separated waste can be expected to produce residue consisting of contaminants that are mixed in with the organic material (e.g., food packing materials). Limiting residue requires strong educational outreach to provide for effective source-separation.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: No. Capital and O&M costs for MRF and composting can be expected to be fairly well defined and not subject to a high level of uncertainty. However, the nature of waste streams (and associated adjustment in automated separation technologies) as well as the revenues generated from the recovered material and compost should be expected to vary widely over time. This option would be unlikely to offer an opportunity for a regional sharing of the risks or benefits.
6. Health and Safety
Implementing this option would have little effect on human health and safety or ecosystem health assuming effective dust control was employed in the sorting system operation and suitable control measures for air emissions and odor associated with compost handling and processing. Vermin control may be an issue.
7. Program Independence
Very High: The program is under County control. Implementing this option would have a significantly positive effect on landfill operations by reducing the total tons of materials needing to be landfilled and extending the life of the landfill. The removal of organic waste from the material being disposed would reduce the quantity of landfill gas produced.
8
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling – 3-Bin Program
Overview:
In this analysis, it is assumed that the single family homes that currently participate in the County’s curbside recycling program (blue bin) would have that program extended to a 3-bin program with separate collection of organics (green bin) and residual trash (black bin). Although households would be encouraged to dispose of yard waste along with food waster in the green bin, it is assumed that all yard waste materials would have already been separated from trash due to the county’s yard waste ban; therefore, the yard waste in the green bin is not considered an additional contribution to recycling/diversion. Only food waste is considered additional.
The number of households participating will be dependent on costs, which are likely to be on the order of $6.50/household/month. This cost could be offset by a reduction in trash collection. Alternatively, participation in the 3-bin program could be made mandatory.
Analysis: How much waste can be recycled or diverted from landfill?
To estimate the quantity of food waste that could be recovered, DSWM’s data on the curbside collection program was used. DSWM reports that they pay $2.8M annually for bi-weekly curbside collection of blue bins, which costs each household $3.20 per month ($38.40/year). This equates to collection from 72,916 households, say 73,000.
DSWM data (2014) puts total curbside recycling at 20,093 tons/year, which puts average household recycling = 20,100/73,000 = 0.28 tons/year
USEPA data (2012) puts average MSW generation at 4.4 lbs./capita/day
Frederick County statistics (2015) put population at 241,616 in 89,935 households, which is 2.7 persons per household. Average household waste generation is then 4.4/2000 x 365 x 2.7 = 2.17 tons/year
Non-recycled waste is then 2.17-0.28 = 1.89 tons/household/year
Data from Montgomery County, PG County, and AA County puts average proportion of compostable organics (food waste and non-recyclable paper) in residual household trash at (31+26+36)/3 = 31%
Therefore, the quantity of organics that could be collected = 1.89 x 0.31 = 0.59 tons/household/year. The total quantity of organics available from implementing a 3-bin program at 73,000 households is thus equal to 0.59 x 73,000 = 43,070 tons/year, say 43,000 tons/year.
43,000/42,000 tons MRA material to be diverted from landfill = 102% significant contribution
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling – 3-Bin Program
It is noted that some (~10-15%) of this would be contamination (non-organics) that would need to be removed prior to composting. However, the same is true of recyclables collected in blue bins and is not discounted from MRA reports. Overall, offering organics recycling would be expected to improve the quality of material in the blue bin, because the temptation to recycle food-impacted paper and cardboard (e.g., pizza boxes, greasy paper bags) would be removed. In any case, contamination is considered an operational issue and not a reduction factor in to be considered quantitatively in this analysis.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 10-11
EPA-530-F-14-001, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012, dated February 2014. www.epa.gov/wastes
Frederick County population statistics
https://frederickcountymd.gov/1480/Population-Employment-Projections
Analysis: What are the equipment needs and costs?
It is assumed that the County would outsource green bin collection to a private company, and thus the County will not incur capital costs for trucks.
The County would incur costs for green bin, which would be provided free of charge to participating households as is the case with blue bins (recycling carts). DSWM reports that 73,000 carts have been purchased for $3.6M, an average unit cost of about $50 per cart. Organics green bins would be smaller
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling – 3-Bin Program
than the recycling carts; therefore, it is assume their unit cost would be about 2/3. Buying 73,000 green bins would cost $3.6M x 2/3 = $2.4M.
It is reasonable to assume that the collection cost of service for green bins would be comparable to that for blue bins; however, collection would have to be provided weekly. Therefore, the annual cost would be twice that of the bi-weekly blue bin collection program, $2.8M x 2 = $5.6M.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 11-12
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability Transport emissions: Assume standard 32CY trash trucks can hold about 15 tons of organics (wet, well- compacted waste). The total quantity of organics = 42,700 tons/year = 821 tons/week. This is 821/15 = 55 truckloads per week (11 truckloads per day). This equates to 55 x 52 = 2,860 truckloads per year.
Assuming each truckload travels a round trip of 75 miles (collection route plus distance to TS), this requires 2,860 x 75 = 214,500 miles (say 215,000) of truck traffic per year.
215,000 miles/year ÷ 6.4 mpg x 22.2 lb. CO2/gal. x 1/2000 lb/ton x 0.907 ton/Mg = 338 Mg CO2/year
Emissions from extra collection are offset by reduced transfer to landfill. Assume 90% of waste is transferred from the TS to an out of county landfill located a 100-mile round trip distance away. Assume that 100CY walking floor trucks are used, that each hold an average of 22 tons each. The total quantity of organics removed from the disposal stream = 0.9 x 42,700 tons/year = 38,430 tons/year. 38,430/22 = 1,747 (say 1,750) truckloads per year. This would require 1,747 x 100 = 174,700 miles (say 175,000) of truck traffic per year.
175,000 miles/year ÷ 6.4 mpg x 22.2 lb. CO2/gal. x 1/2000 lb/ton x 0.907 ton/Mg = 275 Mg CO2/year
Net emissions = 338-275 = 63 Mg CO2/year
Heavy Duty Truck Mileage 6.4 2 http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0 [mpg] 208 CO2 emissions conversion 22.2 3 U.S. EPA Document: EPA420-F-05-001 [lb/gal]
Landfill methane: How much CH4 (in terms of CO2 equivalent) is emitted/avoided by implementing this 3 option? Based on Staley & Barlaz (2009), the methane yield of food waste, L0, is about 300 m CH4/dry 3 3 Mg. Food waste moisture content, w, is 70%. Therefore, L0 = 90 m /wet Mg, or 100 m /wet ton. The 3 methane yield of mixed paper is about 146 m CH4/dry Mg, with moisture content of 6%. Therefore, L0 = 137 m3/wet Mg, or 152 m3/wet ton. Food degrades too fast for methane to be captured in a LFG system;
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling – 3-Bin Program
therefore, all this methane would be released if the food waste was disposed in a landfill. However, paper degrades slowly and would be captured by a LFG collection system at an average efficiency of 75% based on the USEPA’s AP-42 document.
Food waste comprises 18/31 = 58% of organics, paper comprises 42%
3 3 Food waste: 42,700 tons/year x 0.58 x 100 m /ton = 2.48M m CH4
3 CH4 (Mg/yr) = [CH4 m /yr)] x [16.04 (molecular weight of CH4)] x [1 Mg/10^6 g] x [1mol/24.04L @ STP] x [1000L/m3]
CH4 Mg/yr = 2.48 x 106 x 16.04 x 1/106 x 1/24.04 x 1000 = 1,652 Mg/yr
1,652 Mg/yr x 21 GWP = 34,701 tCO2e
3 3 3 Paper: 42,700 tons/year x 0.42 x 152 m /ton = 2.73M m CH4 x 0.25 not captured = 681,492 m CH4
CH4 Mg/yr = 681,492 x 16.04 x 1/106 x 1/24.04 x 1000 = 455 Mg/yr
455 Mg/yr x 21 GWP = 9,549 tCO2e = 9,555 Mg CO2/year
Total emission offsets = 34,701 + 9,555 = 44,256 Mg CO2/year
References:
Staley, B. F. and M. A. Barlaz, 2009, “Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield,” J. Environ. Eng. 135, 10, p. 901- 909
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995) AP-42, 5th Edition, Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, Volume 1: Stationary point and area sources, Section 2.4: Municipal solid waste landfills. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1995, Supplement E (November 1998), draft update in review (October 2008)
Other impacts: social, environmental: Positive – instilling recycling and composting as goals for households should have a long term beneficial effect on society. Environmental impacts are reduced, as less wet (heavy) waste is transported out of county.
2. Costs and Revenues No revenue
Costs see above
County Image: Positive effect of meeting Maryland ZWP goals
Energy Production: None
3. Waste Minimization See above, 43,000 tons of waste diverted per year, which is enough on its own to meet 2025 ZWP goal.
