Waste Management (WM), Houston, has long been involved in the waste-to-energy (WTE) industry. Its wholly owned subsidiary Wheelabrator Technologies operates 17 waste-to-energy facilities across the country, and WM has 131 landfill-gas-to-energy projects installed. From these two technologies, WM produces more than 9.8 million megawatt hours of electricity, which is enough to power nearly 1.2 million homes.

While that may seem pretty remarkable by most standards, North America’s largest solid waste company isn’t stopping there. WM has been at the forefront of the next generation of emerging waste conversion technologies by researching and developing them internally or by investing in these technologies externally.

Bill Caesar has been the man leading the charge for WM. As president of WM subsidiaries WM Recycle America LLC and WM Organic Growth Inc., Caesar has both the feedstock and the capital to help WM reach its goal of powering 2 million homes by 2020 and to treat the material it collects from 21 million customers as a resource.

“When we think about our strategy going forward, it is really centered around three pillars,” says Caesar. “One is that we are trying to know our customers better than anyone else so we can serve them better. Two is trying to extract as much value out of the materials we manage as possible, and three is to try to do these things as efficiently and effectively as possible.

WM’s approach to waste conversion is very much a combination of these goals. “I think there are a lot of reasons why Waste Management would be pursuing various technologies that would allow us to either generate power or produce transportation fuel or anything else that would allow us to extract value,” Caesar says. “We also have a significant number of customers that are committed to reducing their waste profile, and one way we can help them achieve that goal is to provide an alternative to landfill for materials they produce as a byproduct of their manufacturing process or the products they sell to consumers.”

One Size Does Not Fit All
The mass-burn WTE technology employed by WM via its Wheelabrator business has been well-proven and is still a strategic part of WM’s growth strategy (See sidebar on page 27.). But the answer to generating more energy and extracting more value from waste is not always as easy as building more waste-to-energy facilities, according to Caesar. He says these facilities are not appropriate in every circumstance, either because of economic drivers, zoning or other factors.

“The waste industry in general is a local business. The collection is local. The disposal of material is local,” explains Caesar. “Take a place like Texas that has relatively low disposal costs and relatively low power costs. The economics of a traditional waste-to-energy facility probably wouldn’t pencil out.”

Caesar says in that scenario, an alternative to a mass-burn WTE facility would have to be developed to convert waste into energy or a fuel product. While Caesar says electricity is a good product, the natural gas boom in North America has made it a less valuable product than it was a few years ago. New waste conversion technologies that can create a product other than electricity are attractive in this setting.

“What we are trying to do is either be able to generate value less capital intensively or create higher value goods,” says Caesar. “If I can either find ways to produce an electron for a lot less money or through some process, or if I can produce a transportation fuel or a chemical that had significantly higher value, then I am in a better place than I otherwise would have been if I had only had traditional waste-to-energy as my alternative.”

Placing Many Bets
Caesar describes the way in which WM is proceeding with conversion technologies as a “portfolio approach.” He says, “We are trying to place a number of bets in different technologies with the hope and expectation that one or more of them will pay off in a big way, a couple of them will be viable on the commercial scale, and we’ll probably have to suffer through a couple of them not working out.”

At this stage in the development of what Caesar refers to as “second generation” waste conversion technologies, WM is not able to predict which technologies are going to work and which ones aren’t. Caesar says that even with companies that are using the same technologies, not all of them will be successful. “That is why you have a portfolio,” he says. “It is in our interest to place some bets and we do that by taking minority equity positions in some of these companies and at the same time are developing some technologies internally.”

This approach appears to be beneficial for all parties involved because WM can lend its industry knowledge to these early-stage companies while learning from them how technologies will perform using the materials that it manages as feedstock in their processes.

One such company that WM has invested in is the Montreal-based gasification company Enerkem. The company’s gasification technology converts wastes into fuel and chemicals, made without petroleum. Enerkem has a facility under construction in Edmonton, Alberta, and one in development in Pontotoc, Miss., each of which is designed to have a capacity of 10 million gallons of ethanol per year. (See the table below to learn about more companies WM has invested in.)

