10th North American Waste to Energy Conference
ASME 2002
NAWTEC10-1012
BRIGHTSTAR SOLID WASTE AND ENERGY RECYCLING
FACILITY:
AN INNOVATIVE WASTE TO ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Stephen C. Schwarz, P.E., DEE
Leah K. Richter, E.I.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
1425 South Andrews Avenue, 2nd Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
Telephone: (954) 761-3460
Fax: (954) 761-7939
E-mail: sschwarz@pirnie.com
ABSTRACT
The Brightstar Environmental Solid Waste and Energy Recycling Facility (SWERF) is a municipal
solid waste (MSW) to energy facility utilizing a gasification (pyrolysis) process.
At this time, the
only operational SWERF is in New South Wales, Australia. While pyrolysis of MSW is not in itself
new, the Brightstar technology is believed to have reached a sufficient level of development, and to
incorporate sufficient new features, to qualify as new and cutting edge.
This paper presents
findings from a trip to Australia to inspect the facility, as well as the results of a Request for
Proposals process for a municipal client in Florida. Analysis includes process, environmental, and
economic factors.
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In August of 2001, representatives (the "team") from Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. and Collier County
Government (Collier County, Florida) traveled to Australia in order to investigate the Brightstar
Environmental Solid Waste and Energy Recycling Facility ("SWERF") technology.
SWERF is an
innovative gasification technology for managing municipal solid waste ("MSW"). At this time, the
only operational SWERF is in Wollongong, New South Wales ("NSW"), Australia.
Subsequent to this investigative site visit, Collier County Government issued a Request for
Proposals ("RFP") soliciting competitive proposals from firms to design, build, own (with the
option to transfer), operate, and finance a MSW processing and gasification facility for residential
and commercial solid waste generated in the County.
2.0
BRIGHTSTAR ENVIRONMENTAL
Brightstar Environmental LLC ("Brightstar") is a partnership between Energy Developments
Limited and BSC Holding Company, the United States company that commercialized the pyrolysis
and steam reforming gasifer integral to the SWERF process.
Energy Developments Limited ("EDL"), the parent company of Brightstar, is an integrated energy
company that engages in the development and management of an international portfolio of energy
projects, with a particular focus on renewable and waste fuels.
1 19
EDL owns and operates 33 power projects totaling 306.7 megawatts ("MW ") of generation capacity
fueled by:
Landfill Gas
Coal Seam Methane
Diesel and Natural Gas
108.7 MW
96.8 MW
101.2 MW
A number of further projects are currently under construction in Australia, Taiwan, Greece, the
United States, and the United Kingdom.
3.0
THE SOLID WASTE AND ENERGY RECYCLING FAOLITY
The SWERF is located adjacent to the Whyte's Gully Landfill in Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Wollongong is an industrial city with a population of approximately 255,000 (Wollongong
Statistical District, 1996) located about 80 kilometers (50 miles) south of Sydney, NSW.
The SWERF is a full-scale demonstration facility that began its operations in February 2001. Design
capacity is in the range of 50,000 to 75,000 tonnes per year (150 to 226 tons per day) depending
upon the calorific value of the fuel. [Note: one metric ton (or tonne) is equal to 1.102 U.s. tons]
Currently, it is licensed for only 30,000 tonnes per year ("Tpy") or 91 tons per day ("tpd"). In actual
operations, the SWERF is handling much less than its licensed capacity. An exact figure was not
provided, but the SWERF was described as having processed "several thousand tonnes" since
initial operations began in February. Estimating that roughly six months have passed from
February to the time of the site visit, at full licensed capacity, the SWERF would have processed
approximately 15,000 tonnes. "Several thousand tonnes", or whatever the exact amount may be, is
clearly significantly less than 15,000 tonnes. Brightstar representatives stated that the facility was
still in a refinement and optimization mode, and did not expect to achieve full commercial
operation until December 2001. Indeed, a key process element, char gasification, has yet to be
implemented.
The fact that the SWERF is not operating near its full capacity is not surprising considering the
developmental nature of this technology. However, it has important implications concerning the
pace of commercialization in the United States.