4
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling – 3-Bin Program
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: High, as households become accustomed to source separation of waste
4. Ease of Implementation Integration into Existing Programs: Dependent on construction of composting or AD facilities in the county. If a countywide composting program is in effect, collection of food waste from households is a necessary component. The program is not simple to implement, but can be readily done in a manner that is fair and acceptable to all participants.
Enforceability: This should not be an issue if participation is voluntary
Dependence on Education: Reasonable – these household are already participating in curbside recycling. Extending the program from 2-bins to 3-bins should not be an educational burden.
Timeframe: Dependent on construction of composting or AD facilities in the county. A lead time of less than a year should be expected if the County is committed to the program.
5. Flexibility Flexibility and Adaptability: Neutral. Food waste must be collected regularly and processed promptly. However, changing the processing method/location is adaptable.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: True, as the program is under County control.
6. Health and Safety Health and safety – no significant additional issues.
Nuisance Issues: Odor and vermin control are main issues for food waste storage and composting operation. However, no additional food waste is being generated, so there should be negligible effect relative to current food waste storage within bulk trash.
7. Program Independence High, as the program is under County control. The high rate of waste diversion also means that landfill airspace consumption is avoided.
5
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling – Bottle Bill
Overview:
This option seeks to increase rates of beverage container recovery by implementing a refund program. Bottle bills (also known as container deposit laws) are a proven, sustainable method of capturing beverage bottles and cans for recycling. The refund value of the container (usually 5 or 10 cents) provides a monetary incentive to return the container for recycling. Ten US states have bottle bills (many of those states are also campaigning for updates and expansion), and several others have active campaigns for new bottle bills. The California Redemption Value (CRV) program is the largest in the nation. Interestingly, the closest state to Maryland that had enacted a bottle bill, Delaware repealed their law in 2009 in favor a non-refundable 4¢ tax per beverage container sold, which retailers must remit to the state monthly.
With the exception of a 1982 bottle bill in Columbia MO (which was repealed in 2002), Geosyntec cannot find evidence of bottle bills passed at local government level in the US. Therefore, it is assumed that enacting a bottle bill would have to be done at state level. Maryland House Bill 982 and Senate Bill 684 recently proposed bottle bills “Maryland Redeemable Beverage Container & Litter Reduction Program” offering a 5-cent refundable deposit on containers sized between 8 and 101 fluid ounces during the 2015 Maryland legislative session; however, these bills did not pass. The future plan related to this effort is not known.
In the overall context of this study, a bottle bill is not expected to have a significant effect on the quantity of recycling and waste diversion achieved in Frederick County, although it would likely increase the quality (i.e., reduce/eliminate contamination) in the materials targeted by the bill. This option is very specific to a limited range of the recycled waste stream that, with the exception of glass, is bulky and light. As such, this option is not considered in further detail in this study.
References:
Bottle bill resource guide: www.bottlebill.org
Abramowitz R (2015) Redemptions and Revenues. Resource Recycling, June 2015, p23-27: www.resource-recycling.com
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: C&D Recycling
Overview:
In this analysis, the effect of increasing construction and demolition (C&D) waste recycling on overall waste diversion within the County is examined. Given that the County has no direct role in the construction and building industry, and the reasonable assumption that simply banning acceptance of C&D wastes at the landfill/TS would drive these materials to nearby out-of-county facilities, it is assumed that the most equitable and effective way to significantly increase rates of C&D recycling in the county would be for recycling to be mandatory. This would most likely be controlled and enforced as part of a local permit to construct (PTC) or similar ordinance specifying a percentage of total C&D waste to be diverted or the classes of materials to be diverted. It is assumed in this analysis that 75% overall diversion would be established as the goal.
It is assumed that this option would involve installing a small sorting system (“min-MRF”) tailored for C&D materials at the County’s existing TS. As such, it is assumed that sufficient space is available at the TS property for the facility, which will be owned/developed by DSWM although operation may be contracted to a private operator. Costs for securing land zoned for waste processing and/or land purchase are thus not included. As C&D waste loads are typically collected directly from building sites (i.e., separate to general MSW collection), trucks carrying C&D loads can be directed to the mini-MRF upon arrival at the TS. Recovery of small quantities of C&D materials intermixed with general MSW loads will not be attempted. Therefore, it is assumed that aside from the min-MRF itself, no additional infrastructure will be required and intra-facility material transfer costs are ignored.
It is noted that recycling C&D waste, a non-MRA material, would have no effect on the County’s recycling/waste diversion percentage under the MRA. By the same token, it would also have no effect on achieving the goals of the Maryland ZWP.
Capacity Estimate:
Estimating C&D generation rates in the county is difficult, not least because this waste stream is highly seasonal. Much of this material also flows out of the county (e.g., to the private C&D processing facility operated by Environmental Alternatives, Inc. in Montgomery County). DSWM estimates that C&D waste comprises about 17-25% of the total waste stream depending on economic conditions for the building industry. DSWM estimated total C&D tonnage remaining in the county as about 23,500 in 2013 and 29,000 in 2014. The 2013 MRA report showed existing C&D recycling of about 1,500 tons in 2013.
Based on the above, it is assumed that about 20,000 tons/year (TPY) of C&D waste could be available for recycling [(23,500+29,000)/2 x 75%]. Assuming 5 days/week delivery to the TS with material flow concentrated in 9 months of the year, this equates to daily flow of 20,000 ÷ 9 months ÷ 20 working days/month = 110-115 tons/day. This would require a mini-MRF with peak throughput capacity of up to
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: C&D Recycling
20 tons/hour. Based on a 2014 study for King County, WA a facility sized for throughput of 10-20 tons/hour would require operating labor of 8-10 people. The system would be expected to run intermittently (batch operation) managing accumulated C&D loads. Assuming the sorting system was operated one 8 hour shift per day, five days per week, at an average throughput rate of 15 tons per hour, and with a 90% availability (10% down time), up to 28,000 tons of C&D waste could be processed per year. Installing a facility of this size allows for some growth in the construction sector.
The above facility would likely include the following pieces of equipment: (1) infeed hopper; (2) 60” wide infeed conveyor (horizontal and inclined sections); (3) single deck screen such as a debris roll screen to remove 2” and smaller material; (4) cross-belt magnet to remove ferrous metal; and (5) elevated 6 to 8 station, 4 to 6 bunker manual recovery platform with or without a climate control cabin and bunkers sized for roll-off box collection of recovered materials.
The system would use positive manual sorting to pick out materials targeted for recovery such as wood, mixed metals, aggregates, gypsum wallboard, roofing shingles, large plastics, cardboard, and paper. Estimated rates of recovery are 50%, meaning that about 10,000 TPY of materials could be recycled with 10,000 TPY requiring disposal.
Sources of Data:
Q&A notes from site visit and DSWM PowerPoint presentation on 17 September 2015
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
Cost Estimate:
Mini-MRF: The 2014 study for King County, WA estimated that the facility described above would require $1.4-$3M in capital (average $2.2M) and entail O&M costs of $45-$55/ton of material processed (including 8 laborers at full labor cost of $64/hour). Assuming processing of 20,000 TPY, average operating costs are assumed at $50 x 20,000 = $1M.
Disposal of Residuals: 10,000 TPY of residuals would require landfill disposal. DSWM reports average disposal costs of $55/ton, yielding a total disposal cost for residuals of $550K.
Avoided Costs (Waste Disposal): 10,000 tons/year diverted from landfill disposal. DSWM reports average disposal costs of $55/ton, a total cost offset of 10,000 x $55 = $550K
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 14-20
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
Revenue Estimate:
Based on the estimate above, processing 20,000 tons of C&D waste would be expected to produce about 10,000 tons of recycled materials. The 2014 study for King County, WA estimated an average value of
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: C&D Recycling
recovered material of between $20 and $40 per ton recovered. This would yield annual revenue of $30 x 10,000 = $300K.
Sources of Data:
King County WA Study: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/documents/Sustainable-Solid-Waste- Management-Study-Final-July-2014.pdf
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Transport emissions: How much CO2 is emitted/saved by implementing this option? Negligible impact on emissions as no additional collection is required. Trucks are diverted to the mini-MRF at the TS.
Landfill methane: How much CH4 (in terms of CO2 equivalent) is emitted/avoided by implementing this option? Negligible impact on emissions, as C&D materials are either non-degradable (e.g., concrete) or degrade very slowly (e.g., wood). Most of the methane generation from the latter would be captured by the LFG system.
Other impacts: social, environmental: Negligible changes to existing impacts. Modest energy consumption and modest effect on reducing consumption of virgin materials.
