When You Come to a Fork in the Road..
Famous baseball player (and philosopher) Yogi Berra is quoted as saying, “When you come to a fork in the road....Take it.” In solid waste management, we often come to these forks in the road. Since Earth Day 1970, our nation has made great advances in how we manage our waste. According to the EPA 2007 report, our 254 million tons of municipal solid waste is managed in three ways: 33.4% is recycled (including composting); 12.6% goes to waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities; and the remaining 54% is landfilled. Today’s road to sound solid waste management has a new fork in the road: “zero waste.” I wrote an earlier editorial here when the zero-waste mantra first appeared and concluded that we should be for as little waste as possible. Today, my vision is a bit clearer on just what the approach should be.
Thinking we can recycle our way out is a fork that could lead to a dead-end. Certainly, we can do more than we are currently doing, but to hold out for recycling to get to 70% (not a California-defined 70%, which may be more like 50% in states that count based on actual current tonnages) is going to require costs, mandatory separation requirements and market controls that most elected officials will find objectionable. That said, the old EPA hierarchy is still a good model to follow: reduce, reuse, recycle, compost, recover what is left for its energy value, and then landfill what remains.
What Is So Important About More Recycling?
More recycling represents untapped opportunities for significant job creation in the solid waste/recycling field. Americans have embraced recycling, both at home and at work. But, where do these materials go? As recycling grew in the US, recycling feedstocks became more reliable in both quality and quantity and replaced raw materials in many domestic manufacturing processes. Then, the situation began to change. China, India, and other countries began to purchase our recycled materials in great quantities and at high prices. At the same time, US industrial capacity to consume domestic recyclables declined as domestic companies found it impossible to compete with countries that operated with cheap labor and under environmental standards that are significantly lower than those in the US.
Today, the reliable flows of recycled materials continue, but the recent downturn in the worldwide economy sent demand plummeting along with prices paid for recyclables. Meanwhile, we sit here in the US with empty factories across this country in cities, large and small, with unemployed people. Part of our environmental solution should be to stabilize recycling markets with US demand assisted to grow with new tax and energy policies, pricing support incentives, disposal taxes/fees, and even import tariffs—significant ones—to redirect these reliable domestic flows of recyclables to US factories to convert them into products we can buy ourselves or export. Imagine a day when the recyclables we set out every day come back to us as tomorrow’s newspaper, a garden hose, or clothing we buy—made right in this country. This is an exciting and smart opportunity that will provide tremendous energy and environmental (greenhouse gas reduction) benefits and contribute to sustainable industries, jobs, and a new tax base in America.
How Does WTE Fit in?
In the 1990s, the implementation of many WTE facilities was stopped. A combination of flow control, desire to recycle more, and concerns over environmental impacts were causes often cited for taking the fork in the road to landfills instead of WTE facilities. If communities had taken the route to WTEs then more waste would have been converted to electricity and less waste would have gone on highways or trains to landfills in other states. The call for increased recycling resulted in more waste shipped to landfills and the resulting methane generation that has added to our greenhouse gas problems.
The 32 million tons that are processed today through WTE facilities are reduced by more than 70% by weight and 90% by volume as the energy is recovered in the form of steam and/or electricity. These facilities generate the equivalent of 2,300 MW of electricity. Their emissions are well within current air-pollution standards under the amended Clean Air Act, and they safely dispose of their ash products in regulated Subtitle D landfills. Some ash is reused in construction applications, too. Simply put, WTE can add to our sources of renewable energy and help our nation reach an energy independence goal. As Congress considers “renewable energy” legislation, it needs to designate WTE and landfill-gas recovery projects alike as “renewable energy.” If WTE is widely implemented, less waste goes to landfills, and energy resources are recovered. With landfill gas recovery systems defined as renewable energy, their costs are offset to recover and convert methane generated, avoiding significant harmful methane releases into the environment.
Criticism of WTE facilities has been focused in two areas. One is related to environmental concerns from emissions. The environmental performance of these facilities speaks for itself and is excellent. If you wonder how they can coexist in urban or suburban areas, look at the facilities in Alexandria, VA; Baltimore, MD; or Minneapolis, MN. The second criticism is that WTE facilities deter recycling. This is a myth. In communities where WTE was implemented, recycling has flourished and been sustained at higher levels than in those communities without WTE. Why? Perhaps because the administrative infrastructure in those WTE communities is more robust and the public has become more knowledgeable and conscious about their solid waste management practices that they more actively participate in the recycling programs provided. The key is to set the capacity for WTE based on the wastes left over after recycling program goals are met.