4.0
PROCESS DESIGN
The SWERF technology consists of three key components:
•
•
•
4.1
Pretreatment and Separation
Gasification
Energy Generation
Pre-Treatment and Separation
Figure 1 provides an illustration of the waste pre-treatment and separation process. MSW is
received by tipping onto a below-grade apron conveyor with an opening sealed by an automatic
hatch (see Photo 1). The conveyor is level and discharges to an enclosed receiving hall where waste
is sorted by a front-end loader and then transferred to a conveyor at the rear of the hall. According
to Brightstar, future designs will locate the loading hatch inside of a building in order to minimize
wind-blown litter.
120
FIGURE 1: Waste Pre-Processing Schematic
Photo 1: Loading Hatch
Air from the tipping hall is exhausted by ductwork and then used as combustion air for the
engine generators. Thus, the tipping hall is maintained under negative pressure, thereby
minimizing the escape of odors. Additionally, the design of the tipping hall, which avoids
large truck doors that remain open, also reduces the release of odors. Indeed, the facility
was observed to have only slight garbage and/or synthesis gas ("syngas") odors, and those
were noted only in close proximity to the equipment. Based upon the team's observations,
this facility would be expected to have minimal off-site odors under normal operation.
Following the tipping hall, waste is conveyed to an autoclave (see Photo 2) where it is
heated for a period of approximately 45 minutes up to a temperature of 135 - 140 C (275 -
284 F).
This step is believed to be a unique feature of the Brightstar process and
contributes to its good materials recovery performance. The autoclaving step "cooks" the
waste and largely destroys the normal physical structure of the MSW. The resulting pulp
is more easily handled and recoverable materials are more easily removed.
After the autoclaving step, pulped waste is discharged to a transverse walking floor storage
bini conveyor (see Photo 2) and is then conveyed to a trommel screen (see Photo 3).
12 1
Photo 2: Autoclave and Transverse Walking Floor
Photo 3: Trommel
The first section of the trommel has a 20-millimeter ("mm") mesh and the second section is
100 mm. The trommel thus generates three fractions:
•
•
•
One fraction smaller than 20 mm. This is largely
One fraction between 20 mm and 100mm; and
One fraction over 100 mm.
the pulp
fraction;
These three streams are then processed by an arrangement of conventional materials
recovery facility ("MRF") equipment (see Photo Nos. 4 8) including conveyors, magnetic
separators, eddy current separators, balers, a primary and secondary shredder, and hand
sorting.
-
122
Photo 4: Overview of RecyclabJes Recovery
Photo 5: Magnetic Separator
Photo 6: Primary and Secondary Shredders
123
Photo 7: Ferrous Baler
Photo 8: Hand Sorting Picking Stations
Approximately 70 percent by weight of the material leaving the autoclave ends up
as pulp going on to energy recovery. The remaining material is approximately 25 percent
recovered materials and 5 percent residue. The recovered materials include ferrous and
non-ferrous metals, and selected plastics. The quality of the recovered materials appeared
good upon visual inspection.
Overall, the design of the MRF portion of the facility seems to still be in the developmental
stage. Although the MRF is operating successfully, it is operating in a low-stress mode due
to the relatively small quantities of waste being handled at this time. The MRF layout lacks
redundancy, has too many right-angle turns, and appears overly complex. Brightstar
personnel appeared to understand these issues and indicated that any subsequent facilities
would incorporate the appropriate revisions. In s ummary, the MRF technology is
conventional and there is no reason that, with proper design, it should not work
successfully.
124
4.2
Gasification
Pulp from the MRF is conveyed to a walking floor pulp buffer storage bin. From this bin,
the pulp is conveyed to a washing tank which separates the pulp (floats) from glass and
other debris (heavies). The pulp is then pumped to the dewatering section (See Photo 9),
which includes bow screens and a dewatering screw press. Excess water from this process
is returned to the pulp washing plant. Dewatered pulp (moisture content approximately
40 percent) is conveyed by bucket elevator to the secondary pulp buffer storage bin, which
is another walking floor type bin. The dewatered pulp is fed into a pressurized steam
drying process that utilizes heat from the generator exhaust gases. The drying process
further homogenizes the pulp and reduces its moisture content to less than 5 percent. At
this point, the dried pulp has the appearance of blotter paper torn into �-inch by lA-inch
sized pieces, "cornflakes". Minor glass contamination was noted, but it appeared to be
relatively free of other gross contamination.
