WASTE MANAGEMENT AL*?'ERNATIVES

BUNCOMBE C O U N T Y

A N ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE

PREPARED BY:

JAMES M. PHILLIPS BUNCOMBE COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 25 VALLEY STREET ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28801

I

INTRODUCTION

Over the past two years Buncombe County has spent over $100,000

in consulting fees with state grant monies contributing $10,000

of this amount exploring various solid waste disposal options.

We have investigated the options open to the county from the

perspectives of the merits of a particular technology,

environmental acceptability and economics of a given technoloqy.

Keeping within the scope of this paper I will present cost tables taken from a recent report prepared for Buncombe County, as well

as, current and planned waste reduction programs for Buncombe

County and associated cost.

WASTE TO ENERGY ASSESSMENT

Attached you will find cost comparison tables taken from a recent

study completed by the engineering firm of HDR for Buncombe

County. On table 5-18 you will notice a set of figures labeled

R.W. Beck which represent figures that this engineering firm had

arrived at in reviewing the HDR report. The major difference in

the figures shown in cases 3 and 6 represent each firms feelings on steam revenues that a waste to energy facility could realize.

The case studies shown on the follow tables are:

Case 1. 200-tpd pelletizing facility - d-RDF sales to a single

market with composting and material recovery.

Case 2. 420-tpd pelletizing facility - d-RDF sales to multiple markets with composting and material recovery.

Case 3 . 420-tpd RDF processing and dedicated boilers for steam

generation.

2

Case 4. 420-tpd HDF processing and dedicated boilers for power

generation.

Case 5. 420-tpd mass-burn facility with power generation.

Case 6. 400-tpd mass-burn facility with steam generation.

To understand and quantify the economic impact of several key

assumptions in the base cases, selected alternative cases were

developed to provide a sensitivity analysis as follows:

Sensitivity A : Same as its base case except that it includes a

residue composting operation (there are no l A , 2 A ,

S A , or 6 A cases).

Sensitivity b: Same as its base case except that it assumes

private ownership (there are no lB, 2B, or 6B cases).

W 4

I v)

W 2

m

i5 N

4

V

PI

0 c r

V

aJ

5 a, +-,

Lo

V

L

c, V

aJ W

.C

- V

L

+I

V

W

W

.C

c

V

L

&I

V

0)

W

.C

c

V

L

c,

V

W

W

- e

V

L

c, V

aJ

W

.r

- 5 aJ c,

m

5 aJ c,

m

E

m

aJ c, v)

VI c, W

al n

e e

VI c, 0

)

aJ n

7 c

2

L

aJ c

W

2, c,

c

I1) 0

V

a, c, 4

>

L

.?-

n

h

c, c 3

-0

V

aJ c, m

>

L

.C

n

b

c, c 3

0

V

h

s 3 0 V aJ c,

4

>

L

.r

n

h

c, c 3 0

V

h

Y c 3

0

V

h

c,

c 1

0 0

h

c, c

0

V

a

n

- c VI L aJ 2

m

N

N

.-I In

v)

m

W

W d I

m

m

m

d

U>

In

d

d

v)

o?

m

h

v)

W

W

v)

hl

v)

d

W

0

0,

'p,

4

v)

m

W

d

W

'0.

v)

rl

0

W

o?

v)

cu '0,

h

m

v)

u)

W

cu 4

Q)

N

m

aJ 3

VI V

I

.r

e4

U c

0

m

U

aJ m

m

2 N m

d

h

N

Ln .. h

4

d

W

cn v)

4

W

W

h 4

W

cn v)

N

W

W d

v)

W

0

cu

W 2

m

v)

cn v)

W

cv v)

m

c, VI 0

V

VI c

0

c,

L a

a. 0

a

c,

0

I- .r

a

c

In

d

m

In

In

U

d

"0,

8

h

v)

0

cn '4

In

v)

rl 4

h .. v)

cn

W

'p,

m

W

m

v)

0

m

h

W

0 4

m

W .I

d 0

m

m

m

v)

cn cu

aJ V

>

L

al m

c,

W

.r

n

n

cn a, W

E:

m

In

0, 0

4

4

h

s 2

W 0

"3, d

4

d

h

v)

m

.-I .. m

h

'0,

N

rl

N

cu '0,

d

F.4

h

h

N

m

d

.. 0, 'p,

N

d

W

v)

cn '0,

rl

W

W

d;

