1. Energy from Waste As An Energy and Environmental Management System
Purpose of this meeting is:
1. For us to introduce the modern WTE industry
- Its history
- Its public service role
- Its current technology
- Its current environmental performance
- Its unique environmental benefits
2. For us to understand Green-e
- Its purpose
- Its criteria
- Its methods for determining eligible sources
3. OVERALL PURPOSE: To discuss our belief that WTE contributes to an overall reduction in environmental impacts from power production, and that it should therefore be considered to be consistent with Green-e’s goals. 1

2. Energy – from – Waste IS Sustainable Development
Modern Energy - from - Waste (EfW) Provides Three Functions:
Reduce GHGs,
PM 2.5 and air
toxics.
EfW
Solid Waste
Disposal
Renewable
Energy

3. Presentation Outline International Activity
Increased use of Energy-from-Waste
Regulations that are driving this behavior
Pennsylvania’s Solid Waste Balance
Solid waste management and renewable energy
Greenhouse gas reduction
Other sustainable attributes
Message
EfW is growing in Europe, Asia and the USA
The European Union Landfill Directive is smart “pollution prevention” policy – by avoiding landfilling of MSW - they are avoiding GHG and air toxic emissions while maximizing energy recovery.
Lifecycle analysis is recommended for sustainability analysis

4. I. International – The use of EfW is increasing due to focus on energy and climate change.
Location
Existing Facilities
New Facilities
(a)
RFPs/
Expansions (b)
Plans
(c)
Europe
388 (2003) 44 56
---
USA
89 (2006)
3/5
China
67 (2005)
TBD
400
In construction or operation.
USA expansions include Florida (Lee and Hillsborough), Minnesota (PERM, Olmstead, Poke Douglas). Others are also in motion.
The 67 facilities manage 1.5 % of MSW. The 400 larger facilities are to manage 30 % of MSW by 2030.

5. I. International – The European Thematic Strategy
The European Commission and European Union have adopted an integrated program for a healthy local and international environment
Four Priorities
Climate Change
Biodiversity
Health
Resource Use
Seven Strategies
Air Quality
Marine Environment
Sustainable use of resources
Waste prevention and recycling
Pesticides
Soil Quality
Urban Environment

6. I. International Activity – Specific EU Legislation “EfW and Landfills are subject to stringent regulations”
EfW (2000/76/EC)
Creates emission limits and operating standards for energy-from-waste facilities
These standards can be credited for large reductions in emissions from EfW facilities
Landfills (99/31/EC)
EU Landfill Directive requires a reduction in landfilling of biodegradable waste
Specific goal is to reduce emissions (CH4) that contribute to greenhouse effect and to reduce impact on human health

7. International – Worldwide Experience “EfW is compatible with Recycling”
Composting
Landfill
Energy-from-Waste is used extensively worldwide
780 EfW facilities; 140 million tons per year (TPY)
U.S.
89 EfW facilities
29 million TPY
Western Europe
388 EfW facilities
62 million TPY
Asia
301 EfW facilities
48 million TPY

8. I. The EU Integrated System is in Lancaster County
Refuse
Frey Farm
Landfill
57,000
11%
Waste-to-Energy
Facility
266,200
52%
Recyclables
186,400 tons
37%
Recycled

9. Ferrous recovery contributes 3% to the overall County recycling rate.
I. Lancaster County’s Integrated System “Evidence that WTE and Recycling are Compatible”
WTE has supported recycling efforts, not competed with them.
Ferrous recovery contributes 3% to the overall County recycling rate.
% Materials Recycled
WTE began operating

10. II. Pennsylvania’s MSW Balance – “2005 data shows that 88
II. Pennsylvania’s MSW Balance – “2005 data shows that 88.3 % of non-recycled MSW is landfilled with 38.5 % being from out-of-state”
Management
Option
Million
Tons
MSW
Percent
Landfill
21.6
88.3
EfW
2.9
11.7
Total
24.5
100
Origin
Million Tons MSW
Percent
In-State
15.1
61.5
Out-of-State
9.4
38.5
Total
24.5
100
Does not identify waste shipped out of state
NJ is about 55 % and NY is 40 % of out-of state waste
22 of 45 landfills have LFGTE

11. II. Pennsylvania’s MSW Balance and Energy WTE generates clean renewable energy and promotes independence from fossil fuels
Increased EfW and decreased landfilling generates significant extra renewable energy
Each Ton of MSW managed by EfW avoids 1 barrel of oil or 0.25 ton of coal on an electrical energy generating basis
EfW generates more power than any landfill option by processing each ton
in about 1-hour using controlled combustion. The anaerobic breakdown of
MSW in a landfill is not controlled and occurs in a 50 to 100 year period.

