Whether or not you accept the premise that the past is merely prologue, get yourself ready for Round Two.

By John F. Williams

Many communities were faced with daunting garbage problems in the late 1970s and early 1980s: what to do with garbage as local landfills were filled, landfill disposal regulations were becoming more stringent, and long-distance shipping was not economically or socially acceptable. Conversion to steam or electrical energy while reducing land disposal needs seemed idealóa deal that was good enough to produce some 180 operating waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities. It was a deal that began to slow amid environmental challenges from supporters of other waste management alternatives. It survived the requirements of Clean Air Act amendments to produce some of the cleanest energy-generation facilities in the world. Nonetheless, it came to a screeching halt in the early 1990s as project economics shifted because of tax-law changes, district and Supreme Court rulings against local flow control, and cheap tipping fees at remotely located mega-landfills.

Since construction of the French Island Generating Plant in La Crosse, WI, improvements have included conversion from coal-fired boilers and the addition of a refuse-derived fuel facility.

During WTE's heyday, many professionals and public servants experienced a sort of two-edged sword of involvement with the development of WTE facilities. We were excited because we had discovered a terrific solution to a growing environmental challenge. We were, however, criticized for our involvement with the technology by people with political and financial agendas.

Today, 91 WTE facilities operate in 28 states, managing roughly 14% of America's trash. They are quiet servants generating much-needed power while reducing dependence on land disposal. They recover scrap metal and often provide accommodations for recycling activities and the recovery of household hazardous waste. They are the source of needed host community fees and in many cases are viewed as viable options to further reduce long-haul disposal practices. All of this has been accomplished without the health impacts threatened by activist newsletters and organizations aimed at raising funds through subscription or fear campaigns.

This article serves to recognize the track record of 25-plus years associated with WTE and the work of those with the vision and stamina needed to bring these facilities to reality and provide truly integrated solid-waste management programs. It looks back at the original promises made, promises that were kept, and the lessons learned over time. It predicts the course WTE is likely to take and the steps needed to ensure its future.

Finally, it serves as a thank-you to those who worked in the WTE industry and continue to do so. It is especially aimed at public officials who staked their careers on an association with the technology and who have an interest in seeing that it remains viable as tipping halls, storage pits, cranes, grates, furnaces, turbines, cooling towers, scrubbers, bag houses, and ash load-out facilities age. These officials now also deal with questions around operating contract renewals and the need for new competitive processes to bring on the next generation of operators and a fresh look at facility economics.

Promises Made, Promises Fulfilled

Twenty-five years of hindsight confirm that the promises made by WTE were largely kept. The majority of facilities commissioned continue to operate today as good neighbors and very effective waste management tools. The following section discusses the promises that were made, and kept.

WTE conserves fossil fuels by generating electricity. Every ton of waste combusted rather than placed in a landfill reduces oil use by about 45 gallons or coal use by 0.28 tons, and most WTE facilities operating in the United States process between 500 and 3,000 tons of waste per day, according to the Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council. Current processing capacity generates as much power or steam as oil-fired facilities consuming 1.6 billion gallons of fuel each year.

WTE facilities process 14% of the MSW in the United States, generating enough electricity to meet the power needs of 2.8 million homes, and the facilities serve the trash-disposal needs of more than 37 million people, according to Covanta Energy Corporation.

WTE provides clean energy. US WTE facilities must meet some of the world's most stringent environmental standards. They achieved compliance with new Clean Air Act pollution control standards for municipal waste combustors in 2000, spending more than $1 billion on upgrades. EPA data show that dioxin emissions have decreased by more than 99% in the past decade, now accounting for less than one-half of 1% of dioxin emissions, and mercury emissions have declined by more than 95%, according to the Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA).

WTE facilities reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA estimates that WTE facilities prevent 33 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year from being released into the atmosphere.

WTE facilities save real estate. They reduce the space required for landfills by about 90%, according to IWSA.

WTE is compatible with recycling. Communities served by WTE facilities recycle an average of 35% of their trash, compared to 30% for the general population. WTE annually removes more than 700,000 tons of ferrous materials and more than 3 million tons of glass, metal, plastics, batteries, yardwaste, and ash at onsite recycling centers, IWSA says. Nearly 3 million tons of WTE ash is reused as landfill cover, roadbed, or building material. Ash accounts for anywhere from 10% to 30% percent of the volume of waste processed at WTE facilities.