VI c, V

I 0

u

m 3

c c

<

4

c,

0

I- e

-

W

.-4

9

In

h

W

cn N

h

m

m

0.

e

m

Q

m

W

v)

m

*..

h

h

m

m

m

W

N

Ln ., W e

v)

0,

h

(0

m

v)

2 4 cu

m

h

0,

4

VI W

3

c

W

>

W

CZ

m

a3 W

In

W

a3

h 0..

m

m

a: h d 4

m

W

W 4 4

0

r(

W

cn

01

4

m

m

u) 2

0

m

h

'0.

m

W

N

h

u)

d

h

h

L

00 0

v) 4

c,

VI 0

0

h

Y

.r e

c

u a

LL

Y

aJ z

3

c

0

c, m

L

aJ

0

cc 0

L

10 aJ * c, VI L

cc aJ c

c,

cn c

L 3

v

U

aJ VI VI aJ V

0

L 0.

aJ +J VI 4 I

cc 0

c

0

c,

c

V

4

aJ L

0

Y-

h

c, c 1

0

V

aJ c

c,

0

c,

c, VI 0

V

Y

W c

aJ Y

VI

.r

n

.r

c

.r

VI .c

E

.a

I .

'

li II -1

I .I

I- , L L <

<7

Ln

.-+

m

ru 4

4

4

4

W

m

h

aJ

d

d

In

m

9

m

N

m

8 s m

4

0

0

N

ID

9

In

d

N

h

c,

c 3

0

V

v) c,

aJ aJ c c

n c,

v)

uo

?g v

u

d

r..

.-+

0

0

m

h

h

W W

m

Ln

d

N

m

In

01 m

W W

0

m

d

m

N .. 0 0

0

m

d

0.

m a

N

h

+ c 3 0

V

v) e,

0)

aJ - c n c, v)

LO

n

n

48

v

u

N

CU

r-. W

10

N

W

aJ Ln

W

In

s In

m

10

1

W

m

In

0 0

m

d d I

0

0

0

m

d

9

d

In

U

h

c,

C 3 0 0

E

aJ c,

v)

m

U

0: n

m

m

h.

N

h

h

10

m

W

0

W

9

In

m

W

h

W

0

h

8

m

h

N

0

0

9

x d 4

a

U

h

c,

c 1

0

u

5 aJ c, v) c, v) 0

UE

eu

n

no

s

5 a

0

m

U

m

4

Ln

m

U

m

Ln

m

W

U

In

m

In

0 0

m

Q

d .. 8 9

0

m

4

,-i

In

U

0)

c, 0

w

L

.F

a

5 W

c,

v,

U

e

n

m

m

4

.-+ d

h

m

h

m

a0 h

m

h

9

m

N

W

h

W

Q,

In

0 0

m

d d .. 0

0

0

m

d

9

"0 h

d

h

c, C

1

0

u

U

L

e, V

W

W

.F

c

U

oc n

U

m

4

4

U

0

.--I

m

m

m

m

a3 h

In

m

Ln

W

4

h

0

h

0 0

h

N

".

0 0

0

m

d

9

? 0

In

h

c,

C 1

0

u

u-

L

4-2 V

aJ W

.r

7 c,

v)

0 n

UE

n

o

cz

u

s

m

0

4

m

m

0,

h

.--I h

Ln

W

m

m

d

W

h

In

m

In

0

0

m

d d

0 0

0

m

4

9

?

h

e

aJ c, w

L

m

n

- V

L

c,

V

aJ W

.r

7

u. n

oc

m

U

N

m

.-I a)

N

h

Ln

W

4

W

9

m

m

In

h

In

2

8 d In

m .. 0

0

0

m

4

9

h

0

U

h

c, c 3

0

u

V

L

c, V

0

)

W

- - c

L

f

m

v)

VI a

r

In

U

a

U

h

m

W

m

In

cn In

9

m

N

ul

'9 d

W

h

0

a

d

In

m

8

0, 0

m

d

h

0

U

aJ c,

m

w L

0-

7

u L

c,

V

0)

w

- - c

L 3

m

v)

v)

z m

In

N

m

m

U

h

Q

m

U

0

U

9

In

s In

m

In

W

h

0

a0 d

In

m

0

0

0

m

d

9

9 a

F3

h

c, c 1

0

u

I

aJ c,

v)