While Enerkem is making progress with construction, it is still months away from being operational. Caesar says there hasn’t been a single technology that WM has invested in or developed yet that is operating at commercial scale. “There are several that are close,” he says. He estimates that within 12 to 18 months, more will be known about which companies have become successful at that level.

Caesar acknowledges that some companies have failed at their attempts to commercialize their technologies, but he is more interested in the companies that are still out there.

Lessons Learned
One of the biggest lessons Caesar says he has learned through WM’s process of exploring many different technologies is that it is very possible to have a technology that performs as advertized but run into challenges in either the quantity or the composition of the material needed for the process being available in a form that would allow the technology to be successful on a commercial scale.

He explains many waste conversion technology companies focus on what happens once they have their clean material and have to transform it into something of higher value rather than on material procurement. “There are a lot of challenges around getting them clean material in quantities they can process on a regular, every day, 365-days-a-year sort of schedule.”

Caesar emphasizes that overcoming that challenge is not necessarily the technology’s fault, rather, “It is whether the industry is ready to go there and whether our customers are willing to do the things that they would need to do.” That could mean a customer changing its operating practices or it could mean WM being able to adjust its collections and logistics operations, as examples.

Of course, he notes that there is a whole other set of companies whose technology isn’t proven, but for the companies that do have viable technologies, there are another set of challenges that need to be worked through for that entity and technology to be successful at commercial scale.

“MSW (municipal solid waste) by anyone’s account is not a homogeneous set of material. At a very large scale, it is generally the same, but on a specific scale, you probably have to do something to it to prepare it for downstream processing, and that requires incremental costs and incremental steps in the process.”

Recycling Connection
With its recent acquisition in February of the recycling company Greenstar, WM is processing an estimated 15 million tons of recyclables per year. Caesar says the acquisition, which included 12 material recovery facilities (MRFs), is going well.

Including assets from Greenstar, WM currently operates 129 MRFs, 49 of which have single-stream processing. Caesar says processing MSW for use as a feedstock in a WTE process will operate similarly to a MRF or will come from a MRF.

“There is a lot of stuff that can get picked up and can be run through a recycling process, but at the end of the day, when you look at your residual at the MRF, it has got a lot of plastic in it. It has got a lot of paper in it, but your mill or plastics buyer would say, ‘That is not acceptable. That is a contaminant,” says Caesar.

He adds that the mill and plastics buyer would be right in their assessment, but that there is still value in that material in that it has a Btu-value or carbon content to create something of higher value.

While there may be some companies whose processes don’t involve separating valuable recyclables first, Caesar says all of the waste conversion processes WM is contemplating will involve separation.

“I can honestly say that the front end of any process that is going to use MSW as a feedstock is going to look and feel a lot like a MRF, because you have to get the metals out,” describes Caesar. “It is in your interest to pull the high-value plastics out. It is in your interest to pull the fiber out.”

Looking Ahead
With dozens of waste conversion projects moving through the various stages of development, it will only be a matter of time before this second wave of waste conversion technologies has the opportunity to be proven out.

“As volumes of materials going into landfills decline and as many, if not all energy costs go up, there is a calculus going on that makes some of these technologies very attractive,” Caesar says.

He says he expects to see commercial successes within the next year or two and thinks technologies that employ gasification will stand out. Gasification converts plastics and fiber into synthesis gas, which can then be made into a multitude of different products.

Because conversion of synthesis gas is already a known technology used in other industries, the success of any waste gasification technology will rely on the efficiency of the gasifier and the ability to clean the gas, according to Caesar.

“People should stay tuned,” says Caesar. “It’s going to come in fits and starts. There isn’t going to be a single solution. There are going to be a number of solutions, and that is another reason we are taking this portfolio approach.”
 

The author is managing editor of Renewable Energy from Waste and can be reached at ksmith@gie.net.

With a business plan in place, a supportive and committed political champion on your side and both internal and external teams deployed and ready to go, there’s still a long road ahead. But, by proactively managing a few critical lessons learned to prepare a project plan, proponents will be well-positioned to focus their resources on the assignments that lead to success.

Planning a Campaign
For government, there is still more to know. The media has not quite given up on the controversial angle that helps sell newspapers. And a stubborn group of citizens, which polls show to be remarkably small for their influence, refuse to accept that this project is the right thing to do.