My hope is that WTE can be included in the national renewable-energy standard to enable more homegrown renewable-energy sources. This would change nearly 30 years of federal law, as well as acknowledge laws in 25 states that recognize WTE as renewable. Inclusion will expedite the reduction of greenhouse gases and support efforts to increase use of alternative, renewable domestic fuel sources.
What Should We Do to Advance This Thinking?
First, we need a national strategy for waste. Let me suggest a 50/50 partnership among reduce/reuse/recycle/compost and WTE (noting that WTE here includes processing waste into fuels or fuel feedstocks). In saying this, I am not sure that governments will easily choose to assume the costs of either high levels of recycling or of building new WTE facilities. However, states like Connecticut, Florida, and Pennsylvania, as well as some officials at EPA, have drafted policies and made statements heading this way.
Next, we need to reward recycling and WTE for the environmental and energy benefits they bring. Communities with aggressive recycling or WTE will need all the help they can get to implement and sustain their systems. Whether it is carbon credits for implementing recycling, or renewable energy credits for WTE, incentives are needed to recognize the capital cost to implement these systems. For example, at $50,000 per installed daily ton for added recycling processing and conversion costs and $200,000 per installed daily ton for added WTE capacity, we are talking about $58 billion in capital needed for new infrastructure. Flexible policies to use tax-exempt financing structures would help, as would significant grants for those that add sustainable infrastructure.
Waste-disposal taxes need to be imposed—not a dollar a ton, but toward $10 per ton. Wisconsin is a good example of using a high disposal tax to support state regulatory programs as well as to provide grants to support local programs.
We should also place more responsibility on producers. However, we should avoid systems that rely on raising revenue by counting on people to not use the system, (e.g., container deposit programs that leave millions of escheats that governments then raid in the rush to balance a budget, as in the cases of California or New York). We should make sure any producer taxes are applied to support the added infrastructure needed to reach a new national waste management goal.
Advertisement
Can We Afford to Pay More?
Residential waste/recycling service pricing can range from below $10 to as high as $35 per household per month. If we pass along a $10-per-ton disposal fee to an average-size family’s nominal 2.5 tons of waste, not counting what it might recycle, we are adding $25 per year to its costs. For this family, the additional cost for a more environmentally and energy efficient system might mean that one to perhaps three modest family dinners may have to be missed each year. Is this too much to ask? I don’t think so, and I hope not.
So, if the fork in the road has two prongs, one for recycling and the other for WTE, take it!
Author's Bio: Harvey Gershman is president of Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc., solid waste management consultants based in Fairfax, VA.
January-February 2010
When You Come to a Fork in the Road..
Famous baseball player (and philosopher) Yogi Berra is quoted as saying, “When you come to a fork in the road....Take it.” In solid waste management, we often come to these forks in the road. Since Earth Day 1970, our nation has made great advances in how we manage our waste. According to the EPA 2007 report, our 254 million tons of municipal solid waste is managed in three ways: 33.4% is recycled (including composting); 12.6% goes to waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities; and the remaining 54% is landfilled. Today’s road to sound solid waste management has a new fork in the road: “zero waste.” I wrote an earlier editorial here when the zero-waste mantra first appeared and concluded that we should be for as little waste as possible. Today, my vision is a bit clearer on just what the approach should be.
Thinking we can recycle our way out is a fork that could lead to a dead-end. Certainly, we can do more than we are currently doing, but to hold out for recycling to get to 70% (not a California-defined 70%, which may be more like 50% in states that count based on actual current tonnages) is going to require costs, mandatory separation requirements and market controls that most elected officials will find objectionable. That said, the old EPA hierarchy is still a good model to follow: reduce, reuse, recycle, compost, recover what is left for its energy value, and then landfill what remains.
What Is So Important About More Recycling?
More recycling represents untapped opportunities for significant job creation in the solid waste/recycling field. Americans have embraced recycling, both at home and at work. But, where do these materials go? As recycling grew in the US, recycling feedstocks became more reliable in both quality and quantity and replaced raw materials in many domestic manufacturing processes. Then, the situation began to change. China, India, and other countries began to purchase our recycled materials in great quantities and at high prices. At the same time, US industrial capacity to consume domestic recyclables declined as domestic companies found it impossible to compete with countries that operated with cheap labor and under environmental standards that are significantly lower than those in the US.
Today, the reliable flows of recycled materials continue, but the recent downturn in the worldwide economy sent demand plummeting along with prices paid for recyclables. Meanwhile, we sit here in the US with empty factories across this country in cities, large and small, with unemployed people. Part of our environmental solution should be to stabilize recycling markets with US demand assisted to grow with new tax and energy policies, pricing support incentives, disposal taxes/fees, and even import tariffs—significant ones—to redirect these reliable domestic flows of recyclables to US factories to convert them into products we can buy ourselves or export. Imagine a day when the recyclables we set out every day come back to us as tomorrow’s newspaper, a garden hose, or clothing we buy—made right in this country. This is an exciting and smart opportunity that will provide tremendous energy and environmental (greenhouse gas reduction) benefits and contribute to sustainable industries, jobs, and a new tax base in America.