Photo 9: Pulp Dewatering
The dried pulp is then conveyed to the pulp storage silos and from there to the gasification
process itself. Because the pulp (RDF) has been reduced at this point to a fine, dust-like
powder, many of the mechanical problems typically encountered by other MSW
gasification systems are reduced or avoided.
Brightstar's gasifiers are modular, factory-assembled units (see Photo 10). Dried pulp is
conveyed in internal spiral metal tubes, and heated from the outside by recirculated hot
gases at about 850 - 950 0 C (1,562 - 1,742 0 F). As the pyrolytic (gasification) step occurs
inside a closed vessel, with no air present, the formation of pollutants which require
oxygen (SOx, NOx, dioxin) is minimized.
125
Photo 10: Gasification Plant
The hot fuel gases produced by the gasification step are then cooled and scrubbed. This
process results in a relatively clean gas, which goes on to energy generation, and a residue or char.
Various undesirable organics, such as benzene and naphtha, condense out in this step and are
absorbed on the char.
The char, as presently constituted, would probably fail a toxic leaching
contaminant procedure ("TCLP") test and require disposal as a hazardous waste.
In order to address this issue, Brightstar reports that they have developed a secondary
gasification process
(char gasification) to recover the energy content of the char and to
remove/ gasify the undesirable organics, as well as most of the carbon, from the char. The unit was
not installed at the time of the site visit, but Brightstar reports that they have now installed the char
gasifier and are in the commissioning phase. The resulting residue, according to Brightstar, will be
suitable for disposal in an ordinary, non-hazardous waste landfill.
Brightstar reports that most heavy metals are removed from the syngas in the scrubbing
process, and that the majority of the metallic compounds are either insoluble or are locked into the
char and non-leachable. Analysis of the char shows significant levels of heavy metals but testing of
the leaching potential using the USEPA TCLP method confirms the char complies with the NSW
EPA's standards for "inert" disposal. A small proportion of the metallic compounds removed in
the scrubbing process are soluble and can be absorbed in activated carbon beds in the water
treatment plant.
A few of the metallic compounds (mercury, beryllium and arsenic) are only
partially removed in the scrubbing process and remain in the syngas stream. The mercury and
beryllium are removed in activated carbon filters.
According to Brightstar, a test program is
currently underway to determine the best method to increase the removal of arsenic from the
syngas. This issue will be discussed at greater length in a subsequent section of this paper.
4.3
Energy Generation
Power generation is accomplished in modular engine-generator sets (see Photo 11), similar
to those used by EDL and others to recover energy from landfill gas.
conventional and well proven.
126
This technology is
Photo 11: Generator Modules
5.0
MAss AND ENERGY BALANCE
An overall block diagram of the SWERF process is provided in Figure 2. Outputs, on a
weight basis, are approximately:
o
Recovered Materials
o
Glass, Sand, and Debris
o
Ash Residue
-
-
25%
5%
-
4 to 7%
The percentages reported above are projections made by Brightstar. Current data (March
2001 quarterly report to NSW EPA) illustrates a much higher char residue percentage
(approximately 40 percent by weight). However, Brightstar anticipates this will be reduced to the 4
to 7 percent range noted above, following implementation of the second stage char gasification
process. It should also be noted that residue quantities are dependent on waste composition, and
the effectiveness of curbside recycling programs, if present.
Brightstar indicated that they are continuing to work on developing markets for the
various residue fractions, as, for example, building materials or road base.
Their goal is to
eliminate the need for landfilling entirely.