WTE facilities provide economic benefits. The $10 billion WTE industry employs more than 6,000 American workers with annual wages in excess of $400 million. A 1,000-ton-per-day plant engages roughly 60 personnel.

Disasters That Weren't

Perhaps the largest misconception about WTE was the public health hazards raised by opponents, primarily regarding asthma, cancer, dioxin toxicity, and ash handling and disposal. These historic issues have not been confirmed through scientific study and environmental monitoring.

Ash in particular is not viewed as the threat it once was. It once was considered so dangerous it needed its own landfills. Today, it is viewed as a resource. Earlier this year EPA awarded a bronze medal to Temple University Engineering Professor David Kargbo for his research into using WTE ash to treat acid mine drainage and solve other environmental problems.

The Future of WTE

WTE is more prevalent in Europe and Asia than in the United States, and we can learn from their experience. It is estimated that there are more than a thousand WTE facilities worldwide. The European Union deems WTE a preferable alternative to landfills, and has waste management directives aimed at minimizing landfills, according to Covanta Energy.

WTE in the United States has made great strides in mass burn and refuse-derived fuel, but the industry should continue investigating alternative technologies used by other countries, such as gasification. For example, it is expected that 16 gasification plants will be built in Europe from 2004 to 2006, with a combined capacity of approximately 1 million tons of waste, according to Karsten Millrath of Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering.

Several patented gasification technologies have been developed and appear to be ready for full-scale deployment. One of the most fully developed is ThermoSelect, which performed well during an eight-year pilot test and has four plants in full-scale production. Roughly half a dozen additional plants are in various stages of planning, design, and construction. Competing gasification technologies are under development but have fewer facilities and less operating data, Dave Traeger and Dick Sprague report in May's Public Works.

Plasma arc is another emerging technology, developed with support from the Department of Energy and the US Navy. Plasma arc technology uses extremely high temperatures to break down waste materials into elemental byproducts. The arc in the plasma plume can be as high as 30,000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to Startech Environmental Corporation. The initial focus of this technology has been on radioactive waste, medical waste, and shipboard waste. However, plans have been announced recently to build two 300-ton-per-day processing facilities in Poland for $140 million each.

Even newer technologies are being explored. Changing World Technologies Inc. (CWT) recently announced in a press release that it created the first commercial application of thermal technology to convert organic waste into oil. CWT patented, tested, and deployed a technical process that was awarded $12 million in federal grants and created a joint venture with ConAgra Foods Inc. to process poultry offal.

The business of managing WTE facilities is changing as well. Facilities developed under 20-year operating agreements are on the verge of seeing the end of their contract terms. Communities will need to begin considering whether to renegotiate, rebid, purchase, sell, realign contractual structure, or a combination of the above.

North East Solid Waste Committee

NESWC entered into a long-term service agreement for a regional WTE project.

For some communities, that process is already well underway. In Massachusetts, for example, the 23 communities that comprise the North East Solid Waste Committee (NESWC) last year completed negotiations regarding service after termination of the existing service agreement in September 2005. These communities were among the first in the nation to enter into a long-term service agreement for a regional WTE project. In the late 1970s the Commonwealth of Massachusetts urged communities to develop regional MSW facilities. At the time, the Commonwealth indicated that it would soon close unlined landfills in the state and strongly encouraged WTE as the best alternative. The Commonwealth negotiated the terms of NESWC's construction and service agreement and advocated for its acceptance among the municipalities. These 20 agreements end on September 26, 2005.

The NESWC board and management team began several years ago to put in place and implement a strategic and financial plan to reduce the environmental and economic burden associated with managing the MSW generated in the 23 member communities. That effort culminated this past year, when 22 of 23 member communities entered into post-2005 contracts that dramatically change the risk allocation between the communities and the private owner/operator of the WTE facility, while cutting the communities' cost by over 50%.

Greater Bridgeport, CT, Resource Recovery Facility

Another example is the Greater Bridgeport Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) in Connecticut, in association with the Southwestern Regional Recycling Operating Committee (SWEROC). SWAB is currently analyzing options associated with its solid-waste management programs, along with the concerns of participating municipalities. The effort is aimed at establishing a focal point for evaluating alternative solid-waste management options when current contractual obligations associated with the Greater Bridgeport Resource Recovery (RESCO) project expire in 2008.

Tasks include conducting feasibility and cost assessments for various solid-waste management alternatives, preparing for SWAB/SWEROC negotiations with Wheelabrator (which operates the 2,250-ton-per-day mass-burn facility) and the Connecticut Resource Recovery Agency, reviewing member community legal rights and issues, and assessing the physical condition of the seven RESCO transfer stations.

