Funding Hierarchy of Waste Management
Table of Contents
- Managing Solid Waste
- Hierarchy vs. New Technologies
- Proposed Hierarchy for Funding Projects
- References
Recently, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management began administering all loans and grants of the Recycling Market Development Program (RMDP) through a memorandum of understanding with the Lt. Governor’s Office of Energy and Defense Development (OEDD). The Office of Pollution Prevention and Technical Assistance’s Source Reduction and Recycling Branch will oversee these duties for IDEM.
The RMDP is supported through the Recycling Promotion and Assistance Fund, created at IC 4-23-5.5-15. The RPAF is funded by not less than 50% of the revenue from the $.50/ton solid waste disposal fee established by IC 13-20-22-1(b)(1). Repayment by applicants of zero percent loans awarded also add to the balance of the fund. The fund is to be used to promote and assist recycling throughout Indiana by focusing economic development efforts on businesses and projects involving recycling and developing markets for those recyclables. The Recycling and Energy Development Board (REDB) approves spending of the fund, in accordance with IC 4-23-5.5-7.
The Recycling Market Development Program is focused on helping businesses create new or increase existing use of recycled feedstocks or present and develop innovative ways to increase waste diversion. In addition, the Source Reduction and Recycling Branch of OPPTA currently works with many of the components of the recycling process which the board does not fund through RMDP loans and grants, namely, solid waste management districts and local units of government. Still, there are projects that fall somewhere between each prospectus, where materials are diverted from the waste stream, but are not recycled or re-used. The dilemma for IDEM is how to set a funding criteria for such projects. OPPTA must develop a comprehensive and consistent approach to solid waste diversion, management, and recycling methods for Indiana.
With new technologies moving forward, Indiana’s priority of advancing environmental protection through economic development allows IDEM the opportunity to look at all avenues for the Recycling Market Development Program to be more effective in helping expand and bring in new business to the state, save landfill space, preserve natural resources, and be more energy efficient. One of these options is to consider what additional projects could be helped through the Recycling Promotion and Assistance Fund.
In the last few months, several waste-to-energy facilities have expressed interest in applying to the fund. The rest of this paper discusses how funding these operations may be considered under current regulations and proprietary ranking in the national solid waste management hierarchy.
Managing Solid Waste
In Indiana, statutorily, recycling is defined as a process by which materials that would otherwise become solid waste are collected, separated or processed, and converted into materials or products for reuse or sale (IC 13-11-2-180). Here, recycling is a process of preventing something from being disposed of as a solid waste.
According to 329 IAC 11-2-30, processing is defined as: 1) a method, system, or other handling of solid waste so as to change its chemical, biological, or physical form; 2) to render solid waste more amenable for disposal or recovery of materials or energy; or 3) the transfer of solid waste materials excluding the transportation of solid waste.
A waste-to-energy facility is defined in state statute as a facility at which solid waste is converted into energy or another useful product by incineration (IC 13-11-2-253). Waste-to-energy involves taking that which is solid waste and converting it into energy.
Although IDEM has no definition or rules regarding specifically waste-to-energy facilities at this time, recovery and resource recovery facilities are covered in solid waste rules, listed as a type of solid waste processing facility at both IC 13-11-2-212 and 329 IAC 11-2-43. In general, these facilities obtain materials or energy for commercial or industrial use from solid waste or hazardous waste, in other words, they process solid waste into commercially valuable materials or energy. Waste-to-energy facilities, therefore, could fit into this niche for funding if the facility is preventing a material from entering the waste stream as a solid waste—providing waste diversion from landfills and displacing the use of conventional materials.
Hierarchy vs. New Technologies
The U.S. EPA views waste-to-energy as a less effective means of managing municipal solid waste than recycling, but if used effectively, better than landfilling. On their website, EPA explains that "while not producing this waste in the first place is the preferred management strategy for this material, recycling is preferred over any method of disposal. The majority of MSW that is not recycled is typically sent to landfills after it is collected. As an alternative, MSW can be directly combusted in waste-to-energy facilities to generate electricity. Because no new fuel sources are used other than the waste that would otherwise be sent to landfills, MSW is often considered a renewable power source. Although MSW consists mainly of renewable resources such as food, paper, and wood products, it also includes nonrenewable materials derived from fossil fuels, such as tires and plastics."
EPA recommends a four tier hierarchy as the preferred method of solid waste management (shown in the pyramid, Figure 1, right): "Source reduction or waste prevention, which includes reuse, is the best approach (tier 1), followed by recycling (tier 2). Waste that cannot be prevented or recycled can be combusted with energy recovery (tier 3). Tier 4 is landfilling or incineration without energy recovery. Both of these disposal options take place according to proper regulations. Source reduction is at the top of the hierarchy because the best approach to managing solid waste is to avoid creating it in the first place. This means reducing the amount of trash discarded and reusing containers and products instead of throwing them away. Once waste is created, recycling, which includes composting, is one of the most effective methods of reducing the amount of material in the waste stream. If waste cannot be recycled, incineration or sanitary landfilling are the next preferred methods of treatment."
While the EPA standard is what states are following in reviewing projects for technical assistance and funding, other waste management alternatives to landfill disposal should be considered.
Ventura, California, for example is researching alternatives such as anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, gasification, and hydrolysis. Their director of solid waste management, Kay Martin, explains that these technologies “hold tremendous potential for converting residual waste stream materials into valuable commodities."