Based on these numbers it appears that approximately 10 to 15 percent by weight of the
incoming waste will require landfill disposal, when Brightstar's process modifications are fully
implemented. This would compare favorably with other solid waste management options, such as
mass-burn waste-to-energy, where approximately 25 percent of incoming waste requires disposal
as ash residue.
Net output is estimated by Brightstar to be approximately 700 kilowatt-hours per tonne of
infeed. This translates into an overall thermal efficiency of about 25 percent (assumes a higher
heating value for typical Australian MSW of 4,300 Btu/lb of waste, per Brightstar).
However,
based upon a cold gas efficiency of 90 percent and an engine efficiency of 36 percent, Brightstar
[Data validating this estimate has not been furnished
at this time}. In comparison, mass-burn waste-to-energy plants in the U.S. typically achieve 17 to 20
projects an overall thermal efficiency of 31 percent
percent.
127
IV
00
SAND &
GLASS
.,
I
PROCESS WATER
....
PULP
STEAM
PROCESS
TO
MATERIALS
RECOVERED
STEAM
..
�I
TAR
I
PELLETS
WATER
PROCESS
ASH TO
"
�.,.!l:,*:; _
PELLETS
CIRCULATION
[-
GASES
FLUE
�
I
S
N
G
A
S
N
A
S
Y
G
y
Is
USAGE
PROCESS
� WATER TO
--
SWERF PROCESS BLOCK DIAGRAM
FIGURE 2
ELECTRICITY
DRAWING No.
REVNo.4
SALES TO GRID
8400-BA-004-06
Issued Nov 17 '00
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
As part of this trip, meetings were held with an official, Mr. William Dove, Senior Regional
Operations Officer, of the NSW EPA, the state body that regulates the Wollongong facility.
NSW EPA has granted Brightstar a trial license for operation at 30,000 Tpy, for two years, for the
Wollongong facility. Brightstar is required to report quarterly, and is currently preparing a health
risk assessment ("HRA") using actual monitoring data from the facility. Before authorizing full
operation, NSW EPA will require monitoring data demonstrating compliance with environmental
standards while operating at the full license rate. In addition, NSW EPA will need the final HRA.
As the facility is still operating at partial load, and undergoing modification, NSW EPA is not yet
prepared to license operations above the 30,000 Tpy. Brightstar anticipated achievement of this
milestone would occur by December 2001, however, based upon the most recent communications
with Brightstar, this milestone did not occur as anticipated.
NSW EPA's primary regulatory interest is in the air emissions from the facility. Wastewater from
the facility is largely recirculated, and the wastewater that is discharged is pretreated and
discharged to the sewer system. Wastewaters which meet the standards for industrial discharge
are not regulated by the NSW EPA. Brightstar's goal is to improve the quality of the wastewater
from the MSW processing and drying so that it may be used as process makeup and cooling water.
The ash residue produced by the facility is also regulated by the NSW EPA utilizing the USEPA's
TCLP methods. According to Brightstar, the ash residue is currently stockpiled on site, and not
disposed of at the landfill.
Mr. Dove indicated that NSW EPA is satisfied with the facility's performance to date. He did
mention that there have been typical start-up incidents, but these appear to have been minor in
nature and were corrected.
A pollutant of particular interest is dioxin. The NSW EPA emissions limit for dioxin is 0.1 ng/m3,
expressed as equivalent units of 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, or 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Actual
facility emissions, based upon the March 2001 sampling results, were determined to be roughly
one-third of this limit, or 0.03 ng/Nm3. Furthermore, results for the July 2001 sampling period
demonstrate even lower dioxin emission levels (0.0039 ng/Nm3).
The USEPA emissions limit for dioxin is expressed not in 2,3,7,8-TCDD units, but in actual
concentration of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and -furans, or PCDD/PCDF). Expressed on
this basis, Brightstar's facility emissions (March results) were determined to be 2.5 ng/m3.
By
comparison, the limit for mass-burn waste-to-energy facilities currently operating in the U.S. is 30
ng/m3. For newly constructed facilities, the standard is 13 ng/m3.