2. Costs and Revenues See above calculations
County Image: Neutral – implementing a program of C&D recycling would be looked at positively in some quarters, but may solicit a negative response from the building community in terms of increased effort and cost for construction activities. This may have a ripple effect in terms of the county’s image for business friendliness.
3. Waste Minimization See calculation above.
10,000 tons of non-MRA materials would be diverted from landfill disposal. This makes no contribution to MRA recycling or ZWP goals.
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: High – behavioral changes would be enforced on the construction industry.
4. Ease of Implementation Relatively high, since most C&D waste is likely delivered to the TS in separate loads. Redirecting these loads to the C&D mini-MFR would not be operationally complex. County-level changes would include increasing staff levels, providing special staff training, additional handling equipment at TS, increasing
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: C&D Recycling
facility maintenance work load, and contracting with downstream processer or end-users for sale of collected materials. Siting could be a challenge if insufficient space is available at the TS.
Timeframe: This option would take over 2 years to implement, including design/permitting, bidding, and construction.
5. Flexibility - Low The C&D recovery facility would be designed to have some flexibility in throughput capacity to meet short- term and seasonal fluctuations in feedstock quantity. The system would be relatively adaptable to changes in the composition of the C&D feedstock. However, the system is not really scalable.
Educational outreach to the construction industry would need to be provided.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: Capital and O&M costs for small scale C&D sorting can be expected to be fairly well defined and not subject to a high level of uncertainty. However, revenues generated from the recovered material should be expected to vary widely over time. This option would be unlikely to offer an opportunity for a regional sharing of the risks or benefits.
6. Health and Safety Implementing this option would have very little effect on human health and safety or ecosystem health assuming effective dust control was employed in the sorting system operation.
7. Program Independence Medium: Implementing this option would have a relatively small but positive effect on landfill operations by reducing the total tons of materials needing to be landfilled and extending the life of the landfill.
4
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling
Overview:
In this analysis, opportunities for expanding recycling services in Frederick County businesses and institutions (i.e., centers of employment, which includes the public sector) were explored. County schools are not included as these were evaluated separately. Potential recovery of both clean recyclables (blue bin) and organics (green bin) were examined. The analysis focused on two factors: (1) how much control the County would be able to exert over a recycling program; and (2) whether implementing a program would have a meaningful impact on waste diversion towards the Maryland ZWP goals for 2025.
Focus of analysis = Food waste recovery from restaurants. Reasons for not including broader recycling at county businesses or food waste recovery at grocery stores are addressed below.
Analysis: How much waste can be recycled or diverted from landfill?
Based on review of DSWM data and 2013 MRA Report, about 64,000 tons of waste from commercial sources were landfilled in 2014. In 2013, 77,000 tons of materials were recycled, of which 46,000 were unusual categories of materials that would not appear in a blue bin. Nearly 16,000 tons were composted, including 3,420 tons of food waste. Based on this, relevant waste materials from the commercial sector total 64,000 + (77,000-46,000) + 16,000 = 111,000 tons. This means clean recycling accounts for 31/111 =28%, composting 16/111 = 14% and landfill trash disposal is 64/111 = 58%. The overall recycling rate is 42%, slightly lower than the countywide average of 49.5% in 2013.
Boosting the recovery of clean recyclables by 10% could contribute 11,000 tons per year towards the 42,000 ton goal for waste diversion, which is 26% (a meaningful contribution). However, the County does not provide recycling collection services for businesses although it does provide informational resources such as “Mind Your Business! Guide to Integrated Waste Management Practices for Organizations and Workplaces.” The relatively high recycling rates by the commercial sector suggests that this approach of encouraging voluntary independent recycling is successful. Geosyntec does not consider that the County should attempt to boost recovery of clean recyclables by direct involvement in blue bin recycling programs that business can arrange for themselves. Instead, the County could seek to boost recovery of food waste through green bin recycling (i.e., offering a food waste recovery program).
According to County sources, there are 91,000 people employed in 9,000 businesses, an average of about 10 per business. An estimated 98% of these businesses have under 100 workers. 10,000 people are employed at Fort Detrick, a Federal facility that the County has limited influence over. Estimating food waste generation and recovery from diverse and differently sized businesses is beyond the scope of this
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling
study; therefore, the most pragmatic approach is to target restaurants and grocery stores as the two largest groups contributing to food waste.
National databases put the average number of restaurants in Maryland at 0.23/100 people (both fast food and full service). Frederick County statistics (2015) put the population at 241,616, which equates to 241,616 x 0.23/100 = 555.7, say 550 restaurants. The sources of food waste in restaurants vary greatly, but data from a 2005 study at the University of Arizona are reproduced below.
http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2006/12/19/Jones_UsingContemporaryArchaeologyAndAppliedAnthropologyToUnder standFoodLossInAmericanFoodSystem.pdf
Assuming an equal number of fast food and sit down restaurants, the average food waste per store per day is (418.42+138.19)/2 = 278 lbs. Assuming locations operate 6 days per week, this equates to 1,670 lbs per week or 86,840 lbs/year = 43 tons/year.
Based on the above, total food waste generation at Frederick County restaurants is 43 x 555 = 23,865 tons/year.
23,865/42,000 tons MRA material to be diverted from landfill = 57% significant contribution
National databases put the average number of grocery stores and produce vendors in Frederick County at 1.7 per 10,000 population. This equates to 241,616 ÷ 10,000 x 1.7 = 41 stores. Based on the data above, average food waste per store per day is 121 lbs. Assuming locations operate 7 days per week, this equates to 847 lbs per week or 44,044 lbs/year = 22 tons/year.
Based on the above, total food waste generation at Frederick County grocery stores is 22 x 41 = 902 tons/year.
902/42,000 tons MRA material to be diverted from landfill = 2.2% insignificant contribution. Therefore, grocery stores are dropped from further consideration – each store should be encouraged to develop an individual food waste recycling program. DSWM can serve as advisor on this.
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling
It is noted that some (~10-15%) of the recovered food waste would be contamination (non-organics) that would need to be removed prior to composting. However, the same is true of recyclables collected in blue bins and is not discounted from MRA reports. Overall, offering organics recycling would be expected to improve the quality of material in the blue bin, because the temptation to recycle food-impacted paper and cardboard (e.g., pizza boxes, greasy paper bags) would be removed. In any case, contamination is considered an operational issue and not a reduction factor in to be considered quantitatively in this analysis.
Sources of Data:
County Business Guidebook for Recycling: https://frederickcountymd.gov/3473/Recycling-in-the-Workplace
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 11-12
2013 MRA Report
Frederick County demographics and business data: https://frederickcountymd.gov/5107/Demographics
Restaurant, grocery store, and food waste data:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_res_percap-lifestyle-resturants-per-capita
http://www.endfoodwastenow.org/index.php/issues/issues-restaurants
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/why-food-industry-struggles-reduce-waste
http://opportunityindex.org/#8.00/39.379/-76.467/Frederick/Maryland
Analysis: What are the equipment needs and costs?
Each restaurant would generate on average 1,670 lbs/week (0.84 tons/week). Assuming an average density of food waste of 490 lbs/CY, this equates to 3.4CY/week, meaning each location would require a 4CY dumpster.
It is assumed that the County would outsource food waste collection to a private company, and thus the County will not incur capital costs or O&M for containers or trucks.
Based on Geosyntec’s experience, the annual cost of collection would be approximately $440-$1,250 per dumpster for 26 collections/year. Based on this, it is assumed that the cost of 4CY service is $1,250 x 52/26 = $2,500 per year or about $200 per month.
Total costs would be $2500 x 550 = $1.39M per year.
Sources of Data:
Typical density of food waste = 220-810, average 490 lb/CY (Table 4-1, p70, Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., and Vigil, S. A., 1993. Integrated solid waste management, 1st Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.)
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability Transport emissions: 555 collections weekly = 111 daily. A 20-ton front loader truck could collect 20/0.84 = 23 stops per round trip to drop off at the TS. Based on Geosyntec’s experience, one truck can cover about 45 stops per day, meaning each truck could do two rounds of collection and drop off per day. 111/45 = 2.5 trucks per day 3 trucks/day. Assuming a 50 mile round trip, this equates to 100 miles per truck daily, or 100 x 3 x 5 x 52 = 78,000 total truck miles annually.
78,000 miles/year ÷ 6.4 mpg x 22.2 lb. CO2/gal. x 1/2000 lb/ton x 0.907 ton/Mg = 123 Mg CO2/year
Emissions from extra collection are offset by reduced transfer to landfill. Assume 90% of waste is transferred from the TS to an out of county landfill located a 100-mile round trip distance away. Assume that 100CY walking floor trucks are used, that each hold an average of 22 tons each. The total quantity of organics removed from the disposal stream = 0.9 x 23,865 tons/year = 21,479 tons/year. 21,479/22 = 977 truckloads per year. This would require 977 x 100 = 97,700 miles of truck traffic per year.