L 3

m

v)

v)

m

r

W

S

ul m

Y

- O

c 0

c1

L

aJ n

v)

v L

m

h

n

U

- 1

V

N

d

v) c,

U

aJ m

W L

L 0

\

'0 c

m

aJ c,

VI

m 3

% 0

C 0

c,

L

W a. ul -0

L

m

h

n

V

.F

3

V

*d

-0

Wa

J

WE

31

-v

)

Vv

)

cm

.r

v)

ClC

00

C 'F

c,

L- U

v)-

c,m

m

v

0

Va

J

E

v3

c-

mo

-1>

**

am

m

a

4

L

cr: a n

5

Y 5

b

Upon reviewing the previous tables and line graph three points

will become apparent. The first being that at the present time a

waste to energy facility represents a considerable increase in

tipping fees as compared to the county's current tip fee of

$13/ton. Secondly, as shown on the line graph, all disposal

options including landfilling wi.11 increase with time and last

you will notice that there is a point in time where the cost of

landfilling and waste to energy cross.

Points one and two can be explained by the high capitol cost and

debt incurred as a result of the construction of a waste to

energy facility along with the results of inflation over time

covering all aspects of solid waste collection and disposal.

-Point three, where the cost of landfilling compare with the cost

of' waste to energy, are a result of many factors including:

1 The waste to energy facility has been paid off and revenues

collected for the sale of energy can be realized.

2 Revenues from the sale of electricity or steam will likely

increase with time .as a resul% of economic factors.

3 The amount of available land, increased cost to construct

landfills as a result of tighter environmental regulations and

future problems sitting landfills due to various local factors.

4 Under most cases no revenues will be realized from a closed

landfill.

Although these figures are site specific to Buncombe County.

They do represent a realistic dollar amount that communities

across North Carolina can expect to absorb as a result of future

solid waste disposal cost.

7

C U R H E NT C 0 U NT Y P KOG R A M S

Currently Buncombe County is operating a small recycling center

at its landfill alonq with the recent purchase of a brush tub

grinder for the chipping of wood waste and wooden pallets. In

addit-ion a county office paper and cardboard recycling program is

in t h e planning stages.

C O U N T Y RECYCLING CENTER

In October of 1987, the county opened a small recycling center at

.its landfill for the collection of aluminum, newspaper, cardboard

and glass. The center works on the basis of persons bringing a

set amount of recyclable goods where in turn their disposal fee

at the landfill is waived. The cost of setting up the center was

$2,500 and consisted of site preparation and pavement. To date

the center has worked well and received more materials than

originally expected. The possibility of other centers opening up

throughout the county at this time is unknown.

REVENUES/VOLUME OF MATERIAL PROCESSED TO DATE

MATERIAL REVENUE VOLUME

Aluminum 5233

News Paper $178

Cardboard 545

Glass $140 - - - - - -

$596

6001bs.

24,0001bs.

4,0001bs.

33,0001bs. - - - - - - - - - - -

61,60001bs.

8

BRUSH TUB GRINDER

The purchase of a tub qrinder and associated cost are as follows:

CAPITOL COST

Grinder $129,000

Site prep S 25,000

Loader $ 30,000

- - - - - - - - - 5184,000

0 & M/Yr. 512,300

Revenue $4/cubic yard

An estimated 10 % reduction in waste being disposed of in the

landfill is projected with the implementation of this program.

OFFICE PAPER RECYCLING PROGRAM

An office paper and cardboard recycling program is in the

planning stages for selected county offices. The program will

recycle high grade white ledger and computer paper along with

cardboard collected from the Courthouse, Jail, Health Department

and Purchasing Departments. An estimated 30 tons of paper and

cardboard are projected to be recycled through this program.