The NSW EPA did raise some concern about the air pollutant arsenic. The permit limit for arsenic
is 0.008 mg/m3 and the facility's emissions are approximately 0.0055 mg/Nm3 and 0.013 mg/Nm3,
for the March and July sampling periods, respectively. Following the reporting of the March test
results, Brightstar believed that an important reason for the relatively high arsenic levels was
arsenic in the waste feed. For this reason, they focused on the removal of chromated copper
arsenical ("CCA") treated timber prior to gasification. Procedures were implemented to remove as
much CCA treated timber as practicable from the incoming waste during the separation process.
The results of this approach were satisfactory, however, July's test results indicate that in addition
to CCA treated timber there is additional arsenic consistently contained within the domestic waste
of Wollongong and as a result, reasonably evenly distributed in the pulp. To this end, Brightstar
reports that a sampling and testing program is underway to determine the most efficient way to
increase the removal of arsenic from the syngas.
Several additional systems under consideration include:
129
•
•
•
A secondary water scrubbing system
An acid, caustic, or chemical scrubbing system
Addition of activated carbon specifically doped for arsenic removal to the existing carbon
bed.
The next round of testing was scheduled for December 2001, and to date, the results have not yet
been reported.
6.1
Environmental License
As previously discussed, the Brightstar SWERF holds a trial operation license from the NSW EPA.
As a condition of the license, Brightstar is required to conduct quarterly monitoring tests and
submit quarterly reports. The most recent report, for the period March 2 to June 1, 2001, includes
results for testing performed on March 1 and 2, 2001. Another round of testing was scheduled for
July 2001, and the results were provided by Brightstar in a media release dated November 16, 2001.
The results from both the March 2001 and July 2001 sampling periods are summarized in Table 1.
Generally, the reports show that the facility is in compliance with its permit conditions. However,
there are some issues, which are discussed below:
•
Arsenic (As): Although test results for March's sampling period were approximately 37
percent below the permit limit of 0.008 mg/Nm3, July's results exceeded the license limit.
As previously discussed, Brightstar's is currently investigating the most suitable arsenic
removal system to adopt to ensure the level of arsenic emissions is lowered as far below the
license requireJl1ents as practicable.
•
Chromium VI (Cr VI): March's test results for Chromium VI were reported as 0.008
mg/Nm3. The permit limit of 0.0003 mg/m3 requires a significant sampling period (in
excess of six hours), which was not achieved during the March testing period. However,
July's test results, which achieved the required sampling time, indicate compliance with the
permit limit.
•
Hexachlorocyclohexane: Due to a contaminated sample, this analysis was not completed in
the March testing. July's test results demonstrate a level far below the permit limit «
0.00005 mg/Nm3) of 0.005 mg/Nm3.
•
Sulphur Oxides (SOx;) and/or Sulphuric Acid: March's test results showed significant
exceedances for S03/H2S04 emissions. Measured emissions were 190 mg/Nm3 versus a
permit limit of 100 mg/Nm3. However, Brightstar installed a sour gas (H2S) treatment
system to remove sulphur and July's test results were significantly lower «0.23 mg/Nm3).
•
Volatile Organic Compounds NOCs) Destruction Efficiency: The permit calls for 98
percent destruction of VOCs. Test results indicate levels in the syngas prior to combustion
of < 0.22 mg/Nm3, and a level of 0.05 mg/Nm3 in the engine exhaust (March sampling
period). This equates to a destruction efficiency of about 77 percent. Brightstar argues that,
due to the low concentrations of VOCs, it might be better for the permit to address
concentration limits rather than destruction efficiency. According to Brightstar, the NSW
EPA is receptive to a concentration limit as well.
Currently, the U.S. New Source Performance Standard ("NSPS") VOC emission standard for
control of landfill gas using an enclosed combustion device is 20 ppm dry volume as hexane at 3
percent 0:2. Brightstar reports March's test result for the SWERF's engine exhaust (0.05 mg/nm3) is
equivalent to less than 20 ppb dry volume (or 0.020 ppm dry volume) as hexane at 3 percent 0:2.