97,700 miles/year ÷ 6.4 mpg x 22.2 lb. CO2/gal. x 1/2000 lb/ton x 0.907 ton/Mg = 154 Mg CO2/year
Net emissions = 154-123 = 31 Mg CO2/year
Heavy Duty Truck Mileage 6.4 2 http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=pt [mpg] b0208 CO2 emissions conversion 22.2 3 U.S. EPA Document: EPA420-F-05-001 [lb/gal]
Landfill methane: How much CH4 (in terms of CO2 equivalent) is emitted/avoided by implementing this 3 option? Based on Staley & Barlaz (2009), the methane yield of food waste, L0, is about 300 m CH4/dry 3 3 Mg. Food waste moisture content, w, is 70%. Therefore, L0 = 90 m /wet Mg, or 100 m /wet ton. Food degrades too fast for methane to be captured in a LFG system; therefore, all this methane would be released if the food waste was disposed in a landfill.
Food waste comprises 18/31 = 58% of organics, paper comprises 42%
3 3 Food waste: 23,865 tons/year x 0.58 x 100 m /ton = 1.38M m CH4
3 CH4 (Mg/yr) = [CH4 m /yr)] x [16.04 (molecular weight of CH4)] x [1 Mg/10^6 g] x [1mol/24.04L @ STP] x [1000L/m3]
CH4 Mg/yr = 1.38 x 106 x 16.04 x 1/106 x 1/24.04 x 1000 = 921 Mg/yr
921 Mg/yr x 21 GWP = 19,341 Mg CO2 equivalent per year
References:
Staley, B. F. and M. A. Barlaz, 2009, “Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield,” J. Environ. Eng. 135, 10, p. 901- 909
4
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling
Other impacts: social, environmental: Positive – instilling recycling and composting as goals for restaurants should have a long term beneficial effect on society. Environmental impacts are reduced, as less wet (heavy) waste is transported out of county.
2. Costs and Revenues No revenue
Costs see above
County Image: Positive effect of significant contribution to meeting Maryland ZWP goals. Very visible sign of commitment to recycling.
Energy Production: None
3. Waste Minimization See above, 23,865 tons of waste diverted per year, which is 57% of 2025 ZWP goal.
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: High, as businesses and citizens become accustomed to source separation of food waste.
4. Ease of Implementation Integration into Existing Programs: Dependent on construction of composting or AD facilities in the county. If a countywide composting program is in effect, collection of food waste from restaurants is a sensible component. The program is not simple to implement, but can be readily done in a manner that is fair and acceptable to all participants.
Enforceability: This should not be an issue if participation is voluntary.
Dependence on Education: High – needs to address consumer behavior as well as business waste management practices.
Timeframe: Dependent on construction of composting or AD facilities in the county. A lead time of less than a year should be expected if the County is committed to the program.
5. Flexibility Flexibility and Adaptability: Neutral. Food waste must be collected regularly and processed promptly. However, changing the processing method/location is adaptable.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: True, as the program is under County control.
6. Health and Safety Health and safety – no significant additional issues.
5
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling
Nuisance Issues: Odor and vermin control are main issues for food waste storage. However, no additional food waste is being generated, so there should be negligible effect relative to current food waste storage within bulk trash.
7. Program Independence High, as the program is under County control. The high rate of waste diversion also means that landfill airspace consumption is avoided.
6
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling (Multi-Family)
Overview:
In this analysis, it is assumed that all multi-family dwellings (MFDs) in the County will be provided with single stream curbside recycling (blue bin), similar to what is currently available for single family homes. Only clean, dry recyclables (plastics, paper and card, glass, metals) will be collected. Organics (green bin) collection will not be addressed at this time. It is assumed that MFD tenants will be responsible for interior containers and that landlords/management will be responsible for making any necessary changes to waste collection infrastructure in buildings. The County incurs no costs for this. It is also assumed that exterior space will be provided for recycling dumpsters such that all collection activities are outside.
Analysis: How much waste can be recycled or diverted from landfill?
To estimate the quantity of recyclables that could be recovered, DSWM’s data on their existing curbside collection program was used. DSWM reports that they pay $2.8M annually for bi-weekly curbside collection of blue bins, which costs each household $3.20 per month ($38.40/year). This equates to collection from 72,916 households, say 73,000. The number of single family households eligible to participate in the program is estimated by DSWM at 76,000. It is assumed this represent the total number of single family homes in the County, such that all other households are in MFDs.
Frederick County statistics (2015) put the total population at 241,616 in 89,935 households, which is 2.7 persons per household. This means that 90,000-76,000 = 14,000 households are in MFDs.
DSWM data (2014) puts total curbside recycling at 20,093 tons/year, which puts average household recycling = 20,100 tons/73,000 homes = 0.28 tons/year. Therefore, the total quantity of recyclables available from MFDs is 14,000 x 0.28 = 3,920 tons/year.
3,920/42,000 tons MRA material to be diverted from landfill = 9.3% low contribution
The National Multi-Family Housing Council (NMHC) estimates that the number of people living in MFDs with <5 units is about twice that of MFDs with 5 or more units. Therefore, in Frederick County it is assumed that approximately 4,000 households are in MFDs with <5 units and 10,000 households are in MFDs with 5 or more units. For simplicity, it is assumed that the average number of units in the former case is 5 and in the latter case is 10.
0.28 tons/year x 2000 lbs./ton ÷ 52 weeks/year = 11 lbs./household/week = 22 lbs. bi-weekly
Based on this: 4,000 households in 800 5-unit MFDs will generate a total of 110 lbs. bi-weekly
10,000 households in 1,000 10-unit MFDs will generate a total of 220 lbs. bi-weekly
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling (Multi-Family)
The specific weight of as-collected recyclables is difficult to ascertain with any accuracy; however, it is assumed that the average capacity needed per household is 65-gals., the mid-size option offered to single family homes for bi-weekly collection. Therefore, 5-unit MFDs will require dumpsters with 65 x 5 = 325 gal. (1.6CY) capacity, say 2CY containers. 10-unit MFDs will require 4 CY dumpsters.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 10-11
Frederick County population statistics https://frederickcountymd.gov/1480/Population-Employment-Projections
NMHC Quick Facts: Resident Demographics
https://nmhc.org/Content.aspx?id=4708
Analysis: What are the equipment needs and costs? What are the revenues?
It is assumed that the County would outsource MFD curbside collection to a private company, and thus the County will not incur capital costs for containers or trucks.
Based on Geosyntec’s experience, the annual cost of collection would be approximately $440-$1,250 per dumpster for 26 collections/year. Based on this, it is assumed that the cost of 2CY service is $600/year and the cost of 4CY service is $1,000 per year.
2CY service: 800 x $600 = $480,000/year. Household costs are $600/5 = $120/year = $10/month.
4CY service: 1000 x $1000 = $1M/year. Household costs are $1000/10 = $100/year = $8.50/month.
Revenues: DSWM reports recycling revenue (2014) of $236,549 for 20,093 tons, representing average revenue of about $12/ton. Based on this, recovery of 3,920 tons of recyclables would generate about $47,000 annually.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 10-11
List data sources
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Transport emissions: 1,800 collections bi-weekly = 900 collections weekly = 180 daily. Based on Geosyntec’s experience, it would require 4 trucks a day to cover 180 stops and 4 round trips to drop off
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling (Multi-Family)
recyclables. Assuming a 50 mile round trip, this equates to 200 miles per truck daily, or 200 x 4 x 5 x 52 = 208,000 total truck miles annually.
208,000 miles/year ÷ 6.4 mpg x 22.2 lb. CO2/gal. x 1/2000 lb/ton x 0.907 ton/Mg = 327 Mg CO2/year
Emissions from extra collection are offset by reduced transfer to landfill. Assume 90% of waste is transferred from the TS to an out of county landfill located a 100-mile round trip distance away. Assume that 100CY walking floor trucks are used, that each hold an average of 22 tons each. The total quantity of recyclables removed from the disposal stream = 0.9 x 3,920 tons/year = 3,528 tons/year. 3,528/22 = 160 truckloads per year. This would require 160 x 100 = 16,000 miles of truck traffic per year.
16,000 miles/year ÷ 6.4 mpg x 22.2 lb. CO2/gal. x 1/2000 lb/ton x 0.907 ton/Mg = 25 Mg CO2/year
Net emissions = 327-25 = 302 (say 300) Mg CO2/year
Heavy Duty Truck Mileage 6.4 2 http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=pt [mpg] b0208 CO2 emissions conversion 22.2 3 U.S. EPA Document: EPA420-F-05-001 [lb/gal]
Landfill methane: How much CH4 (in terms of CO2 equivalent) is emitted/avoided by implementing this option? Negligible impact on emissions, as these materials are mainly non-degradable except paper, which degrades slowly and would have most of the methane generation captured by the LFG system.