Pinellas County, FL, Resource Recovery Facility

Pinellas County, FL, invested in WTE in the early 1980s. The county was and remains a fast-growing population and commercial center on the west coast of Florida. It envisioned that this growth would make it impossible to locate new landfill disposal capacity outside of their existing facility. WTE was the best option for extending the life of its existing disposal capacity for as long as possible. The county currently anticipates in excess of 60 years remaining landfill disposal capacity as a result of its decision to turn to WTE as its primary means of waste disposal.

Pinellas County's WTE facility has a waste throughput capacity of 3,150 tbp with 75 megawatts of electrical generation. This facility is a mass-burn combustor with minimal front-end processing. Tipping floor operators remove large bulky objects that may affect the combustion process. Suspicious materials are also removed.

The facility has recently undergone two major improvement projects: air-pollution control retrofit and boiler upgrades. The air-pollution control system was undertaken to comply with regulations. This retrofit included removing the electrostatic precipitators and replacement with baghouse filters. The retrofit also included the addition of wet scrubbers, carbon injection, and selective non-catalytic reduction controls.

The second project involved a large-scale overhaul aimed at enhancing performance and extending facility life. It included the replacement of sections of the boilers, upgrades to the boiler feed water system, upgrading the plant controls to a distributing control system, tipping floor expansion, and other systems improvements.

The county has had a private operator for more than 20 years, and the current contract will expire in 2007. Pinellas County is currently preparing for a competitive process for the next contract period.

Regulatory and Public Issues

Restrictions on flow control—defined as the laws, regulations, and economic incentives used by waste managers to direct waste generated in a specific geographic area to a designated landfill, recycling, or WTE facility—caused some WTE facilities to shut down in 1994, when the Supreme Court upheld challenges to flow control. Many district court cases since then have attempted to define the legal limitations on municipal powers to direct waste disposal. Legislative efforts to provide support to communities in this area have stalled at every attempt.

In the "the more things change, the more they stay the same" category, the biggest key to WTE's success in the coming decades may be public education. WTE facilities have become practically impossible to site in recent years, based on "NIMBY" and lingering environment concerns, which are unsupported by facts. As stated in the May 28, 2004, issue of Solid Waste Report, "Openings for the WTE industry will only ripen if the industry does a better job of selling its product." In today's media-savvy world, public relations and educational campaigns must be part of the business plan. Activists are making sure their point of view is heard, and WTE executives would be well advised to do the same.

Conclusion

Now that more than 25 years have passed since the first US facilities were developed, we can say with confidence that WTE was a terrific solution to waste-disposal problems in a large number of communities. Not only did it result in a dramatic reduction in reliance on landfill disposal, it has become a strong companion to other forms of recycling while providing a source of clean energy. Along the way it has proven to be a good neighbor to all forms of development.

Significant steps are being taken to keep WTE facilities operating as they age. Many have undergone retrofits and expansions. It will soon be time to reconsider operating agreements and secure new pricing. Communities should realize the benefit of retired debt (associated with original capital investments). The stage should be set for favorable new operating contracts.

Like that debt, many of the people who braved the hazards of project development have entered or are near retirement. HDR's Frank Borchardt and Southeastern Public Service Authority's (SPSA's) Durwood Curling (to name two) should be proud of the legacy they helped create. Many others should be saluted for sticking with a terrific solution through difficult development processes. The industry owes a debt of gratitude to the likes of Herb Flosdorf (Lancaster County), Joseph Kazar (Union County), Tim Hunt (Palm Beach County), Steve Maguin (Los Angeles County), N.C. Vasuki (Delaware Solid Waste Authority), John Hadfield (SPSA), Charles Miles (Westchester County), Scott Daniels (Dutchess County), Joseph Murdoch (City of Tampa), Joyce Doughty (Fairfax County), Robin Davidov (Northeast Maryland), and dozens of others who helped to lead the way to successful development.

A large number of elected officials also made commitments to a long-term solution. They provided leadership and a voice of reason that ultimately prevailed.

As the industry looks to the future, it is time to remind practicing professionals and new leaders to continue to look for ways to do more with less. There are resources yet to be recovered—many can be found in the community garbage can.

Author John F. Williams is a senior vice president with HDR in its White Plains, NY, office.

MSW - September/October 2004