130
•
Dioxin and Furan Congeners:
Although not in exceedance, dioxin and furan emissions
deserve discussion due to the importance of these emissions to the public and the
regulatory community.
The NSW EPA emissions limit for dioxin is 0.1 ng/m3.
Actual
facility emissions were determined to be roughly one-third of this limit, or 0.03 ng/m3 for
the March sampling period, and results for the July 2001 sampling period demonstrate
significantly lower dioxin emission levels (0.0039 ng/m3).
For comparison to typical
USEPA emission limits, refer to the discussion in Section 6, Environmental Factors.
In reviewing these results, it should be noted that they are from a facility still in shakedown and
In that context, the results appear to be generally good and show
commissioning mode.
encouraging signs. However, Brightstar clearly still has several issues to resolve before it can be
certified for full operation.
TABLE 1
Summary of SWERF Air Emission Test Results
Proposed
Units of
Pollutant
Measure
NSWEPA
License Limits
for Combined
Stack
Carbon Dioxide
%
Carbon Monoxide
Chlorine
mg/Nm3
mg/Nm3
Dioxins and Furans
ng/Nm3@
Cogeners (Total I-TEQ)
11%02
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
mg/Nm3@
11%02
mg/Nm3@
11%�
Emissions Test
Emission Test
Results
Results
Sample Date:
Sample Date:
March 1-2,2001
July
3, 4, and 18, 2001
200
6.1-10.3%
440-625
1.0 -1.4
10.1-10.9%
681-692
<15
0.1
0.0331
0.0039
0.005
0.000009
<0.0004
Not Analysed due
0.005
to sample
<0.00005
contamination
Hydrogen Chloride
mg/Nm3
100
<1.0
0.38
Hydrogen Fluoride
mg/Nm3
50
0.59
<0.2
Hydrogen Sulfide
mg/Nm3
5
<2
<1.5-2.1
0.00082
0.0003
0.0051
0.013
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.011
0.013
0.039
<0.008
<0.0002
Metallic Compounds
Antimony (Sb)
mg/Nm3
Arsenic (As)
mg/�m3
0.008
Beryllium (Be)
mg/Nm3
Cadmium (Cd)
mg/Nm3
Chromium (Cr)
mg/Nm3
Chromium VI (CrVI)
mg/Nm3
Cobalt (Co)
mg/Nm3
<0.0002
0.0016
Lead (Pb)
mg/Nm3
0.0051
0.0064
(Mn)
mg/Nm3
0.008
0.0037
Mercury (Hg)
mg/Nm3
0.0029
0.0006
Nickel (Ni)
mg/Nm3
0.016
0.0019
Selenium (Se)
mg/Nm3
<0.0002
<0.0002
Tellurium (Te)
mg/Nm3
<0.0002
<0.0002
Manganese
1
0.0003
1
13 1
Proposed
Units of
Pollutant
Measure
Emission Test
Emissions Test
NSWEPA
License Limits
for Combined
Stack
Results
Results
Sample Date:
Sample Date:
March 1-2, 2001
July 3, 4, and 18, 2001
Tin (Sn)
mg/Nm3
0.021
0.022
Vanadium (V)
mg/Nm3
<0.0002
0.01
Total MetalE
mg/Nm3
5
0.072
0.11
500
40-96
190-300
8.6-8.8
8.0-9.5a
mg/Nm3@
Nitrogen Oxides
Oxygen
7%�
%
(02)
�
9.2-10.3b
mg/Nm3@
Particulate matter
28
7%02
1.6-10
0.91
0.0267
<0.05
Polycyclic Aromatic
mg/Nm3@
Hydrocarbons (PAH's)
11%�
Benzene
mg/Nm3
2.3
0.0027-0.0039
0.0016
Sulphur Dioxide
mg/Nm3
36
<0.1
11
0.05
2
190
<0.23
Volatile Organic
mg/Nm3
Compounds (VOC's)
Sulphuric Acid mist
98% destruction
efficiency
mg/Nm3
and/or Sulphur Trioxide
Source
March
sampling
results
are
as
reported
in
Brightstar's
"Quarterly
Submission
of
Monitoring
Data to the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority" for the period March 2, 2001 through
July 1, 2001. July sampling results are as reported by Brightstar in a media release dated November 16,
2001, "Brightstar Announces Emission Results for Whytes Gully SWERF."