Therefore, two of the most critical next steps include the development of a strategic public affairs (advocacy) plan and a proactive communications (outreach) campaign.

The goal of any advocacy campaign is to provide political “cover” for decision-makers by maintaining an appropriate presence throughout the entire process, from idea origination to facility construction. Showing up when an RFP is issued is almost always too late for any legitimate vendor. Nor is it reasonable in the case of a controversial project to leave a municipality to take all the political heat alone, whether it’s the early determination to proceed or the later resolution to approve.

Proponents must be part of the process, informing policy development and procurement, leading (or at least cooperating in) approvals and sharing in the responsibility of educating the public and media once the project is under construction and headed toward operation.

It is important to be sensitive to local politics. For instance, Durham Region in Ontario included a no-lobby provision in its procurement process for its energy-from-waste (EfW) plant, which was intended to prevent direct contact between vendors and council (though not between project opponents and council), thereby ensuring that the project was driven by the municipality and not by the EfW industry. So respecting the ban while ensuring the roll-out of a well-informed process required a creative approach.

The Canadian industry rallied support from the widest possible audiences by reaching out to stakeholders (beyond just the plant owners and operators) with a vested interest in EfW technology. Indeed, the formation of the Canadian Energy-From-Waste Coalition (CEFWC) was initiated by two industry associations (plastics and cement) that were hoping to build a network of support for EfW because of their concerns over low recycling rates and feedstock sourcing, which were resulting in lost energy opportunities.

With the ongoing support of engineers, technology providers, unions, property developers and others, the CEFWC currently is recognized by government and business as a credible industry association, speaking on core issues while advocating for progressive policies and regulatory standards.

Although industry advocates had no direct contact with municipal staff until all phases of the selection and approval process were complete, the CEFWC maintained a presence in the Durham Region via its website, speaking engagements and media outreach, while proactively educating other stakeholders, including citizens’ groups and provincial regulators, with face-to-face meetings.

The importance of investing in a credible industry association that will serve as a strong, consistent voice cannot be underestimated, as it is the most effective means of channeling information and key messages to and from all critical stakeholders.

This is no trivial point, because each audience capable of influencing decision makers has its own information sources from which they gather intelligence, and these too often generate different, uncontrolled messages, many of which are patently inaccurate or untrue. The only way to properly address key issues is to speak from a single position of authority. For example, while progress was being made in Ontario with proven EfW technologies, other industry vendors promoting unproven conversion technologies sucked much of the oxygen from the debate, advancing competing claims in the media and pitching “no risk” deals to municipalities. The establishment of a credible industry association ensured that government policy-makers, regulators and legislators had an objective source of information to cut through the clutter.

A successful public affairs campaign will identify all relevant political stakeholders and understand their trigger points, recognizing that these individual decision makers play to different audiences. For example, a municipal council will be most sensitive to the opinions of ratepayers and local media, whereas provincial/state officials will care more about the views of cabinet and finance officials. A properly coordinated public affairs campaign must ensure that each of these groups hears the same message, though framed in language aligned with their goals and expectations—a delicate task, indeed.

Of course, any contemporary campaign involves lobbyists. Many are skilled communicators who understand social media and polling; however, beware the lobbyist who:

• Uses name dropping rather than issue analysis for credibility;
• Knows more about you than about what they will do for you;
• Can’t provide a realistic time frame for a decision (usually because vague timelines result in extended fee schedules); and
• Pitches a plan that depends on experience gained with one level of government when the task at hand requires expertise honed in another jurisdiction.

Building Public Support
From the outset, and regardless of the nature of the assignment, project proponents must embrace the need for extensive public consultation. The fact is that there’s no way to avoid it, nor should that be a goal. Proponents should seek out public events as a means of engaging the most active and articulate citizens, identifying friends and foes and promoting the project to the community and media.

Of course, early meetings may be unpleasant, full of misinformation, misinterpretation and accusations from a small handful of opponents. However, solid grassroots support is built on arguments patiently delivered to people who are willing to listen to a full and complete explanation of the issue from both sides.

In either case, primary presentation responsibilities should be delegated to the best communicators, who can then call on technical, legal, environmental, investment and professional expertise as required.

Allocating Resources
As with any project or political campaign, it is important to align communications goals and objectives with key audiences.