Other impacts: social, environmental: Positive – instilling recycling as goals for MFD households should have a long term beneficial effect on society. Environmental impacts are reduced, as more materials are recovered and less waste is transported out of county and disposed in a landfill.
2. Costs and Revenues Costs see above
Revenues see above
County Image: Positive effect of contributing to meeting Maryland ZWP goals
Energy Production: None
3. Waste Minimization See above, 3,920 tons of waste diverted per year, which contributes about 9% to meeting the 2025 ZWP goal
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: High, as MFD households become accustomed to recycling
4. Ease of Implementation
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Recycling (Multi-Family)
Integration into Existing Programs: Easy. The program is simple to implement, and can be readily done in a manner that is fair and acceptable to all participants.
Enforceability: This should not be an issue if participation is voluntary
Dependence on Education: High – MFD households need to be made aware of the curbside recycling program, and educated on what can and cannot be recycled.
Timeframe: Immediate
5. Flexibility Flexibility and Adaptability: High. Single stream recycling has no commitments in terms of feedstock to other programs. Changing the service can be done at will.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: Negligible
6. Health and Safety Health and safety – no significant additional issues
Nuisance Issues – no significant additional issues
7. Program Independence Neutral: the program is under County control; however, the quantities are relatively low with low overall contribution to landfill airspace preservation.
4
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Source Reduction – Ban/Fees
Overview:
This option seeks to implement a ban on single-use, non-recyclables containers and materials, specifically Styrofoam and plastic bags. A plastic bag and Styrofoam ban could be enacted as a County ordinance. Under the ordinance, retail and restaurant establishments are prohibited from distributing single-use plastic bags or Styrofoam containers to customers. Alternatively, a fee (e.g., $0.10 per bag) could be placed on carryout bags distributed at grocery stores and other retail and restaurant establishments.
Plastic bags and Styrofoam are typically targeted because they comprise the majority of litter, and can spoil water quality, smother wetlands, entangle and kill animals, and may persist in the environment for decades or even centuries. Aside from being a source of litter, Styrofoam has known negative health impacts associated with its styrene component.
Eliminating single-use materials will help the community reduce litter in the County and will help to improve the health of the local and greater environment. As such, enacting a ban would have a positive environmental and social effect. Hundreds of jurisdictions in the US have enacted such ordinances, including Montgomery County MD and Washington DC. Detailed are provided in the links below.
No information is available on the effect that enacting a ban would be expected to have on overall recycling tonnages. However, plastic bags and polystyrene are bulky and light materials. In the context of this study, therefore, it is assumed that a ban would have a significant effect on reducing contamination of high value recyclables (e.g., paper and card, #1 and #2 plastics) with low/no value plastic bags and polystyrene (plastic #6) in single stream recycling loads but would have negligible effect on total tonnages of recyclables recovered each year. As such, this option is not considered in further detail in this study.
References:
Montgomery County, MD: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/sws/expanded-polystyrene/
Washington DC: http://doee.dc.gov/foam
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Source Reduction
Overview:
This analysis focuses on diversion of edible food from the waste stream. The focus is on restaurants, food producers, grocery stores, schools, and other institutions.
Analysis: How much waste can be recycled or diverted from landfill?
Quantifying the amount of food waste that could be diverted from landfill disposal is not straightforward. We could estimate or ask stores and restaurants how much food is thrown out. We could obtain some data from shelters, food banks, soup kitchens, or farms that receive food waste; however, this would be time consuming. With regard to the latter, the full legality of food waste donation as animal feedstock in Maryland also needs to be ascertained.
Overall, based on the previous analysis of source separated food waste collection at schools for composting, the quantity of waste diversion achieved through food donation programs is likely to be small. Consider this example: a program was established at 12 select schools in northern Virginia in which every student learned how to separate waste into categories like recyclables, food to be donated, upcycling bins, and general trash. The school’s Eco Team, run by sixth graders, ensured their fellow students were putting waste into the correct bin. The team then collected, weighed, categorized, and placed the food to be donated into separate refrigerators, provided by the Food Bus, a non-profit organization (NPO) that works with schools to donate food that would otherwise go to waste. At the end of the week, PTA members or community volunteers delivered the food to the local food pantry. In the 2013-2014 school year, the 12 schools provided 13,502.6 pounds of food to the food pantries.
This equates to about 1,000 lbs. (0.5 tons) of food per school per year. Assuming an average head count of 600 students per school (consistent with FCPS data), this equates to 1000/600 = 1.7 lbs. per student.
Assuming similar rates of food recovery could be achieved throughout Frederick County following investment in an intensive educational and communication program in conjunction with various NPOs, then the 240,000 people in the county could potentially divert 240,000 x 1.7 lbs. x 1/2000 tons = 204 tons of food. Of course, actually recovery rates would be much lower.
Relative to the 42,000 tons of waste to be targeted for diversion from landfill each year, this would potentially divert 204/42,000 = 0.5% of the waste stream from disposal.
At best, this program makes a negligible contribution to recycling and waste diversion in the county. Nevertheless, such programs are of high value and could be considered by DSWM with the support of NPOs. But in the context of this study, there is no basis for further consideration.
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Source Reduction
Sources of Data:
Enrolled FCPS students = 40,672 (2014-15), 62 schools (39 Elementary Schools = 19,392 enrolled; 13 Middle Schools = 8,884 enrolled; 10 High Schools = 12,396 enrolled): http://www.fcps.org/news/Update-to-Final-2014-15-Enrollment-Numbers-.cfm
Northern Virginia Food Bus program, 2013-2014 http://blogs.usda.gov/2014/08/26/creative-solutions-to-ending-school-food-waste/
See also worksheet for waste reduction program (food waste diversion) in county schools.
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Source Reduction
Overview:
Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) is an economic incentive program that encourages residents to reduce the amount of waste they generate. PAYT programs cause residents to see and feel the cost of waste disposal services. Under a traditional system, residents pay indirectly for these services through their property taxes or directly through a flat fee to a private hauler. With PAYT, residents pay directly for trash services based on the amount of waste they throw away, similar to the way they pay for utilities. The system motivates people to recycle more and think about how to generate less waste.
PAYT can be implemented in different way; however, it is assumed that in Frederick County it will work on a per-container basis: households are charged for each bag of waste they generate. Residents will buy specially colored/marked PAYT bags at local grocery, convenience, and hardware stores and gas stations. The PAYT bags are used only for trash, not for recycling. Only official PAYT bags will be accepted by trash collectors or for drop off at the TS.
For it to be successful and acceptable to all residents, it is assumed that PAYT would be implemented fairly across all households in Frederick County, whether single family homes (SFHs) or units in multi-family dwellings (MFDs). To be fair, recycling will have to be offered at MFDs if PAYT is implemented – this was evaluated as a separate option from which relevant quantities and costs are copied here.
Analysis: How much waste can be recycled or diverted from landfill?
Communities that implement PAYT report overall a decline in waste disposal by 14-27% on average, say 20% for this analysis. In addition, recycling rates typically increase by between 32-59%.
The number of single family households eligible to participate in the County’s curbside recycling program is estimated by DSWM at 76,000. DSWM reports that 73,000 SFHs participate in the program, while 3,000 SFHs do not. Frederick County statistics (2015) put the total population at 241,616 in 89,935 households, which is 2.7 persons per household. This means that 90,000-76,000 = 14,000 households are in MFDs.
DSWM data (2014) puts the recycling rate at participating SFHs at about 0.28 tons/year; it is assumed that recycling rates at the remaining 3,000 SFH and 14,000 MFD non-recycling households are zero.
USEPA data (2012) puts average MSW generation at 4.4 lbs./capita/day. Average household waste generation is then 4.4/2000 x 365 x 2.7 = 2.17 tons/year.
If PAYT were implemented, it is assumed that waste disposal rates at the 17,000 non-recycling households would decline by 20% to 2.17/(1+0.20) = 1.81 tons/year. The remaining 2.17-1.81 = 0.36 tons/year would be recycled. Alternatively, if PAYT were implemented, it is assumed that waste disposal rates at the 73,000 households that already recycle would increase by 32% (the lower end of the scale, reflecting that
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Source Reduction
recycling already takes place) to 0.28 x (1+0.20) = 0.34 tons/year. The similarity between these numbers suggests that it is reasonable to assume that implementing PAYT would increase overall household recycling to 0.4 tons/year and decrease waste disposal to 2.17-0.4 = 1.77 tons/year.