Notes
a
Samples during July 3 and 4, 2001
b
Samples during July
7.0
18,2001
FINANOAL PRO FORMA PROJECTIONS
Brightstar considers this information to be sensitive and proprietary and was not willing to
release such data for inclusion in this paper, however, Brightstar has proposed that they would be
able to build, own, and operate a comparable facility in the U.S. for between $35 and $45 per ton. It
should
be
noted
that
these
figures
are
variable
depending
upon
location,
waste
characteristics/availability, electricity and recyclables market, etc. and should be considered to be
an approximation provided for discussion purposes only.
Brightstar has indicated that an
individual pro forma analysis may be made available on a case-by-case basis, upon request from
interested parties.
8.0
PuBLIC ACCEPTANCE
In order to gauge public attitudes towards the facility, the team met with three
organizations, the City of Wollongong, the Total Environment Centre, and the Waste Management
Board, as well as attempted to meet with Greenpeace, while in Australia.
132
The City of Wollongong
8.1
The team met with Lord Mayor George Martin and other City staff members.
The City
entered into an agreement with Brightstar because their landfill was running out of space.
The
Mayor and his staff expressed satisfaction with the performance of the Brightstar facility to date.
The City understood they were taking some risk in relying upon a new technology, but felt the
benefits, both environmental and economic, outweighed the risks.
Selection of Brightstar was
negotiated, not competitive, and benefits will be shared if Brightstar is successful. The community
in the vicinity of the facility is upper middle class, and the nearest home was described as being as
close as 500 meters from the facility.
According to the City, local environmental groups have
accepted the facility, and there have been relatively few complaints to date. (Furthermore, one of
the City staff, Michael Hyde, Director of City Services, is a new hire and is relocating from Sydney.
He has purchased a house less than one mile from the facility.). The City stressed the need for an
open and consultative process with community groups, during facility siting and development.
In summary, the phrase the Lord Mayor used to describe the facility was a "waste
management system of excellence."
Total Environment Centre
8.2
The team also met with
a
representative, Jeff Angel,
Director,
from
a
national
environmental group, the Total Environment Centre ("TEC"), in Sydney.
The TEC is active in environmental issues both nationally and in NSW. TEC is currently
preparing a life cycle analysis of various waste management options. Although this study is not
yet complete, apparently it is far enough along that Mr. Angel was willing to discuss its findings.
TEC's perspective is that various communities in Australia, including Sydney, are looking
for new solid waste management options and are considering what, in Australia, are called
"megatips." These are very large, remote, regional or super-regional landfills. TEC is opposed to
the
"megatip"
concept
because
they
believe
landfills
waste
further resources and cause
environmental damage. They also believe the long hauls to these remote landfills waste resources
and cause pollution. Thus, while TEC favors waste avoidance and waste minimization as long­
term management strategies, they recognize that these cannot be complete answers in the near
future.
Consequently, they evaluate management options such as the Brightstar SWERF, not
compared to ideal long-term solutions, but compared to other available near-term options that offer
alternatives to "megatip" landfills.
TEC considers the following criteria in its evaluations:
•
•
Favor alternatives which do not interfere with curbside recycling;
Favor alternatives which can deal with contaminated materials which would be
rejected by a clean MRF; and
•
Favor alternatives which do not add significant new sources of air contamination.
Based upon these criteria, TEC indicated that it considers the Brightstar SWERF to be a
good concept, and certainly preferable to landfilling or mass-bum incineration. Mr. Angel stated
that he was fairly confident that the SWERF would offer greater recovery of materials and energy
than other alternatives, and that it also appeared that the SWERF air emissions profile was
"impressive."
However, he also noted, accurately, that the facility is still in its developmental
stage. In particular, he noted the issue of organic contaminants on the char fraction, and the need
for the successful demonstration of the char gasification system.
overall, TEC was supportive of the SWERF concept.