The outreach documentation does not need to be too sophisticated or complicated—though accuracy, transparency and accountability are the watch words. Standard-issue communications tools, including fact-based briefing notes, frequently asked questions and nontechnical consultation material using simple language—without jargon—will accomplish the job.

Regulators will require technical data and analysis; media will appreciate historical background; the general public typically wants to understand the basics: Who is making the decision? Who is bidding on the work? Why this project and not some alternative? How much will it cost? What are the benefits? How will it affect taxpayers and neighbors? What’s the timeline for decision-making?

Establishing a website is an essential communications tool because it facilitates the ability to both push and pull key messages, policy positions and experiences elsewhere. With universal access, this is the face of the project to the world; it’s where the case is made with science, testimonials, graphics and any other useful communications device.

Social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) are increasingly effective outreach tools, though they do require constant monitoring and reaction.

Focus groups can be organized to test both messages and support within a host community, which will provide important insight into campaign refinements.

Polling may validate public support and provide evidence that this “controversial” project is actually an electoral winner to elected politicians, who live and die by polling.

A Word of Caution
Finally, while social media inform business decisions all the way down the line, they are still not treated as legitimate measures of public input or as formats given equal weight with traditional forms of outreach. Social media provide direct access to public opinion, and yet in too many jurisdictions they are not treated with the same validity as public meetings. Polling informs election strategy everywhere but is seldom used as a primary means of informing policy decisions. This must change.

The fact is that politicians trust their gut instincts when it comes to controversy and intuitively understand the value of polls depends entirely on who controls “the ask” and how the question is presented.

Countering Opposition
The first step in managing opposition is to acknowledge that it is real and a permanent feature of every public affairs campaign.

It is also important to understand that the “opponents” who fill the community hall during early public meetings are not the same as the “zealots” who will work against the project at all costs for the entire duration. The former, which may number in the hundreds at the outset, typically arrive with some skepticism and curiosity but will usually see the merits of the project once presented with sensible, logical, fact-based arguments; their numbers will decline in direct proportion to the transparency of the outreach and quality of the information being shared. The latter, which can be counted on one or two hands, come to the process with an entrenched ideological position, care nothing for public goods and will not acknowledge the positive benefits of the project under any circumstances.

Relationships with local/ad hoc stakeholder groups and individuals must be nurtured, not assumed. And the way to stand up to criticism from “jet-setting celebrity” environmentalists is to maintain an on-the-ground presence, close to the project. Soliciting support from other communities that have adopted similar policies and/or implemented similar technologies can be helpful.

“NIMBY-ists” and “zero-wasters” should be dealt with head-on by politely recognizing that while their ideas are laudable, they are also highly impractical, many generations away and wholly ineffective on a large scale in a realistic time frame.

Working with Media
Serendipity is not a strategy, and hoping for positive media coverage is the easiest way to lose control of the agenda. This is because, quite simply, the good news is never good enough…and selling the “controversy” is too easy.

Like the opposition, moving forward productively means accepting the fact that it may not be possible to get media on your side entirely and that just a handful of opponents may continuously garner more sensational attention than the most unbiased and dedicated broadcast/press campaign. Quite often the most well-researched scientific evidence will lie waiting for publication, while project opponents sow fear with baseless stories of suffering children, toxic emissions or polluted water tables.

With a diligent approach, the media will come around. Circulating background information in the form of simple, honest, unbiased documentation is key. Address all negative coverage (biased innuendo, out-dated stereotypes and false accusations) with coordinated quick-to-press responses in the form of letters to the editor, opinion pieces, freelance articles, etc. Deal with skeptics and sensationalists directly. Editorial board meetings are another highly effective means of modifying media perspectives and attitudes.

Regardless of how volatile, upsetting, tense or provocative the debate becomes, proponents must maintain a civil tone and keep a smile close by. There’s no easier or more sure way to lose support than with a rude remark or an untimely snarl.

Summary Remarks
In the face of intractable public policy challenges, communities everywhere are searching for new, innovative solutions. Because new often means unknown or controversial, it usually portends a long and difficult road to approval and implementation.