Therefore, the total increase in recycling above existing rates would be [73,000 x (0.4-0.28)] + [3,000 x 0.4] + [14,000 x 0.4] = 8,760 + 1,200 + 5,600 = 15,560 tons/year.
15,560/42,000 tons MRA material to be diverted from landfill = 37% meaningful contribution to target
It is noted that some (~10-15%) of this increase may be contamination that would need to be removed. However, the same is true of recyclables collected in blue bins and is not discounted from MRA reports. However, most PAYT communities have reported this not to be the case especially when PAYT is promoted alongside curbside recycling and yard trimmings composting. In any case, contamination is considered an operational issue and not a reduction factor in to be considered quantitatively in this analysis.
It is noted also that implementation of PAYT in conjunction with a 3-bin program or other initiative to recover compostables from waste would reduce the quantity of waste for collection.
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 10-11
EPA-530-F-14-001, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012, dated February 2014. www.epa.gov/wastes
Frederick County population statistics
https://frederickcountymd.gov/1480/Population-Employment-Projections
Sustainable Cities Institute:
http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/topics/materials-management/recycling/pay-as-you-throw-programs
Reports on PAYT programs in other jurisdictions:
http://www.westboylston.com/Pages/WBoylstonMA_DPW/paytfaq
http://brewster-ma.gov/recycling-commission/1344-pay-as-you-throw-faqs
http://brewermaine.gov/public-works/pay-throw-payt/
Analysis: What are the equipment needs and costs?
Cost of recycling: DSWM reports that they pay $2.8M annually for bi-weekly curbside recycling of 20,093 tons/year, which equates to about $140/ton. Assuming equivalent unit costs, collecting an additional 15,560 tons of recyclables from SFHs that participate in the recycling program would cost $140 x 8,760/73,000 = $16.80/household/year, or an additional $1.40 per month on top of the $3.20 they already pay.
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Source Reduction
The 3,000 SFHs that do not currently participate in the recycling program would be charged the same total of $4.60/month.
The total annual cost of providing recycling at 14,000 MFDs with recovery of 3,920 tons/year was calculated separately at $1.48M. Prorating this costs for increased recovery of 5,600 tons would cost $1.48M x 5600/3920 = $2.11M. The average unit cost is $2.11M/14,000 = $151/year = $12.50/month.
The total cost of recycling would be [$4.60 x 12 x 76,000] + $2.11M = $4.2M + $2.11M = $6.31M.
The net additional cost of recycling (over current recycling costs for curbside) = $6.31M - $2.8M = $3.51M.
Recycling revenues: DSWM reports recycling revenue (2014) of $236,549 for 20,093 tons, representing average revenue of about $12/ton. Based on this, recovery of 15,560 tons of recyclables would generate about $187,000 annually.
Cost of waste collection: One jurisdiction (Sandwich, MA) reports selling specially labeled PAYT trash bags for $0.24-$1.20 for 8-30 gal bags. However, many communities report an average charge per PAYT bag of $2.00 per 33 gal/ bag, in which up to 40 lbs. of waste can be disposed. For simplicity, this single price and bag size are used in this analysis.
It is assumed that the County would outsource curbside trash collection to a private company, and thus the County will not incur capital or O&M costs for collection services, beyond the cost of providing curbside recycling carts to 3,000 more SFHs. Citizens will be responsible for providing their own trash containers. DSWM reports that 73,000 carts have been purchased for $3.6M, an average unit cost of about $50 per cart. Adding 3,000 carts would cost $150,000.
Based on the quantities calculated above, average household waste generation following implementation of PAYT would be 1.77 tons/year x 2,000 = 3,540 lbs/year ÷ 40 lbs/bag = 90 bags/year. At $2/bag, this equates to average household costs of $180/year = $15/month. Costs will be higher if households do not efficiently utilize the full capacity of each bag.
Total waste disposal would be 1.77 tons/year x 90,000 households = 159,300 tons/year. The total fees raised from the PAYT bags would be 159,300 tons/year x 2,000 lbs/ton ÷ 40 lbs/bag x $2/bag = $15.93M/year, say $16M/year. This equates to $100/ton, of which $69/ton would go toward the gate fee at the TS leaving $31/ton for private collection. $31/ton x 159,300 tons/year = $4.94M/year, say $5M/year.
Alternatively, assuming costs of curbside waste collection are similar to curbside recycling, DSWM reports that they pay $2.8M annually for bi-weekly curbside recycling from 73,000 homes, which equates to household costs of $38.40/year. Assuming weekly waste collection, this would cost $76.80/year per household, for a total of $6.91M (say $7M) for collection from 90,000 households, about $2M more than the above estimate. This would raise total waste disposal costs to about $18M/year, which would require a PAYT bag rate of $2 x 18/16 = $2.25 per bag, resulting in average monthly household costs for waste collection of about $17.
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Source Reduction
Sources of Data:
DSWM PowerPoint presentation from 17 September 2015, slides 10-11
Sustainable Cities Institute: http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/topics/materials-management/recycling/pay-as-you-throw-programs
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Transport emissions: How much CO2 is emitted/saved by implementing this option? Negligible impact on emissions during collection and transportation to the TS as no additional collection is required. Implementing PAYT mainly changes the proportion of materials in recycling loads vs. waste loads. Materials diverted to recycling rather than landfill disposal are transported out of the county; again, the difference is in the relative proportion of materials in loads going to the MRF vs. landfill.
Landfill methane: How much CH4 (in terms of CO2 equivalent) is emitted/avoided by implementing this option? Negligible impact on emissions, as these materials are mainly non-degradable except paper, which degrades slowly and would have most of the methane generation captured by the LFG system.
Other impacts: social, environmental: Positive – PAYT programs reportedly provide an increase in recycling volume with minimal cost impacts to local governments and residents. PAYT rates also increase yard waste recycling tonnages, thus diverting compostable materials away from the waste stream. Environmental impacts are reduced, as more materials are recovered and less waste is transported out of county and disposed in a landfill.
2. Costs and Revenues Costs see above
Revenues see above
County Image: Positive effect of contributing to meeting Maryland ZWP goals
Energy Production: None
3. Waste Minimization See above, 15,560 tons of waste diverted per year, which contributes about 37% to meeting the 2025 ZWP goal
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: High – PAYT encourages consumer responsibility in waste generation and recycling.
4. Ease of Implementation
4
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Source Reduction
The implementation of a PAYT program entails minimal operational changes and costs where established solid waste collection routes already exist. Some administrative processes are necessary to ensure the convenience and accessibility of approved PAYT bags for purchase.
Dependence on Education: High. It is both critical and challenging to build public consensus, which will require good planning and public education efforts.
PAYT is simple, fair, and should be acceptable to all participants as a more equitable system for residents who can now pay directly for the non-recyclable waste they generate without subsidizing neighbors who generate considerably more waste.
Enforceability: There are usually concerns that PAYT programs will lead to an increase in illegal dumping. However, most PAYT communities have found this not to be the case especially when PAYT is promoted alongside other legal methods of waste disposal, such as curbside recycling and yard trimmings composting.
Timeframe: Immediate, no additional waste management or recycling infrastructure needed.
5. Flexibility Flexibility and Adaptability: High. PAYT has no commitments in terms of feedstock to other programs. Changing the service can be done at will.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: Positive effect of reducing long-term trash generation and disposal requirements.
6. Health and Safety Health and safety – no significant additional issues
Nuisance Issues – no significant additional issues
7. Program Independence Positive effect of reducing long-term trash generation and disposal requirements, preserving landfill airspace.
5
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Source Reduction
Overview:
In this analysis, it is assumed that Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS) already have recycling programs in place such that no significant additional clean recyclables could be recovered. Therefore, this analysis focuses on recovery of food waste from school kitchens and cafeterias.
Analysis: How much waste can be recycled or diverted from landfill?
Estimate how much food waste could be recovered from FCPS
3,000,000 meals x 4/3 lb. food per meal x 31% wastage ÷ 2000 lbs/ton = 620 tons/year
Assuming 150 academic days of the year (30 weeks x 5 days) and that all children have lunch once/day, this means that each child eats 150 lunches. 75 lunches are catered by the school; therefore 75 lunches are brown bags. Assuming that the mass of food in brown bag lunches is about the same as in cafeteria meals and that about the same proportion of brown bag food is wasted. This would mean an equivalent amount of food is wasted from brown bag meals each year, 620 tons/year.