Martin states: "New bio-industries that can utilize waste cellulose feedstocks could provide unprecedented access to broad market sectors currently dominated by petroleum and petrochemicals. The potential exists to convert biomass wastes into such diverse products as transportation fuels, plastics, fabrics, solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, cosmetics, fragrances, pharmaceuticals, and adhesives. These developments would not only dramatically reduce the amount of waste going to disposal, but they would also help advance key national policy objectives for pollution abatement, resource conservation, energy independence, and national security."
She goes on to say that the "...germinal industries in question can utilize waste stream fractions that are currently going to disposal and have little or no market value. By co-locating their operations with material recovery facilities (MRFs) or by developing regional stand-alone facilities, new industries can intercept segregated feedstocks that fit their specifications at a zero to negative cost. As such, their principal competition will be landfills, not recycling operations. Because recyclable commodities can access alternative industrial feedstock markets that offer an economic return, they will continue to be cherry-picked and managed by collectors and processors in ways that best enhance the bottom line of existing operations." (MSW Management Journal, <http://www.forester.net/mw_0309_hierarchy.html>.
Martin's hierarchy would look like this:
The environmental, economic, and social axes interact to create an index of relative benefit that can be utilized as a decision-making framework. Individual technologies or products represent data points within a dynamic three-dimensional paradigm. The ongoing interplay among the environment (X axis), economy (Y axis), and society (Z axis) defines their relative "sustainability" at given points in time and space (see Figure 2). (Martin)
For purposes of comparison with the existing hierarchy, the model in Figure 2 depicts general categories of technologies, as well as individual operations or programs. It assumes, for simplicity, that the greatest social value is assigned to recycling and the least value to disposal, with new conversion processes somewhere in between (Z axis). It also assumes that sustainability is optimized by alternatives that achieve greatest life cycle benefits at the lowest cost and the highest level of social acceptance. (Martin)
IDEM does not propose radical departure from the Solid Waste Management Hierarchy, but does suggest that the definition of recycling already allows for the consideration of new waste diversion technologies for funding, and, therefore, the REDB should consider a policy revision to broaden the types of projects to be presented.
Proposed Hierarchy for Funding Projects
Currently, the Recycling Promotion and Assistance Fund is an underused economic resource to recycling businesses. The board has the ability to fund all projects presented that are financially viable because of the abundant monies available. After the Recycling Market Development Program is fully established at IDEM and more requests for funding are received, the need for a competitive policy will be necessary.
Therefore, IDEM proposes to the Recycling and Energy Development Board the following hierarchy of projects to be considered for assistance from the Recycling Promotion and Assistance Fund based on not only EPA's guidelines, but newer waste management potential.
Source Reduction, Waste Prevention: Refers to any change in the design, manufacture, purchase, or use of materials or products (including packaging) to reduce their amount or toxicity before they become municipal solid waste. Source reduction also refers to the reuse of products or materials.
Reuse: Types of consumer products that can be reused in their original form such as computers, reusable containers, salvage of products before demolition and waste disposal, and other examples. It is another way to stop waste at the source because it delays or avoids that item's entry in the waste collection and disposal system.
Recycling:
- In the classical sense, materials such as aluminum, steel, plastics, paper and cardboard are recyclable. The amount of fossil fuel required to manufacture these materials from recycled feedstock is significantly less than using virgin feedstock from natural resources. Energy savings is 93% for aluminum production, 85% for plastic production, 66% for steel production and 50% for production of paper products. Industry routinely uses recycled feedstock to manufacture new products. Recycling helps businesses to be more profitable. Consumers benefit by being able to purchase products at competitive prices. These activities will become more important as energy prices increase and environmental regulations become more stringent (less pollutant emissions and avoidance of greenhouse gases).
- Composting, Beneficial Reuse, Beneficial Use, Legitimate Use - Materials such as construction and demolition debris (C&D), fly ash, gypsum, tires, foundry sand, and wood waste have beneficial-use applications that serve to provide waste diversion from Indiana landfills. Factors for their use include market performance and environmental qualifications, transportation costs, and landfill avoidance cost. For example, soil amendments and mulch are made from brush, leaves, wood scrap, grass, and other organic matter. Civil engineering applications in road construction represent another large market for beneficial-use materials. Specifically, recommended guidelines have been issued for the following applications (i) foundry sand in granular applications, (ii) coal combustion products in granular applications, (iii) crushed concrete in base layers, and (iv) shingles in hot mix asphalt. Other markets include the use of tire shreds in septic installations and crumb rubber in elastomer products.
Waste-to-Fuel: This includes anaerobic digesters, gasification, plasma-arc furnaces, bioreactors, pyrolysis, and other systems to produce methane, syngas, and/or fuels. Types of feedstocks include agricultural residue, animal waste, offal, food processing waste, and organic industrial wastes such as from paper mills, ethanol plants, and mill residues. Other feedstocks may include MSW, tire-derived-fuel (TDF), and residual waste streams.
Waste-to-Energy: This includes combustion systems such as incineration, mass burn facilities, fluidized bed combustion, landfill methane projects that generate electricity. Types of feedstocks include MSW, tire-derived-fuel (TDF), and residual waste streams.
In this way, recycling is still held first in the hierarchy, but other projects are eligible for consideration. Projects still will be evaluated on amount of material recycled or energy recovered, defined markets for end products, if applicable, technical feasibility, project management, financial support, and economic development benefits.