But it doesn’t mean that beneficial alternative approaches are impossible, even in the face of citizen opposition and a skeptical, sensationalizing media. With a diligent, prescribed strategy based on lessons learned, proponents will be well-positioned with a business plan focused on genuine community benefits that go beyond just the revenue stream. They will have the support of a strong political champion and a balanced, well-rounded team.

Combined with a dedicated and collaborative public affairs and communications campaign, executed with patience and diligence, the process of winning over public opinion and acquiring regulatory approval becomes quite manageable.

The author is president and CEO of Prester John Public Affairs, Toronto.

Part one of the Community Relations Series, “Approval Process,” is available in the January/February 2013 issue of Renewable Energy from Waste, online at www.rewmag.com/rew0213-projects-public-approval.aspx.

High above the confluence of the Little Sioux and Ocheyedan rivers, Thunder Bridge leads to the rural hub of Spencer, Iowa, and its historic streetscape. A beloved and essential natural resource for Clay County residents, the Little Sioux meanders through Spencer and, downstream, cuts across vast grain fields and rolling countryside as part of the Missouri River watershed.

Spencer’s City Manager Bob Fagen is busy working on plans to clean up the Little Sioux, a project that will become part of Spencer’s new EMS, or environmental management system, plan.

“Part of our EMS plan will include an objective to clean up our rivers,” Fagen says. “It’s something we’ve always wanted to do. Even though they don’t run through our landfill, I believe it’s a priority and creates a positive environmental impact, not just in our city, but [in] the entire region.”

By embracing Iowa’s voluntary EMS law, Spencer joins more than 200 communities in the Hawkeye State already operating under EMS, with the added benefit of unhooking from the state’s waste diversion program with its limitations, regulations and penalties.

“EMS is a phenomenal tool for the city of Spencer that supports best environmental practices and also increases operational efficiencies,” Fagen comments.

The Problem
Cass County’s Environmental Control Director Wendy Wittrock experienced the limitations of waste diversion before making the switch to EMS.

“We knew back in the ’90s that the state’s diversion system requiring an annual 25 percent waste reduction goal didn’t make sense, especially for smaller communities,” Wittrock says. “It wasn’t fair because we have limited control over what goes in our landfills. It also didn’t allow us to get credit for all the other good environmental programs and landfill management improvements that we were making.”

From the smallest agencies in rural towns like Atlantic and Pella to the sprawling suburbs and cities of Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, waste diversion requirements were dismissed by some people who have their boots on the ground as the sole measurement of a solid waste agency’s performance for a variety of reasons. While waste reduction regulations had been good back in the ’90s, the system was showing its age.

Tom Hadden, executive director of Des Moines’ Metro Waste Authority, the largest solid waste agency in the state, is another EMS booster. “Diversion was starting to go stale because most of the low-hanging fruit of waste reduction had long ago been picked,” he remarks. “It wasn’t unusual for landfill managers who couldn’t make the goal to just drop out and pay the penalties. Besides, it’s a kind of goofy system, because waste diversion is based on the landfill meeting goals that we [landfill managers] can’t control.”

Marie Devries, administrator for Cedar Rapids/Linn County Solid Waste Authority, an EMS-designated agency, says, “Waste diversion alone was always something of a hit or miss. It didn’t take into account the entire waste stream cycle and all its environmental impacts.”

Sara Bixby directs the rural South Central Solid Waste Agency. She participated in the early EMS committee work with state regulators. “EMS is a chance for us to take the next step,” Bixby says.

When state regulators took a good long look into the future, they came to the same conclusions as industry leaders in Iowa. “Instead of only looking at the waste diversion metric—disposal management—as the primary driver, we needed to start looking at resource management, because solid waste agencies and their interaction with the environment extend way beyond just putting trash in a landfill,” says Brian Tormey, chief of the Land Quality Bureau, Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

The Solution
The move to EMS began after Tormey vetted a white paper with industry members. Regulators and solid waste managers agreed with the general premise that waste diversion wasn’t sustainable and they committed to work together to find a solution.

Eventually they discovered that an entirely new wheel didn’t have to be created because ISO 14000 was already in use by other industries and businesses. ISO 14000 is the foundation for an environmental management system.