Total food waste = 620 + 620 tons = 1,240 tons/year
1,240/42,000 tons MRA material to be diverted from landfill = 3% small contribution
Sources of Data:
Enrolled FCPS students = 40,672 (2014-15), 62 schools (39 Elementary Schools = 19,392 enrolled; 13 Middle Schools = 8,884 enrolled; 10 High Schools = 12,396 enrolled) http://www.fcps.org/news/Update-to-Final-2014-15-Enrollment-Numbers-.cfm
The FCPS Food and Nutrition Services Department serves approximately 3 million meals annually to approximately 40,000 students, equivalent to 75 meals/child/year.
http://www.fcps.org/about/documents/FY2015AdoptedOperatingBudgetBook.pdf
Average food wastage (spoilage, plate waste, and cooking and other losses) is about 31% or 133 billion lb. = 66.5x106 tons (2013). Research has shown that food wasted by children is similar to the rest of the U.S. population.
http://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/webinars/K-12/Webinar.pdf
People generally eat between three to four pounds of food each day ( assume 4/3 lbs. per meal)
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/what-are-your-4-lbs
1
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Source Reduction
Analysis: What are the equipment needs and costs?
What would be the cost of separate food waste collection from schools?
1,240 tons/year ÷ 30 weeks = 41 tons/week
41/62 tons/location = 0.67 tons/location = 1,325 lb./location/week on average
2.65 CY/location/week, say 3 CY @ ~500 lb./CY
Assume collection once per week: 62 collections weekly over 30 weeks = ~12 pickups per day, 5 days/week 12 x 3 = 36 CY/day = 18,000 lbs/day = 9 tons/day = one truck load.
How many collections can one collection truck make in one day? Assume 15 miles between pickup locations (schools), 30mph average speed, and 15 minutes collection time 45 minutes per pickup
12 pickups x 0.75 hours/pickup = 9 hours
Cost to contract a service for collection (containers + truck + labor): Daily cost = $1200 Annual cost = $1200 x 5 x 30 = $180,000
No capital costs or recurring O&M.
Alternatively, each school could run a small composting system for food and yard waste, with compost used onsite for grounds keeping. This would avoid all transportation costs and impacts. However, operating costs are considered too high to make this practical.
Sources of Data:
Typical density of food waste = 220-810, average 490 lb/CY (Table 4-1, p70, Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., and Vigil, S. A., 1993. Integrated solid waste management, 1st Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.)
In summer (April-September) it is recommended that food scraps collected in toters or dumpsters be hauled away for processing twice per week. In winter (October-March) it is recommended that food scraps collected in toters or dumpsters be hauled away for processing once per week.
http://www.recyclingworksma.com/local-health-department-guidance-for-commercial-food-waste-separation/#Hauler
Analysis: How does this option measure up to evaluation criteria?
1. Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Transport emissions: Assume organic waste collection truck drives 100 miles/day = 500 miles/week = 15,000 miles per year assuming academic year is 30 weeks.
However, this option would also result in diversion of 1240 TPY of waste from landfill disposal. Assume 90% of waste will be transferred to an out of county landfill located a 100-mile round trip distance away. Assume that 100CY walking floor trucks are used, that each hold an average of 22 tons each. The total
2
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Source Reduction
quantity of waste diverted from the disposal stream = 0.9 x 1240 = 1116 tons/year ÷ 22 tons/truck = 50 truckloads per year. This would reduce truck traffic by 50 x 100 = 5,000 miles per year.
The net number of additional miles drive is 15,000 – 5,000 = 10,000
10,000 miles/year ÷ 6.4 mpg x 22.2 lb. CO2/gal. x 1/2000 lb/ton x 0.907 ton/Mg = 16 Mg CO2/year
Heavy Duty Truck Mileage 6.4 2 http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=pt [mpg] b0208 CO2 emissions conversion 22.2 3 U.S. EPA Document: EPA420-F-05-001 [lb/gal]
3 Landfill methane: Based on Staley & Barlaz (2009), the methane yield of food waste, L0, is about 300 m 3 3 CH4/dry Mg. Food waste moisture content, w, is 70%. Therefore, L0 = 90 m /wet Mg, or 100 m /wet ton. Food degrades too fast for methane to be captured in a LFG system; therefore, all this methane would be released if the food waste was disposed in a landfill.
3 3 1240 tons/year x 100 m /ton = 124,000 m CH4
3 CH4 (Mg/yr) = [CH4 m /yr)] x [16.04 (molecular weight of CH4)] x [1 Mg/10^6 g] x [1mol/24.04L @ STP] x [1000L/m3]
CH4 Mg/yr = 124000 x 16.04 x 1/106 x 1/24.04 x 1000 = 83 Mg/yr
83 Mg/yr x 21 GWP = 1,737 Mg CO2/year
Reference: Staley, B. F. and M. A. Barlaz, 2009, “Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield,” J. Environ. Eng. 135, 10, p. 901- 909
Other impacts: social, environmental: Generally positive – instilling recycling and composting as goals for school students should have a long term beneficial effect on society. Environment impacts/benefits are negligible.
2. Costs and Revenues
No revenue
Costs See above
County Image: Positive effect
Energy Production: None
3. Waste Minimization
See above, 1240 tons of waste diverted per year. Small effect on diversion rate.
Likelihood of Promoting Behavioral Change: High
3
Proposed Options for Evaluation WORKSHEET: Source Reduction
4. Ease of Implementation
Integration into Existing Programs: If a countywide composting program is in effect, collection of food waste from schools is a negligible addition. This option requires one dedicated collection vehicle.
The program is not simple to implement, but can be readily done in a manner that is fair and acceptable to all participants.
Enforceability: Not an issue as school students generally follow institutional rules
Dependence on Education: High
Timeframe: Immediately implementable
5. Flexibility
Flexibility and Adaptability: Low, food waste must be collected regularly and processed promptly.
Minimizes Long-Term Risk and Uncertainty: negligible consideration.
6. Health and Safety
Public Health and Safety: No significant effect
Nuisance Issues: Odor and vermin control are main issues for food waste storage and composting operation.
7. Program Independence
Negligible effect
4
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Phase I Report Appendix E Summary Tables – Results of Option Evaluations
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Frederick County, Maryland
Solid Waste Steering Committee
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled paper Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Phase 1 Report Appendix E
Results of Options Evaluation - Expected Performance (Primary Criteria)
CRITERION #1 CRITERION #2 CRITERION #3 Env. Impact and Sustainability Costs (2016 dollars where applicable) - RELATIVE TO CURRENT SYSTEM Revenue Resulting Household Costs Waste Minimization (2016 Tonnages) Net Cost Residual Disposal Transport Landfill Energy Prod. NET Capital Operating Disposal Lifecycle (10-year cost) Annual Recycling Waste MRA Recycling Waste Diversion Clean Recycling Composting Annual Emissions Annual Emissions Annual Emissions Annual Emissions Other Contribution to Contribution to Option Environmental Total Annual Annual Total $/ton Total $/ton $/ton $/month $/month (Blue Bin) (Green Bin) tons/year tons/year (Mg CO2 equiv.) (Mg CO2 equiv.) (Mg CO2 equiv.) (% of Baseline) Goal (%) Goal (%) tons/year tons/year
Category and Social RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO Impacts/Benefits RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE
Schools Waste Reduction Program: Collection of Source Separated Food 15 -1,700 97% Positive$ - $180,000 $1,800,000 $ 145 $ - $ - $ 145 $2.00 None 1,240 3% Waste
SFH=$4.60 Pay-As-You-Throw Negligible Negligible 100% Positive $150,000 $3,510,000 $35,250,000 $ 187,000 $ 12 $15-$17 15,560 37% $ 227 $ 215 MFD=$12.50
Additional Three-Bin System 18% Positive $2,400,000 $5,600,000 $58,400,000 $ - $ - As Current 43,000 102% 65 -44,200 $ 136 $ 136 $6.50
Expanded Recycling Programs for None.