How Does WTE Fit in?
In the 1990s, the implementation of many WTE facilities was stopped. A combination of flow control, desire to recycle more, and concerns over environmental impacts were causes often cited for taking the fork in the road to landfills instead of WTE facilities. If communities had taken the route to WTEs then more waste would have been converted to electricity and less waste would have gone on highways or trains to landfills in other states. The call for increased recycling resulted in more waste shipped to landfills and the resulting methane generation that has added to our greenhouse gas problems.
The 32 million tons that are processed today through WTE facilities are reduced by more than 70% by weight and 90% by volume as the energy is recovered in the form of steam and/or electricity. These facilities generate the equivalent of 2,300 MW of electricity. Their emissions are well within current air-pollution standards under the amended Clean Air Act, and they safely dispose of their ash products in regulated Subtitle D landfills. Some ash is reused in construction applications, too. Simply put, WTE can add to our sources of renewable energy and help our nation reach an energy independence goal. As Congress considers “renewable energy” legislation, it needs to designate WTE and landfill-gas recovery projects alike as “renewable energy.” If WTE is widely implemented, less waste goes to landfills, and energy resources are recovered. With landfill gas recovery systems defined as renewable energy, their costs are offset to recover and convert methane generated, avoiding significant harmful methane releases into the environment.
Criticism of WTE facilities has been focused in two areas. One is related to environmental concerns from emissions. The environmental performance of these facilities speaks for itself and is excellent. If you wonder how they can coexist in urban or suburban areas, look at the facilities in Alexandria, VA; Baltimore, MD; or Minneapolis, MN. The second criticism is that WTE facilities deter recycling. This is a myth. In communities where WTE was implemented, recycling has flourished and been sustained at higher levels than in those communities without WTE. Why? Perhaps because the administrative infrastructure in those WTE communities is more robust and the public has become more knowledgeable and conscious about their solid waste management practices that they more actively participate in the recycling programs provided. The key is to set the capacity for WTE based on the wastes left over after recycling program goals are met.
My hope is that WTE can be included in the national renewable-energy standard to enable more homegrown renewable-energy sources. This would change nearly 30 years of federal law, as well as acknowledge laws in 25 states that recognize WTE as renewable. Inclusion will expedite the reduction of greenhouse gases and support efforts to increase use of alternative, renewable domestic fuel sources.
What Should We Do to Advance This Thinking?
First, we need a national strategy for waste. Let me suggest a 50/50 partnership among reduce/reuse/recycle/compost and WTE (noting that WTE here includes processing waste into fuels or fuel feedstocks). In saying this, I am not sure that governments will easily choose to assume the costs of either high levels of recycling or of building new WTE facilities. However, states like Connecticut, Florida, and Pennsylvania, as well as some officials at EPA, have drafted policies and made statements heading this way.
Next, we need to reward recycling and WTE for the environmental and energy benefits they bring. Communities with aggressive recycling or WTE will need all the help they can get to implement and sustain their systems. Whether it is carbon credits for implementing recycling, or renewable energy credits for WTE, incentives are needed to recognize the capital cost to implement these systems. For example, at $50,000 per installed daily ton for added recycling processing and conversion costs and $200,000 per installed daily ton for added WTE capacity, we are talking about $58 billion in capital needed for new infrastructure. Flexible policies to use tax-exempt financing structures would help, as would significant grants for those that add sustainable infrastructure.
Waste-disposal taxes need to be imposed—not a dollar a ton, but toward $10 per ton. Wisconsin is a good example of using a high disposal tax to support state regulatory programs as well as to provide grants to support local programs.
We should also place more responsibility on producers. However, we should avoid systems that rely on raising revenue by counting on people to not use the system, (e.g., container deposit programs that leave millions of escheats that governments then raid in the rush to balance a budget, as in the cases of California or New York). We should make sure any producer taxes are applied to support the added infrastructure needed to reach a new national waste management goal.
Can We Afford to Pay More?
Residential waste/recycling service pricing can range from below $10 to as high as $35 per household per month. If we pass along a $10-per-ton disposal fee to an average-size family’s nominal 2.5 tons of waste, not counting what it might recycle, we are adding $25 per year to its costs. For this family, the additional cost for a more environmentally and energy efficient system might mean that one to perhaps three modest family dinners may have to be missed each year. Is this too much to ask? I don’t think so, and I hope not.
So, if the fork in the road has two prongs, one for recycling and the other for WTE, take it!