The committee outlined the basic elements of EMS following the general ISO 14000 guidelines, focusing on six environmental areas from recycling and water quality improvements to greenhouse gases. It is intended to be a “holistic” approach to reducing waste based on continuous, small improvements in those environmental areas identified as controllable and measurable.

An alternative to waste diversion, EMS required changes in some Iowa regulations and laws. Therefore, the working committee reached out to State Rep. Donovan Olson, who was familiar with solid waste issues.

EMS Innovators
As a member of the Boone County Board of Supervisors, Olson experienced firsthand how easy it was for that county’s solid waste agency to meet diversion goals simply by taking credit for reductions at the Ames Recovery plant that burns solid waste. Even though the Boone agency was very involved in recycling, it could have stopped recycling and its other good environmental programs and still meet its reduction goals.

“Conversely, I learned that other landfills were doing everything they could to recycle, reduce and divert waste, but couldn’t meet their reduction goals for a variety of reasons beyond their control,” Olson says.

After meeting with Tormey and the solid waste industry representatives on the committee, Olson says he recognized that EMS had the potential to drive innovation and creativity. “That’s when I decided to make EMS the focus of my energies. We began drafting a new EMS law together,” says Olson, who sponsored the EMS legislation.

Beyond Diversion
Iowa’s EMS law was designed to encourage responsible environmental management and solid waste disposal. It is a voluntary, nonregulatory approach. Designated EMS participants are allowed to set aside the waste reduction regulations and design activities and programs based on their specific community needs and goals. They also may qualify for financial assistance to implement their plans.

In 2008, the Iowa legislature unanimously passed HF 2570, also known as the EMS Law, that uses a radically different metric for environmental performance.

Instead of continuing to strive only to meet the state-set landfill diversion goals, agencies designated as environmental management systems (EMS) set their own local environmental goals and measure performance in six areas.

Using a set of EMS management practices, solid waste agencies demonstrate regulatory compliance while identifying and engaging in activities that reduce environmental impacts and improve operational efficiencies through continuous and measurable improvement.

The DNR director also named a nine-member advisory council to develop the processes to implement the new EMS program and a two-year pilot phase with six participating agencies ranging from the smallest (less than 10,000 tons per year managed) to the largest (more than 550,000 tons per year managed). It also provided funding to pilot communities to implement their EMS programs.

Friends with Benefits
EMS benefits extend well beyond improved environmental compliance. DNR and the six EMS pilot solid waste agencies documented reduced environmental risks and employee accidents, increased operational efficiencies and conservation of natural resources as well as improved employee morale. By opting into EMS, solid waste agencies also can opt out of some regulations and penalties.

DNR also helps solid waste agencies start an EMS program by providing fast-start grants ($20,000), free training and software, webinars and on-site consultants. Of the state support given to EMS-designated agencies, “the most important is providing them with an experienced EMS outside consultant,” Tormey says.

The language, metrics, planning and implementation of an EMS program can be daunting. Tormey adds, “The advisory committee hired an EMS consultant firm, Gresham Smith and Partners (GS&P), to educate us.”

A Kick Start
Starting an EMS program includes the plan, do, check and act cycles. EMS pilot consultant Laura Fiffick recommends starting small because the metrics can be challenging. “Small is really the way to go in the beginning,” she says. “However, you can’t shortchange the metrics, which are probably the biggest pains of the system, but that’s how you know you are doing better,” Fiffick adds.

“The first year can be overwhelming,” Wittrock says, “but now that we’re in our third year, EMS has proven to be a far better environmental management system for our community, where we are now getting credit for all the good environmental improvements that we are making. We now know what works based on the numbers.”

After a successful pilot project, EMS is now being offered to all solid waste agencies and permitted landfills. Iowa has chosen to take the more cautious approach, growing slowly so that each EMS-designated agency is given the time and attention it requires before adding another to the new system.

Iowa’s solid waste management agencies’ creative and effective EMS programs ranged from “no-idle” policies that improved air quality in Cedar Rapids to attaining a near zero-waste household hazardous waste facility in Des Moines.

The author is a freelance writer based in Iowa and can be contacted at davisbeverly42@gmail.com.

Computer programmers have a saying: GIGO. It means “garbage in, garbage out” … if you enter bad data, you’ll get bad results. Waste facilities have a new riff on that. Call it GIFO: garbage in, fuel out. The proper preparation of MSW (municipal solid waste) or postindustrial waste inputs is key to getting a high-quality, burnable product as output.