Soft Infrastructure Soft Businesses and Institutions: Food Waste 30 -19,300 64% Positive$ - $1,390,000 $13,900,000 $ 58 $ - $ - $ 58 Business cost None 23,865 57% Recovery from Restaurants $200
Expanded Residential Curbside Collection (Multi-Family Dwellings) 85 Negligible 100% Positive$ - $480,000 $4,800,000 $ 429 $ 13,500 $ 12 $ 417 MFD=$10 As Current 1,120 3%
None. Construction/Building Waste Recycling Negligible Negligible Neutral $2,200,000 $1,000,000$ - $12,200,000 $ 300,000 $ 30 None Zero 10,000 Zero 10,000 $ 122 $ 92 Business cost
Develop Community-Scale Composting Part of Part of Additional Positive $5,000,000 $375,000 ($160,000) $7,150,000 $ 143 $ 80,000 $ 16 $ 127 As Current 5,000 12% 750 Program Collection Collection <$1
Large-Scale Centralized Composting Part of Part of Additional Positive $25,000,000 $2,760,000 ($2,360,000) $29,000,000 $ 41 $ 600,000 $ 9 $ 33 As Current 70,000 167% 13,500 Facility Collection Collection $2-$3
Develop Community-Scale Anaerobic Part of Part of Additional -400 99% Positive $7,000,000 $950,000 ($160,000) $14,900,000 $ 298 $ 65,000 $ 13 $ 285 As Current 5,000 12% 750 Digestion Program Collection Collection $1-$2
Part of Part of Additional Large-Scale Anaerobic Digestion Facility -7,000 87% Positive $50,000,000 $6,460,000 ($2,360,000) $91,000,000 $ 130 $ 900,000 $ 13 $ 117 As Current 70,000 167% 13,500 Collection Collection $8-$9 Hard Infrastructure Large-Scale Centralized Resource Recovery Additional 59% Positive $60,000,000 $8,070,000 ($4,720,000) $93,500,000 $ 4,250,000 $ 39 As Current 48,000 48,000 229% 108,000 229% 34,000 Park -700 -21,000 $ 87 $ 47 $8-$9
Supports Exporting Out-of-County Landfill Disposal 1,200 52,300 100% $0 As Current As Current $ 69 As Current As Current As Current 0 0 Zero 0 Zero 185,000 LFGTE Impacts Supports Negligible Negligible Develop New County Landfill -1,200 52,300 98% Negative $56,250,000 $4,630,000 ($10,175,000) $800,000 $ - $ - As Current As Current 0 0 Zero 0 Zero 185,000 LFGTE Increase Increase
BASELINE - SPECIAL CASE IN WHICH COSTS AND OTHER DATA SHOWN ARE ACTUAL AND NOT RELATIVE VALUES
SFH Single family home MFD Units costs at Multi-family dwelling Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Phase 1 Report Appendix E
Results of Options Evaluation - Pessimistic Performance (Primary Criteria)
CRITERION #1 CRITERION #2 CRITERION #3 Env. Impact and Sustainability Costs (2016 dollars where applicable) - RELATIVE TO CURRENT SYSTEM Revenue Resulting Household Costs Waste Minimization (2016 Tonnages) Net Cost Residual Disposal Transport Landfill Energy Prod. NET Capital Operating Disposal Lifecycle (10-year cost) Annual Recycling Waste MRA Recycling Waste Diversion Clean Recycling Composting Annual Emissions Annual Emissions Annual Emissions Annual Emissions Other Contribution to Contribution to Option Environmental Total Annual Annual Total $/ton Total $/ton $/ton $/month $/month (Blue Bin) (Green Bin) tons/year tons/year (Mg CO2 equiv.) (Mg CO2 equiv.) (Mg CO2 equiv.) (% of Baseline) Goal (%) Goal (%) tons/year tons/year
Category and Social RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO Impacts/Benefits RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE
Schools Waste Reduction Program: Collection of Source Separated Food 15 -1,700 97% $ - $180,000 $1,800,000 $ 242 $ - $ - $ 242 $2.00 None 744 2% Waste
SFH=$4.60 Pay-As-You-Throw Negligible Negligible 100% $150,000 $3,510,000 $35,250,000 $ 187,000 $ 20 $15-$17 9,336 22% $ 378 $ 358 MFD=$12.50
Additional Three-Bin System 36% $3,600,000 $5,600,000 $59,600,000 $ - $ - As Current 25,800 61% 65 -34,264 $ 231 $ 231 $6.50
Expanded Recycling Programs for None.
Soft Infrastructure Soft Businesses and Institutions: Food Waste 30 -26,957 50% $ - $1,390,000 $13,900,000 $ 97 $ - $ - $ 97 Business cost None 14,319 34% Recovery from Restaurants $200
Expanded Residential Curbside Collection (Multi-Family Dwellings) 85 Negligible 100% $ - $480,000 $4,800,000 $ 714 $ 13,500 $ 20 $ 694 MFD=$10 As Current 672 2%
None. Construction/Building Waste Recycling Negligible Negligible $3,000,000 $1,100,000$ 440,000.00 $18,400,000 $ 120,000 $ 20 None Zero 6,000 Zero 14,000 $ 307 $ 287 Business cost
Develop Community-Scale Composting Part of Part of Additional $5,000,000 $375,000 ($160,000) $7,150,000 $ 143 $ 48,750 $ 10 $ 133 As Current 5,000 12% 750 Program Collection Collection <$1
Large-Scale Centralized Composting Part of Part of Additional $25,000,000 $2,760,000 ($160,000) $51,000,000 $ 73 $ 300,000 $ 4 $ 69 As Current 70,000 167% 53,500 Facility Collection Collection $4-$6
Develop Community-Scale Anaerobic Part of Part of Additional -400 99% $7,000,000 $950,000 ($160,000) $14,900,000 $ 298 $ 48,750 $ 10 $ 288 As Current 5,000 12% 750 Digestion Program Collection Collection $1-$2
Part of Part of Additional Large-Scale Anaerobic Digestion Facility -7,000 87% $55,000,000 $7,460,000 ($2,360,000) $106,000,000 $ 151 $ 675,000 $ 10 $ 142 As Current 70,000 167% 13,500 Collection Collection $9-$10 Hard Infrastructure Large-Scale Centralized Resource Recovery Additional 82% $70,000,000 $8,070,000 ($3,180,000) $118,900,000 $ 2,925,000 $ 28 As Current 48,000 48,000 229% 106,000 229% 62,000 Park -700 -8,750 $ 110 $ 82 $11
Supports Out-of-County Landfill Disposal 1,200 52,300 100% $0 As Current As Current $ 69 As Current As Current As Current 0 0 Zero 0 Zero 185,000 LFGTE Supports Negligible Negligible Develop New County Landfill -1,200 52,300 98% $56,250,000 $4,630,000 ($10,175,000) $800,000 $ - $ - As Current As Current 0 0 Zero 0 Zero 185,000 LFGTE Increase Increase
BASELINE - SPECIAL CASE IN WHICH COSTS AND OTHER DATA SHOWN ARE ACTUAL AND NOT RELATIVE VALUES NOTEWORTHY CHANGE RELATIVE TO ANALYSIS UNDER CONDITIONS FOR EXPECTED PERFORMANCE
SFH Single family home MFD Units costs at Multi-family dwelling Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Phase 1 Report Appendix E
Results of Options Evaluation - Expected Performance (Secondary Criteria)
OTHER CRITERIA
Ease of Liklihood of Health and Implementatio Dependence on Minimizes Long- Contribution to Energy Promoting Effect on Flexibility and Safety Impacts, Option n, Fair and Timeframe Eduction and Term Risk and Program Production Behavioral County Image Adaptability Nuisance
Category Acceptable to Enforcement Uncertainty Indepenence Change Factor Participants
Schools Waste Reduction Program: Part of Generally Dependent on Collection of Source Separated Food High Positive Organics Proc. High Low Negligible Low Negligible Waste Processing High Facility High - Generally High - Pay-As-You-Throw None High Neutral Neutral Immediate High Low Medium positive Medium
Part of Relatively Dependent on Three-Bin System High Positive Organics Proc. Neutral Neutral Positive Low High Processing High Facility Expanded Recycling Programs for Part of Relatively Dependent on Soft Infrastructure Soft Businesses and Institutions: Food High Positive Organics Proc. High Neutral Positive Low High Waste Recovery from Restaurants Processing High Facility
Expanded Residential Curbside High Positive High Immediate High High Negligible Low Negligible Collection (Multi-Family Dwellings) None
Relatively Construction/Building Waste Recycling None High Neutral 2-3 Years Medium Neutral Positive Low Medium High Systemic Develop Community-Scale Composting Part of Low on a None Positive Changes 1 Year High Low No Low Program unit basis Collection Required Systemic Large-Scale Centralized Composting Part of None Positive Changes 1-2 Years High Low No Low High Facility Collection Required Develop Community-Scale Anaerobic Modest: Equiv. to Part of Low on a powering 40-100 Positive Complex >2 Years High Low No Low Digestion Program homes Collection unit basis
Large-Scale Anaerobic Digestion High: Equiv. to Part of powering 750- Positive Complex >2 Years High Low No Low High Facility 1875 homes Collection Hard Infrastructure Large-Scale Centralized Resource Relatively None Low Positive 3-4 Years Low Medium No Low High Recovery Park High
Supports Out-of-County Landfill Disposal Low Negative Existing Existing Low High Yes Low Medium LFGTE Supports Develop New County Landfill Low Negative Low 5-10 Years Low Low Yes Low High LFGTE
BASELINE
Frederick County Solid Waste Management Options Study Phase I Report Appendix F Recommendations for Phase 2
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Frederick County, Maryland
Solid Waste Steering Committee
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled paper