12. II. Pennsylvania’s MSW Balance and Energy Renewable energy from EfW reduces fossil fuel use

13. II. Pennsylvania’s MSW Balance and GHG’s “ Pennsylvania’s MSW mass balance is yielding positive CO2 emissions”
Option
Million tons MSW
Ton CO2E / ton MSW
Million tons CO2E/Year
EfW
3.0
- 0.78
- 2.34
Landfill
21.5
+ 0.62
Total
24.5
---
Basis of calculations
The ~ 3 million tons of MSW going to EfW is not going to a landfill in PA with energy generation – avoids ~ 2.34 Million tons CO2E (conservative, assumes all landfills have LFGTE)
Remaining 21.5 million tons of MSW is going to landfills - all with LFG collection - 50 % with LFGTE and 50 % with flares. No vents only.
EPA Lo of 100 M3 CH4 per megagram MSW and 45 % LFG % based on a lifecycle analysis.

14. II. Pennsylvania’s MSW Balance and GHG’s “ Increased Use of EfW will reduce GHG emissions”
Estimated breakeven point is about 10.5 million tons going to EfW and 13.5 million tons going to landfills

15. II. Background on GHG Emission Factors “ Each ton of MSW managed by modern EfW avoids about 0.78 Tons of CO2 when using conservative assumptions (45 % LFG collection with LFGTE)”
Emission factors as Ton CO2E per Ton MSW for EfW and LFGTE
45 % LFG Collection
Lifecycle Parameter
EfW
Landfill
EfW vs. LFGTE
Nonbiogenic
0.38
0.00
Avoided Fossil Fuel CO2
-0.56
-0.16
-0.40
Avoided Methane
-0.70
Avoided Ferrous CO2
-0.06
Long Haul Mobile Source
Process Total
-0.94
-0.78
Avoided CO2E with a landfill with flare is 0.94 ton CO2E/Ton MSW

16. II. Background on GHG Emission Factors “Avoided fossil fuel CO2 information for Pennsylvania”
CO2 factor
Energy Factors
CO2 Factor
Power
Supply(EIA)
Lb CO2 per
Value
Units
Thermal %
(lb CO2/MW
As % Fossil
Coal
1000 lb
2161
Btu/lb
10402 32
2214
88.5
Oil
3139
18300
1828
3.6
Gas
137
Btu/scf
1022
1425
7.9
The weighted average for avoided CO2 from fossil fuel combustion for electric power is: 2137 lbs CO2 / MW.
A modern EFW facility generates 0.55 MW/ton which is equivalent to an avoided factor of 0.59 Ton CO2E per ton MSW.

17. II. Background on Emission Factors “Avoided methane information for Pennsylvania”
Parameter
Value
Units
EPA Inventory Lo
100
M3 CH4 per Megagram MSW
CH4 content 55
% volume
CH4 Potential
1.4
Ton CO2E per ton MSW
CH4 Recovery via LFG 45
% of total CH4 generated
CH4 Oxidation 15
% of uncollected CH4
Emission Factor-Flare
0.70
Avoided Fossil CO2 (a)
0.15
Emission Factor - LFGTE
0.54
Average Flare/ICE
0.62
Based on same avoided fossil factor as EfW and use of an internal combustion
engine for electrical energy production.

18. III. Environmental Aspects of WTE Nationwide WTE facility emissions have been dramatically reduced
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2002

19. III. Environmental Aspects of WTE - Dioxin WTE emissions now represent less than 1% of known dioxin inventory

20. IV. Environmental Aspects of WTE - Mercury WTE now represents less than 3% of U.S. man-made mercury emissions

21. III. Environmental Aspects of WTE - GHGs WTE reduces PM 2
III. Environmental Aspects of WTE - GHGs WTE reduces PM 2.5 Precursors and Air Toxics
Fine Particulate
EfW avoids SO2 and NOX emissions from fossil fuel combustion – these are precursors to ambient ammonium sulfate and nitrate, respectively.
Landfill Emissions
Avoids a variety of air toxics from landfills including ;
- 46 constituents in EPAs AP42
- 25 of which are air toxics
- nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC)
- methane – a potent greenhouse gas (23 time more potent that CO2)

22. III. Environmental Aspects of WTE – Land Use WTE reduces waste volume by 90% and reduces biological byproducts including LFG, organic leachate and pathogens.
Land Use
10 cubic yards of MSW is reduced by 90 % to 1 cubic yard, thereby maximizing land committed to a landfill.
An EfW facility uses significantly less land than a landfill over any time period. As an example – the EfW industry saves 25,000 acre-feet per year when comparing landfill area required for MSW versus combined ash.
Combined Ash Disposal
Stable and inert due to low pozzolanic properties & low carbon content.
RCRA nonhazardous with very low metals leaching from landfills.
Can be reused as landfill cover and other potential civil applications.

23. IV. Conclusion “EfW promotes a sustainable environment thru maximum recovery of electrical power and maximum avoidance of GHGs”
Reduced use of landfilling reduces GHG emissions
The EU Landfill Directive
GROCC
Lifecycle analysis using EPA’s model
Energy-from-Waste maximizes renewable energy
Avoids dependence on fossil fuels
Promotes energy independence
Energy-from-waste provides clean energy
Controlled combustion and air pollution control processes
Highly regulated industry with testing, continuous monitoring and reporting