Most operations are quite careful about the material they prepare for their refuse-derived-fuel (RDF) facility. The size and quality of the material are monitored. Nothing is left to chance. At plants around the country, the goal is to reduce the amount of waste going into landfills while capturing as much burnable energy as possible.

“We produce a high-Btu fuel with little to no chlorine,” says Jay Saxton, general manager at Balcones Fuel Technologies, Little Rock, Ark. Balcones’ typical end product is in excess of 10,500 Btu and typically gets a 12,500 to 13,000 Btu output, according to Saxton.

Balcones is fortunate to have a fairly consistent blend coming into its plant. “Our feedstock hasn’t changed much,” Saxton says. All of its material is postindustrial waste. The bulk of its input product is nonwoven scrap fabrics from filters, baby care products, car covers and items like reusable grocery sacks that do not make the grade.

In addition, Balcones runs some post-industrial food plant waste. “This is not food, itself,” Saxton says. Rather, it is waxed cardboard used to package food, plastic packing bags that do not pass muster for some reason and other packing that is contaminated with breading or fat residue.

Balcones also processes waste from a peanut butter plant. “The residual peanut oil burns great,” Saxton says, adding that the PET (polyethylene terephthalate) jars have great Btu value.

No matter what the material, it is shredded, run through a metering bin, mixed further and then processed. Balcones does not accept material with metals. However, the company runs drum magnets to grab any contaminants that may be in a load.

The company shreds its product to 4-inch minus. Saxton says Balcones found its optimum size by trial and error.

A good shred is one key to the process. “We have slow-speed shredders running at low rpm,” Saxton explains.

Municipal System
Other RDF fuel operations have less specific inputs. One of the oldest waste-to-energy facilities in the country is run by the Solid Waste Authority (SWA) of Palm Beach County, Fla. Its feedstock is varied.

Originally known as its North County Renewable Energy Facility, the operation now is known as Renewable Energy Facility #1 (REF #1). It processes 2,000 tons of curbside collected MSW per day and produces 1,800 tons per day of RDF, six days per week. “We went with RDF to hedge our bets,” says Ray Schauer, SWA director of engineering.

A second facility will soon come online. Called REF #2, its construction is about 30 percent completed. A mass burn facility, it is expected to process 3,000 tons per day with its three 1,000-ton per day boilers.

Palm Beach County got started with RDF in 1989, when waste to energy was just coming into the public eye. Schauer says the county talked about a MRF (material recovery facility), recycling and other options and decided to go the waste-to-energy route.

The front-end of the SWA’s REF #1 facility is a primary shredder. “We size material and send it through trommels,” Schauer says.

“Our raw material is residential and commercial MSW that is collected curbside and in roll-off type containers,” Schauer says. They have an aggressive source-separated dual-stream recycling program that includes newspaper; mixed paper; cardboard; and bottles and containers, whether glass, plastic, aluminum or ferrous.

REF #1 comprises four general areas: the MSW (municipal solid waste) receiving area (tipping floor); the RDF manufacturing building; the fuel (RDF) storage building; and the power block, which includes the fuel feeding equipment, boilers, power generation equipment and the ash handling equipment.

The MSW processing equipment is located on the front end of REF #1. Waste arrives on the tipping floor and is inspected and fed on to a conveyor. Then it is inspected again and conveyed to a flail mill that coarsely shreds the MSW. The output of the flail mill is conveyed through a magnet for ferrous separation to a trommel screen. The first stage of the screen removes the small fraction (less than 2-inch) as precombustion residue. This small fraction is later cleaned with air classification, the light fraction being combined with the RDF and the heavy fraction further processed for metals removal.

The second stage of the trommel screen removes the MSW fraction that is less than 6 inches and typically consolidates the containers. Nonferrous metals are removed via eddy current separation, and the balance is conveyed to the RDF storage building.

The fraction of the MSW that is larger than 6 inches is conveyed to a secondary shredder for further sizing and is reprocessed to further remove metals prior to being conveyed to the RDF storage building. The resulting RDF product is typically characterized as a loose material between 2 and 6 inches.