133
Notwithstanding these issues,
8.3
Greenpeace
The team attempted to arrange a meeting with representatives from Greenpeace in order to
learn of their opinion of the Brightstar SWERF technology.
A meeting proved impossible, but
several e-mails were exchanged in the process. In brief summary, Greenpeace does not support the
SWERF technology, which they consider in the same category as incineration and other mass-burn
technologies. Their reasons for opposition appear to include the following:
•
Concern about potential toxic emissions;
•
A belief that incineration and other mass-burn technologies promote waste and
obstruct reuse and recycling; and
•
A belief that waste-ta-energy plants are not efficient at reclaiming energy as compared
to recycling or materials recovery policies.
8.4
Waste Management Board
The Illawarra Region Waste Management Board (the "Board") is a public authority,
chartered and funded by NSW, with a vision statement of "No waste to landfill by
2010." The
Board is not a regulatory agency, but rather focuses on waste program coordination and program
delivery. The Board develops plans for waste management and the councils (local governments)
are obligated to comply with these plans.
The Board deals with four communities, including
Wollongong, serving a total population of approximately
330,000.
The team met with John Riggall, General Manager, and Russell Jennings, Industrial Liaison
Officer.
The Board's general view of the Brightstar SWERF is that it is an excellent part of the
region's waste management program.
This view appears to be based on the facility's ability to
reduce the amount of waste diverted to the landfill.
They stated that, "no other process comes
close" to the ability of the SWERF to reduce the reliance upon landfills.
Mr. Jennings happens to live in the vicinity of the SWERF and serves on the local
community liaison committee.
He reported that the community was initially unhappy with the
way the SWERF project was adopted.
This unhappiness was a result of what the community
perceived was insufficient consultation. However, now that the facility is in operation, he reported
that the community has few, if any, complaints.
Indeed, since the community has many more
issues with the adjacent landfill, they are looking forward to the time when the SWERF completely
replaces the landfill.
9.0
COLLIER COUNfY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
As previously stated, an RFP process is currently underway in Collier County, Florida for a
MSW processing and gasification facility for the residential and commercial solid waste generated
in the County. Collier County is soliciting competitive proposals from firms to design, build, own,
operate, and finance the facility with a minimum processing capacity of
75,000 tons per year (base
150,000 tons per year (optional proposal). Because the proposals are not due until
April 5, 2002, results from this process are not available at this time; however, Brightstar is one of
proposal) or
several firms anticipated to propose on this project.
134
10.0
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the SWERF technology was impressive. The basic concepts, including autoclaving,
separation
using
conventional
MRF
technology,
gasification,
and
energy
recovery
using
conventional landfill gas type engine generators, appear to be working. The use of modularized
equipment helps to keep capital costs down and minimizes the construction timeline. Overall, the
cost ranges claimed by Brightstar are less than half that of competing technologies and even less
than landfilling in some parts of the U.s.
On the environmental front, the SWERF performance to date appears to have been good.
There have been some exceedances and data gaps, but this is not unusual for a facility in startup
and development. The NSW EPA, the responsible regulatory agency, appears to be satisfied with
Brightstar's progress to date.
The City of Wollongong also appears satisfied with Brightstar's progress to date, and
appears to be pleased with their choice of technology.
technology is a significant accomplishment.
Having a satisfied customer for a new
In addition, the facility appears not to have caused
significant problems for nearby residents and has won acceptance from at least some Australian
environmental advocacy groups.
On the other hand, the Wollongong facility clearly is not yet in commercial operation. The
City of Wollongong sends some waste to the SWERF, as requested, but still relies primarily on its
landfill.
In addition, a key process element, the secondary (char) gasifier, has not yet been
demonstrated.
In summary, our judgment would be that the safest course would be to defer any U.S.
projects until full-scale commercial operation is demonstrated at Wollongong.
However, for a
project with a particularly urgent timetable, it would be possible to proceed with project
development, understanding that project implementation should be deferred until commercial
operation is demonstrated.
135