Although this amount is small compared to the county's total

waste stream of 150,000 tonslyr, it is hoped that this program

will spur public invol.vement and education on the merits of

recycling for possible future county recycling programs.

u PH 0 J EC T COST / Ct F F I C E PAPER P E? OG R A M

Paper S h r e d d e r s5,ooo Lease of Bailer 33,0UO/yr

Paper H o l d e r s 52,500

Collection Containers 31,500

Print-ing Cost $1 000 - _ _ _ - _

$13,000

PROJECTED REVENUES

SSOO.OO/YR

In reviewing the above .programs you will notice that a capitol

cost of $199,000 has been spent by Buncombe county with the State

possibility granting 358000 towards the Office paper program

through the Pollution Prevention Pays Program. Translating this

capitol cost to a per ton disposal basis equates to S13.30/ton

not including any revenues received . The county's current 1

tipping fee is $13.00/ton.

From the above information it should be noted that a volume

reduction or recycling program for the most part is not a money

making operation. however, The benefits that a community can

realize are the conservation of valuable landfill space and

natural resources.

I

CONCLUSION

With the ever increasing waste generated by our population each

year and an increase of environmental regulations as they apply

to the disposal of solid waste. It is apparent that as time

progresses there will be, from an economic standpoint, no easy or

inexpensive means by which communities may dispose of their solid

waste.

North Carolina is not. alone in this dilemma, However I feel that

steps can be taken at the state level that could not only reduce

the amount of solid waste generated each year within North

Carolina but could also help and guide communities in the

direction of solid waste disposal and management. I offer the

following suggestions for consideration:

1 The introduction of legislation aimed at reducing the amounts

or types of waste being disposed of in landfills, such as a

bottle or container bill or packaging legislation.

2 Through properly advertised and expanded grantlmatching grant

programs the state could help communities investigate various

solid waste technologies/practices that would focus on their

specific waste needs.

3 The creation of a properly staffed clearing house who would

collect and make available information, previous studies

completed by communities, technical feasibility and cost

associated with various options and technical support to a

community desiring this service. This clearing house concept

could be coupled with the above grant programs to minimize

duplicated expense and effort on both the part of the state and

local communities.

11

4 The state could o f f e r low interest loans on large capitol

items and equipment f o r the purposes of' waste volume reduction or

programs aimed at decreasing a communities dependance on

1-andfilling as its only means of waste disposal.

5 Investigate the possibility of increasing the revenues

realized to a electrical generator under the current Public

Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA).

6 Is their a possibility of the state becoming involved in the

financing of large capitol solid waste projects where the private

sector could, before recent tax law changes, again realize

financial benefits from the investment into waste to energy

projects.

7 Offer state tax incentives to businesses involved in the

secondary materials market or the production of goods from post

consumer wastes, thus stimulating the incentives for recycling

portions of our waste stream.

The area of thoughtfully planned out waste management is becoming

a very complex issue that many communities are experiencing

today. For the most part a waste to energy facility will be the most complex and costly undertaking that a community will

experience. Looking back in retrospect at my experience

throughout the process of investigating the options open to

Buncombe County. I feel that the following conditions must be

present for a program of this nature and magnitude to be

successful:

1 A waste disposal crisis must exist.

2 A strong commitment both politically and financially must be

present from a communities governing body.

3. 2

3 The public must be informed on the crisis and involved in the

decision making process in regards to specific technologies hE:ii , . j

considered.

4 Adequate staff and resources must exist.

From the standpoint of Buncombe C o ; i ~ , : , y ! s experience 1 :.4:z:i that

all points except # 3 have c~isted and g i v c n the search f o r

disposal options the ni;jinentum needed to ai-rive at the point where

the county can confidently L V . ) ~ a realistic future cost

associated with solid wa:;i..e disposal.

J r i closing 1 w ~ ~ u l d make two points that where the county could

have saved not only time and effort but expense in arriving at

thls point of the project. They are:

1 Prior to traveling down the road of investigating the complex

and technical nature of a resource recovery facility. I feel that the attendance of technical workshops aimed at better

educating and in turn familiarizing staff could have been

beneficial.

2 Conducting an in depth qualifications and experience of

consultants in the field of waste management and resource

recovery prior to entering into contracts with specific firms

would have saved considerable expense to the county.

A t the present time Buncombe County is in the process of

negotiations with a local industry about the possibility of

entering into a steam purchase agreement if the county decides to

construct a waste to energy facility. Along with the above the

Buncombe County Environmental Affairs Board has instructed staff

to assist the board in devising a waste management plan for the

county in addition to a public information program.