“We take what is left over at the RDF facility for further processing,” Schauer says. The front end equipment is designed to size the material to between 2 and 6 inches and remove the ferrous and nonferrous metals. The facility also includes recovery of both metals from the resulting ash on the back end of the combustion process.

The resulting RDF product is a loose product that typically includes the remaining paper, plastic, wood and organics.

Sizing Material
The idea at most RDF sites, including Palm Beach County’s, is to produce a feedstock material of 2 to 4 inches in size. The 2-inch minus comes out the bottom. Anything larger than 6 inches goes back for further shredding.

“Conveyor speeds and feed rates can be adjusted,” Schauer says. However, major adjustments rarely are necessary.

“We are manufacturing RDF specifically to provide for the disposal of solid waste and the generation of clean renewable energy as part of an integrated waste management system,” Schauer says. Other operations have a somewhat different focus.

Vexor Technology, Medina, Ohio, gets its material from single-stream plants. Steven Berry, president of Vexor Technology, emphasizes that its product is not classic RDF but an engineered product designed to meet its customers’ specific requirements. “We do not compete with recyclers,” he says. “We work hard to differentiate ourselves.”

Rather, Vexor takes nonrecyclable plastics, waxy cardboard and other materials that do not have economic value in the traditional recycling stream or cannot be processed economically and mix it with other materials to produce an engineered fuel.

Coming onto the line, the material ranges up to 1 foot in size. Grinders and shredders take the material down to three-quarter-inch-minus particle size. “That’s what our customers request,” Berry says.

The material, he explains, typically gets delivered to cement and power plants.

The fuel Vexor produces provides 10,500 Btu per pound. At most RDF plants that rate their product on a quality output basis, the material typically will be compared to coal for its energy value. Bituminous coal produces from 10,500 to 15,500 Btu per pound, according to the American Coal Foundation. Lower grade lignite coal produces only 4,000 to 8,300 Btu per pound.

At Vexor, magnets remove metallic fractions both at the front end and at the back end of the process.

Metal is a bigger problem at Palm Beach County’s tipping floor. There, they typically must sort out large bulky items such as mattresses, refrigerators, washers, dryers, freezers, engine blocks, etc. Those items are collected and processed for recycling whenever possible at other on-site facilities.

Hazardous materials—typically propane tanks, in this case—are manually picked out on the tipping floor. Ferrous metals are magnetically separated early in the process, and aluminum is removed by eddy current and manual picking. A proprietary system is used to collect coins.

Interestingly, the SWA recovers almost as much metal on the back end of its process by sifting the ash as it recovers in the daily curbside recycling stream.

Testing is an important part of the fuel producing process. Berry notes that Vexor tests 32 different parameters ranging from moisture content to heavy metals. There is quality control (QC) testing both at the start and on the end product.

“We have QC tests to assure the proper mix of material,” Berry says.

Dealing with Feedstock
Inconsistency in the feedstock is a fact of life every facility has to contend with in the process.

Balcones Resources is fortunate to have a relatively consistent feedstock stream, Saxton says. He describes the end product as a cube looking much like a stick of modeling clay.

“Depending on the material and the ratios, it may have a smooth exterior or be ruffled,” Saxton says.

The one thing he does not want coming into his feedstock is moisture. That is a high hurdle in humid Arkansas. “We definitely do not want an abundance of moisture,” Saxton says. “We try to keep it sub-20 percent. Under 15 percent is better. We want it as dry as possible.”

Although the holding area is under roof, the large volume of baby wipes and infant care products makes that a tough standard to meet.

“They use a super-absorbent polymer in their product,” says Saxton. “It grabs moisture out of the air.”

That is only one of the many outside factors that make dealing with feedstock challenging for fuel producers to handle in a consistent and economic way. The challenge is bigger when the mix can change daily.

“MSW, by its heterogeneous nature, is difficult to deal with. The economics are a balancing act,” Schauer says.

SWA’s REF #1 site typically runs at full capacity. Three identical RDF processing sites are providing approximately 150 percent of the required capacity.

“RDF is a good landfill alternative,” Saxton says.

The author, based in Cleveland, is a contributing editor to Renewable Energy from Waste and can be contacted at curt@curtharler.com.